Where evolution is taught [Archive] - Page 9

View Full Version : Where evolution is taught

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]

chula-lainn

05-01-2007, 09:21 PM

1. Since you didn't see it happen, it's about belief.

You know, a really old Philosopher actuallly already beat you to this idea and had Showed the flaw in this lime of thought.

2. Meteor, asteroids, volcanic ash? Rocks and gas.

What is it, that you believe, is the Nature of Life anyway?

USincognito

05-02-2007, 12:35 AM

Interesting choice of words. I guess being intellectually superior is quite a burden for you? How can you live around such ignorant hicks like we'ens?

Hold on thar...is it us'ins?

Hows about us kin folk.

Here's a novel idea (for this thread apparently - save Brent_G who is a breath of fresh air). How about addressing the content of the post that what cited instead of just appealing to straw men and emotionalism?

It just confounds me how content can be overlooked and dismissed with a quip and what amounts to a minstrel show rather than one taking the time to address the content of a post one wishes to reply to. I'm biting my tongue when it comes to your intellectually superior/ignorant hick snark because commenting on the irony within that context is like shooting fish in a barrel.

rjw

05-02-2007, 05:13 AM

Well, after viewing the many replies - a majority of which labeled me a quote-miner (whatever that is) and other intemperate accusations I found something quite striking - no empirical evidence for macroevolution listed (BTW - if any of you have written a book review for a publication then congratulations - you're also a "quote miner").

In a discussion such as this, one of the best tools for non-darwinists to utilize are quotes from hostile witnesses. The atheists on this site certainly won't consider for a moment information/statistics from non-darwinists. Very well, listen to what your own kind is saying. But with a secular worldview the macroevolutionist isn't about to actually consider these quotes as valid, so they level the tired accusation of either "quote-mining" or "taking quotes out-of-context." Heaven forbid (so to speak) the authors of these quotes actually meant what they said!

Talkorigins is hardly the Last Word when it comes to macroevolution. I'm still waiting to receive clear evidence for macroevolution from Nature, Science, PNAS and the like - not the atheists with an axe to grind at Talkorigins.

At the risk of being redundant at the risk of being redundant let me make as plain as possible - the missing links are missing. Gould said the largest phylum is the arthropoda. As an invertebrate zoologist, I agree. Three macroevolutionists stated in American Scientist 85 (May/June, '97): 244 -

"As Darwin noted in the Origin of Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presentents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms - either living or in the fossil record - that show convincingly how modern arthropods evolved from worm-like ancestors. Consequently there has been a wealth of speculation and contention about relationships between the arthropod lineages."

Non-darwinists suggest the arthropods never did evolve "from worm-like ancestors." Arthropods have always been arthropods.

That brings me to Denton's book (1985). Figure 8.3 shows "stratigraphic abundance of the major vertebrate groups through time. The dotted lines represent hypothetical lineages required by [macro]evolution to link the various groups together."

Yes, that was back in '85. What has happened since then? More bad news for macroevolution. One skeptic on this site didn't like my citation of Colbert (his coauthors are Morales & Minkoff). His text is Evolution of the Vertebrates published by Wiley-Liss. Check out Figure 1-2 and compare it to Denton's Figure 8.3 Classic!! They both are saying in these very revealing diagrams just what non-darwinists have been saying ever since - well, darwin. The non-darwinian position is clearly supported by these diagrams, that are in turn based on empirical research.

I stand by What James Trefil said in regard to "molecular evolution" - the biomolecules can be adjusted any which way to support the philosophy of macroevolution. No wonder Trefil said he was "skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions" (101 Things you don't know . . . . p. 269). The fossils and biomolecules do not match, which has led Trefil to say -

"So now what? We have 2 bodies of evidence, each with seemingly impeccable credentials, that lead us to mutually contradictory conclusions - the same situation our predecessors faced at the end of the last century. If we believe the DNA, modern humans spread around the globe from Africa starting about 100,00 [sic] years ago. But if we accept that, we have to ignore the evidence of the fossils, and if we believe the fossils, we have to ignore the evidence from DNA (pp. 268-69)"

"Molecular evolution" ? The following is from the Annual Rev. of Genomics & Human Genetics (2000:64) -

"Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinary diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors and the downstream regulatory factors with which thay interact. In these systems it is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the egg and the chicken" (Thornton & DeSalle)

I stand by my "speciation" discussion in my 2nd post and must agree with Harvard's Steve Palumbi, "The formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects in evolutionary biology" (Annual Rev. of Ecology & Systematics '94, p. 548).

Someone on this post said, "And we have multiple, independent lines of evidence that demonstrate, quite conclusively, that humans and the rest of life on this Earth are members of the same family."

The above is an overtly religious statement that flies in the face of the 2 secular diagrams I cited above (not to mention molecular biology).

These just are not good times to be a macroevolutionist.

======================

Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinary diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors and the downstream regulatory factors with which thay interact. In these systems it is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the egg and the chicken" (Thornton & DeSalle)
<O:p
Not necessarily so at all.
<O:p
<O:p
You appear to have access to journals. Have a look at:-

Frank J. Poelwijk, Daniel J. Kiviet & Sander J. Tans, “Empirical Fitness landscapes reveal accessible evolutionary paths”, Nature 445, 25-January-2007, 383-386,

there you will find a progress article on how plausible solutions (in Darwinian terms), are being found for such things as you describe above. In particular read the progress article where a model for the evolution of a hormone/receptor (lock and key) system and a model for the evolution of a repressor-operator binding system are described. I have really only looked at the first model. There the authors of that article explain what the model is and how it was tested.

The overall thrust of the article is to show how conventional Darwinian scenarios are being found for evolutionary problems. It discusses the models and how they are tested in the laboratory. It makes interesting reading.

In another article last year:-

Annie E. Tsong, Brian B. Tuch, Hao Li and Alexander D. Johnson, “Evolution of alternative transcriptional circuits with identical logic”, Nature 443 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/ /><st1:date Month=25-January-2007</st1:date>, 383-386,
*
<st1:date Month="9" Day="28" Year="2006">28 September 2006</st1:date>, p 415-420,

a model was presented for the evolution of a sex switching system in two species of yeast - bakers yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida albicans. Interestingly these two have two different molecular circuits giving the same output, signaling yeast gender. They trace the evolution of these circuits through a third species - K. lactis. Again, model presented and model tested – demonstrating plausibility.

Out of curiosity - do you have alternative models for these kinds of things and if so, how do you test them to demonstrate their plausibility?

Regards, Roland

Blasko

05-02-2007, 05:37 AM

So, it's your contention that if you truly believe in evolution (and not some weird mix of evolution and religion), that you believe that humans came from apes.First of all, humans are apes. Second, I don't think it's weird to mix evolution and religion, it's only natural for people to combine things. For example, I am an agnostic atheist humanist. Try saying that ten times! In fact, lots of TEists say that science and the Bible are complementary ways of looking at the Universe. Thirdly, I actually find it hard to believe in evolution because the concept of deep time is overwhelming for my piddling human understanding. I understand the idea to a certain degree and I agree with it.

I think that if you look at human evolution the same way you look at all other instances of evolution, there's no reason to deny that very process has shaped our species.

It is my firm belief (unlike my acceptance of evolution) that the majority of creationists and theistic evolutionists do not and will not accept human evolution because of their religious beliefs. But I'm a little confounded on how some TEists can accept most of evolution, but create an artificial barrier where evolution stops. Similarly, creationists believe in evolution within kinds, but seem to ignore the fact that they are advocating for super-duper evolution immediately after the Flood.

Of course they're entitled to defend their beliefs and not accept everything scientists say, especially since scientists get many things wrong, but it's slightly annoying when creationists declare evolution to be bankrupt but go off and make their own evolution scenario. If the old creationists from centuries past were still alive today, they'd disown todays creationists. Mind you, they thought the world and the animals within it were immutable. Literally. So the 'evolution in kinds' would be declared heresy or such.

The duplicity (in the literal, not pejorative sense although it may apply to some people) is confusing to say the least.

As an invertebrate zoologist, I agree.You'll have to excuse me if I remain skeptical. Do you have a lab website/university address/publications/CV? It's just that I've talked to a fair number of scientists like yourself and they don't commonly rely on long lists of quotes as evidence.

Well, after viewing the many replies - a majority of which labeled me a quote-miner (whatever that is) and other intemperate accusations I found something quite striking - no empirical evidence for macroevolution listed (BTW - if any of you have written a book review for a publication then congratulations - you're also a "quote miner").The common usage of the word 'quote-miner' is a person who quotes another person out of context, often distorting that person's original meaning into one that supports their argument. I provided a sample of your (or ICR's) quote mine in a previous post.

Please acknowledge that quotes from people are not considered scientific evidence. I have yet to see evidence from you that supports creationism. I have only seen quotes that denigrate evolution. Even if evolution falls, creationism must make its own case. Scientific theories rise and fall on their own merits, not on the failings of others.

Scotz

05-02-2007, 04:49 PM

I have to agree with Sew Misty V when she said, "I stopped reading this thread about 300 posts ago. I didn't even realize there was anything left of this dead horse to beat."
But really, I must answer at least some of these posts because there are a number of folk out there who still believe people came from prokaryotes, despite the clear scientific evidence against such a strange idea. Macroevolutionists still do not know where the eukaryotic cell came from, "But far from resolving the issue of eukaryotic origins, molecular phylogeny [see below] has (at least for the present) deepened the mystery" - F.M. Harold, The Way of the Cell, 2002, p. 181.

Yes, I understand now, Blasko. One is accused of being a "quote miner" when he quotes from macroevolutionists - and the secular community wish those macroevolutionists hadn't said that.
Blasko also said, "Please acknowledge that quotes from people are not considered scientific evidence." Hmmmm. I guess this means he doesn't read science journals, science books, science papers and the like. How else are we to receive scientific knowledge if one doesn't somehow record it so others may - read it? In other words, Blasko is saying the quote from Thornton & DeSalle is "not considered scientific evidence."
Blasko mentions "creationism" - I have not.
Also, Blasko equates quotes that only question the particle-to-people philosophy with the denigration of "evolution" [sic]. I am trying not to 'denigrate' any 1 or any thing.

Thank You, Roland, for the citation in Nature 443, you have my word I'll read this article (even though some will not consider it "scientific evidence" because it was written by people) and, as a zoologist, I'll go where the evidence leads.

In the meantime there were a few folk who didn't like the quote (carefully "mined") from Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia where A.G. Fisher said the both the origin of life and of the major animal groups remain unknown. A.G.F. is very well respected in secular scientific circles and I can validate that if you like from a macroevolutionist. I do have an update on Fisher's statement from Nature 445. PCJ Donoghue said, "The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself." He said that way back in January of '07.

Fossils tell 1 macroevolutionary story while molecules tell something quite different. The late Colin Patterson stated, “As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenetics is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology” - Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics v. 24 p. 179. Trish Gura of Nature magazine agrees: “But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological [macroevolutionary]treescould not be made to match.”‘Bones, Molecules ... or Both?’ 406, ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/ /><st1:date Year=20 July 2000</st1:date>, p. 232. ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
Gura should have included ". . .or Neither" at the end of her title making it more neutral - but her bias shows clearly by censoring these critical 2 words.
The "molecules vs fossils" debate goes back to the words of James Trefil I mentioned in a previous post, "So now what? We have 2 bodies of evidence [molecules & fossils], each with seemingly impeccable credentials . . ." etc (101 Things you don't know . . ." pp. 268-69).
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>

aaron

05-02-2007, 04:52 PM

Sew Misty V

And there's the funniest part of this thread.

amanda

05-02-2007, 04:58 PM

And there's the funniest part of this thread.

Dare ya to change is name to that! :smt118

rjw

05-02-2007, 05:17 PM

aaron

05-02-2007, 05:25 PM

You write your posts in Word, then copy/paste? Use PureText (http://www.stevemiller.net/puretext/) then.

rjw

05-02-2007, 05:58 PM

You write your posts in Word, then copy/paste? Use PureText (http://www.stevemiller.net/puretext/) then.

Thanks Aaron.

Chalnoth

05-02-2007, 07:12 PM

chula-lainn

05-02-2007, 09:25 PM

Macroevolutionists still do not know where the eukaryotic cell came from, "But far from resolving the issue of eukaryotic origins, molecular phylogeny [see below] has (at least for the present) deepened the mystery" - F.M. Harold, The Way of the Cell, 2002, p. 181.

"The More we Learn, The Less we Know."

Doesn't mean that we can't still learn about that which we do not know.

Yes, I understand now, Blasko. One is accused of being a "quote miner" when he quotes from macroevolutionists - and the secular community wish those macroevolutionists hadn't said that.

Now, that's just sad. Trying to get in a Jab like that while pretending to be so Self-rightous.

Blasko also said, "Please acknowledge that quotes from people are not considered scientific evidence." Hmmmm. I guess this means he doesn't read science journals, science books, science papers and the like. How else are we to receive scientific knowledge if one doesn't somehow record it so others may - read it?

What someone Claims about the Validity of Evidence is not the same as Evidence to the Validity of one's own claims.

Reason number one why your very arguement fails.

PCJ Donoghue said, "The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself." He said that way back in January of '07.

True, he did say that. And this also shows that you missed his point and why you can't just take one Quote from a larger Work (I.e. "Quote Mining") and assume that it Summerizing the Work entirely.

In this quote, He admits to the Fact that there still remains much to learn yet you read that one line and assume that he's admitting that it can never be learned.

He's only saying that the Mystery still remains. You claim that there is no Mystery.
He does not agree with you.

EricStratton

05-02-2007, 09:29 PM

Chalnoth

05-03-2007, 01:14 AM

Serious question: What is up with some of these names? Is it some Sci-Fi thing I don't know about? Chalnoth, chula-lainn, Valkhorn....What planet are you guys from? Just asking, but I probably shouldn't. I'm afraid I'll get some dissertation that I probably won't read anyway.
Well, as for me, this is a name I first chose in an online fantasy multiplayer game something like 10 years ago. I've just kept it ever since, largely because almost nobody else makes use of it. It also turns out that it's a race of beings in Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I swear I didn't know this when I picked the name (though I do like the series). Anyway, right now, if you Google my screen name the majority of the hits you'll get that don't refer to Star Trek refer to me. And I guess I kind of like having a unique screen name like that.

Blasko

05-03-2007, 03:29 AM

Serious question: What is up with some of these names? Is it some Sci-Fi thing I don't know about? Chalnoth, chula-lainn, Valkhorn....What planet are you guys from? Just asking, but I probably shouldn't. I'm afraid I'll get some dissertation that I probably won't read anyway.Blasko is the last name of an Australian singer called Sarah Blasko. She's renowned for her live performances, stage presence, poetical lyrics and a smooth, velvety voice. I have her album cover as my avatar.

And I guess I kind of like having a unique screen name like that.And a unique image (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Chalnoth)!
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/0/0c/Esoqq.jpg/180px-Esoqq.jpg

Conveyor Belt

05-03-2007, 03:39 AM

Sometimes I like to think of myself as a nerd, but you guys have me beat... You're all like a bunch of supernerds or something... I'm not sure if the supernerds evolved from regular nerds... discuss...

Blasko

05-03-2007, 06:16 AM

But really, I must answer at least some of these posts because there are a number of folk out there who still believe people came from prokaryotes, despite the clear scientific evidence against such a strange idea. Very well. Please show this scientific evidence.

But please be aware that criticism against evolution is not evidence for creationism, intelligent design or the idea that homo sapiens did not evolve from other eukaryotes that evolved from prokaryotes.

Yes, I understand now, Blasko. One is accused of being a "quote miner" when he quotes from macroevolutionists - and the secular community wish those macroevolutionists hadn't said that.I don't think you understand my objections.

The common usage of the word 'quote-miner' is a person who quotes another person out of context, often distorting that person's original meaning into one that supports their argument.You can read an example of such a quote-mine in post #847 (http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=233401&postcount=847). Quote-mining is not a valid debating technique because it is deceptive and misleading. And even if the quotes are correct, quotes are not considered empirical evidence, the type of evidence most commonly gathered by scientists. Scientists tend to rely on observation and experimental data rather than other people's words.

You also did not respond on whether you have a CV, some sort of publications list, a website for a lab you work in or a museum website you work for. A simple no would suffice.

B.T. Justice

05-03-2007, 08:54 AM

You also did not respond on whether you have a CV, some sort of publications list, a website for a lab you work in or a museum website you work for. A simple no would suffice.

Just curious. Is your CV posted here?

Blasko

05-03-2007, 09:19 AM

Heck no. I don't work in any science-related field. Not all science-related people have websites, but they do often have CVs available online/have it handy, including such details as email, publications or grant lists. Post-docs, PhD students have the bare essentials, but Scotz is a scientist, so he may have one of these lying around. It pays to be careful on the net, but I hope I'm not offending Scotz because he hasn't mentioned it at all.

chula-lainn

05-03-2007, 06:54 PM

EricStratton

05-03-2007, 07:02 PM

My Name is just a Corruption of the Name of a Yu-gi-oh Card. I wanted a Name that noone else had thought of and the first First Word I could think was Cu'Chulainn but it was already taken. :smt022

So, I put a Galic spin on it.

I appreciate all you guys answering my question. Puts things in perspective. Thanks.

chula-lainn

05-03-2007, 08:26 PM

Cu'Culainn is a Celtic hero isn't he?

Correct. But he's not a Religous Figure, so no one's going to jump down my throat because I use his/her (depending :smt105 ) name with a twist.

USincognito

05-04-2007, 02:56 AM

PCJ Donoghue said, "The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself." He said that way back in January of '07.

Yeah, as a "grabber" to start his article which then goes on to discuss whether fossils found represent animal embryos or bacteria. It's a really neat (and short) article which I hope everyone here will read.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/nature05520.html

The article is not one long exposition on the sentence you have mined. It discusses the investigation going on in the area of animal origin and shows how the evidence isn't conclusive either way in terms of the specific fossils in question.

Chalnoth

05-04-2007, 03:27 AM

Yeah, as a "grabber" to start his article which then goes on to discuss whether fossils found represent animal embryos or bacteria. It's a really neat (and short) article which I hope everyone here will read.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/nature05520.html

The article is not one long exposition on the sentence you have mined. It discusses the investigation going on in the area of animal origin and shows how the evidence isn't conclusive either way in terms of the specific fossils in question.
Unfortunately, it looks like you picked a University or pay-only article, USincognito.

chula-lainn

05-04-2007, 08:22 PM

touchy,touchy.

No, no. I didn't mean it that way. I only said it as an afterthought.

USincognito

05-04-2007, 08:28 PM

Unfortunately, it looks like you picked a University or pay-only article, USincognito.

How strange. I don't have a subscription, but I'm able to get the full text. I noticed a "full text provided by Lucent technologies" which might have soemthing to do with why I can see it (I'm at work, at Alcatel-Lucent). Anyway, here's the first paragraph with the quote in question.

The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself. An abundant fossil record extends back 542 million years to the beginning of the Cambrian period, testifying to the establishment of all of today's main groups of animals by this time. However, the degree to which animal evolutionary history extends beyond the Cambrian is a controversy rich in speculation but sparse in evidence. It is no wonder that the 1998 report of fossilized animal embryos from the Doushantuo phosphorite rocks of southern China created a stir1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/nature05520.html#B1). At more than 580 million years old, these were the oldest unequivocal animal fossils, and, as embryos, they provided a glimpse of animal embryology at a time when today's main animal groups were emerging. These fossils have revealed ancient patterns of cell division and cell arrangement2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/nature05520.html#B2), and promised to reveal further secrets about developmental evolution at this crucial time. But this prospect may have been dashed by a study on page 198 of this issue3 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/nature05520.html#B3) presenting a compelling reinterpretation of these fossils — not as animal embryos, but as giant bacteria * (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/nature05520.html#anc1).

Blasko

05-05-2007, 02:44 AM

What do people think about teaching creationism, intelligent design or 'the controversy' in science classrooms?

USincognito

05-05-2007, 07:05 AM

What do people think about teaching creationism, intelligent design or 'the controversy' in science classrooms?

I don't think there is a genuine controversy in the science of biology so there isn't one to be taught in science classrooms. With that ceveat, I don't see any harm in discussing C/ID in the science classroom, as long as it's not advocated. And I see no harm what-so-ever in discussing it in, say, social studies classrooms.

threekidspa

05-05-2007, 12:13 PM

What do people think about teaching creationism, intelligent design or 'the controversy' in science classrooms?
Hard to say. In the first place, I don't think C/ID is science in iteself. At least not until someone can come up with predictions based on those theories that can be tested in the same manner we test other scientific theories (such as relativity). (The ultimate test of course will be at the end, when its too late to really do anything about it). ID, to me, is more about apologetics....we see and interpret science in support of our belief in a Creator because when you look at the physics or the chemistry (or whatever) involved in whatever aspect of our universe you look at (such as the Big Bang), you can't see any other way for it to have happened without a Creator and still remain consistent with the accepted science involved. (I'm a fan of Cosmological ID, myself....our existence here on Earth would not be possible without a finely tuned highly designed universe).

Because of that, I have no issue with my children learning evolution (or any other physical or biological sciences) in the classroom, as long as they're presented only as science. I encourage it, in fact, so my kids have the same chance to wonder at all that God has done as I have. However, I would/do have issues when teachers attempt to fill the gaps in the scientific evidence, biological record, etc., with conjectures that remove the role of God.

Long answer to your short question....sorry :)

rjw

05-05-2007, 05:47 PM

Hard to say. In the first place, I don't think C/ID is science in iteself. At least not until someone can come up with predictions based on those theories that can be tested in the same manner we test other scientific theories (such as relativity). (The ultimate test of course will be at the end, when its too late to really do anything about it). ID, to me, is more about apologetics....we see and interpret science in support of our belief in a Creator because when you look at the physics or the chemistry (or whatever) involved in whatever aspect of our universe you look at (such as the Big Bang), you can't see any other way for it to have happened without a Creator and still remain consistent with the accepted science involved. (I'm a fan of Cosmological ID, myself....our existence here on Earth would not be possible without a finely tuned highly designed universe).

Because of that, I have no issue with my children learning evolution (or any other physical or biological sciences) in the classroom, as long as they're presented only as science. I encourage it, in fact, so my kids have the same chance to wonder at all that God has done as I have. However, I would/do have issues when teachers attempt to fill the gaps in the scientific evidence, biological record, etc., with conjectures that remove the role of God.

Long answer to your short question....sorry :)

I find it hard to imagine how a teacher could "attempt to fill the gaps in the scientific evidence, biological record, etc., with conjectures that remove the role of God". Gaps are gaps and we fill them with hypotheses which we then (or later) attempt to test in a scientific manner.

Nevertheless, you have a very sensible approach to looking at things Brent_G - if I may say so. It is encouraing and refreshing to read your words.

Regards, Roland

aaron

05-05-2007, 07:28 PM

Are all of you happy now?

Activists want chimp declared a person (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OTLSUG0&show_article=1)

Hermione

05-05-2007, 08:00 PM

Brent, you ever gonna tell them what you do in your "spare time"? I know I asked that before -- apologies if you've answered.

Blasko

05-05-2007, 10:13 PM

Are all of you happy now?

Activists want chimp declared a person (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OTLSUG0&show_article=1) Hiasl's supporters argue he needs that status to become a legal entity that can receive donations and get a guardian to look out for his interests.
"Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights," said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge on behalf of the Association Against Animal Factories, a Vienna animal rights group.
"We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions," Theuer said.
"We're not talking about the right to vote here."
Hiasl obvious isn't a human and as far as I can tell, you need to be a human to be a person. But they're trying to challenge that so Hiasl can get some basic rights. It's a nifty way of getting around Austrian laws on donations.

I wouldn't go as far as calling a chimpanzee a person, but I do support the Great Ape Project: The Great Ape Project (GAP), founded in 1993, is an international organization of primatologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primatologist), psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist), ethicists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethicist), and other experts who advocate a United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) Declaration of the Rights of Great Apes that would confer basic legal rights on non-human great apes: chimpanzees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee), bonobos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobos), gorillas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas), and orangutans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutans). The rights suggested are the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture. (See Declaration on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_Great_Apes)Because of that, I have no issue with my children learning evolution (or any other physical or biological sciences) in the classroom, as long as they're presented only as science. I encourage it, in fact, so my kids have the same chance to wonder at all that God has done as I have. However, I would/do have issues when teachers attempt to fill the gaps in the scientific evidence, biological record, etc., with conjectures that remove the role of God.Well, I don't think that anyone can remove the role of God. People say that evolution removed God from creation. But theistic evolutionists believe God is working all the time, pulling strings and intervening so that life looks like it is now. People say abiogenesis removed God from the beginning of life. But God could have sparked the first molecules. People say the Big Bang theory removes God. But God could have started the whole thing off.

No matter how good the theories get, there's always a role for God. But when you start hedging the 'gaps' in scientific knowledge as evidence for God, and then those gaps start getting filled, then that tends to dissuade people from religion, or it makes people defensive. There's no need to rely on the 'God of the gaps' argument. I remember someone saying that God doesn't exist in gaps, he exists everywhere.

USincognito

05-06-2007, 12:50 AM

Because of that, I have no issue with my children learning evolution (or any other physical or biological sciences) in the classroom, as long as they're presented only as science. I encourage it, in fact, so my kids have the same chance to wonder at all that God has done as I have. However, I would/do have issues when teachers attempt to fill the gaps in the scientific evidence, biological record, etc., with conjectures that remove the role of God.

I thought your post was great Brent, but I snipped the first part because I only wanted to respond to this part. I don't think anyone other than the most militant of atheists wants to use the biology classroom to explain away or try and disprove God. Any science teacher who understands the scientific method realizes that God simply cannot be addressed by science and does not belong in a scientific discussion in a science classroom.

Most evolution advocates, IMO, be they atheist, fence sitters, TEs or whatever, would have no problem with a teacher discussing the science involved and answering student questions about how God was involved in the processes that made the Sun, the Earth, life on Earth and how evolution progressed through time. The problems occur when a teacher tells students the world is only 6,000 years old and that everything they learn in their textbook is a lie of Satan.

Are all of you happy now?

Activists want chimp declared a person (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OTLSUG0&show_article=1)

As Blasko pointed out, the Great Ape Project is the work of activitsts. It's no different from marginal points of view that want homosexuals stoned to death or want Afrocentrism to trump accepted history.

Molecular Anthropologist Jonathan Marks has a scathing critique of the Great Ape Project's goals in his book What does it mean to be 98% Chimpanzee but fully accepts that humans and chimps share a common ancestor around 7 million years ago. One does not need to try and humanize our fellow great apes to accept common ancestry with them.

Blasko

05-06-2007, 04:14 AM

One does not need to try and humanize our fellow great apes to accept common ancestry with them.Our fellow great apes are not humans, but that doesn't preclude them from having some rights as intelligent, emotionally complex creatures. For example, the right not to be tortured. It's not much different from the ASPCA or the RSPCA's position on humanely treating other animals.

Bowing out...gracefully. :p

IGID

05-06-2007, 07:30 AM

For example, the right not to be tortured. It's not much different from the ASPCA or the RSPCA's position on humanely treating other animals.

Bowing out...gracefully. :pIs it still ok to spank the monkey?

USincognito

05-06-2007, 08:50 AM

Our fellow great apes are not humans, but that doesn't preclude them from having some rights as intelligent, emotionally complex creatures. For example, the right not to be tortured. It's not much different from the ASPCA or the RSPCA's position on humanely treating other animals.

I have a cat. I had another cat die just over a year ago. Hattie and Scar were/are surrogate children for me since I don't have any and I shared my abode with them for 11 years. It's clear from my experiences that intelligence is not the sole perview of humans our simian cousins, dolphins, etc. etc. To claim that intelligence and emotion is reserved to humans is anathema to my experiences, but that's not what the Great Ape Project is suggesting. They're more along to lines of PETA or Earth First than the SPCA (who I support wholeheartedly).

Our fellow great apes are not humans, but we have as much of an obligation to protect them from harm and God forbid, extinction, as we do the children of our aunts and uncles.

Is it still ok to spank the monkey?

From an ethical standpoint, yes, unless you're Catholic... otherwise just be careful of the hairy palms and blindness. ;)

zorro

05-08-2007, 10:42 AM

I believe the concept of a God who created the universe can be disproven almost effortlessly:

1. The universe is incredibly complex. It couldn't just have just popped into existence. So, someone must have created it (or intelligently designed it).

2. The creator of such a universe must be even more complex than the creation to be able to not only create such a thing, but oversee its progress as well.

3. If the creator is more complex than the universe, then someone must have created the creator, after all, something so complex can't just pop into existence. If it could, then so could the universe.

4. Oh no. Either there is an infinite line of creators (which contradicts most everything the Bible says about monotheism and all that), or there is no God at all.
You never took a course in logic, did you?

Number 3 above has no foundation whatsoever and thus you haven't provided anything even closely resembling a valid argument.

zorro

05-08-2007, 10:51 AM

Just know this, atheists are good people. Their morality stems not from a fear of punishment, but a simple belief in treating others well.
Just know this: the above statements are, in essence, nonsense.

Atheists are good people only by relativistic standards that they have created to suit themselves for whatever moment is appropriate for them. There are no moral absolutes with atheism. With no absolute objective standards of morality, then whoever is in power of a given relationship gets to set the standards, and this opens the door to unspeakable cruelty. In fact, the great appeal of atheism is that it so conveniently provides every reason someone could imagine in order to be immoral. Without any objective absolute standard of morality, you are really unable to condemn any choice regarding morality whatsoever. And thus, the great appeal to atheism is also its obvious undoing.

You imply that atheists are noble people because "their morality stems not from a fear of punishment, but a simple belief in treating others well". This is hogwash!. The morality of the atheist is simply self-centeredness and self-deception (deceiving others is also appropriate in this system).

I suspect that your statement was also intended to be a swipe at Christians since you probably mistakenly think that their morality stems from "fear of punishment". On the contrary, a Christian is someone who is no longer under God's righteous condemnation of his sins (see Romans 8:1) because of the person and work of Jesus Christ in his behalf. As a result, Christian ethics is based on the right standard (God's objective written Word), flows from the right motives (gratitude and love to God, and love to our fellow men who are created in his image), and is aimed at the right goal (the glory of God).

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. -- II Corinthians 5:14-15

zorro

05-08-2007, 10:54 AM

I've found that if I examine all the evidence impartially

Neutrality, or impartaillity, in this area is a myth. All thinking rests on presuppositions, and thus, faith is the foundation of "science" as much as of "religion" and "philosophy". Modern macroevolutionary "scientific" theory is the outworking of certain metaphysical presuppositions, and when the evidence (what can be observed) is not wedded to these presuppositions, then macroevolution is anything but convincing.

zorro

05-08-2007, 10:57 AM

When I read all the obviously intelligent and educated people on this thread, I am reminded of these words of Malcolm Muggeridge:

We have educated ourselves into imbecility.

amanda

05-08-2007, 11:00 AM

:smt021 Dang it Zorro. For two days, no posts on this thing....and now you just had to go and drag it back to life. :smt044

just-Wynn

05-08-2007, 11:00 AM

http://inlinethumb09.webshots.com/3912/2840037260101269079S425x425Q85.jpg

zorro

05-08-2007, 11:05 AM

:smt021 Dang it Zorro. For two days, no posts on this thing....and now you just had to go and drag it back to life. :smt044
My sincerest apologies. I haven't had time to be on here lately and I didn't see that the thread was about to die. My fault .... :bonk: :banghead:

chula-lainn

05-08-2007, 12:54 PM

:smt021 Dang it Zorro. For two days, no posts on this thing....and now you just had to go and drag it back to life. :smt044

Funnier still, just prior to it's point of death, it was actually starting to become a Civil and Thoughtfully Intelligent Conversation with no Flaming, Insults, or Troll’s looking to stir up dissention……

Then He posted.

rjw

05-10-2007, 05:19 PM

Funnier still, just prior to it's point of death, it was actually starting to become a Civil and Thoughtfully Intelligent Conversation with no Flaming, Insults, or Troll’s looking to stir up dissention……

Then He posted.
Silly thing is - exactly what is Zorro claiming about every other poster - including Zorro?

Presumably Zorro is not like every other poster, but then it is not a pretty picture for Zorro either.

Regards, Roland

zorro

05-12-2007, 11:46 AM

- exactly what is Zorro claiming about every other poster -
No, not every other poster.

In order to clarify the obvious, let's just see what the faith (no true "science" involved here) of the atheistic evolutionist really demands. It is summarized succinctly by John Heininger:

Order from chaos, complex from the simple; life from non-life; consciousness from non-consciousness. In short, chickens from scrambled eggs....all these natural miracles happened without a miracle worker, which one would have to concede is really miraculous.
Even more miraculous is why natural selection would preserve within human genetics the need for a belief in spiritual forces that supposedly don't exist.

I personally have no desire to take this irrational "leap of faith"; and, in all honesty, there are several other posters in this thread who don't care to do so either. Of course, there are a few posters in this thread who have taken this "leap of faith", but it seems that they all want to deny the "faith" component of what they believe.

zorro

05-12-2007, 12:00 PM

It is commonly claimed that no scientist rejects macroevolution or Darwinism (by which is meant evolutionary naturalism). For example, Dr. Steve Jones. professor of genetics at university college of London, said that "no scientist denies the central truth of The Origin, the idea of descent with modification... plants, animals and everything else descended from a common ancestor" (2000, p. xvii, xxiii). Other writers avoid the words "all" or "no scientist" and, instead, claim that "almost no scientist" rejects Darwinism.
However, is this really true? Here is an admittedly incomplete list of Darwin skeptics which shines greater light on the above claims:
www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html (http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html)

USincognito

05-13-2007, 05:44 AM

In order to clarify the obvious, let's just see what the faith (no true "science" involved here) of the atheistic evolutionist really demands. It is summarized succinctly by John Heininger:

Sigh... where to begin.

- Quotes don't make the evidence go away. I thought that had been discussed here previously. Opinions, pronouncements, quips and platitudes are not evidence nor do they have any effect on the evidence what-so-ever.
- This quote is arguing against atheism. That's great if you're arguing against atheism, but the subject of this thread is evolution. You can't juxtapose the two (since they're different), argue against one and have it have any effect on the other. Acting that atheism=evolution is also a disservice to the millions of Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists out there who accept evolutionary theory (f. ex. 7 out of the 10 Republican candidates for President).
- The quote doesn't address the science of evolution at all.
order from chaos has nothing to do with evolutionary theory which assumes extant life on an extant planet in an extant solar system. Maybe Mr. Heininger is confusing evolutionary theory with "riot police theory."
complext from the simple comes close, but until "complex" and "simple" is defined scientifically it's sort of an empty phrase. Some bacteria have many more chomosomes than humans do and genes, which are constructed of DNA only have 4 proteins to work with regardless of whether its a nematode, peach tree or okapi.
life from non-life has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. TEs actually have the easiest answer - God made the first life. But as noted above, evolutionary theory assumes extant life.
conciousness from non-conciousness has nothing to do with evolutionary theory except possibly evolutionary psychology. Earthworms wriggle when you try to put them on a hook and scallops squirt away when a starfish gets too close for comfort. Conciousness needs to be given more context before it can be applied to evolutionary theory.
chickens from scrambled eggs does not apply to evolutionary theory. Eggs existed hundreds of millions of years before chickens.
miracles have nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
a belief in spiritual forces that supposedly don't exist has nothing to do with evolutionary theory as science doesn't address whether the supernatural exists or not and TEs believe in the supernatural so it has no effect how evolution is viewed. Evolutionary psychology or cultural anthopology does address why humans believe but those areas of study are different from biological evolution.

Mr. Heininger makes a bang up argument against atheism, but I don't see how any of what he says has anything to do with evolutionary theory and the science of it.

USincognito

05-13-2007, 05:53 AM

However, is this really true? Here is an admittedly incomplete list of Darwin skeptics which shines greater light on the above claims:
www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html (http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html)

I'm skeptical of that list. ;)

I am however, more impressed with NSCE's Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp) where they tied both hands behind their back and still got over 800 people to sign up.

zorro

05-15-2007, 01:30 AM

- The quote doesn't address the science of evolution at all.
And so, what do you believe the "science" of evolution teaches us? See below.

order from chaos has nothing to do with evolutionary theory which assumes extant life on an extant planet in an extant solar system.
Bold added above for emphasis. Actually, the above is obviously a statement of faith and not science. This appears to be a case where "assume = making an ass of u & me."

complext from the simple comes close
Yep, real close! Removing the "t" at the end of complex makes it even closer. Just think, the complexity of the human brain came from . . .

life from non-life has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. . . . as noted above, evolutionary theory assumes extant life.
Are you saying that all life on earth came from microbes from another planet that rode here on a meteor? Or that more advanced forms of life were deposited here intentionally by beings arriving here in their flying saucers? (In either case, I think somebody has been immersed in sci-fi a bit too much). In all honesty, to suggest that life as we know it on earth today all came from life that originated on another planet, and to actually think that this is science, and not your "faith" is truly incredible. BTW, where did the life on the other planet come from? From non-life?

conciousness from non-conciousness has nothing to do with evolutionary theory except possibly evolutionary psychology.
It is interesting how this can be so easily dismissed by an atheistic evolutionist. The complexity of the human brain and all consciousness, emotions, and thoughts, etc, all arising from a few interplanetary or intergalactic microbes. This really is truly amazing! Why didn't I realize this before?

chickens from scrambled eggs does not apply to evolutionary theory. Eggs existed hundreds of millions of years before chickens.
Chicken eggs????? :smt103 Well, that does answer the age old problem of which came first! But who would have guessed that the egg came first by "hundreds of millions" of years? :smt102

miracles have nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Actually, reading what you have proposed above contradicts this statement.

a belief in spiritual forces that supposedly don't exist has nothing to do with evolutionary theory as science doesn't address whether the supernatural exists or not
Let's be honest. Those who call themselves "scientists" either confess belief in God, or they suppress the knowledge that they do have of Him and thus refuse to acknowledge Him (see Romans 1). In either case (and whether you deny Romans 1 or not), they will then do "science" according to their belief, their faith, and/or their metaphysical presuppositions; AND, the conclusions that they reach will necessarily depend on their presuppositions and will be consistent with them.

BTW, the reason that atheistic evolutionists love the majority of TEs is because they (TEs), in effect, make God unnecessary or essentially removed from His creation. He is a God "bound" by natural laws (and thus He ain't very "supernatural"). Atheists don't mind this kind of God, i.e., one who actually makes no difference in whether you believe in Him or not (or in whether He actually exists or not), and one who will never bother or make demands of them, or judge them in any way whatsoever.

Mr. Heininger makes a bang up argument against atheism, but I don't see how any of what he says has anything to do with evolutionary theory and the science of it.
Perhaps reading what it is that you have actually proposed above as evolutionary theory will help you see. . . ., and then again, perhaps not.

bpitt

05-15-2007, 11:00 AM

What happened to Valkhorn?

threekidspa

05-15-2007, 11:03 AM

I'm skeptical of that list. ;)

I am however, more impressed with NSCE's Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp) where they tied both hands behind their back and still got over 800 people to sign up.

Don't be too skeptical of it. I know at least one person on that list very well. :)

SoMissTV

05-15-2007, 11:24 AM

I thought this thread had died a natural death.

Thanks, zorro.

bpitt

05-15-2007, 11:27 AM

Nope, it has EVOLVED!!

aaron

05-15-2007, 12:07 PM

Nope, it has EVOLVED!!

Read earlier comments on devolving which is currently in the process of being proven every time this thread gets bumped.

USincognito

05-18-2007, 05:49 AM

And so, what do you believe the "science" of evolution teaches us? See below.

Who is this you you're talking to because the straw man you've built in the rest of this post doesn't represent my position at all? A more correct statement is - I am here to discuss what science tells us about evolution and am not interested in beliefs or philosophy for the purpose of this discussion.

Bold added above for emphasis. Actually, the above is obviously a statement of faith and not science. This appears to be a case where "assume = making an ass of u & me."

You should have spent more time trying to comprehend what I wrote rather than coming up with a sarcastic remark. What I posted is correct. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with "order from chaos". It assumes that life exists because without life, there is no evolution (meaning biological evolution). Obviously life exists (unless you think the world is an illusion or this is the Matrix, but most of us accept that life exists) now, did so in the past, but at some point did not. Evolutionary theory does not address anything before life existed ergo it starts with the assumption of life before making any predictions.

Yep, real close! Removing the "t" at the end of complex makes it even closer. Just think, the complexity of the human brain came from . . .

Nice, you mock a typo and evade giving an actual response. Why did you even bother?

I asked for a definition of complexity within the context of biology/evolution above but in all the sarcasm and straw man you seem to have failed to give one. It would really help make the discussion more productive if you would do so. I find the word "developed" usually gives better context.

So where did our more developed brains come from? It evolved in our ancestors. Two of the most famous Australipithicene fossils "Taung child" and "Lucy" evidence that bipedalism developed before our brains got bigger. Brain development is a very late characteristic in terms of human evolution. Even the erectus skeleton "Turkana boy" has a cranium that would have, as an adult, been about 3/5 the size of an average human today. There was an interesting paper on the HAR1 region of the human genome that discusses human brain development. I'll dig it up for you if you're really interested in reading it.

Are you saying that all life on earth came from microbes from another planet that rode here on a meteor? Or that more advanced forms of life were deposited here intentionally by beings arriving here in their flying saucers? (In either case, I think somebody has been immersed in sci-fi a bit too much). In all honesty, to suggest that life as we know it on earth today all came from life that originated on another planet, and to actually think that this is science, and not your "faith" is truly incredible. BTW, where did the life on the other planet come from? From non-life?

You must be confusing "extant" meaning existing with "external" or perhaps "extra-terrestrial" because otherwise I can't see how you could read this:
life from non-life has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. . . . as noted above, evolutionary theory assumes extant life.
and respond with the straw man gibberish you did.

Just to try and clear it up for you. It doesn't matter if the first life was created by God, created by another deity, came from panspermia or directed panspermia (that's the proper term for alien seeding) reulted from an abiogenetic event or events or is a science project for hyperdimensional high schoolers - life needed to exist before evolution could occur to it (I would think this would be axiomatic, but apparently not everyone gets this part). Evolutionary theory describes what happens to life, not how life came about.

It is interesting how this can be so easily dismissed by an atheistic evolutionist. The complexity of the human brain and all consciousness, emotions, and thoughts, etc, all arising from a few interplanetary or intergalactic microbes. This really is truly amazing! Why didn't I realize this before?

There is no atheistic evolution. There is evolution which is accepted by believers and non-believers alike. Religion and philosophy have more to do with the rejection of evolutionary theory than a lack of belief.

Since your microbes comment is a straw man I'll describe more accurately my postion. Human consciousness isn't much different from the rest of our fellow vertebrates and I'd dare say it's not much different from some invertebrates (Cephalapods being one). Thought the same way. Squirrels can figure out complex methods used to protect birdfeeders and octopuses have exhibited problem solving ability as well. Just because our thoughts are more developed than those of squirrels and octupuses doesn't mean they don't think. I also don't have the hubris to think humans are the only beings with emotions either. Elephants have been observed in what appears to be mourning when they encounter elephant bones and anyone who has a cat or dog knows they exhibit happiness, sadness, boredom, fright, surpise, etc.

As I said above, it's the specialized field of evolutionary psychology that looks in to how human minds work differently from the rest of the animal kingdom, not evolutionary theory per se.

Chicken eggs????? :smt103 Well, that does answer the age old problem of which came first! But who would have guessed that the egg came first by "hundreds of millions" of years? :smt102

Egg laying goes back at least to the Cambrian long long before there were any chickens, so yes, the egg came long before the chicken. Ironically though, the first chicken, that is the first bird that is the last common ancestor of all chickens that was slightly different from it's parents, came from --- an egg, so again, the egg predates the chicken, in this specific case by a couple of weeks.

Actually, reading what you have proposed above contradicts this statement.

Let me fix this for you "Actually reading what I have proposed above does not contradict that statement." Miracles have nothing to do with evolutionary theory nor any other part of science. They are under the perview of Theology.

Let's be honest. Those who call themselves "scientists" either confess belief in God, or they suppress the knowledge that they do have of Him and thus refuse to acknowledge Him (see Romans 1). In either case (and whether you deny Romans 1 or not), they will then do "science" according to their belief, their faith, and/or their metaphysical presuppositions; AND, the conclusions that they reach will necessarily depend on their presuppositions and will be consistent with them.

It's ironic that you start with "let's be honest" and then proceed to blather on with unsupported accusations and what appears to be mind-reading on your part. Let me put it in simple terms for you, there's no amount of "presupposing" that will make the evidence of a 4,000 year old mountain appear to be 150,000,000 years old. It's just impossible. The mountain is 150 million years old. Similarly it's impossible look at something that has characteristics of different species and not come to the conclusion that it's related to both somehow. The only way one can do that is by utterly ingoring the evidence.

It has nothing to do with presuppositions. It's all about selective ignorance/amnesia.

BTW, the reason that atheistic evolutionists love the majority of TEs is because they (TEs), in effect, make God unnecessary or essentially removed from His creation. He is a God "bound" by natural laws (and thus He ain't very "supernatural"). Atheists don't mind this kind of God, i.e., one who actually makes no difference in whether you believe in Him or not (or in whether He actually exists or not), and one who will never bother or make demands of them, or judge them in any way whatsoever.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't actually know any atheists. The atheists and TEs I've encountered while debating Creation and Evolution like each other because they're on the same side of the discussion and they both like science and are concerned about science education in America. I'll leave the mind-reading to you, but that is what I have experienced in 8 years debating this on-line.

Perhaps reading what it is that you have actually proposed above as evolutionary theory will help you see. . . ., and then again, perhaps not.

What I saw was I needed to be more clear in how I respond so you can't create some sort of straw man of what I'm actually trying to say. Hopefully this time I was more edifying.

rjw

06-09-2007, 07:44 AM

No, not every other poster.

In order to clarify the obvious, let's just see what the faith (no true "science" involved here) of the atheistic evolutionist really demands. It is summarized succinctly by John Heininger:

Order from chaos, complex from the simple; life from non-life; consciousness from non-consciousness. In short, chickens from scrambled eggs....all these natural miracles happened without a miracle worker, which one would have to concede is really miraculous.
Even more miraculous is why natural selection would preserve within human genetics the need for a belief in spiritual forces that supposedly don't exist.

I personally have no desire to take this irrational "leap of faith"; and, in all honesty, there are several other posters in this thread who don't care to do so either. Of course, there are a few posters in this thread who have taken this "leap of faith", but it seems that they all want to deny the "faith" component of what they believe.

Hmm Zorro, the old rapier needs a bit of sharpening. It is not even denting the skin, let alone offering a scratch :smile:. Let me explain why:-

<O:p</O:pIn order to clarify the obvious, let's just see what the faith (no true "science" involved here) of the atheistic evolutionist really demands. It is summarized succinctly by John Heininger:

Order from chaos, complex from the simple; life from non-life; consciousness from non-consciousness. In short, chickens from scrambled eggs....all these natural miracles happened without a miracle worker, which one would have to concede is really miraculous.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Given throwaway lines such as these, how am I to respond? Chicken from scrambled egg? What on earth did he mean by that???<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Let me offer two points here:-<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

1) Enclose a gas in a cylinder, one end of which is free to move further into and out of the cylinder. Leave the cylinder in the sun. As the daily temperature rises, the free end will move outwards. The only freely moving things are the random motions of the gas particles and photons of energy randomly passing through the cylinder. Yet these random motions can push the free end of the cylinder outwards. How can this be so, given that all the motions are random? I appeal to known laws of physics, and sensibly, so do most Christians I suspect. Heininger appeals to a miracle worker. Presumably so do you. By what process does your miracle worker push this piston out? Do you have evidence for this process? (No cheating now by appealing to natural law and processes – for these are how I explain things and it would appear you do not accept this.)<O:p</O:p

2) Place a mixture of randomly moving hydrogen and oxygen molecules in a test tube and throw in a match. Poof. These randomly moving simple molecules will form a more complex molecule with vastly different properties to either of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules. How can random, chaotic molecules do this? I can provide an answer using known natural laws and processes. Most Christians I presume would appeal to exactly the same laws and processes I do. Heininger, and I presume you, appeal to a miracle worker. So by what process does your miracle worker make all these molecules break apart and reform to another? Do you have evidence for this process? Why does this miracle worker not sometimes get tricky in our test tubes and rather than making all water, also make H3, HOOH2, O4, H3O6 etc? (No cheating now, and appealing to natural law – for natural law and processes are how I explain things and it would appear you do not accept this.)<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Even more miraculous is why natural selection would preserve within human genetics the need for a belief in spiritual forces that supposedly don't exist.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

What is the logic here?<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Natural selection preserves human beliefs in the spiritual. Therefore the spiritual must exist otherwise NS preserving belief about it is illogical???<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

So you are arguing that because NS preserves in humans, beliefs about UFOs being piloted by aliens, then UFOs must be piloted by aliens otherwise NS preserving belief about it is illogical???<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

I have met a few who argue that the whole universe revolves around the earth. In a similar vein, then this really must be so?<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

But I have also met a few who argue that this is nonsense. Therefore this must also be so, otherwise NS would not have preserved it?<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Both the thesis and its antithesis and everything in between must be true otherwise NS would not have preserved it?<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

I personally have no desire to take this irrational "leap of faith"; and, in all honesty, there are several other posters in this thread who don't care to do so either. Of course, there are a few posters in this thread who have taken this "leap of faith", but it seems that they all want to deny the "faith" component of what they believe. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Each to his own.

<O:p</O:pRegards, Roland<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p

dollfus46

06-09-2007, 08:57 AM

http://inlinethumb09.webshots.com/3912/2840037260101269079S425x425Q85.jpg
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.-Larry :clap::clap: Looks like your buddies buried you up to your neck at the beach and left you all day.:smt118

dollfus46

06-09-2007, 09:00 AM

:smt021 Dang it Zorro. For two days, no posts on this thing....and now you just had to go and drag it back to life. :smt044

Yeah, Amandah, I thought it'd been declared a battlefield monument by now. Perhaps a Gettysburg or Vicksburg level tourist attraction.

dollfus46

06-09-2007, 09:07 AM

What happened to Valkhorn?

My understanding is that he was summarliy taken out and forced to shoot himself.

Wiccan_Child

06-29-2007, 02:21 PM

Let's be honest. Those who call themselves "scientists" either confess belief in God, or they suppress the knowledge that they do have of Him and thus refuse to acknowledge Him (see Romans 1). In either case (and whether you deny Romans 1 or not), they will then do "science" according to their belief, their faith, and/or their metaphysical presuppositions; AND, the conclusions that they reach will necessarily depend on their presuppositions and will be consistent with them.
And what, pray tell, are the presuppositions held by all self-professed scientists?

BTW, the reason that atheistic evolutionists love the majority of TEs is because they (TEs), in effect, make God unnecessary or essentially removed from His creation. He is a God "bound" by natural laws (and thus He ain't very "supernatural"). Atheists don't mind this kind of God, i.e., one who actually makes no difference in whether you believe in Him or not (or in whether He actually exists or not), and one who will never bother or make demands of them, or judge them in any way whatsoever.
You act as if atheism is some sort of coherant group. How does a lack of belief in theology and spirituality inherently lead one to preferring one god over the other? Haven't they, by definition, rejected all gods?

Guru

06-29-2007, 04:10 PM

Faith is universal. Our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary. Some of us pray to Jesus, some of us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles. In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves.
Science tells me God must exist. My mind tells me I will never understand God. And my heart tells me I am not meant to ...
(taken from Dan Brown / Angels & Demons)

jessi_s

06-29-2007, 04:13 PM

Guru

06-29-2007, 04:16 PM

So far it seems to be a VERY good book, we will see ...

amanda

06-29-2007, 04:24 PM

oooohhhhh nnnooooo.....just about the time you think it is safe to go back into the evolution thread...... :laugh:

Sorry, but every time I see this thread come up...I shiver. :-D

jessi_s

06-29-2007, 04:25 PM

This is a touchy subject!!! But if it stays clean it can be interesting!!! The thing is that people can have differing views and not have to ARGUE all the time!

threekidspa

06-29-2007, 04:31 PM

So far it seems to be a VERY good book, we will see ...

I enjoyed that one more than Davinci Code. My 1.5 cents.... :)

jessi_s

06-29-2007, 04:31 PM

I enjoyed that one more than Davinci Code. My 1.5 cents.... :)

I didn't even pick up the Davinci Code... Didn't go see the movie or anything...

Guru

06-29-2007, 04:37 PM

I enjoyed that one more than Davinci Code. My 1.5 cents.... :)

* Hard to tell yet, I'm still in the beginning stages of it.
I will remember what you said though. So far it draws me...

Guru

06-29-2007, 04:46 PM

Faith and where it leads you may be the only choice you have in this life.
Science is not a choice.
Religion is not a choice.
Parents are not a choice.
Biology is not a choice.
Emotions are not a choice.
Your life is not a choice.
I find comfort in knowing that I get at least one choice. I can't have been anywhere before I existed to KNOW the truth, I can only accept and believe as it suits me.
I can argue, beat my hands on a table all day while I rant and rave in what I believe in, try to make others side with me, I can come up with the most outlandish but sometimes logical answers that allow me to arm-chair quarterback the universe and beyond but in the end ... I only have faith, that is the only thing that nourishes me, warms me in my cold, champions me among the onslaught of my fears, keeps me within the bounds of human life and my rollercoaster ride with it and all the other living creatures that I come in contact with.
I came as a child and as a child I will leave because I was not here to lay the cornerstone to anything in the beginning of this post.

threekidspa

06-29-2007, 06:26 PM

St Augustine was a smart guy. Here's what he had to say (http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/06/augustine-on-christians-spouting-bad.html#links)about Christians talking out their behinds on science. Hat tip to my very good friend David, who put this on his blog (http://helives.blogspot.com/).

This isn't a poke, jab, or accusation of anyone....its more a caution I use myself whenever I start to get into discussions on evolution, or any other science topic, and how they relate to God.

Wiccan_Child

06-30-2007, 03:57 AM

USincognito

06-30-2007, 05:14 AM

oooohhhhh nnnooooo.....just about the time you think it is safe to go back into the evolution thread...... :laugh:

Sorry, but every time I see this thread come up...I shiver. :-D

There was a bumped thread at CF so it was inevitable that some new folks would come over here to test the water.

dollfus46

06-30-2007, 10:10 AM

oooohhhhh nnnooooo.....just about the time you think it is safe to go back into the evolution thread...... :laugh:

Sorry, but every time I see this thread come up...I shiver. :-D

Amen, and Amen. Let 'um rave on in total futility. I have nothing more to add. Actually, it should have ended with my post. :smt118

aaron

06-30-2007, 10:12 AM

This is about to reach 1,000 replies. It's too bad that 900 of them are about evolution itself, and not about whether it's necessary to be taught to school children or not.

threekidspa

06-30-2007, 10:15 AM

This is about to reach 1,000 replies. It's too bad that 900 of them are about evolution itself, and not about whether it's necessary to be taught to school children or not.

I think maybe that's the point. There is too much misinformation about evolution, and bad science about creationism for any of us to agree what should be taught and what shouldn't. Never mind the ivory towers and rice bowls involved...

dollfus46

06-30-2007, 10:34 AM

I think maybe that's the point. There is too much misinformation about evolution, and bad science about creationism for any of us to agree what should be taught and what shouldn't. Never mind the ivory towers and rice bowls involved...

Oh, I don't know. We had Valkhorn or whatever his name was, to tell us how ignorant we were and give us the honest to god errorless facts on the difference in the leap of faith in evolution and the leap of faith in God. His leap of faith is based on science. Ours isn't. That's the bottom line of his argument. "What a maroon."- Bugs Bunny

amanda

06-30-2007, 12:36 PM

There was a bumped thread at CF so it was inevitable that some new folks would come over here to test the water.

Okay - Then that is easy - see pages 1 - 49 above. :-D

dollfus46

06-30-2007, 12:54 PM

Okay - Then that is easy - see pages 1 - 49 above. :-D

There's something very poignant and beautiful in the simplicity of your post Amandah. :clap::-D

Guru

06-30-2007, 01:16 PM

A nice quote, but I disagree. Perhaps me and Dan differ on what we mean by 'faith'?

* :D Read the last 50 pages here, few agree, it's all thoughts and faith. Just like _______, we all have one.

dollfus46

06-30-2007, 02:25 PM

* :D Read the last 50 pages here, few agree, it's all thoughts and faith. Just like _______, we all have one.

And some are one.:)