[quote]haney wrote:
seanc wrote:
The intelligent design left all 1,000 frames on the floor.
Don’t hate the messenger. NG is by far not a Christian publication, and would lean to the side of supporting evolution. I just thought it was interesting that even they see there are issues with the idea of evolution.[/quote]
Not hating dude, I’m with you.
Understand, I agree there are unsolved issues with evolution(though evolution as a process is not at issue).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I happen to agree with the professor. I do believe in God, however, the clues to a natural evolution process are all around as well. It doesn’t make much sense for people to believe that evolution is evil when we even see it in our current biology (ie. the mandibles of most humans are getting progressivly smaller with many asian females being currently born completely without their wisdom teeth). Should we act as if it isn’t happening? I ackowledge that the complexity of the design is ridiculously intricate. I remember dissecting a human body in gross anatomy and being astonished at how such small detail all flowed together that well. It, in my opinion, is too complex and intelligent to have happened by the chaos theory. That much couldn’t have gone wrong to create something that right…and then to do it over and over in every organism on the planet. Evolution seems to be as much of the design as the creation.[/quote]
Problem with your analogy: the mandibular changes are all micro-evolution or adaptation- which is WITHIN the species. The major problem comes when the supposed change from one species to another happens. Once this occurs, the new species cannot create a viable offspring with what evolved from. So there must be 2 of the exact same mutation of different sexes in the same general area. Unless there was some kind of divine intervention, that wont happen. But, I suppose that is what the author of the article is saying. I just happen not to agree with it given the research and education I have concerning biology and evolution.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Neil, I won’t even try to get into each individual point you made, but you have it backwards. The professor is not promoting belief in the big bang theory. He is combining the theory of EVOLUTION and creation. That means, yes, God created man…to evolve and get better as time passes.
Also, your understanding of time is also skewed if you think one reference in the bible written by one man stands for the exact same reference meant by another man. God is the Alpha and Omega. He has no beginning and no end. He is OUTSIDE of linear time. If time is a string, he is holding it. That means the concepts of time in the bible are our own understanding of his essence.
The Bible should NEVER be taken strictly word for word without any deeper understanding of the intended message. One day could have meant thousands of our years…it was one man’s interpretation of God’s message. [/quote]
I agree with just about everything you said here, prof. my one question is do you believe that the man god created was indeed homo sapien or some other species that evolved into homo sapien? Adam and Eve could have looked like aboriginal tribesman, hebrews, or caucasoids, or something completely different. But they still could have been homo sapien. That thought implies, however, that the supposed evolution was not truly macro evolution, i.e. from one species to another, but simple adaptation that has come to be called micro evolution as of late.
On to the linearity of time and Gods independence of said time. The idea that God is outside the concept of time is beyond many ppls consideration- they simply wont contend that it is possible. Anyway, there is some serious discussion I would love to have with you on such topics. There are some amazing theoreis I have heard and read on such topics that are amazing. One being that time is not necessarily linear.
[quote]neilbudge wrote:
Toshindo,
Sorry, I’m not a science major, I probably miss used the term species. The word may be Phyla (classes). Thus there is a limited number of phyla, but there may continue to develop multiple sub-classes/species within that class. Someone with more of a biology background could confirm. [/quote]
A species is technically a group of organisms that interbreed to produce viable offspring also capable of reproducing viable offspring. Different species can reproduce, however, but the offspring is not viable- they cannot reproduce. The mule comes to mind here. Or the liger- which, on a side note, are freaking cool!
[quote]veruvius wrote:
Well the theory of the Big Bang isn’t nothing + nothing = something. It is something = something, everything in the universe was compressed into a single point which was spontaneously exploded, essentially. I don’t really believe the Big Bang theory, but I don’t know high level physics, so that’s just a gut feeling. [/quote]
This begs the question- where did the mass come from?
see my response to prof x above. These are all adaptations, not evolution, per se. all of these changes are within the same species. None of these changes have created a new species, which is where the theory of evolution breaks down in my view.
[quote]seanc wrote:
neilbudge wrote:
okay,
Prof X, why not teach the kids three theories, Intelligent Design, Random Design and Evolution. Do you see any issue with that? Present the arguments for all three, and let the kids think about it. It’s alot better then the current offerings.
Neil
Neil,
The problem is, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for intelligent design. There are no reasonable or logical arguements for Intelligent design.
none.
nada.
zip.
nothing.
All you have is a literal interpretation of the bible.
This is something that keeps me up at night, everyone needs to draw there own conclusions, but teaching Intelligent design is like teaching that the earth is flat.[/quote]
There is also zero scientific evidence for evolution, if you truly examine it. There are observations for creation and observations for evolution. Neither can be tested using scientific method, so neither have any true supporting evidence, only observations. And give 2 men the same observations and you will have 2 different theories?. Teaching Intelligent design is not like teaching the earth is flat, because the theory of a spherical world can be tested and validated, whereas evolution nor intelligent design cannot.
[quote]T-chick wrote:
neilbudge wrote:
It’s based on assumptions, which science has not been able to prove. Neil
Yes absolutely. If by ‘assumptions’ you mean observable evidence and repeatable experiments which have withstood rigorous scrutiny from the scientific community for decades.[/quote]
Do elaborate. Please do.
[quote]seanc wrote:
neilbudge wrote:
Seanc, try and get some sleep, ehh.
Neil
I do need sleep, you’re right.
But 'cmon, there is no evidence.
The “theory” of intelligent design is more aptly called a hypothesis, and clearly, it even falls short of that definition.
A theory is a hypothesis which has been tested and evaluated by many many scientists and there is both expiremental and observable data.
Evolution and abiogenesis(creaton of life) are mutually exclusive.
How life began I have no clue, and I’m willing to accept God, Aliens, or whatever.
But evolution, that’s a fact.[/quote]
Evolution is far from a fact. See my above statements concerning scientific method. The things you say of intelligent design also apply to evolution.
[quote]neilbudge wrote:
Prof X, you said in your comment above:
“Humans today are not exactly like humans 5 million years ago”. I can’t say this with 100% certainly, but I would think that that humans have always had two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, one mouth, one nose, a free will, etc, now and 5 million years ago. Just because we may be heavier, that is a great leap of ‘faith’ to suggest that means we are evolving into another class of animal, or that we evolved from a different phyla.
[/quote]
I have never written that man evolved from another species, only that evolution is a fact of life on this planet, whether that be micro or macro. We can observe MICRO evolution in subspecies and in ourselves. That doesn’t make it any less significant simply because there are no ape-men walking around. I don’t believe that man evolved from any other creature, however, I do believe in evolution. It is as if some of you simply can’t let your minds grasp any other concept than what you were raised on. A few million years ago, man may have had two eyes, and two ears, but let’s not even go back that far. Just a few decades ago, the average height of men in this country was below 5’8". Today, 5’8" is considered short. Yes, the taller guys today still have two legs and two eyes, but does that mean we ignore the differences? It would seem that you would say yes.
[quote]DA MAN wrote:
I agree with just about everything you said here, prof. my one question is do you believe that the man god created was indeed homo sapien or some other species that evolved into homo sapien? Adam and Eve could have looked like aboriginal tribesman, hebrews, or caucasoids, or something completely different. But they still could have been homo sapien. That thought implies, however, that the supposed evolution was not truly macro evolution, i.e. from one species to another, but simple adaptation that has come to be called micro evolution as of late.
On to the linearity of time and Gods independence of said time. The idea that God is outside the concept of time is beyond many ppls consideration- they simply wont contend that it is possible. Anyway, there is some serious discussion I would love to have with you on such topics. There are some amazing theoreis I have heard and read on such topics that are amazing. One being that time is not necessarily linear. [/quote]
I grew up looking into the concepts of singularities and black holes. Needless to say, I was a weird kid. In a singularity, a concept delved into by Einstein, time can stretch or slow across the event horizon…which is like the pathway through the distortion to the other side. Time is believed to be engulfed by a black hole along with all matter. If that concept can be true, then it isn’t that off for there to be a concept that a higher power could exist within or even outside of our reality, able to either leap across time or live completely devoid of it. In that concept, God would know the outcome of events because they literally already occurred…without needing to affect human will. Whether we have a correct understanding of what God is, is open to discussion, but I think it foolish, given how little science even understands about our own laws of physics within distortions like Black holes, to assume that there is no God simply because you want proof in hand of there being one. I am a biologist and a doctor. I am amazed by the human body to the point that I don’t think it could have all been an accident or random design. I believe in destiny and also the concept of Karma. I believe in coincidence and planned events. Whether I am completely right, who knows. However, I seriously doubt I am completely wrong.
I do not believe that man evolved from a single celled organism, however, I do believe that life on this planet was given the ability to adapt in genetically varient ways. This would also be seen as evolution and allow for extreme differences in the human design.
[quote]
Evolution is far from a fact. See my above statements concerning scientific method. The things you say of intelligent design also apply to evolution.[/quote]
Evolution is a change in genetic make-up over time.
This is an indisputable fact.
Again, there is no evidence for intelligent design, just a literal interpretation of the bible.
The theory of evolution has evidence, lots and lots of it.
To prove it wrong, you must prove the evidence for it wrong.
Intelligent design has no evidence.
None.
[quote]seanc wrote:
Intelligent design has no evidence.
None.
[/quote]
That is a very basic way of looking at this. Regardless of what you believe, science can not explain creation in the first place. It simply has no proof that there was ever a “big bang” aside from the fact that some scientists believe that the universe is expanding. It is a huge leap to assume that this means there was once a single episode that exploded life and basic matter…and only on this planet in an entire solar system. Out of the entire universe, Earth is fairly new. As far as we know, aside from possibly Mars, Earth is the only planet that has ever sustained life in our universe. That doesn’t strike you as just a little odd that life, something so rare an occurance, just happened and then happened on such a grand level as to be as complex as it is? You may not want to believe in God, and that is you right, but don’t pretend as if science has explained creation. It hasn’t and there is no PROOF of it. Simply deal with the fact that you have no more proof that there isn’t a God.
Da Man and Prof X –
Have you guys studied relativity and quantum theory? I took the introductory class for physics back in college, and I have never had my mind blown so completely apart.
At any rate, I agree with what you guys have said about the concept of being outside of time, as well as what Prof X said way back above about the Bible not being precisely literal. One can believe the Bible was divinely inspired overall without having to believe that the minds of the authors were capable of writing things about quantum theory and the concept of time back in 3000 BC. It would seem to me that the text would be constrained by the ability of the author to use language to express the inspiration.
Switching from beginning to end to play on that theme, think about Revelation. If one starts from the premise that John had a vision, how would someone from 2000 years ago describe all those things with which he had no experience? Interesting to ponder (although some people take it way too far…).
Anyway, I’m off to the gym – good stuff to ponder during the warm up.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
seanc wrote:
Intelligent design has no evidence.
None.
That is a very basic way of looking at this. Regardless of what you believe, science can not explain creation in the first place. It simply has no proof that there was ever a “big bang” aside from the fact that some scientists believe that the universe is expanding. It is a huge leap to assume that this means there was once a single episode that exploded life and basic matter…and only on this planet in an entire solar system. Out of the entire universe, Earth is fairly new. As far as we know, aside from possibly Mars, Earth is the only planet that has ever sustained life in our universe. That doesn’t strike you as just a little odd that life, something so rare an occurance, just happened and then happened on such a grand level as to be as complex as it is? You may not want to believe in God, and that is you right, but don’t pretend as if science has explained creation. It hasn’t and there is no PROOF of it. Simply deal with the fact that you have no more proof that there isn’t a God.[/quote]
Prof X,
Talking about 2 different things.
Begining of the Universe is 1 thing.
How life evolved(or didn’t) is another.
I never stated that I didn’t or don’t want to believe in God. Quite the contrary.
However, the “probability arguement” is one of the weekeast arguements of all.
From a “we are the only life” perspective, it ignores the fact that the universe is incomprehensibly large… our own galaxy has two hundred BILLION stars in it. Hubble alone has discovered 3000 galaxies, all with a compareable number of stars, and astrophysicists estimate the total number of galaxies to exceed 100 billion.
There could literally be 100’s of millions of civilizations out there that we will never know about simply due to the vastness of it all.
-Sean
[quote]Professor X wrote:
…don’t pretend as if science has explained creation. It hasn’t and there is no PROOF of it. Simply deal with the fact that you have no more proof that there isn’t a God.[/quote]
I’m not pretending and never anyware did I say it was proven.
It is not provable. We can only prove things in mathematics because we have the luxury of defining the terms of the uninverse.
In reality, we can’t, so we are left with observation and expirementation.
I’m not trying to prove God doesn’t exsist, nor do I want to.
From a strictly logical point of view, there is no need to prove that God doesn’t exists, because again, there is absolutely 0 evidence that God does exsist.
And I’ll say it again, I don’t want to believe there is no God.
Gravity hasn’t been proven either, it’s “just a theory”, but I don’t see people jumping off roofs…
[quote]neilbudge wrote:
Lizard, Care to share what the two stories are? I only know about one. Please specify the verses. Thanks.
By the way, this discussion is not around what is ‘true’, since none of the theories can be absolutely proven. [/quote]
Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is one version, Genesis 2:4-25 is another. They differ in order of events and happenings. Such as, in one Man and Woman are created together and in the other Adam is created first. In one, it takes God six days and the other it takes him only a day. In one, God first creates Light, then Day and Night, in the other, God makes the earth and the heavens first… and so on, and so on… So which is right? Or do we just pick and chose which lines best serve our arguments? Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God, I just don’t believe ANY facts can be gleaned from dogma.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One can believe the Bible was divinely inspired overall without having to believe that the minds of the authors were capable of writing things about quantum theory and the concept of time back in 3000 BC. It would seem to me that the text would be constrained by the ability of the author to use language to express the inspiration.[/quote]
This point is why the bible has survived as long as it has (even though what we currently relate to as the Bible is not a collection of all of the books that were written). One concept is, If one of us were allowed to see far into either the Future or to see every aspect of a Black hole or alternate reality, what words would we use to describe it…based on our 2004-2005 knowledge of the world? I apologize to some if this seems extremely “sci fi”, but if you are to dispute the presence of a higher presence or intelligence, you need to at least have some concept of the large findings that go against everything we know to follow the laws of physics on this planet. You can’t jump out and claim you have it all figured out and there is no God…unless you can explain what that huge vortex is that has no beginning and no end yet attracts so much matter that it sucks light away.
Science has explained very little on this planet. We still have over 2/3 of this planet unexplored because much of it is under water. Even the concept of muscle contraction is a THEORY. Dentinal tubule pain is a THEORY. Science can’t explain what life even is yet so many are ready to throw out the concept of there ever being a higher being that intervened and started it.
It amazes me how arrogant some people are to throw out ideas and concepts simply because they can’t hold it or completely understand it. In the middle ages, it was believed that decayed meat turned into maggots. They thought it was a magical process. Imagine how stupid we will look to humans 1,000 years from now (if we are still here).
[quote]lizard king wrote:
neilbudge wrote:
Lizard, Care to share what the two stories are? I only know about one. Please specify the verses. Thanks.
By the way, this discussion is not around what is ‘true’, since none of the theories can be absolutely proven.
Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is one version, Genesis 2:4-25 is another. They differ in order of events and happenings. Such as, in one Man and Woman are created together and in the other Adam is created first. In one, it takes God six days and the other it takes him only a day. In one, God first creates Light, then Day and Night, in the other, God makes the earth and the heavens first… and so on, and so on… So which is right? Or do we just pick and chose which lines best serve our arguments? Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God, I just don’t believe ANY facts can be gleaned from dogma.
[/quote]
Your understanding is what is wrong. These are the verses you don’t understand:
[quote]Chapter 1
1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2: The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3: And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4: And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5: God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6: And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Chapter 2
1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2: And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
3: So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.
1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
2:7
7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
[/quote]
Please explain to me how they contradict each other. In one, the focus is on the order of how events took place. In another, the focus is on the seventh day after the work was finished along with a deeper look at the process of creation. Be specific because the facts can be easily confirmed.
Seanc,
I’m surprised to hear you say that “evolution is a fact”. I thought that science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation (for example gravity, this can be reproduced by throwing an object in the air). Thus gravity is a scientific law, not a theory (Law of Gravity). On the other hand Evolution has never been observed or reproduced in a lab. Thus it is a theory with some big assumptions, not facts.
In terms of there being no scientific evidence to support the bible’s interpretation of creation, consider this, though the bible is not a ‘science’ book, science certainly supports the biblical account of creation.
Consider this one example, in the 19th century an early Evolutionist (Herbert Spencer) outlined five scientific ideas that comprise everything that is susceptible to scientific examination (time, force, action, space and matter). (human intellect and emotion are left out). Check out Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning (time) God (force) Created (action) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). God laid out what no scientist cataloged until the 19th century.
Pretty cool, ehh.
Also note that I previously mentioned that God created the various living creatures and their attributes, and how they reproduce according to it’s kind. That is something that is certainly observable.
Just some additional thoughts for you to consider before completely dismissing the bible as not having any scientific support. I’m not saying this is a fact or a law, but that Intelligent Design deserves to be considered as well as Evolution in the class room.
Neil
[quote]lizard king wrote:
neilbudge wrote:
Lizard, Care to share what the two stories are? I only know about one. Please specify the verses. Thanks.
By the way, this discussion is not around what is ‘true’, since none of the theories can be absolutely proven.
Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is one version, Genesis 2:4-25 is another. They differ in order of events and happenings. Such as, in one Man and Woman are created together and in the other Adam is created first. In one, it takes God six days and the other it takes him only a day. In one, God first creates Light, then Day and Night, in the other, God makes the earth and the heavens first… and so on, and so on… So which is right? Or do we just pick and chose which lines best serve our arguments? Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God, I just don’t believe ANY facts can be gleaned from dogma.
[/quote]
Lizard if you would of read the link I posted you would of clearly seen that it is a translation problem from the Hebrew to English that causes this so called two versions. One is the details of how the Bible says it happened. The other is more like a family tree. Look at the Hebrew, and it will become very clear that there is only one version, and the other is only complementary
I myself have no problem with combining creation and evolution. When I was younger I went to a Lutheran church school until eighth grade. Our teachers and our pastor would alway say that “God works in mysterious ways” or something to that effect when asked a tough question that really no one knows.
So yes, I do believe God works in mysterious ways and I have no problem believing that God both created us and that to us it looks like we might have evolved (with emphasis on to us).
[quote]seanc wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…don’t pretend as if science has explained creation. It hasn’t and there is no PROOF of it. Simply deal with the fact that you have no more proof that there isn’t a God.
I’m not pretending and never anyware did I say it was proven.
It is not provable. We can only prove things in mathematics because we have the luxury of defining the terms of the uninverse.
In reality, we can’t, so we are left with observation and expirementation.
I’m not trying to prove God doesn’t exsist, nor do I want to.
From a strictly logical point of view, there is no need to prove that God doesn’t exists, because again, there is absolutely 0 evidence that God does exsist.
And I’ll say it again, I don’t want to believe there is no God.
Gravity hasn’t been proven either, it’s “just a theory”, but I don’t see people jumping off roofs…
[/quote]
It is funny you say we can only prove things in math. It has been proven that it is Mathmatcially impossible for one organism to have formed by random chance.
I think the math works out to something like 10 to the 50th power.
The French mathematician, Emile Borel is the one who performed that statistic.
On a side note the Big bang theory is based off of the concept that there is no center of the Universe. If there is a center then the Math behind that science is impossible to work.
For kicks here are some quotes by evolution scientist about the problems with Evolution.
To professor X,
You are a smart guy, and I really like reading your posts. As you can tell I take Genesis to be literal. I have done so only in a strict pursuit of Believing
A.) The Bible is divinly inspired.
B.) Taking most of it back to the Hebrew or Greek.
C.) Determining if the text allows for a literal interpretation or a allegorical interpretation.
Here is a quote from David Barr a Professor of Hebrew at Oxford
I am only stating this because I get the feeling most people think Christians who believe in some of these things to be Ignorant of facts that are surrounding.
Scott
The strange thing is, I wonder how many others have blown off parts of the Bible because they interpreted it wrong in the first place. Because of that one issue, I do give value to preachers and priests because of their insight and knowledge of the Bible. Someone just sitting at home and reading it for the first time might be confused with no guidance at all, especially if they were looking for something to be wrong in the first place.
Science deals with evidence, as often produced through experimentation. Reproducing evolution is about as unreasonable as creating a star, but physicist have deduced how it happens.
Have you heard of the Conservation of Energy (later refined to mass and energy)? Hinduism had this concept several thousand years before Western scientists did.
This whole concept of the Big Bang theory being a greater stretch than an omnipotent god is absurd. The Big Bang theory is an extension of science. Saying a god created everything is not based on anything except the existence of this god.
There was a great discussion in my philosphy class yesterday. Say a guy on a ladder falls over and dies, and two people see. One says the wind did it, the other says God did it. God made the wind knock over the ladder, that is. The wind scenario is completely acceptable, but God doing it is a step into the intangible, a leap of “faith”, if you will. I don’t see how it is possible to justify one religion over another, as there is nothing to distinguish the merits of each. Moreover, I don’t see how any set of beliefs can be ruled out.
Professor X:
You’re right. Plenty of people throw out the concept of faith without any acknowledgement of the fact that science can’t explain everything. But religion doesn’t either except for “God did it.” And there are more religious people on this planet than not, and I would guess that most of these people accept their faith completely and without question, the opposite case of the people you were talking about. I’m agnostic because I see no way to prove or disprove something comepletly intangible. Also, why should one religion be chosen over another? Personal preference? My big problem is with people who are sure they are right about something, when, like has been stated so many times, all they have is a “theory.” You can claim it is more than a theory, but how can I know? I don’t want to say more, but for that last statement, look into the Indeterminacy of Language.
Life is full of presuppostions. You believe what you want to, and you find the proof you need to validate what you want to be true. It is very sad that most people never get beyond this elementary understanding of the Bible and the world that surrounds them.
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge
How true this is of our world as a whole.
I love the argument from people of faith that say “Why trust these scientists?” and then tell me that God spoke to the people who wrote the Bible.
Please put me in my place if I am wrong.