Mordred,
You wrote all of that at 4 AM? I’m impressed 
See what Spike does to you ?
I think we’re pretty well all in agreement that ID is not a science, and that it is based more in faith than in fact.
Evolution is a science. It stands up to the criteria required by science. That is why it belongs in science class & ID does not.
Evolution isn’t an unverifiable and unfalsifiable guess. Everything we’ve observed in the world around us for the last 200 years has indicated that evolution, or something nearly indistinguishably similar, does occur.
To casually dismiss evolution is to ignore all the knowledge our species has worked so hard to achieve.
Plus, there is some motivation to understand the universe from a scientific perspective, because we can use science as a tool to help us predict and work with our environment in the future.
ID is not a tool. It is utterly inconsequential and useless whether true or not. How would the knowledge of a grand designer possibly influence mankind’s future?
ID is true? great, that doesn’t change the world we have to live in. It’s false? Who cares? Because ID’s ‘deus ex machina’ approach offers us zero insight into our world, it has no practical use to us.
Students are in school to learn the tools they’ll need to succeed. ID is not a tool. Some may count spirituality as a valuable life tool, but the jury has already spoken on the boundaries of religion and state & determined that faith and religion have no place in the school.
[quote]rlawrence wrote:
- In 1978 Ron Wyatt (I don’t know if I trust all of his claims, but the following is pure fact) researched some of the places in the Bible that the ‘supposed’ Exodus went through. He went there himself, and found a natural twisting pathway winding through the mountains to the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba (Part of the Red Sea). It seemed an obvious path to him at the time, so he sent divers into that area of the Red Sea. The following is from his website.
[/quote]
the Bible states that Moses and co. went through the ‘sea of reeds’ not the red sea…
plus…there are horse bones, wheels, and a lot of other shit strewn throughout the mediteranian sea and the black sea…does that suggest someone parted the waters in those places too? or does it suggest that a ship wreak occured in those locations carrying cargo like horses and wheels?
and again read the above…‘sea of reeds’ not red sea…
please give reference material to the idea that ‘a gargantuan deluge’ took place over the entire planet circa 2500 BC…I’ve read quite a bit of history around that time and no history that I have ever read speaks of a world wide flood occuring during that time interval…
you do realize that the egyptians had already built the great pyramids by 2500 BC. right? so if there was a world wide flood that occured and the distant decendants of noah built the great pyramids then noah would have had to have lived WAY before the pyramids were built…so any ‘gargantuan deluge’ in the year 2500 BC couldn’t have been the flood of noah in the Bible…
huh? ‘paths int the sea’ is being translated as ‘the earth is a sphere’?
what recent oceanic discoveries are you refering to? please list them…
you’ve given misinterpretations and misunderstandings…
scientists don’t use ‘MICRO-evolution’ to prove the theory of evolution…they use fossil evidence…
scientists have also observed entire new species of virus’ evolving from earlier species of virus…"MACRO-evolution’ (as you like to say) at work…verified in a lab…
wrong…Christianity is my religion…
you don’t hear it because your ‘evidence’ is bogus…
[quote]DPH wrote:
huh? ‘paths int the sea’ is being translated as ‘the earth is a sphere’?
[/quote]
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers…(Isaiah 40:22).
This passage shows very plainly that this Bible writer knew that the earth was round instead of flat which was the general consensus of the time.
Also, there is TONS of evidence of a worldwide flood.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
DPH wrote:
huh? ‘paths int the sea’ is being translated as ‘the earth is a sphere’?
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers…(Isaiah 40:22).
This passage shows very plainly that this Bible writer knew that the earth was round instead of flat which was the general consensus of the time.
[/quote]
a circle is not a sphere…
circle can just as easily be thought of as a flat disk…
in the year 2500 BC.? doubtful…
please site your references…thanks!
[quote]rlawrence wrote:
Just one more:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Where did the space for the universe come from? [/quote]
That is a question that should be directed at an astrophysicist, not an evolutionist.
This and most of your other questions could be asked of a supporter of ID as much as they could of an evolutionist.
This will be a brief attempt to entertain your question as my knowledge on the topic is limited (I have not devoted much of my time beyond casual reading to issues of the hard sciences).
As far as I am aware, unless something has changed recently, no outer bounds of the space in which the universe exists have as of yet been empirically observed.
That is a question that also should be directed to an astrophysicist, not an evolutionist.
This is another question that could be asked of a supporter of ID as much as of an evolutionist.
I would love to entertain this question but lack the requisite knowledge to do so sufficiently. I would hope someone else would.
That is a question that should be directed at an astrophysicist, or perhaps physicist, not an evolutionist.
This question could also be asked of an ID supporter as much as of an evolutionist.
I can try to speak briefly to this point ? there is a scientific law (I believe that it has been observed and tested multiple times, I do not recall the name at the moment), which is represented in an equation that approximates the gravitational pull that all bodies have upon each other. Beyond that I do not feel qualified to comment.
Again, consult a physicist or astrophysicist, not an evolutionist.
This question could be asked of an ID supporter as easily as it could be asked of an evolutionist.
I would refer you to the law governing gravitation noted above, as well as the process of natural selection.
What kind of energy are we talking about? Energy as scientifically defined, or otherwise? I have trouble grasping what exactly you mean by this question also.
Again, consult an astrophysicist or a physicist, not an evolutionist.
This question could also be asked of an ID supporter as much as of an evolutionist.
Ask a chemist, not an evolutionist
This too could also be asked of an ID supporter as much as of an evolutionist.
I would answer if I had more knowledge on the subject.
You make quite an assumption that basic organisms can learn (learning has only be observed in a limited number of animals).
Again this (assuming that the question has any merit) is probably best asked of either a chemist or microbiologist.
This question, too, could be asked of an ID supporter as much as of an evolutionist.
I will forgive your effort here to play the chicken-egg game.
If you want me to be more specific and assume the validity of the question ? prior to sexual reproduction there was asexual reproduction whereby an individual organism was able to reproduce by itself through dividing itself or inseminating/impregnating (I may be mistaken on the inseminating/impregnating part, I am only a person who reads, not one who is trained in biology)
This would then necessitate that the organism pass in its DNA to the successive generation. If the organism were to pass on its DNA then there would be more than one organism in the successive generation that was genetically coded for sexual reproduction, save the case of only one organism in the successive generation surviving to sexual maturity, which was not likely very long given the fact that very un-complex organisms that exist today can reproduce after only a very short period of time, but even in this case it is likely that the remaining organism would still retain enough genetic information to asexually reproduce.
And were that not the case it would only be a matter of time and statistical probability before more organisms capable of sexual reproduction were birthed/replicated.
If my answer is insufficient I would refer you to a microbiologist, again, not an evolutionist.
Oh yes, and this question could also be asked of an ID advocate as easily as it could be asked of an evolutionist.
This should probably be asked of a biologist, not an evolutionist.
This question could also be posed to a supporter of ID as easily as it can be posed to an evolutionist.
More mouths to feed does not equate to decreased chances of survival provided that there is sufficient foodstuffs, and in the case that there is not this would create the adaptive tension that drives evolution ? but this point is moot as you do not accept the premise of evolution.
There is also the point that maximizing reproduction is beneficial as an organism is then able to pass its genetic information on to the following generation in larger volume.
Your use of the phrases ?want? and ?drive? are problematic. Although I do not know if you make reference to generalized organisms by using the term ?individual? I will take it as such. I have difficulty relating your use of the term ?drive? as it is rather vague within this context.
A basic organism is governed by chemical signals, both internally and from its environment (this has been empirically observed and tested), these signals will alert the organism to an environment that is detrimental to it?s life chances and the organism may move, similarly an organism may have internal chemical signals that it needs to eat, dispose of waste, reproduce or a number of other things.
These chemical signals and the organism?s reactions thereto are generally (with the exception of some larger animals for whom some behaviors are learned) genetically encoded by virtue of the fact that the genes have historically proven beneficial to the organism?s life chances. Chemical signals, genetic predispositions and genetically coded behaviors all too operate in larger animals.
I suppose that it could be argued that humans have a ?drive? to see the survival of their species, but much contention undoubtedly exists as to weather this ?drive? is learned or innate.
I must first say that your analogy is glaringly fallacious.
Ask this question to a geneticist, not an evolutionist.
This question too, can be asked of an ID advocate as easily as it can be asked of an evolutionist.
My quick and simple answer would be statistical probabilities. If you don’t know enough about genetics to understand this try google.
Again here I would refer you to perhaps an evolutionary biologist or a mammalian archeologist, not an evolutionist.
I suppose that theoretically this is a possibility, the empirical evidence would however suggest that it is highly unlikely.
Also, could you specify exactly what you mean by ?similarities in design??
What empirical evidence exactly do you base this claim ?tends to keep a species stable? on? I believe that a number of studies have observed changes in species over observable periods of time.
I would consult a microbiologist rather than an evolutionist on this point.
This question could also be posed of an ID supporter as easily as of an evolutionist.
I will try to entertain your question though. It is a pretty simple theory ? single celled organisms reproduced by dividing themselves into two cells, in this process DNA had to be replicated, the process of DNA replication is not always perfect (this is born out empirically to this day) ? through myriad divisions (and the associated imperfect replication) the genetic codes become more varied (I assume this is what you mean by complex) ?
As organisms became larger (insofar as the number of constituent cells goes) the amount of DNA that was replicated in reproduction increased, and with it too the amount of genetic mutation (imperfect DNA replication) ? the amount and complexity of DNA replication increased as the number of cells in an organism did, and was compounded by sexual reproduction.
I had no idea that the theory of evolution postulated that everything came from nothing. Could you point out to me where exactly this is stated?
You probably could have answered most of your questions (those that were valid) with a little bit of casual reading or an hour or two on the internet. Really, a little exposure won’t render bring your world crashing down on you and render all of your beliefs false;
Hey I’ve been known to watch Pat Robertson when nothing else is on and I still think he’s full of shit. A little reading on evolution could even help you argue your point if you can find any substantial shortcomings in the theory or data.
I must commend your tactic though, all the questions that were valid have scientific answers, they just are very complex and require that one have a great deal of knowledge in very many scientific fields.
No average Joe is going to have all of these answers, let alone be able to refer you to where those answers might be found. This is a nice tactic to use in a casual conversation at the coffee shop, but not in a forum where you are going to be held to a standard of intellectually honest.
[quote]rlawrence wrote:
Why don’t you hear about chariot wheels and horse bones found on the floor of the Red Sea when and where Moses was supposed to have crossed it in the class rooms? Why don’t you hear about evidence of a world wide flood in the classrooms? Why don’t you hear that in the Old Testament,700 BC God’s people know from their bible that the earth was round? Why do you hear evolution is fact in the classrooms, when your only fact is variation in kind?[/quote]
If you would be so kind as to point out the source of these claims out to me I would be more than happy to read them and concede their validity if they are indeed based upon methodologically sound research.
My short answer to your question is that the period of time in question, as well as those regions of the world in question are not covered in much, if any detail in classrooms in this country.
[quote]Killa Cam wrote:
I think we’re pretty well all in agreement that ID is not a science, and that it is based more in faith than in fact.
Evolution is a science. It stands up to the criteria required by science. That is why it belongs in science class & ID does not.
Evolution isn’t an unverifiable and unfalsifiable guess. Everything we’ve observed in the world around us for the last 200 years has indicated that evolution, or something nearly indistinguishably similar, does occur.
To casually dismiss evolution is to ignore all the knowledge our species has worked so hard to achieve.
Plus, there is some motivation to understand the universe from a scientific perspective, because we can use science as a tool to help us predict and work with our environment in the future.
ID is not a tool. It is utterly inconsequential and useless whether true or not. How would the knowledge of a grand designer possibly influence mankind’s future?
ID is true? great, that doesn’t change the world we have to live in. It’s false? Who cares? Because ID’s ‘deus ex machina’ approach offers us zero insight into our world, it has no practical use to us.
Students are in school to learn the tools they’ll need to succeed. ID is not a tool. Some may count spirituality as a valuable life tool, but the jury has already spoken on the boundaries of religion and state & determined that faith and religion have no place in the school.[/quote]
Hey Killa,
You can scream that “Evolution is science” and that “Evolution is verifiable,” but you are simply WRONG.
You should read all of the posts that indicate the contrary and then come back with your conclusions.
Everything we see DOES NOT SCREAM EVOLUTION, because if it did – this would have come up long before Darwin. The Bible says that the “Heavens declare the glory of God…” not the glory of Evolution.
Just because you say it’s science doesn’t mean it was. You cannot prove where the universe came from. You have to choose that you want to BELIEVE – i.e. it IS a FAITH decision either way. That is why if one belongs in school, then both belong in school.
You want to take them out of science class – I have no problem as I have stated before. I don’t believe that evolution, ID, or Creationism are science. They are beliefs of how the universe began and where things came from. Faith = Religion. And again, if you want to teach one religious belief in school, then you must teach both.
[quote]Mordred wrote:
rlawrence wrote:
Just one more:
Questions for Evolutionists:
I would first like to say that I find the term evolutionist to be stupid. Second, these questions do not all pertain to the realm of evolution. A lot of them are cosmological in nature, and some although they are related to evolutionary biology deal in a way with information theory. I suppose the main reasons I am choosing to reply are these: I have degrees in physics and computer science, and I am extremely bored and cannot sleep.
Forgive me if these answers seem somewhat cryptic or incomplete. One could, and several people have, write several books on the subjects you have brought up.
Where did the space for the universe come from?
The technically correct question would be where did the space-time that our universe exists “in” come from (as space and time in cosmological terms are quite intertwined). The best answer that I know of to date is that it is the result of a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum.
Where did matter come from?
The more fundamenteal cosomological question would be…where did all the energy come from…as once you have energy, the creation of matter appears quite academic. The answer, brace yourself, a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum. How could such a thing account for the massive amount of energy that we see around us in the universe? The answer to that is that it appears that the total sum of all the energy in the universe is indeed zero, or very nearly zero…which is what would be expected of a universe that was the product of a quantum fluctuation.
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
I have no idea. Do you? If so, please prove it to the best of your ability. At the very least give some reason why I should believe your idea over holding the position that they didn’t need to come from anywhere.
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
How is it exactly that matter is “perfectly organized”? And for that matter…to what end? Your question contains a rather huge assumption in other words. In a cosmological sense, matter really isn’t all that organized. Of course we do see organization of some kind in both large and small scales. However, this is to be expected whenever you have a system of rules such as the physical laws that appear to govern our universe. Our universe, however, seems to consist of large numbers of small pockets of organization surrounded by an incredibly vast sea of almost complete chaos.
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
As said above…the total energy seems to be practically or actually zero. That is over the very large scale though, and in such a system small pockets of large positive energy can indeed form and give rise to what we call organization. Where the initial small amount of positive energy to kick it all of came from is again…a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum.
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Wow…hmmm…I can only give you vague answers for the first two of those questions, the third is not within the realm of science to discuss, and I can of course speculate (with supporting evidence) on the fourth. When? Some time in the distant past, I don’t really feel like looking up the best current estimate for you. Where? Presumably somewhere on this planet at that time (although the idea that “life” could have first formed somewhere else and been transplanted here through stellar collision cannot be dismissed out of hand). Why? I have no idea. Why not? Why does it require some underlying meaning at all? Please prove that there is such a necessity. How? Basic organic chemistry. The formation of self-replicating organic molecules that once formed, evolved according to chemical laws and the force of natural selection into the first self-replicating organic entity that we would call “life”. We can of course produce many kinds of self-replicating organic molecules. We can also currently produce “life” depending on your definition of the word, as last I checked scientists were actually creating viruses in a laboratory environment.
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Do chemical structure really need to “learn” the laws that govern chemical interactions? Hmmmm…
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
This is just off the top of my head…but perhaps it reproduced with itself. Never heard of a hermaphrodite?
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?)
I don’t really think your treatment of group dynamics will stand up here. Reproduction, increasing the number of entities in a group, does not always lead to a decrease in the chance of survival. Increased numbers can in fact lead to several things that drastically increase the chance of survival. It is only when the environment cannot support larger numbers that reproduction at a rapid rate ends up being a negative. As for an underlying reason why living things seem to be “driven” to reproduce…perhaps because we seem to be the direct descendants of organic molecules whose sole function was reproducing themselves.
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
That is a horrible analogy. Here is a question for you…has everything that could possibly be written in the English language already been written? In other words, is it impossible for me to combine words in this language to produce a “meaningful” result which has in fact never been produced before? If not, then someone has already written this exact post before I actually wrote it…hmmm…
Along the language line as well, if genes must be letters, new words are being created all the time (as well as new meanings being ascribed to old words when place in new contexts). Language evolves.
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Possible? Sure. Now, tell me why I should prefer that conclusion over the conclusion that it is because they share common ancestors. One has utility, in that it fits with a theory that is both descriptive and predictive. It tells me something about my world, and seems to fit with other available evidence quite well. What are the reasons I should choose another conclusion over it?
The fact that something is possible is not a reason to believe it.
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?
There is again, an assumption there. Who says that natural selection only works with available information and tends to keep species stable? What exactly does that mean in the first place?
First, just because there are limited numbers of possible combinations in a genetic code…does not mean that they have all manifested themselves (in fact I’m willing to bet that only a vanishingly small percentage of them actually have). So when these combinations that have never existed before emerge, are they not “new”? There are all kinds of simulated systems that can be pointed to that start with a set of basic rules and an initial condition and then become increasingly complex and ordered.
And finally, Do you really believe everything came from nothing?
This is a rather deep philosophical question here. I don’t know if we are really capable of grappling with the actualities of it. The very idea of NOTHING is troubling at best. Can there really be nothing? The very phrasing of the question implies that nothing is in fact something in itself. So I guess I would have to answer this with a very conditional yes.
How would you answer it? Did God not create “everything” from nothingness? From whence then came God?
[/quote]
To my physics and computer science friend…
As someone who majored both in Economics and Pure Mathematics, I respect your level of academic acheivement and level of understanding of these branches of science.
I cannot – because of time – address point by point your responses, although it is very tempting to do so.
Bottom line is this:
(1) Reading somewhat between the lines of your responses, coupled with the fact that you felt it necessary to change some of the good questions that were asked into questions that you could answer, and the fact that you admitted several times that you couldn’t answer, tells me simply that you really have no answer for the FUNDAMENTAL question:
Where did the matter that supposed to “bang” in the first place come from? It doesn’t matter that the SUM of the energy in the universe is zero. The fact that there is any energy and therefore matter to sum up in the first place would be more of a miracle if it simply “popped out” of nowhere. Does this even make sense?
That is OK that you cannot answer this question and questions like it because like ID and Creationism – EVOLUTION IS a form of FAITH, i.e. a ‘religious’ belief.
Now, you live in a free country (I assume you are in the U.S.) and one of the greatest aspects of freedom is that you have freedom to believe anything you wish.
I believe in God and that He created everything in a literal six day creation. That is my perogative to believe since I too have freedom to believe what I wish. God DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE anything!
In fact, we cannot scientifically prove anything about Creation. That is why my belief is religious. The only point I am making is that if you teach our kids one religious belief, you have to teach the other, or you are favoring one religious belief over another, which is unconsitiutional.
Oh, and one more thing…
I have never once heard of a case of someone on their deathbed or in a foxhole in the middle of a war crying out to “a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum.”
People in those situations usually cry out “Oh God, help me.” Why is this?
Hmmm…
Take care,
SteveO
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
rlawrence wrote:
Just one more:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Where did the space for the universe come from?
That is a question that should be directed at an astrophysicist, not an evolutionist.
This and most of your other questions could be asked of a supporter of ID as much as they could of an evolutionist.
This will be a brief attempt to entertain your question as my knowledge on the topic is limited (I have not devoted much of my time beyond casual reading to issues of the hard sciences).
As far as I am aware, unless something has changed recently, no outer bounds of the space in which the universe exists have as of yet been empirically observed.
Where did matter come from?
That is a question that also should be directed to an astrophysicist, not an evolutionist.
This is another question that could be asked of a supporter of ID as much as of an evolutionist.
I would love to entertain this question but lack the requisite knowledge to do so sufficiently. I would hope someone else would.
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
That is a question that should be directed at an astrophysicist, or perhaps physicist, not an evolutionist.
This question could also be asked of an ID supporter as much as of an evolutionist.
I can try to speak briefly to this point ? there is a scientific law (I believe that it has been observed and tested multiple times, I do not recall the name at the moment), which is represented in an equation that approximates the gravitational pull that all bodies have upon each other. Beyond that I do not feel qualified to comment.
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Again, consult a physicist or astrophysicist, not an evolutionist.
This question could be asked of an ID supporter as easily as it could be asked of an evolutionist.
I would refer you to the law governing gravitation noted above, as well as the process of natural selection.
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
What kind of energy are we talking about? Energy as scientifically defined, or otherwise? I have trouble grasping what exactly you mean by this question also.
Again, consult an astrophysicist or a physicist, not an evolutionist.
This question could also be asked of an ID supporter as much as of an evolutionist.
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Ask a chemist, not an evolutionist
This too could also be asked of an ID supporter as much as of an evolutionist.
I would answer if I had more knowledge on the subject.
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
You make quite an assumption that basic organisms can learn (learning has only be observed in a limited number of animals).
Again this (assuming that the question has any merit) is probably best asked of either a chemist or microbiologist.
This question, too, could be asked of an ID supporter as much as of an evolutionist.
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
I will forgive your effort here to play the chicken-egg game.
If you want me to be more specific and assume the validity of the question ? prior to sexual reproduction there was asexual reproduction whereby an individual organism was able to reproduce by itself through dividing itself or inseminating/impregnating (I may be mistaken on the inseminating/impregnating part, I am only a person who reads, not one who is trained in biology)
This would then necessitate that the organism pass in its DNA to the successive generation. If the organism were to pass on its DNA then there would be more than one organism in the successive generation that was genetically coded for sexual reproduction, save the case of only one organism in the successive generation surviving to sexual maturity, which was not likely very long given the fact that very un-complex organisms that exist today can reproduce after only a very short period of time, but even in this case it is likely that the remaining organism would still retain enough genetic information to asexually reproduce.
And were that not the case it would only be a matter of time and statistical probability before more organisms capable of sexual reproduction were birthed/replicated.
If my answer is insufficient I would refer you to a microbiologist, again, not an evolutionist.
Oh yes, and this question could also be asked of an ID advocate as easily as it could be asked of an evolutionist.
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 survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
This should probably be asked of a biologist, not an evolutionist.
This question could also be posed to a supporter of ID as easily as it can be posed to an evolutionist.
More mouths to feed does not equate to decreased chances of survival provided that there is sufficient foodstuffs, and in the case that there is not this would create the adaptive tension that drives evolution ? but this point is moot as you do not accept the premise of evolution.
There is also the point that maximizing reproduction is beneficial as an organism is then able to pass its genetic information on to the following generation in larger volume.
Your use of the phrases ?want? and ?drive? are problematic. Although I do not know if you make reference to generalized organisms by using the term ?individual? I will take it as such. I have difficulty relating your use of the term ?drive? as it is rather vague within this context.
A basic organism is governed by chemical signals, both internally and from its environment (this has been empirically observed and tested), these signals will alert the organism to an environment that is detrimental to it?s life chances and the organism may move, similarly an organism may have internal chemical signals that it needs to eat, dispose of waste, reproduce or a number of other things.
These chemical signals and the organism?s reactions thereto are generally (with the exception of some larger animals for whom some behaviors are learned) genetically encoded by virtue of the fact that the genes have historically proven beneficial to the organism?s life chances. Chemical signals, genetic predispositions and genetically coded behaviors all too operate in larger animals.
I suppose that it could be argued that humans have a ?drive? to see the survival of their species, but much contention undoubtedly exists as to weather this ?drive? is learned or innate.
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
I must first say that your analogy is glaringly fallacious.
Ask this question to a geneticist, not an evolutionist.
This question too, can be asked of an ID advocate as easily as it can be asked of an evolutionist.
My quick and simple answer would be statistical probabilities. If you don’t know enough about genetics to understand this try google.
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Again here I would refer you to perhaps an evolutionary biologist or a mammalian archeologist, not an evolutionist.
I suppose that theoretically this is a possibility, the empirical evidence would however suggest that it is highly unlikely.
Also, could you specify exactly what you mean by ?similarities in design??
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable.
What empirical evidence exactly do you base this claim ?tends to keep a species stable? on? I believe that a number of studies have observed changes in species over observable periods of time.
How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
I would consult a microbiologist rather than an evolutionist on this point.
This question could also be posed of an ID supporter as easily as of an evolutionist.
I will try to entertain your question though. It is a pretty simple theory ? single celled organisms reproduced by dividing themselves into two cells, in this process DNA had to be replicated, the process of DNA replication is not always perfect (this is born out empirically to this day) ? through myriad divisions (and the associated imperfect replication) the genetic codes become more varied (I assume this is what you mean by complex) ?
As organisms became larger (insofar as the number of constituent cells goes) the amount of DNA that was replicated in reproduction increased, and with it too the amount of genetic mutation (imperfect DNA replication) ? the amount and complexity of DNA replication increased as the number of cells in an organism did, and was compounded by sexual reproduction.
And finally, Do you really believe everything came from nothing?
I had no idea that the theory of evolution postulated that everything came from nothing. Could you point out to me where exactly this is stated?
You probably could have answered most of your questions (those that were valid) with a little bit of casual reading or an hour or two on the internet. Really, a little exposure won’t render bring your world crashing down on you and render all of your beliefs false;
Hey I’ve been known to watch Pat Robertson when nothing else is on and I still think he’s full of shit. A little reading on evolution could even help you argue your point if you can find any substantial shortcomings in the theory or data.
I must commend your tactic though, all the questions that were valid have scientific answers, they just are very complex and require that one have a great deal of knowledge in very many scientific fields.
No average Joe is going to have all of these answers, let alone be able to refer you to where those answers might be found. This is a nice tactic to use in a casual conversation at the coffee shop, but not in a forum where you are going to be held to a standard of intellectually honest.
[/quote]
Big Paul,
Your approach was rather comical – no offense of course!
You have a gigantic post listing all of the questions that were asked, and then proceeded to direct us to “astrophysicists,” “cosmotologial biologists,” and other various professions that I have never heard of or cannot pronounce.
Hey Bro, let me refer you to someone…
GOD!
Read the Bible – you will find the answers there.
“Ask and it shall be given unto you, seek and ye shall find, knock it shall be opened up to you…”
SteveO
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
rlawrence wrote:
Just one more:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
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?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
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?
And finally, Do you really believe everything came from nothing?
Your questions about space and time have nothing to do with evolution. Also, evolution makes no claims as to the origin of life, that’s abiogenesis.
That’s like someone teaching you how to squat, and you ask about the geologic processes that created the stone used in the concrete to build the facility that you’re in.
[/quote]
So another 24 hours have gone by and still no real answers to these great questions. We have had several attempts to change the questions, make referrals to all sorts of professions. Of all the answers, I felt most “warm and fuzzy” about hearing that matter all came from:
“A quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum.”
Come on guys, you can do better than that. After all you are TEACHING THESE THINGS TO OUR KIDS!!
Why can’t you give answers to the most basic questions about Origins then?
To borrow a line from our Physics friend:
Hmmmm…
Again, bring it on!
Remember God + nobody = A MAJORITY!
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 
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?
[quote]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
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? [/quote]
Why didn’t you take your medications today?
Wait, because I have a different religious belief than you, ie. I believe in a combination of the greek/roman/norse gods and not the god of the Hibru tribe I some how require ‘meds’? That’s not very ‘christian’ of you now is it?
[quote]Xvim wrote:
Wait, because I have a different religious belief than you, ie. I believe in a combination of the greek/roman/norse gods and not the god of the Hibru tribe I some how require ‘meds’? That’s not very ‘christian’ of you now is it?[/quote]
I beg to differ. I am very concerned with the state of your mind given the great discussion thus far on this thread and that which you offered.
You are entitled to believe anything you wish. I don’t believe that you really believe this, so my comment was more comical than serious.
If you seriously believe what you wrote, then OK…so what? What does this have anything to do with anything.
The discussion here is about ID and Evolution. Are they religious or science? Should only one be taught or not? Can they be proved?
Also, you state that your “religion” is older than Judiasm or Chritianity. Well, it cannot be older, because if the God of Israel created everything, then He came first, of course with all due “respect” to your Norse, Greek, etc. “gods.”
As far as being a good Christian, I am trying to be by stating Biblical truth in the face of secular, humanistic belief. I didn’t mean to offend you and of course I pray that you would read the Bible with an open mind and really ask yourself (if in fact you do believe what you say you do) is this what you wish to place your trust in?
If your not serious, then either answer the questions that were proposed in a serious matter or do something else with your time…
You seem to want to put Creationism on the same level as science. I’m simply illustrating that if you do that then you have to allow every creation myth in the science classroom, not just the judeo christian one. And there are numerous religions that predate the existance of judaism.
Judaism itself is a derivative of Hibru pantheism which is derivative of the pantheism present in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley prior to the existance of the Hibru tribe. Animism in all it’s various forms come even earlier than the pantheism that eventually lead to the judeo christian belief in a single diety.
Why should any one of them worm their way into science classes? You seem to look at those questions and your answer is ‘God did it.’ That’s great for you, for other, thinking people, a real answer is required.
There are people who can’t just toss a dart at the map of religious/philosophical belief systems in the world and accept the one they hit as literal truth, especially when it’s not backed up by anything resembling physical evidence.
All religious faith is equivalent to a house built on sand, science is more like a house built on some pretty solid clay (notice I don’t say rock, after all one of the most important priciples of the scientific method is skepticism and a desire to look deeper.)
Science is about finding the answers to those questions not presuming to know them because you read one of many philosophical treatises and it made you feel warm and fuzzy.
[quote]DPH wrote:
rlawrence wrote:
Just one more:
I would like to add that I believe in God and I am a christian and I see nothing wrong with the theory of evolution…
so I ask a return question or two for the fundamentalists…
do you think that God is capable (powerful/intelligent enough) of creating a universe in which evolutionary processes work? Do you doubt God’s capabilities to do this?
DPH,
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?
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.
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.
Just a suggestion my brother, please read your Bible carefully like the Bereans to see if “these things are so.” Also, you should do what the Apostle Paul suggests, and that is “examine yourself to see if ye be in the faith.”
Jesus said, “verily I say unto you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
[quote]Xvim wrote:
You seem to want to put Creationism on the same level as science. I’m simply illustrating that if you do that then you have to allow every creation myth in the science classroom, not just the judeo christian one. And there are numerous religions that predate the existance of judaism.
Judaism itself is a derivative of Hibru pantheism which is derivative of the pantheism present in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley prior to the existance of the Hibru tribe. Animism in all it’s various forms come even earlier than the pantheism that eventually lead to the judeo christian belief in a single diety.
Why should any one of them worm their way into science classes? You seem to look at those questions and your answer is ‘God did it.’ That’s great for you, for other, thinking people, a real answer is required.
There are people who can’t just toss a dart at the map of religious/philosophical belief systems in the world and accept the one they hit as literal truth, especially when it’s not backed up by anything resembling physical evidence.
All religious faith is equivalent to a house built on sand, science is more like a house built on some pretty solid clay (notice I don’t say rock, after all one of the most important priciples of the scientific method is skepticism and a desire to look deeper.)
Science is about finding the answers to those questions not presuming to know them because you read one of many philosophical treatises and it made you feel warm and fuzzy. [/quote]
Hey XVIM,
Please read my other posts here. I have said this over and over and over again – I AM NOT EQUATING CREATIONISM WITH SCIENCE OR PUTTING ON THE SAME LEVEL. Creationism is NOT science.
What I am saying is that Evolution is also not science. It is another belief system.
Like I said in my first post, I would agree to remove evolution from the science classroom in a heartbeat. However, if you insist on this faith system be taught in science, then the Bible’s faith system should be taught also. Otherwise we have a favoring of one religious system over another. That is all I am saying here.
Oh, and one more thing. I do object to your insinuation that I am not a “thinking person.” Listen, on a day to day basis I teach others how to solve very complicated mathematical problems. I beg to differ with you. I do think and I also believe. The two CAN occur simultaneously. In fact, there have been very prominent scientists over the years who were very committed Christians (and members of other faiths as well). Would you call them “not thinking” or do you reserve this term only for Christians.
Lastly, your theology is completely wrong and utterly off the topic.
Again I say to you and anyone else that wishes to try. Stop attacking Christianity and Judiasm and just answer the fundamental questions about Origins that were proposed yesterday. After all, if this really is science that should be taught to our youth, surely you have answers to these most basic questions.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS…please.
Good night for now.
[quote]DPH wrote:
a circle is not a sphere…
circle can just as easily be thought of as a flat disk…
please site your references…thanks![/quote]
Isaiah 40:22: ‘It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…’
The word for circle in this passage is the Hebrew word Khoog, which, when in its masculine form as it is here means ‘a circle, a SPHERE,’ (The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.249, p.5)"
Evolution Theory is science, Creationism is not. Why is that so difficult to understand? And Evolution theory doesn’t even touch on the origin of matter or the universe as a whole so those questions are totally irrelevant to this discussion. Unlike creationism which is a set adamant faith, evolution is a scientific theory that can and does change with new discovery. The first few questions about the origin of the universe and the supposed ‘perfect order of matter’ have abosolutely nothing to do with evolution, I answered them the way I did because they have no bearing on this topic.
As a student and teacher of math you should be intimately familiar with the pricinciples of applied logic, so why the straw man?