Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Good try, but you’ve got a problem. If you are a Christian, then you are (by definition) a follower of Jesus Christ. That is what it means to be “Christian.” The way to be a follower of Christ is to be “born again” John 3:16. Jesus taught us to follow God’s Word, the Bible. Correct?
[/quote]

God’s word is great…it’s man’s translations of God’s words that I have a concern about…

if God came down and wrote the Bible Himself I would buy every word of it…but we have a Bible that has been tampered by man…men have a tendancey to muck things up…it’s not God’s word that I don’t trust, it’s man’s mucking with God’s words that I don’t trust…

that’s why I’m not a Bible literalist (fundamentalist)…

God can do anything that is not logically contradictory…He has the ablitity to lie all He wants…

the problem here is not that God has lied though…God inspired the writers of the Bible (men) and they (men) interpreted the Word in ways that they could understand at the time…man’s understanding of science at the time was not so good…

only if you’re willing to put your faith in man…I don’t…what is written down in the Bible is man’s translation of God’s word…it’s only as accurate as man’s ability to understand things in relations to what men knew about thousands of years ago…

peace!

183

I only have to say that I am amazed at how “Christians” can take the term intelligent design and hijack/misunderstand it to mean literal Genesis, or SPECIAL CREATION which is not intelligent design.

Intelligent design modelling REQUIRES an acceptance of the timescales and processes excepted by modern geology, astronomy, the big bang and evolutionary theory.

Then ID concludes that 15 billion years was NOT EVEN LONG ENOUGH for life to probably emerge through evolutionary processes, and therefore God must have designed special evolutionary mechanisms that would make sure it happened in the 15 billion year time frame which would otherwise not be long enough for the processes which we believe led to the life we see today on earth.

ID is a potentially valid statistical theory which has nothing to do with God. It is a statistical way of dealing with anything that is highly improbable. One of its originator was a conservative Christian who said himself that it has nothing to do with proving a god.

It also depends on accurate statistical modeling of the phenomenon which you are investigating. The statistics used by some who hijack the statistical theory are based on absurdities, such as previously mentioned, that for example the probability of a rung of DNA assembling would be 1 in 10^187 power based on a billion molecular collisions per hour! There’s more than a billion molecular collisions per hour in your body.

Intelligent design has done one thing, it has made a lot of people, primarily the theists (of which I am one), as well as God, look very unintelligent.

It also shows me that the “Christian right wing zealots” will lie, conceal, and cheat about what they are proposing if it gets the job done, in this case, I mean that the Kansas board did not even approve intelligent design, they approved straight out young earth Genesis chapter 1 debate and falsely used the term intelligent design to make it look like something that might have merit.

184

On what miniross etc. wrote:

…“With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”

                     Mt 19:26
185

[quote]skrying wrote:
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics:

From Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
“Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don’t violate any physical laws.[/quote]

I did read the material using the link that you provided. The following is a short quote and then I have a question for you:

“Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.”

Question: The above excerpt seems to personify “natural selection” and thus my question to you is that then haven’t evolutionists replaced God with “natural selection.” So this “natural selection” uses raw materials to build all of the complexity that we see.

As far as life being not a closed system, I think it depends upon what level you look. The Universe taken as a whole with the sum total of all of its energy would be a closed system and thus the 2nd Law would apply. It is very convenient to not want it to apply, but I am not persuaded at all.

The bottom line again is that to believe evolution from a common ancestor you have to believe that this mysterious “force” called natural selection operating with the raw materials of mutations could make such complex organs as the eye, the brain, the human being, etc.

Again, you are free to believe this, but this is a belief on faith since nobody has ever seen MACRO-evolution (the change of one species into another). MICRO-evolution which your article was about, does exist. It refers to the VARIATION WITHIN species (i.e. a dog becomes another variety of dog, but a dog doesn’t become a horse).

So please don’t cloud the argument with this issue. We are talking about MACRO-evolution which NOBODY HAS EVER OBSERVED. YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT ON FAITH.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that movethf upon the earth."
Genesis 1:26-28

186

[quote]DPH wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Good try, but you’ve got a problem. If you are a Christian, then you are (by definition) a follower of Jesus Christ. That is what it means to be “Christian.” The way to be a follower of Christ is to be “born again” John 3:16. Jesus taught us to follow God’s Word, the Bible. Correct?

God’s word is great…it’s man’s translations of God’s words that I have a concern about…

if God came down and wrote the Bible Himself I would buy every word of it…but we have a Bible that has been tampered by man…men have a tendancey to muck things up…it’s not God’s word that I don’t trust, it’s man’s mucking with God’s words that I don’t trust…

that’s why I’m not a Bible literalist (fundamentalist)…

OK then…

You say that you have no problem with evolution even though you are a “follower of Jesus,” and that afterall, couldn’t God use evolution after he created everything?

Short answer is NO. The reason it must be no is because God can do anything except one thing – lie. God cannot lie. He cannot go against His own Word.

God can do anything that is not logically contradictory…He has the ablitity to lie all He wants…

the problem here is not that God has lied though…God inspired the writers of the Bible (men) and they (men) interpreted the Word in ways that they could understand at the time…man’s understanding of science at the time was not so good…

His Word teaches that man was created from “the dust of the Earth.” Not, as evolution teaches from a lower life form. Therefore, by definition a Chrisitian cannot believe in Evolution because this faith-system violates God’s own Word.

only if you’re willing to put your faith in man…I don’t…what is written down in the Bible is man’s translation of God’s word…it’s only as accurate as man’s ability to understand things in relations to what men knew about thousands of years ago…

peace![/quote]

Hey DPH,

I would encourage you to research the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think that this would encourage your faith and give you a better appreciation for the validity of God’s Word (at least in the accurate translations of God’s Word from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (for the NT).

God’s actions will never contractict God’s written Word. God cannot lie! If He could, He would cease to be God.

Peace to you!

187

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Xvim wrote:

Where did the space for the universe come from?

The World tree upon which reality rests is and always has been.

Where did matter come from?

Matter came about as a result of the influence of the Yggdrasil, the world tree, as stated above.

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

These, and the construct of Time as well were all created and controlled by Chronos the first Titan and the Master of Time.

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Matter is not perfectly organized but what little semblance of stability it has is granted by the strength of Yggdrasil.

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

The energy generated by the labors of the Ice Giants, locked in eternal frost after losing the war with the Titans.

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

Life in the form of the earths living things and man sprung from the cloven head of Chronos when he was over thrown by his children the Gods of Olympus.

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

These endeavors are governed by the will of Aphrodite.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Again this is the pervue of Aphrodite.

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)

This is a stupid question, they’re all stupid questions but this is the dumbest one so far. The single greatest driving force in every living organism is to reproduce, only humans seem to have the capability of rising above that and if you’ve visited the ‘Worship’ threads on this site even that is a debatable point :slight_smile:

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Recombinating DNA from two or more parent donors results in small variations from generation to generation, some of these are beneficial, ie condusive to surving long enough to reproduce and possibly pass onthat trait. The english to chinese character analogy is specious at best.

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Possible but not probably, Occam’s Razor.

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?

Natural selection and Evolution are not the same thing, natural selection is small part of the theory, all of these questions lead me to believe that whoever came up with them has made no attempt at all to understand what evolution theory states.

And no, everything didn’t come from nothing, it was created, by Chronos, after he slew the ice giants. And it will all be destroyed when Ragnarok comes. This belief system is older than christianity and judaism so it must be right? right?

Why didn’t you take your medications today?

LOL. Nothing like someone who won’t admit that any type of mythology is just as likely as Christianity.

I am still a Catholic (depending what day it is), and I do think that God, or some God, exists. But there is aboslutely no reason to think that your organized religion is different in any way from any other organized religion that has ever come around.

The point, to me, is not whether creationism should be taught, or whether or not God really exists. Its whether this mutation of creationism deserves a spot in science classes.

Being as it certainly isn’t science, simply because it is unprovable, untestable, and completely based off a belief that a god, or some god, or someone’s god, exists. Therefore, it isn’t science. Stick it in with a religion elective or something- it has every right to be taught. But not under the flase guise that it is anywhere near scientific.[/quote]

Fighting Irish,

I agree with you believe it or not! I have been saying this for days now. Take ID right into the religion classes along with Creationism AND EVOLUTION – since they are ALL must be taken on faith because of all of the reasons that I have already given. I have no problem with that.

The problem that I have is when the government decides that only ONE faith system (evolution) should be taught to our kids. That is just wrong. If you teach one faith system, you have to present other competing systems as well. There really on two choices: The world and everything in it was created by God (or an Intelligent Designer,etc.) or it ‘popped’ out of nowhere and things evolved and are evolving. You need to teach both if you teach one.

Thanks for the post!

188

steveo5801,

I have an answer to your question(s). The answer is that we, as humans, simply are not capable of knowing these answers. It’s as simple as that. The fact that we cannot explain something does NOT prove that God exists. It simply shows that we cannot explain it - period.

And now a question for you. Prove that God exists. And please don’t quote Biblical passages to prove God’s existence. Such arguments can be summed up as follows: The Bible says God exists. The Bible is God’s word, so it must be true. Therefore, God exists. That’s circular reasoning.

I look forward to your proof.

189

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I only have to say that I am amazed at how “Christians” can take the term intelligent design and hijack/misunderstand it to mean literal Genesis, or SPECIAL CREATION which is not intelligent design.

Intelligent design modelling REQUIRES an acceptance of the timescales and processes excepted by modern geology, astronomy, the big bang and evolutionary theory.

Then ID concludes that 15 billion years was NOT EVEN LONG ENOUGH for life to probably emerge through evolutionary processes, and therefore God must have designed special evolutionary mechanisms that would make sure it happened in the 15 billion year time frame which would otherwise not be long enough for the processes which we believe led to the life we see today on earth.

ID is a potentially valid statistical theory which has nothing to do with God. It is a statistical way of dealing with anything that is highly improbable. One of its originator was a conservative Christian who said himself that it has nothing to do with proving a god.

It also depends on accurate statistical modeling of the phenomenon which you are investigating. The statistics used by some who hijack the statistical theory are based on absurdities, such as previously mentioned, that for example the probability of a rung of DNA assembling would be 1 in 10^187 power based on a billion molecular collisions per hour! There’s more than a billion molecular collisions per hour in your body.

Intelligent design has done one thing, it has made a lot of people, primarily the theists (of which I am one), as well as God, look very unintelligent.

It also shows me that the “Christian right wing zealots” will lie, conceal, and cheat about what they are proposing if it gets the job done, in this case, I mean that the Kansas board did not even approve intelligent design, they approved straight out young earth Genesis chapter 1 debate and falsely used the term intelligent design to make it look like something that might have merit. [/quote]

Mertdawg:

“Christian right wing zealots” – come now you almost hurt my feelings…

Hey feelings…I wonder how these evolved???

190

So 72 hours have passed since the questions to the evloutionists were asked. What we have gotten has been a hodgepodge of smoke screens, changed questions, insults, and plain old nasty comments.

What we haven’t gotten are cogent answers that make any sense. Just the same old tired lines that “Evolution is Science” and that we have all of the proof and you Creationists just don’t understand."

Actually, we do understand. We understand that in your zealous effort to follow a theory of a man instead of the Word of God, you will say anything and do anything to defend your position, except of course answer the most basic questions about the Origins of life and how it all came to be.

It must be a very uncomfortable position to be in intellectually.

         Psalm 19
    To the chief Musician, 
      A Psalm of David.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 4Their linea is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

The lawb of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are truec and righteous altogether.

More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycombd. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the greate transgression. 

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strengthf, and my redeemer.

191

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
steveo5801,

I have an answer to your question(s). The answer is that we, as humans, simply are not capable of knowing these answers. It’s as simple as that. The fact that we cannot explain something does NOT prove that God exists. It simply shows that we cannot explain it - period.

And now a question for you. Prove that God exists. And please don’t quote Biblical passages to prove God’s existence. Such arguments can be summed up as follows: The Bible says God exists. The Bible is God’s word, so it must be true. Therefore, God exists. That’s circular reasoning.

I look forward to your proof.[/quote]

Mike,

Thanks for posting. I am puzzled though because neither this thread nor any of my posts has anything to do with the proof of the existence of God.

If you would take the time to read all of my posts, I have over and over again said that my faith and people who believe as I do – the literal six day Creation account of Genesis and that the Bible is the literal, inspired Word of God – take these on faith.

On faith I believe in God. It is a “religions” belief because I was not around when time began and so I cannot “prove” in the sense of a scientific proof that God exists or how anything was created.

Now, this is exactly my point: neither can the evolutionists “prove” their side either. That is why I am in favor of either the removal of evolution from the schools or if evolution stays in than Creationism has to go in, but they BOTH DO NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS.

The last point I wish to make is this: Mike when you are in a discussion with someone and you ask for a question, it is unfair to request that the person answer in the particular way that you would like. Although I have no intention to prove God to you, I would refer you to the post I made a little while ago. I quoted Psalm 19.

Simply put, Psalm 19 asserts that when you view creation, when you look up at the sky at night and see all of the stars, the moon, etc. that this declares or “proves” God.

Take care!

192

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
steveo5801,

I have an answer to your question(s). The answer is that we, as humans, simply are not capable of knowing these answers. It’s as simple as that. The fact that we cannot explain something does NOT prove that God exists. It simply shows that we cannot explain it - period.

And now a question for you. Prove that God exists. And please don’t quote Biblical passages to prove God’s existence. Such arguments can be summed up as follows: The Bible says God exists. The Bible is God’s word, so it must be true. Therefore, God exists. That’s circular reasoning.

I look forward to your proof.[/quote]

Bible predictions of things to happen in the future confirm the inspiration of Scripture as they come to pass. The following are examples of fulfilled Bible prophecies:

Four world empires to arise: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8).

Cyrus to be the warrior to capture Babylon (Isaiah 45:1-3).

After Babylon’s destruction, it would never be inhabited again (Isaiah 13:19, 20; Jeremiah 51:37).

Egypt would never again have a commanding position among the nations (Ezekiel 29:14, 15; 30:12, 13).

Earth-shaking calamities and fear toward the end of time (Luke 21:25, 26).

Moral degeneracy and decline of spirituality in the last days (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Very, very, very soon to return, Jesus…

The 66 books of the Bible were written:

On three continents.

In three languages.

By about 40 different people (kings, shepherds, scientists, attorneys, an army general, fishermen, priests, and a physician).

Over a period of about 1,500 years.

On the most controversial subjects.

By people who, in most cases, had never met.

By authors whose education and background varied greatly.

Yet, though it seems totally inconceivable,

The 66 books maintain harmony with each other.

Often new concepts on a subject are expressed, but these concepts do not undermine what other Bible writers say on the same subject.

Ask people who have viewed an identical event to each give a report of what happened. They will differ widely and will virtually always contradict each other in some way. Yet the Bible, penned by 40 writers over a 1,500-year period, reads as if written by one great mind.

And, indeed, it was: “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21. The Holy Ghost “moved” them all. He is the real Bible Author. The four Gospels do sometimes differ in the way they report the same event, but they complement each other.

193

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
steveo5801,

I have an answer to your question(s). The answer is that we, as humans, simply are not capable of knowing these answers. It’s as simple as that. The fact that we cannot explain something does NOT prove that God exists. It simply shows that we cannot explain it - period.

And now a question for you. Prove that God exists. And please don’t quote Biblical passages to prove God’s existence. Such arguments can be summed up as follows: The Bible says God exists. The Bible is God’s word, so it must be true. Therefore, God exists. That’s circular reasoning.

I look forward to your proof.

Bible predictions of things to happen in the future confirm the inspiration of Scripture as they come to pass. The following are examples of fulfilled Bible prophecies:

Four world empires to arise: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8).

Cyrus to be the warrior to capture Babylon (Isaiah 45:1-3).

After Babylon’s destruction, it would never be inhabited again (Isaiah 13:19, 20; Jeremiah 51:37).

Egypt would never again have a commanding position among the nations (Ezekiel 29:14, 15; 30:12, 13).

Earth-shaking calamities and fear toward the end of time (Luke 21:25, 26).

Moral degeneracy and decline of spirituality in the last days (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Very, very, very soon to return, Jesus…

The 66 books of the Bible were written:

On three continents.

In three languages.

By about 40 different people (kings, shepherds, scientists, attorneys, an army general, fishermen, priests, and a physician).

Over a period of about 1,500 years.

On the most controversial subjects.

By people who, in most cases, had never met.

By authors whose education and background varied greatly.

Yet, though it seems totally inconceivable,

The 66 books maintain harmony with each other.

Often new concepts on a subject are expressed, but these concepts do not undermine what other Bible writers say on the same subject.

Ask people who have viewed an identical event to each give a report of what happened. They will differ widely and will virtually always contradict each other in some way. Yet the Bible, penned by 40 writers over a 1,500-year period, reads as if written by one great mind.

And, indeed, it was: “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21. The Holy Ghost “moved” them all. He is the real Bible Author. The four Gospels do sometimes differ in the way they report the same event, but they complement each other.

[/quote]

Great post!

194

Wow, how does one keep up with this thread? Too many topics, too many arguements and a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Some people are offering good information from their own perspectives and studies, while others are making pretty weak arguments for the sake of arguing, it seems. Examples:

  1. “It’s not the Red Sea anyway, it’s the Sea of Reeds”

Proper translation principles rely on a whole lot more than simply looking up a word in a modern lexicon. Context must always take priority, and frankly, I’ll trust the scholors of the 17th century that knew from five to as many as twelve languages fluently. BTW, how would the shallow waters of the Sea of Reeds destroy an army?

For more on the Exodus:

  1. Quotes from Job and Matthew showing that they thought the world was flat as arguement against the scripture in Isaiah showing they knew the world was round.

a. Our Old Testament is grouped categorically. Job falls within what we call the ‘poetic’ books. Read the whole thing and you’ll see he spoke allegorically, not literally. If you look out your window today, would you say the ‘land’ seems round, or flat?

b. What mountain did the devil take Jesus up to? Well, throughout the bible we have reference to a Heavenly Mount (Mt. Zion). So yes, it was probably this mountain they viewed the rotation of the Earth with satan promising Jesus all of the kingdoms thereof.

  1. Can’t trust the bible, man has had his hands on it and ruined it through translation over the ages.

The Bible is God’s message, his road map for man. He WANTS people to understand HIm. A God powerful enough to inspire his word, can also preserve it. Actually, he promised to do just that in Psalms 12:6-7. To deepen this thought, people speak of ‘faith’ as if it totally blind. They say, “what’s the differnce in that and in me believing in the invisible pink unicorn!?”

A lot. Our faith has to do with trusting in God’s promises. Promises written down and preserved for centuries.

  1. The idea that my initial questions about space, time, energy and matter have, “ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolution”.

How tidy and convienient. I used to hear the term Cosmic Evolution quite a bit. Basically, the term has been changed so evolutionists (I’m sorry you hate that term, but for the purposes of these specific distinctions, what would you prefer?) don’t have to deal with it. Big Bang theory and evolution have always gone hand in hand. The cooling of the earth, the 100 million year rain, the ‘enzyme soup’, and ‘viola!’, I mean ‘poof!’, life!

What gives ‘evolution’ the right to claim what it claims when it can’t tell us how it started? (please don’t come back with, "Well where did God come from? He says, “I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end”. In other words, God is the closed system in which all exists.)

  1. The ‘matter of fact’ way in which Mordred claims, “oh very simply, a quantum movement in a vacuum. A slight disturbance in complete nothingness would be enough”.

Use the word ‘quantum’ a few more times, I’m sorry, it’s still ridiculous.

A new species of bird coming from a bird only proves that birds can evolve from birds. A new species of virus ‘evolving’ from old viruses, only prove that a virus can come from a virus.

Continue with the ‘majic formula’ of ‘time’, and slight modulation over millenia if you will, but the fossil evidence for that claim simply isn’t there.

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned the archeological find of Exodus era chariot wheels along with human and horse skeletons at the bottom of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aqaba. One man replied to the effect, “So, there’s wheels and bones and stuff all over Mesopotamia, that doesn’t prove anything”.

Is this guy on crack? This is a significant find which corroborates with biblical writing, and simply because he doensn’t want it to be true, he dismisses the evidence and later even called it a ‘bogus’ claim.

So I ask, “How many other ‘evolutionary scientists’ dismiss findings simply because these findings don’t support their theories?” I’m willing to go a step further and ‘hypothesize’ that close minded evolutionists may be the greatest hindrance to the continuing study of anthropology/natural history.

195

This is exactly the type of circular reasoning I was talking about. God said he exists, God never lies, therfore, God exists.

Just because a theory is not complete doesn’t mean the whole theory should be thrown away in favor of divine intervention. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. Your logic, taken to its extreme, leads to the conclusion that scientists should not find a cure for cancer. After all, we know cancer exists, but we don’t have a cure.

That must mean that cancer is a punishment from God which humans cannot, nor should the attempt to, cure. Therefore, people with cancer have received a punishment from God and should be allowed to die. What’s the problem with this reasoning?

Look, for the record, I tend to believe in the basic idea of “intelligent design” and I think that there is some Force, Supreme Being, Prime Mover, or whatever name you chooose, in the universe that started everything. But I recognize that this is a belief, not fact, which is why I do not favor teaching ID.

So, while I favor teaching evolution, I’m not “anti-God” at all. I think it was Emu who said that evolutionsists are “anti-God.” I obviously don’t fit that stereotype. The world is not as black and white as you would like it to be, is it?

196

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I did read the material using the link that you provided. The following is a short quote and then I have a question for you:

“Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.”

Question: The above excerpt seems to personify “natural selection” and thus my question to you is that then haven’t evolutionists replaced God with “natural selection.” So this “natural selection” uses raw materials to build all of the complexity that we see.[/quote]

Natural selection doesn’t build complexity, natural selection removes less fit variations from the gene pool.

197

Steveo5801,

The point I was trying to make was that when science comes to a roadblock, it accepts the fact that certain things cannot be explained given current technology, knowledge, etc.

However, rather than give up, scientists keep looking for an answer. The ID argument is that because science can’t explain everything, this proves that a divine entity exists. No, it doesn’t.

I also disagree with you that evolution requires “faith” and therefore it is a “religion.” Evolution is not based on “faith” or “beliefs” but on “assumptions.” Many scientific theories are based on assumptions (I think gravity is one).

You can question the reasonableness of an assumption, and you obviously believe that the assumptions underlying evolution are not reasonable. That’s fine. However, I don’t think it’s proper to say that these assumptions are like “faith.” If that were the case, then Einstein’s theory of relativity would be a “religion” as would many other theories.

198

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The bottom line again is that to believe evolution from a common ancestor you have to believe that this mysterious “force” called natural selection operating with the raw materials of mutations could make such complex organs as the eye, the brain, the human being, etc.

Again, you are free to believe this, but this is a belief on faith since nobody has ever seen MACRO-evolution (the change of one species into another). MICRO-evolution which your article was about, does exist. It refers to the VARIATION WITHIN species (i.e. a dog becomes another variety of dog, but a dog doesn’t become a horse).

So please don’t cloud the argument with this issue. We are talking about MACRO-evolution which NOBODY HAS EVER OBSERVED. YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT ON FAITH.[/quote]

Something you’re leaving out is that natural selection isn’t the only mechanism at work here. There is a lot more going on in evolution than just natural selection.

Believing macro-evolution on faith is a rather absurd statement. Faith means you have no evidence to support a claim. For example, belief in God is based on faith, since there is no way to prove nor disprove his existence. Macro-evolution, however, is only a part of the larger synthetic theory of evolution, which is based on science.

This means a process was followed, something similar to observation → hypothesis → model → test → analysis, repeat. Macro-evolution is only part of the current best explanation we have.

199

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The problem that I have is when the government decides that only ONE faith system (evolution) should be taught to our kids. That is just wrong. If you teach one faith system, you have to present other competing systems as well. There really on two choices: The world and everything in it was created by God (or an Intelligent Designer,etc.) or it ‘popped’ out of nowhere and things evolved and are evolving. You need to teach both if you teach one.[/quote]

If you take that position then you not only have to teach Christianity, but Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Scientology, etc, etc.

And if you want to continue insisting that evolution is a belief system, you should at least get your argument right. Evolution is not the “belief system,” science is the belief system; evolution is just what science tells us at the moment.

200

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Why do you hate the idea of God?[/quote]

Looking for exactly where I said that. Not finding it anywhere. I did say that I would rather stand up in defiance than worship an unjust, vengeful god. If a god can’t even live up to the moral standards I have for myself and my fellow humans, then I don’t think he deserves any praise.

In the end, I would love it if there was actually a god that could answer all my questions for me. Guess what…I’ve been looking for him…haven’t found him. Haven’t found a single good reason to believe that he exists. Read the books, got the t-shirt, ran through all the arguments a dozen times…there is no evidence or logical argument that has come close to convincing me a god exists. Therefore, at present, I choose not to believe. That’s all.

[quote]Just one more thing here…

With all of your verbosity, you do not answer the fundamental question. Even if I would concede your point that The “Big Bang” Theory and Evolution are not one intertwined atheistic system, attempting to explain all that we see without a Divine Creator, you still cannot tell me where the “stuff” or the “energy” or whatever supposed to “bang” in the first place came from?

Where did it come from?

I don’t care about losing “points” to anyone who can be so full of scientific “facts” and a bit of himself, and who cannot answer this simple question.[/quote]

Yeah, way to gloss over the meat of my post and keep hammering away at a question that I, in fact, answered quite readily some time ago.

No matter how much you don’t understand it, a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum is a perfectly good explanation for the initial event of our universe. If you would like an explanation of exactly what such a thing is perhaps you should do some research, or simply request one instead of dismissing it out of hand because you do not understand it.

Incidentally, no matter how full of myself you seem to think I am…one of us has readily admitted that they do not have solid, supportable answers for thing they in fact don’t…hint, it isn’t you, and God did it is not a good answer.

You shouldn’t. I have never implicated that you should. What you should do is your own research. Doing so you might learn a little about quantum mechanics, inflationary big bang theory, relativity, and astronomy. You might see the mountain of evidence that supports the big bang model.

The practially irrefutable amount of observational evidence that tells us our universe is expanding. The microwave background radiation that we can readily detect which strongly points to an initial event which began our universe. The theoretical framework that supports the current models of that initial event.

I am not asking you to take anything on “faith”. I am asking you to look at the available evidence and make a conclusion based on that evidence. There is little debating the basics of the big bang model when this is done with respect to cosmology. There is of course much debate as to the exact particulars of the mechanisms, especially the initial event and the moments initially following it.

However, we are constantly beating back this barrier with more and more observational and experimental evidence.

This is one of my fundamental problems with your entire line of reasoning right here. Why do you seemingly assume that there is someone in control? Why do you assume that there is some purpose or design? On what basis do you make this assumption?

Did you even bother to read what I wrote in regards to the second law of thermodynamics? Of course the second law applies to the universe as a whole! That is exactly what I was talking about. The only reason to not want this to apply is if you are in the business of creating a perpetual motion machine. It is most certainly not a problem for evolution, and most certainly not for cosmology for that matter.

Can you not grasp that there can indeed be local decreases in entropy inside a system as long as there are sufficiently large increases in entropy in other locations within that system in order to cause an overall increase in entropy?

For example, the sun bombards the earth with energy, allowing a local decrease in entropy (the creation of complex chemical systems)…however, this decrease is balanced by the fact that the increase in entropy necessary to produce this energy greatly outweighs the decrease it made possible.

The total entropy of the system is increased in this manner. Heck, in the long run I’m willing to bet that we cause more than enough entropy just by existing to make up for the decrease necessary to make our existance possible.

201

Modred has answered the questions posited about the possible origin of the universe and matter, of course he rightfully ignored the loaded questions that presupose a false answer. The fact that you don’t want to make any attempt to understand the answers doesn’t mean they weren’t answered. I don’t think you’re too stupid to understand I think you’re just choosing ignorance because the answers conflict with your faith. You’re not asking the questions hoping for real answers, because you’ve been given real answers and in each case your response to those answers has been to deny their validity because they conflict with your dogma. No smoke screens, no obfuscations, real answers that you patently dismiss without understanding.

Every question about the mechanics of evolution and why evolution is a valid scientific theory have also been answerded ad nauseum. Again, the answers conflict with your particular faith so you dismiss them or pretend they haven’t been presented dozens of times in this thread. When backed into a corner with scientific facts and solid logical arguments you respond with a hodge podge of logical fallacies and scripture. Honestly, slamming a ball peen hammer into my skull repeatedly would be more productive than talking to you about this topic.

Fortunately you’re in the minority and most Christians don’t have so much trouble reconciling science with their faith. You do realize that the majority of ‘evolutionists’ (again what does that mean exactly?) are also people who believe in God? Evolution makes no claims about god, it’s not some atheist plot, it’s a theory developed in large part, by scientists who are also christian. Gallileo didn’t propose the concept of a helio centric solar system because he was an atheist or ‘hated the idea of God,’ he did it because he observed the natural world and based on his observation he was forced to draw certain conclusions, they just happened to conflict with the current popular dogma. Unfortunately for him, he was in the minority at the time, fortunately for open minded, reasonable, thinking Christians, you are in the minority now.

5 months since this thread started and still nothing but religious dogma and denial of observable phenomena in the natural world.

Sorry btw, I accidentally posted this reply in the other ID thread, oh crap, I’ve just given some credibility to the concept of resurrection.