Evolution..? [Archive]

ghoti

30-10-2006, 03:57 PM

If evolution was true..

If we come from Apes, and before apes we came out of the sea... then why are there no half sea, half land creatures..

Im talking about a ape looking thing with fins...

Another christian lier :(

Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This is completely fabricated and has no foundation in truth whatsoever. A woman named “Lady Hope” spoke to a church group shortly after the death of Charles Darwin. She claimed that she was at Darwin’s bedside on the day of his death. She also claimed that Darwin recanted on evolution and accepted ***** on his deathbed. Her claims are not only unsupported, but are directly opposed by Darwin’s daughter, Henrietta. Henrietta stated “I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. My father never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. I am upset that the U.S. Christians have fabricated this conversion nonsense. The whole story has no foundation whatever.” February 23, 1922.

Evolution has been proven false (is only a theory). Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

Dare

30-10-2006, 04:00 PM

teraside

30-10-2006, 04:00 PM

I lied, it's still there ;)

Syndyre

30-10-2006, 04:01 PM

teraside

30-10-2006, 04:03 PM

Just because they aren't alive now doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Same goes for God, just because you can't see Him, doesn't mean He doesn't exist ;)

noxibox

30-10-2006, 04:03 PM

Who made God? Something so complex couldn't just exist.

Kimosabe

30-10-2006, 04:03 PM

If evolution was true..

If we come from Apes, and before apes we came out of the sea... then why are there no half sea, half land creatures..

Im talking about a ape looking thing with fins...

My god can you really be this stupid.
Evolition is a process. There arent any half fish half lions. Really now. Come on.

FIsh crawled out of the water, became able to breath air. Much like the Newt of today. Repitles formed from those animals, repitles to mammels.
REally come on now!
With everything we see around us how can there be those that have blind faith in some higher power.

Dare

30-10-2006, 04:04 PM

so every creature alive to day all evolved from a seporate creature?

Syndyre

30-10-2006, 04:04 PM

Same goes for God, just because you can't see Him, doesn't mean He doesn't exist ;)

True, but I'd still like to see some evidence. And I don't think the idea of God and evolution are necessarily contradictory anyway.

Highflyer_GP

30-10-2006, 04:04 PM

Evolution just make's no sense, how can people believe this stuff, everything on nature and science channels refer to evolution...

Yeah afterall invisible beings creating man from dirt makes way more sense :rolleyes:

teraside

30-10-2006, 04:04 PM

Who made God? Something so complex couldn't just exist.

God is the great I AM, get it? He IS, he wasn't made, He has always been, live with it :p

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:08 PM

God is the great I AM, get it? He IS, he wasn't made, He has always been, live with it :p

Which God is that?

stix

30-10-2006, 04:09 PM

Yea it was his son - the union of the holy spirit and a hooker. He was made. :D

teraside

30-10-2006, 04:10 PM

Which God is that?

There is but one, the God of Israel , the God that decided to let you be born, that God ;)

ghoti

30-10-2006, 04:11 PM

There is but one, the God of Israel , the God that decided to let you be born, that God ;)

Which god? Sorry. I keep getting confused. You guys change him daily depending on how you want the politics to play out ;)

teraside

30-10-2006, 04:12 PM

LOL! Some people may change Him, but He's always the same, irrespective of what people think ;)

stix

30-10-2006, 04:13 PM

Any one actually have a date that the bible was first complied as a book and when it was written [ ie is there a large gap ] and organised Christianity came into existance?

teraside

30-10-2006, 04:15 PM

Nah, sorry I don't know about all the technical aspects about it, the great thing is you don't have to know, you get to have a personal walk and life with your maker, you need the good book, but the Spirit lives inside you, and speaks to you on a daily basis ;)

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:21 PM

LOL! Some people may change Him, but He's always the same, irrespective of what people think ;)

Have you ever heard of the Greek Pantheon?

Highflyer_GP

30-10-2006, 04:40 PM

Any one actually have a date that the bible was first complied as a book and when it was written [ ie is there a large gap ] and organised Christianity came into existance?

This is probably the closest answer we have about the origins of the bible:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=628937&postcount=53
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=641212&postcount=99

Christians owe alot to the Roman emperor Constantine. He's ultimately responsible for the bible they so rigorously follow, even though they either don't know it or choose to deny it.

Angelo

30-10-2006, 05:05 PM

If evolution was true..

If we come from Apes, and before apes we came out of the sea... then why are there no half sea, half land creatures..

Im talking about a ape looking thing with fins...
You obviously haven't heard of the See Munky http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/stuwork/rockwater/Salt%20&%20Water%20inside%20the%20Body/sea%20monkey.jpg
:D

dablakmark8

30-10-2006, 06:13 PM

I believe in evolution,but i also believe god was part of that process
question like this must be viewed www.genesis.com .All your answers will be there

hj2k_x

30-10-2006, 06:46 PM

I believe in evolution,but i also believe god was part of that process

This is a view i often hear on this subject. Just what part do you think God played? Surely it goes against everything in the Bible( I am assuming you mean the Christian God here) to say that evolution did occur. I thought God created Adam and Eve in His image and we went from there?? :confused:

hj2k_x

30-10-2006, 06:48 PM

Debbie

30-10-2006, 08:51 PM

Bill Bryson "A Short History of Nearly Everything" should solve any lingering doubts one may have about evolution.

Just want to point out that, IMHO, evolution does not prove nor disprove the existence of a higher power.

dablakmark8

30-10-2006, 09:00 PM

This is a view i often hear on this subject. Just what part do you think God played? Surely it goes against everything in the Bible( I am assuming you mean the Christian God here) to say that evolution did occur. I thought God created Adam and Eve in His image and we went from there?? :confused:

Yes he did create adam and eve .but where do you think the terrible lizards came from hence dinasaurs( i am frot with this spelling,i hope its spelled right)
That is another part of his creation,visit that site you will know what i mean

dablakmark8

30-10-2006, 09:03 PM

www.answersingenesis.org sorry this is the link

Highflyer_GP

30-10-2006, 09:05 PM

Yes he did create adam and eve .but where do you think the terrible lizards came from hence dinasaurs( i am frot with this spelling,i hope its spelled right)
That is another part of his creation,visit that site you will know what i mean

Omg, do you really believe this nonsense that you read about from some arb site? We share 98% of our DNA with other primates, but of course an invisible being creating us from grains of dust makes way more sense to the blinded sheep who support this idea.

BTTB

30-10-2006, 09:08 PM

Perhaps someone can explain how Moses lived to 950 years of age?
Actually woke up this morning thinking this? :confused:

Imagine that? Living for 950 years. Eish Mamela.

Highflyer_GP

30-10-2006, 09:12 PM

Could somebody also point out where Moses' corpse resides so we have some form of record that he ever existed in the first place? :p

Macguyver1

30-10-2006, 09:26 PM

We have reached the point where its no longer possible to deny evolution, it would be like arguing that the world might just be flat after all!

I believe this thread started with someone's fear that if evolution exists then that can only mean God does not exist because evolution condradicts the bible.

Evolution is not counter evidene of a higher power.

teraside

30-10-2006, 09:27 PM

Perhaps someone can explain how Moses lived to 950 years of age?
Actually woke up this morning thinking this? :confused:

Imagine that? Living for 950 years. Eish Mamela.

www.drdino.com ;)

Highflyer_GP

30-10-2006, 09:29 PM

I believe this thread started with someone's fear that if evolution exists then that can only mean God does not exist because evolution condradicts the bible.

Evolution is not counter evidene of a higher power.
I think it's more about fear that their belief in Christianity/Islam would have to be questioned.

Evolution may actually be accepted by other beliefs. So while the two aren't related, one would have to question the God of monotheistic beliefs however it doesn't necessarily mean that a higher being is out of the question. God and evolution are two different concepts altogether.

dablakmark8

30-10-2006, 09:56 PM

BTTB

30-10-2006, 10:08 PM

theoligist believe in evolution,but up to a point
And the moses story living those many years can be a completely differant time format not literaly 900 years
Time concept in the bible is somthing people have not got to prove yet
The average human life is 70 or 80 years.
Man is supposed to live for 3 score plus ten? 70 years. A score being 20 years.
Perhaps Moses lived to ripe old age of 95? 4 score plus 15. Something like that?
Anyone living more that 40 years in those days was probably considered lucky?
95 would have been quite against the norm in days of old.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards" - Søren Kierkegaard

ghoti

30-10-2006, 10:18 PM

theoligist believe in evolution,but up to a point
And the moses story living those many years can be a completely differant time format not literaly 900 years
Time concept in the bible is somthing people have not got to prove yet

With Moses, the jews wondered around the desert for 40 years. Howcome they did not leave a _single_ piece of archeological evidence for this?

We found the ruins of when the Romans destroyed the Jewish nation, right down to their canteens. You would be suprised how long stuff lasts in the desert.

However, a nation of jews wondering around the desert for 40 years did not leave on tiny bit of archeological evidence. Not even a toothpick. Or was divine intervention involved and PikiTup cleaned up after them?

captainwifi

04-11-2006, 03:31 AM

Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

Ok, lets apply some logic to this common ancestor or shared forefather thing ...

If an observer back then say 3million years ago could have observed this common ancestor, to this observer would this common ancestor not perhaps have a pink bottom and go 'BOGUM!' "ek-is-hom-die-bobejaan" In other words would this common ancestor not have looked like an APE???
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Highflyer_GP

04-11-2006, 03:35 AM

Ok, lets apply some logic to this common ancestor or shared forefather thing ...

If an observer back then say 3million years ago could have observed this common ancestor, to this observer would this common ancestor not perhaps have a pink bottom and go 'BOGUM!' "ek-is-hom-die-bobejaan!" In other words would this common ancestor not have looked like an APE??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You resemble an ape too, afterall you're a primate. All primates resemble each other, just like an ostrich and a pigeon would both resemble birds. Your logic is flawed.

What I can say with some certainty is that some people still think like apes if they're under the impression that we were magically created from dust and are indirectly the result of incestuous behaviour due to Adam and Eve being the first (and only) humans on the planet. Don't know about you guys, but I'm certainly not the result of redneck-type behaviour.

Kimosabe

04-11-2006, 06:21 AM

OK let me get this right.Now the your all loving god, let his choosen people wander around the desert, for 40 years. Now i dont know if it was so that they could prove them selves to him or what. But if it is, then how can an all knowing god, that knows your every action and thought, be able to judge you on something?

I find it laughable at best that so many people could believe blindly in a book, base there entire life on what someone wrote no one knows how long ago.

Ok so now your god is the right god, oh ok. Now i am pretty sure, but doubt qoute me on it. But if we had to go back in time and ask the greeks if there gods were the only gods, they would say yes too. The aztec's There gods were the only gods ever.

and another thing. So now this god person of yours. some apprant 2000 years ago, was more than happy to willy nilly show signs of his existance to anyone, but from then on nothing. Doesn't give a sign to anyone, cos what we should just have blind faith that what some man wrote thousands of years ago is infact all true and can not be questioned in any shape or form.

And god lovers here on the forum, answer me this. If you base your entire life on this book. This book influences your every thought and action. This book is how you live your life. So we can justifyably say that everything that is written in said book has to be followed with out question?
Is this true?

Kimosabe

04-11-2006, 07:01 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jHPg3kjKBRc

captainwifi

04-11-2006, 12:45 PM

..... Your logic is flawed.

Nope not my logic, but the logic of a leadiing female Evolutionist that died
between 1980 and 2000 (I forgot here name).

She said this in an interview just before she died ....
QUESTION:
Do you believe that the mind is an illusion created by the brain?

Let me just add to this common ancestor thing is that what the confused language of Darwinoids have achieved
is to essentially turn a common ancestor into some sort of Abstract entity when it comes to humans because it is obviously
ridiculous to imagine a bunch of but scratching apes 'evolving' to a level of being able to build Boeings.

But when an Evolutionist holds say a bug as a common ancestor of another bug then everybody can at least visualise this bug. But when it comes
human evolution now suddenly the common ancestor can't be visualised anymore it becomes abstract - languag confusion in action!

SuperAntMD

04-11-2006, 12:54 PM

Debbie

04-11-2006, 02:25 PM

QUESTION:
Do you believe that the mind is an illusion created by the brain?

Interesting question. No, I tend to think the other way round, that the brain is an illusion created by the mind.

Here's another question:
*What would change in your life if you were an evolutionist and you found out that the Christians were actually right?

alternatively,

*what would change if you were a christian and you found out that the evolutionists were in fact right?

Would this new knowlege produce any positive changes in your behaviour/the way you live your life? If so, then why not implement the positive behavioural changes it would produce anyway, and continue to believe what you currently believe?

texo

04-11-2006, 02:54 PM

Interesting question. No, I tend to think the other way round, that the brain is an illusion created by the mind.

The brain is an organ, the stuff our skulls are stuffed full of... how on earth can it be an illusion? Show me your mind, and I'll show you mine.

What would change in your life if you were an evolutionist and you found out that the Christians were actually right?
Impossible -- there are thousands of Christian sects, and most of them exist because they have a different "take" on Christianity. "Christians" cannot be right about anything, because they disagree about almost everything.

Debbie

04-11-2006, 03:24 PM

The brain is an organ, the stuff our skulls are stuffed full of... how on earth can it be an illusion? Show me your mind, and I'll show you mine.

And what is the physical brain made of? cells. And what are cells made of? elements and compounds. And what are elements and compounds made of? atoms. And what are atoms made of? electrons protons and neurons. And what are electrons protons and neurons made of? quarks and gluons, and so down and down the ladder we climb. But you see, the thing about these things that exist at the level just below electons, protons and neurons, is that they kind of exist....but they also kind of don't exist. Where it starts to get interesting is when scientists discover that the difference between what does exist, and what could exist, is theoretically AND practically indistinguishable at any point (timewise).

Impossible -- there are thousands of Christian sects, and most of them exist because they have a different "take" on Christianity. "Christians" cannot be right about anything, because they disagree about almost everything.

Just say that in an impossible, alternative reality, it turned out that the christians were mostly all right about what they say, would there be absolutely no positive changes you would make in your life because of this?

captainwifi

04-11-2006, 04:16 PM

Interesting question. No, I tend to think the other way round, that the brain is an illusion created by the mind.

THe question as I posed it was actually a statement by the late Harvard
biologist Stephan J. Gould. It is an example of the incredable mental
confusion that Evolutionists suffer from.

The statement "... the mind is an illusion created by the brain" implies that
Gould believed his thoughts were illusions, so why should we then believe
anything he said!?:D

Debbie

04-11-2006, 04:47 PM

cptnwifi, you miss a few beats - I'm not following.

"It is an example of the incredable mental confusion that Evolutionists suffer from."
- why is it an example of this? How do you connect evolution to the question/problem?

- How is the question as you posed it resolved from a christian point of view?

captainwifi

04-11-2006, 05:04 PM

How is the question as you posed it resolved from a christian point of view?

We all must have a world view. We are a blue dot hurtling through space at
100 000km/h. The question we ask ourselves are how did we get here,
what happens to me after I die, what is conciousness etc..

First lets start off with what exactly we do know. All we for know for an
absolute fact is that we humans have been on this planet for 5000years.
We only have 5000 years of human written recorded history. We are all trying
to figure out what happened before this 5000 year period. And this is where the paw-paw hits the fan. The inability to resolving this question has led to 99.99% of people suffering from a sort of mental illness, driven really by a terrifying fear of what happens to them after death. It is haunting fear of being unable to face death .... I will continue this discussion by editing the post .... cheers for now.

Debbie

04-11-2006, 05:40 PM

Ok, I will follow your updates. What I mostly want to get at here is how your reasoning makes the question, "Do you believe that the mind is the illusion of the brain?" a problem for evolutionists but not for christians.

arf9999

04-11-2006, 06:27 PM

Nope not my logic, but the logic of a leadiing female Evolutionist that died
between 1980 and 2000 (I forgot here name). No problem, it should be easy to find... after all it's only a twenty year period!! :eek:

arf9999

04-11-2006, 06:30 PM

THe question as I posed it was actually a statement by the late Harvard
biologist Stephan J. Gould. It is an example of the incredable mental
confusion that Evolutionists suffer from.

The statement "... the mind is an illusion created by the brain" implies that
Gould believed his thoughts were illusions, so why should we then believe
anything he said!?:D

I thought it was a woman? Are you arguing philosophy or evolution? I don't think that you have the intellectual wherewithal to do either, quite honestly. Go dig a hole under a road rather.;)

captainwifi

04-11-2006, 09:01 PM

Men aren't supposed to be descended from apes, they share a common ancestor. (Divergent evolution - common ancestor but slowly changed in appearance over time)

As opposed to convergent evolution - separate ancestors but...: Look at dolphins and sharks, they are two completely different types of animals. One is a mammal (dolphin) air beathing has lungs, other (shark) is a fish, has gills etc. Their organ systems and basic internal anatomy are quite distinct which shows their evolution from separate ancestors.

But why then do they look so similiar? Evolution. They both evolved via natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest into the best form for their environment the sea. Hence they are phenotypically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype) very similiar.

Go find a copy of The Blind Watchmaker read it and then come and debate evolution.

Lets talk about something different: Finite-State Grammar. In some sense a grammar capable of generating the sentences of English must store information, holding it in reserve untiil needed. The simplest such grammar is a pushdown storage automaton. Now palindromic sequences have been discovered in the genome - DNA. But palindromes can't be generated by a finite-state grammar. IF molecular biological grammars exist, they have to be at least as complex as a pushdown storage automaton.
Question:
If genetic code is informed by grammatical constraints of a nontrivial nature,how in turn did they arise if in the first instance they are
necessary to working of the code?

Now how on earth do these Universal phrases micro, macro, evolved, natural selection even begin to answer the question?

SuperAntMD

04-11-2006, 09:52 PM

Lets talk about something different: Finite-State Grammar. In some sense a grammar capable of generating the sentences of English must store information, holding it in reserve untiil needed. The simplest such grammar is a pushdown storage automaton. Now palindromic sequences have been discovered in the genome - DNA. But palindromes can't be generated by a finite-state grammar. IF molecular biological grammars exist, they have to be at least as complex as a pushdown storage automaton.
Question:
If genetic code is informed by grammatical constraints of a nontrivial nature,how in turn did they arise if in the first instance they are
necessary to working of the code?

Now how on earth do these Universal phrases micro, macro, evolved, natural selection even begin to answer the question?
:eek:

Oh my sweet lord on a mountain with a goat, if I could even understand your question I might try to respond. But the day that i'm able to do that is so far away its not worth thinking about.

If you can simplify it I would love to still be confused by you.

*Edit* did some digging on wikipedia, my head hurts, thanks.

Why is a palindrome such an issue?

Debbie

04-11-2006, 10:04 PM

/what he said :D

Syndyre

04-11-2006, 10:11 PM

S1ght

04-11-2006, 10:47 PM

This is like the 2nd thread of this topic, guess I'll use my same similar answer and a little extra- I am a Christian & believe God created the Earth & everything else and ***** came and died for our sins.

Now that thats done, I don't think this is a topic we can really all debate on so easily, without full knowledge on both Christianity and Evolution how can you compare the 2. I've watched a few DVD's about this subject and read a lot of forums and heard a few people talk about it & here are a few things that were picked up to support the Christianity side

- Fossils were found of jelly fish and of fish giving birth, neither of this is possible unless there was a giant flood that instantly crushed them (Noah and the Ark)
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aigks001.html
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

- The giraffe apparently evolved from something similar to a horse, story was it couldn't reach the food on the tree so it got a long neck, now lets assume this was true & therefore they all have long necks, next they want water and when they bend down, some of them die from all the blood rushing to the head, assume this is also true,next they lift their heads back up and more die from blood now rushing back down to their hearts. Basically there is too much organs that were needed for them to live that could have been developed(evolved) since they would have needed them all at once in order to survive.
http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm

- Apparently there are 6 different kinds of evolution
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=600008900&tstart=0&mod=1123545850802

If you want a very good Christian view of it, go find a DVD "The Age of the Earth" by Dr Kent Hovind

Well thats all for now

Highflyer_GP

04-11-2006, 11:21 PM

Sweet lord I've never come across a religion that tries to shoot down scientific progress as much as this before.

Debbie

04-11-2006, 11:24 PM

Plants, too, manifest something that could arguably be called intelligence. We hyperactive denizens of kingdom Animalia aren’t really wired to notice it, but on longer time scales plants adapt and respond to their environment, and research has shown that they actually respond surprisingly quickly (albeit in ways not easily visible) to outside stimuli of various kinds — all without benefit of brains, or even individual nerve cells.

For example, Trewavas talks about earlier research by CK Kelly showing that dodder, a parasitic plant that takes the form of bright orange twining tendrils (and which I happened to be checking out a couple of days ago while taking a hike in the Caprinteria salt marsh with my son), can quickly discriminate between a “good” host and a poor one, “choosing” in a matter of an hour or two how much of its resources to devote to a particular new host plant.

Just something I just stumbled across.

S1ght

04-11-2006, 11:26 PM

How can you say it's trying to shoot it down, are all these things not put down by normal people, there is only 1 link there with a relation to Christianity, the rest were from "scientific progress"

Highflyer_GP

05-11-2006, 12:01 AM

There's also that answersingenesis site and a few others which seem to deliberately try and shoot down the theory of evolution. You don't see papers on evolution try and prove their point by attempting to disprove creationism.

And there may very well have been a large flood as most cultures seem to have a record of one, however one can't use some random flood to prove that Noah and his ark existed. It's ridiculous to say that if the great flood existed then that proves that Noah and his ark existed. Find the ark, then find his corpse and I might start listening.

If you want a very good Christian view of it, go find a DVD "The Age of the Earth" by Dr Kent Hovind
This is exactly what is wrong - research is not approached from a neutral point of view. By leaning towards one side, the only evidence that one sees is the evidence that they want to see.

nicb3

05-11-2006, 12:09 AM

Let me tell you something interesting... Long ago Whales used to walk on land... It's not a joke! It's been scientifically proven. Ex ray scans show that whales have little feet (bone structure) under their thick skin. It's obviously shrunken over time...

captainwifi

05-11-2006, 12:44 AM

A pushdown storage automaton in CS is a stack. Information gets puhsed and
popped off the stack. The information theoretic concept of a palindrome I will
relate to Kolmogrov Complexity on this thread during the week.
(A palindrome is a sequence of letters symmetric about the axis. It reads forwards and backwards the same. Just look it up on http://www.wikipedia.org)

Think about the following:
Each time you walk over the lawn or pick up your dog you are
touching dense information high in Kolmogrov Complexity.

S1ght

05-11-2006, 12:59 AM

This is exactly what is wrong - research is not approached from a neutral point of view. By leaning towards one side, the only evidence that one sees is the evidence that they want to see.

Dude, I'm 17, I'm not going to argue about this kind of topic, especially not on the internet. If you want to share your point of view, be my guest :rolleyes:

Highflyer_GP

05-11-2006, 01:19 AM

Dude, I'm 17, I'm not going to argue about this kind of topic, especially not on the internet. If you want to share your point of view, be my guest :rolleyes:
Age doesn't matter when common sense is involved :p

S1ght

05-11-2006, 08:16 AM

& common sense doesn't matter when stupidity is involved :p

Claymore

05-11-2006, 08:57 AM

- Fossils were found of jelly fish and of fish giving birth, neither of this is possible unless there was a giant flood that instantly crushed them (Noah and the Ark)

Why not? Many fossils of aquatic creatures were created after underwater mudslides or ground collapses. Do some reading on the Burgess Shale, for example.

- The giraffe apparently evolved from something similar to a horse, story was it couldn't reach the food on the tree so it got a long neck, now lets assume this was true & therefore they all have long necks, next they want water and when they bend down, some of them die from all the blood rushing to the head, assume this is also true,next they lift their heads back up and more die from blood now rushing back down to their hearts. Basically there is too much organs that were needed for them to live that could have been developed(evolved) since they would have needed them all at once in order to survive.

Are you saying that one day, a giraffe woke up and discovered it had a long neck, and that its heart would also have to have developed overnight? That isn't how evolution by natural selection works...

ToxicBunny

05-11-2006, 09:26 AM

Ag ja, this is just one of those wonderful topics.....

I do remember having a friend of mine state to me catagorically that evolution had been proven to be false.... and when i asked her how and why... her pastor had told her..... basically that is when i burst out laughing and she got confused.... I've also had someone tell me that they believe in adaptation...but not evolution.... and they also got very confused when i told them that over extremely long time frames, they're one and the same thing...

But for me personally, evolution just makes sense and fits the evidence that we have.... Intelligent Design (or whatever other stupid name the religious nuts want to put on it) just doesn't...

Doges

05-11-2006, 11:26 AM

After reading through this thread a few times, and also having a good laugh at both sides of the argument, I just had to respond. It is clear that most forumites don't have a clue how evolution works. They have some snippets of information but that's it. So let's have a quick rundown of life on planet earth. In the beginning the earth was a hostile place WITH NO LIVING MATTER. This is why I had to laugh at one forumites insistence to laugh at the idea that life was created from "sand"/"dirt" or whatever, because there was no other way for life to start! There was no other living matter to create/develop from in the first place. So all life did come from inanimate matter, there could be no other way. So how did life start? Well if you choose not to believe in a Creator, it started spontaneously in the so-called "primordial soup". Remember, DNA consists of commonly found chemical elements, and so does all other cellular structures, of which carbon is the most common. Problem is, and I suspect most people do not appreciate how complex even the most basic life form is. Not only do we need a functional structure that carries information from one generation to the next, but we also need a structure that will interpret this data, and build something from it. Then we need some structure to house these other structures. We also need some way of getting energy into this cell to drive these processes. Moving from that to a multicellular organism with specialised organs is infinately more complex. So how does evolution fit into this picture? Well this is a THEORY, postulated by scientists to EXPLAIN the diversity of life on earth. It is not something you can believe in, but rather a theory you can accept. So, if you believe in a creator you will believe that life did not start spontaneously, but was created from the basic elements available to the creator, on earth (As one forumite put it so eloquently, life from dirt). If you don't believe there is a Higher power at work, you will believe that life spontaneously sprang from inanimate matter (dirt). So a certain group of people believe there is something like intelligent design at work, and others believe in randomness/chance/luck. Does this make one group more intelligent than the other. I don't think so. So rather state the facts as you see them and refrain from calling each other stupid, it does not add value to the discussion.

If there are any interest in the matter I will try and explain why simple base mutations in DNA alone cannot acount for the variety of life we see on earth. Suffice it to say that a simplistic view where one or two mutations to an organisms DNA give rise to new species is also wrong. There are legitimate questions that still needs to be resolved in the debate as to how change are effected at the molecular level, and how this change translates to new species. For now keep in mind that everything in an organisms body/structure are interconnected, and small changes can bring the whole house tumbling down. The other fact that one must keep in mind is that these changes happens randomly in a population, so initially only one or two organisms have this trait. The only way this trait will be fixed into a population is by interbreeding. So, the one forumite that maintained that he is not the result of incest (I think he had a problem the story of Adam and Eve), are also wrong. There is no other way certain characteristics can be fixed in your genetic make-up, so limited inbreeding in a family group did occur, and still occur in nature to this day. If a dominant chimp takes over a troup, he's not going to sit back and contemplate the morality of doing it with his mother or sister. The only question he ponders is, is she in season, and is she willing.....

GreatBigMouth

05-11-2006, 11:28 AM

The answer to the evolution question is simple: THERE IS NO SUCH THING, POINT. ;)

captainwifi

05-11-2006, 11:42 AM

.... that evolution had been proven to be false....

And this is where Evolutionists, Intelligent Design theorists and Creationists like www.icr.org all make their mistake

'Evolution is not defined a I have posted in another thread quoting a
statement by P.T. Saunders in an academic journal. We can't disprove the
non-existance of something that is not defined. Some organisms can't even
be specified let alone defined. There exists no defenition of a living organism.
Kolmogrove Complexity and Information theoretic science is at least a start
at trying to define an organism.
You can't disprove the non-existance of something you can't even specify!

ToxicBunny

05-11-2006, 11:55 AM

captainwifi... that is definately a very valid point.. and i agree with it wholeheartedly... its just i can't help but be amused when some of my friends who are incredibly religious start spouting things like that.... and the only "proof" they provide is some obscure person, or the word of their pastor... as if they can't think for themselves anymore... but i feel this may just be going ever so slightly OT... so yeah... i'll just leave it there for now......... oh and not that it actually is related in any way... I've been classed as a satanist because i laughed at the pastor when he spouted some rubbish at me a few years ago.....

arf9999

05-11-2006, 11:58 AM

After reading through this thread a few times, and also having a good laugh at both sides of the argument, I just had to respond. It is clear that most forumites don't have a clue how evolution works. true.
They have some snippets of information but that's it. So let's have a quick rundown of life on planet earth. In the beginning the earth was a hostile place WITH NO LIVING MATTER. This is why I had to laugh at one forumites insistence to laugh at the idea that life was created from "sand"/"dirt" or whatever, because there was no other way for life to start! There was no other living matter to create/develop from in the first place. So all life did come from inanimate matter, there could be no other way. So how did life start? Well if you choose not to believe in a Creator, it started spontaneously in the so-called "primordial soup". Remember, DNA consists of commonly found chemical elements, and so does all other cellular structures, of which carbon is the most common. Problem is, and I suspect most people do not appreciate how complex even the most basic life form is. Not only do we need a functional structure that carries information from one generation to the next, but we also need a structure that will interpret this data, and build something from it. Then we need some structure to house these other structures. We also need some way of getting energy into this cell to drive these processes. Moving from that to a multicellular organism with specialised organs is infinately more complex. So how does evolution fit into this picture? Well this is a THEORY, postulated by scientists to EXPLAIN the diversity of life on earth. It is not something you can believe in, but rather a theory you can accept. So, if you believe in a creator you will believe that life did not start spontaneously, but was created from the basic elements available to the creator, on earth (As one forumite put it so eloquently, life from dirt). If you don't believe there is a Higher power at work, you will believe that life spontaneously sprang from inanimate matter (dirt). So a certain group of people believe there is something like intelligent design at work, and others believe in randomness/chance/luck. Does this make one group more intelligent than the other. I don't think so. So rather state the facts as you see them and refrain from calling each other stupid, it does not add value to the discussion. The argument that you have put forward is exactly the problem with the ID standpoint though. "Because we cannot accept that complexity is the result of random changes and environmental impact, therefore it must be by design." The problem is that this is a self defeating argument: if everything is created by some intelligent designer, where did the designer come from? The "Intelligent Design" version is no better than the original fundamentalist version of creation in terms of rationality. (And to be frank, no more acceptable than the idea that the sun and the moon mated in order create humans). All pro-creation arguments use the so-called "gap arguments", trying to disprove theories based on evidence by focusing on the areas that we don't yet understand fully. No evolutionary scientist will state categorically that we know everything about the process of evolution, or that every single theory has irrefutable evidence. However, as a whole, it is a theory that has stood up to robust investigation. Pro Creationists spend far too much time trying to find fault with evolutionary science, rather than trying to prove their own point of view.

If there are any interest in the matter I will try and explain why simple base mutations in DNA alone cannot acount for the variety of life we see on earth.

Please do so... with a bit more detail..

S1ght

05-11-2006, 12:03 PM

Ok, lets assume all the big bang theory and evolution is true, now I ask a few questions then

Where did matter come from to create the big bang?
According to Constant Angular momentum, if something was spinning really fast and broke up, the pieces will spin in the same direction, why are planets spinning in different directions then?
If we evolved, who determined what is right and wrong?
If we evolved, what is the point in life?
Comets lose matter while they travel (their tales), if the earth is billions of years old, why do we still have comets?

Ok this 1 I'm just putting in for fun cause I thought it was funny.
We all know the fairy tale of a princess kissing a frog and the frog turning into a prince. Now we supposedly evolved from frog type things, did we not then just do what the fairytale did? same sequence frog -> price , but what different between the fairytale and science (evolution)......if the frog turns to a prince quickly, it's a fairy tale, if it happens over time...its science :)

SuperAntMD

05-11-2006, 12:15 PM

what different between the fairytale and science (evolution)......if the frog turns to a prince quickly, it's a fairy tale, if it happens over time...its science :)

Exactly, only its not a frog becoming a prince. A frogs children having one feature slightly more reminiscent of a prince, and there children and their children's children slowly developing more by chance. Evolution clearly doesn't believe that one animal changes into another, it occurs over generations.

Just look at dairy or chicken farming: breeders have created cows (which create the milk you drink every morning) that become ill unless they're milked. They now produce so much milk per day that its actually potentially harmful to them, but it clearly illustrates how the species or a subsect thereof has evolved based on nothing but selective breeding. Similiarly the chickens you buy in a supermarket, are bigger, develop faster and have less fat then their free range counterparts also as a result of breeding.

Now imagine that instead of a couple hundred years, you separate these cows and chickens from "normal" cows and chickens and continue to breed them selectively for millenia. When you compare them with the "normal" animals they will be so distinct that you won't even be able to recognise them. That is evolution, and its a scientific fact.

arf9999

05-11-2006, 12:37 PM

Where did matter come from to create the big bang?
I don't know... but I can live with that, because eventually (probably long after I'm dead), someone will figure it out.

According to Constant Angular momentum, if something was spinning really fast and broke up, the pieces will spin in the same direction, why are planets spinning in different directions then? er... gravitational effects of their neighbors, stars, satellites?

If we evolved, who determined what is right and wrong? What does one have to do with the other?

If we evolved, what is the point in life? Why does there have to be a point?

Comets lose matter while they travel (their tales), if the earth is billions of years old, why do we still have comets? What do comets have to do with the earth? Some comets are very old, some less so... Some have lost lots of matter, some less... what is your point?

S1ght

05-11-2006, 12:41 PM

So you answered 4/5 questions with questions, not answers & couldn't answer the 1st one...

arf9999

05-11-2006, 12:52 PM

So you answered 4/5 questions with questions, not answers & couldn't answer the 1st one...

No, I pointed out the fallacious approach that you have towards the subject. Your questions make no sense, so I have asked you to clarify them.

I have similar questions for you with regard to religion:

1. Where did god/God/Allah/Yahweh/Zeus/Odin/etc. come from?
2. If Moses was able to bring down seven plagues on Egypt, why was it the Israelites that left? Why not stay in Egypt and chase the Egyptians out?
3. How does God know what is right and wrong? Can he/she/it change his/her/it's mind? If not, why not? Are right and wrong fixed concepts? If so, who made them if not God? If God made them, and he is omnipotent, why can't he change his mind and swap the concepts around.
4. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why bother granting free choice to us puny humans? He already knows what our choice will be. What is the point of our existence in that kind of universe. Are we hamsters in a cage for God's amusement?
5. If the earth is 6000 years old, why does everything we discover point to it being so much older? Is God just playing with us?

nthdimension

05-11-2006, 12:59 PM

Where did matter come from to create the big bang?

From where did god come?

Where did matter come from to create the big bang?
According to Constant Angular momentum, if something was spinning really fast and broke up, the pieces will spin in the same direction, why are planets spinning in different directions then?

Go back to your lab and try colliding some objects for a start.

If we evolved, who determined what is right and wrong?
In that scenario no-one.

If there is a god that made this universe, then who determined right and wrong for this god? For right and wrong to exist some being, that created our god, must have dictated what is right and wrong. And the creator's creator must have had a creator that determined right and wrong. And so on.

Contrary to the regular misconception religion has not given us a clearly defined right and wrong. What is right and what is wrong have changed with time. Something that 100 years ago may have been considered right would now be considered wrong.

nthdimension

05-11-2006, 01:07 PM

We have already found chemicals that behave in a self-organising way and self-replicate. We know the kind of energy and forces that would be necessary for this initial self-organising chemicals to form.

Adding in a creator is not an answer its a question. Resulting in an endless chain of creators. Clearly something as complex as a god could not just exist nor could it have come about through chance.

Although promoters of creation like to use words like chance and luck, by doing so they demonstrate a lack of even a basic knowledge of probability, and the timescales involved in the development of the universe.

S1ght

05-11-2006, 01:13 PM

1.Where did God come from?
If I knew that I would have infinite knowledge & wouldn't need God.
2.Why did they leave?
It was God's greater Plan, I wasn't alive at the time.
3.a)How does God know what is right and wrong?
He made what is right and wrong
b)Can he change His mind?
He doesn't need to if he gets it right the 1st time
c)Who made them?
God did. The 10 commandments
4. Free will?
Again, all part of a greater plan, you can do what you want,you've chosen
not to believe in God, is that not free will? just he already knew that and
knows what will happen in the end.
5. World older than 6000 years?
Post all your evidence that proves without a doubt all this?

@nthdimension
Nobody created God, No I can't tell you how he got there, He is the alpha and Omega. If this was something that we were meant to fully understand, we wouldn't need God then.

captainwifi

05-11-2006, 01:17 PM

.... accept that complexity is the result of random changes and environmental impact ...

aah yes that old chestnut of the Metaphysical materialists: Random

Mathematically Randomness doesn't exist. The worlds leading probability
theorist stated:
We know what randomness isn't , we don't know what it is

So if the world leader in probability theory has no idea what randomness is how come the evolutionists know that 'random changes' took place? Well ofcourse they don't but due to their religious belief system it just had to be random.

Highflyer_GP

05-11-2006, 01:22 PM

This is why I had to laugh at one forumites insistence to laugh at the idea that life was created from "sand"/"dirt" or whatever, because there was no other way for life to start!
That was me, and I was making reference to the bibles version of creation, with the creator creating Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Being a garden, there was obviously life to begin with.

As pointed out before, one cannot attribute any unknowns or gaps to a creator just because it cannot immediately be explained yet.

Evolution is fact, whether anybody likes it or not. The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms involved. In the same way quantum mechanics is fact (there are already a wide range of practical applications), however quantum theory attempts to explain the mechanisms involved in quantum mechanics.

Paul_S

05-11-2006, 01:30 PM

Evolution is fact, whether anybody likes it or not.

If macro evolution is a fact then prove it - until then it's only your opinion.
The same goes for religion. Neither can be proved or disproved so on what authority do you claim that evolution is a fact?

If I drop an apple and it falls that proves that gravity is a fact.
If I find fossils of two animals that look similar that only proves that they're similar - it doesn't prove that they had a common ancestor - that is called assumption.

If you're referring to micro evolution (better termed adaptation) then sure - that happens but it doesn't mean that macro evolution has ever happened - for that there is no proof - only theories based on human thought regarding the evidence found.

Highflyer_GP

05-11-2006, 01:31 PM

Mathematically Randomness doesn't exist. The worlds leading probability
theorist stated:
We know what randomness isn't , we don't know what it is

I'd like to know who that is, and how he/she became the leading probability theorist because that's obviously a crock of *****.

Try a simple experiment to test the randomness of an object. Throw a dice 60 times and tell me how many times it landed on each number. I can bet you that each number won't land exactly 10 times, because it's completely random.

Claymore

05-11-2006, 01:37 PM

c)Who made them?
God did. The 10 commandments

The first lot (which Moses broke), or the second lot?

Highflyer_GP

05-11-2006, 01:43 PM

If evolution is a fact then prove it - until then it's only your opinion.
The same goes for religion. Neither can be proved or disproved so on what authority do you claim that evolution is a fact?

You are obviously confused by evolution and the theory of evolution.

If I drop an apple and it falls that proves that gravity is a fact.
If I find fossils of two animals that look similar that only proves that they're similar - it doesn't prove that they had a common ancestor - that is called assumption.
Gravity cannot be observed, we can only observe the effects of it. So tell me why you choose to think that gravity is fact if you drop an apple and it falls? Let's suppose we were living pre-Newton, it wouldn't prove anything, it would have just proven that you dropped an apple. What Newton decided was to attempt to prove the mechanisms behind gravity.

Similarly with evolution, scientists attempt to prove the mechanisms involved behind evolution by using the theory of evolution. Still I'd rather back the scientists and back the evidence than nutjobs who rely on pure speculation and the unknown. If something cannot immediately be explained, it doesn't mean that it has to be the work of a higher power. If this was the case then Newton would have said that God pulls the apple towards the earth.

Debbie

05-11-2006, 01:52 PM

Enjoyed your posts Doges.

Ok, lets assume all the big bang theory and evolution is true, now I ask a few questions then

*Where did matter come from to create the big bang?

The furtherest science has got is to put forward the theory that all matter in the universe was originally squeezed into a dense, tiny little 'point' - a tiny tiny smaller than an atom 'point, which they call a singularity (correct me if wrong). What they propose is that at the start of the universe, this 'singularity' just basically 'exploded' (the 'Big Bang') for reasons still unknown. But as to where this 'singularity' came from in the first place, well science doesn't quite know that yet. [Keep in mind that just because science doesn't know how something happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen at all. Likewise, just because something can't be disproved doesn't mean it must be true.]

*According to Constant Angular momentum, if something was spinning really fast and broke up, the pieces will spin in the same direction, why are planets spinning in different directions then?

I have no idea.

*If we evolved, who determined what is right and wrong?

A thinking man's question! Here's a theory, and one that I agree with- there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'. A thing is only 'right' or 'wrong' depending on what it is that you are ultimately trying to achieve.

Einstein said it another way when he said "it's all relative".

*If we evolved, what is the point in life?

I don't know. One suggestion is that the point of life is simply 'to be' because 'there is nothing else to do'.

*Comets lose matter while they travel (their tales), if the earth is billions of years old, why do we still have comets?

Maybe there were really big comets to begin with? Or maybe comets can 'form' out of material post-Big Bang? I don't know.

Ok this 1 I'm just putting in for fun cause I thought it was funny.
We all know the fairy tale of a princess kissing a frog and the frog turning into a prince. Now we supposedly evolved from frog type things, did we not then just do what the fairytale did? same sequence frog -> price , but what different between the fairytale and science (evolution)......if the frog turns to a prince quickly, it's a fairy tale, if it happens over time...its science :)

What you say is quite profound. Not meaning to come across as patronising, but do just want to say that you have a fantastic way of thinking for yourself.

ToxicBunny

05-11-2006, 02:28 PM

I'm going to derail this thread just a tiny little bit... and just be all sheep-like for a few seconds.... Was just watching David Attenborough on BBC Prime and he just proved that our ancestors were walking up right 3.5million years ago.... and he's a TV person, and a Kinght... so he can't be wrong can he?.....

But to get back to reality, and to something vaguely relating to whats being discussed atm... I recently read a book by some scientist-type person (I'll get his name just now when i go hunting for the book)... and he has a theory which while being somewhat wild, is also kind of though provoking in another. In its most basic form, his theory or at least an idea of one, is that every black hole is the beginning of a new universe... I obviously can't even begin to understand all of the theory, but it does have an interesting "ring" to it in a way.

Though I do suppose it ultimately doesn't actually solve the question of "where did it all start?"... It just moves the goalposts to some infinite point in the past....

Paul_S

05-11-2006, 03:00 PM

You are obviously confused by evolution and the theory of evolution.

Ok let's separate macro evolution and the theory of macro evolution.
What makes you believe that macro evolution is a fact?
Surely you have to have some sort of basis for your belief that macro evolution is a fact?

If you have no basis for your belief then you can't assert your opinion that it's a fact.

Daniedj

05-11-2006, 04:04 PM

I'd like to know who that is, and how he/she became the leading probability theorist because that's obviously a crock of *****.

Try a simple experiment to test the randomness of an object. Throw a dice 60 times and tell me how many times it landed on each number. I can bet you that each number won't land exactly 10 times, because it's completely random.

Have you ever played roulette? Sometimes the randomness means that the same colour will come in 10 times in a row. Or that green will come in twice in a row. There was an article a while back about how a oke figured out a formula to verify if a series of values is truly random or not. For instance if a person lies about his car's log sheet this formula will catch you out. Hopefully SARS won't be using it very soon.

noxibox

05-11-2006, 05:43 PM

Try a simple experiment to test the randomness of an object. Throw a dice 60 times and tell me how many times it landed on each number. I can bet you that each number won't land exactly 10 times, because it's completely random.
Why such a small number? Rather try throwing a die 600 trillion times.

nthdimension

05-11-2006, 05:57 PM

3.a)How does God know what is right and wrong?
He made what is right and wrong
So they're indeed arbitrary. There is in fact no basis for right and wrong.

How does god know that right and wrong have been correctly classified? That would come from god's creator I presume.

Nobody created God, No I can't tell you how he got there, He is the alpha and Omega. If this was something that we were meant to fully understand, we wouldn't need God then.
Ah, well then this proves my theory of supernatural selection. You can't explain the origin of god - there are holes in your theory therefore my theory is correct.

4. Free will?
Again, all part of a greater plan, you can do what you want,you've chosen
not to believe in God, is that not free will? just he already knew that and
knows what will happen in the end.
There can be no free will in a universe where god knows everything. Everything that has ever and will ever transpire was already known to god before the universe was created. God already knew who would be going to heaven.

nthdimension

05-11-2006, 06:08 PM

***** came and died for our sins.

Died and came back to life. It's hardly the same thing. No sacrifice at all in fact.

arf9999

05-11-2006, 06:22 PM

Mathematically Randomness doesn't exist. The worlds leading probability
theorist stated:
We know what randomness isn't , we don't know what it is

er.. that is because the definition of randomness is in the negative:
We can only define it by saying what it isn't. i.e Randomness is the absence of pattern or predictability. This doesn't mean that we have no grasp of the concept, it just means that you're using selective quotations out of context to argue a stupid point.

SuperAntMD

05-11-2006, 06:32 PM

Paraphrasing from something I read a while back:

Lets look at the premise that God is good.

This either means that all that is good in this world, is so because God says so, by that logic if God appeared tomorrow and said go forth and rape and pillage the people of Sweden then raping and pillaging would be good, surely that cannot be right?

Alternately it means that what God proposes and/or does is intrinsically good as compared to some external standard, i.e. he would never appear and tell you to go to town on Sweden because that is just not nice. But this scenario precludes the necessity for God to say what is right and wrong as even He would be held to an external standard.

SuperAntMD

05-11-2006, 06:37 PM

According to Constant Angular momentum, if something was spinning really fast and broke up, the pieces will spin in the same direction, why are planets spinning in different directions then?

Erm I might be wrong on this one but im pretty sure the answer lies somewhere between the fact that no where has any scientist ever stated that in the beginning everything was spinning, they say there was a bang which sent everything flying at great speeds in all directions, that and the fact that the planets weren't formed at the time of the big bang but only came around quite a while afterwards when the gases and matter condensed under the effects of gravity.

captainwifi

05-11-2006, 07:04 PM

.... gases and matter condensed under the effects of gravity.

Go to www.icr.org and download their Audio by Prof Danny Faulkner where he
explains the problem with Star formation. He states that Astronomers really don't have a clue how stars formed. Infact they should not even exist.

ToxicBunny

05-11-2006, 07:10 PM

Ummm?... astronomers have no clue how stars are formed???? Now thats definately a new one on me..... ohhh wait... icr.org.... ok.. that explains that one...

I know this is prob not a very popular opinion... but personally I feel religion should keep its nose out of science... religion for me is more a guide on how one should lead your life.... it isn't meant to explain everything.... ohhh, and another unpopular theory from me, that the bible is a metaphor.. or is at least a book on metaphors... so those who take it literally, are well missing the point.

But back to the previous post, astronomers have an idea how stars are formed, its just a process that takes so long and is so incredibly massive that its not something we can reproduce, not even in simulations on our biggest and best supercomputers as of yet... hell we can't even accurately model the dynamics of a single nuclear explosion in a super computer yet....

Debbie

05-11-2006, 07:48 PM

I don't know if God exists or not.

But I just saw the sun come out shining after a heavy downpour. Against the dark skies, a rainbow stretched up from the horizon over the sea, arched over, and landed just behind some bushes in the distance. Almost a complete rainbow. In the foreground I could see tumbling white foamies glowing in their whiteness, lit up by the sun.

The sea was a dark blue colour, and it was about as 'still' as the ocean can ever get. At the point where the rainbow met the horizon out at sea, the rainbow seemed very clearly to end: but it also seemed to carry on, as the light from the rainbow curved and bent it into the foreground where it splayed out into the atmosphere nearer to me.

As I looked at all this magnificence before me, I thought to myself, "the only thing missing from this picture is a whale. Imagine if a whale breached under that rainbow...omw, imagine that....only God could do that....perhaps he might....".

Well what do you know? At that moment a whale lifted out of the water, blew it's blowhole, went back down under.....then launched it's tail up and let it slap down on the water.

I was in absolute amazement and I just stood there staring.

Think of the number of factors that had to come together in order for this to happen..... I had to be born, my parents had to be born, their ancestors had to be born and survive the wars and diseases and plagues....
.....Wars had to end in certain ways so that the borders of where I am now are as they are, for otherwise I would not be in this part of the country in the first place....
....I had to have led a life that had brought me to this point, right here, today, living in this exact house, standing on that spot thinking that very thought at that very moment....
....And of course also the weather had to have been the way it was at the time. Then, from the giant global ocean, a single whale had to rise from the ocean at that point where the rainbow went into the sea from my point of vision, and it had to do this at the exact time of my thought.....

Does God exist or not? I don't know. I think that some will read the above and say, "so what, big deal. You saw a whale under a rainbow and it was pretty"; while others will think about all the millions and millions and millions of things that had to happen in order for a whale to appear at that moment where I was standing, as if on command from my own thought.

Those who say 'so what' are right. All I did see was a whale under a sea-bound rainbow. Those who contemplate the millions of things that had to happen in order to create that experience are also right though.

God exists, and does not exist.

Everything is connected regardless of whether you believe in God or not. The impact of what you think, say and do today manifests in tomorrow. We all are significant because we all affect the future just by 'being'. Some impact it more than others, and sadly, some choose to believe that they have no impact at all.

Insider

06-11-2006, 11:57 AM

Doges

06-11-2006, 12:15 PM

Please do so... with a bit more detail..

Let’s use the following premise as our starting point. Variation is a fundamental attribute of the individuals of a species, and the raw material for evolution. So what are the sources of this variation? Variation arises as a result of events at the molecular and cytological levels. These events in some way alter an individual’s genotype, and the alteration may affect the phenotype. Sources of this phenotypic variation may be classified in five broad categories namely: 1) Gene mutation, 2) Chromosomal aberrations, 3) Independent assortment of chromosomes at meiosis, 4) Crossing over at meiosis and 5) Fertilization between genetically varied gametes. Of these 5, only mutations create new alleles. However, keep in mind that mutations at any one gene locus are rare events, but still inevitable. As long as sunlight reaches the earth, UV will damage some DNA molecules. A mutation can be beneficial or harmful, depending on how the protein specified by the mutated DNA region is received, and how it meshes in the coordinated workings of the entire individual. DNA replication enzymes also tend to remove mismatched nucleotides to further weed out mutations. These enzymes protect the overall stability of the vulnerable molecules of inheritance. But, ever so often through the immense time-span we’re looking at mutations appear that provide their bearers with advantages. So we can see that point mutations on DNA are an extremely rare event, and that’s why I said that alone it cannot explain all the variation we get. It is a combination of the above 5 categories that really gives us the extraordinary variation we get in the natural world. According to some estimates 10 to the power of 600 genetically different human gametes are possible. There are fewer that 10 to the power of 10 humans alive today. In short, far more genetic variation is possible than can ever be expressed in the individuals alive at any one time.

Once again, I only scratched the surface of this complicated topic. I only explained a small part of evolution namely the source of variation in populations. There are numerous other factors involved not least of which the conditions under which populations evolve. From discussions on this forum it is clear that most forumites only knows Darwins theory which stated that evolution occurs due to natural selection (Darwin was not the first person to postulate evolution as a theory to describe the variety of life on earth, he only suggested a mechanism that may drive evolution). There are numerous other factors involved namely factors related to population size (Genetic drift, founder effects and Bottle necks) , Gene flow, mutation and natural selection (Of which different modes are recognized namely Stabilizing selection, Directional selection and disruptive selection).

I would like to iterate once again that this theory cannot prove or disprove the existence of a Higher power. You cannot “believe in” evolution like you would believe in God (for example), but you can accept it as a viable description of how the variety we see around us came to be.

Raithlin

06-11-2006, 02:10 PM

Sheesh. For a telecoms forum this thread has some hard-punching posts.

First of all, some links (no, they are not icr.org).

Big Bang Theory debunked
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma3.htm
http://reactor-core.org/debunking-the-big-bang.html

There is more: Google (http://www.google.co.za/search?q=big+bang+theory+disproved)

It has been mentioned that research is being done in a biased manner - truer words have not been said. Both evolutionists and creationists look at the same facts - they simply interpret them based on their pre-established beliefs. Thus, creationists interpret the facts before them based on the bible, while evolutionists interpret the facts based on the theory of evolution, amongst other things.

It has also been mentioned that one cannot believe in evolution. Yes, one can. In fact, evolution requires more faith than creationism. Evolution requires leaps of faith, once one gets past the basics and drills down past the BBC specials, National Geographic, and what the press likes to feed us. There are huge gaps in the Evolutionary time scale, and there are huge questions still waiting for answers. Creationism requires faith in the Bible, and in the God of the Bible. Considering the two, and having researched both beyond the basics, I have chosen (and those friends I have chosen to debate this topic with) my path. This being a battle for your mind (and if you believe the bible, your soul), I suggest you look a little deeper, and research those "findings" on both sides before making your decision.

Let me attempt to explain something I have a fairly solid opinion on. Feel free to ignore this post from here-on in - [insert standard disclaimer here].

Creation Science requires faith. To believe that creationists are correct requires a faith in the bible, and that it is what it says it is - the Word of God.

Evolutionary Science requires faith. To believe that evolutionists are correct requires a faith in (amongst others) the Theory of Evolution and in certain aspects of Darwinism (we are descended from whatever and have evolved over millions of years).

Stop me if I'm not making sense. It is taking a tremendous amount of effort to be unbiased. :D (In retrospect, I'm not sure how unbiased I've come across...)

@Debbie2: I wish I could have been there. It has been said that all creation declares the Glory of God - sounds like they were declaring it pretty loudly at that point. :)

Claymore

06-11-2006, 03:19 PM

Howcome the people slagging off evolution are ignorant in the relevant fields? They all seem to pick at things they think "seem" wrong, even though they haven't any background in the subject.

It has also been mentioned that one cannot believe in evolution. Yes, one can. In fact, evolution requires more faith than creationism. Evolution requires leaps of faith, once one gets past the basics and drills down past the BBC specials, National Geographic, and what the press likes to feed us. There are huge gaps in the Evolutionary time scale, and there are huge questions still waiting for answers. Creationism requires faith in the Bible, and in the God of the Bible. Considering the two, and having researched both beyond the basics, I have chosen (and those friends I have chosen to debate this topic with) my path. This being a battle for your mind (and if you believe the bible, your soul), I suggest you look a little deeper, and research those "findings" on both sides before making your decision.

Saying this would tend to indicate a lack of even the slightest bit of research on the matter.

Raithlin

06-11-2006, 03:26 PM

Howcome the people slagging off evolution are ignorant in the relevant fields? They all seem to pick at things they think "seem" wrong, even though they haven't any background in the subject.

Funny, that. It works both ways. You'd be amazed at the intense lack of knowledge some people have - despite knowledge of their chosen subject.

Know your enemy, as it is frequently said.

Saying this would tend to indicate a lack of even the slightest bit of research on the matter.

Care to elaborate?

Paul_S

06-11-2006, 03:33 PM

It has been mentioned that research is being done in a biased manner - truer words have not been said. Both evolutionists and creationists look at the same facts - they simply interpret them based on their pre-established beliefs. Thus, creationists interpret the facts before them based on the bible, while evolutionists interpret the facts based on the theory of evolution, amongst other things.

You mean like the new species and possible missing link between elephants and their ancestors that was publish just last week?
They are calling the new species "Eritreum melakeghebrekristosi".

They estimate it to be a 27-million-year-old fossil.
However they didn't stop there - they also estimated that it would have weighed 484 kg and stand about 1.28 m feet tall at the shoulder and drew pictures of what it would look like.

Do you know what they used to figured out what the creature looked like and how much it weighed? Take a look : http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/Fig1B-Eritreum_m2-m3_sm.jpg
That’s right - all this evolutionary hubbub has been caused by nothing more than the lower part of a mandible!
Unbiased science? :rolleyes:

A few years from now it'll probably be put into text books and taught to our kids as proof of evolution.

chiskop

06-11-2006, 03:44 PM

Does God exist or not? I don't know. I think that some will read the above and say, "so what, big deal. You saw a whale under a rainbow and it was pretty"; while others will think about all the millions and millions and millions of things that had to happen in order for a whale to appear at that moment where I was standing, as if on command from my own thought.

Whenever I read something like that, I think of All Things Dull and Ugly (http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/62639/Monty_Python/All_Things_Dull_And_Ugly).

Why is god only described as revealing himself in magnificence like you describe?

Raithlin

06-11-2006, 03:45 PM

:D Actually, that's a good example. However, there is also the current big news about a dolphin "with legs" - although on further reading one picks up that it is a set of extra fins... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15581204/
Now, all the "facts" about the extra fins being a throwback are simply a biased opinion being stated as fact - something which happens often. Because it is stated in this way, people think is it indeed fact - which leads us to the discussions that we have so often.

Raithlin

06-11-2006, 03:56 PM

Whenever I read something like that, I think of "All Things Dull and Ugly".

Why is god only described as revealing himself in magnificence like you describe?

All things dull and ugly is a typical piece of sarcasm (brilliantly written) by Monty Python (several twisted geniuses ;)). You do bring up a good point though.

Interestingly enough, some of the "vilest" creatures are stunningly interesting to examine, learn about, and really get into. The amazon frogs that change gender, for example, or the fly with it's incredibly complex eye. When they say all creation, they mean ALL. You just have to see it with the right perspective. ;)

Claymore

06-11-2006, 04:02 PM

Do you know what they used to figured out what the creature looked like and how much it weighed? Take a look : http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/Fig1B-Eritreum_m2-m3_sm.jpg
That’s right - all this evolutionary hubbub has been caused by nothing more than the lower part of a mandible!
Unbiased science? :rolleyes:

A few years from now it'll probably be put into text books and taught to our kids as proof of evolution.

And yet, exactly this sort of thing is used by forensic pathologists to identify human remains.

Have you seen the track record of these identifications? Some of the estimations they're made based on small bones have been shown to remarkably accurate when more complete fossils have been found.

Claymore

06-11-2006, 04:05 PM

Care to elaborate?

Yep. Almost all of the people trying to find fault with evolution have no training in the field whatsoever. Very few have any scientific training whatsoever, and even fewer have training in the fields of biology or paleontology and related fields.

Raithlin

06-11-2006, 04:12 PM

And yet, exactly this sort of thing is used by forensic pathologists to identify human remains.

Have you seen the track record of these identifications? Some of the estimations they're made based on small bones have been shown to remarkably accurate when more complete fossils have been found.

Human remains is one thing. Forensic specialists have a complete anatomy to work from. It's when they take a thumb bone and create an entire creature from it that I become skeptical about the process. Especially when they do this with a pre-conceived idea (based on evolutionary grounds, more often than not).

I'm busy scouring the net to find something I've seen before - bear with me. :)

Paul_S

06-11-2006, 04:12 PM

And yet, exactly this sort of thing is used by forensic pathologists to identify human remains.

Have you seen the track record of these identifications? Some of the estimations they're made based on small bones have been shown to remarkably accurate when more complete fossils have been found.

You mean like the Nabraska man and his wife which were created from a single tooth which later turned out to be a pigs tooth. Yeah these are the experts - we'd better believe whatever they say. :rolleyes:

noxibox

06-11-2006, 04:36 PM

An error made 90 years ago. And one that was promptly retracted when it was established, by scientists, that a mistake had been made.

As for stories from the press they are notorious for misinterpreting and misreporting the conclusions of scientific studies and the applicability of the results.

The actual report written on those dolphins probably goes into minute detail on how the researchers came to the conclusion that they were probably vestigial feet. And other researchers are welcome to step forward and present their opposing conclusion and a detailed analysis of why they believe their conclusion is correct.

LoneGunman

06-11-2006, 05:17 PM

on the one hand you have people arguing against Evolution because of carefully chosen old writings, assembled together in what is regarded as some sort of 'holy' book.
(to them I say 'dinosaurs'? Where's the mention of them? Hmmm?)

on the other hand, you have people arguing for Evolution, because its easier to believe that - given enough time - something will turn into something else.

Like Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.
Yeah right.

(Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.)

There is a third option, fully supported by evidence - which generally speaking is supressed, disregarded, and ignored by mainstream Science.

Rather than spell it out.

Look first at a lengthy overview of anomalies in Archeology - in other words - 'things' that shouldn't be where they are, IF the official view of history and science is correct:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/cat-arch.htm

Now try an article - 'A Brief History of Anomalies and Supression of Data in Archeology..
http://www.suppressedscience.net/archeology.html

Here's a look at locally found (SA) 3 BILLION year old metal spheres that were manufactured in some way:
http://community-2.webtv.net/WF11/3BillionYearOld/
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm

and you might want to read over 'scientific arguments against Evolution'
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

This doesnt mean to say that the only explanation for 'life' is either some supernatural ghost OR massive aeons of time.
There're enough anomalous hints to suggest an entirely different hypothesis - and - as the evidence is present and visible, you might want to consider expanding the debate somewhat.

If you believe in A, and B is proven to exist, which does not fit within the parameters of A - then one needs to throw out A and move to C - an entirely new framework that includes B.

Something that neither modern science - or those folks using 'faith' and reliance on human selected writings assembled into a book, operate with.

Thus ignoring clear evidence of a much older, stranger, and weirder history for humankind.

Browse through the large online resource of scientific anomalies:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sfonline.htm

Have a look over Alternative Science: http://www.alternativescience.com/index_copy(1).htm

A couple of writers with useful sites and links to help you expand the viewpoint -
Graham Hancock
http://www.grahamhancock.com/
and
Michael Cremo ('forbidden archeology')
http://www.mcremo.com/

Human Devolution website: http://www.humandevolution.com
Forbidden Archeology website: http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com

Paul_S

06-11-2006, 05:56 PM

on the one hand you have people arguing against Evolution because of carefully chosen old writings, assembled together in what is regarded as some sort of 'holy' book.
(to them I say 'dinosaurs'? Where's the mention of them? Hmmm?)

Uh ... the word dinosaur was only coined in 1841 so of course you're not going to find that exact word in old writings such as the Bible however there are descriptions that match some dinosaurs pretty well.

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24
* It “eats grass like an ox.”
* It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”) (Mature cedar tree trunks are pretty big.)
* Its “bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.”
* “He is the first of the ways of God.”
* “He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.”

Some people have suggested that Job could have been referring to a Brachiosaurus.

Then there is Leviathan which is a fire breathing reptile (what we'd probably call a dragon) mentioned in Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1
Dragons sound pretty far fetched but if you look at the bombardier beetle and the fact that nearly every culture has stories of fire-breathing dragons as well as the empty passages found in the skulls of some dinosaur fossils then it's not that hard to imagine that it could possibly have existed. We just haven't found any live ones yet - it would be pretty cool if we did!

BTW: I liked the rest of your post.

Nick333

06-11-2006, 06:06 PM

Evolution just make's no sense, how can people believe this stuff, everything on nature and science channels refer to evolution...

But there is just to big of a gap for it to be true.. a better example would be that there should be a species of apes that look/act almost human.. so did one ape wake up one morning and he was a human...

I think not

The people who believe in this stuff, know it to be true because they have taken the time to study it properly until they understood what was being said. Just because you don't understand complicated mathimatics doesnt make complicated mathematics untrue.

As for you problem with gaps. There have always been huge gaps in human understanding. In the middle ages ( a few hundred years ago, which is not very long ago on a cosmic scale even if you believe that the cosmos is only around 10 thousand years old.) people didnt know that there were microscopic organisms called bacteria that caused disease. Because of their ignorance they did exactly what youre doing now, which is to ascribe a supernatural cause to something they could not fathom.
Congratulations you have the same mentallity as an uneducated medieval peasant. Dont feel to bad though its not your fault. It is the fault of your parents and your deluded religious leaders who taught you that ignorance was a virtue. Almost everyone here was the victim of this form of mental abuse at one time ( including your parents and your religious leaders- it s a self perpetuating evil).

The realm of human knowledge is full gaps and probably always will being that we live in an ever expanding and infinite universe. That is what science is there for - to fill in the gaps. There are far fewer gaps in our knowledge than there were three hundred years ago and there will be far fewer gaps in three hundred years time. None of the gaps that have been filled have been filled by god and there is absolutely no evidence to suugest that any future gaps in human understanding of the universe will contain god.

Incidently one area of human knowledge that contains incredibly few gaps (and all those gaps will eventually be filled when scientists get around to researching them) is the field of evolution of species through natural selection.
The fact that your knowledge of the subject contains huge gaps is because you are not sufficiently educated on the subject. To use the analogy of mathematics again: would you dare to try dicredit a mathematical theorum because you are not educated in mathematics enough to understand said theorum ? If not (and I sincerely hope your answer is no) then what right have you to dismiss the one of the greatest products of human thought and physical research just because you havent taken the time to properly study the subject or just given up when it became to difficult for you to understand?

noxibox

06-11-2006, 06:28 PM

Look first at a lengthy overview of anomalies in Archeology - in other words - 'things' that shouldn't be where they are
What do they mean by shouldn't be there? For instance 'New World Dwarfs' and 'Asamanukpai: the Gold Coast Dwarfs'. Were these designated dwarf-free areas?

(Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.)
There is much mention of statistics, but I can't locate the actual data and calculations that were used to work out these claimed probabilities.

Has any one of these mathematicians worked out the probability that a being like god could just exist? What are the chances that such a thing would spontaneously appear?

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
What about a workable, but somewhat defective 747? Natural systems aren't perfect. They definitely give the impression having been cobbled together.

teraside

06-11-2006, 06:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNEAQlDcXPw ;) There's only one creator, and I wasn't made for debating :p

Nick333

06-11-2006, 06:48 PM

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

[/url]

Fred Hoyle was an atronomer. Why should we take the oppinion of a scientist from an unrelated field over the vast majority of biologists who dont dispute evolution?

Claymore

06-11-2006, 09:26 PM

(Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.)

What he actually said was "A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe."

(He also said, in Nauture magazine: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

The first, of course, is quite irrelevant to evolution; he's talking about abiogenesis. Apart from that, he demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of evolution anyway, since evolution is not random.

Hobagoas

06-11-2006, 09:30 PM

Im not too sure if this is offtopic from the offtopic topic (say what :confused: ) but anyway...Im currently reading Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion...I'm on page 38 so havent read enough to give a valid opinion on whether or not I agree or disagree with him, but it makes for interesting reading…him trying to explain why their can’t possibly be a god…there are only things in science that we can’t yet explain…but that won’t mean that we wont be able to explain it in future (I assume that’s what he will be getting at in further chapters)

One point I enjoyed and hadn't really considered before was how we tend to be "scared" of offending somebody by merely voicing our own opinion on their religion...or religion in general...and that one should be able to do so freely just as one voices ones opinion on political issues without being worried that one has hurt the other persons feelings or that cartoons of certain spiritual leaders leads to violence etc. Anyway, you might want to give it a read. He also wrote "River Out of Eden" in which he discusses the nature of evolution. Haven't read that yet...but it is next on the list

Paul_S

06-11-2006, 09:39 PM

The first, of course, is quite irrelevant to evolution; he's talking about abiogenesis. Apart from that, he demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of evolution anyway, since evolution is not random.

If evolution isn't random then what is the ingredient that controls the evolutionary process?

SuperAntMD

06-11-2006, 10:39 PM

With regards to the 747 thing I think all he meant is that it is very unlikely to have occurred.

Importantly perhaps, is the fact that evolution is often looked at the wrong way around. To ask "What are the odds of a human being evolving from a few inanimate particles?" is incorrect. Obviously the odds are very small. But thats what happened, equally easily of course were an infinite number of other possible forms evolving. When asking what are the chances of one of these other almost infinite possibilities arising the answer is going to be quite good. Don't be confused by the end product, the way we came out is just a result of the billions of slow changes that occurred over the enormous amount of time. If conditions had been even slightly different we might have come out very different indeed.

Its like the roulette wheel. The odds of 10 spins being black in a row are very small, but once nine have occurred the odds of the next one being black are still 50/50, evolution is simply a process from one spin to the next you don't have to worry about the outcome because it hasn't been decided before hand. If after observing a roulette wheel for 10 hours straight and recording the results you then say "what are the odds of the next ten hours being identical?" obviously the odds will be miniscule, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen in the first place

Nick333

06-11-2006, 10:49 PM

If evolution isn't random then what is the ingredient that controls the evolutionary process?

Um, natural laws.
Thats abit like asking what ingredient controls gravity.
Why dont you read a book on evolution, instead of expecting someone to explain it to you on a forum?

captainwifi

06-11-2006, 11:22 PM

pookfuzz

07-11-2006, 01:17 AM

Nope you are commiting a falacy known as Retrospective Specification
You are reading back into an original sample space information revealed only
on the realization of a particular event. What appears initially as one among
equiprobable events becomes under RS an improbable event in a sample space of only two points

Your roulette wheel example was dealt with via http:/www.uncommondescent.com Bill Demski (P.hd Probability Theory) -
CSI or Complex Specified Information. Just google for it.

I did google. And this is what I found.

The concept of specified complexity and related work is widely regarded as unsound.[1][2][3] One study states "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results.".[4] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[5] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.

My advise is that you should start thinking for yourself. Google may have many answers, but they are not always right. At least take the effort to read and understand what you paste. It took me 2 minutes to figure out that Dembski makes assumptions that something is true simply because it has not been proven false. I am sure if you bothered to read it you would have seen this as well.

I am actually surprised you have not tried to pull the ultra logics stunt again since it is flawed in much the same manner as the work of Dembski - and hides its flaws much better.

Anyway, it is unimportant what I believe, or for that matter what you believe. What is important is the truth, even if it means one of our beliefs must shatter. As someone who thinks evolution is correct and that there is no creator I would welcome proof one way or the other, even if it is contrary to my belief. I expect most other people with similar ideas would feel the same, we have no investment in evolution and being wrong is not going to be a huge life crisis, after all I don't go around trying to live my life according to evolution, thinking evolution has a special plan for me, or loves me.

Of course the truly amusing part is that we both could be wrong, there really might be a creator, just not the one you think.

Out of interest what do you suppose the Kolmogorov Complexity for god would be? Does it compress well? Would this indicate that if such a thing existed it was designed by something else?

Paul_S

07-11-2006, 06:18 AM

Um, natural laws.
Thats abit like asking what ingredient controls gravity.
Why dont you read a book on evolution, instead of expecting someone to explain it to you on a forum?

You mean natural laws shaped something as complex as the eyeball purely by chance?
If not by chance does that mean that the natural laws collectively have some form of intelligence with a goal in mind?

When I look at a car I can see evidence of design. When I look at an eyeball I see evidence of exquisite design!
I'd have an easier time accepting that cars evolved if you told me that - they're a lot simpler than a single protein.

sparklehorse

07-11-2006, 08:15 AM

You mean natural laws shaped something as complex as the eyeball purely by chance?No, go read up on natural selection. There is a random process involved, but it's easily misunderstood and not at all like what you are implying.

If not by chance does that mean that the natural laws collectively have some form of intelligence with a goal in mind?No, there is no goal in mind.

When I look at a car I can see evidence of design. When I look at an eyeball I see evidence of exquisite design!
I'd have an easier time accepting that cars evolved if you told me that - they're a lot simpler than a single protein.This argument is explained in detail by various authors. Go read up on natural selection and development of the eye. I can recommend The Blind Watchmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_watchmaker). PM me if you want me to send it to you. All these questions and concepts are explained in there. It's obvious that most of the people posting here, have no idea what they are talking about. Instead of just arguing from ignorance, why not actually go read up on the subject?

Paul_S

07-11-2006, 09:00 AM

No, go read up on natural selection. There is a random process involved, but it's easily misunderstood and not at all like what you are implying.
No, there is no goal in mind.

There is no goal in mind and it's a random process and "poof!" we just happened.

Instead of just arguing from ignorance, why not actually go read up on the subject?

Dawkins and other Darwinists never proved the blind watchmaker hypothesis: instead, they illustrate it. A Darwinist only has to imagine how some complex organ or organism might have originated by mutation and selection, and the theory has another confirming example. For example, Dawkins imagines that small tree-dwelling mammals might have survived falls more frequently if they happened to grow flaps of skin between their digits that slowed their descent. Over many generations, these flaps might have grown into wings as further mutations accumulated, and so four-footed creatures might become flying bats. That sort of storytelling counts as a scientific explanation in Darwinist circles, and no one expects the storyteller to demonstrate that such a process either can or did occur.

Dawkins begins his book with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
The only problem is that Dawkins is an staunch Darwinian believer so any thought of a creator is automatically ruled out.

Dawkins concedes that each and every plant or animal cell nucleus contains "a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."
What are the chances of 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica being written by a natural process that has neither intelligence nor any goal in mind let alone a single sentence?
That requires more faith for me to believe than it does to believe that nature was designed by an intelligent creator.

texo

07-11-2006, 09:24 AM

What are the chances of 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica being written by a natural process that has neither intelligence nor any goal in mind let alone a single sentence?
That requires more faith for me to believe than it does to believe that nature was designed by an intelligent creator.

It's the *amount* of information -- not the *quality* of information -- that is equal to 30 volumes of the EB. If your so-called "intelligent creator" is so intelligent then why are there so many flaws in the design?

As one of very many examples: the human throat. As biologist Paul Sherman explains (he's a professor of neurobiology and behavior at Cornell and presumably knows a lot more about these things than you or me):

"As soon as you begin to look at our bodies from an evolutionary perspective you see more and more we are not intelligently designed. For example, no engineer would design our throats with a windpipe that crosses the tube where food passes. If you were going to design this to eliminate choking you'd probably put your mouth in your forehead or your nasal opening in your throat. The human body is as one would expect from random mutations of previously existing structures and selection over eons."

sparklehorse

07-11-2006, 10:00 AM

There is no goal in mind and it's a random process and "poof!" we just happened.You keep calling it a random process that just happened by chance. As I said, this is a common misunderstanding of natural selection and how it drives evolution. It isn't just one unlikely random event that just happens, but a lot of very likely events that adds up to something complex.

Dawkins and other Darwinists never proved the blind watchmaker hypothesis: instead, they illustrate it. A Darwinist only has to imagine how some complex organ or organism might have originated by mutation and selection, and the theory has another confirming example. For example, Dawkins imagines that small tree-dwelling mammals might have survived falls more frequently if they happened to grow flaps of skin between their digits that slowed their descent. Over many generations, these flaps might have grown into wings as further mutations accumulated, and so four-footed creatures might become flying bats. That sort of storytelling counts as a scientific explanation in Darwinist circles, and no one expects the storyteller to demonstrate that such a process either can or did occur.That is just not true. The book I mentioned is just one of many that explains natural selection in easy to understand language. The theory if evolution and natural selection is backed up by heaps of well documented evidence which go well beyond what is explained in most popular books.

Dawkins begins his book with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
The only problem is that Dawkins is an staunch Darwinian believer so any thought of a creator is automatically ruled out.Not true at all, there simply isn't evidence for a creator, and plenty of evidence for natural selection.

Dawkins concedes that each and every plant or animal cell nucleus contains "a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."
What are the chances of 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica being written by a natural process that has neither intelligence nor any goal in mind let alone a single sentence?
That requires more faith for me to believe than it does to believe that nature was designed by an intelligent creator.Again, you are misunderstanding the random process of natural selection. You either did not read or understand the book.

Paul_S

07-11-2006, 10:05 AM

"As soon as you begin to look at our bodies from an evolutionary perspective you see more and more we are not intelligently designed. For example, no engineer would design our throats with a windpipe that crosses the tube where food passes. If you were going to design this to eliminate choking you'd probably put your mouth in your forehead or your nasal opening in your throat. The human body is as one would expect from random mutations of previously existing structures and selection over eons."

So if there was an intelligent designer he has no right to use artistic flair in his designs?
The throat works perfectly if you use it right - sure one has the occasional "oops" but it's certainly not the unsightly mess an engineer would create.

Nick333

07-11-2006, 10:07 AM

You mean natural laws shaped something as complex as the eyeball purely by chance?
If not by chance does that mean that the natural laws collectively have some form of intelligence with a goal in mind?

When I look at a car I can see evidence of design. When I look at an eyeball I see evidence of exquisite design!
I'd have an easier time accepting that cars evolved if you told me that - they're a lot simpler than a single protein.

Yup except that a car is an inanimate object, none of it components are biological organisms.

Once you have simple life evolution is inevitable, because genes inevitably mutate, it is not a chance happening. The effects of mutation are random but that occasionally a mutation will be beneficial is inevitable, again not a matter of mere chance. Most mutations hinder phenotypes within a species from surviving and therefore do not survive, the occassional beneficial mutation enhances a phenotypes chances of survival and inhances the chances of that genetic code that produced it is passed on.

So if you have an organism that has a mutated cell which is capable of discerning between light and dark it is more likely to survive than organisms of that species who cannot discern between light and dark and have a lesser chance of recognising the signs of danger that the sudden absense of light may convey( i.e that you are in the shadow of a predator). So the mutant phenotype survives, passes on its mutant genes and over time its offsprings mutate and sometimes those mutations offer an improvement on the light discerning cell and the species becomes capable of discerning shape, then distance, then colour etc.

The process is inevitable and the fact that organisms will improve as a result of it is inevitable. The direction that evolution will take is random to a point, but that usefull mutations will be improved upon by more usefull mutations is inevitable. In fact because light has the potential to be usefull to life it would be inevitable that life would evovle to take advantage of the existence of light to its fullest potential.

Now all you have to do is prove that life hasnt been around long enough for life to have evolved into something usefull.

Paul_S

07-11-2006, 10:08 AM

Not true at all, there simply isn't evidence for a creator, and plenty of evidence for natural selection.

Ah ... but that all depends on how one chooses to view the evidence.
Naturalism or creationism - both are religions in their own right.

texo

07-11-2006, 10:28 AM

So if there was an intelligent designer he has no right to use artistic flair in his designs?
The throat works perfectly if you use it right - sure one has the occasional "oops" but it's certainly not the unsightly mess an engineer would create.

Your intelligent creator's "artistic flair" causes thousands of (human) deaths every year... many of them children under a year old*. That's your loving god for you... mmm this way works best, but hell, it just looks better that way... let them choke if they must, I'm an artist!

*Among children less than 1 year of age, choking accounts for almost 40 percent of unintentional injury deaths. [Baker SP, O’Neill B, Ginsburg MJ, Li G. The Injury Fact Book. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992.]

noxibox

07-11-2006, 10:38 AM

When I look at a car I can see evidence of design. When I look at an eyeball I see evidence of exquisite design!
Then you need to look closer, or have your eyes checked. The human eye has a few bizarre 'design' choices.

noxibox

07-11-2006, 10:40 AM

Your intelligent creator's "artistic flair" causes thousands of (human) deaths every year... many of them children under a year old*. That's your loving god for you... mmm this way works best, but hell, it just looks better that way...
Nature demonstrates that if there is a designer that this designer is flawed. Incapable of perfect design.

sparklehorse

07-11-2006, 10:50 AM

Ah ... but that all depends on how one chooses to view the evidence.
Yup, you choose to ignore it.

Naturalism or creationism - both are religions in their own right.
Yes, just like gravity, quantum physics, and electricity are religions.

Claymore

07-11-2006, 11:09 AM

GavinMannion

07-11-2006, 11:19 AM

Claymore

07-11-2006, 11:28 AM

If evolution isn't random then what is the ingredient that controls the evolutionary process?

Selection. That's the whole idea. Yes, there are some relatively random mutations involved, but the natural selection process winnows out changes that are not beneficial.

Thing is, evolution is fact. The *Theory* of Evolution by Natural Selection, however, is the best explanation we have for the observed facts of evolution, and the theory is contantly undergoing refinement, as scientific theories do.

Our evidence for evolution does not merely lie with fossils. In fact, evolution can be shown solely by means of changes in mitochondrial DNA, and by the genetic clock. Fossils, however, support the DNA and genetic evidence - and they support fossil evidence, in turn. Then we have geological evidence which supports all the fossil evidence, and evidence from elsewhere too (ice-core samples, etc.)

The evidence is so completely overwhelming that to deny it is to deny our very perception of reality.

The theory of evolution is very best explanation for all this evidence that we have. There are always refinements to the details, like when new evidence is discovered, but these refinements are not changing the theory.

If there *were* any alternatives to the theory of evolution that could explain all that evidence, believe me, any scientist would be delighted to publish it.

Claymore

07-11-2006, 11:31 AM

Look yet another religious argument going around in circles....

On one side you have thousands of scientists, biologists, physicists and all round educated people constantly proving and researching things. On the other side you have a book put together by a politician...

Hmm.. I wonder which side I would put my trust in?

Let's not mention that both the Catholic Church and the Church of England support evolution (though they do prefer to say that evolution was guided by God).

SuperAntMD

07-11-2006, 12:00 PM

sparklehorse

07-11-2006, 12:16 PM

Selection. That's the whole idea. Yes, there are some relatively random mutations involved, but the natural selection process winnows out changes that are not beneficial.

Thing is, evolution is fact. The *Theory* of Evolution by Natural Selection, however, is the best explanation we have for the observed facts of evolution, and the theory is contantly undergoing refinement, as scientific theories do.

Our evidence for evolution does not merely lie with fossils. In fact, evolution can be shown solely by means of changes in mitochondrial DNA, and by the genetic clock. Fossils, however, support the DNA and genetic evidence - and they support fossil evidence, in turn. Then we have geological evidence which supports all the fossil evidence, and evidence from elsewhere too (ice-core samples, etc.)

The evidence is so completely overwhelming that to deny it is to deny our very perception of reality.

The theory of evolution is very best explanation for all this evidence that we have. There are always refinements to the details, like when new evidence is discovered, but these refinements are not changing the theory.

If there *were* any alternatives to the theory of evolution that could explain all that evidence, believe me, any scientist would be delighted to publish it.
Good post, I wish I could say it like that ;)

Doges

07-11-2006, 12:23 PM

There is a third option, fully supported by evidence - which generally speaking is supressed, disregarded, and ignored by mainstream Science.

Hi LG, wondered when you would show up with a spanner! Thanx for the links. Although I am a biologist through and through, I do like to read everything I can get my grubby little paws on, and these links are very interesting!

(What do you think of the book Slave Species of God? I bought it, and still have to read it...)

The_Librarian

07-11-2006, 12:35 PM

In the end it is up to each individual to decide and choose for him/herself, I cannot force my beliefs and views onto others as that would be wrong.

But I can tell them what I think, and why I think they're wrong, and leave it at that.

From my side, if I look at the complexity of the human eye... the reproduction organs (male and female)... the construction of a sperm cell... how these could have evolved is beyond me... Evolution cannot explain these things, nor how they could have evolved, and this one of the reasons why I don't believe in the evolution theory as set forth by Charles Darwin.

But I do believe in a Creation, and a Lord.

masticore

07-11-2006, 12:44 PM

Who made God? Something so complex couldn't just exist.
Why not? We (humanity) have almost zero idea of what is in the universe. An entity that can create life ... why not? A turtle that swims through space ... why not?

No, I'm not saying God (whichever one you want to refer to) exists. But, personally, I cannot discount the possibility (but I do choose to believe that he/she/it doesn't exist.) I also cannot discount the possibility of a planet-sized octopus that craps out suns. To me, the possibilities are literally endless. Just because our human minds cannot comprehend something, it doesn't mean that it cannot exist - to think so is highly arrogant.

Nah, sorry I don't know about all the technical aspects about it, the great thing is you don't have to know, you get to have a personal walk and life with your maker, you need the good book, but the Spirit lives inside you, and speaks to you on a daily basis ;)
Which maker would that be then? The old bearded dude that sent his son here to die or the octopus that craps suns?

I've read a couple of good books. The bible isn't one of them. The whole old- and new-testament thing doesn't wash with me. How can an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-everythinging entity change their actions so radically? Surely an infallible, omnipotent entity would get it right the first time? An infallible, omnipotent entity wouldn't go through this scenario:

"Let's try being vengeful with them. Yo, if that mofo kills your wife, then you go right ahead and kill his wife. Yes, go on. Kill her. ...... hmmm this ain't working. Maybe 'lets try it this way for a while' ... okay, nooit. If that mofo kills your wife, then you let him kill your next wife. OK? O-KAY! ... geez but these humans dig killing eachother. Sod them. I'm outta here."

There are no spirits in me. The last whiskey I had was over 2 weeks ago; those spirits are long since flushed ... and all they ever said to me was "Yesh, haff a nudder one" and later "How's that head feeling?"

Spirits, gods, good books : what a load of bollocks.

- Fossils were found of jelly fish and of fish giving birth, neither of this is possible unless there was a giant flood that instantly crushed them (Noah and the Ark)

- The giraffe apparently evolved from something similar to a horse, story was it couldn't reach the food on the tree so it got a long neck, now lets assume this was true & therefore they all have long necks, next they want water and when they bend down, some of them die from all the blood rushing to the head, assume this is also true,next they lift their heads back up and more die from blood now rushing back down to their hearts. Basically there is too much organs that were needed for them to live that could have been developed(evolved) since they would have needed them all at once in order to survive.
Noah ... and the Ark. I prefer continental drift and plate tectonics to God flooding the world by rain cos we were naughty. Come the ***** on. Noah put 2 of each of the hundreds of thousands of creatures on the planet in a wooden boat and floated around for 40 days ?! You don't really believe that, do you :eek: ?

In any event, 40 days & 40 nights of rain wouldn't instantly crush a jellyfish.

As for the giraffe ... (assuming evolution is correct) their necks wouldn't have grown over-night. It would have been a gradual process that they would have become accustomed to ...

Yep. Almost all of the people trying to find fault with evolution have no training in the field whatsoever. Very few have any scientific training whatsoever, and even fewer have training in the fields of biology or paleontology and related fields.
We do so because it's easier to just dump everything on "God". It's God's will. God made it so. God said I must kill him. We're a pathetic excuse for intelligent life.

Here's one for you all : God made the BigBang.

Doges

07-11-2006, 12:44 PM

In the end it is up to each individual to decide and choose for him/herself, I cannot force my beliefs and views onto others as that would be wrong.

.....

Live and let live....

I agree, we all have the right to make our own decisions, and decide for ourselves what we think is right and are comfortable with. No need to call each other stupid/retarded/evolutionary mishaps or whatever. Biology is a complicated subject, and one of the first things you learn when you study this subject is to never assume you know all there is to know. The moment you think you undestand something, or you think a theory describes everything, something will pop up to bite you in the arse! :D

GavinMannion

07-11-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by noxibox View Post
Who made God? Something so complex couldn't just exist.

No, I'm not saying God (whichever one you want to refer to) exists. But, personally, I cannot discount the possibility (but I do choose to believe that he/she/it doesn't exist.) I also cannot discount the possibility of a planet-sized octopus that craps out suns. To me, the possibilities are literally endless. Just because our human minds cannot comprehend something, it doesn't mean that it cannot exist - to think so is highly arrogant.

I think you missed the question. Noxibox was not saying that god could not exist he was asking who made god. He couldn't just pop into being all by himself now could he?

masticore

07-11-2006, 01:11 PM

I think you missed the question. Noxibox was not saying that god could not exist he was asking who made god. He couldn't just pop into being all by himself now could he?

why not?
My point was that we do not know all that is possible in our universe. A creature/entity/"god" that makes itself : as impossible as it seems to our minds, I don't believe it's accurate to say it is utterly impossible.

Claymore

07-11-2006, 01:16 PM

From my side, if I look at the complexity of the human eye... the reproduction organs (male and female)... the construction of a sperm cell... how these could have evolved is beyond me... Evolution cannot explain these things, nor how they could have evolved, and this one of the reasons why I don't believe in the evolution theory as set forth by Charles Darwin.

Evolution certainly can explain those things, and does so in great detail. It certainly does a far better job that any ideas of design (who the hell would design PMS?).

Have yourself a read of Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" - it's enlightening, and explains things in an easy-to-understand way.

texo

07-11-2006, 01:17 PM

From my side, if I look at the complexity of the human eye... the reproduction organs (male and female)... the construction of a sperm cell... how these could have evolved is beyond me...

If you wish to educate yourself with some well-documented scientific FACTS, please follow the links shared by myself and others in this very thread which very clearly explain EXACTLY how the eye evolved. When you've done so, you're welcome to come back here and let us know if the evolution of the eye is still beyond you.

Raithlin

07-11-2006, 01:19 PM

Masticore makes an interesting point. Don't assume that because you can't understand it, it can't be. Besides being highly arrogant, thinking that way is highly dangerous.

noxibox

07-11-2006, 01:19 PM

Why not? We (humanity) have almost zero idea of what is in the universe. An entity that can create life ... why not? A turtle that swims through space ... why not?
You misunderstand. If someone claims it is inconceivable that something as complex as a cell could have come about without the intervention of an external designer, then they must agree that something as complex as a god could also not have come about without the intervention of an external designer. Otherwise this god must have evolved.

GavinMannion

07-11-2006, 01:26 PM

why not?
My point was that we do not know all that is possible in our universe. A creature/entity/"god" that makes itself : as impossible as it seems to our minds, I don't believe it's accurate to say it is utterly impossible.

:eek: Wow and evolution is impossible :D

Now we have Gods making themselves. Why only one?

Maestr0

07-11-2006, 01:33 PM

LOL! No wait...wrong thread. Still.....LOL! geeks

Highflyer_GP

07-11-2006, 01:35 PM

ROFLOL @ God creating himself. Man I've heard some retarded things before, but this one steals the show :D

porn$tar

07-11-2006, 01:37 PM

simple_simon

07-11-2006, 01:42 PM

still think there was some ET assisted evolution

porn$tar

07-11-2006, 01:42 PM

My god can you really be this stupid. Evolition is a process. There arent any half fish half lions. Really now. Come on.

FIsh crawled out of the water, became able to breath air. Much like the Newt of today. Repitles formed from those animals, repitles to mammels.
REally come on now!
With everything we see around us how can there be those that have blind faith in some higher power.

Can your spelling really be this terrible?

noxibox

07-11-2006, 01:50 PM

brought over from the religion thread...

For all you believers out there.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm
The more important question is why we're so badly designed that our limbs don't just grow back? Or why can our bodies not heal themselves without assistance - a serious injury left to itself will result in permanent disability or death.

And why aren't our immune systems already pre-programmed with every known pathogen past, present and future?

Of course this could all be some experiment. We being the equivalent of lab mice.

Raithlin

07-11-2006, 01:56 PM

brought over from the religion thread...

The more important question is why we're so badly designed that our limbs don't just grow back? Or why can our bodies not heal themselves without assistance - a serious injury left to itself will result in permanent disability or death.

And why aren't our immune systems already pre-programmed with every known pathogen past, present and future?

Of course this could all be some experiment. We being the equivalent of lab mice.

I could give you the answer, but you won't believe it. Something about a book that's too boring, and isn't accurate (despite proof to the contrary).

It's been an interesting thread, but I'm trying hard to read about evolution. It hurts. Once I know what you fellows believe, I'll come back and try and talk sense that all can understand. :rolleyes: This research takes time. <sigh>

Mice. Experiments. 42. I've read this somewhere...

masticore

07-11-2006, 01:56 PM

You misunderstand. If someone claims it is inconceivable that something as complex as a cell could have come about without the intervention of an external designer, then they must agree that something as complex as a god could also not have come about without the intervention of an external designer. Otherwise this god must have evolved.
I see your point. But again, it is only inconceivable to us. Sure, that's all we have to measure against, but other life forms in the universe (whether they exist or not is OT) might have different ways of conceiving things.

:eek: Wow and evolution is impossible :D

Now we have Gods making themselves. Why only one?
I never said evolution is impossible ;)

As for why only one god ... who knows. I certainly don't. The reasons could be endless. Maybe only 1 "thing" figured out how to do it; maybe a whole bunch of them did and they took different galaxies / different parts of the (various?) universes; maybe they "battled it out"; maybe it's a law of a universe that only 1 such entity can exist ... I have NFI.

ROFLOL @ God creating himself. Man I've heard some retarded things before, but this one steals the show :D
Arrogance demonstrated, IMO...or sheer narrow-mindedness. I cannot understand how a supposedly intelligent lifeform can discount a possibility just because they cannot understand/comprehend it.

LOL @ porn$tar

GavinMannion

07-11-2006, 02:00 PM

Highflyer_GP

07-11-2006, 02:02 PM

Arrogance demonstrated, IMO...or sheer narrow-mindedness. I cannot understand how a supposedly intelligent lifeform can discount a possibility just because they cannot understand/comprehend it.

Nah arrogance would be trying so hard to live in denial that one is even willing to tell others that God created himself. Think about that for a second. He would have to be in existence to create something, including "himself". We're expected to accept the possibility of being created, but creationists refuse to accept the possibility that we evolved?

That my friend is arrogance.

GavinMannion

07-11-2006, 02:04 PM

We're expected to accept the possibility of being created, but creationists refuse to accept the possibility that we evolved?

That my friend is arrogance.

We are expected to accept that God created himself out of nothing then us. Which is much more logical than scientific theories backed up by solid research and a dash of facts :)

I love this create himself idea....

nthdimension

07-11-2006, 02:06 PM

I could give you the answer, but you won't believe it. Something about a book that's too boring, and isn't accurate (despite proof to the contrary).
The answer is that in a design this makes no sense. Particularly not from an allegedly highly skilled designer.

In a natural selection scenario it makes perfect sense that limbs do not regenerate. And it is partly related to the fact that healing only works well for minor injuries.

masticore

07-11-2006, 02:14 PM

Okay I like this idea, so if God created himself what was he before he created himself? How did he figure out how to do it when he didn't exist?

Do you think he created himself, then the world and then uncreated himself to confuse the ***** out of us. Or maybe he thought he could create himself again and never did?

:)

You're asking questions constrained by our knowledge of how things work in the universe. We assume, because it is what we have experienced on earth and thus learned and indoctrinated into ourselves as fact, that it is impossible for something to just be. That assumption may well be disproved in other areas / lifeforms of our universe. And who's to say there's only 1 universe. We do - because it is all we have experienced.

Once again, my point is that we do not, with 100% certainty, know. The possibilities, for now, are endless.

Personally, as I said, I have chosen not to believe in a god due to lack of evidence. I concede that a god (in whatever form / identity) may exist but until he/she/it comes down and shows me some pretty neat tricks, I will remain an unbeliever.

I'm not saying that God created himself/herself/itself from nothing ... I'm just raising the possibility.

simple_simon

07-11-2006, 02:16 PM

i believe people are programmed from birth into heirarchical thought..i.e. there is always a king /queen, etc....alpha male, alpha female, etc.

they just continue to follow this thought threw to there is a superior being that created us and is "die baas".

all though my personal feeling on the matter is that there is a god....only its everything and everything that is not. in otherwords we are aspects of this great being, including the sand, frogs, birds, stones...you get my drift.

evolution is a process in this being of itself experiencing itself differently....according to our observation...more and more better over time.

just a thought

GavinMannion

07-11-2006, 02:18 PM

granted, but the argument that God may have created himself does nothing in the evolution - creationism debate.

One cannot say that evolution is impossible and at the same time say God created himself. I agree we cannot for 100% certainty say it's not possible. 99.999999% maybe but not 100%. However evolution is a much higher probablity...

Glad to see you don't believe in God (I have an axe to grind with religion)

Nick333

07-11-2006, 02:18 PM

Nah arrogance would be trying so hard to live in denial that one is even willing to tell others that God created himself. Think about that for a second. He would have to be in existence to create something, including "himself". We're expected to accept the possibility of being created, but creationists refuse to accept the possibility that we evolved?

That my friend is arrogance.

I love the God creating himself bit. Its alot like eating your own head or pulling yourself out your own arsehole.

First there was nothing then poof there was God. Says God: "*****, how the **** did I do that? Hang on, who the hell is this "I" Im talking about? ****ing hell lI did it again...arrgggh" The comic potential is endless, no wonder the old testament god is such a bastard. Its not his fault its his environment. It was just to wierrd for him to be normal.

masticore

07-11-2006, 02:20 PM

Nah arrogance would be trying so hard to live in denial that one is even willing to tell others that God created himself. Think about that for a second. He would have to be in existence to create something, including "himself". We're expected to accept the possibility of being created, but creationists refuse to accept the possibility that we evolved?

That my friend is arrogance.

I did not say God created himself/herself/itself. I only said that I will not discount the possibility. I am not arrogant enough to assume I know everything of the universe and its workings.
I have never sided with the evolutionist or creationists. I have only mentioned what I consider to be possibilities. You obviously have some very strong feelings about this and have therefore misinterpreted my post ... or you need glasses.

masticore

07-11-2006, 02:22 PM

I love the God creating himself bit. Its alot like eating your own head or pulling yourself out your own arsehole.

First there was nothing then poof there was God. Says God: "*****, how the **** did I do that? Hang on, who the hell is this "I" Im talking about? ****ing hell lI did it again...arrgggh" The comic potential is endless, no wonder the old testament god is such a bastard. Its not his fault its his environment. It was just to wierrd for him to be normal.

LMFAO :D

masticore

07-11-2006, 02:25 PM

GavinMannion

07-11-2006, 02:30 PM

Can I ask the creation people how would you explain things like the following?

A cave believed to be the biggest in Britain has been unearthed in the Peak District in Derbyshire.

Titan is thought to be almost 460ft (140m) deep, as high as the London Eye, sculpted out of limestone by rain water over millions of years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/6122884.stm

If it took millions of years to create and we have not been around that long did god create it himself and if so why?

Highflyer_GP

07-11-2006, 02:56 PM

I did not say God created himself/herself/itself. I only said that I will not discount the possibility. I am not arrogant enough to assume I know everything of the universe and its workings.
I have never sided with the evolutionist or creationists. I have only mentioned what I consider to be possibilities. You obviously have some very strong feelings about this and have therefore misinterpreted my post ... or you need glasses.

Fair enough, but right now the probability of evolution being correct over creation is much much higher. There may very well be other possibilities, but we know much more about evolution. To believe a story written by primitive peasants which nobody will ever prove, you have to admit is kinda retarded.

With science we get closer and closer each day to a better understanding of where we came from and where we're going. With religion you have to take it for granted that what you're being told is true, without being able to question anything. Think about how that would limit people's ability to think laterally if they're brainwashed into not questioning anything.

So yeah I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing at the idea of God creating himself. As Nick333 put it, it lends itself to comic relief.

Raithlin

07-11-2006, 03:19 PM

I'm reading some very interesting articles on this subject. Specifically, Blind Watchmaker (and very scientifically sound rebuttals making the author look a fool), and something that Paul_S touched on, and that I have mentioned elsewhere (probably other forums): the real issue at hand is not how long it took (although that is an issue), but whether creation (the act of creatures coming about, be it direct creation or evolution) was guided i.e. intelligent creator, or unguided i.e. no higher power.

What gets me at this point is how, even at the most basic levels (Uni. Berkeley's Evolution 101 being a perfect example), natural (unguided) selection is compared to intelligent selection - farmers selecting certain properties over others to make future crops bigger, better, tastier, etc. The latter is intelligently guided, the former not. How can the two possibly be compared in a similar light?

Also, changes in DNA were mentioned previously as proof of evolution. How did that DNA come about? From proteins? If so, how did those proteins possibly come together at the right time, right place, and without reacting with each other first? How did said proteins (assuming they got the first bit right) manage to be organised into the right format for DNA - even simple DNA - to be formed? And all this by natural selection?

There is still a lot that evolutionists need to answer before I even begin to consider the theory to be anything more than a desperate attempt to prove that we don't need God. And yes, I'm reading up on both sides of the story, along with scientific proofs. (My head hurts :D)

Claymore

07-11-2006, 03:39 PM

What gets me at this point is how, even at the most basic levels (Uni. Berkeley's Evolution 101 being a perfect example), natural (unguided) selection is compared to intelligent selection - farmers selecting certain properties over others to make future crops bigger, better, tastier, etc. The latter is intelligently guided, the former not. How can the two possibly be compared in a similar light?

Pretty easily, actually. natural selection selects for survival, to get to the root of the matter. Any change that benefits the survival of organisms will tend to be selected for. So if a slightly larger beak on a Galapagos finch gives it an advantage over a smaller-beaked one, it's more likely to survive and procreate.

Guided selection, on the other hand, selects for attributes other than survival - for example, breeding apple trees to produce tastier apples rather than bitter ones. This can be quite contrary to survival though - the nicer apples may be more attractive to insects and other fruit eaters, and that could reduce the chances of survival of the tree species (and why we need things like pesticides).

Also, changes in DNA were mentioned previously as proof of evolution. How did that DNA come about? From proteins? If so, how did those proteins possibly come together at the right time, right place, and without reacting with each other first? How did said proteins (assuming they got the first bit right) manage to be organised into the right format for DNA - even simple DNA - to be formed? And all this by natural selection?

"The Seven Daughters of Eve" (Brian Sykes) and "The Ancestor's Tale" (Richard Dawkins) have pretty good explantions of this, I seem to remember.

lilDeath

07-11-2006, 03:50 PM

If evolution was true..

If we come from Apes, and before apes we came out of the sea... then why are there no half sea, half land creatures..

Im talking about a ape looking thing with fins...
IIRC there are quite a few, more than a handful at least, beings that have such strange traits... iow not conventional beings at all ... or at least what MAN would consider normal to be in this century / lifetime / eon ...
Man cannot explain the unexplainable ... there are certain things a mere mortal's mind cannot comprehend

noxibox

07-11-2006, 05:05 PM

Nick333

07-11-2006, 05:19 PM

Man cannot explain the unexplainable ... there are certain things a mere mortal's mind cannot comprehend

Lol. Like how the earth could be round with out us falling off (gravity). How the Sun could burn for millions of years without burning out(nuclear fission).
Basically everything we didnt know 500 years ago and know today was thought to be beyond the comprehension of mere mortals once.

lilDeath

07-11-2006, 06:06 PM

Lol. Like how the earth could be round with out us falling off (gravity). How the Sun could burn for millions of years without burning out(nuclear fission).
Basically everything we didnt know 500 years ago and know today was thought to be beyond the comprehension of mere mortals once.
ah, an unbeliever ...
sic him ;) :D

SuperAntMD

07-11-2006, 06:56 PM

Raithlin

08-11-2006, 09:00 AM

Wooah Nelly, read this, its a 52 year old experiment proving how easy it is to create amino acids, being searching for it for a while now but I couldn't remember the scientists names.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

Now evolve your thinking.

No. An atmosphere without oxygen would be an atmosphere without protection from UV, right? No oxygen = no ozone layer = no protection from UV rays. The lab didn't take that into account. IIRC (it's a little fuzzy) the basic components, amino acids themselves and (should it get that far) the resulting proteins (assuming the amino acids were able to form proteins - got an experiment proving that?) are susceptible to UV radiation, and would break down faster than they could build up (the lab test you mention "sped up" the process, so we can assume that in the evolutionary time scale this would take a long time...).

The other thing that bothers me is that nowhere have I found any evidence of DNA (once again, assuming such a complex thing could result from natural selection, if the concept was viable back then) being created spontaneously. Come to think of it, I've seen at no point any evidence of any code being formed spontaneously. Anywhere. What I have read is what science knows to be a fact: code systems (ala DNA) always have an intelligent source.

Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

'A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.

'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.'

W. Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany

Be back later. I'm not convinced yet. You?

sparklehorse

08-11-2006, 09:41 AM

The other thing that bothers me is that nowhere have I found any evidence of DNA (once again, assuming such a complex thing could result from natural selection, if the concept was viable back then) being created spontaneously. Come to think of it, I've seen at no point any evidence of any code being formed spontaneously. Anywhere. What I have read is what science knows to be a fact: code systems (ala DNA) always have an intelligent source.

Be back later. I'm not convinced yet. You?Did you read the books Claymore mentioned?

Doges

08-11-2006, 11:40 AM

Also, changes in DNA were mentioned previously as proof of evolution. How did that DNA come about? From proteins? If so, how did those proteins possibly come together at the right time, right place, and without reacting with each other first? How did said proteins (assuming they got the first bit right) manage to be organised into the right format for DNA - even simple DNA - to be formed? And all this by natural selection?

There is still a lot that evolutionists need to answer before I even begin to consider the theory to be anything more than a desperate attempt to prove that we don't need God. And yes, I'm reading up on both sides of the story, along with scientific proofs. (My head hurts :D)

Just to get you back on track, DNA consists of a chain of nucleotides (of which there are 4). These nucleotides are made up of common chemical elements like O, P, C and N. The information held in a DNA molecule is then "read" by the cell, and a protein is formed based on that description. Every protein is made up from a pool of 19 amino-acids and one imino-acid. These molecules consist of the Elements C, H and N.

As to the other parts of your question, if nobody else gives a satisfactory answer (other than gross assumptions based on misinformation), I will attemp to answer it as best could.

Keep on reading up on this interesting subject, and please look past the religious debate. Some people will keep on insisting that this theory is the ultimate proof that there is no God. Fortunately it is not. In an infinite and complex universe, we as humans will be pretty arrogant (which we are), to think we know everything there is to know about any one subject, and also to think that we know all about how life on earth came to be.

Highflyer_GP

08-11-2006, 11:45 AM

Keep on reading up on this interesting subject, and please look past the religious debate. Some people will keep on insisting that this theory is the ultimate proof that there is no God. Fortunately it is not. In an infinite and complex universe, we as humans will be pretty arrogant (which we are), to think we know everything there is to know about any one subject, and also to think that we know all about how life on earth came to be.
I think that evolution and God are two different topics altogether. To me it seems the other way around - creationists use their creation theory to try and justify the existence of their specific God.

Raithlin

10-11-2006, 12:25 AM

Someone mentioned a whale earlier on. What proof do you have? I only see imaginations at work. Point me please - not sure which (if any) sites to believe.

Probably none, in retrospect, since they all look to the same broken fossils.

Claymore

10-11-2006, 09:21 AM

Someone mentioned a whale earlier on. What proof do you have? I only see imaginations at work. Point me please - not sure which (if any) sites to believe.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/landtosea.htm

Debbie

10-11-2006, 11:20 AM

Great links and discussions here- Claymore, Doges, GM I particularly enjoy your posts. So much interesting stuff to read!

Someone mentioned a whale earlier on. What proof do you have? I only see imaginations at work. Point me please - not sure which (if any) sites to believe.

If this be in reference to me, then I assure you, there was no imagination at work. As for 'proof', I can only offer a crappy cellphone pic of said rainbow over sea, sans whale, and taken a good hour or so after such.

Claymore

10-11-2006, 12:17 PM

I learn a lot myself. Every time I make a post, I have to do some research. I'm becoming very educated.

Debbie

10-11-2006, 01:04 PM

I learn a lot myself. Every time I make a post, I have to do some research. I'm becoming very educated.

Well I'm getting a lot from this thread and the "Lets Debate Religion" one. So many interesting perspectives and arguments and things I had no idea about.

You know how sometimes someone says something, but you only really understand it years hence? I feel that much of what has been said in these threads I will only understand in time :)

Raithlin

10-11-2006, 01:31 PM

Great links and discussions here- Claymore, Doges, GM I particularly enjoy your posts. So much interesting stuff to read!

If this be in reference to me, then I assure you, there was no imagination at work. As for 'proof', I can only offer a crappy cellphone pic of said rainbow over sea, sans whale, and taken a good hour or so after such.

No reference to you, D2. :)

Raithlin

10-11-2006, 01:37 PM

Quoted from http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ ...

Although it is known only from fragmentary skull remains, those remains are very diagnostic, and they are definitely intermediate between Sinonyxand later whales. This is especially the case for the teeth.

How can one tell what the creature looked like when all they found was a skull - and only small parts of it? :confused: This is very borderline, if not outrageously false. By the way...

New discoveries have blown away this imaginative ‘reconstruction’. A prominent evolutionary whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues, unearthed more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature. The commentary on this paper in the same issue says, 'All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.'

Thewissen, J.G.M., Williams, E.M, Roe, L.J. and Hussain, S.T., Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413(6853):277–281, 20 September 2001.

Kinda blows that theory. Well, onto the next site. I'm learning too. :)

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html - See what the Pakicetid actually looked like.

Claymore

10-11-2006, 03:08 PM

Quoted from http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ ...

How can one tell what the creature looked like when all they found was a skull - and only small parts of it? :confused: This is very borderline, if not outrageously false. By the way...

Eh? Did you read what they said about the skull? They drew conclusions from the skull itself, not about anything else.

What do Creationists say was the origin of the whales? That they were created in their present form, complete with pelvis and rudimentary leg bones (in some species)?

Raithlin

10-11-2006, 04:22 PM

Eh? Did you read what they said about the skull? They drew conclusions from the skull itself, not about anything else.

What do Creationists say was the origin of the whales? That they were created in their present form, complete with pelvis and rudimentary leg bones (in some species)?

Yes, quite right. They drew conclusions from the skull, and put it in the ancestry line of whales.

As for Creationists, you have it right on the money. Pelvic bones in modern whales are quite functional - they anchor/strenghten the reproductive organs, and as such are different in male and female. As for vestigial legs, I need proof for that. I'm not talking about one sperm whale either with a 5" bone protruding from a hip. That's hardly a leg.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm looking at both sides despite my belief. You won't get me to change my thinking without some solid proof, but I want to see for once what the other side has. I'd like to broaden my world, as some would say. But I'm finding that most of the time, scientists are basing their findings on what they believe - and not the other way around. You see, Creation Science actually has the answers that fit perfectly with empirical science...

Interesting side note: The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp - I found this interesting too. And don't shoot the link down because of the site - I haven't done that once. ;)

nthdimension

10-11-2006, 04:56 PM

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.
What is that date though? The Hebrews acquired the flood myth from one of the nations that conquered them. From the geological record we know there was probably a 'flood' at the end of the last ice age.

The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary.
If scales were accurate I wouldn't need to have an idea what balance weights would be necessary to measure the mass. Anyone with any experience of measurement knows you have to have some idea of what tools to use before you start measuring.

Scientists are very careful about measurement. That is why measurement techniques are always being refined and why they apply as many techniques as possible to verify their data. And they are willing to admit their mistakes. Their measurements also come with estimates of the likely error rate. What's the estimated error rate for calculation of the Biblical timeline?

The fact some parts of the Bible might match up with historical events does not make all of the claimed history true, nor does it lend even slight credence to the supernatural aspects of the book.

One day we may refine our measurement techniques and discover that everything matches the claimed Biblical timeline (which itself is based on various assumptions), but we shall not at this time simply declare that a few errors means that the claimed Biblical timeline is correct. And such a result will still prove nothing about the supernatural claims made in the Bible.

The creationist view really does still rest on pointing out mistakes in a theory as proof that creation by supernatural means happened.

Claymore

10-11-2006, 10:33 PM

If scales were accurate I wouldn't need to have an idea what balance weights would be necessary to measure the mass. Anyone with any experience of measurement knows you have to have some idea of what tools to use before you start measuring.

Yup. There are a number of different ways of testing geological ages, and they work within certain ranges. Pick the wrong tool, and your results will be useless.

However, apart from radioisotope dating, there are other methods, which can be used for correlation.

Raithlin

12-11-2006, 06:16 PM

MyDraadloos

12-11-2006, 07:13 PM

henkk78

12-11-2006, 08:48 PM

I've read books on 'Scientific Creationism', 'Intelligent Design' and a healthy dose of Richard Dawkins.

Before saying that any of these 'theories' are wrong, do yourself a favour and read a bit.

If you don't get a more 'evolved' opinion, at least reading helps to improve your spelling abilities; something this thread sorely needs.

/me eats, shoots and leaves

Claymore

12-11-2006, 09:08 PM

Interesting thought. Evidence is fact. Evolution keeps changing it's theories, and how things happened, as evidence pops up. Creation simply slots the evidence in with the original theory. Nothing changes.

Well, the basics of the theory of evolution by natural selection has not changed in more than half a century, maybe even a century, depending on how you define it. What does change is that the exact mechanisms of the theory are refined as more evidence is discovered. In most cases, new evidence is merely confirming existing thought.

By contrast, the creation hypothesis does not change at all; what happens as new evidence is discovered is that the new evidence is denounced and ignored.

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 09:51 AM

I found this, and thought it would be food for thought. It clarifies what I've been trying to say for a while...

First published in
The Lie: Evolution
Chapter 2

The Autumn 1985 (Vol. 2, No. 5) issue of The Southern Skeptic (the official journal of the South Australian branch of the American Skeptics, whose aims are similar to American humanist groups), devoted its entire 30 pages to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page we read the following: “Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God.” These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religious group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the Book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science, or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky quotes Pierre Teihard de Chardin: “Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.” To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of J3sus as quoted in John 8:12: “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” In Isaiah 2:5 we are exhorted to “walk in the light of the Lord.” In verse 22 of the same chapter we read, “Cease ye from [trusting] man.”

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involves observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the big bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientist was there—no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe—in fact, everything—exists now, in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals, and plants, etc.) originated.

Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Surely, this is an apt description of evolution. Evolution is a belief system—a religion!

It only takes common sense to understand that one does not dig up an “age of the dinosaurs” supposedly existing 70–200 million years ago. One digs up dead dinosaurs that exist now, not millions of years ago.

Fossil bones do not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Nor do fossils have photographs with them telling you what the animals looked like as they roamed the earth long ago.

When people visit a museum they are confronted by bits and pieces of bones and other fossils neatly arranged in glass cases. These are often accompanied by pictures representing an artist’s impression of what the animals and plants could have looked like in their natural environment. Remember, no one dug up the picture, just the fossils. And these fossils exist in the present. For example, in Tasmania there is a sandstone bed containing millions of pieces of bones, most of which are no larger than the end of your thumb. The evolutionists have placed a picture at one particular excavation so that tourists can see how the animals and plants lived in the region “millions of years ago.” You can stare at those pieces of bones for as long as you like, but you will never see the picture the scientists have drawn. The picture is their story of their own preconceived bias, and that, ultimately, is all it ever can be.

When lecturing in schools and colleges, I like to ask the students what can be learned from a fossil deposit. I ask the students whether all the animals and plants contained in the deposits lived together, died together, or were buried together. I then warn them to make sure that the answer they give me is consistent with true scientific research. As they think about it, they come to realize that they do not know if the organisms lived together because they did not see it happen. They do not know if the organisms died together because they did not see that happen either. All they really know is that they are buried together because they were found together. Therefore, if you try reconstructing the environment in which the organisms lived just from what you find there, you could be making a terrible mistake. The correct use of science needs to be emphasized in our educational system.

The only way anyone could always be sure of arriving at the right conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon his knowing everything there is to know. Unless he knew that every bit of evidence was available, he would never really be sure that any of his conclusions were right. He would never know what further evidence there might be to discover and, therefore, whether this would change his conclusions. Neither could a person ever know if he had reached the point where he had all the evidence. This is a real problem for any human being—how can anyone ever be one hundred percent sure about anything? It is something of a dilemma, is it not? It is like watching a murder mystery on television. What happens? It is obvious. Halfway through, the viewer knows who did it—the butler. Towards the end, this conclusion is still obvious. Three minutes before the end, new evidence is admitted that you did not have before, and this totally changes your conclusions. It wasn’t the butler, after all!

However, starting with the irrefutable evidence of the Scriptures, we are told that in God the Father and Christ “ … are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). There is no way any human mind can know all there is to know. But we have someone who does. This ends our dilemma. We are in no doubt that what God has revealed in His Word is truthful and accurate. He is not a man that He should lie (Num. 23:19) about anything. In time, we will know more fully. He will add to our knowledge, but He will not change what His Word has already revealed.

No human being, no scientist, has all the evidence. That is why scientific theories change continuously. As scientists continue to learn new things, they change their conclusions.

The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same, the answers were entirely different!

I once debated with a geology professor from an American university on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist’s views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, “The reason scientific theories change is because we don’t know everything, isn’t it? We don’t have all the evidence.”

“Yes, that’s right,” he said.

I replied, “But, we will never know everything.”

“That’s true,” he answered.

I then stated, “We will always continue to find new evidence.”

“Quite correct,” he said.

I replied, “That means we can’t be sure about anything.”

“Right,” he said.

“That means we can’t be sure about evolution.”

“Oh, no! Evolution is a fact,” he blurted out.

He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But, the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not science!

sparklehorse

17-11-2006, 10:35 AM

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 10:43 AM

Bollocks. First creationists tried to make a science out of their religion with 'Creation Science'. That failed because it is just not true. Now they are trying to make a religion out of science. That will also fail because it is just not true. Deal with it. Science is supported by evidence and theories based on that evidence. Religion does not need evidence. Get the difference?

The theory of evolution and the process of natural selection is well supported by heaps of physical evidence that you can see, not just fossil records and unfounded beliefs.

Case in point...

Creation scientists have been around for a heck of a lot longer than evolution scientists. All the great minds in our history books (earlier than 1900) have been believers in Creation. (Don't give me that BS about it being prior to Darwin either - I'm talking people that actively believed it was true).

Read the article again. Both are religions at the end of the day. Funny how you reject the idea outright (and without any further investigation), yet I have asked for (and have read) materials to help me see your side. Yup, I get the idea now. :( It's all about being fair, presenting the evidence as it stands, hearing the theories, and weighing it all up - as long as I see things your way and don't present something that doesn't quite agree with your worldview... and you say it's not a religion?

[/rant]

noxibox

17-11-2006, 11:31 AM

Case in point...

Creation scientists have been around for a heck of a lot longer than evolution scientists. All the great minds in our history books (earlier than 1900) have been believers in Creation.
Well then it must be true. The earth is flat too. For the same reason.

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 11:38 AM

Well then it must be true. The earth is flat too. For the same reason.

Nice try. Galileo was one of those scientists. ;)

noxibox

17-11-2006, 12:24 PM

“Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God.”
Which is correct. It would not demonstrate the existence of a god. This does not make evolution a religion. But Genesis does not even agree with itself which is strange for an allegedly infallible, authoritative text. The Bible has all the appearances of a work of fiction with many authors and no infallible editor-in-chief overseeing it all.

The Autumn 1985 (Vol. 2, No. 5) issue of The Southern Skeptic
Can we see the original article?

Science is about observation, but it does not have to be direct observation. Have you seen any electrons lately?

Is it not possible to reconstruct a car crash after the event? Apparently not - you had to be there to witness the event.

What about reconstructing a crime from evidence at the scene?

It only takes common sense to understand
Try applying common sense to quantum mechanics.

“ … are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3)
What is actually said there? I can't be bothered to go find a book to check.

There is no way any human mind can know all there is to know. But we have someone who does. This ends our dilemma. We are in no doubt that what God has revealed in His Word is truthful and accurate. He is not a man that He should lie (Num. 23:19) about anything.
How do we know this? How do we know this god does not lie?

No human being, no scientist, has all the evidence. That is why scientific theories change continuously.
Why does the interpretation of the Bible keep changing? Why are some parts now totally ignored?

Evolution persists because it is the best explanation we have. If someone were to ever come along with an explanation that better fitted the facts scientists would accept it. This is why evolution is science.

arf9999

17-11-2006, 12:29 PM

Nice try. Galileo was one of those scientists. ;) Meaningless comparison. The fact is that most "scientists" prior to Copernicus (sp?) & Galileo thought that the world was flat.. Not to mention that Galileo was excommunicated from the Catholic church because of his beliefs. Defending creationism is rejecting all that the enlightenment brought to us.

That's the way science works... as you find more evidence, you adapt the theory. Creationism works the other way round.

noxibox

17-11-2006, 12:30 PM

Creation scientists have been around for a heck of a lot longer than evolution scientists. All the great minds in our history books (earlier than 1900) have been believers in Creation.
So because people have believed something for a long time it must be true?

Nice try. Galileo was one of those scientists.
He challenged the religious belief that the earth was flat. A belief that comes from the accurate Bible written by the infallible god.

Highflyer_GP

17-11-2006, 12:38 PM

Creation scientists have been around for a heck of a lot longer than evolution scientists. All the great minds in our history books (earlier than 1900) have been believers in Creation. (Don't give me that BS about it being prior to Darwin either - I'm talking people that actively believed it was true).
To be fair, as I recall people were persecuted for deviating from the standard point of view at the time - whether it be creation, God, the Earth being flat, or the Earth being the centre on the solar system. They were attacked by religious nuts for trying to think out of the box, which is why scientific progress really only started accelerating more recently.

Also another thing is that creationists always use the bible as a means of justification of supporting their "evidence", but the irritating thing is that Christianity is not the only religion preaching creation. So if these "creation scientists" really want to try and prove their theory to be more correct than evolution, maybe they should approach it from a more general point of view instead of fixating on one specific religion.

Highflyer_GP

17-11-2006, 12:41 PM

He challenged the religious belief that the earth was flat. A belief that comes from the accurate Bible written by the infallible god.
And if I recall correctly, was put under house arrest for doing so. Very tolerant people in those days I must say :rolleyes: And now we have people saying that the earlier scientists believed in religion, when in fact they were probably too scared to admit that they weren't all that religious.

duderoo

17-11-2006, 12:51 PM

I do not believe in Evolution........if evolution is true, how did we know to grow eyeballs if we did not know that there is something to look at?

Highflyer_GP

17-11-2006, 12:55 PM

The_Librarian

17-11-2006, 12:56 PM

But Genesis does not even agree with itself which is strange for an allegedly infallible, authoritative text. The Bible has all the appearances of a work of fiction with many authors and no infallible editor-in-chief overseeing it all.

How do we know this? How do we know this god does not lie?

Why does the interpretation of the Bible keep changing? Why are some parts now totally ignored?

First point - The Bible was written by more than one person, but guided by the Holy Spirit. As example, the book of Daniel make references to the End of Days, and Revelations as well - and both these books makes reference to the other. If your statement is true, then how was Daniel to know what was in the book of Revelations, or the End of Days? Daniel is an accurate portrayal of history as we know it, as is Revelations.

Second one - My God does not lie. Oh ye of little faith... He never lied, but the Father of Lies did.

The interpretation of the Bible does change, because people try and tend to interpret it on their own, and not without guidance from the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, they also tend not to take verses in context, but try to interpret it as they like.

Angelo

17-11-2006, 12:56 PM

He challenged the religious belief that the earth was flat. A belief that comes from the accurate Bible written by the infallible god.
"It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants
thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent
to dwell in." --Isaiah 40:22

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 12:57 PM

But Genesis does not even agree with itself which is strange for an allegedly infallible, authoritative text.
Please explain.

The Bible has all the appearances of a work of fiction with many authors and no infallible editor-in-chief overseeing it all.
Quite the contrary. I'll get back to you on this one with facts, but the bible is in fact (among other things) one of the most accurate history texts we have. Archeology has already, and continues to verify the "stories" in the Old Testament. History also shows that ***** lived, and Jewish texts (as well as others) have confirmed what ***** did. All in all, He fulfilled every single prophecy about Himself - that's over 300! So much for a work of fiction...

Can we see the original article? I wouldn't know, but the article this came from is available here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp).

Science is about observation, but it does not have to be direct observation. Have you seen any electrons lately?No, but they have certainly been measured, and proven beyond doubt.

Is it not possible to reconstruct a car crash after the event? Apparently not - you had to be there to witness the event.
Accidents can be reconstructed - one of the surest ways to test theories is reconstruction (using dummies, of course).

What about reconstructing a crime from evidence at the scene?Forensics is a well-proven science, based on facts that can be proven and confirmed at a later stage by witnesses (often the witness is also the criminal).

Why does the interpretation of the Bible keep changing? Why are some parts now totally ignored?Which parts, and who are you referring to - who keeps changing the interpretation?

Evolution persists because it is the best explanation we have. If someone were to ever come along with an explanation that better fitted the facts scientists would accept it. This is why evolution is science.
No, evolution is not science. Not the way you are using it to attack a science based on religion. As I've already said, and now quoted from another source, evolution is a science in which the outcome is based on pre-formulated theories. Creationism is the same. The result: the war we see happening is a war between "the science of a religion against the science of another religion". I believe that says it best.

Seriously, think about it. I don't mind being flamed. I give as good as I get, and I'm also a good researcher when I have the time. Creationism and Evolution are two totally extreme standpoints. Both look at the same evidence (fossil record). Both assume a certain beginning. Both then attempt to explain how the fossils (and we) got there (and here). Therefore, both require a certain amount of belief in the beginning. Am I making sense?

I argued this for many months with an old friend of mine, and it took me a long time to realise that he was right - evolution is not just science. It takes way too many things for granted - things that in empirical scientific fields would void the theory in its entirety.

The_Librarian

17-11-2006, 12:59 PM

@ Angelo - thanks for that one ;)

And to Raithlin as well...

simple_simon

17-11-2006, 12:59 PM

has anyone here read the hidden records by wayne herschel?

just adding another thought to an argument that cannot be won

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 01:02 PM

The eyeball question has been answered before in this thread, don't see the point of people having to repeat their explanation ;)

I could use a similar reasoning - if creation is true then that means we're the result of incestuous relations originating from the first two humans. And hence you have religion (and for that matter, creationists) promoting incest.

You could only say that as someone that took a verse out of context - which in the long run would make you out to be a fool. I don't want that.

If creation is true then the first generation would be born of 2 perfect humans. With the curse of sin on the world, things started to degenerate - but slowly, generation by generation. Incest was only made a no-no in the time of Moses - many moons later.

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 01:03 PM

just adding another thought to an argument that cannot be wonQuite true, simple_simon - but this way, all the facts and opinions come to the table for others to decide for themselves. ;)

Anyway, it's more fun arguing than letting it lie. That, and people defend what they think is right - regardless of the truth of it all. :D

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 01:13 PM

To be fair, as I recall people were persecuted for deviating from the standard point of view at the time - whether it be creation, God, the Earth being flat, or the Earth being the centre on the solar system. They were attacked by religious nuts for trying to think out of the box, which is why scientific progress really only started accelerating more recently.
Yes, and I will agree with you. I've said many times that I don't align myself with the Catholic Church - and that humankind has done many things that, in retrospect, have been proven wrong. Such is the way of a world living under a curse - if you would believe the bible. Makes sense that way.

Oh, and the doctors that ignored Pasteur and Koch, and by doing so infected pregnant mothers by not cleaning after handling corpses - were not following guidelines set down in the Bible in the time of Moses (Leviticus); there are strict guidelines on handling of corpses, cleaning, etc. that are very similar to modern methods and practices. Not following biblical guidelines set medicine back - not hurtling forward.

You can't possibly expect me to accept that the rate of scientific progress is purely because of evolution? Come on, be reasonable here. Technology itself is the cause of the increasing rate of progress - nothing else.

Also another thing is that creationists always use the bible as a means of justification of supporting their "evidence", but the irritating thing is that Christianity is not the only religion preaching creation. So if these "creation scientists" really want to try and prove their theory to be more correct than evolution, maybe they should approach it from a more general point of view instead of fixating on one specific religion.Who else preaches Creation? And if creation is a science based on a religion, why can we not use the religion's texts? Evolution started with a book, did it not?

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 01:17 PM

has anyone here read the hidden records by wayne herschel?

"Malicious web sites" category is blocked (www.hiddenrecords.com). :D

arf9999

17-11-2006, 01:23 PM

And if creation is a science based on a religion, why can we not use the religion's texts?
Creation is not a science.

The_Librarian

17-11-2006, 01:23 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but who is Wayne Herschel?

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 01:28 PM

Creation is not a science.
Nor is evolution.

(This just proves that we can state our opinions. It doesn't advance the discussion in any way.)

simple_simon

17-11-2006, 01:32 PM

"Malicious web sites" category is blocked (www.hiddenrecords.com). :D

my bad.... www.thehiddenrecords.com

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 01:33 PM

my bad.... www.thehiddenrecords.com

Actually, my bad.

Reason:

The Websense category "Malicious Web Sites" is filtered.

URL:

http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/

Highflyer_GP

17-11-2006, 01:33 PM

Who else preaches Creation? And if creation is a science based on a religion, why can we not use the religion's texts? Evolution started with a book, did it not?
Islam for one. But why are their views on the subject ignored? Would it clash with the Christian view thus introducing doubt?

simple_simon

17-11-2006, 01:35 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but who is Wayne Herschel?

the sa dude who calls himself an archeoastronomer, was on carte blanche a couple of years about the similarities and patterns in the construction of ancient structures around the world.

he does present a very interesting and compeling argument...all though i was not to into his conclusion at the end of his book....he needs to develop it a bit more.

he has stumbled onto something that is fascinating and would basically negate both sides of the arguments on this thread.

its the middle ground...people are looking for

simple_simon

17-11-2006, 01:37 PM

Actually, my bad.

phone your admin and ask him to open the website....there ain't no malicious anything there and then take it off the websense list

arf9999

17-11-2006, 01:41 PM

Nor is evolution.

(This just proves that we can state our opinions. It doesn't advance the discussion in any way.)
The theory of evolution is science in that it at least follows scientific principles, i.e. make the theory fit the evidence, not vice versa. "I believe it 'cos the bible tells me so" is not science, it's a Sunday School song.

Claymore

17-11-2006, 02:33 PM

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 02:35 PM

O RLY? What about all the great Greek thinkers, like Archimedes - did they believe in Creation too?

I knew I was asking for it when I generalised. Would you accept "most" great thinkers? :rolleyes: ;)

Claymore

17-11-2006, 02:37 PM

Quite the contrary. I'll get back to you on this one with facts, but the bible is in fact (among other things) one of the most accurate history texts we have. Archeology has already, and continues to verify the "stories" in the Old Testament. History also shows that ***** lived, and Jewish texts (as well as others) have confirmed what ***** did. All in all, He fulfilled every single prophecy about Himself - that's over 300! So much for a work of fiction...

Can you list any contemporary non-Biblical account of this ***** bloke? Even the Gospels were written decades after the supposed happenings.

As for prophecies - wasn't he supposed to be of the line of David, through Joseph?

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 02:38 PM

The theory of evolution is science in that it at least follows scientific principles, i.e. make the theory fit the evidence, not vice versa. "I believe it 'cos the bible tells me so" is not science, it's a Sunday School song.

You've obviously not been doing your reading. Creation Science makes the evidence and theory fit each other - only the theory doesn't need changing. Anyhow, I don't see the theory of evolution changing either - scientists merely make the evidence fit with their belief.

Raithlin

17-11-2006, 02:41 PM

Can you list any contemporary non-Biblical account of this ***** bloke? Even the Gospels were written decades after the supposed happenings.

As for prophecies - wasn't he supposed to be of the line of David, through Joseph?

Contemporary - not off the top of my head. I would imagine you would want evidence from that time, anyway.

Prophecies - He was of the line of David - both his mother and father were direct descendants of David.

sparklehorse

17-11-2006, 02:43 PM

Read the article again. Both are religions at the end of the day. Funny how you reject the idea outright (and without any further investigation), yet I have asked for (and have read) materials to help me see your side. Yup, I get the idea now. :( It's all about being fair, presenting the evidence as it stands, hearing the theories, and weighing it all up - as long as I see things your way and don't present something that doesn't quite agree with your worldview... and you say it's not a religion?
I did read it. It is not the first time I read that argument, and I still reject it, not because I choose to or because you posted it, but because it is simply not true. Evolution and natural selection is based on evidence, creationism is not. It is as simple as that. By definition, the one is science and the other is a religion.

Seriously, think about it. I don't mind being flamed. I give as good as I get, and I'm also a good researcher when I have the time. Creationism and Evolution are two totally extreme standpoints. Both look at the same evidence (fossil record). Both assume a certain beginning. Both then attempt to explain how the fossils (and we) got there (and here). Therefore, both require a certain amount of belief in the beginning. Am I making sense?

I argued this for many months with an old friend of mine, and it took me a long time to realise that he was right - evolution is not just science. It takes way too many things for granted - things that in empirical scientific fields would void the theory in its entirety.Taking things for granted is true for all scientific theories. I may say I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the earth is round, but certainly it is not the same as saying I believe in the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. I have good reason based on evidence that the sun will rise (or rather that the earth rotate until the sun comes into view ;) ) or that the earth is round. As you said earlier, electrons have been measured, and proven beyond doubt. It is a scientific fact. The same goes for natural selection and the theory of evolution. It is scientific fact based on evidence. I don't choose to believe in it because I like the idea, I choose to believe in it because it is supported by good evidence. And I use 'believe' as in I believe the sun will come up, not the easter bunny belief.

Personally, I don't care what you believe. But I won't be quiet when you say things that aren't correct.

I hope that you actually do go check out the evidence. Look in the "Further reading" section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection - that should give you proper research material.