Theory of Evolution:

[Sam-the-man]

It's as valid an argument as religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhFTWqJPJ4

[chillbilly]

Religion really shouldn't be an "argument".
Most religious folks will tell you that their religion is simply a matter of faith, after studying the doctrine and historical witness.

At least your thread is entitled correctly.
Religion does not refute evolution..but it does refute macro-evolution.

[bootlen]

It's as valid an argument as religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhFTWqJPJ4

As is Santa, Easter Bunny, and Frodo.

You have a point?

[tinknocker44]

It's as valid an argument as religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhFTWqJPJ4

LOL. Now I know how Pugs were formed. Retard squirrelmonkeys buthumping retarded elephants.

[Andy Schoen]

Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park are the best satirists we have today :)

[RoBoTeq]

Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park are the best satirists we have today :)

Agreed. Through the vulgarities there are very good social points being made.

Evolution is real and religion sucks; WHY? Because evolution is a creation of God and religion is a creation of man.

[oloenneker]

Evolution is real and religion sucks; WHY? Because evolution is a creation of God and religion is a creation of man.

Thanks for the paradox...

Thats gonna burn in the old skull for a while...

[geerair]

Evolution is a emergent quality of matter.


Religion and god are emergent qualities of superstitous homo sapiens.

[The Doctor]

adaptation is different from evolution. I'd like to know where any transitional forms are..the supposed links between reptiles and birds, fish growing legs and all that..There are none, because evolution is a fraud. Adaptation and mutation are not equivalent to evolution.

[bootlen]

adaptation is different from evolution. I'd like to know where any transitional forms are..the supposed links between reptiles and birds, fish growing legs and all that..There are none, because evolution is a fraud. Adaptation and mutation are not equivalent to evolution.

Scrog...that's your cue! :D :D :D

BTW, doc. I agree.

[acmanko]

Talking snakes and burning, talking bushes give you the warm fuzzies.

[scrogdog]

Scrog...that's your cue!

Yup. :D

What use is it to explain science to folks who just come out and make clearly wrong statements and accept it as fact? In light of that, I find the following quote most amusing;


As is Santa, Easter Bunny, and Frodo.

Nothing in science is "only a theory". A simple review of the scientific method shows why. No one is claiming that Darwin is exactly right though he seems to be right now. No theory is a fact. A theory is an explanation of an observation. The observation does not go away if the theory turns out to be wrong, it only means that you need a better theory to explain the phenomena that you initially observed.

There are only very simple life forms in the deepest and oldest strata. In more recent strata, more-complex life-forms begin to appear. There is simply no other place to logically go with the information that we have.

Transitional forms (there are TONS of transitionals, BTW. What makes you think there isn't?) are not required to prove that evolution occured. We know it occured simply by the arrangement of fossils as they are. If Darwin is wrong... well then. We still need to explain that arrangement. Just like the theory of gravity does not seek to prove that gravity exists or like any of the theories of global warming. None seek to demonstrate to you that GW exists, it tries to explain to you how it occurs. But right or wrong on the theory part, gravity and global warming quite obviously exist.

If you guys wish to cover your ears and sing la la la la la... that's your business. Unfortunately, teaching our kids that science is a joke is not exactly productive for our future society.

Good post, Robo. :)

Just remember too, that we don't need evolution to show that the Earth is far older than 6000 years. DOZENS of sciences confirm it, so you are fighting a losing battle here against evolution. You guys aren't anti-evolution, you are anti-science in a general sense.

[jodimart]

Yup. :D



Transitional forms (there are TONS of transitionals, BTW. What makes you think there isn't?)




Name one.

[acmanko]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html pick the one you like most

[scrogdog]

In addition, this link may help to correct any inaccurate perception regarding the fossil record;

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

From that article;


From this brief survey of fossil vertebrates, it is clear that transitional forms between higher taxa are common features of the fossil record. The morphology of species within a higher taxonomic group becomes less divergent toward the point of origin of that group. Morphological diversity and disparity increase with time. In addition, transitional species possess mixtures of morphologic characters from different higher taxa often to the extent that their taxonomic assignment is uncertain. This pattern is obscured by taxonomy which gives a false impression of discontinuity.

The fossil record thus provides good evidence for the large-scale patterns and trends in evolutionary history. Recognizing its limitations, the fossil record appears to be consistent with the wide range of evolutionary mechanisms already proposed. Any wholesale abandonment of present paradigms would be very premature. Many critical gaps in our knowledge remain, but as evident from this review important discoveries are continually being made that intrigue, surprise, and enrich our understanding of the evolutionary history of life.

You will note, please, the length of the bibliography supporting this paper.

[bootlen]

Scrog thinks that a ladybug without spots is a form of evolution. Ya gotta kinda overlook a lot of his stuff.

I still think yer okay, scrog. :p

[scrogdog]

Ignoring 150 years of peer reviewed science is your perogative. :)

Like I said, though, not exactly healthy for our kids.

We have already factually demonstrated that evolution occurs. The exact same principle that defines micro-evolution is all macro-evolution needs to occur.

The evidence is massive and is demonstrated throughout various scientific disciplines. We have demonstrated that evolution occurs. We have demonstrated that environment drives the changes. We see the arrangement of fossils... I mean, what more does a reasonable person need?

It was not so long ago that creationists denied the facts about micro-evolution as well. Now they don't... because you pretty much cannot. It is demonstrated and repeatable.

[coordinatesales]

While agree that there appears to be a lot of evidence to support evolution, there are some questions that evolution doesn't answer very well.

For example, sight. The eye and the mechanism for sight is very complicated. It certainly didn't occur as the result of a single mutation but would require many. While these mutations are occuring, the animal has a useless mutation that doesn't allow them to see or even worse a deadly mutation that kills the animal. Natural selection would tend to eliminate the early sight mutation since the appendage (the early eye) would be using resources with no gain. Natural selection would NOT continue to keep that mutation in the hopes that it may be usefull in the future. In this case natural selection, the tool of evolution actually works against itself.

Another question is the first life. That becomes an exercise in probability that just the right amino acids combine in just the right sequence. Do the math, it's too improbable. Once again, get it wrong and it can be a deadly mutation and you have to step back a step or two or start over.

[scrogdog]

Questions do not mean that evolution did not occur, it simply means that we do not completely understand how it works.

How does a fin turn in to a leg? Well, we are not completely sure HOW it occurs... we only know that it does.

Holes or problems or unknowns regarding any particular scientific theory do not mean that the original observation does not exist. Before Einstien came up with his Theory of Gravititation... gravity still existed. Gravity existed before we even attempted to explain it. Last year, science finally explained the physics of how bees fly. But bees still flew before science explained how.

[bootlen]

Before Einstien came up with his Theory of Gravititation... gravity still existed. Gravity existed before we even attempted to explain it. Last year, science finally explained the physics of how bees fly. But bees still flew before science explained how.

I guess you mean Newton.

Anyway, even dumb Christians knew and know this. Heck, it's what we've been saying since (:eek:) creation!

[scrogdog]

Newton was the first to attempt to explain it, yes. But Newton's work only considered how gravity works on the Earth. Einstien did not exactly say that Newton's work was wrong.... merely incomplete.

In the modern age, Einstien's theory has replaced Newton's... but as Gould said "apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome." :)

Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Another Gould quote.

[coordinatesales]

Questions do not mean that evolution did not occur, it simply means that we do not completely understand how it works.

How does a fin turn in to a leg? Well, we are not completely sure HOW it occurs... we only know that it does.



My point exactly! Evolution is supposed to explain the HOW as does creationism. Creationism explains ALL of it, evolution doesn't. I personally, don't deny evolution, I simply believe it may be a tool that God uses in creation.

[scrogdog]

I personally, don't deny evolution, I simply believe it may be a tool that God uses in creation.

I never said that you should feel differently. I have never claimed that evolution is here and creation isn't.

All I've said is that the Earth is FAR older than 6,000 to 10,000 years. I have no issue with God creating, but creation should be seen in light of what we know.

So... let's say God waved his hand and caused the Big Bang. And all that has transpired since that time is simply his plan. What's wrong with that? Physics as we know it was God's invention - what's wrong with that? Evolutionary change WILL end up having a very robust explanation in science... eventually. So what? What if the mechanisms of evolution were STILL caused by God? What if God does not actually perform magic... but instead was the creator of the physics (or rules) of the world in which we live? What if God chooses to use those rules which he created to manifest his presence on Earth?

In other words, just because science explains something is not proof that God does not exist. However, when science tells us that the Earth is very old... then religion needs to keep an open mind about how that relates to their belief, in my opinion.

So what if the bible is wrong about some things? It was written by man and therefore a fallible document. Does that mean that it does not describe a good and decent philosphy? No. Does that mean that one can not be a good Christian if he chooses to beleive that the bible does not require a literal interpretation of Genesis? Not to me.

Last I heard a prime tenent of Christianity was loving your fellow man. I fail to see how stating... against science... that things have to be a certain way relates to this prime tenant. How does WHEN creation occured and HOW it occured make you a better Christian?

[chillbilly]

My point exactly! Evolution is supposed to explain the HOW as does creationism. Creationism explains ALL of it, evolution doesn't. I personally, don't deny evolution, I simply believe it may be a tool that God uses in creation.


EXACTLY.

150 years of peer reviewed science and God still exists in the hearts and minds of people who have seen the same evidence as everyone else.
Imagine that.

[scrogdog]

I do not find that surprising Chill, since science does not seek to disprove God.

Any conflict is of your own ... er... creation. ;)

[chillbilly]

I do not find that surprising Chill, since science does not seek to disprove God.

Any conflict is of your own ... er... creation. ;)
Didn't insinuate that it did. I simply noted that God still exists in spite of what scientific peer review asserts.

Oh, and I'm not conflicted at all scrog.
I know what I believe and why I believe it.
Belief systems come in many forms and ummmmm, creations.:D :D :D

[RoBoTeq]

adaptation is different from evolution. I'd like to know where any transitional forms are..the supposed links between reptiles and birds, fish growing legs and all that..There are none, because evolution is a fraud. Adaptation and mutation are not equivalent to evolution.

This is a matter of subjective semantics and usually only used as a red herring argument to win a particular rant.

Everything evolves. All of evolution is a matter of adaptation, just depends on the degree of adaptation that each individual will accept.

No; I don't believe that man used to have any discernable relationship with fish, but we do share a lot with other bipeds.

[geerair]

While agree that there appears to be a lot of evidence to support evolution, there are some questions that evolution doesn't answer very well.

For example, sight. The eye and the mechanism for sight is very complicated. It certainly didn't occur as the result of a single mutation but would require many. While these mutations are occuring, the animal has a useless mutation that doesn't allow them to see or even worse a deadly mutation that kills the animal. Natural selection would tend to eliminate the early sight mutation since the appendage (the early eye) would be using resources with no gain. Natural selection would NOT continue to keep that mutation in the hopes that it may be usefull in the future. In this case natural selection, the tool of evolution actually works against itself.Evolution answers the questions:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html


While you are there look around at the other creationist claims which might clear up other misconceptions you have about evolution.





Another question is the first life. That becomes an exercise in probability that just the right amino acids combine in just the right sequence. Do the math, it's too improbable. Once again, get it wrong and it can be a deadly mutation and you have to step back a step or two or start over.You are talking about Abiogenesis, not Evolution.


But TO shoots down this misconception as well.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

[geerair]

Scrog thinks that a ladybug without spots is a form of evolution. It's not a form of Evolution it is Evolution.

[geerair]

My point exactly! Evolution is supposed to explain the HOW as does creationism. Creationism explains ALL of it, evolution doesn't. Literal biblical creationism explains nothing. It is nothing more than poof, there it is.

Evolution on the other hand is the best, most evidenced explanation of bio-diversity. No other explanation comes within light years of describing the evidence so completely.






I personally, don't deny evolution, I simply believe it may be a tool that God uses in creation. So then you should embrace evolution and resolve to learn as much about it as you can.

A good place to start is http://www.talkorigins.org

[coordinatesales]

Hmmm, I can google too Geer. It seems many of talkorigin's claims have responses here:

http://creationwiki.org/Category:Anticreation_response

I read through a few of talkorigin's points and they certainly sound good but they don't give enough info. For example in the eye case that I mentioned. talkorigin points out a logical process of eye evoltion that I was not familiar with. Good, I learned something. However, it still doesn't explain the origin of those first photoreceptor cells. The biochemical complexity of even those cells seems to defy evolution to that point. Once they are created, evolution could take over and produce an eye (see what I've learned!?)

In all fairness, the site I give above doesn't always give enough detail either but that is why we are still having this debate is it not?

[coordinatesales]

So then you should embrace evolution and resolve to learn as much about it as you can.

A good place to start is http://www.talkorigins.org

Actually, evolution has enough evidence that I believe in it as a process. I just don't believe in it completely. My Bible has passages that are to be taken literally and some that aren't. Unfortunately, it rarely tells me which is which so I have to use the brain God gave me to figure it out with a bit of help through prayer. I still believe God created the universe, I doubt he only did it 10000 years ago as many creationists contend, I'll ask him when I get to heaven and I'll try to get a message DOWN to you in the pit with the answer.;):D

I'll also continue to prowl around that site. It does have some great info but I hope you don't mind if I look at it with a skeptic's eye. If the science is good and complete, great, if not, I'll take issue with it. That IS what scientists are supposed to do right?

[coordinatesales]

Literal biblical creationism explains nothing. It is nothing more than poof, there it is.


It explains everything. God said Poof and there everything is. :D At the very least, he created the physics and natural processes that created everything.

[geerair]

Hmmm, I can google too Geer. It seems many of talkorigin's claims have responses here:

http://creationwiki.org/Category:Anticreation_responseThe difference being that Talkorigins claims are derived from peer-reviewed mainstream science whereas Creationwiki responses rely on sources with little or no scientific credibility.







I read through a few of talkorigin's points and they certainly sound good but they don't give enough info. For example in the eye case that I mentioned. talkorigin points out a logical process of eye evoltion that I was not familiar with. Good, I learned something. However, it still doesn't explain the origin of those first photoreceptor cells. The biochemical complexity of even those cells seems to defy evolution to that point. Once they are created, evolution could take over and produce an eye (see what I've learned!?)The Index of Creationists Claims is not intended as a comprehensive review of all of the scientific literature on the various subjects but rather as a brief synopsis of mainstream science views.

If you want more information on photoreceptor cells and evolution there are hundreds of technical articles at Pubmed.com

[geerair]

Actually, evolution has enough evidence that I believe in it as a process. I just don't believe in it completely. My Bible has passages that are to be taken literally and some that aren't. Unfortunately, it rarely tells me which is which so I have to use the brain God gave me to figure it out with a bit of help through prayer. I still believe God created the universe, I doubt he only did it 10000 years ago as many creationists contend, I'll ask him when I get to heaven and I'll try to get a message DOWN to you in the pit with the answer.;):DI'll be six feet under, so knock loudly.







I'll also continue to prowl around that site. It does have some great info but I hope you don't mind if I look at it with a skeptic's eye. If the science is good and complete, great, if not, I'll take issue with it. That IS what scientists are supposed to do right?I would hope that you have your best skeptics eye working while reading the material.

Scientists are always picking at each other's work and that is the glory of science. who knows you might come across something that is in error. If you find something, post it and we will discuss it.

[geerair]

It explains everything. God said Poof and there everything is. :D At the very least, he created the physics and natural processes that created everything.Nope physics and natural processes were created by Larry the Space Lizard. :D :D

Of course that heretic scrogdog will insist the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life, the Universe and everything but then he is a meat sauce junkie. :p :p

[Andy Schoen]

Being a bit of a science fiction fan on the origin of why things came to be, I find Darwin's thinking on evolution, albeit scientifically sound, a bit dull. Now with Scientology's Xenu doctrine, you've got something interesting to ponder :D

South Park's "Trapped in the Closet" episode is a classic :)

[braces4impact]

Wow you guys are right! Humans are waaaaaay to complex to have arisen by natural process. I'm glad we got that straight. Now can you help me figure something out? How did this god who lives forever, knows everything, is everyplace at every time, and is all good, come about? Certainly if humans who are not even a fraction as complex as an entity like god with all those qualities needed to be created, then who created god? If you say god doesn't require a creator then you are accepting those darned atheist premise that complexity does not require a conscious designer.

[braces4impact]

Nope physics and natural processes were created by Larry the Space Lizard. :D :D

Of course that heretic scrogdog will insist the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life, the Universe and everything but then he is a meat sauce junkie. :p :p


The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster (boiled be his noodledness) created everything. Have you not heard of the theory of intelligent falling? The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster (boiled be his noodledness) pushes down on every object with one if his wonderful noodles. You want proof? Go drop something and you will see the work of his wonderful noodle in action!

[Andy Schoen]

Now can you help me figure something out? How did this god who lives forever, knows everything, is everyplace at every time, and is all good, come about?
If one accepts Einstein's theory of relativity, then the universe started with a big bang singularity. The problem with this idea is that all known laws of science break down at this point. God becomes the solution, the creator. Where God came from is therefore irrelevant as we are outside of mundane scientific thinking at this point.

Einstein believed in God. Who are we to question Einstein? :D

[braces4impact]

If one accepts Einstein's theory of relativity, then the universe started with a big bang singularity. The problem with this idea is that all known laws of science break down at this point. God becomes the solution, the creator. Where God came from is therefore irrelevant as we are outside of mundane scientific thinking at this point.


Einstein believed in God. Who are we to question Einstein? :D


God of the gaps fallacy. Thousands of years ago they reasoned the same way when they didn't know what made the tides rise and fall.

But anyways the big bang is explained by M brane theory. You're about 7 years behind guy.

P.S.

Einstein did not believe in god and even if he did so what? Einstein was also a socialist.

[Andy Schoen]

God of the gaps fallacy. Thousands of years ago they reasoned the same way when they didn't know what made the tides rise and fall.

The idea that science dependent on causal relationships can explain all. :(


But anyways the big bang is explained by M brane theory. You're about 7 years behind guy.

I’m aware of quarries quantum physics has into the classical theory of relativity. Stephen Hawkings was lecturing on this over 20 years ago, not 7. Try googling better.


Einstein did not believe in god and even if he did so what? Einstein was also a socialist.

Obviously, you have not studied Einstein very well.

[geerair]

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster (boiled be his noodledness) created everything. Have you not heard of the theory of intelligent falling? The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster (boiled be his noodledness) pushes down on every object with one if his wonderful noodles. You want proof? Go drop something and you will see the work of his wonderful noodle in action!Scientists at the Evangelical Center for Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed and they have responded to it with a new theory of "Intelligent Falling"

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Evangelical-Scientists-C.article.jpg
Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling




"Things fall not because they are acted by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, god if you will, is pushing them down" said Gabriel Burdett who holds degrees in education, applied scripture and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Founded in 1987 the ECFR is the world's leading institution of Evangelical Physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

[geerair]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it."

Albert Einstein 1954

[RoBoTeq]

Originally Posted by bootlen
Scrog thinks that a ladybug without spots is a form of evolution.



It's not a form of Evolution it is Evolution.

How do we know that the original lady bugs didn't have spots and that they started having spotts latter on?

[geerair]

How do we know that the original lady bugs didn't have spots and that they started having spotts latter on?That too would be evolution.

Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population.

[renaissanse man]

Talking snakes and burning, talking bushes give you the warm fuzzies.Say wah?

[RoBoTeq]

That too would be evolution.

Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population.

Wow Geer; you sure do have an uncanny grasp of the obvious. Not much common sense though.

[RoBoTeq]

Talking snakes and burning, talking bushes give you the warm fuzzies.

It was an omen of things to come. The talking snake has been impeached doing time in between too talking Bushes that burned into the world of Islam to give all Americans the warm fuzzies.

You started it assymancow:cool:

[geerair]

Wow Geer; you sure do have an uncanny grasp of the obvious. Not much common sense though.Your silly question made it apparent that you needed an obvious answer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[acmanko]

It was an omen of things to come. The talking snake has been impeached doing time in between too talking Bushes that burned into the world of Islam to give all Americans the warm fuzzies.

You started it assymancow:cool: Old age is softening your analytical skills, the snake is the devil and the bush is God on Mt Sinai, classic good vs. evil

[scrogdog]

The FSM vs Larry, eh?

Sounds like a WWF match. :)

[coordinatesales]

Scientists at the Evangelical Center for Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed and they have responded to it with a new theory of "Intelligent Falling"

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Evangelical-Scientists-C.article.jpg
Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling




"Things fall not because they are acted by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, god if you will, is pushing them down" said Gabriel Burdett who holds degrees in education, applied scripture and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Founded in 1987 the ECFR is the world's leading institution of Evangelical Physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

Funny stuff! I was afraid for just a moment that you were serious.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

[sysint]

Evolution answers the questions:

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.talkorigins.org



http://talkorigins.org/l

Evolutionist Bible

[geerair]

Evolutionist BibleMainstream science bible.

[Andy Schoen]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it."

Albert Einstein 1954
That is correct, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. He believed in Spinoza's God. Try googling that :)

[sysint]

Mainstream science bible.Evolutionist Bible.

[scrogdog]

Face it, Geer. We are nothing more than secular gravitists. :D

[geerair]

That is correct, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. He believed in Spinoza's God. Try googling that :)Yeah, I could have used the Spinoza's god quote. IOW Einsteins god is nature or natural laws. :)

Confirms my quote.

[geerair]

Face it, Geer. We are nothing more than secular gravitists. :DI like the sound of that. :D :D

[Andy Schoen]

Yeah, I could have used the Spinoza's god quote. IOW Einsteins god is nature or natural laws. :)

Confirms my quote.
You're associating Spinoza's God with natural law instead of natural perfection. This error is understandable to the uninitiated. Science is limited to studying natural law via causal relationships, and allowing chance and randomness in such relationships like you have with the evolutionary process results in imperfections, which is not consistent with Spinoza's God.

Factoid: Spinoza predates Darwin by a couple hundred years.

Don't get me wrong, I find the process of evolution to be accurate science. But it, along with quantum physics falls quite short of eliminating God, at least with respect to Spinoza.

Perhaps a better analogy to Spinoza's God would be "Field of Dreams" Ray Kinsella viewing his baseball field stating: "This is perfect".

[Andy Schoen]

God does not play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Too many misinterpret this quote. :( Can we see Spinoza here? :)

[bootlen]

God does not play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Too many misinterpret this quote. :( Can we see Spinoza here? :)

Go over to GD. Dice plays God. :eek: :p :D

[geerair]

You're associating Spinoza's God with natural law instead of natural perfection. This error is understandable to the uninitiated. Natural law is god in Spinoza's view as well in Einstein's view. Perfection is merely an attribute that is contradicted by what is observed and Einstein failed to resolve this problem.




Science is limited to studying natural law via causal relationships, and allowing chance and randomness in such relationships like you have with the evolutionary process results in imperfections, which is not consistent with Spinoza's God.Evolutionary processes do indeed result in imperfections but then Evolutionary processes are not entirely random or dependent on chance.

Further, why should evolution or for that matter any other science be required to conform to Spinoza's concept of perfection?






Factoid: Spinoza predates Darwin by a couple hundred years.Relevance?


Don't get me wrong, I find the process of evolution to be accurate science. But it, along with quantum physics falls quite short of eliminating God, at least with respect to Spinoza.True but then Evolution and quantum mechanics are not required to conform to Spinoza's specifications.

With repect to the Judeo/Christian god or indeed any other man-made gods, science has not or never will disprove the exsistence of god as that is not their ballpark but science has shown that god is less and less necessary as an explanation of life the Universe and everything. No doubt the march of science, in time, will render the J/C god completely moot.





Perhaps a better analogy to Spinoza's God would be "Field of Dreams" Ray Kinsella viewing his baseball field stating: "This is perfect".I can see that. But then you are off into the subjective.

[geerair]

God does not play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Too many misinterpret this quote. :( Can we see Spinoza here? :)I see Einstein's distaste for quantum mechanics here.

[geerair]

Go over to GD. Dice plays God. :eek: :p :DGood one. :D :D :D :D

[The Doctor]

take irreducible complexity. a "simple" bacterial flagellum, a cell, you know, the single cell with the tail that looks like a piece of string. look at one of these under a microscope powerful enough (magnification power of 50,000) and you will find at the tail section at least 14 distinct and separate parts, each an important part of the tail section working at all. the tail actually spins at speeds up to 100,000rpms, and can stop on a dime(within a quarter turn), reverse to the same speed. upon review of the microscopic image, we can see a stator , a rotor, a drive shaft, a u-joint, a propeller. how could this number of distinct parts simultaneously evolve? How would some parts wait for others, if not all of them were in place at the proper time? And this from a so called simple cell...
has anyone read michael behe's "darwin's black box"? I look at from a sceptical point of view, although, not as sceptical as some others on this forum :D . While that author does not claim that this proves creation in any way or any such thing, it raises legitimate questions about the theory of natural selection and evolution.
let me finish with the words of one charles darwin, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." :cool:

[scrogdog]

Right, but what people do not understand that to be skeptical of a THEORY does not invalidate the intital obeservation which the theory is trying to explain.

The observation is that only simple forms of life exist in the oldest strata and more complex life forms exist in the later strata.

That obsrevation led to the theory, which has become more robust over time since discovering things such as ALL life shares a unique genetic code, even though life does not require that. But it is that way nonetheless.

The number of OBSERVATIONS built up over time show that evolution is a lock. It is a fact.

What is not a fact is our THEORY of how it works. Just because we can't exactly describe the hows and whys of a fin turning in to a leg does not mean that evolution did not occur. Having a theory about something does not suggest that the phenomena did not occur, just like having a theory about gravity does not mean our stance on gravity is tentative in any way. It exists.

Holes in any theory are similarly meaningless for this reason. Poking holes in any theory is meaningless in terms of whether or not a given phenomena exists in the first place. If our theory is inadequate or even poor, all that means is that we can't adequately explain the observation. Yet.

So, in conclusion, if Darwin is shown to be wrong, that does not invalidate evolution. It only means that we'd need a new and modified theory to explain it.

If your theory is "God made it that way", well... it is hardly scientific. It can't be tested. So in science, this would not even be classified as a hypothesis... more like a flat out guess. Such a stance will never achieve prominence in science. :)

Let me spin this around for you. WHY did God arrange the fossils in the strata as they are? You might say "I don't know. But just because I don't does not mean that God did not create".

See where we are at? :)

[Andy Schoen]

Natural law is god in Spinoza's view as well in Einstein's view
You again are failing to see the significance of Spinoza’s idea of natural perfection. Natural law itself cannot make nature perfect. But Spinoza’s God does. Spinoza’s God thinks. Spinoza’s God works in ways that are not necessarily comprehensible to mankind. Without his God, we would not have any order in the universe.

Einstein understood this line of thinking, and he was awed by the order he found in the universe. Einstein was hardly an atheist.


Further, why should evolution or for that matter any other science be required to conform to Spinoza's concept of perfection?
You are the one trying to write off Spinoza’s God as nothing more than natural law. I’m simply pointing out the flaws in your thinking, at least with respect to Spinoza


True but then Evolution and quantum mechanics are not required to conform to Spinoza's specifications.
Again, you are the one trying to write off Spinoza’s God as nothing more than natural law. I think I started this dicussion by simply pointing out is Einstein’s religious views were consistent with Spinoza’s. I'm sure you learned something here. :)


With repect to the Judeo/Christian god or indeed any other man-made gods, science has not or never will disprove the exsistence of god as that is not their ballpark but science has shown that god is less and less necessary as an explanation of life the Universe and everything
Granted, science will continue to explain. From Spinoza’s viewpoint, this will further enlighten us to his God.

[geerair]

You again are failing to see the significance of Spinoza’s idea of natural perfection. Natural law itself cannot make nature perfect. But Spinoza’s God does. Spinoza’s God thinks. Spinoza’s God works in ways that are not necessarily comprehensible to mankind. Without his God, we would not have any order in the universe.The universe seems to do quite well using natural laws. You and Spinoza are adding a layer of complexity (God) that is not necessary.



Einstein understood this line of thinking, and he was awed by the order he found in the universe.I believe we are all awed by the order found in the Universe however some of us see no need for a god to either direct or maintain this order.



Einstein was hardly an atheist.Einstein was an atheist with respect to the J/C god or any other personal god.



You are the one trying to write off Spinoza’s God as nothing more than natural law. I’m simply pointing out the flaws in your thinking, at least with respect to Spinoza



Again, you are the one trying to write off Spinoza’s God as nothing more than natural law. I think I started this dicussion by simply pointing out is Einstein’s religious views were consistent with Spinoza’s. I'm sure you learned something here. :)I would agree that E embraced Spinoza's concept of perfection but from everything I've read and understood about E's religious views he considered natural laws as god without taking it to Spinoza's conclusion that there is a deity responsible for natural laws or perfection. I Believe E felt that natural laws were sufficient unto themselves without adding a deity.



Granted, science will continue to explain. From Spinoza’s viewpoint, this will further enlighten us to his God.No doubt we have much left to discover but it looks like science is heading away from Spinoza's concept of god and causality as an explanation for what is observed.

[geerair]

take irreducible complexity. a "simple" bacterial flagellum, a cell, you know, the single cell with the tail that looks like a piece of string. look at one of these under a microscope powerful enough (magnification power of 50,000) and you will find at the tail section at least 14 distinct and separate parts, each an important part of the tail section working at all. the tail actually spins at speeds up to 100,000rpms, and can stop on a dime(within a quarter turn), reverse to the same speed. upon review of the microscopic image, we can see a stator , a rotor, a drive shaft, a u-joint, a propeller. how could this number of distinct parts simultaneously evolve?

How would some parts wait for others, if not all of them were in place at the proper time? And this from a so called simple cell...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html




has anyone read michael behe's "darwin's black box"? I look at from a sceptical point of view, although, not as sceptical as some others on this forum :D . While that author does not claim that this proves creation in any way or any such thing, it raises legitimate questions about the theory of natural selection and evolution. Those questions are answered in the talk origins index to creationist claims. If you click on the link above, scroll down to the bottom and click on "next claim." Behe's claims are refuted.




let me finish with the words of one charles darwin, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." :cool:This is what directly follows:

"But I can find no such case."

[Andy Schoen]

The universe seems to do quite well using natural laws. You and Spinoza are adding a layer of complexity (God) that is not necessary.
I’m not adding any complexity to anything. In your opinion, however, you believe Spinoza is. I’m simply pointing out the fact that Einstein believed in God, specifically Spinoza’s God, despite objections in this thread to the contrary. Self proclaimed atheists or agnostics might find Spinozism of interest. :)


I believe we are all awed by the order found in the Universe however some of us see no need for a god to either direct or maintain this order. Therefore, you disagree with Einstein’s religious beliefs. That’s ok by me. :)


Einstein was an atheist with respect to the J/C god or any other personal god. An atheist is one who doesn’t believe in any God. Let’s not try redefining the term. Einstein falls into the category of a theist, though not in the mainstream sense.


I would agree that E embraced Spinoza's concept of perfection but from everything I've read and understood about E's religious views he considered natural laws as god without taking it to Spinoza's conclusion that there is a deity responsible for natural laws or perfection. I Believe E felt that natural laws were sufficient unto themselves without adding a deity. Well, at least I have you on the right track with Spinozism. Read some more. :)

[chillbilly]

It's humorous observing someone else explain the definition of atheist to one who so vigorously defends the assertion that God cannot exist.
"Let's not re-define the term"?




Andy, meet geer.

[Richard Kletty]

All this thread taught me was that half the crew worships science as its god and the other half worship the actual God...

Good read...

[Andy Schoen]

All this thread taught me was that half the crew worships science as its god and the other half worship the actual God...

Hey, consider that I’m just trying to point out to the atheists and agnostics among us that there were some serious scientists and physicists out there who accepted the existence of a deity. Like Albert Einstein. And their belief was not simply due to explaining the WHY of existence.

[chillbilly]

Hey, consider that I’m just trying to point out to the atheists and agnostics among us that there were some serious scientists and physicists out there who accepted the existence of a deity. Like Albert Einstein. And their belief was not simply due to explaining the WHY of existence.

Oh, I think some of us really do understand the point, Andy.
It's been hashed and rehashed over and over again.
The credibility of the scientists and physicists who have accepted the possibility of a deity is either attacked or their views about God are held in question because their credibility in unassailaible.
The dogmatic fashion used to discount the possibility of God makes it almost appear to be the work of the devil. Just kidding. LOL:D :D :D

Look at geers sig line. He goes to great lengths to speak for the mindset of Einstein by asserting that Einstein meant that God and mother nature are one in the same entity.

[k-fridge]

The dogmatic fashion used to discount the possibility of God makes it almost appear to be the work of the devil. Just kidding. LOL:D :D :D

You do bring up a good point though Chill. Most of the atheists I run across are not just content to dis-believe, they seem to be on a near frantic mission to convince us believers that God doesn't exist and we should turn our backs on him. Many atheists try and paint us as stupid or uneducated sheep in an attempt to make themselves appear superior.

As I stated in the other thread; I respect atheists choice to not believe in God, but I also expect them to respect to respect my choices as well.

[chillbilly]

You do bring up a good point though Chill. Most of the atheists I run across are not just content to dis-believe, they seem to be on a near frantic mission to convince us believers that God doesn't exist and we should turn our backs on him. Many atheists try and paint us as stupid or uneducated sheep in an attempt to make themselves appear superior.

As I stated in the other thread; I respect atheists choice to not believe in God, but I also expect them to respect to respect my choices as well.


That's all I'm saying. And they doth protest a bit too loudly, don't they?
:D :D :D

"Pull out all stops. If you cannot attack their faith, play the intelligence card"

It's all so hokey. Why do they feel so threatened?

[Andy Schoen]

Look at geers sig line. He goes to great lengths to speak for the mindset of Einstein by asserting that Einstein meant that God and mother nature are one in the same entity.

Interestingly, Spinoza is essentially saying that, but he ascends Nature to that of the one God, the creator. In terms of Spinoza, geer is accepting the existence of a deity. :)

[k-fridge]

That's all I'm saying. And they doth protest a bit too loudly, don't they?
:D :D :D

"Pull out all stops. If you cannot attack their faith, play the intelligence card"

It's all so hokey. Why do they feel so threatened?
That's what I don't get.

[geerair]

I’m not adding any complexity to anything. In your opinion, however, you believe Spinoza is. I’m simply pointing out the fact that Einstein believed in God, specifically Spinoza’s God, despite objections in this thread to the contrary. Self proclaimed atheists or agnostics might find Spinozism of interest. :) Einstein found Spinoza's god a convienient if not wholly accurate description that partially described his views but his writings lean less toward an acceptance of Spinoza's added deity and more towards natural laws as the mechanism of the Universe.



Therefore, you disagree with Einstein’s religious beliefs. That’s ok by me. :)I think it more likely that Einstein's views have been misinterpreted by those eager to validate their religious views and claim him as subscribing to their religious views.



An atheist is one who doesn’t believe in any God. Let’s not try redefining the term. Yes, this would be a limited definition of atheist but the term also denotes that one can be considered an atheist to a specific god as Einstein himself wrote. "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest, I am and have always been an Atheist. I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a chidlike one. You may call me an agnostic."



Einstein falls into the category of a theist, though not in the mainstream sense.At the most, Einstein could be called a pantheist. Of course this would rule out any god/s of a personal nature and given the trend of Einstein's writings it would also rule out an added deity such as Spinoza's




Well, at least I have you on the right track with Spinozism. Read some more. :)Spinoza has been long known to me and your views on Spinoza's god as they relate to Einstein are nothing that I haven't encountered before and they remain, to say the least, less than compelling.

[geerair]

All this thread taught me was that half the crew worships science as its god and the other half worship the actual God...

Good read...Hmmmmmmmm..............I expect for those worshipping science it would be because science vastly surpasses your god as an means of explaining life, the universe and everything and as a system that is supported by a universe of evidence.

[geerair]

Interestingly, Spinoza is essentially saying that, but he ascends Nature to that of the one God, the creator. In terms of Spinoza, geer is accepting the existence of a deity. :)Nah, I don't find any reason to add a deity, nature is sufficient. ;)

[The Doctor]

another sad example of worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator. we are all without excuse, but some accept the provision made at Calvary...all-sufficient.

[braces4impact]

The idea that science dependent on causal relationships can explain all. :(

I dunno what you are talking about here.



I’m aware of quarries quantum physics has into the classical theory of relativity. Stephen Hawkings was lecturing on this over 20 years ago, not 7. Try googling better.

M brane theory just came about around the turn of the Century.




Obviously, you have not studied Einstein very well.

I see the Greeair has schooled you recently on this.

[bootlen]

Nah, I don't find any reason to add a deity, nature is sufficient. ;)

Add a deity? You mean there is one, in your ever not so humble opinion?

[Andy Schoen]

I think it more likely that Einstein's views have been misinterpreted by those eager to validate their religious views and claim him as subscribing to their religious views.
And those who believe he forsaken a deity simply for natural law?


You may call me an agnostic.
A "Show Me" atheist. I like atheists with an open mind ;)


At the most, Einstein could be called a pantheist. Of course this would rule out any god/s of a personal nature and given the trend of Einstein's writings it would also rule out an added deity such as Spinoza's.
Been googling, have you? :) Of course, you have come across Einstein’s famous note stating his religious views are consistent with Spinoza’s. Need we really go any further?


Spinoza has been long known to me and your views on Spinoza's god as they relate to Einstein are nothing that I haven't encountered before and they remain, to say the least, less than compelling.
You past posts suggest you learned about Spinozism last week. Spinozism is central to any discussion of Einstein and religion. You stated Einstein was an atheist, and you stated Spinozism is nothing more than a belief in natural law. Spinozism acknowledges a deity, as I’m sure you’ve now discovered.


I dunno what you are talking about here.
geer has a good handle on what science can prove. I’ll let him explain it.


M brane theory just came about around the turn of the Century.Yes, the 21st century, roughly.


I see the Greeair has schooled you recently on this.Who is Greeair? :confused:

[chillbilly]

Is greer stating that he is well versed on Spinoza?
I'd say that Andy has uncovered a misrepresentation of truth.
Do atheists call that a "lie"?
Let's not go there.

Andy meet braces...he's greer's pall parrott.
When greer is exposed, he comes flying out, forgets he's a parrott and begins squawking like a sea gull in heat.


So Einstein did indeed subscribe to Spinozism?
Interesting. I'll research it and would like to learn more about your thoughts on it.

[bootlen]

Who is Greeair? :confused:

Ya ain't missed nothin'.

[Andy Schoen]

So Einstein did indeed subscribe to Spinozism?
Interesting. I'll research it and would like to learn more about your thoughts on it.
There were many significant 19th century scientists who probably could be considered atheists. I’m sure someone has already done a fair accounting of this and posted the results somewhere on the web. Maybe geer will post a link. :)

Science was advancing quickly during the 19th century and no doubt many if not most scientists at that time considered their art capable of explaining all.

But I suspect the percentage of theists has probably increased in the scientific community in recent years, but I have no data to support this.

I just happened to have done some reading on the life of Einstein many years ago which included his religious views. I found it interesting he was not an atheist. He was utterly amazed at the universe, and the fact that he could understand how parts of it worked. He could not reconcile the existence of the universe simply to happenstance.

[geerair]

And those who believe he forsaken a deity simply for natural law?Mainly theists attempting to enlist E in their ranks.



A "Show Me" atheist. I like atheists with an open mind ;) E's quote, not mine.



Been googling, have you? :) Of course, you have come across Einstein’s famous note stating his religious views are consistent with Spinoza’s. Need we really go any further?

You past posts suggest you learned about Spinozism last week. Came across Spinoza thirty years ago in college. My view has not changed.


Spinozism is central to any discussion of Einstein and religion. It is a starting point.






You stated Einstein was an atheist that was E's quote, not mine.




Spinozism acknowledges a deity, as I’m sure you’ve now discovered. Discovered that thirty years ago,

[chillbilly]

There were many significant 19th century scientists who probably could be considered atheists. I’m sure someone has already done a fair accounting of this and posted the results somewhere on the web. Maybe geer will post a link. :)

Science was advancing quickly during the 19th century and no doubt many if not most scientists at that time considered their art capable of explaining all.

But I suspect the percentage of theists has probably increased in the scientific community in recent years, but I have no data to support this.

I just happened to have done some reading on the life of Einstein many years ago which included his religious views. I found it interesting he was not an atheist. He was utterly amazed at the universe, and the fact that he could understand how parts of it worked. He could not reconcile the existence of the universe simply to happenstance.

Can you point me in the direction of what text actually indicates that Einstein wasn't an atheist and subscribed to Spinoza's view?
I can see why scientists would find his quotes remarkable.
They are interesting...

"God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain . . . Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone". [V.17]

[Andy Schoen]

that was E's quote, not mine.
From the view of a Jesuit priest, of course. That doesn't change the fact he was a Spinozist.


Discovered that thirty years ago,
You're an old frt like me. :)

[Andy Schoen]

Can you point me in the direction of what text actually indicates that Einstein wasn't an atheist and subscribed to Spinoza's view?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

[geerair]

From the view of a Jesuit priest, of course. That doesn't change the fact he was a Spinozist.I would call him a partial Spinoozist but otherwise correct.



You're an old frt like me. :)Yep.

[Andy Schoen]

Another decent article on Spinoza: http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm

[Andy Schoen]

I would call him a partial Spinoozist but otherwise correct.
Einstein believed in a partial God then? :confused: :D

[geerair]

Einstein believed in a partial God then? :confused: :DYeah, but he never specified which part. :D :D :D

[Andy Schoen]

Yeah, but he never specified which part. :D :D :D
Very good. How about explaining to braces4impact why the scientific process is based on causal relationships. I think we've lost him somewhere in this discussion. :rolleyes:

[geerair]

Very good. How about explaining to braces4impact why the scientific process is based on causal relationships. I think we've lost him somewhere in this discussion. :rolleyes:Well Andy, I don't want to put words in braces' mouth, but he was referring (I think) to quantum mechanics where it does seem to imply that causation rules break down.

He is probably more informed than I am on that.

[Andy Schoen]

Well Andy, I don't want to put words in braces' mouth, but he was referring (I think) to quantum mechanics where it does seem to imply that causation rules break down.

He is probably more informed than I am on that.

I'm ready for a thread on quantum mechanics and whether it resolves Einstein's contention that the universe began with a big bang singularity.

Of course, if quantum mechanics eventually resolves this problem, it doesn't disprove the existence of God.

But as an agnostic, you're ok with it, as you understand the limitations of science :)

[geerair]

I'm ready for a thread on quantum mechanics and whether it resolves Einstein's contention that the universe began with a big bang singularity.Yes, that would be interesting.


Of course, if quantum mechanics eventually resolves this problem, it doesn't disprove the existence of God.True, but as Hawking said, science hasn't disproven god but it has made him unnecessary. That is all science can do (at this time) but it is enough for me.



But as an agnostic, you're ok with it, as you understand the limitations of science :)I'm an Atheist........I disapprove of fence-sitting agnostics.;) :D :D

[scrogdog]

I disapprove of fence-sitting agnostics.

Ok, so I am a weenie. :)

All I am saying is that Atheism is an unscientific stance. :p

[NHMoldInspector]

It is said that before the "big bang" the laws of physics didn't exist....so what caused the bang? Do you realize that in an exposion in space the molecules would continue to separate at the same rate of speed forever, so how do we explain solar systems? Or the fact that if the earth moved 1/8 inch in any direction it could only support some bacterias but not life as we have it.

There are too many major factors that evolution can't explain. When it comes down to it you need more faith to believe in evolution than you do God.

If you go to pathlights.com and click on the creation/evolution encyclopedia ythey have thousands of complex reasons why evolution is impossible. We have proved that species can evolove within their species, like different colored lizards and types of frogs but nothing has ever been proven that one species can evolve into another. Does a dog's DNA resemble that of a snake? no, not even sharing features.

Plus even if you can make cells out of amino acids and complex carbs it still doesn't change the fact that the main program is missing and you are left with a computer that doesn't have windows on it, so will it load when you turn it on? NO, it will die from starvation so how does it even know to replicate itself to give evolution the opportunity? It doesn't!

[scrogdog]

It is said that before the "big bang" the laws of physics didn't exist....so what caused the bang? Do you realize that in an exposion in space the molecules would continue to separate at the same rate of speed forever, so how do we explain solar systems? Or the fact that if the earth moved 1/8 inch in any direction it could only support some bacterias but not life as we have it.

First of all, the science of evolution starts with one single-celled organism. What happened before that has nothing AT ALL to do with Evolution. You could say that God started the big bang or placed that first single cell and it would not change the science of evolution one single bit.

Secondly, the Earth’s orbit it not a perfect circle and our distance from the sun varies by millions of miles. This is completely normal and way more than 1/8th of an inch. You might do a bit better getting your science from a scientific source rather than where ever you got that completely incorrect idea.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317


If you go to pathlights.com and click on the creation/evolution encyclopedia ythey have thousands of complex reasons why evolution is impossible. We have proved that species can evolove within their species, like different colored lizards and types of frogs but nothing has ever been proven that one species can evolve into another. Does a dog's DNA resemble that of a snake? no, not even sharing features.

Plus even if you can make cells out of amino acids and complex carbs it still doesn't change the fact that the main program is missing and you are left with a computer that doesn't have windows on it, so will it load when you turn it on? NO, it will die from starvation so how does it even know to replicate itself to give evolution the opportunity? It doesn't!

Again, poking a hole in the theory of evolution is as meaningless as poking a hole in the theory of gravitation. A scientific theory is not trying to prove anything to you, it is trying to explain how something works to you.

Here’s the thing… the short proof of evolution. Let’s say that God placed that first single cell. Ok, fine. Now AFTER that occurred, we know that since that time ALL life comes from other life. Right? I mean, life does not just spawn by itself… it comes from seeds and eggs and other biological processes. We also know that the Earth has layers of strata that denote different epochs of the Earth. In the very deepest and oldest strata there are only very simple forms of life. In the more recent strata we see far more complex forms of life.

So… if all life comes from other life, and if simple forms of life were here before more complex ones, than there is simply no other place to go than to say that the more complex forms of life MUST have come from the simpler forms, right?

That is what we call “The Observation”… you know… that thing that is the beginning of all science. So, now we attempt to explain the observation. That’s the theory part. But if the explanation is wrong, does that make the observation go away? No, it doesn’t. It only means that we can’t exactly explain all things yet. :)

[geerair]

Ok, so I am a weenie. :) You and Einstein. Grow a set willya? :D :D :D





All I am saying is that Atheism is an unscientific stance. :pNo more than aflyingspaghettimonsterism is. :D :D :D :D

[gospelgrunt]

This may annoy some of you, God doesn't want us to prove evolution or creation. If for example we proved God created us in 1 day, what would come of our unique quality of faith that God so loves about us? Blessed is he who believes and has not seen. Doesn't the Bible talk about God sending things like stumbling blocks, delusions, and teaching in parables to prevent those without faith from understanding? We (those of faith) know this and should not get caught up in fruitless discussions with those who deny their very own face. All humans are inherently aware of a creator, and some engage in a never ending battle using science and their "wisdom" to convince themselves that there is no creator. I personally don't need to understand, I was given a few basic directions from Christ, spread the Gospel, feed the hungry, visit those in prison, visit the sick, clothe the naked, love one another as I have loved you. Nowhere does he say figure out the mysteries of the universe and teach them to others. It's funny though how the world will do anything to prevent us from doing those few things in order to get us to do anything else. Notice how Christ said the Spirit will lead us and guide us in all things, not Bible and Church.

[bootlen]

Excellent post, grunt. Agree 100%. And I find tremendous peace in that.

But I also enjoy the discussions here. Lots of confirmation of the "wise" made foolish.

[geerair]

It is said that before the "big bang" the laws of physics didn't exist....so what caused the bang? Well, the laws of physics as we know them didn't exsist.

What caused it? Right now we don't know with a scientific certainty.

Of course not that long ago we didn't know what caused lightning. That didn't mean lightning was all in our imagination but rather that science had to yet to dicover the cause.




Do you realize that in an exposion in space the molecules would continue to separate at the same rate of speed forever, so how do we explain solar systems? Gravity.



Or the fact that if the earth moved 1/8 inch in any direction it could only support some bacterias but not life as we have it.[/quote]scrog already addressed this.



There are too many major factors that evolution can't explain. When it comes down to it you need more faith to believe in evolution than you do God.Except that evolution has mountains of scieintifc evidence supporting it.


No faith needed, just follow the evidence.






If you go to pathlights.com and click on the creation/evolution encyclopedia ythey have thousands of complex reasons why evolution is impossible. We have proved that species can evolove within their species, like different colored lizards and types of frogs but nothing has ever been proven that one species can evolve into another. Does a dog's DNA resemble that of a snake? no, not even sharing features. We have mountains of evidence supporting evolution above the species level.

What you mean is that evolution has no evidence that you are willing to accept.





Plus even if you can make cells out of amino acids and complex carbs it still doesn't change the fact that the main program is missing and you are left with a computer that doesn't have windows on it, so will it load when you turn it on? NO, it will die from starvation so how does it even know to replicate itself to give evolution the opportunity? It doesn't!Your analogy is faulty in that the computer needs an operating program to function whereas early replicator cells only require chemical processes.

[chillbilly]

This may annoy some of you, God doesn't want us to prove evolution or creation. If for example we proved God created us in 1 day, what would come of our unique quality of faith that God so loves about us? Blessed is he who believes and has not seen. Doesn't the Bible talk about God sending things like stumbling blocks, delusions, and teaching in parables to prevent those without faith from understanding? We (those of faith) know this and should not get caught up in fruitless discussions with those who deny their very own face. All humans are inherently aware of a creator, and some engage in a never ending battle using science and their "wisdom" to convince themselves that there is no creator. I personally don't need to understand, I was given a few basic directions from Christ, spread the Gospel, feed the hungry, visit those in prison, visit the sick, clothe the naked, love one another as I have loved you. Nowhere does he say figure out the mysteries of the universe and teach them to others. It's funny though how the world will do anything to prevent us from doing those few things in order to get us to do anything else. Notice how Christ said the Spirit will lead us and guide us in all things, not Bible and Church.

Thanks for this post gospelgrunt. Nice name:D
It sure has helped me reprioritize.

[bootlen]

Well, the laws of physics as we know them didn't exsist.

WHAT! WHAT'D YOU SAY!

[geerair]

This may annoy some of you, God doesn't want us to prove evolution or creation. If for example we proved God created us in 1 day, what would come of our unique quality of faith that God so loves about us? Blessed is he who believes and has not seen. Doesn't the Bible talk about God sending things like stumbling blocks, delusions, and teaching in parables to prevent those without faith from understanding? We (those of faith) know this and should not get caught up in fruitless discussions with those who deny their very own face. I agree. Those who prefer to be guided by faith alone should not enter into scientific discussions that may contradict their religious views as they are proceeding in a manner that is the antithesis of science. Your faith should be enough, yet it appears that faith is not enough for some.






All humans are inherently aware of a creatorYes, I would say that we are all well aware of our parents.




and some engage in a never ending battle using science and their "wisdom" to convince themselves that there is no creator.Oh, I think it is more a case of curiousity about the world.

You see theology is nothing more than man trying to explain his world but in this day and age theology has been far surpassed by science as an explanitory system thereby rendering theology as little more than quaint primitive myths.


I personally don't need to understand, I was given a few basic directions from Christ, spread the Gospel, feed the hungry, visit those in prison, visit the sick, clothe the naked, love one another as I have loved you. Nowhere does he say figure out the mysteries of the universe and teach them to others. It's funny though how the world will do anything to prevent us from doing those few things in order to get us to do anything else. Notice how Christ said the Spirit will lead us and guide us in all things, not Bible and Church.Permit the rest of us who have a curiosity about our world to explore further.

[coordinatesales]

This may annoy some of you, God doesn't want us to prove evolution or creation. If for example we proved God created us in 1 day, what would come of our unique quality of faith that God so loves about us? Blessed is he who believes and has not seen. Doesn't the Bible talk about God sending things like stumbling blocks, delusions, and teaching in parables to prevent those without faith from understanding? We (those of faith) know this and should not get caught up in fruitless discussions with those who deny their very own face. All humans are inherently aware of a creator, and some engage in a never ending battle using science and their "wisdom" to convince themselves that there is no creator. I personally don't need to understand, I was given a few basic directions from Christ, spread the Gospel, feed the hungry, visit those in prison, visit the sick, clothe the naked, love one another as I have loved you. Nowhere does he say figure out the mysteries of the universe and teach them to others. It's funny though how the world will do anything to prevent us from doing those few things in order to get us to do anything else. Notice how Christ said the Spirit will lead us and guide us in all things, not Bible and Church.


Very well spoken. Thank you.

[bootlen]

I



Yes, I would say that we are all well aware of our parents.





U-u-u-h. They are procreators. Procreators work with existing materials.

The Creator works with nothing to make something.

[acmanko]

But God made Adam from dirt, are you disputing God.

[bootlen]

But God made Adam from dirt, are you disputing God.

Not in the least. God made dirt, too.

[Sam-the-man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by acmanko
But God made Adam from dirt, are you disputing God.

Not in the least. God made dirt, too.
__________________

so man evolving from a lower form of life doesn't make sense, but man being made from dirt does?

[bootlen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by acmanko
But God made Adam from dirt, are you disputing God.

Not in the least. God made dirt, too.
__________________

so man evolving from a lower form of life doesn't make sense, but man being made from dirt does?

That is, man being made by God from dirt.
Mm-hmm. Yer catchin' on.

[braces4impact]

Very good. How about explaining to braces4impact why the scientific process is based on causal relationships. I think we've lost him somewhere in this discussion. :rolleyes:


Your statement was not clear as to what you meant by your use of the word, "that".

[braces4impact]

Andy Schoen

I said,


But anyways the big bang is explained by M brane theory. You're about 7 years behind guy.

Then you said...


I’m aware of quarries quantum physics has into the classical theory of relativity. Stephen Hawkings was lecturing on this over 20 years ago, not 7. Try googling better.

Hello !! Mcfly! I'm talking abou tM brane theory that just came about 7 years ago!

I pointed out that M brane theory just came about around the turn of the century and you agreed. So my question to you is, why even bring up hawkings talks over twenty years ago when I am talking about m brane theory that came around just a few years ago?

M brane theory says that big bangs are nothing unusual. If you need more information on this try googleing M brane theory.

[Andy Schoen]

Your statement was not clear as to what you meant by your use of the word, "that".
By chance are you related to Bill Clinton? :confused: :)

I pointed out that M brane theory just came about around the turn of the century and you agreed. So my question to you is, why even bring up hawkings talks over twenty years ago when I am talking about m brane theory that came around just a few years ago?
The theory evolved from quantum physics and relativity, which is the area of physics which was able to suggest solutions to the problem of big bang singularity. Stephen Hawkings was pioneering this area more than 20 years ago. How much of this do you really understand?

Start a thread on this topic. Start by defining causal relationships. :)

[braces4impact]

By chance are you related to Bill Clinton? :confused: :)

The theory evolved from quantum physics and relativity, which is the area of physics which was able to suggest solutions to the problem of big bang singularity. Stephen Hawkings was pioneering this area more than 20 years ago. How much of this do you really understand?

Start a thread on this topic. Start by defining causal relationships. :)

I realize where it came from, however this serves as nothing bu ta red herring. I had stated from the beginning M brane theory yet you mention hawking for some odd reason.

A causal relationship is when you are just dating but nothing really serious like engaged or anything. :)


Causality is the law of identity in motion. The law of identity states that A is A or a thing is what it is. Science works by induction. That is observing entities and what variables affect those entities and then assumes that these entities will work in the same way again given the variables are the same. In other words. If only two variables affect water freezing, (and I know there are more but for discussions sake let's say just two) say, temperature and atmospheric pressure, then if these two variables stay the same, the freezing of the water will occur at the same rate as did on the previous test.

[Andy Schoen]

This may annoy some of you, God doesn't want us to prove evolution or creation.
I figure God wanted most of us to struggle in life, which would lead me to think he doesn’t mind us trying to figure out how the universe works.

I personally don't need to understand, I was given a few basic directions from Christ, spread the Gospel, feed the hungry, visit those in prison, visit the sick, clothe the naked, love one another as I have loved you
You can be my neighbor anytime. :) And if geer moves into the neighborhood, we both can beat on him until he’s convinced life is not merely happenstance. :)

[braces4impact]

Andy , the entire reason for this M brane theory exchange between us was from this comment you made here.


If one accepts Einstein's theory of relativity, then the universe started with a big bang singularity. The problem with this idea is that all known laws of science break down at this point. God becomes the solution, the creator. Where God came from is therefore irrelevant as we are outside of mundane scientific thinking at this point.

Einstein believed in God. Who are we to question Einstein?

My point of bringing up M brane theory is that 1.) god does not win by default if there are no other possibilities. to say no answer ergo god is to commit yourself to the non sequitur fallacy.
2.) Other options do exist ....like M brane theory!

[Andy Schoen]

I had stated from the beginning M brane theory yet you mention hawking for some odd reason.I’m not sure what you are arguing about. Geer was concerned that I was unaware of modern solutions to problem of the big bang singularity. I then stated I was aware of the efforts to work quantum mechanics into relativity, and I noted Stephen Hawkings had significant efforts in this subject area. And then you bring in M brane theory, which happens to be another possible explanation as to how one can get around this problem. We should be talking about the same subject here.

[Andy Schoen]

Andy , the entire reason for this M brane theory exchange between us was from this comment you made here.

Reread my page 4 posts

[braces4impact]

I’m not sure what you are arguing about. Geer was concerned that I was unaware of modern solutions to problem of the big bang singularity. I then stated I was aware of the efforts to work quantum mechanics into relativity, and I noted Stephen Hawkings had significant efforts in this subject area. And then you bring in M brane theory, which happens to be another possible explanation as to how one can get around this problem. We should be talking about the same subject here.


Look, the bottom line of my point is this. Even if there are absolutely no working explanations of the big bang, to posit god or anything else arbitrarily is a non sequitur.

[Andy Schoen]

to posit god or anything else arbitrarily is a non sequitur.
I do like the comic strip, though :p

[glennac]

Andy , the entire reason for this M brane theory exchange between us was from this comment you made here.



My point of bringing up M brane theory is that 1.) god does not win by default if there are no other possibilities. to say no answer ergo god is to commit yourself to the non sequitur fallacy.
2.) Other options do exist ....like M brane theory!

Since we are the smartest living beings ever to live, how come we haven't being able to create life? With all our labs, etc. Why then was it created by some accident? That doesn't make sense. God must have created life.

[Mr Bill]

Since we are the smartest living beings ever to live, how come we haven't being able to create life? With all our labs, etc. Why then was it created by some accident? That doesn't make sense. God must have created life.

I know you will never understand this question but how do you know were the smartest?

[geerair]

Since we are the smartest living beings ever to live, how come we haven't being able to create life? With all our labs, etc. Why then was it created by some accident? That doesn't make sense. God must have created life.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[geepo12]

I know you will never understand this question but how do you know were the smartest?

It's a big universe out there...open your mind just a wee bit

sorry, this was not intended as a reply to your post mrbillpro, but to glennac's post that we humans are the "smartest living things ever to live."

[geepo12]

Since we are the smartest living beings ever to live, how come we haven't being able to create life? With all our labs, etc. Why then was it created by some accident? That doesn't make sense. God must have created life.

My point of bringing up M brane theory is that 1.) god does not win by default if there are no other possibilities. to say no answer ergo god is to commit yourself to the non sequitur fallacy.

ah..but that is what religion is..man's reasoning for the unknown. If we do not understand something, it's god..makes life easier, doesn't it?