Attn: Tear Apart Evolution In This Thread! [Archive]

Dos

08-24-2005, 04:52 PM

Mr. Flew Says:

One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence..

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

hey it's his words not mine.. I am pretty nuetral on the subject, but I find his comments interesting..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

smeagol

08-24-2005, 04:53 PM

As I said before, to believe we evolve from a unicelular acuatic life form is as difficult as to believe in Creation.

MannyIsGod

08-24-2005, 04:54 PM

Except that there is physical evidence for one, and there is none for the other.

samikeyp

08-24-2005, 04:54 PM

You mean, the stork didn't bring me?

SWC Bonfire

08-24-2005, 04:55 PM

How adaptive radiation? The Galapogos Islands are an excellent example of form fitting function.

They sure are. But you are talking about small changes within similar species, whereas the radical evolution of the origins of some species are more than genetic variation and mutation can account for in the alotted amount of time given by radiocarbon dating.

I'm not saying that I don't believe in evolution; I do. But strict Darwinian accounts of evolution are not accountable in a lot of situations. Something else was at work, like an event that causes massive mutations. (many different times)

smeagol

08-24-2005, 05:13 PM

Except that there is physical evidence for one, and there is none for the other.
Walk me through the evidence where we basically come from nothing

Cant_Be_Faded

08-24-2005, 06:06 PM

They sure are. But you are talking about small changes within similar species, whereas the radical evolution of the origins of some species are more than genetic variation and mutation can account for in the alotted amount of time given by radiocarbon dating.

I'd like to read recent a paper from the literature that comes to this conclusion, if you'd like to provide a link

But strict Darwinian accounts of evolution are not accountable in a lot of situations. Something else was at work, like an event that causes massive mutations. (many different times)

Well strictly darwinian accounts of evolution were thrown out a few decades ago...And the common text books even admit there is no one real 'theory of evolution' because there are so many possibilities
There is a theory that says evolution continuosly occurs gradually within all species (i suppose the rate could be altered by levels of competition, etc) but theres another that says species go through long periods of little change then short periods of drastic change

Yes, we don't have hardcore evidence or reasons for this. But if we were able to perform multi-lifetime long experiments, I think we'd find evidence supporting it.

You were talking about adaptive radiation being only small changes within a species, but you have to stop and think...what is a species? What seperates a galapogos finch from a galapagos turtle?
What we call species, genus, sub species, its all just words humans have created to work out how what-is-related-to-what and how closely.

That adaptive radiation can be observed does support the theory of evolution, regardless of how small the change, regardless of how closely related the species involved. Because when we perform longer experiments, with organisms further apart on the family tree, the results seem to agree with evolution as well.

So far, we're hearing stuff about "the more we find out, the more complex it is, intelligent design must exist" Well this is a valid assumption, but i've yet to see series of legitamite experiments which totally disprove the theory of evolution.

I wouldn't call myself pro-evolution or whatnot, but I am a biology major and I would LOVE to start reading stuff about how evolution is being proven wrong...the deal is that this has yet to happen, and the thousands of scientific articles and papers written seem to all support a phenomena out there very close to our current theory or theories of evolution.

MannyIsGod

08-24-2005, 06:12 PM

Walk me through the evidence where we basically come from nothing
You didn't equate creationism in your above post to coming form nothing. You said:

As I said before, to believe we evolve from a unicelular acuatic life form is as difficult as to believe in Creation.
There is evidence to support the development of multicelluar organisms from unicellular organisms. Do you need me to find it for you?

MannyIsGod

08-24-2005, 06:14 PM

The funny thing about this is that intelligent design uses evolution in its explanation.

mookie2001

08-24-2005, 06:29 PM

i think its one of the funniest things ever
why its pointless to argue with a RRWinger, they just dont believe it and they never will

Cant_Be_Faded

08-24-2005, 06:39 PM

The funny thing about this is that intelligent design uses evolution in its explanation.

LOL exactly

Guru of Nothing

08-24-2005, 08:12 PM

Walk me through the evidence where we basically come from nothing

Walk me through the evidence that Jesus Christ is the (only) Son of God.

Please.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-24-2005, 08:19 PM

Walk me through the evidence that Jesus Christ is the (only) Son of God.

Please.

hey! this is a discussion about evolution, not about how un-american you can be! (j/k :lol )

i knew jocchhehejaama wouldn't post in here....what a taint

smeagol

08-24-2005, 08:34 PM

You didn't equate creationism in your above post to coming form nothing. You said:
Take the unicelluar organisms one step backwards and you will find those came from nothing. That was my point.

There is evidence to support the development of multicelluar organisms from unicellular organisms. Do you need me to find it for you?
Show me the evidence where man as we know it today evolved from those multicelular organisms, which in turn had evolved from the unicelular organisms, which inturn appeared on Earth from nothing. Evidence, not theory.

mookie2001

08-24-2005, 08:36 PM

what does it mean to be human?

smeagol

08-24-2005, 08:38 PM

The funny thing about this is that intelligent design uses evolution in its explanation.
I don't deny that organisms evolve. I simply believe there is a puppetmaster behind the puppets.

MannyIsGod

08-24-2005, 08:38 PM

Take the unicelluar organisms one step backwards and you will find those came from nothing. That was my point.

Actually, you have to take it a few steps backward. You may want to read up on the theories before trying to argue against them

Show me the evidence where man as we know it today evolved from those multicelular organisms, which in turn had evolved from the unicelular organisms, which inturn appeared on Earth from nothing. Evidence, not theory.
You want me to draw out the entire lineage of organisms from Human Sapiens Sapiens to protein strands? Jesus H. Christ!

Before I do this, I want to know your exact position. Are you a proponent of creationism in a literal sense, a proponent of intelligent design, or another theory all together?

mookie2001

08-24-2005, 08:40 PM

i believe in a heavenly father and evolution
whats the big deal?

smeagol

08-24-2005, 08:40 PM

Walk me through the evidence that Jesus Christ is the (only) Son of God.
I can't. The evidence is in my heart. It's very difficult to explain faith.

Man, I missed you GON.

Trainwreck2100

08-24-2005, 08:41 PM

In evoltion we would have had to have come from nothing, because there is no explanation that explains how everything started.

MannyIsGod

08-24-2005, 08:41 PM

I don't deny that organisms evolve. I simply believe there is a puppetmaster behind the puppets.
So then, you have no problem with the theory of evolution. So why the faux arguements against it? Your problem is with the theory on the orgin of life, which is largely an unknown.

If you want to argue on that, we can, but the fact is I'm not sure how life came about and I don't think many scienctists say they are. It is an unknown. There is speculation and there are theories, but there is no widley accepted theory on the scale of evolution.

MannyIsGod

08-24-2005, 08:43 PM

I can't. The evidence is in my heart. It's very difficult to explain faith.

Man, I missed you GON.
So can I use that same explanation for my believing that life wasn't created by some higher being.

It is kind of funny, because intelligent design doens't take into consideration that it doesn't explain how God was created either. People fault evolution because it requires something from nothing, but so does intelligent design!

smeagol

08-24-2005, 08:58 PM

So can I use that same explanation for my believing that life wasn't created by some higher being.
You must because that theory has not been proven either.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-24-2005, 09:01 PM

So can I use that same explanation for my believing that life wasn't created by some higher being.

It is kind of funny, because intelligent design doens't take into consideration that it doesn't explain how God was created either. People fault evolution because it requires something from nothing, but so does intelligent design!

i always thought they just said god was/is/willbe eternal
of course in discussing timelessness they almost always get into theories of physics, which is funny

MannyIsGod

08-24-2005, 09:02 PM

You must because that theory has not been proven either.
The difference is I don't consider it infallible. As more evidence comes to light, I'm open to the theory changing, as is the science community. The theory is an interpriation given the evidence currently available, and that is all.

Is biblical creation open to revision?

There is no evidence for much of what the bible claims, which is the reason it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

If you want to fall back on faith, then there's no problem with that. Not one. But you can't turn around and hold the theory of evolution to standards you do not hold your own beliefs to. That is the point.

mookie2001

08-24-2005, 09:05 PM

i still want to know if Adam F'ed his daughter or Adam Jr. F'ed his mom and then Adam F'ed his granddaughter or Eve could have F'ed Adam Jr.

cecil collins

08-24-2005, 11:50 PM

And that's only the first time human kind has started from only 2 right?

E20

08-25-2005, 12:23 AM

You know Humans are related to Fish if you go way back..........

Also, I got a question. Was Adam and Eve austrolapithicus, Homo Erectus, Cro Magnon, Homo Sapien, Neandrathal etc........Which one were they.........

E20

08-25-2005, 12:33 AM

In evoltion we would have had to have come from nothing, because there is no explanation that explains how everything started.
Life apparently requires a solar system having a planet with "suitable" conditions such as liquid water, nutrients, and sources of energy. Most of life's history involved the biochemical evolution of single-celled microorganisms, The oldest microbial communities often constructed layered mound-shaped deposits called stromatolites, whose structures suggest that those organisms sought light and were therefore photosynthetic. These early stromatolites grew along ancient seacoasts and endured harsh sunlight as well as episodic wetting and drying by tides. Thus it appears that, even as early as 3.5 billion years ago, microorganisms had become remarkably durable and sophisticated.

Samething could be said about the Universe. How was the whole Universe created? Science explains that with the Big Bang theory and how after some Chemical reactions with some Hydrogen particles an explosion occured and the Universe started and it slowly expanded and became the vast region it is today and is still expanding. But, where did the Hydrogen particles come from etc......

Trainwreck2100

08-25-2005, 01:33 AM

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 08:39 AM

All of those were different species.

spurster

08-25-2005, 08:57 AM

The whole of modern biology is based on life as a physical process, in particular the genetic theory of life. There are no souls, no spirits, no supernatural. Evolution is not a theory by itself, but a key part of the genetic theory of life for explaining how physical processes resulted in different kinds of life (genetic change). Byproducts of this theory are DNA testing and genetic engineering. Once a field reaches solid engineering, you can bet the theory is pretty solid, too.

Intelligent design isn't much of a scientific theory, being based on unexplained, untestable supernatural causes. Attributing unexplained data to supernatural causes is bad science. Now if you want to debate philosophy or theology (i.e., are there non-scientific ways to understand life), that's fine with me. Just don't call it science.

smeagol

08-25-2005, 09:11 AM

The difference is I don't consider it infallible. As more evidence comes to light, I'm open to the theory changing, as is the science community. The theory is an interpriation given the evidence currently available, and that is all.
I’m open to changes in the theory that tells us how we physically evolve into what we are. All I’m saying is that there is a hand behind that “evolution”. Science can’t prove that there isn’t a hand and I can’t prove that there is.

Is biblical creation open to revision?
I don’t adhere to Biblical Creation in the strict sense. I believe much of what’s written in Genesis is metaphorical to make it easy for the men of the time to understand it.

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 09:15 AM

You sound confused, Smeagol. You want to take a stand against evolution based on someting that evolution doesn't address nor has anything to do with?

SWC Bonfire

08-25-2005, 09:25 AM

Manny, do you actually want to take a stand on something you personally believe in, or just rip on everyone else's personal beliefs? :lol

(That was a joke, compadre.)

smeagol

08-25-2005, 09:27 AM

You sound confused, Smeagol. You want to take a stand against evolution based on someting that evolution doesn't address nor has anything to do with?
Confused? You might be right. This is not a topic I feel comfortable at all because I have not read many the theories on evolution (if there is more than one). To be honest with you, I don't even know what the official stance of the Catholic Church is non this topic. So what I have said is just what I feel.

I don't believe we are the result of a series of coincidences. What’s my evidence? I look around and see the beauty and complexity of this World, but most important of all, I look at man and I find it impossible to reconcile you and me to a unicellular aquatic organism. So I conclude that there is an Intelligent being behind evolution. I don’t discard evolution, but I believe in the “guiding hand” effect.

Am I confused? Again, it could definitely be the case.

Then again, explain to me what is it you believe in when it comes to explaining where we come from and how we got here.

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 09:32 AM

Manny, do you actually want to take a stand on something you personally believe in, or just rip on everyone else's personal beliefs? :lol

(That was a joke, compadre.)
:lol

I'm not trying to rip anyones beliefs. And I take a stand on almost everything. There's really nothing ambiguous about what I believe in and what I say on the board.

Everyone is welcome to rip my views, though.

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 09:39 AM

Confused? You might be right. This is not a topic I feel comfortable at all because I have not read many the theories on evolution (if there is more than one). To be honest with you, I don't even know what the official stance of the Catholic Church is non this topic. So what I have said is just what I feel.

I don't believe we are the result of a series of coincidences. What’s my evidence? I look around and see the beauty and complexity of this World, but most important of all, I look at man and I find it impossible to reconcile you and me to a unicellular aquatic organism. So I conclude that there is an Intelligent being behind evolution. I don’t discard evolution, but I believe in the “guiding hand” effect.

Am I confused? Again, it could definitely be the case.

Then again, explain to me what is it you believe in when it comes to explaining where we come from and how we got here.
I thought I already explained it above with:

If you want to argue on that, we can, but the fact is I'm not sure how life came about and I don't think many scienctists say they are. It is an unknown. There is speculation and there are theories, but there is no widley accepted theory on the scale of evolution.

I simply don't know. I admit to the possibility in a scenario involving intelligent design, but I do not see any evidence of the sort.

I find it not only very plausible, but downright sensible to believe we developed from unicelluar organisms because the timeline is laid out and there is evidence to that effect. It didn't happen overnight.

What you see as coincidence I see as inevitablity. It was inevitable that unicellular organisms eventually work together and it was inevitable that they develop into multicelluar organisms.

I have a constant thirst for more explanations, and the knowledge on how the the universe works. But, that thirst isn't quenched unless the answers have something to back them up other than the warm fuzzies I get when I watch a nice sunset.

boutons

08-25-2005, 09:45 AM

"just what I feel."

Fine, but pitting your feelings against somebody's else feelings isn't going to get us very far or deepen our understanding or get us to the One True Absolute Reality.

travis2

08-25-2005, 09:46 AM

Useruser666

08-25-2005, 09:51 AM

I do not believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design. Evolution, while not a proven law, seems the best theory to explain the natural world around us. We may never know exactly how everything began, but we will always be searching to better understand it.

Spurminator

08-25-2005, 09:58 AM

travis2

08-25-2005, 10:05 AM

I'm still baffled at how discussions of Evolution and Creationism always end up turning into Evolution VS. Creationism. One is a scientific theory, the other is a religious/philosophical theory.

It's like debating which is better: The Spurs, or maple syrup pancakes?

It seems to me that this thread could have been a nice discussion over evidence and flaws of Evolutionary Theory, instead of Evolution vs. God, Part CMCXVIII.

You and me both...

smeagol

08-25-2005, 10:10 AM

As Travis said, Evolution and God can be reconciled and that, in a nutshell, is my belief.

Useruser666

08-25-2005, 10:13 AM

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 10:20 AM

boutons

08-25-2005, 10:22 AM

"smeagol, the Church is officially neutral on the issue"

not true. The RC Church requires believing in God's direct intervention, in evolution, to "insert" a "soul" into the human animal at some point. ie, RC's believe the soul did not spontaneously appear on its own, but needed God's jumper cables, pixie dust, whatever. Of course, that requires belief in a "soul", which along with R & B, I much prefer to rap and hip-hop.

======================

New York TImes

July 9, 2005

Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.

He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.

Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.

Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories. Many Catholic schools teach Darwinian evolution, in which accidental mutation and natural selection of the fittest organisms drive the history of life, as part of their science curriculum.

Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. While researchers may debate details of how the mechanism of evolution plays out, there is no credible scientific challenge to the underlying theory.

American Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians have been a potent united front in opposing abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia, but had parted company on the death penalty and the teaching of evolution. Cardinal Schönborn's essay and comments are an indication that the church may now enter the debate over evolution more forcefully on the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution alone.

One of the strongest advocates of teaching alternatives to evolution is the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which promotes the idea, termed intelligent design, that the variety and complexity of life on earth cannot be explained except through the intervention of a designer of some sort.

Mark Ryland, a vice president of the institute, said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution.

The cardinal's essay, a direct response to Dr. Krauss's article, was submitted to The Times by a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, which also represents the Discovery Institute.

Mr. Ryland, who said he knew the cardinal through the International Theological Institute in Gaming, Austria, where he is chancellor and Mr. Ryland is on the board, said supporters of intelligent design were "very excited" that a church leader had taken a position opposing Darwinian evolution. "It clarified that in some sense the Catholics aren't fine with it," he said.

Bruce Chapman, the institute's president, said the cardinal's essay "helps blunt the claims" that the church "has spoken on Darwinian evolution in a way that's supportive."

But some biologists and others said they read the essay as abandoning longstanding church support for evolutionary biology.

"How did the Discovery Institute talking points wind up in Vienna?" wondered Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, which advocates the teaching of evolution. "It really did look quite a bit as if Cardinal Schönborn had been reading their Web pages."

Mr. Ryland said the cardinal was well versed on these issues and had written the essay on his own.

Dr. Francis Collins, who headed the official American effort to decipher the human genome, and who describes himself as a Christian, though not a Catholic, said Cardinal Schönborn's essay looked like "a step in the wrong direction" and said he feared that it "may represent some backpedaling from what scientifically is a very compelling conclusion, especially now that we have the ability to study DNA."

"There is a deep and growing chasm between the scientific and the spiritual world views," he went on. "To the extent that the cardinal's essay makes believing scientists less and less comfortable inhabiting the middle ground, it is unfortunate. It makes me uneasy."

"Unguided," "unplanned," "random" and "natural" are all adjectives that biologists might apply to the process of evolution, said Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown and a Catholic. But even so, he said, evolution "can fall within God's providential plan." He added: "Science cannot rule it out. Science cannot speak on this."

Dr. Miller, whose book "Finding Darwin's God" describes his reconciliation of evolutionary theory with Christian faith, said the essay seems to equate belief in evolution with disbelief in God. That is alarming, he said. "It may have the effect of convincing Catholics that evolution is something they should reject."

Dr. Collins and other scientists said they could understand why a cleric might want to make the case that, as Dr. Collins put it, "evolution is the mechanism by which human beings came into existence, but God had something to do with that, too." Dr. Collins said that view, theistic evolution, "is shared with a very large number of biologists who also believe in God, including me."

But it does not encompass the idea that the workings of evolution required the direct intervention of a supernatural agent, as intelligent design would have it.

In his essay, Cardinal Schönborn asserted that he was not trying to break new ground but to correct the idea, "often invoked," that the church accepts or at least acquiesces to the theory of evolution.

He referred to widely cited remarks by Pope John Paul II, who, in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, noted that the scientific case for evolution was growing stronger and that the theory was "more than a hypothesis."

In December, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo, chairman of the Committee on Science and Human Values of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited those remarks in writing to the nation's bishops that "the Church does not need to fear the teaching of evolution as long as it is understood as a scientific account of the physical origins and development of the universe." But in his essay, Cardinal Schönborn dismissed John Paul's statement as "rather vague and unimportant."

Francisco Ayala, a professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest, called this assessment "an insult" to the late pope. and said the cardinal seemed to be drawing a line between the theory of evolution and religious faith, and "seeing a conflict that does not exist."

Dr. Miller said he was already hearing from people worried about the cardinal's essay. "People are saying, does the church really believe this?" He said he would not speculate. "John Paul II made it very clear that he regarded scientific rationality as a gift from God," Dr. Miller said, adding, "There are more than 100 cardinals and they often have conflicting opinions."

smeagol

08-25-2005, 10:30 AM

Spurminator

08-25-2005, 10:30 AM

The difference of opinion lies in the "Beginning Point"... Which is really pretty inconsequential. Evolution is an ongoing process, regardless of where it began. You can use evidence to find where all of the lines merge at the "Beginning of Time," but that doesn't require that those lines were ever merged.

But for the purposes of studying evolution, one must imagine that they did merge.

Obi wan Ginobili

08-25-2005, 10:43 AM

ROFL...

Right wingers arent all creationism wackos.

Everyone at every major oil company believes in evolution.

How could they not? They use Paleontology to age rocks.

boutons

08-25-2005, 10:44 AM

travis2

08-25-2005, 10:46 AM

From the Catechism (section 283)

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements . . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

Extra Stout

08-25-2005, 12:49 PM

"lines were ever merged"

They merge in the Big Bang theory of cosmology. afaik, the BB is as unassailable as evolution. The question about BB is whether the universe will continue expanding infinitely, or will it stop expanding and collapse into another BB, ie, an oscillating universe.

fwiw, Vedantic thought, "intuitive knowledge", subscribes to the BB oscillation, and even says we are in the 40th cycle of BB's. :)

I like the oscillating BB theory, where that thimble-ful of matter just before it Bangs, and just after it collapses, is both the Alpha and the Omega. Damn, doesn't that ring Biblical bell somewhere. :)Contemporary cosmology points strongly towards someone or something "fine-tuning" the properties of matter so that the Big Bang and the universe can even exist.

The degree of precision required for things like atoms to form is mind-boggling, and if the properties came to be merely by chance, then the probability of the existence of matter is so small that even if expressed in scientific notation, the exponent in base-10 in typical newsprint-size type on one line is too long to fit in the universe.

Perhaps some new discovery will come along that will explain this naturalistically, but right now those folks are just shaking their heads and presuming a Creator.

smeagol

08-25-2005, 04:32 PM

I simply don't know. I admit to the possibility in a scenario involving intelligent design, but I do not see any evidence of the sort.
In my case, I find evidence of an intelligent design in the complexity of the human being (physically and emotionally) and the complexity of the World that surrounds us. In your case, being the a guy who needs to “see to believe”, anything short of God himself coming down from Heaven and telling you he is the responsible for life on Earth, is probably not enough evidence.

I find it not only very plausible, but downright sensible to believe we developed from unicelluar organisms because the timeline is laid out and there is evidence to that effect. It didn't happen overnight.
The fact there was “enough” time for us to develop from minor forms of life is not enough evidence that God did not have something to do with that development.

What you see as coincidence I see as inevitablity. It was inevitable that unicellular organisms eventually work together and it was inevitable that they develop into multicelluar organisms.
Not sure how you reached to the “inevitability” conclusion. Knowing you, it is probably backed by some sensible theory. My question to you then would be: Does that theory rule out the fact that evolution could have been driven by an intelligent force? If the answer is no, how does it reach that conclusion?

I have a constant thirst for more explanations, and the knowledge on how the the universe works. But, that thirst isn't quenched unless the answers have something to back them up other than the warm fuzzies I get when I watch a nice sunset.
I put a lot of stock on the warm fuzzies.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 04:47 PM

Not sure how you reached to the “inevitability” conclusion. Knowing you, it is probably backed by some sensible theory. My question to you then would be: Does that theory rule out the fact that evolution could have been driven by an intelligent force? If the answer is no, how does it reach that conclusion?

i can help here

i dunno if manny has read Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" But Dawkins says alot of this. Maybe I can help draw it out.

what he meant by inevitable is this

we already know (or at least 99.99999999999) sure that all life, you, me, fish, neandertals, plants, etc etc, sponges, bacterium, porifera, papillionidae, etc etc
all life is based upon DNA and RNA
what we know about DNA is that it is a self replicating molecule

If we can imagine that one time millions of years ago that there was a pool of a bunch of primitive self replicating RNA's or DNA's (not even cellular yet) then we can imagine that there would be intense competition of who could be the best replicator

it is in the competition that some see complex life forms as being inevitable

if a peice of DNA that can replicate itself really fast outdoes a peice of DNA that replicates really slow, then it will be represented in greater numbers in the gene pool
likewise, a peice of DNA that can replicate itself more accurately will be represented better than a peice that is not very accurate

now if we can imagine the peice of DNA that can replicate fast and the other that can replicate accurately could one day (rather by chance, coincidence, we don't know the reason) then it would suit both to stick together because they'd outcompete alot of other strands of DNA

we already have strong evidence showing that mitochondria present in every human cell are remnants of a microbe that lived in a symbiotic relationship with our body cells

it helped both the microbe and the body cells to work together, the mitochondria allowed respiration, the body cell provided it with nutrients, etc

this is analogous to the DNA i was describing

a major driver of evolution smeagol is competition

when those first self replicators evolved then it started a chain reaction of competition, of prisoner's dilemna's, and what not

it made sense for peices of DNA that made a human arm team up with peices that coded proteins for making human brains, likewise human legs, etc etc

all these peices of DNA would serve their own selfish replication purposes BETTER by working togheter with other peices of DNA

this of course leads to cells...which lead to tissues, which lead to organs, which lead to bodies, etc
it was a very gradual process of dna teaming up to help their own replication purposes

i hope that makes sense

SWC Bonfire

08-25-2005, 04:52 PM

what we know about DNA is that it is a self replicating molecule

Why? Why DNA and not, say, polyethylene or polytetra-flouroethylene? Or any long-chain polymer?

The fact is that DNA as a single molecule is extremely complex, not to mention a single-celled organism.

smeagol

08-25-2005, 05:05 PM

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 05:11 PM

Why? Why DNA and not, say, polyethylene or polytetra-flouroethylene? Or any long-chain polymer?

The fact is that DNA as a single molecule is extremely complex, not to mention a single-celled organism.

well the consensus is the first one was self replicating RNA but i was trying to keep it simple cuz smeagol has not read up on evolutionary theory

it could have very well been any of those

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 05:13 PM

Thanks. Its an interesting theory. But can't it still be compatible with God? I think it can. In other word, even if you acceopt the theory as true and valid, you cannot completely rule out that somebody was behind those organisms evolving. Competition might have been the way God designed those earky stages of Evolution.

Actually, the theory itself does not prove that God's will is behind Evolution.

And at the end of the day it becomes a question of faith. I believe God is behind it all, manny and others don't. Can I prove it? No. Can they prove it? No.

i think that as far as 'theories' go the best place to put god is not at the start of evolution but at the start of all creation

we still don't know if the big bang is legit or not, but even if it were, the reasons they have for it starting are not widely accepted

personally i think that if the big bang is correct then the first atom that moved and caused the golf ball sized universe to explode was god

thats just my opinion as of right now

smeagol

08-25-2005, 05:19 PM

i think that as far as 'theories' go the best place to put god is not at the start of evolution but at the start of all creation

we still don't know if the big bang is legit or not, but even if it were, the reasons they have for it starting are not widely accepted

personally i think that if the big bang is correct then the first atom that moved and caused the golf ball sized universe to explode was god

thats just my opinion as of right now
I believe God has been there all the way. At the start of Creation and the beginning of life on Earth. But most important, he had a big say in the creation of us humans. We are far too complex, not only physically, but menatlly and emotionally, to be the the product of chance.

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 05:28 PM

Thanks. Its an interesting theory. But can't it still be compatible with God? I think it can. In other word, even if you acceopt the theory as true and valid, you cannot completely rule out that somebody was behind those organisms evolving. Competition might have been the way God designed those earky stages of Evolution.

Actually, the theory itself does not prove that God's will is behind Evolution.

And at the end of the day it becomes a question of faith. I believe God is behind it all, manny and others don't. Can I prove it? No. Can they prove it? No.
Smeagol, there is no evidence to suggest their isn't a God. All of the scientific theory out there does not rule out a God by any means.

But by the same token, the absence of proof that something is not there, is not then proof that something is there. There is no evidence to show that there is a god either.

So far, the strongest evidence for a god is the fact that there is no evidence that no god exsists. That is not evidence at all.

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 05:31 PM

I believe God has been there all the way. At the start of Creation and the beginning of life on Earth. But most important, he had a big say in the creation of us humans. We are far too complex, not only physically, but menatlly and emotionally, to be the the product of chance.
That is not proof! I hate to break it to you, but the human being isn't something that is all that advanced. Being beyond our comprehension (currently) is not something that you can use as scientific evidence.

Think of how half the things in this world would look to a Human in 1200 BC?

IcemanCometh

08-25-2005, 05:45 PM

Look the simple fact of the matter is that science is another form of faith. Just like christianity is based on principles so too is science. The reason people believe in one or the other is because they were taught to believe in it. Manny and Scott have faith in gravity and the photo-electric effect. God created the heavens and the earth and 1 +1 =2, these are the principles that define those 2 faiths.

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 05:55 PM

Wrong. Science is a process torwards understanding things. It doesn't teach you to believe in anything. Religion is a specific belief of the way things happend. Science leads to the answers, it is not the answer itself. Religion claims to have/be the answer.

smeagol

08-25-2005, 06:45 PM

Smeagol, there is no evidence to suggest their isn't a God. All of the scientific theory out there does not rule out a God by any means.
Agreed

But by the same token, the absence of proof that something is not there, is not then proof that something is there. There is no evidence to show that there is a god either.
If the evidence were as strong and as concrete as the existence of the Sun and the Moon, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Reality is the existence of God is personal. It's in my heart, if you will. I can talk to you about miracles, about Jesus Christ, but it wouldn't change your beliefs because you need proof. Tangible and concrete proof. I once, not so long ago, was like you. I needed proof. Until one day, I opened my heart and started to see things in a different light. What up to that point had been the most unreasonable thing, became the most reasonable, the most sensible.

So far, the strongest evidence for a god is the fact that there is no evidence that no god exsists. That is not evidence at all.
For a guy who needs to see to believe, you are right. The evidence I have is not tangible.

IcemanCometh

08-25-2005, 06:58 PM

I'd like manny to prove that 1+1 =2 and I'd like smeagol to prove that god exists.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 07:10 PM

Jelly

08-25-2005, 07:22 PM

We don't need taste buds to survive. Why do we have them? Isn't it easier to believe that a benevolent God created us with taste buds to be able to savour foods, than to believe our taste buds somehow "evolved" just because?

Isn't it also easier to believe that the same caring God created all kinds of flavors for humans' taste buds to enjoy in foods like fruits, vegetables, meats, etc.?

Or did all these foods evolve too?

???

I never really thought about it before, but if we didn't have tastebuds we'd probably be too lazy to eat. Or we wouldn't eat enough to stay healthy. So yeah, our Creator gave us tastebuds to encourage this habit, not because he wanted to throw in some extra fun little doodads for us.

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 07:24 PM

:lol

Tastebuds have a very real purpose. They help you avoid foods that are harmful, and they react in a positve ways to foods with more calories (fatty foods).

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 07:27 PM

???

I never really thought about it before, but if we didn't have tastebuds we'd probably be too lazy to eat. Or we wouldn't eat enough to stay healthy. So yeah, our Creator gave us tastebuds to encourage this habit, not because he wanted to throw in some extra fun little doodads for us.

I think differently in that regard.

I don't know if crocodiles enjoy eating raw deer, pigs like eating garbage, or frogs enjoy eating flies. I'd say they still eat them because it satisfies their hunger. Their instinct is to eat to survive. Why do you think canibalism exists in animals (and in humans)? They eat whatever they can to survive. I don't think they were too lazy to eat. Their stomach forces them do it.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 07:30 PM

:lol

Tastebuds have a very real purpose. They help you avoid foods that are harmful, and they react in a positve ways to foods with more calories (fatty foods).

Since when did weed taste like crap, or spinach taste like heaven?

:D

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 07:33 PM

Spinach isn't the best food for you. Meats high in fat content would be. They have the most calories per bang. We're talking purely from a survival standpoint.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 07:37 PM

Spinach isn't the best food for you. Meats high in fat content would be. They have the most calories per bang. We're talking purely from a survival standpoint.
So if we're talking survival here, if we were to evolve for survival, we would only need meat. Not fruits. Not vegetables. Not coffee beans. Not rice. Not wheat. So why are they here?

If everything that exists in life were to be for strict survival reasons, we wouldn't have much of what we enjoy but don't need. If (in my opinion) evolution really existed, we would be extremely bored and act like machines. (much like animals do :D )

Did it ever occur to you that animals (besides the ones we need for the earth to function properly in our favor) were created for our entertainment and enjoyment? What purpose do dogs have? Cats? Birds?

Ever wonder why a puppy always makes us laugh or just smile at the funny stuff it does? Huh? We certainly don't need that to survive.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 07:43 PM

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 07:48 PM

taste buds do have a purpose, at least from an evolutionary standpoint

the thing is, you can say tastebuds are so complex that god must have built them for us

but when studies are done we keep finding more and more data that simply happen to agree with evolution

taste buds kept primitve man from being poisoned...if something tasted disgusting it was most likely poison, rotten, infected, etc
if something tastes awesome its most likely ripe, fresh, etc

But I ask again: If we would have evolved strictly for survival reasons, we would only need one food source; 2 at most, just like the animals do.

What purpose in surviving do fruits, vegetables, etc. etc. have? We certainly don't need them. Why have them at our disposition?

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 07:50 PM

If (in my opinion) evolution really existed, we would be extremely bored and act like machines. (much like animals do :D )

that is a very common misconception

Did it ever occur to you that animals (besides the ones we need for the earth to function properly in our favor) were created for our entertainment and enjoyment? What purpose do dogs have? Cats? Birds?

LOL
well if you are talking dogs and cats....humans bred these dogs and cats from wild ass kicking beasts for thousands of years....in other words we artificially selected for the traits we would like in dogs and cats

the mere fact that humans could breed the male with the best nose and the female with the best nose, and continue to do this for hundreds of generations, then end up with a dog that is the most 3lit3 hunting companion in the face of the earth all supports evolution (selection is part of evolution)

Ever wonder why a puppy always makes us laugh or just smile at the funny stuff it does? Huh? We certainly don't need that to survive.

these are common misconceptions

what evolution has given the human being is a set of possible outcomes and possible decisions, not unlike a program, but its not fatalistic. what has evolved is our ability to think logically to think every decision to the finest detail, also our ability to choose what we like what we dont like.

i can honestly say i fucking hate dogs and seeing one wagging its tail and barking at me and jumping on me pisses me off to no end
evolution does not mean we don't have free will, this is a common misconception

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 08:00 PM

But I ask again: If we would have evolved strictly for survival reasons, we would only need one food source; 2 at most, just like the animals do.

What purpose in surviving do fruits, vegetables, etc. etc. have? We certainly don't need them. Why have them at our disposition?

First of all, survival is not the only reason things evolve. Survival, growth, and reproduction are the reasons things evolve.

but you're thinking inside a box man

what do fruits vegetables have to do with human taste buds? absolutely nothing...

other animals eat them, more commonly, cuz they happened to be there in the same environment either long term or short term

from the vegetable standpoint they have their own DNA that wants to replicate more veggies that doesn't give a shit about the DNA in our bodies or the DNA in animals bodies...they werne't made to help our DNA reproduce.

you're thinking from the standpoint that everything in the earth that was made for us, it wasnt

the dna that decided to group with other dna that eventually became plants, fruits, vegetables, doesn't have anything to do with the dna that grouped together to form us, which is why we're seperate organisms

once organisms were formed, organisms began to co-evolve, and this did happen...if you look at animals like you say, they have canines or flat teeth....the ones with sharp teeth eat meat, the ones with flat teeth eat plants....but if you take time to look in your mirror and open your mouth you see a vareity of teeth

why?

well evolution says (and you should agree with this...) that humans are different from every different species on earth
we can collaborate, communicate, think of new things, want new things, we have the most advanced brain EVER

so what is to prevent a primitve human from getting sick of eating wild Mastadon and deciding to eat a plant? Nothing! What is to prevent that human from realizing plants can be grown and provide a source of food that doesn't have to be hunted...Nothing!

if the tribe of this primitive human had a glut of vegetables in their environment and NO meat for the longest period of time, and they had to eat vegetables, the humans that had flatter teeth would survive better htan those with mostly sharp teeth.....this is the kind of thing evolution says

such is the beauty of humans

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 08:07 PM

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 08:15 PM

that is a very common misconception
Misconceptions of what? That we wouldn't act like machines isn't a fact, nor a certainty.

what evolution has given the human being is a set of possible outcomes and possible decisions, not unlike a program, but its not fatalistic. what has evolved is our ability to think logically to think every decision to the finest detail, also our ability to choose what we like what we dont like.
And it's not a possibility that these decisions to choose were created for us, and not by us?

Dogs, okay. I forgot about that. What about cats? And birds? Why the hell do we need tigers? Snow tigers? Leopards? Pumas? Isn't one big cat enough?

i can honestly say i fucking hate dogs and seeing one wagging its tail and barking at me and jumping on me pisses me off to no end
evolution does not mean we don't have free will, this is a common misconception
I'm sorry to hear that. :D

First of all, survival is not the only reason things evolve. Survival, growth, and reproduction are the reasons things evolve.

Growth is for survival.
Reproduction is also for survival.
What's your point?

what do fruits vegetables have to do with human taste buds? absolutely nothing...
That all the flavors of fruits and vegetables are pleasing to our taste buds. Food we don't necessarily need.

from the vegetable standpoint they have their own DNA that wants to replicate more veggies that doesn't give a shit about the DNA in our bodies or the DNA in animals bodies...they werne't made to help our DNA reproduce.
Yeah, they don't give a crap, just like we don't give a crap that they don't give a crap. Which is why we consume them. What's their purpose in life other than for our consumption?

the dna that decided to group with other dna that eventually became plants, fruits, vegetables, doesn't have anything to do with the dna that grouped together to form us, which is why we're seperate organisms

once organisms were formed, organisms began to co-evolve, and this did happen...if you look at animals like you say, they have canines or flat teeth....the ones with sharp teeth eat meat, the ones with flat teeth eat plants....but if you take time to look in your mirror and open your mouth you see a vareity of teeth

why?

well evolution says (and you should agree with this...) that humans are different from every different species on earth
we can collaborate, communicate, think of new things, want new things, we have the most advanced brain EVER

so what is to prevent a primitve human from getting sick of eating wild Mastadon and deciding to eat a plant? Nothing! What is to prevent that human from realizing plants can be grown and provide a source of food that doesn't have to be hunted...Nothing!

if the tribe of this primitive human had a glut of vegetables in their environment and NO meat for the longest period of time, and they had to eat vegetables, the humans that had flatter teeth would survive better htan those with mostly sharp teeth.....this is the kind of thing evolution says

such is the beauty of humans
Believe me, I understand what reasoning you're coming from, and if I were to believe in evolution, I would use the same ones.

Yay! We both agree humans are a beauty. It just so happens that I think they're a beauty for their complexity, which leads me to be in awe of the intelligence our creator has.

You just so happen to be in awe of how we ourselves became what we are... just in different ways.

But I guess it's worthless arguing about it, since our beliefs are so strongly-rooted, huh?

:)

JoeChalupa

08-25-2005, 08:19 PM

I believe in Evolution.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 08:26 PM

Misconceptions of what? That we wouldn't act like machines isn't a fact, nor a certainty.

And it's not a possibility that these decisions to choose were created for us, and not by us?

Dogs, okay. I forgot about that. What about cats? And birds? Why the hell do we need tigers? Snow tigers? Leopards? Pumas? Isn't one big cat enough?

I'm sorry to hear that. :D

Growth is for survival.
Reproduction is also for survival.
What's your point?

That all the flavors of fruits and vegetables are pleasing to our taste buds. Food we don't necessarily need.

Yeah, they don't give a crap, just like we don't give a crap that they don't give a crap. Which is why we consume them. What's their purpose in life other than for our consumption?

Believe me, I understand what reasoning you're coming from, and if I were to believe in evolution, I would use the same ones.

Yay! We both agree humans are a beauty. It just so happens that I think they're a beauty for their complexity, which leads me to be in awe of the intelligence our creator had.

You just so happen to be in awe of how we ourselves became what we are... just in different ways.

But I guess it's worthless arguing about it, huh?

:)

you have a very wrong misconception that everything in this world should have a purpose that fits human needs...thats why i was talking about replication....replication replication replication....

u say what purpose do leopards, pumas serve....but you really mean to say what purpose do they serve to humans....and in todays world that purpose is food and entertainment....in the primitive world they probably OWNED us and we were scared to all hell of them

this is the misconception i speak of....humans are not the center of the fucking universe, they're not the center of the world, they are a ridiculously advanced species of organism that is currently destroying every ecosystem and haven for anything that isn't one of them....this line of reasoning of yours...that all animals, plants, etc, should serve a human purpose is part of the reason why this world is being destroyed...

we are so tied up in God this and everything serving a human purpose that we forget even the bible says (ok, i HOPE it says)

all life is sacred!!!

the one thing you say t hat i really cant think of much an answer to is why the nuts, veggies, etc have a taste that is palatable to human beings
this may sound repetitive, but i think the evolutionist would say that in the past, there came a time when it paid humans to eat plants...and those humans who found plants tasty survived and replicated more than those who thought plants tasted like rancid shit
get it?

Growth is for survival.
Reproduction is also for survival.
What's your point?

the point is its not survival that is the point, its replication

survival, growth, and reproduction serve the purpose of replication

growth and reproduction do not serve the purpose of survival

you have to stop thinking that humans are not subject to the rules...yes humans are beautiful and awesome and the most advanced but this doesn't make us gods, this doesn't mean that each individual human being was given the supernatural right to survive any more than the individual bacterium that is destroyed when u wash your hands with soap

when it comes down to it, nature rules us all

we're subject to the same rules every other animal is, the only difference is we're so fucking advanced that we're able to sustain time lags for longer periods

do you seriously think if humans keep reproduction at an exponential rate that this earth is going to survive????? one day, the plants will be gone, the food will be gone, and we'll still be talking about how creationism or intelligent design is better than evolution, all the while our entire people will be starving and crowded to death

we're animals just like anything else, we're organisms just like anything else....just because we're at the peak of the evolutionary chain doesn't mean we're going to be here forever

there have been so many fucking millions of species that have gone completely extinct and remain totally unknown to us after mass extinctions...for all we know there could have been an animal millinos of years ago with many of our capacities....but when a meteor struck, when the climate changed, they faced the consequences just like everything else...................and the strongest survived to reproduce into the future

E20

08-25-2005, 08:28 PM

TOP-CHERRY you're asking questions after he's explaining them to you and then you ask why.............

mookie2001

08-25-2005, 08:30 PM

cbf drops knowledge

dont even get him started on Statistics (with a capitol S)

Spam

08-25-2005, 08:36 PM

Spinach isn't the best food for you. Meats high in fat content would be. They have the most calories per bang. We're talking purely from a survival standpoint.

I disagree.
Sincerely,
Popeye

mookie2001

08-25-2005, 08:37 PM

i like vittles

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 08:43 PM

you have a very wrong misconception that everything in this world should have a purpose that fits human needs...thats why i was talking about replication....replication replication replication....

u say what purpose do leopards, pumas serve....but you really mean to say what purpose do they serve to humans....and in todays world that purpose is food and entertainment....in the primitive world they probably OWNED us and we were scared to all hell of them

this is the misconception i speak of....humans are not the center of the fucking universe, they're not the center of the world, they are a ridiculously advanced species of organism that is currently destroying every ecosystem and haven for anything that isn't one of them....this line of reasoning of yours...that all animals, plants, etc, should serve a human purpose is part of the reason why this world is being destroyed...

we are so tied up in God this and everything serving a human purpose that we forget even the bible says (ok, i HOPE it says)

all life is sacred!!!
Same Biblie which talks about animal sacrifices to God.

Which is a large part of the reason why I believe we are definitely superior in all regards to animals. Animals don't love. They don't think enough past filling their stomachs, crapping, and making more of their kind. We are the only beings who know what species we are. We are the only ones who wonder why we are here. The only ones who wonder if there's a God or not. The only ones who know what death is. Or like Octavio Paz said: “Solitude is the profoundest fact of the human condition. Man is the only being who knows he is alone.”

We certainly are the only ones who can worship God. Nothing else leads me to believe God intended for animals to worship him. Why place them in a pedestal if that's not their purpose?

Again, we're coming from different beliefs, and maybe all the things I just said mean nothing to you, because you don't believe in a higher being. An omnipotent one who I know in my heart to believe created us above the animals for a reason.

I just believe the answer to be very simple as to how we were made. That's my belief. And the fact that I believe, and animals don't, is a major reason why I argued all I did in regards to their "service" to us.

do you seriously think if humans keep reproduction at an exponential rate that this earth is going to survive????? one day, the plants will be gone, the food will be gone, and we'll still be talking about how creationism or intelligent design is better than evolution, all the while our entire people will be starving and crowded to death

we're animals just like anything else, we're organisms just like anything else....just because we're at the peak of the evolutionary chain doesn't mean we're going to be here forever

there have been so many fucking millions of species that have gone completely extinct and remain totally unknown to us after mass extinctions...for all we know there could have been an animal millinos of years ago with many of our capacities....but when a meteor struck, when the climate changed, they faced the consequences just like everything else...................and the strongest survived to reproduce into the future
I just believe there is a purpose to everything.

And just like I believe in the Bible, and I've read in it that the earth was created for "humans to live in it", not animals, not plants. Humans. And that God's will never changes, this planet cannot be destroyed. And humans cannot be destroyed. Nothing can wipe anything out without his consent.

Again, my belief.

E20

08-25-2005, 08:44 PM

If animals and plants weren't living on Earth then you can kiss humanity good bye.

E20

08-25-2005, 08:50 PM

Which is a large part of the reason why I believe we are definitely superior in all regards to animals. Animals don't love. They don't think enough past filling their stomachs, crapping, and making more of their kind. We are the only beings who know what species we are. We are the only ones who wonder why we are here. The only ones who wonder if there's a God or not. The only ones who know what death is. Or like Octavio Paz said: “Solitude is the profoundest fact of the human condition. Man is the only being who knows he is alone.”

Try watching Animal Planet. Other organisms are complex aswell, I mean look at Dolphins, just like Humans they have sex for pleasure and not just reproduction.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 08:50 PM

TOP-CHERRY you're asking questions after he's explaining them to you and then you ask why.............
It's hard to explain or ask questions when the other has a different reasoning of things.

Just like my explinations don't suffice him, his don't either for me.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 08:50 PM

Same Biblie which talks about animal sacrifices to God.

Which is a large part of the reason why I believe we are definitely superior in all regards to animals. Animals don't love. They don't think enough past filling their stomachs, crapping, and making more of their kind. We are the only beings who know what species we are. We are the only ones who wonder why we are here. The only ones who wonder if there's a God or not. The only ones who know what death is.

I totally agree.

We certainly are the only ones who can worship God. Nothing else leads me to believe God intended for animals to worship him. Why place them in a pedestal if that's not their purpose?

An ancient greek philospher once asked his student if a horse were capable of worshipping god, would his god resemble a human or a horse?

Again, we're coming from different beliefs, and maybe all the things I just said mean nothing to you, because you don't believe in a higher being. An omnipotent one who I know in my heart to believe created us above the animals for a reason.

Really? I was raised Roman Catholic, went to Roman Catholic school from grades K-12, and took theology classes each year the whole way.
How were you raised?

I just believe the answer to be very simple as to how we were made. That's my belief. And the fact that I believe, and animals don't, is a major reason why I argued all I did in regards to their "service" to us.

You're totally allowed to believe that, i wasn't trying to convince your beliefs, i swear, i was just trying to clear up what an evolutionist would say to your questions...just trying to get you to realize what evolution is all about. thats it.

I just believe there is a purpose to everything.

So do i.

on a slightly diff note....what do you say of experiments involving selection?

IE if a man gets a population of Drosophila, and breeds for red eyes, and keeps breeding red eyes with red eyes, and eventually ends up with a population that gives 100% red eyes. Do u think experiments like this are totally falsified?

Do you think if we were allowed to test on humans, and bred humans with red hair, with humans with red hair, and did this over and over again, that we WOULDN'T end up with a population giving 100% red hair?

If you do think this could happen, what do you call this phenomena?

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 08:54 PM

Try watching Animal Planet. Other organisms are complex aswell, I mean look at Dolphins, just like Humans they have sex for pleasure and not just reproduction.
Funny. Watching Animal Planet convinces me more and more that there is a higher being.

Yeah, dolphins like sex. I wouldn't call that being anything near our intelligence.

E20

08-25-2005, 08:56 PM

Funny. Watching Animal Planet convinces me more and more that there is a higher being.

Yeah, dolphins like sex. I wouldn't call that being anything near our intelligence.
1 word. Monkeys............

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 08:56 PM

BTW top cherry, i do believe in a Supreme Being, no BS

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 08:58 PM

1 word. Monkeys............

he makes a good point

if you look at our mitochondrial RNA or rRNA animal family trees

why is it that the 'more advanced' species are capable of being taught and doing more things that a 'less advanced' species

why can't dogs learn to do sign language?

why chimps? is it coincidence that they're closest to us humans?
why would God make that a coincidence?

a religion teacher once told me that all coincidences are really just God in action

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 09:01 PM

and i'm still waiting for our friendly neighborhood pirate (jochehehjaaaam) to post in this thread...he is the one afterall who said evolution was far fetched and full of holes.....where the F are you? searching for the black pearl? Fucking Keira Knightley? If so, i commend you. She's one fine peice of ass :tu

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 09:03 PM

An ancient greek philospher once asked his student if a horse were capable of worshipping god, would his god resemble a human or a horse?
"What if's" aren't reality. So what do they really matter?
Bible says humans were made to God's image.

Sorry if I don't care "what if" a horse worshiped. :)

Really? I was raised Roman Catholic, went to Roman Catholic school from grades K-12, and took theology classes each year the whole way.
How were you raised?
Let's just say I wasn't. :)
Sorry if I don't feel like going into religions.

You're totally allowed to believe that, i wasn't trying to convince your beliefs, i swear, i was just trying to clear up what an evolutionist would say to your questions...just trying to get you to realize what evolution is all about. thats it.
And I really appreciate it. It really is interesting.
I was just posting on why I believe what I do and also clarify some things.

what do you say of experiments involving selection?

IE if a man gets a population of Drosophila, and breeds for red eyes, and keeps breeding red eyes with red eyes, and eventually ends up with a population that gives 100% red eyes. Do u think experiments like this are totally falsified?

Do you think if we were allowed to test on humans, and bred humans with red hair, with humans with red hair, and did this over and over again, that we WOULDN'T end up with a population giving 100% red hair?

If you do think this could happen, what do you call this phenomena?
Not at all. The fact that it can happen, doesn't lead me to believe it is how it happened.

And what would I call it?

Things which can be made possible. Just not a proof as to that happening before we came along.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 09:10 PM

1 word. Monkeys............
One word... "Near".

he makes a good point

if you look at our mitochondrial RNA or rRNA animal family trees

why is it that the 'more advanced' species are capable of being taught and doing more things that a 'less advanced' species

why can't dogs learn to do sign language?

why chimps? is it coincidence that they're closest to us humans?
why would God make that a coincidence?

a religion teacher once told me that all coincidences are really just God in action
That last part I would maybe agree on.

You just messed me up when you told me you belive in God. :D

Why can dogs do a lot more things than ants can? Why can birds fly and not tigers? Why can parrots repeat speech and not rabbits?

They're just made differently. With different attributes and things which make us go "Wow!". To me, it's nothing else.

:)

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 09:16 PM

"What if's" aren't reality. So what do they really matter?
Bible says humans were made to God's image.

Sorry if I don't care "what if" a horse worshiped. :)

Someone once said What If the earth was round. Someone once said What If there are other planets.
Perhaps you should start asking yourself What If.

Not at all. The fact that it can happen, doesn't lead me to believe it is how it happened.
So you admit selection experiments yield results which comply with evolution, but you dont think this happens? I don't understand what you mean here.

And what would I call it?

Things which can be made possible. Just not a proof as to that happening before we came along.

Science doesn't prove anything, it disproves things and supports things. If you didn't realize this until now, realize it now. Science experiments are done mostly to disprove theories, not to prove them. Because theories are just that, Theories. The very word's definition provides you all you need to know of its nature. Noone ever mentioned in this thread "the LAW of evolution"

You say things which can be made possible...
so you're saying if a tribe of 100 Astrolophiticus split into two....and they went to two seperate environments....and one environment had mostly plants as food source, and the other mostly animals
that if these two tribes stayed seperate, they would not yeild different types of humanoids after 1000's of years?

if we can acheive a human population of 100% red heads after just 5-6 generations, then what IS possible after 1000's of years?

Human populations have stayed geographically and genetically isolated from each other for thousands and thousands of years...

how do you account for different skin types? Why is it that blacks from Africa have Ribisomal RNA that is far more heterogenic than people from Europe?

My beliefs provide a decent explanation for this.

What is your position on this?

JoeChalupa

08-25-2005, 09:18 PM

I believe in Evolution.

God created the Big Bang.

E20

08-25-2005, 09:23 PM

Why can dogs do a lot more things than ants can? Why can birds fly and not tigers? Why can parrots repeat speech and not rabbits?

An ants functions are much more limited than a Dogs, Ants function in a unit where they are given orders and have to carry them out. Birds and Tigers are different species. Unlike humans, parrots do not have vocal cords. Instead, they learn to control the movement of the muscles in the throat to direct the airflow in such a way as to reproduce certain tones and sounds—sometimes even human sounds.

There is no question that some parrots show signs of intelligence. Yet, it is important to understand that these mimicking birds do not really understand what they are saying. Parrots just repeat sounds that they have been taught. Talking to a parrot is basically like talking to a tape player or a Furby doll. (And even then, you never know if a parrot will talk back.) The fact is, even though some birds can be "trained" to do certain things, they cannot reason or have real, human-like conversations. Rabbits do not or have the capability to use the muscles inside the mouth like Parrots do. Rabbits are more into reproducing, eating and caring for they're offspring.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 09:26 PM

An ants functions are much more limited than a Dogs, Ants function in a unit where they are given orders and have to carry them out. Birds and Tigers are different species. Unlike humans, parrots do not have vocal cords. Instead, they learn to control the movement of the muscles in the throat to direct the airflow in such a way as to reproduce certain tones and sounds—sometimes even human sounds.

There is no question that some parrots show signs of intelligence. Yet, it is important to understand that these mimicking birds do not really understand what they are saying. Parrots just repeat sounds that they have been taught. Talking to a parrot is basically like talking to a tape player or a Furby doll. (And even then, you never know if a parrot will talk back.) The fact is, even though some birds can be "trained" to do certain things, they cannot reason or have real, human-like conversations. Rabbits do not or have the capability to use the muscles inside the mouth like Parrots do. Rabbits are more into reproducing, eating and caring for they're offspring.

no doubt...mimicry is a very primitive form of 'intelligence'

it in no way disproves the fact that the closer animals are to humans the 'more intelligent' they are

E20

08-25-2005, 09:29 PM

no doubt...mimicry is a very primitive form of 'intelligence'

it in no way disproves the fact that the closer animals are to humans the 'more intelligent' they are
I'd say a dolphin is more intelligent than a chimp but, a chimp is way more related to us than dolphin is.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 09:29 PM

Someone once said What If the earth was round. Someone once said What If there are other planets.
Perhaps you should start asking yourself What If.
You mean the same ones who should've looked in the Bible to know that before they even asked what if? In it it clearly talked of the earth being round, and there being other celestial bodies.

:D

So you admit selection experiments yield results which comply with evolution, but you dont think this happens? I don't understand what you mean here.
I don't really understand what exactly it is you want me to answer.
That because these experiments aren't false, that evolution is what made us, and not God, or that God made us, but evolution exists?

Science doesn't prove anything, it disproves things and supports things. If you didn't realize this until now, realize it now. Science experiments are done mostly to disprove theories, not to prove them. Because theories are just that, Theories. The very word's definition provides you all you need to know of its nature. Noone ever mentioned in this thread "the LAW of evolution"

You say things which can be made possible...
so you're saying if a tribe of 100 Astrolophiticus split into two....and they went to two seperate environments....and one environment had mostly plants as food source, and the other mostly animals
that if these two tribes stayed seperate, they would not yeild different types of humanoids after 1000's of years?

if we can acheive a human population of 100% red heads after just 5-6 generations, then what IS possible after 1000's of years?

Human populations have stayed geographically and genetically isolated from each other for thousands and thousands of years...

how do you account for different skin types? Why is it that blacks from Africa have Ribisomal RNA that is far more heterogenic than people from Europe?

My beliefs provide a decent explanation for this.

What is your position on this?
Well clearly, the environment humans live in makes them adapt differently, look differently.

A man and a woman with blue eyes make babies with blue eyes. A couple with brown eyes make brown-eyed babies. Same goes with skin tones, hair color, etc.
Yeah. It's completely evident. There's no denying it.

Do I think this is a result of evolution? No. We are all the same in regards to the number of bones in our bodies, same number of fingers, same anatomical structure. We all have hair. We all walk with 2 feet. We always have and we always will. We all have different DNA, yes. That's what makes us different in regards to our exterior. Nothing else.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 09:30 PM

I'd say a dolphin is more intelligent than a chimp but, a chimp is way more related to us than dolphin is.

on the plus side, they're still mammals, and closer to humans than the average person may think

E20

08-25-2005, 09:31 PM

You mean the same ones who should've looked in the Bible to know that before they even asked what if? In it it clearly talked of the earth being round, and there being other celestial bodies.
Ever heard of Galileo? He was charged with treason on saying things like that by the Church and was forced to take back what he said or he'd face exile.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 09:35 PM

You mean the same ones who should've looked in the Bible to know that before they even asked what if? In it it clearly talked of the earth being round, and there being other celestial bodies.

The old testament also says that God will smite down with heavenly fire any of those who don't take his word seriously

have you ever sinned in your life?

if you have...have u ever been smited with fire from the heavens?

I don't really understand what exactly it is you want me to answer.
That because these experiments aren't false, that evolution is what made us, and not God, or that God made us, but evolution exists?

I wanted you to explain to me the results of selection (if evolution is a car, selection is the engine) experiments. Do you agree that the process of selection is possible/does exist?

Well clearly, the environment humans live in makes them adapt differently, look differently.

A man and a woman with blue eyes make babies with blue eyes. A couple with brown eyes make brown-eyed babies. Same goes with skin tones, hair color, etc.
Yeah. It's completely evident. There's no denying it.

Ok, so you do agree with selection. Thats all i wanted to know. So you do agree that if Robert Swift had a child with Peggy Bundy that they'd most likely have a red-head child.

Do I think this is a result of evolution? No. We are all the same in regards to the number of bones in our bodies, same number of fingers, same anatomical structure. We all have hair. We all walk with 2 feet. We always have and we always will. We all have different DNA, yes. That's what makes us different in regards to our exterior. Nothing else.

I agree with everything you say here....but you just said you agreed that selection does exist and is a force amongst our lives...but then went back to how you think this has nothing to do with evolution

the fact is...it DOES! The founder of evolution's theory was called "the theory of natural selection"

mookie2001

08-25-2005, 09:38 PM

I think Robert Swift is Luke Ridnours son

E20

08-25-2005, 09:39 PM

Do I think this is a result of evolution? No. We are all the same in regards to the number of bones in our bodies, same number of fingers, same anatomical structure. We all have hair. We all walk with 2 feet. We always have and we always will. We all have different DNA, yes. That's what makes us different in regards to our exterior. Nothing else
Humans do not need to do any evolving........We can manipulate our surroundings with tools whether we be a midget or Shaq. Why do you think they're more giraffes with longer necks then they are with shorter ones? Well because of natural selection the ones with the taller necks were able to eat the off the tree's and the ones that weren't able to died out making that the dominant gene. Ever notice more people have dark hair than blonde, more brown pupils than blue etc... Because the dominant genes are the ones carryed out through reproduction.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 09:46 PM

The old testament also says that God will smite down with heavenly fire any of those who don't take his word seriously

have you ever sinned in your life?

if you have...have u ever been smited with fire from the heavens?
Everyone sins. It has to do with us not being perfect.
Do I believe God's patience has a limit? Ofcourse.

Do I believe he will take action? Yep.

But for you to understand it better, it takes reading and comprehending what the Bible means.

Ok, so you do agree with selection. Thats all i wanted to know. So you do agree that if Robert Swift had a child with Peggy Bundy that they'd most likely have a red-head child.
Red-head's DNA + Red-head's DNA = Red-head DNA

Yeah...

but you just said you agreed that selection does exist and is a force amongst our lives...but then went back to how you think this has nothing to do with evolution

the fact is...it DOES! The founder of evolution's theory was called "the theory of natural selection"
Uh-huh... Sorry, I didn't study evolution in high school... if selection means a red-head choosing a red-head to have his babies, will create a red-head, then yes. It's only logical.
It doesn't change their anatomical structure, though. Never will humans evolve into some sort of monsters or a 20 foot whatever.

E20

08-25-2005, 09:50 PM

It doesn't change their anatomical structure, though. Never will humans evolve into some sort of monster or 20 foot whatever.
Humans will never need to evolve to adapt to there enviorment. We don't need excessive hair for those who live in the cold, we can build homes and shelter with heaters etc. We don't need long arms/big bodies to grab food from trees we can build machines/use tools to do that for us.......

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 09:52 PM

^Agreed.

E20

08-25-2005, 09:54 PM

Red-head's DNA + Red-head's DNA = Red-head DNA

Yeah...
They're are things called allelles(sp). Red hair is obviously not a common trait. It's not dominante so when scientists use a Mendel Chart they would give red hair a recessive symbol.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 09:54 PM

JoePublic

08-25-2005, 09:56 PM

The more humans rely on machines the sooner we'll evolve into big fat balls of nothing but human flesh.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 09:57 PM

yeah theres no doubt that humans are the most advanced species

but it doesn't mean we're it, we're the final product

how do you know God didn't intend the human to be very important in his sytem, but servant to a higher being that is still yet to come into existence?

we dont, i dont
but its possible...
That's what you think.

But based on my beliefs, which are based largely on the bible, it leads me to believe very strongly and confidently that it's not happening. It's just not stated there.

Jelly

08-25-2005, 09:59 PM

why can't dogs learn to do sign language?

:lol :lol
they probably could but their paws might make it a little hard for us to read what they're saying. Dogs are able to communicate in lots of other ways. They are excellent at reading body language and they can learn up to 50 words. They are also very emotional animals, they like some people, dislike others, they feel jealousy, anger, guilt, fear, love, sadness and they mourn when an owner or companion dog dies. They develop social hierarchy in groups, set up boundaries and can communicate with each other. In fact, most animals are capable of these things. It is pure idiocy to think of animals as "machines". And it is beyond me why anyone would ponder the purpose of every life form based on how that life form serves humans. We don't eat or play with tigers and leopards Top Cherry. At least I don't. All animals are not suitable for us to eat, plenty of them are not cuddly playthings, and still more are just too dangerous for humans to be around. The idea that they're all here for human pleasure is sheer lunacy.

That's all I really have to say on this matter. Any serious person who doesn't believe in evolution may as well proclaim their life long membership in the Flat Earth Society.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-25-2005, 10:04 PM

That's what you think.

But based on my beliefs, which are based largely on the bible, it leads me to believe very strongly and confidently that it's not happening. It's just not stated there.

i just dont understand how you can say that after you've agreed that selection exists

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 10:09 PM

:lol :lol
they probably could but their paws might make it a little hard for us to read what they're saying.
:lol

And it is beyond me why anyone would ponder the purpose of every life form based on how that life form serves humans. We don't eat or play with tigers and leopards Top Cherry. At least I don't. All animals are not suitable for us to eat, plenty of them are not cuddly playthings, and still more are just too dangerous for humans to be around. The idea that they're all here for human pleasure is sheer lunacy.
Yeah? It's not logical for us to believe tigers weren't the furocious creatures they are today? That they didn't see humans as a threat before? The fact that they became such defendants of their territory doesn't mean they once weren't.
We all stare in wonder whenever we see or read about a new discovery of species, of a new reason for this, a new reason for that, a new purpose to this and that. We never really stop learning about animals, plants, insects, the environment.

Tell me how that isn't human pleasure.

That's all I really have to say on this matter. Any serious person who doesn't believe in evolution may as well proclaim their life long membership in the Flat Earth Society.
Congratulations. You are officially the first person to try to be offensive of other people's beliefs.

How the hell do you know if I'm not laughing right now at all the things I'm reading? Hmm?
You don't see me telling them how much I find this to be "ridiculous".

:D

E20

08-25-2005, 10:10 PM

What Can't_Be_Faded is trying to say is

If something were to happen to a group of humans and some die and some survive why does that happen? Because of natural selection the ones that don't die have the selected genes to survive.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 10:15 PM

I'd have to study evolution before I go on in this thread.

I'm done.

E20

08-25-2005, 10:18 PM

E20

08-25-2005, 10:19 PM

This is getting old it's fun debating but, theres no point.

TOP-CHERRY

08-25-2005, 10:19 PM

.
I couldn't find a "delete" button for the post.

:)

E20

08-25-2005, 10:22 PM

I couldn't find a "delete" button for the post.

:)
I was trying to reply to your above post so after you changed yours I changed mine. :lol

Duff McCartney

08-25-2005, 10:37 PM

Maybe people who made up god are just lazy bastards. Fuck it...it takes too long to figure out how we got here. So let's just say someone made us.

Makes sense.

Spam

08-25-2005, 10:45 PM

Maybe people who made up god are just lazy bastards. Fuck it...it takes too long to figure out how we got here. So let's just say someone made us.

Makes sense.

Maybe God made lazy bastards who don't pay their debts?

MannyIsGod

08-25-2005, 10:47 PM

Top Cherry,

I haven't read all of your posts in this thread, because after reading the first few I got this gist of what you were trying to say.

First of all, to say that emotions are strictly human is incorrect. There is every reason to believe that certain animals display emotional structure. You may not be aware of the social complexity in higher apes but there are many ways in which they display emotions.

As far as physical traits on a human, there is a traceable reason for almost everything on our bodies. In fact, I can't think of anything that has adapted in a way that was suitable for the way of life that best worked for any particular species. Taste buds are not limited to humans and work much in the same way in many other animals. The sense of taste is an offshoot of the sense of smell and is not limited to humans.

The large variety of species on this earth exsist because each one fills a niche. They are able to fit in somewhere because of their specialized traits and work to keep the entire planet in a balance.

The majority of your posts are based on misconceptions and ignorance. You assume that because you do not understand the reasoning for something, it must have been placed by a higher being for human enjoyment or use.

Jelly

08-26-2005, 12:53 AM

:lol

Congratulations. You are officially the first person to try to be offensive of other people's beliefs.

How the hell do you know if I'm not laughing right now at all the things I'm reading? Hmm?
You don't see me telling them how much I find this to be "ridiculous".

:D

Top Cherry,
Sorry if I offended you. (sincerely) But I'd be lying if I said I didn't think your ideas on this matter were fairly insane.

JoeChalupa

08-26-2005, 06:33 AM

Well, I've evolved from the young kid I was at 16 to the big kid I am now.

travis2

08-26-2005, 06:40 AM

Ever heard of Galileo? He was charged with treason on saying things like that by the Church and was forced to take back what he said or he'd face exile.

Off topic...but this is not correct. Galileo was not forced to recant a belief in heliocentricity. He was told to recant for saying that heliocentricity was a fact, rather than a theory.

Copernicus, who put forth the theory, was a Catholic priest.

Actually, the primary (though not the only) resistance to heliocentricity as even a possibility was brought by the Protestant Reformers.

travis2

08-26-2005, 06:45 AM

i just dont understand how you can say that after you've agreed that selection exists

Actually, I don't believe humans are evolving into a "superior" being either...but not for any theological reasons.

Because humans have reached a certain point of both intelligence and technological ability, we now have the ability to alter our environment rather than adapt to it. (DISCLAIMER...I am using "environment" in its most general sense here, not as "climate". This is not a global warming discussion.) Were natural selection still in full effect with humans, we would no longer need glasses, for example. Hemophiliacs would have died out a long time ago. Many other genetic disorders definitely inimical to survival would have also died out.

Instead, we humans make glasses...and try to treat genetic disorders...

SWC Bonfire

08-26-2005, 09:04 AM

Ever heard of Galileo? He was charged with treason on saying things like that by the Church and was forced to take back what he said or he'd face exile.

Galileo made his point to the church like Cindy Sheehan is making hers. He could have been a lot more diplomatic about it, and basically was charged for pissing people off and being an asshole. Still not a high point in Church/science relations, but politicized and used as an argument by atheists for centuries.

Edit: Damn! Travis beat me to it. :jack

Extra Stout

08-26-2005, 09:15 AM

Evolution is very humbling. Cosmology is even more so.

With God, we're an integral part of God's plan in creation, beloved, cared for, made in his image with intellect, conscience, and personhood, so valuable that God himself tasted death in order to redeem us for himself.

Without God, we're basically fancy monkeys on a tiny planet around an insignificant star far out on an arm of an ordinary galaxy somewhere in an isolated corner of the universe. We're just infintesimal specks in the scope of things.

Theologically, modern science should be very useful to the believer in terms of gaining the proper perspective in his relationship with God.

SWC Bonfire

08-26-2005, 09:16 AM

something u all must keep in mind is that true heart of evolution says that each little peice of DNA in this world is interested in only one thing:

REPLICATION

and the DNA thats in bananas wants to replicate more than the DNA in squash, the DNA in monkeys, and the DNA in humans

each organism in today's world represents a union of several peices of DNA that are able to REPLICATE at an optimum rate....much more efficiently than if they were seperate, each little segment in a different bacterium or something

replication is the key

Here is my question: why does DNA replicate? Why doesn't it follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and break up into smaller, less organized molecules with simpler structures with more stable bonds? The answer is, of course, because it is alive and can supply energy to replicate itself in its complex form. The 2nd law of thermodynamics still applies, and is a source for genetic mutations that are part of evolution.

However, what about that 1st "self-replicating" DNA molecule? Was it "alive"? What outside force was supplying energy for the reaction? Sure, energy in sunlight or heat from the earth could have been the source. But -why the hell did it want to self-replicate, as opposed to other molecules that don't?

Ruling out intelligent design is like creationists ruling out evolution. Someone said it before, evolution is a mechanism, and intelligent design is a philosophy.

Extra Stout

08-26-2005, 09:26 AM

Here is my question: why does DNA replicate? Why doesn't it follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and break up into smaller, less organized molecules with simpler structures with more stable bonds? The answer is, of course, because it is alive and can supply energy to replicate itself in its complex form. The 2nd law of thermodynamics still applies, and is a source for genetic mutations that are part of evolution.You've made a mistake in applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The entropy of the universe is increasing, yes. But with a sufficiently large source of energy, this tendency toward disorder can be overcome.

In our case, that is the sun.

However, what about that 1st "self-replicating" DNA molecule? Was it "alive"? What outside force was supplying energy for the reaction? Sure, energy in sunlight or heat from the earth could have been the source. But -why the hell did it want to self-replicate, as opposed to other molecules that don't?Simpler molecules also self-replicate.

But that's still not enough. Even if there is some property of matter that causes certain compounds to self-replicate, why does matter have those properties and not some other ones?

Ruling out intelligent design is like creationists ruling out evolution. Someone said it before, evolution is a mechanism, and intelligent design is a philosophy.That was me.

Duff McCartney

08-26-2005, 11:51 AM

We're just infintesimal specks in the scope of things.

We are. I'm quoting somebody but when we see beyond ourselves then we'll find that life goes on within us and without us.

In the end, it doesn't matter. 500 years from now nobody will remember you, or me. Unless you do something like cure cancer or AIDS, your ripples through time will end the day you die.

I think that's the problem with religion to me, I don't think nobody wants to accept that once you die it's the end, they want to believe that there is something more to it to justify their sorry ass lives.

MannyIsGod

08-26-2005, 11:52 AM

Actually, I don't believe humans are evolving into a "superior" being either...but not for any theological reasons.

Because humans have reached a certain point of both intelligence and technological ability, we now have the ability to alter our environment rather than adapt to it. (DISCLAIMER...I am using "environment" in its most general sense here, not as "climate". This is not a global warming discussion.) Were natural selection still in full effect with humans, we would no longer need glasses, for example. Hemophiliacs would have died out a long time ago. Many other genetic disorders definitely inimical to survival would have also died out.

Instead, we humans make glasses...and try to treat genetic disorders...
One could make the arguement that evolution is not bound to organic changes. Glasses are a form of evolution, if you will. As is the rest of what you mentioned. Language was probably the largest evolutionary step of all. Think of how humanity has advanced as a result of language. It is exponential.

But, even from a purely biological standpoint, Humans have already changed a great deal from the first Homo Sapiens.

travis2

08-26-2005, 11:55 AM

SWC Bonfire

08-26-2005, 12:02 PM

In the end, it doesn't matter. 500 years from now nobody will remember you, or me.

He hopes this is true so that his debt will be forgotten...:lol

SWC Bonfire

08-26-2005, 12:03 PM

Extra Stout

08-26-2005, 12:09 PM

One could make the arguement that evolution is not bound to organic changes. Glasses are a form of evolution, if you will. As is the rest of what you mentioned. Language was probably the largest evolutionary step of all. Think of how humanity has advanced as a result of language. It is exponential.Language is an organic change.

Glasses are technology, not biological evolution. Technology is one of the things that make us unique. We are able to overcome physiological deficiencies that otherwise might inhibit reproduction.

You're using a very general definition of "evolution." A plasma HDTV certainly is much more highly "evolved" than an old RCA from 1949.

The problem is that thinking this way causes a misconception about biological evolution -- organisms don't "optimize" the way technology does. There are many features of the human body that if done that way by an engineer, would get the engineer fired. We're designed just well enough to get by.

Our knees are designed very poorly. They are laterally unstable. The idea of having the urethra go over the prostate gland is stupid. Forcing an infant's skull to go through the mother's pubic bone is asinine. And don't get me started about all the extra weight and needless bulk in our head and neck necessary to keep our eyes working. Spiders have a much better design than this "rotating orb" thing we got going.

While these features aren't optimized, they stuck because at whatever time, that mutation was one of the ones that helped that particular organism adapt to its environment and reproduce instead of an organism with a less favorable mutation. But we won't "evolve" out of those features unless there is something in the environment that is incompatible with those features so that we die off before we can reproduce or so we reproduce less.

Given those criteria, I would argue that modern technology can be an evolutionary disadvantage, because on average the people who benefit the most from it reproduce less than those who don't have it.

MannyIsGod

08-26-2005, 12:15 PM

Spam

08-26-2005, 12:20 PM

travis2

08-26-2005, 12:21 PM

Duff McCartney

08-26-2005, 12:35 PM

Neanderthals are not Homo Sapiens.

And I would counter that increased height and longer life-span (you didn't mention that, but I consider it in the same category) are more a product of innovation (as SWC) puts it than evolution. Again, we humans are altering our environment rather than adapting to it. Better diet, better medicine and medical practices, etc...

Increased height is from evolution. Because standing upright enabled early man-like beings to see farther away. Instead of very limited field of vision with his back hunched.

travis2

08-26-2005, 12:37 PM

Increased height is from evolution. Because standing upright enabled early man-like beings to see farther away. Instead of very limited field of vision with his back hunched.

Homo sapiens could already stand upright. We are discussing differences in average height between early and modern Homo sapiens.

Extra Stout

08-26-2005, 12:37 PM

Well, theres the phsyical differences between Neandertals and "Modern" Humans. They were taller, broader, and typically had bigger brains. We have differences with early Cro Magnon man as well.

Then you also hear about how the average height of the American male is going up. That is evolution in action as well.Not necessarily. Nutrition has a lot to do with that as well.

Another thing to keep in mind is that mutations happen all the time. If you separate populations of a species, they will diverge somehow over time, even absent environmental stresses. For example, British women have larger breasts on average than other European women. There is no reason for this.

Perhaps intelligent designers could argue that God just chose to bless British men.

In the case of humans, since environmental stresses no longer factor in, we may well just become more diverse. However, that will take a long time, and for now, virtually all of our genetic diversity is in Africa.

If you want to see a severe case of short term evolution due to selective breeding, take a look at the African American population today. Do you think breeding practices during slavery might have something to do with their dominance of sports in this country today?Assuming that happened, I guess it follows the model. The intervention of the slaveholder would be the environmental stress. Genetic variation with regard to strength, speed, quickness, and physical coordination was already present in the human species. So existing mutations were selected to affect the gene pool of the entire population.

Of course, we should add that it was morally repugant to breed human beings like cattle.

P.S. With regard to genetic variation within a species, look at the common dog. Compare a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Keep in mind that all dogs descend from a small group of mentally impaired grey wolves, and that they're really still the same species, since if your dog gets away and mates with a grey wolf, the offspring will still be fertile.

MannyIsGod

08-26-2005, 12:47 PM

travis2

08-26-2005, 01:18 PM

The degree humans are able to change their environment is directly related to biology. That is one reason you can consider it an evolutionary trait. Evolution - at least the way I look at it - is not limited to biological mutations in the least, but encompasses any change which then has an effect on the species.

I think you and I (or you and Stout...or SWC) are going to have a hard time debating the finer points because you hold a (fairly) radically different definition of "evolution"...different enough that basic terms hold different meanings.

Not a value judgement...just a practical observation.

MannyIsGod

08-26-2005, 01:29 PM

I agree, I'm of the school of thought that goes beyond biological evolution.

ididnotnothat

08-26-2005, 01:44 PM

With the increased use of the internet and children accessing it at earlier ages I'm surprised humans have not evolved and grown a 6th finger on each hand as well as a 3rd ear for cell phones.

Extra Stout

08-26-2005, 01:48 PM

With the increased use of the internet and children accessing it at earlier ages I'm surprised humans have not evolved and grown a 6th finger on each hand as well as a 3rd ear for cell phones.
I was thinking that with the explosion of Internet porn, the male index finger would evolve into a penis.

Spurminator

08-26-2005, 01:51 PM

Or his hand a vagina.

PizzaFace

08-26-2005, 02:17 PM

Or his hand a vagina.

All the same to me.

E20

08-26-2005, 09:06 PM

Off topic...but this is not correct. Galileo was not forced to recant a belief in heliocentricity. He was told to recant for saying that heliocentricity was a fact, rather than a theory.

Copernicus, who put forth the theory, was a Catholic priest.

Actually, the primary (though not the only) resistance to heliocentricity as even a possibility was brought by the Protestant Reformers.

Galileo made his point to the church like Cindy Sheehan is making hers. He could have been a lot more diplomatic about it, and basically was charged for pissing people off and being an asshole. Still not a high point in Church/science relations, but politicized and used as an argument by atheists for centuries.

Edit: Damn! Travis beat me to it.

The Church said that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun was a gift from God. Galileo proposed the Sun was the center and other planets orbited it and so did the Earth. The Church charged him with heresy. He went to Rome to defend his beliefs and then later took back everything he said. Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him to neither advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy, because it was contrary to the accepted understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

Also, I just want to add how is it that Humans have different ethnicities and races etc... if we were derived from two people. Obviously it's not possible. So logically there must have been more than two humans in the begining otherwise we'd all be the same ethinicity.

JoeChalupa

08-26-2005, 09:21 PM

Not necessarily.
Ethnicity evolved as they travelled the world.
That is what I believe anyway.

E20

08-26-2005, 09:30 PM

If life starts out with two people then it should be the same through out the lifeline. Two middle easterns can't produce to a black baby........

JoeChalupa

08-26-2005, 09:42 PM

With God....anything is possible.

I'm just a simple man with simple thoughts.....and apparently a simple mind.

jochhejaam

08-26-2005, 09:45 PM

Ok. This is the exact kind of thing I've been waiting for from Joch. I can't sit there and toss bible verses and Psalms back and forth, but if he wants to have an honest debate on the theory of evolution, lets have at it.

You were saying there are holes?

Well after years of research on the subject...or hour of perusing various websites, I can't remember which :lol , I'll render this for you to debunk.

PROBABILITY OF EVOLUTION

The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

(My dad did write a book on the subject (unpublished) and gave me a copy of the transcript, which unfortunately I've never read. I'll have to look it over and submit his thoughts that may be of use in this thread).

MannyIsGod

08-26-2005, 09:50 PM

Thats not about evolution, thats about the origin of life.

jochhejaam

08-26-2005, 09:59 PM

Thats not about evolution, thats about the origin of life.

It renders the theory of evolution as totally implausible.

Totally implausibe means it didn't happen.

We'll chalk one up for Dr. James Coppedge and Emile Borel.

Ginofan

08-26-2005, 10:07 PM

It renders the theory of evolution as totally implausible.

Totally implausibe means it didn't happen.

We'll chalk one up for Dr. James Coppedge and Emile Borel.

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

If it wasn't possible they would just say 0 chance, but they don't. It may not be likely but it isn't impossible.

jochhejaam

08-26-2005, 10:19 PM

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

If it wasn't possible they would just say 0 chance, but they don't. It may not be likely but it isn't impossible.

I would ask you to go back and read it again but it doesn't appear you can comprehend what he says even though it is said with great clearity.

1 out of 10 to the 50th power = "will not happen" = NO CHANCE

1 out of 10 to the 119,000 power = producing 1 human cell

1 out of 10 to the 119,000 power > 1 out of 10 to the 50th power.

Comprende? :) <---(added at edit to infer no snippiness intended)

jochhejaam

08-26-2005, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod Ok. This is the exact kind of thing I've been waiting for from Joch. I can't sit there and toss bible verses and Psalms back and forth, but if he wants to have an honest debate on the theory of evolution, lets have at it You were saying there are holes?

Maybe you'll be able to come up with a more significant response to this;

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.

Ginofan

08-26-2005, 10:39 PM

I would ask you to go back and read it again but it doesn't appear you can comprehend what he says even though it is said with great clearity.

1 out of 10 to the 50th power = "will not happen" = NO CHANCE

1 out of 10 to the 119,000 power = producing 1 human cell

1 out of 10 to the 119,000 power > 1 out of 10 to the 50th power.

Comprende?

There's no need to get snippy...but I suppose that's what I get for reading it over too quickly.

jochhejaam

08-26-2005, 10:43 PM

There's no need to get snippy...but I suppose that's what I get for reading it over too quickly.

Sorry if you felt I was gettin snippy, should've thrown him in after the comprende --> :)

jochhejaam

08-26-2005, 11:06 PM

Ok. This is the exact kind of thing I've been waiting for from Joch. I can't sit there and toss bible verses and Psalms back and forth, but if he wants to have an honest debate on the theory of evolution, lets have at it.

You were saying there are holes?

I'll let you examine a hole presented by none other than Darwin himself.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin-

jochhejaam

08-26-2005, 11:58 PM

Ok. This is the exact kind of thing I've been waiting for from Joch. I can't sit there and toss bible verses and Psalms back and forth, but if he wants to have an honest debate on the theory of evolution, lets have at it.

You were saying there are holes?

Evolution is based on mutation of an existing organism

Mutations Are Typically Harmful, Sometimes Neutral and Are Rare
Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral. Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake, which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage. In addition, mutations have been discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in functions to stabilize and resist change. So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur, they they do not bring out an advantage to any living thing. Evolutionists like to use examples of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria, or in mutation of the tomato for example, though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing into another. One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.

For evolutionists to state that many favorable, random mutations have occurred is completely unfounded. Mutations simply cannot be the cause for evolution into new, healthy, more complex living organisms. Again, many evolutionists simply state this fact is not true, when proof is everywhere. These evolutionists are simply in denial.

"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis.
Improving life by random mutation has the probability of zero."

Albert Szent-Gyorgi,
Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937)

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 12:21 AM

Ok. This is the exact kind of thing I've been waiting for from Joch. I can't sit there and toss bible verses and Psalms back and forth, but if he wants to have an honest debate on the theory of evolution, lets have at it.

You were saying there are holes?

Apparently lots of holes Manny.

FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.

"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome — nowhere near enough to account for human evolution.
This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

-Walter James ReMine-

Jelly

08-27-2005, 12:30 AM

Evolution is based on mutation of an existing organism

Mutations Are Typically Harmful, Sometimes Neutral and Are Rare
Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral. Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake, which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage. In addition, mutations have been discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in functions to stabilize and resist change. So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur, they they do not bring out an advantage to any living thing. Evolutionists like to use examples of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria, or in mutation of the tomato for example, though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing into another. One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.

For evolutionists to state that many favorable, random mutations have occurred is completely unfounded. Mutations simply cannot be the cause for evolution into new, healthy, more complex living organisms. Again, many evolutionists simply state this fact is not true, when proof is everywhere. These evolutionists are simply in denial.

Science may soon prove you wrong. I once saw a fascinating documentary where descendants of a small, fairly isolated town in England had a high percentage of residents - something like 15% whereas 3% would have been normal- carried a certain gene mutation. Most of the 15% traced their ancestry back to survivors of the black plague, which had wiped out everyone else in that town. Their theory is that this gene mutation is what helped them survive and is the same gene mutation found in a rare group of people that appear to be immune to the HIV virus despite having been exposed to it repeatedly. Anyway, it's late and I'm too tired to elaborate any further (besides it's been a while since I saw this show), but here's a quick paragraph I dug up on google.

Recently, scientists were astonished to find that some individuals did not become infected with HIV, even after repeated exposure to the deadly virus.

For some reason, they were immune. A long and difficult scientific search, using blood samples from hundreds of HIV-resistant patients, finally teased out the genetic explanation. Resistant individuals had in their cells two copies of a mutation that disrupted the entryway through which HIV viruses entered white blood cells. People who inherited just one copy of the change could become infected, but their disease progressed more slowly.

With this being such a recent epidemic, where did peoples' immunity come from?

Another puzzle was the way this resistance is distributed throughout the world. In some Northern European populations it is relatively common. In Southern Europeans it is more rare, and it is almost entirely absent in Africans, Asians, and Native Americans. Logically, the mutation must have occurred in the past, acting as a defense against a different, previous epidemic caused -- like the AIDS epidemic -- by a pathogen that also targeted white blood cells.

Reading a chronological history, biologists traced the HIV-resistance gene mutation back about 700 years. That was the time at which the Black Death -- bubonic plague -- swept like a deadly scythe through Europe, killing one-third of the population. Then, as now, there were individuals who survived the lethal organism, perhaps because it could not enter their white blood cells. The areas that were hardest hit by the Black Plague match those where the gene for HIV resistance is the most common today.

At present, scientists are trying to infect such resistant cells with bubonic plague bacteria to test the hypothesis that the mutation in the CCR-5 receptor gene could have thwarted the plague in the Middle Ages, as it does HIV today. If it turns out that this mutation does protect against the plague, this coincidence will be yet another illustration of what scientists are finding over and over in the human genome: Nature's past successes often remain part of our genetic toolbox.

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 12:33 AM

Science may soon prove you wrong.

Okay, let me know when it does.

Thanks

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 12:36 AM

Anyone seen Manny? :lol

Are you not entertained?
-Maximus-

Dre_7

08-27-2005, 04:35 AM

I havent really been reading everything in this thread (just kinda skimming) and I dont feel like getting into a Evolution vs. Creation Debate, but I did see something that caught my eye. This quote:

Without God, we're basically fancy monkeys on a tiny planet around an insignificant star far out on an arm of an ordinary galaxy somewhere in an isolated corner of the universe. We're just infintesimal specks in the scope of things.

Im not trying to bash anyone here who doesnt believe exactly what I do, but i wanna ask you. If you believe what ES said in that quote (the stuff about us being fancy monkeys on a tiny planet...), I ask you, what are you/we living for? Does life even matter?

Think about it.

smeagol

08-27-2005, 07:16 AM

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 08:06 AM

Joch, do you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

Allow me to preface this answer by stating that along with the many irrefutable arguements that render evolution as the unproveable theory that it is evolutionist's know that they must maintain that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and if that premise is disproven then all logical discussion on the validity of evolution comes to an abrupt end.

And now I'll submit a few of the many arguements by Dr. Walter Brown that defies the most protected and essential working point for evolution's theory to even begin.

Dr. Walter Brown: Dr. Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence.

Helium
One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. Helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.

Lead and Helium Diffusion
Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found.a Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals.b Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old.

Excess Fluid Pressure
Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock. If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently.

River Sediments
More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport was much greater in the past as the looser topsoil was removed and as erosion smoothed out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. Consequently, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old.

Shallow Meteorites
Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have, expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface.a Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers.b If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.

Smeagol, help yourself to much of what Dr Brown has to say on the subject.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

smeagol

08-27-2005, 09:28 AM

Again, do you believe the Earth was created 6000 yearth ago? How many years ago did the dinosaurs roam the Earth?

xrayzebra

08-27-2005, 09:32 AM

Again, do you believe the Earth was created 6000 yearth ago? How many years ago did the dinosaurs roam the Earth?

Until global warming destroyed them or was it man destroyed them, I cant
remember. Bye the way does anyone remember the ice age? That is until
they invented the automobile, no, they didn't have them then, did they? I
know, Darwin must have a theory for it, I mean after all he was God wasn't
he? One question tho: how come we still have Monkeys if evoloution
occured?

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 10:59 AM

Again, do you believe the Earth was created 6000 yearth ago?

Smeagol, no, I don't have a 100% firm belief on the earth being 6,000 years to the extent that it does not lend credence to the ridiculous theory of evolution, which is propagated by atheists. I haven't put much time into that particular study.

Genesis states that God created the earth in 6 days *.
*Days is Genesis is taken from the Hebrew word Yom which is generally interpreted as a 24 hour day.

"Most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young."

Duff McCartney

08-27-2005, 12:59 PM

I think if joche takes his cues from a book...then I can take my cues from a book as well...Origin of Species.

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 01:03 PM

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 01:05 PM

Oh, and I do find it extremely paranoid and somewhat amusing that Joch believes everyone "propagates" ideas he does not believe in must be an atheist.

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 01:12 PM

Maybe you'll be able to come up with a more significant response to this;

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
So, explain to me how that puts a bullet through evolutions heart?

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 01:18 PM

Creationists believe that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to arise from disorder, and therefore the macro evolution of complex living things from single-celled ancestors could not have occurred. Regardless of whether or not evolution might have taken place, the mathematics of thermodynamics and observation of the world around us makes it very clear: order can spontaneously arise from disorder. Let me reiterate that the subject here is limited to thermodynamics only. The issue to be resolved is simply this: does thermodynamics permit or does it not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder? The laws of thermodynamics and observation of the world around us make it very clear: order can and does arise spontaneously from disorder.

Creationists have not been able to refute the fact that thermodynamics does, in fact, permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. However, instead of conceding defeat, they have attempted to change the laws of thermodynamics by stating that thermodynamics applies only to systems that are completely isolated from their surroundings. Creationist pseudo-thermodynamics, when applied to open systems, are based on the idea that second of law of thermodynamics would not ordinarily apply to open systems, and therefore there must be a "growth directing program" and/or "energy conversion mechanism" which would "supersede" the second law of thermodynamics. Since these postulated mechanisms are completely fictitious, the creationist position is tantamount to saying that the second law does not apply to open systems.

There is a method in this creationist madness: creationists hide the fact that it is only the over-all entropy of a collection of interacting systems that can not spontaneously decrease; the entropy of each of the interacting individual systems can either increase or decrease. However, creationists state flatly that entropy can never spontaneously decrease, and hence order can never spontaneously arise from disorder. Page 40 of Scientific Creationism, published by the Institute for Creation Research, states: "All real processes go with an increase in entropy." This statement is contradicted by the fact that the growth of living things represents order spontaneously arising from disorder. Creationism is forced to concoct a fictitious pseudo-thermodynamics which "supersedes" the Second Law to "explain" the obvious anomaly. On page 43 we read "Now, if one examines closely all such [open] systems to see what it is that enables them to supersede the Second Law locally and temporarily..." The text goes on to postulate "explanations" based on the fictional terms ("growth directing program," "energy conversion mechanism") mentioned in the previous paragraph.
http://www.fsteiger.com/thermo.html

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 01:37 PM

Dude, Joch, the first post you made is about the origion of life. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Regardless of how life came about, evolution is the process life evoles through after it is intitially created. So, that isn't a hole in evolutionary theory.

Manny, dude, :lol the theory of evolution has to have a starting point and if it's premise for it's beginning is shown to be faulty then the whole theory goes out the window. Don't get mad at me because the evolutionist's premise doesn't wash after scientific study and experiment

If you want to say, "hey, I know the theory of evolution isn't really possible but lets look at it anyway", okay.

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 01:42 PM

Oh, and I do find it extremely paranoid and somewhat amusing that Joch believes everyone "propagates" ideas he does not believe in must be an atheist.

Unfounded personal attacks, I think that's called libel? Not surprising that in absence of intelligent rebuttal to the arguements put forth you would have to stoop to that again.

There have been lots of disagreements to some of my posts in the forum, care to authenticate just a few of these instances? (not that it has anything to do with your thread)

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by jochhejaam

Maybe you'll be able to come up with a more significant response to this;

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.

Followup by Manny

So, explain to me how that puts a bullet through evolutions heart?

I highlighted (not that'll you'll get it with highlighting :lol ) the parts you should read a little closer to "help you' understand why it undermines evolution. It is broken down into layman's terms though and is quite easy to follow. I don't recall saying it "puts a bullet through evolutions heart"...? Although it's one of many gaping holes in the theory. Just a few which have so far been presented here.

Nice in depth response to years of scientific research and study Manny : "and how does this put a bullet through evolutions heart". I'll fax it to W.D.N.H.O.T.E.F.C. (we desperately need help with our theory of evolution fast center)." I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

I see by the content of your responses that you don't really have anything appoaching substantial rebuttals.
Weak Manny.

ChumpDumper

08-27-2005, 02:14 PM

So we don't get energy from the sun?

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:17 PM

Libel has to be false. I believe the above was an appropriate labeling to you saying that evolution is only propagted by atheists. If the shoe fits...

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 02:18 PM

I think if joche takes his cues from a book...then I can take my cues from a book as well...Origin of Species.

Wow, you just blew away the arguements Duff, good stuff! :lol

Feel free to actually rebut the arguements, Manny needs all the help he can get. :lol

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:19 PM

Manny, dude, :lol the theory of evolution has to have a starting point and if it's premise for it's beginning is shown to be faulty then the whole theory goes out the window. Don't get mad at me because the evolutionist's premise doesn't wash after scientific study and experiment

If you want to say, "hey, I know the theory of evolution isn't really possible but lets look at it anyway", okay.
The theory of evoution doesn't have to have a starting point. You don't seem to be able to grasp that evolution is the explanation of how we got this many species and how they evolve, not how the origonated.

But its funny because when you take that last line, it describes your look at thermodynamics.

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:20 PM

Wow, you just blew away the arguements Duff, good stuff! :lol

Feel free to actually rebut the arguements, Manny needs all the help he can get. :lol
Feel free to stop your fluff posting and read the post above which completely kills your idea's on thermodynamics.

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 02:22 PM

Libel has to be false. I believe the above was an appropriate labeling to you saying that evolution is only propagted by atheists. If the shoe fits...

Originally posted by Manny : Joch believes everyone "propagates" ideas he does not believe in must be an atheist.

Find a few of you infer are many such posts or you can talk to my attorney. :lol

off the beaten path again but that's where you're most comfortable in this thread. :lol

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:24 PM

Evolution is based on mutation of an existing organism

Mutations Are Typically Harmful, Sometimes Neutral and Are Rare
Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral. Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake, which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage. In addition, mutations have been discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in functions to stabilize and resist change. So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur, they they do not bring out an advantage to any living thing. Evolutionists like to use examples of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria, or in mutation of the tomato for example, though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing into another. One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.

For evolutionists to state that many favorable, random mutations have occurred is completely unfounded. Mutations simply cannot be the cause for evolution into new, healthy, more complex living organisms. Again, many evolutionists simply state this fact is not true, when proof is everywhere. These evolutionists are simply in denial.

Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful. Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html).) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13)

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 02:26 PM

Feel free to stop your fluff posting and read the post above which completely kills your idea's on thermodynamics.

I'm not freakin' going through your link. I didn't even open it. :lol

Post something substantial without posting a link and I'll consider it.

JoeChalupa

08-27-2005, 02:28 PM

Why does this topic get everyone so riled up?

Have we not evolved enough to have civil discussions?

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:30 PM

Apparently lots of holes Manny.

FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.

Claim CC361.1:

Oil and coal can form rapidly. Their formation is more a matter of heat and pressure than of time. Millions of years are not necessary to account for them. Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 109-110.
Response:

Coal deposits show evidence of a history. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in flood plains. They often contain stream channels, roots, and soil horizons. Long time may not be necessary to form the coal itself, but it is necessary to account for the context where coal is found.

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:31 PM

It's all in the post, why would you need to go to the link? I provide the links so that people can see my reference and judge the credibility of it.

Jelly

08-27-2005, 02:34 PM

I'm not freakin' going through your link. I didn't even open it. :lol

Post something substantial without posting a link and I'll consider it.

:lmao

evolution?....lalalalal I can't hear you lalalala!!

j-6

08-27-2005, 02:39 PM

I'm not freakin' going through your link. I didn't even open it. :lol

Post something substantial without posting a link and I'll consider it.

:lol

Where do you think all this shit he's posting is coming from? I'm sure Manny's a smart guy, but he's not making this up as he goes along.

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:40 PM

In regards to helium:

Claim CE001:
The radioactive decay of several elements produces helium, which migrates to the atmosphere. There is too little helium in the atmosphere to account for the amount that would have been produced in 4.5 billion years. Escape of helium into space is not sufficient to account for the lack.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 150-151.
Response:

1. Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:41 PM

A collection of responses to the Creationists claims is found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:44 PM

In regards to Ocean sediments:

Claim CD220:
At current rates of erosion, only thirty million years are needed to account for all the sediments in the ocean. If the earth were as ancient as is claimed, there should be more sediments.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 155-156.
Response:

1. The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others.

2. The age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways -- measured via radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and estimated from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and all fit with sediment thickness.

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:47 PM

On the subject of oil field pressure:

Claim CD231:
The high pressures found in oil and gas wells are proof of a young earth. If the earth were old, the pressures would have bled off by now.
Source:
Hovind, Kent, n.d. Universe is not "billions of years" old. http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=UniverseIsNotBillionsofYearsOld.jsp
Response:

1. The high pressures show that the oil and gas are trapped by rock impermeable enough to hold such reservoirs for many millions of years. If the assumptions (young earth and leaky rocks) behind the claim were true, the pressures never would have built up in the first place.

2. A geological event which could cause oil and gas to migrate into a reservoir could have occurred relatively recently. Even if the oil field is young, that does not mean the oil, much less the earth, is young.

MannyIsGod

08-27-2005, 02:52 PM

In regards to meteors and meteorites

The observed rate of cosmic dust influx should have produced a layer 182 feet thick over the entire surface of the earth if the earth were 5 billion years old. The distinctive nickel and iron content of the dust should make it easy to detect.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 151-152.
Response:

1. The observed rates used in Morris's calculation are based on dust collected in the atmosphere; this measurement was contaminated by dust from the earth. More recent measurements of cosmic dust influx measured from satellites give an influx rate about 1 percent as large, corresponding to a layer 66 cm thick at most over 4.5 billion years (Kyte and Wasson 1986). An even more recent study of iridium and platinum in a Greenland ice core yields an estimate of only about 14 kilotons per year of meteoric dust during the Holocene, compared with the figure of 14 million tons per year that Morris used (Gabrielli et al. 2004).

Claim CD111:
Meteorites are never found in deeper strata.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 27.
Response:

1. Several meteorites have been found, in strata from Precambrian to Miocene (Matson 1994; Schmitz et al. 1997). There is evidence that a major asteroid disruption event about 500 million years ago caused an increase in meteor rates during the mid-Ordovician; more than forty mid-Ordovician fossil meteorites were found in one Ordovician limestone quarry (Schmitz et al. 2003). In addition, many impact craters and other evidence of impacts have been found.

j-6

08-27-2005, 02:56 PM

JoeChalupa

08-27-2005, 03:02 PM

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MannyIsGod
Claim CC361.1:

Oil and coal can form rapidly. Their formation is more a matter of heat and pressure than of time. Millions of years are not necessary to account for them. Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 109-110.
Response:

Coal deposits show evidence of a history. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in flood plains. They often contain stream channels, roots, and soil horizons. Long time may not be necessary to form the coal itself, but it is necessary to account for the context where coal is found.

Lengthy but quite informative.

FOSSILS WHICH ARE THE PRESERVATION JUST THE CARBON ('CARBONIZATION' = COAL)

"This is the third way listed by Professor Miller whereby fossil remains can be preserved, having reference to the formation especially of coal, in which the hydrogen and oxygen largely disappear from the organic remains, leaving only the carbon but often also leaving the original structure beautifully preserved. The coal deposits of the world are of course tremendous in magnitude, with the exact amount quite uncertain, but somewhere around 7 trillion tons.

'About all we really know about coal reserves is that there appears to be lots of coal in the world... Instead of 7 trillion tons, there may be double that. On the other hand, there may be less than half that.'...

[Eugene Ayres and Charles A. Scarlott: Energy Sources: the Wealth of the World (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952), p. 53]

...Coal is the end product of the metamorphism of tremendous quantities of plant remains under the action of temperature, pressure and [evolutionists' claim: ages of] time. Coal has been found throughout the geologic column and in all parts of the world, even in Antartica. Many coal fields contain great numbers of coal-bearing strata, interbedded with strata of other materials, each coal seam having a thickness which may vary from a few inches to several feet. And each foot of coal must represent many feet - just how many, no one knows - of plant remains, so that the coal measures testify of the former existence of almost unimaginably massive accumulations of buried plants.

Coal geologists have long been divided into two camps, those favoring the autochthonous (growth-in-place) theory of coal origin and those favoring the allochthonous (transportation and deposition) theory [which is consistent with the Noahic Flood]. Consistent uniformitarianism, of course, tends to favor the former and attempts to picture the coal-forming [growth in place theory] process in terms of modern peat deposits forming under swamplands, such as in the Dismal Swamp of Virginia. The great thickness of the coal beds is accounted for on this theory by assuming a continuous subsidence [= a subsiding: a sinking of vegetation to the 'bottom'] of the land more or less keeping up with the slow accumulation of plant remains. The interbedded strata of non-carbonaceous deposits [= inorganic material] are [again] explained by [assuming] alternating marine transgressions [i.e., periodic local flooding] and resulting periods of sediment deposition...

[But it has been well established that interbedding of this sort with many undisturbed and uniform demarcation seams cannot be attributed to sequential and long periods of time which would erode and break up those seams but rather - to one short period of time]

...A wide variety of types of these intervening sediments have been noted and attempts made to explain them in terms of 'cyclothems' or recurring cycles of deposition of different kinds of materials corresponding to the different stages of marine transgression and regression....

If the autochthonous [growth in place] theory of coal bed is correct, it is testimony to quite a marvelous sequence of circumstances. One or two or three coal seams formed by alternate stages of swamp growth, peat accumulation, marine transgression and emergence, etc., might be believable, but the assertion that this cycle was repeated scores of times in the same spot, over a period of perhaps millions of years, is not so easy to accept....

This theory, which is purportedly uniformitarian in essence, is actually anything but that, as there is no modern parallel for any of its major features. The peat-bog theory constitutes a very weak attempt to identify a modern parallel, but it will hardly suffice....

...there is no actual evidence that peat is now being transformed into coal anywhere in the world....

As a matter of fact, except for uniformist preconceptions, it would seem that the actual physical evidence of the coal beds strongly favors the theory that the plant accumulations had been washed into place. The coal seams are almost universally found in stratified deposits. The non-carbonaceous sediments intervening between the coal seams are always said to have been water-borne and deposited. The great thickness of some seams and the great numbers of seams in a given locality also constitute prima facie evidence of rapid and cyclic currents carrying and depositing heavy burdens of organic material...

Space precludes further discussion or the question of coal formation, although many more evidences could be marshalled in favor of the allochthonous [transportation and deposition] theory, such as the frequent splitting of coal seams into two or more independent seams, the many fossil trunks that have been found extending through two or more seams, the 'coal balls' of matted and exceptionally well-preserved fossils, the great boulders often found in coal beds, the frequent grading of coal seams into stratified layers of shale or other sedimentary rock, etc....

Regardless of the exact manner in which coal was formed, it is quite certain that there is nothing corresponding to it taking place in the world today. This is one of the most important of all types of geologic formations and one on which much of our supposed geologic history been based. Nevertheless, the fundamental axiom of uniformity, that the present is the key to the past, completely fails to account for the phenomena..."

[pp. 175-176]

"Another amazing find was reported many years ago, that of a fossilized human skull in the coal measures. the outstanding authority on coal geology, Otto Stutzer, says concerning this mysterious fossil:

'In the coal collection in the Mining Academy in Freiberg [Stutzer was Professor of Geology and Mineralogy in the School of Mines at Freiberg, in Saxony], there is a puzzling human skull composed of brown coal and manganiferous and phosphatic limonite, but its source is not known. This skull was described by Karsten and Dechen in 1842.

[Otto Stutzer: Geology of Coal (Transl. by A. C. Noe, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1940), p. 271]

The coal was presumably Tertiary in age but at any rate is supposed to have far antedated the first appearance of man. The evidence again seems mostly to have been ignored, although it has been suggested that someone must have carved the skull!"

v) 'FOSSILS WHICH ARE THE PRESERVATION OF JUST THE ORIGINAL FORM IN CASTS OR MOLDS

[pp. 165-166]

"This is another means of fossil preservation, whereby the original organic substance entombed in the sediments dissolves away, either leaving a cavity having the form of the original organism, or else being replaced by some sort of mineral water which is then cast into the form of the original organism. Once again this sort of preservation requires sudden or catastrophic burial, followed by rather rapid cementation of the surrounding sediments, in order for the mold to be preserved. The remains at the Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum, entombed by volcanic materials, offer an excellent illustration of this type of fossilization. The principle of uniformity again fails to provide modern examples of this type of process except in terms of intense aqueous or volcanic action..."

vi) PETRIFIED FOSSILS

"This process is similar to that of the formation of a mold and subsequent cast in that it consists of detailed replacement of the organic material by mineral water, usually brought about by the action of underground water. The famous petrified forests of the Yellowstone Park region and of Arizona are familiar examples of this process. The exact details of the process of petrifaction are not known, although the usual associations of petrified wood and other materials indicate that volcanic action has been a contributing factor. The petrified forest of Arizona, as well as other regions, also shows action of subsequent flood waters as a probable agent of deposition of the materials in their present location. In any case, some sort of catastrophic agent is again necessary for at least the burial of the materials before the agencies of petrification can begin their work...."

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k33b.htm

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 03:29 PM

Joch, I have a question for you, and I mean absolutely no disrespect. When reading these results of scientific studies done in the modern era that support the evolutionary theory, do you think the scientists are wrong, or that God made everything the way it is for a reason, and we're not supposed to understand?

I'm just curious, because this same argument, albeit in a more primitive form, was debated by Plato in Book VII of the Republic.

Let me first say that the debate in this thread has been alluded to by some as being "uncivilized" but I don't see it that way. I enjoy exchanging information and an occasional taunt or jab, it's all in good fun and at times educational, at least to me.

And now on to your question

I am convinced that there is a God and believe whole-heartedly in the innerancy of the Bible. I was raised in a Christian home where my Dad had a full-time job and was (not now actively preaching from a pulpit) an ordained minister. I was taught evolution in school and never considered it to be meant as excluding God as my creator because it wasn't presented in that way or if it was it did not have that effect.
I do believe that the scientists that support evolution to the exclusion of God are absolutely incorrect. I don't know how familiar you are with Scripture but there are some which directly address you question of us not being able to understand things. All taken from Corinthinans.

25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

And one more:
11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known

These to me suggest that God made thngs for a reason and that we do not and will not fully understand his creative process. At least not on this side of heaven.

TOP-CHERRY

08-27-2005, 03:48 PM

Not to butt in, but I believe the part..the God made everything the way it is for a reason, and we're not supposed to understand but then again I believe that God gave us, well not necessarily me, the ability to think and reason.
The fact that we (those who believe in God) cannot comprehend how He has always existed; never had a beggining shows we're not supposed to understand everything.

And like Robert Jastrow said once, in the divine act of creation, God is not observed nor has any witnesses... He has no obligation to explain things to us.

ChumpDumper

08-27-2005, 04:14 PM

So God made evolution.

Smart guy.

atlfan25

08-27-2005, 04:47 PM

i'd like someone to explain how all these animals evolved into other animals and shit like i've been told, i don't buy that shit at all

i've heard shit like they evolved to adapt to the environment. right....
i am sure while they are fucking they send messages to their sperm so it will create a different being to better adapt
if not what? a mutation, and that mutated animal figured out it was better suited and just keep creating more mutated animals. for all these animals to keep these crazy mutations far fetched. this is just some of the shit i have heard

JoeChalupa

08-27-2005, 04:58 PM

Henry Wu: You are saying that a group of animals, entirely composed of females, will breed?

Ian Malcolm: No, I am merely stating that uhh... life finds a way.

E20

08-27-2005, 06:45 PM

Jurassic Park had a FAT hole in the book and the movie they never really explained how female Dinosaurs were turning into male...........

Anyways, what about all the different animal similiarties?

Dogs and Wolves
Cats and Lions/tigers/panthers/jaguars/cheetahs/sabertooth tiger etc.......
Ducks and Chickens
Lizards and Reptiles/Dinosaurs/Birds
Humans and Monkeys/Apes/Chimps

Could it be somewhere along the chain that these animals could have a common ancestor that evolved into the beings they were today?

When a new speicies start how do they?
Take a look at it this way..... What came first the Chicken or the Egg? Niether it was a product of evoultion......

IcemanCometh

08-27-2005, 07:41 PM

clearly both sides in this debate are hypocrites

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 08:42 PM

More problems with the theory of evolution:

1. The Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) - before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that didn't exist, if there is no God?

2. Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the first cell from non-living chemicals. Some scientists can see this and have therefore postulated that life originated somewhere else (not on earth) and came to earth by something called panspermia. In this way, they put the problem back, but the solution to the problem of life's origin remains still unknown. See Reasons to Believe for more information on Creation and Time and the astronomical evidence for God's existence.

2. No model has ever succesfully been given for the evolution of the first biological cell from random chemical reactions over a long period of time. Just as a mousetrap that misses just one part has no use, so the majority of bio-chemical mechanisms in nature would not work if just one of their component parts were missing (waiting to be evolved). Then how would blind chance ever favor these incredibly improbable PARTIAL inventions? It would surely destroy them.

What we are being asked to believe is that random processes generate real information in the genetic code. Using this logic, enough nuclear accidents would lead to great improvements in the human race. Even Microsoft Windows 95 with all its faults was not the result of random events (though some might contest that!). How much less the human DNA code?

3. The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in its favour. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species. Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed). Punctuated equilibrium, the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt the theory of evolution really is. You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.

Some Biological Problems of the Natural Selection Theory - Dr. Jerry Bergman
4. If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist? And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?

5. All the so-called "missing links" between apes and man are either frauds or pure speculations based on very scanty "evidence". The earth should be replete with them if millions of small changes between man and ape account for the evolution of man from apes.

6. Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on genetic information.

http://www.christian-faith.com/html/page/darwinism_debunked

Duff McCartney

08-27-2005, 08:59 PM

Why does this topic get everyone so riled up?

Have we not evolved enough to have civil discussions?

No.

E20

08-27-2005, 09:16 PM

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 09:54 PM

Joch, it has been said in the scriptures that Moses was asked to bring down a feast from heaven then the pagans would believe in him. Moses did that now.....If you were able to show some sign which you can't and no one can then I'll believe you, right now science has been able to show more facts and data.

I'm not at all bothered by those that are strict evolutionists other than the fact that what I believe has eternal ramifications for all. No one can force me to adhere to the flawed theory of evolution and no one can be forced to believe in Creationism by intelligent design.

No one decides for anyone else. Evolution or Creationism, Heaven or Hell for eternity. Freedom to choose.

Unless people are absolutely sure that God doesn't exist and there is no chance of eternity in Heaven or Hell and they personally don't care one way or the other, then they at least should inform their families and friends to explore both possibilities.

I'd hate to be one of those in Hell who are being sought out by their loved ones in Hell perhaps with tears streaming down their face, screaming at them when they find them; "Why, why didn't you tell me?"

Unless you're sure beyond a shadow of a doubt, that possibility could become a reality. To scoff at this would shows total disregard for them.

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 09:57 PM

Parents fighting for their childrens rights in School

Parents of some schoolchildren in Cobb County, Georgia are in a huff over warning labels that have been placed on science textbooks in that school district. The labels read "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

They were placed on books two years ago after more than 2,000 parents complained that the schools were teaching Darwinian evolution as fact, ignoring evidence that is critical of evolution as well as the competing theory of intelligent design.

Michael Manely, an ACLU lawyer who is representing the pro-evolution parents in a lawsuit, illustrates the over-the-top reaction to the warning labels by accusing the school board of "doing more than accommodating religion. They are promoting religious dogma to all students."

This is certainly not the first textbook controversy regarding the evolution versus intelligent design debate. Such controversies have stirred elsewhere, although the circumstances in most cases are similar. Parents are simply asking that evolution be taught as a theory -- not as a set of proven facts -- and that Darwinism be presented side-by-side with counter-evidence and/or intelligent design theory.

The idea is that students should be allowed to weigh the evidence of competing theories themselves. It's called "critical thinking," and is normally encouraged in scientific disciplines, Darwinian evolution being one of the few exceptions.

A CBS poll released on November 22 showed that more than half of all Americans do not believe in human evolution. Only 13% of those polled believe that God was not involved in the process. Breaking it down, 47% of Kerry voters believe God created humans as we are now, compared with 67% of Bush voters. Furthermore, more than half the Kerry voters -- and two-thirds of all those polled -- want creation taught alongside evolution. Predictably, belief in evolution is greatest among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

Darwinism's dirty little secret is that it is science's equivalent of the pyramid scheme in finance. Evolution, which argues that life on Earth began and has evolved through a complicated process of random events and genetic mutation, has never been observed. Therefore, the empirical evidence normally required to validate scientific theory has never been gathered. The fossil records Darwinists typically cite as proof are filled with missing gaps that are only explained by piling theory on top of theory. At the base of this pyramid, where a collection of credible evidence should exist, there is only more theory.

To illustrate this point, I have listed five questions I've always wanted to ask Darwinists. These questions are answered very simply under the intelligent design explanation of our origins. The task isn't quite as simple for evolutionists, because they view our origins through the prism of science, and science, which is nothing more than man's understanding of the physical world around him, cannot explain the origins of the universe and life on earth. If Darwinists were to answer the following questions honestly, they too would have to concede that something quite supernatural occurred at our genesis -- an admission for which Darwinism has made no room.

Question #1: The big-bang theory typically cited by Darwinists states that all matter in the universe once existed as a single super-sphere which at some point exploded, its fragments coalescing into the stars, planets, and other celestial objects we observe today. If this is true, which random process created that original super-sphere out of nothing?

Question #2: How did the human race evolve from single-cell organisms, such as amoebae, and become randomly separated into two equally-populated genders which are mutually attracted to each other? Furthermore, how is it that only females are uniquely equipped to bear and nourish offspring?

Question #3: Gravity is an invisible, non-magnetic attraction between two physical objects. It's what keeps the Earth in a nearly symmetrical orbit around the sun, and prevents us here on Earth from flying off into space. Please explain how gravity came into being without an intelligent designer.

Question #4: Which random processes produced the human brain? This complex organ is not only capable of the computer-like functions of logic, memory, and computation, but also such emotions as love, hate, joy, and fear, which artificial intelligence engineers have heretofore been unable to duplicate in laboratories.

Question #5: If evolution is the fact-laden, open-and-shut, slam-dunk case Darwinists make it out to be, what's the harm in placing it side-by-side with intelligent design? If indeed Darwinism is above reproach, then the facts should easily tilt the scales in its favor. But they don't.

That's why those hostile to Christianity, or at least intelligent design, must protect evolution by censoring counter-evidence and counter-theory. Darwinism is a fraud -- a crutch, if you will -- which its advocates use in order to explain our origins without having to admit there is a God.

Evolutionists ridicule the idea of intelligent design as being the product of a primitive, flat earth-type religious dogma. Ironically, and despite the self-proclaimed "science" label that Darwinists have assigned to their belief system, it requires far more religious faith to believe in evolution than the creation story described in Genesis.

E20

08-27-2005, 10:03 PM

Just to let you know Joch, I too am religous. I believe in God etc......

jochhejaam

08-27-2005, 10:18 PM

Just to let you know Joch, I too am religous. I believe in God etc......

Good, the message was general in nature, not specific to you.

smeagol

08-28-2005, 08:08 AM

Unless people are absolutely sure that God doesn't exist and there is no chance of eternity in Heaven or Hell and they personally don't care one way or the other, then they at least owe it to their families and friends to explore both possibilities.
Pascal's wager.

boutons

08-28-2005, 08:10 AM

" then they at least owe it to their families and friends to explore both possibilities."

why?

jochhejaam

08-28-2005, 08:18 AM

" then they at least owe it to their families and friends to explore both possibilities."

why?

should have been written "should inform their families and friends" to explore both possibilities"

jochhejaam

08-28-2005, 08:39 AM

Pascal's wager.

Hello smeagol,

Never heard that term before. Looked it up and will respond to it if need be.

Thanks

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

boutons

08-29-2005, 07:49 AM

washingtonpost.com

Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas

Sunday, August 28, 2005; B05

There's been no lack of commentary since the Kansas State Board of Education began debating whether to teach "intelligent design" alongside evolution in the public schools. One of the more unusual submissions to the board came from Bobby Henderson, a 24-year-old graduate of Oregon State University with a degree in physics. Eliciting no immediate response, Henderson posted his letter on the Internet in June. It soon attracted a large audience: Henderson said last week that the Web site has gotten more than 14.5 million hits and was currently getting 750,000 a day. He has since received e-mails from three Kansas education board members, which are posted -- along with scores of others -- on Henderson's site,http://www.venganza.org(named, for reasons that will become clear below, after a Spanish pirate ship).

==========================

Open Letter to Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but [is] instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

travis2

08-29-2005, 08:27 AM

The Church said that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun was a gift from God. Galileo proposed the Sun was the center and other planets orbited it and so did the Earth. The Church charged him with heresy. He went to Rome to defend his beliefs and then later took back everything he said. Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him to neither advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy, because it was contrary to the accepted understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

No No No No No.

Please do your research before you decide to keep spreading bigoted false histories.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

boutons

08-29-2005, 12:45 PM

The New York Times

August 28, 2005

Show Me the Science

By DANIEL C. DENNETT

Blue Hill, Me.

PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about "intelligent design" in the schools, said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."

Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.

First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world's confidence in quantum physics - how weird it is! - or Einsteinian relativity. In spite of a century of instruction and popularization by physicists, few people ever really get their heads around the concepts involved. Most people eventually cobble together a justification for accepting the assurances of the experts: "Well, they pretty much agree with one another, and they claim that it is their understanding of these strange topics that allows them to harness atomic energy, and to make transistors and lasers, which certainly do work..."

Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really have been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

With evolution, however, it is different. The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God's traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protect ourselves from our own credulity, but we've also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others. Some of the methods used to exploit these urges are easy to analyze; others take a little more unpacking.

A creationist pamphlet sent to me some years ago had an amusing page in it, purporting to be part of a simple questionnaire:

Test Two

Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? [YES] [NO]

Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? [YES] [NO]

Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? [YES] [NO]

If you answered YES for any of the above, give details:

Take that, you Darwinians! The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.

Well, yes - until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.

Take the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.

But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.

We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.

All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.

Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.

If you still find Test Two compelling, a sort of cognitive illusion that you can feel even as you discount it, you are like just about everybody else in the world; the idea that natural selection has the power to generate such sophisticated designs is deeply counterintuitive. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, once jokingly credited his colleague Leslie Orgel with "Orgel's Second Rule": Evolution is cleverer than you are. Evolutionary biologists are often startled by the power of natural selection to "discover" an "ingenious" solution to a design problem posed in the lab.

This observation lets us address a slightly more sophisticated version of the cognitive illusion presented by Test Two. When evolutionists like Crick marvel at the cleverness of the process of natural selection they are not acknowledging intelligent design. The designs found in nature are nothing short of brilliant, but the process of design that generates them is utterly lacking in intelligence of its own.

Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.

Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence. This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things.

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

To see this shortcoming in relief, consider an imaginary hypothesis of intelligent design that could explain the emergence of human beings on this planet:

About six million years ago, intelligent genetic engineers from another galaxy visited Earth and decided that it would be a more interesting planet if there was a language-using, religion-forming species on it, so they sequestered some primates and genetically re-engineered them to give them the language instinct, and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection. It worked.

If some version of this hypothesis were true, it could explain how and why human beings differ from their nearest relatives, and it would disconfirm the competing evolutionary hypotheses that are being pursued.

We'd still have the problem of how these intelligent genetic engineers came to exist on their home planet, but we can safely ignore that complication for the time being, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.

But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it. In fact, my farfetched hypothesis has the advantage of being testable in principle: we could compare the human and chimpanzee genomes, looking for unmistakable signs of tampering by these genetic engineers from another galaxy. Finding some sort of user's manual neatly embedded in the apparently functionless "junk DNA" that makes up most of the human genome would be a Nobel Prize-winning coup for the intelligent design gang, but if they are looking at all, they haven't come up with anything to report.

It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts.

The Discovery Institute, the conservative organization that has helped to put intelligent design on the map, complains that its members face hostility from the established scientific journals. But establishment hostility is not the real hurdle to intelligent design. If intelligent design were a scientific idea whose time had come, young scientists would be dashing around their labs, vying to win the Nobel Prizes that surely are in store for anybody who can overturn any significant proposition of contemporary evolutionary biology.

Remember cold fusion? The establishment was incredibly hostile to that hypothesis, but scientists around the world rushed to their labs in the effort to explore the idea, in hopes of sharing in the glory if it turned out to be true.

Instead of spending more than $1 million a year on publishing books and articles for non-scientists and on other public relations efforts, the Discovery Institute should finance its own peer-reviewed electronic journal. This way, the organization could live up to its self-professed image: the doughty defenders of brave iconoclasts bucking the establishment.

For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content."

Since there is no content, there is no "controversy" to teach about in biology class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politics: Is intelligent design a hoax? And if so, how was it perpetrated?

Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is the author of "Freedom Evolves" and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

boutons

08-29-2005, 05:04 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20050829.gif

Extra Stout

08-29-2005, 05:07 PM

More problems with the theory of evolution:

1. The Big Bang theory...

...has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Strawman #1.

2. Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the first cell from non-living chemicals...

...which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Strawman #2.

3. No model has ever succesfully been given for the evolution of the first biological cell from random chemical reactions over a long period of time...

...which is unrelated to the theory of evolution. Strawman #3.

3. The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in its favour. Where are all the transitional fossils?

Well, frankly, they are all over the place. This is sort of like the atheist who would ask for "evidence" of ancient biblical manuscripts in the original languages.

Some Biological Problems of the Natural Selection Theory - Dr. Jerry Bergman
4. If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist? And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?

Physics has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Strawman #4.

5. All the so-called "missing links" between apes and man are either frauds or pure speculations based on very scanty "evidence". The earth should be replete with them if millions of small changes between man and ape account for the evolution of man from apes.

That last sentence is what one might call a "non sequitur."

6. Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on genetic information.

What exactly is the queen bee then?

I'm glad my faith is secure... otherwise, "evidence" like this might cause me to doubt it.

The theory of evolution is NOT some all-encompassing atheistic metaphysical explanation of the universe. It is a theory that describes the mechanism by which organisms diversify and specialize over time.

The theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of God. Nor does it disprove Christianity, nor does it disprove the Bible, nor does it disprove an inerrant Bible. All it disproves is the notion that the first two chapters of Genesis are historical prose. I would have thought that the style of writing would have made that clear anyway.

Biblical literalists don't even bat an eye at the obvious symbolism and poetic license in the Psalms and much of the prophetic writings in the Old Testament. To make the Gospels harmonize, you have to admit that writers take great liberties with chronology for the benefit of making theological points. There must be at least 100 topics that the inspired biblical writers took greater interest in than the traditional accounts of first things. And yet, so many Christians will expend so much energy making specious argument after specious argument to defend a very Western reading of Genesis 1 and 2 that flies in the face of everything textual critics know about the way the ancient Hebrews wrote.

This controversy just never seemed to make sense to me.

E20

08-29-2005, 07:10 PM

No No No No No.

Please do your research before you decide to keep spreading bigoted false histories.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

I did do my research, from my History book;

In 1633, the Italian scientist Galileo was put to trial by the Catholic Church for maintaining that the sun was the center of the universe and that the Earth moved around the sun. Galileo, who was sixty years old and in ill health, was kept waiting for two months before he was tried and found guilty of heresy (the holding of religous doctrines different from the official teachings of the church) and disobedience. Completely shattered by the experience, Galileo condemned his supposed errors: "With a sincere heart I curse and detest the said errors contrary to the Holy Church and I swear that I will nevermore in future say of assert anything that may give rise to a similar suspicion of me." Legend holds that when he left the trial room, Galileo muttered to himself: "And yet it does move!" (referring to the Earth).

And how dare you call me a bigot!!!

jochhejaam

08-29-2005, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by jochhejaam : 1. The Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) - before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that didn't exist, if there is no God?

Originally posted by Extra Stout : .1. The Big Bang theory... .."has nothing to do with the theory of evolution". Strawman #1.

Way to edit the information out of it's original context to fit your arguement. Evolution is not based on a beginning? And the question posed is how did everything come out of nothing? Poor response Stout.

Stout's Strawman #1 reasoning debunked .

travis2

08-30-2005, 06:40 AM

I did do my research, from my History book;

And how dare you call me a bigot!!!

If that was your source then I apologize for the remark.

But your source is not correct.

It's crap like that that perpetuates the "The Catholic Church Is Anti-Science" bullshit and I won't sit quietly and let people get away with it anymore.

Extra Stout

08-30-2005, 08:45 AM

Way to edit the information out of it's original context to fit your arguement. Evolution is not based on a beginning?No, it isn't. The theory of evolution does not address the origins of life. It can go back to single-celled organisms, but it doesn't really explain how the first single-celled organisms formed. Abiogenesis is a different theory, and a weaker one.

And the question posed is how did everything come out of nothing? Poor response Stout. The question of how everything comes out of nothing is indeed a good question, and one for which every time science sheds a little light, it only creates even more questions.

But that is not the theory of evolution. The scope of that theory is limited to the changes and diversity in organisms over time. It does not address the origins of life, much less the origins of the universe.

You are arguing against atheistic naturalism, not evolution. Atheistic naturalism states that there is no God, everything that is came about as a result of mere chance, and that naturalistic mechanisms which developed randomly can explain all observable phenomena in the universe.

Atheistic naturalism is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. It is a philosophy. Followers often use the theory of evolution to argue their belief. They are really good at baiting Christians into arguing against the theory of evolution, which is among the strongest natural scientific theories, rather than arguing against athetistic naturalism, which isn't really that strong at all.

When Christians argue against evolution, they create a very strong case against their faith among uncoverted educated people. Not only must those people throw out the entire body of mainstream science to accept Christianity as it is presented to them, they must also ignore the reality of all the technology that has been developed based upon mainstream science.

They have to believe that everything we've developed with regard to everything from medicine to agriculture to energy is just lucky guesses because the entire foundation of knowledge those things come from is false.

It is as if you are telling them that Christianity says the sky is red, and you can't be a Christian unless you believe that, even though anyone with eyes can see the sky is blue.

That is not "faith." One can believe in things unseen, but that doesn't mean that one has to believe that this reality is a false one. Many a heresy has been born upon the notion that this reality is an illusion. God isn't trying to trick us.

It is very difficult to regain hold over the culture when the educated and professional classes are at best skeptical of your views. Christians wonder why the culture has been slipping through their fingers for 100 years, and I can assure you that the sorry state of the evangelical mind in this country is one of the reasons. There are far too few Lewises and Bonhoeffers and Barths right now in this country. Christians once upon a time were at the forefront of culture and knowledge. Now they lag the secular world by a century or more, and pat themselves on the back for their anti-intellectualism. I understand that the Bible says that a man's faith should be like that of a child, but I think that means one should trust God as a child trusts his father, not that one should go through life thinking like a 4-year-old.

The body of Christ wouldn't work well if it were entirely cerebral cortex, but neither does it work well without that part.