Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
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.

…
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.
[/quote]

Evolution is science, you are trying to equate creationism to evolutionary theory, A=B B=C so A=C, you’re the math wiz you can surely see this.

And no, I’ve known many people over the years who are both men of faith and thinking men. My sensei is an Anglican priest and has a PhD in Philosophy, he’s a very devout man who recognizes the difference between his personal faith and science and has no problem reconciling the science of evolution with the concept of a creator, the two are NOT mutually exclusive. There are many well reasoned, thinking Christians with strong faith. Based solely on your posts here you’ve got lots of faith but are severely lacking on the other front.

And I have no theology so I’m not entirely sure how I could be ‘entirely wrong’ about it. I’m pointing out historical fact. Tribes formed in what is now modern Iraq, city states arose over time, Babylon being one of the more well known ones. One of the tribes that wandered that area was the Hibru tribe, polytheists who had a great many gods, some carried over from their animist/spirit worshipping oral traditions, some borrowed from the other tribes and city states of the mesopotamian region. One of their many gods was Yahweh, the god of fertility and shepherds. Abraham pulled the various factions within the hibru tribe that worshipped the various dieties and convinced them to worship one supreme god. This is history, not theology. Now the nature of that God and how the Abrahamic religions have developed since that point are a matter of both history and theology and pretty interesting stuff.

Note, the fact that this is how the monotheistic religions we now have came about does nothing to invalidate them. I mean, God moves in mysterious ways right? and the way in which He chooses to reveal himself are many and varied and there’s no reason that he couldn’t have allowed early men to come around to worship him through a natural progression of events, just like there’s nothing in the science of evolution that indicates there can’t be some form of intellegence behind the flow of events leading to life and the emergence of human beings.

Obsequeous, unrelated questions about the origin of the universe have absolutely no bearing on the discussion of evolution as a science. Red herring/ straw man, pick whichever logical fallacy you like. So no, no need to answer the questions because they’re not relevant to the thread topic.

You strike me as a person who’s read a lot of the creationist propaganda sites and is just regurgitating their talking points rather than actually thinking this through. You’ve decided what the ‘truth’ is and fit both the ‘facts’ and your opponents arguements to fit your version of reality. It’s like argueing with Pee Wee Herman, I present an arguement and I get “I know you are but what am I?” as a response. Meh.

162

On the topic of the Great Flood, again, totally irrelevant to this discussion but YES there is physical evidence to support the idea that the flood was real. 7,000 years ago when the european glaciers melted.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

What this has to do with creationism or evolution science is unclear though.

163

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
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]

SteveO,

I fail to see the comedy in pointing out the fact that many of the questions that the original post posed have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Where matter, the universe, and energy come from is not addressed by the theory of evolution, these things are not even mentioned in the theory. How then is one to address such questions to an evolutionist?

I am quite surprised by the fact that you have not hear of astrophysicists , and for the record I did not use the term “cosmotological biologists”(nice try though). If biologists, microbiologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, mammalian anthropologists, and chemists (these are the only professions I mentioned aside from those previously noted) seem to have professions that you have never heard of and cannot pronounce I would suggest that you read more. I do find this assertion on your part quite odd given that you are an educated fellow who spent time at a university, I would have hoped that you would have had at least some exposure to fields other than your own specializations while there.

Let me simplify the gist of my post for you - rlawrence was asking many questions of evolutionists, many of which addressed issues that lie outside the bounds of evolutionary theory (questions 1-5 with the possible exclusion of question 4, although his diction obfuscated the intent of the question, and the final question).

Those questions that he did ask that fell within the purview of evolutionary theory required complex answers - answers not likely to be given by an individual without a background in science.

As I am quite sure that the answers to these questions that would be posted would fail to meet rlawrence’s standards of acceptability I simply referred him to individuals who would be able to answer them sufficiently in the event that he was actually looking for the answers to his questions rather than moronic responses that he could deride.

Additionally, the intent of some questions were obscured by his diction (word choice) and I asked for clarification.

Other questions were ill informed (ie: organisms LEARNING to reproduce, organisms and species WANTING) and indicated a lack of a basic understanding of evolution or biology on his part. The analogy comparing genetic recombination to rearranging English letters in an attempt to produce a Chinese book served to reinforce the aforementioned impression of a lack of understanding and knowledge on his part.

Similarly, I have no idea where he got the notion that natural selection tends to keep a species stable, this is a concept that I have never heard of. It sounds very far fetched and I would simply like to see evidence that supports this, or even where he got this notion from. I might then be better able to entertain his question.

I am actually quite offended by your closing remarks. I do not see how exactly you draw the conclusion that I need God or do not have God in my life from my post. I simply was trying to restrain rlawrence’s line of inquiry to what could be answered by those individuals to whom he had directed his questions - evolutionists. In doing so - as neither ID (at least as publicly promoted) and evolution make mention of God - I intentionally avoided such language in my post as it would have deviated from the issue at hand. For the record I have read the bible many times over, and attend church on a weekly basis. Please do not make such assumptions where no basis for them exists. You and I may conceive of God differently, but please do not question my faith.

I am sorry that you find my and others’ answers to your friend’s questions insufficient - hopefully I have made my post more clear to you and far less comical. And I would imagine that through clarification and explanation of terminology and concepts you might be better able to understand those of others. I do realize that ultimately, given your personal beliefs, no one will be able to provide sufficient answers to you, but I do hope that at least you can come to understand that from the vantage point of the biological sciences there is some continuity to these evolutionists’ claims, just as there is continutity to your claims when viewed from your vantage point.

Paul

164

[quote]Xvim wrote:
On the topic of the Great Flood, again, totally irrelevant to this discussion but YES there is physical evidence to support the idea that the flood was real. 7,000 years ago when the european glaciers melted.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

What this has to do with creationism or evolution science is unclear though.[/quote]

This is true, I have read much on the topic, however, this evidence is limited to the black sea and surrounding areas - nothing that would indicate a world-wide flood as intimated by previous postings.

I too hate that we have to digress so.

165

First, we should clarify what “evolution” means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is “a change in allele frequencies over time.” By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to
associate the word “evolution” mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution “only a theory” is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what “theory” means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn’t a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one’s conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you’re operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn’t 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has–evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Hypothesis, based on observable and inferred evidence, tested, independantly verified and falsifiable. Evolution is science and belongs in the science classroom. Intellegent Design is an interesting philosophical concept, but it’s not science. I’m all for bringing up ID, christian or otherwise, in an philosophy or social studies class you want.

That article was about as close as I could find to the bibilical timeline mentioned earlier, there is some fossil evidence of a larger, world wide flood that occurred much earlier and this flood is documented in the mythology of cultures from around the world. Each of them takes the same approach, that the gods are punishing us. The Aztecs had legends of a great flood in which the ‘wooden monkey men’ were destroyed by the gods for their wickedness, for stealing the women of the humans, the chinese and india cultures have similar stories, and of course there’s the biblical account of god’s wrath being meted out on the elohim or ‘giants’ that were taking the daughters of men as their ‘brides.’ I have a theory about the orgin of this myth and the commonality from culture to culture but like the origins of judeo-christian monotheism, it’s all sort of irrelevant to what evolution is and isn’t.

These are all interesting topics but most dont’ have much to do with evolution vs. ID and hardly any of these questions are related at all. Abiogenesis isn’t a part of evolutionarty theory :stuck_out_tongue:

166

[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]

Enjoyed your post! I wasn’t up on religious history, especially the origins of the Hibru religion. Would like to read more, if you have a good book in mind.

167

[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.[/quote]

To my economics and mathematics complete stranger…

Go back and re-read between the lines again please. I did not change the questions to answerable questions because I could not answer them…but because the questions themselves were fundamentally flawed cosmologically speaking. Your very comments themselves demonstrate a lack of a fundamental understanding of just what we are discussing in terms of the Big Bang.

Where did the matter that was supposed to “Bang” in the first place come from? What? Listen…before the Big Bang (which was not some explosion or collision in any form as we think of them) there was absolutely, positively nothing. Total lack of anything. That includes spacetime itself. The very concepts of time and space were meaningless. Absolute vacuum. Our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of this complete and total nothingness. The ground state of nothing being essentially zero by our understanding.

Now, I did say before that my answers may seem quite cryptic or incomplete…and I’m sure that not knowing precisely what a quantum fluctuation is might trouble you. Tough. Bother to learn a little something about quantum mechanics and the way the world around you actually operates.

There really needed to be only an incredibly tiny disturbance of absolutely nothing for everything that we observe today to come about. Quantum Mechanics allows for this quite readily. In fact, it happens in our universe itself quite regularly. The rest is just a practical application of chaos theory really…a small initial push from an equilibrium state and a few billion years down the road the universe is totally different.

[quote]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.[/quote]

How convenient for God that he does not have to prove anything. Guess what…if God wants mention in a science class, I demand that he state his case factually and back it up with some kind of workable, testable, falsifiable theory. You seem to be lumping a great deal of scientific theories together under the umbrella of evolution, which is a pet peeve of mine really…stop that. If you want to strictly discuss cosmology with me, then let’s go. However, your insistance that scientific theories are faith based is laughable to me. At least as far as you are comparing them to religious faith. They are vastly different.

We can in fact know and learn a great deal about the creation of our universe. The amount of progress we have made in this field in the last century has been mind boggling really. There will almost certainly be a great deal more progress made in the next century, and theories will change and be adjusted…as they always are…because that is how science works! It is not a religion, and that is essentially what you are arguing.

Big Bang cosmology is not religious at all. It does not require or rule out the existance of a creator. It only seeks to explain the mechanisms by which the universe came into being and has subsequently evolved from its initial state to what we currently observe. That is all. Any philosophical implications people draw from them can be interesting and good conversation…but they are not science.

[quote]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]

First, I would like to say that the whole there are no atheists in foxholes thing is an insult to every single atheist who has served in the armed forces. They are out there…there are probably more than you think.

Second, crying out “a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum” would be moronic…as it is not a deity in any way shape or form. Why must religious people continually try to conform the beliefs of nonreligious people to their own? Can you not understand any other way of thinking?

Third, lots of people who don’t even believe in a god cry out things because they are parts of their speech patterns. I was indoctrinated into Christianity practically from the day I was born. Though I have since given up the belief system, it is quite obviously present in my speech at certain times. I still on occasion say things like “God damnit” or “Jesus Christ!” or my personal favorite lately “Oh, for the love of God!”.

I have however, been trying to change…so I now attempt to cycle the deities that I don’t believe in into my phrases…so if you ever hear a tennis pro on a distant court yelling “For the love of Vishnu!” in an angry voice…that’s most likely me…

168

I have decided to post in a general way instead of answering everyone of your collective diatribes against what I have been saying.

In the words of Shakespeare (I think) “you doth protest too much.”

I observed the following in your collective posts:

(1) Writing “evolution IS science” over and over and over and over again when I have given reason after reason after reason why it is not but it is another form of faith, DOES NOT MAKE IT SCIENCE. That does not take any logic at all. Saying it is science does not make it science when it cannot be science for all of the reasons that I have already stated.

(2) Trying to insult me by saying that I have read some “propaganda” and I am simply “throwing it back up” is plain wrong. All of my responses, I assure you, I have typed on my own using no notes, no “google,” no nothin’. These things are my original ideas based upon my faith, God’s Word, scientific principles, and yes logic.

(3) You are completely incorrect about saying that Evolution does not deal with the Origins of everything. Of course it does, because the “Big Bang” Theory of origins is how atheists believe everything began so that all of these forces or whatever you want to call them could then act on the soup of something or other and out comes creatures with fins, and they come out of the soup and then comes monkeys and then comes grandpa…

(4) You guys still have not answered point by point those questions that were proposed about 48 hours ago. I don’t understand this because if Evolution is science then surely you have answers for these basic questions that the Bible answers.

48 hours of smoke and mirrors with no answers. I thought evolutionists could do better.

Answer all of the questions so that everyone can believe what you want to indoctrinate our youth with. Answer the questions!

169

[quote]Mordred wrote:

First, I would like to say that the whole there are no atheists in foxholes thing is an insult to every single atheist who has served in the armed forces. They are out there…there are probably more than you think.

Second, crying out “a quantum fluctuation in the ground state of absolute vacuum” would be moronic…as it is not a deity in any way shape or form. Why must religious people continually try to conform the beliefs of nonreligious people to their own? Can you not understand any other way of thinking?

Third, lots of people who don’t even believe in a god cry out things because they are parts of their speech patterns. I was indoctrinated into Christianity practically from the day I was born. Though I have since given up the belief system, it is quite obviously present in my speech at certain times. I still on occasion say things like “God damnit” or “Jesus Christ!” or my personal favorite lately “Oh, for the love of God!”.

I have however, been trying to change…so I now attempt to cycle the deities that I don’t believe in into my phrases…so if you ever hear a tennis pro on a distant court yelling “For the love of Vishnu!” in an angry voice…that’s most likely me…
[/quote]

You will have to face God someday. Then what?

170

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
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

SteveO,

I fail to see the comedy in pointing out the fact that many of the questions that the original post posed have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Where matter, the universe, and energy come from is not addressed by the theory of evolution, these things are not even mentioned in the theory. How then is one to address such questions to an evolutionist?

I am quite surprised by the fact that you have not hear of astrophysicists , and for the record I did not use the term “cosmotological biologists”(nice try though). If biologists, microbiologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, mammalian anthropologists, and chemists (these are the only professions I mentioned aside from those previously noted) seem to have professions that you have never heard of and cannot pronounce I would suggest that you read more. I do find this assertion on your part quite odd given that you are an educated fellow who spent time at a university, I would have hoped that you would have had at least some exposure to fields other than your own specializations while there.

Let me simplify the gist of my post for you - rlawrence was asking many questions of evolutionists, many of which addressed issues that lie outside the bounds of evolutionary theory (questions 1-5 with the possible exclusion of question 4, although his diction obfuscated the intent of the question, and the final question).

Those questions that he did ask that fell within the purview of evolutionary theory required complex answers - answers not likely to be given by an individual without a background in science.

As I am quite sure that the answers to these questions that would be posted would fail to meet rlawrence’s standards of acceptability I simply referred him to individuals who would be able to answer them sufficiently in the event that he was actually looking for the answers to his questions rather than moronic responses that he could deride.

Additionally, the intent of some questions were obscured by his diction (word choice) and I asked for clarification.

Other questions were ill informed (ie: organisms LEARNING to reproduce, organisms and species WANTING) and indicated a lack of a basic understanding of evolution or biology on his part. The analogy comparing genetic recombination to rearranging English letters in an attempt to produce a Chinese book served to reinforce the aforementioned impression of a lack of understanding and knowledge on his part.

Similarly, I have no idea where he got the notion that natural selection tends to keep a species stable, this is a concept that I have never heard of. It sounds very far fetched and I would simply like to see evidence that supports this, or even where he got this notion from. I might then be better able to entertain his question.

I am actually quite offended by your closing remarks. I do not see how exactly you draw the conclusion that I need God or do not have God in my life from my post. I simply was trying to restrain rlawrence’s line of inquiry to what could be answered by those individuals to whom he had directed his questions - evolutionists. In doing so - as neither ID (at least as publicly promoted) and evolution make mention of God - I intentionally avoided such language in my post as it would have deviated from the issue at hand. For the record I have read the bible many times over, and attend church on a weekly basis. Please do not make such assumptions where no basis for them exists. You and I may conceive of God differently, but please do not question my faith.

I am sorry that you find my and others’ answers to your friend’s questions insufficient - hopefully I have made my post more clear to you and far less comical. And I would imagine that through clarification and explanation of terminology and concepts you might be better able to understand those of others. I do realize that ultimately, given your personal beliefs, no one will be able to provide sufficient answers to you, but I do hope that at least you can come to understand that from the vantage point of the biological sciences there is some continuity to these evolutionists’ claims, just as there is continutity to your claims when viewed from your vantage point.

Paul
[/quote]

Paul,

Thanks for the clarification and please accept my apology for any offense. Some of my hyperbole stems from the frustration over others agreeing that scientific theory to be scientific needs to have the aspect of being able to be proven false, and then in the same breath asserting that Evolution is science when it cannot be because it cannot be falsified.

In addition, I would ask another question that does bear directly upon Evolution.

How do you square Evolution (attaining higher degrees of complexity over time)with Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy – that systems degrade over time, not get more complex and organized).

If Evolution, as I have just indicated, violates an established scientific LAW, then the “theory” is invalid.

SteveO

171

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Thanks for the clarification and please accept my apology for any offense. Some of my hyperbole stems from the frustration over others agreeing that scientific theory to be scientific needs to have the aspect of being able to be proven false, and then in the same breath asserting that Evolution is science when it cannot be because it cannot be falsified.
[/quote]
That always gets my goat too, where these people come from I do not know.

SteveO, I think both you and I have the tendancy to get frustrated with the posts of some people and have that affect our cogency (just look at my first post), it is quite understandable.

As thermodynamics and the laws associated therewith are generally only applied to the physical/mechanical, not so much to systems of interaction amongst organisms, I find this a little difficult to apply to the theory of evolution. Although I can understand evolution can be viewed as a system, I just think this conception of evolution as a system is different from a physical/mechanical system.

The general idea of systemic entropy can, however be applied to evolution in another respect. Cellular and sub-cellular processes can in some ways be viewed as mechanical systems (although I do not think that laws of thermodynamics apply to all of the processes that would make up such a system).

Systemic entropy can be seen to work in this case in the form of imperfect DNA replication. Over time the DNA that is contained in an organism’s nuclei degrades more and moreso as cells are continually replicated and replaced. As I have very little knowledge of microbiology I can only theorize that some of the processes involved in DNA replication are pure physical/mechanical systems that are subject to entropy and as such contribute to the degredation of one’s DNA over time.

This idea of systemic entropy could similarly be seen as applied to the formation of gametes (sperm and ovum in the case of human beings). Although gametes are formed through a very different process than are replacement cells, cellular- or sub-cellular-level processes are involved here too.

172

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
You will have to face God someday. Then what?[/quote]

If I die and end up in front of an omnipotent deity, responsible for all creation…I will politely say thank you. I will then explain to him that I lived my life according to a set of principles, that I did so as best as I could, and that I do not apologize for not believing in him while I was alive as I saw no good reason to believe. I will then ask a LONG list of questions about life, the universe, and everything that he will hopefully answer.

If he then chooses (and it is most certainly a choice for him, being omnipotent and all) to consign me to whatever hell he created, to suffer for all eternity simply because I found the available evidence for his very existance unconvincing…I will curse his name in defiance, for he is not a god that is worthy of being praised or worshipped. I hold my deities to a high standard you see, and an unjust, vengeful deity does not deserve to be worshipped. And I refuse to worship such a being out of fear for the possible consequences.

As for some of your other writings…

You show so much incredible bias here that I would not believe it had I not seen it countless times before. First, Big Bang theory is currently the generally accepted theory in cosmology dealing with the beginning of our universe. There are all kinds of people, atheists and theists alike, who hold the current model as the best available theory. It says absolutely, positively nothing about the rise of organic life on the planet Earth. That falls into the realm of Abiogenesis, which says absolutely nothing about how such lifeforms will evolve, or if they even will evolve. This is now the grounds of the theory of evolution.

It is a common creationist tactic to take the theories of big bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution and lump them all together as Evolution. This does not make it so. Biological evolution does not require that the universe be created via a big bang model, nor does it even require that what we call life come into existance by any model for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis certainly does not require a big bang model, nor does it require evolution. Big bang cosmology most certainly does not hinge on the correctness of either abiogenesis or evolution in any way.

Your little description of the progression from big bang to human being is comical at best, and only demonstrates ignorance and or the wish to degrade the intellectual level of this dialogue.

[quote]How do you square Evolution (attaining higher degrees of complexity over time)with Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy – that systems degrade over time, not get more complex and organized).

If Evolution, as I have just indicated, violates an established scientific LAW, then the “theory” is invalid.[/quote]

You have just lost some major, major points with me in regards to your understanding of science in general. First, on the historical front…they are not Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics. In fact, Newton didn’t really have a whole lot to do with them at all. Just to clear this up for everyone here are the Laws of Thermodynamics…

Zeroth Law

If two thermodynamic systems A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are also in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are in thermal equilibrium.

First Law

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings.

Second Law

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

Third Law

As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value or zero for the case of a perfect crystalline substance.

Now, paying close attention to the Second Law you will see that there are some key words to pay attention to. The one we are most obviously concerned with in this case is the word isolated. Are individual organisms isolated systems? No way. They generally take in energy from outside sources in order to maintain themselves. See what happens to your own entropy if you simply stop eating, drinking, and breathing for a while. Our planet isn’t even an isolated system by any stretch of the imagination. It is constantly being bombarded by radiation of all kinds, a great deal of it originating from the sun. Our solar system we can at least begin to idealise as an isolated system without totally kidding ourselves, although it most certainly is not one either. Looking at this system, the decreases in local entropy evident on Earth are more than made up for in the system as a whole by the massive amount of entropy caused by the sun.

Think for a second. If the second law worked for everything the way you propose it works in regards to evolution…it would be impossible to any new systems of any kind. Not only would industrial society crumble, life as we know it would be totally impossible.

Luckily for us all…your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed.

As an aside, I also find it kind of funny that anyone would think this way in regards to the second law. What I mean is…for your way of thinking to be true, it would have taken generations of some of the greatest minds in history (a good deal of which believe in a god of some sort) up to and including the scientific community at large across the globe today to be totally unaware of or misunderstanding of both evolution and thermodynamics, or complicit in one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated.

173

[quote]Mordred wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
You will have to face God someday. Then what?

If I die and end up in front of an omnipotent deity, responsible for all creation…I will politely say thank you. I will then explain to him that I lived my life according to a set of principles, that I did so as best as I could, and that I do not apologize for not believing in him while I was alive as I saw no good reason to believe. I will then ask a LONG list of questions about life, the universe, and everything that he will hopefully answer.

If he then chooses (and it is most certainly a choice for him, being omnipotent and all) to consign me to whatever hell he created, to suffer for all eternity simply because I found the available evidence for his very existance unconvincing…I will curse his name in defiance, for he is not a god that is worthy of being praised or worshipped. I hold my deities to a high standard you see, and an unjust, vengeful deity does not deserve to be worshipped. And I refuse to worship such a being out of fear for the possible consequences.

As for some of your other writings…

(3) You are completely incorrect about saying that Evolution does not deal with the Origins of everything. Of course it does, because the “Big Bang” Theory of origins is how atheists believe everything began so that all of these forces or whatever you want to call them could then act on the soup of something or other and out comes creatures with fins, and they come out of the soup and then comes monkeys and then comes grandpa…

You show so much incredible bias here that I would not believe it had I not seen it countless times before. First, Big Bang theory is currently the generally accepted theory in cosmology dealing with the beginning of our universe. There are all kinds of people, atheists and theists alike, who hold the current model as the best available theory. It says absolutely, positively nothing about the rise of organic life on the planet Earth. That falls into the realm of Abiogenesis, which says absolutely nothing about how such lifeforms will evolve, or if they even will evolve. This is now the grounds of the theory of evolution.

It is a common creationist tactic to take the theories of big bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution and lump them all together as Evolution. This does not make it so. Biological evolution does not require that the universe be created via a big bang model, nor does it even require that what we call life come into existance by any model for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis certainly does not require a big bang model, nor does it require evolution. Big bang cosmology most certainly does not hinge on the correctness of either abiogenesis or evolution in any way.

Your little description of the progression from big bang to human being is comical at best, and only demonstrates ignorance and or the wish to degrade the intellectual level of this dialogue.

How do you square Evolution (attaining higher degrees of complexity over time)with Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy – that systems degrade over time, not get more complex and organized).

If Evolution, as I have just indicated, violates an established scientific LAW, then the “theory” is invalid.

You have just lost some major, major points with me in regards to your understanding of science in general. First, on the historical front…they are not Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics. In fact, Newton didn’t really have a whole lot to do with them at all. Just to clear this up for everyone here are the Laws of Thermodynamics…

Zeroth Law

If two thermodynamic systems A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are also in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are in thermal equilibrium.

First Law

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings.

Second Law

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

Third Law

As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value or zero for the case of a perfect crystalline substance.

Now, paying close attention to the Second Law you will see that there are some key words to pay attention to. The one we are most obviously concerned with in this case is the word isolated. Are individual organisms isolated systems? No way. They generally take in energy from outside sources in order to maintain themselves. See what happens to your own entropy if you simply stop eating, drinking, and breathing for a while. Our planet isn’t even an isolated system by any stretch of the imagination. It is constantly being bombarded by radiation of all kinds, a great deal of it originating from the sun. Our solar system we can at least begin to idealise as an isolated system without totally kidding ourselves, although it most certainly is not one either. Looking at this system, the decreases in local entropy evident on Earth are more than made up for in the system as a whole by the massive amount of entropy caused by the sun.

Think for a second. If the second law worked for everything the way you propose it works in regards to evolution…it would be impossible to any new systems of any kind. Not only would industrial society crumble, life as we know it would be totally impossible.

Luckily for us all…your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed.

As an aside, I also find it kind of funny that anyone would think this way in regards to the second law. What I mean is…for your way of thinking to be true, it would have taken generations of some of the greatest minds in history (a good deal of which believe in a god of some sort) up to and including the scientific community at large across the globe today to be totally unaware of or misunderstanding of both evolution and thermodynamics, or complicit in one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated.[/quote]

Why do you hate the idea of God?

174

[quote]Mordred wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
You will have to face God someday. Then what?

If I die and end up in front of an omnipotent deity, responsible for all creation…I will politely say thank you. I will then explain to him that I lived my life according to a set of principles, that I did so as best as I could, and that I do not apologize for not believing in him while I was alive as I saw no good reason to believe. I will then ask a LONG list of questions about life, the universe, and everything that he will hopefully answer.

If he then chooses (and it is most certainly a choice for him, being omnipotent and all) to consign me to whatever hell he created, to suffer for all eternity simply because I found the available evidence for his very existance unconvincing…I will curse his name in defiance, for he is not a god that is worthy of being praised or worshipped. I hold my deities to a high standard you see, and an unjust, vengeful deity does not deserve to be worshipped. And I refuse to worship such a being out of fear for the possible consequences.

As for some of your other writings…

(3) You are completely incorrect about saying that Evolution does not deal with the Origins of everything. Of course it does, because the “Big Bang” Theory of origins is how atheists believe everything began so that all of these forces or whatever you want to call them could then act on the soup of something or other and out comes creatures with fins, and they come out of the soup and then comes monkeys and then comes grandpa…

You show so much incredible bias here that I would not believe it had I not seen it countless times before. First, Big Bang theory is currently the generally accepted theory in cosmology dealing with the beginning of our universe. There are all kinds of people, atheists and theists alike, who hold the current model as the best available theory. It says absolutely, positively nothing about the rise of organic life on the planet Earth. That falls into the realm of Abiogenesis, which says absolutely nothing about how such lifeforms will evolve, or if they even will evolve. This is now the grounds of the theory of evolution.

It is a common creationist tactic to take the theories of big bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution and lump them all together as Evolution. This does not make it so. Biological evolution does not require that the universe be created via a big bang model, nor does it even require that what we call life come into existance by any model for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis certainly does not require a big bang model, nor does it require evolution. Big bang cosmology most certainly does not hinge on the correctness of either abiogenesis or evolution in any way.

Your little description of the progression from big bang to human being is comical at best, and only demonstrates ignorance and or the wish to degrade the intellectual level of this dialogue.

How do you square Evolution (attaining higher degrees of complexity over time)with Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy – that systems degrade over time, not get more complex and organized).

If Evolution, as I have just indicated, violates an established scientific LAW, then the “theory” is invalid.

You have just lost some major, major points with me in regards to your understanding of science in general. First, on the historical front…they are not Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics. In fact, Newton didn’t really have a whole lot to do with them at all. Just to clear this up for everyone here are the Laws of Thermodynamics…

Zeroth Law

If two thermodynamic systems A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are also in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are in thermal equilibrium.

First Law

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings.

Second Law

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

Third Law

As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value or zero for the case of a perfect crystalline substance.

Now, paying close attention to the Second Law you will see that there are some key words to pay attention to. The one we are most obviously concerned with in this case is the word isolated. Are individual organisms isolated systems? No way. They generally take in energy from outside sources in order to maintain themselves. See what happens to your own entropy if you simply stop eating, drinking, and breathing for a while. Our planet isn’t even an isolated system by any stretch of the imagination. It is constantly being bombarded by radiation of all kinds, a great deal of it originating from the sun. Our solar system we can at least begin to idealise as an isolated system without totally kidding ourselves, although it most certainly is not one either. Looking at this system, the decreases in local entropy evident on Earth are more than made up for in the system as a whole by the massive amount of entropy caused by the sun.

Think for a second. If the second law worked for everything the way you propose it works in regards to evolution…it would be impossible to any new systems of any kind. Not only would industrial society crumble, life as we know it would be totally impossible.

Luckily for us all…your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed.

As an aside, I also find it kind of funny that anyone would think this way in regards to the second law. What I mean is…for your way of thinking to be true, it would have taken generations of some of the greatest minds in history (a good deal of which believe in a god of some sort) up to and including the scientific community at large across the globe today to be totally unaware of or misunderstanding of both evolution and thermodynamics, or complicit in one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated.[/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.

Why should I take, on faith, your interpretation of how it all began? I take God’s because in His Word there is verifiable prophecy that can be substantiated looking at World History and this gives credability to my faith. Where is the credability of your faith in all of the vaccums, gyrations, or whatever supposed to have happend.

The plain fact is that with all of the science, with all of the knowledge, the most simple question about where did this all come from and hence, who is in control of it, cannot be answered.

So, you lose points with me too.

175

[quote]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?[/quote]

some of your points are betetr answered by physicists, not “evolutionists”, whatever they are.

Mutations themselves do not create varieties, the concept of speciation is a zoological foible, but in reality it does not exist. Take the northa atlantic tern. go around the globe and you can trace a graduation of variety, come full circle and just befor you hit where the NA tern is, there would be an increadibly similar bird. They could have vable offspring, if they met. It is just that geography makes that barrier.

Going back to mutations, they do occur, but are refined by very unrandom processes of natural selection. This is the big error creationist and the like make. a concept that is beyond their grasp, it seems.

Life doesn’t learn to reproduce itself, it just does.

I love your comment regarding offspring, and more mouths to feed. If that were us, then is it not likely that a species, nay life would die out in 1 generation.

Re genetic complexity, you answered your own question…mutation guided by natural selection.

As for a common creator, rather than evolving, the eye has developed over 40 different times in 40 different locations around the world. no design, just looks like it.

Cells dot sexually reproduce. they undergo binary fission. Organisms of necessary complexity do. It is tricky and risky (asexual reproduction is far more efficient). sexual reproduction does do a few things though. diversity of genes and increased chance of mutation.

To a few of your questions, there may never be no known answer. what you may fail to realise is that we can investigate and discover. What kind of a world would it be if all the answers are laid out in front of you.

you are the owner of a brief spark of conciousness (paraphrasing someone here). in that you have a duty to question and discover. faith means that you spend it praying so that you get it easy in a so called next life. DOes that not sound crazy? So my question to you is “do you believe that all life is a test and we have to sacrifice energy and effort trying to please a sky god, in the off chnce that there is a heaven, that everything around you which has such depths of complexity that most brains cannot even begin to understand, all physics, chemistry and biology, weather, techtonc plates, movemnet of the stars and planets, genes, viruses pencils and what ever else was created by 1 being in 6 days.”

I guess your answer would be yes, because it is a belief. some of us try to read some evidence at least from more that 1 source to confirm of modify ideas.

176

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Mordred wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
You will have to face God someday. Then what?

If I die and end up in front of an omnipotent deity, responsible for all creation…I will politely say thank you. I will then explain to him that I lived my life according to a set of principles, that I did so as best as I could, and that I do not apologize for not believing in him while I was alive as I saw no good reason to believe. I will then ask a LONG list of questions about life, the universe, and everything that he will hopefully answer.

If he then chooses (and it is most certainly a choice for him, being omnipotent and all) to consign me to whatever hell he created, to suffer for all eternity simply because I found the available evidence for his very existance unconvincing…I will curse his name in defiance, for he is not a god that is worthy of being praised or worshipped. I hold my deities to a high standard you see, and an unjust, vengeful deity does not deserve to be worshipped. And I refuse to worship such a being out of fear for the possible consequences.

As for some of your other writings…

(3) You are completely incorrect about saying that Evolution does not deal with the Origins of everything. Of course it does, because the “Big Bang” Theory of origins is how atheists believe everything began so that all of these forces or whatever you want to call them could then act on the soup of something or other and out comes creatures with fins, and they come out of the soup and then comes monkeys and then comes grandpa…

You show so much incredible bias here that I would not believe it had I not seen it countless times before. First, Big Bang theory is currently the generally accepted theory in cosmology dealing with the beginning of our universe. There are all kinds of people, atheists and theists alike, who hold the current model as the best available theory. It says absolutely, positively nothing about the rise of organic life on the planet Earth. That falls into the realm of Abiogenesis, which says absolutely nothing about how such lifeforms will evolve, or if they even will evolve. This is now the grounds of the theory of evolution.

It is a common creationist tactic to take the theories of big bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution and lump them all together as Evolution. This does not make it so. Biological evolution does not require that the universe be created via a big bang model, nor does it even require that what we call life come into existance by any model for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis certainly does not require a big bang model, nor does it require evolution. Big bang cosmology most certainly does not hinge on the correctness of either abiogenesis or evolution in any way.

Your little description of the progression from big bang to human being is comical at best, and only demonstrates ignorance and or the wish to degrade the intellectual level of this dialogue.

How do you square Evolution (attaining higher degrees of complexity over time)with Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy – that systems degrade over time, not get more complex and organized).

If Evolution, as I have just indicated, violates an established scientific LAW, then the “theory” is invalid.

You have just lost some major, major points with me in regards to your understanding of science in general. First, on the historical front…they are not Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics. In fact, Newton didn’t really have a whole lot to do with them at all. Just to clear this up for everyone here are the Laws of Thermodynamics…

Zeroth Law

If two thermodynamic systems A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are also in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are in thermal equilibrium.

First Law

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings.

Second Law

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

Third Law

As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value or zero for the case of a perfect crystalline substance.

Now, paying close attention to the Second Law you will see that there are some key words to pay attention to. The one we are most obviously concerned with in this case is the word isolated. Are individual organisms isolated systems? No way. They generally take in energy from outside sources in order to maintain themselves. See what happens to your own entropy if you simply stop eating, drinking, and breathing for a while. Our planet isn’t even an isolated system by any stretch of the imagination. It is constantly being bombarded by radiation of all kinds, a great deal of it originating from the sun. Our solar system we can at least begin to idealise as an isolated system without totally kidding ourselves, although it most certainly is not one either. Looking at this system, the decreases in local entropy evident on Earth are more than made up for in the system as a whole by the massive amount of entropy caused by the sun.

Think for a second. If the second law worked for everything the way you propose it works in regards to evolution…it would be impossible to any new systems of any kind. Not only would industrial society crumble, life as we know it would be totally impossible.

Luckily for us all…your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed.

As an aside, I also find it kind of funny that anyone would think this way in regards to the second law. What I mean is…for your way of thinking to be true, it would have taken generations of some of the greatest minds in history (a good deal of which believe in a god of some sort) up to and including the scientific community at large across the globe today to be totally unaware of or misunderstanding of both evolution and thermodynamics, or complicit in one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated.

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.

Why should I take, on faith, your interpretation of how it all began? I take God’s because in His Word there is verifiable prophecy that can be substantiated looking at World History and this gives credability to my faith. Where is the credability of your faith in all of the vaccums, gyrations, or whatever supposed to have happend.

The plain fact is that with all of the science, with all of the knowledge, the most simple question about where did this all come from and hence, who is in control of it, cannot be answered.

So, you lose points with me too.[/quote]

But if that is the argument, i.e. the big bang was made by god because that is the only answer written a bronze age text, then surely that is in conflict wih your faith. That the world is 10000 years old and made in a week?

177

there is much mention of how things, or rather how likely things areto happen…i.e.the chance of amino acids forming by chance.

Human beings are very poor intereters of probability and chance. people still play the lottery, there is 1 here with a ?100 million prize, but the odds are 74million to 1. Massive.

But we still play. we have no idea how improbable that is, but omone wins. they had to guess the right numbers. the right combination. how life starts is analagous, just many more times over. But processes over billions of years will give rise to a successful lottery win, the right combination comes up. but humans have little appreciation of geological time, and therefore it is easier and more comfortable a fit to say “it was designed” as the thought that when you die, you are dead, and that life is a mater of chance (there are far more ways of being dead than alive) makes you shiver in fear and scares you.

178

[quote]rlawrence wrote:
Is archeology a branch of science?
[/quote]

Science is not a branch, group, vocation, or title. It is a PROCESS! A process called the scientific method of inquiry. And just because someone calls themselves a scientists doesn’t mean they actually adhere to the scientific method.

179

Regarding the second law of thermodynamics:

From Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

[quote]“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]

180

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
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!

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)"
[/quote]

“take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it” (Job 38:12-13)

can someone grab the edges of a sphere?

“The earth takes shape like clay under a seal.” (Job 38:14)

clay smashed by a seal is flat…

“The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.”(Daniel 4:10-11)

Daniel says that you can see the whole earth from the top of a high tree…

how could this be possible if Daniel thought the earth were a sphere?

“[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them” (Matthew 4:1-12)

Matthew says that the whole earth can be seen from the top of a high mountain…

how can this be possible if Matthew though the earth was a sphere?

Isaiah would have use the word duwr (ball) if he had meant ‘sphere’ instead of circle…Isaiah wrote circle because he meant circle…

ball:

circle: