SkinWalker Posted February 11, 2004 Author Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Who's to say that God didn't create all creatures in a way that they can evolve and adapt to new condidions? (SkinWalker'll probably try. I'd almost bet money on it.) I would never say that god didn't create all creatures so they could evolve.... That's entirely possible. But since it relies on a metaphyiscal / supernatural explanation, I discard it (only after acknowledging its possibility) since science cannot observe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker I would never say that god didn't create all creatures so they could evolve.... That's entirely possible. But since it relies on a metaphyiscal / supernatural explanation, I discard it (only after acknowledging its possibility) since science cannot observe it. Yeah...after reading your post on the religion thread I figured as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 (a) God created everything as in the bible and then must have put all this evidence of evolution (dinosaur bones) out to fake us out Well...when it comes to fossils, I'm not really sure how it works. I think that the timeline in Genesis lost something in the translation. I do not know the original language of Genesis (I study the Bible, but not to that kind of detail), but several reference sources that I have read say that in the original language, "day" can mean, "a period of time," which, really, could be anything. If it does mean "a period of time," then it is entirely possible for dinosaurs to have come and gone before the creation of humanity. In any case, the God described in the Bible is not one who would try to deceive us - I think there's just something we're missing - after all, humanity was the very last part of creation; man was not there to see the sequence of events that occured prior to his creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 .. reference sources that I have read say that in the original language, "day" can mean, "a period of time," which, really, could be anything. firstly a "day" is also a "period of time" and secondly yes. If it does mean "a period of time," then it is entirely possible for dinosaurs to have come and gone before the creation of humanity. dinosaurs have come and gone, while humans were created? either you really wanted to put a difference here or, maybe, you were speaking of creation and some kind of discreation or destruction if not to say "deletion" of the dinosaurs. and if, does it really make sense that god created lifeforms and took them away later? or is it that you say they were created by god (this would be the only "logical" explanation, because why should humans and animals be created but dinos not?) and did not survive because of "deficiencies"? then, except for the "creational point", there seems to be some parallelism to evolution theory in what you have said, if you get my meaning. In any case, the God described in the Bible is not one who would try to deceive us - I think there's just something we're missing - after all, humanity was the very last part of creation; if we were one of the last parts of creation, when and of course WHY would god have stopped creation? also IF he stopped why did the humans (and not only the humans) change so much since then? or didnt he stop creation? then.. what is it that he creates or has created in the "past few" years? man was not there to see the sequence of events that occured prior to his creation. but, however, mankind is now there to see the remains of those events. also he sees evidence which at least support the idea the mankind was not created and "set in" from one moment to the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taoistimmortal Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Evolution as the image and method of understanding how and why every form of life exists on this earth is in my mind a much more beautiful thought than what hard lined religious fundementalists believe (I'm talking about those people that really think the world is only 6,800 years old or so) I mean to imagine that the earth has existed for 2-3 billion years is much more compelling than believing that God, in the white heat of creation, gave birth to everything in 6 days. You see the biggest reason I am not a christian is the incompatability between the historical teachings of the church and the abundance of scientific discovery that has happened in the last 400-500 years that has completely debunked early christian beliefs. If they were so wrong about so many things why should they be right about the one thing that is both the base and foundation of the religon, but is the one of the things that science cant disprove. And also there is a power which stems from concepts of individuallity that is completely forbidden by christianity because of the idea of sin. This form of judgement makes everyone equal in the eyes of God, to a certain extent, at least at the beginning. But why should humanity be made to suffer for there inadequecy before God. It is better to throw of the yoke and live free of those shackles Just as an after thought: I have a friend that used to teach at an orthodox jewish school and she was not allowed to even mention the theory of evolution to her students, and instead was forced by the curriculum to teach the creationism existent in jewish literature. But of course that is a private school not subject to the laws that public schools are subject to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 dinosaurs have come and gone, while humans were created? either you really wanted to put a difference here or, maybe, you were speaking of creation and some kind of discreation or destruction if not to say "deletion" of the dinosaurs. and if, does it really make sense that god created lifeforms and took them away later? According to Genesis, God first created fish and birds, then "every kind of animal - cattle and reptiles and wildlife of every kind" (Gen. 1:24), and then made man. According to what I have read about this, we simply do not know how much time may have transpired between each phase of creation. God could have created dinosaurs as part of the "every kind of animal," and then realized that man wouldn't last too long with them around. I'm not saying that this is how it happened - I'm not even pretending to have all of the answers. But I believe that this is a possibility. I mean to imagine that the earth has existed for 2-3 billion years is much more compelling than believing that God, in the white heat of creation, gave birth to everything in 6 days. I agree - the evidence is simply too overwhelming. The problem with Christians being anti-evolution stems directly from problems with translating the Bible. I know - I had the same problem until I looked it up. The Bible says that the Earth was created in six days. Many Christians take this to mean six rotations of the Earth, because this is how we define "day." In the original language, though, what was translated as "day" could also mean "a period of time," which could be 1 day or 1 million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 and then [God] realized that man wouldn't last too long with [dinosaurs] around. Isn't God suppost to be all-knowing? And wouldn't most 10-year olds be able to work out that 6-foot tall human vs. 40-foot tall dinasour = dead human?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk And wouldn't most 10-year olds be able to work out that 6-foot tall human vs. 40-foot tall dinasour = dead human?! Or anyone who has seen a Godzilla movie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 RayJones: earlier you said teach both: exactly right. That's my idea anyway. Teach them both equally, and if one is proven to be wrong, so be it. But give something besides Darwinism a chance. Seriously. Skin, you say that it doesn't seem to matter whether it's horizontal or vertical evolution; I beg to differ. It is not fact, however much people like to say so, that the one proves the other. Horizontal evolution is all bounded within the existing traits and possibilities of a species. Vertical evolution is transcending that, and we can see plenty of evidence against that: for example, the fact that no matter what we do, even with advances in genetic technology, we can't get any more sugar out the sugar beet now than we could fifty years ago. Things hit boundaries that they do not go past. The real point of the debate is getting lost, though. Here's my thoughts on the crux of the question, Skin. If evolution is so foolproof and is in fact, the correct theory of the development of complex organisms, then why should it feel threatened by the inclusion of Intelligent Design? The answer is, it's way too defensive. And there's no reason for it. If the theory is as good as everyone always says, and it can stand against any argument against it, what is it going to hurt to say that there is an alternative theory? Is it going to destroy the minds of young scientists by indoctinating them into a horrid disbelief of the tenets of evolutionary theory? I don't think so. It kind of makes you wonder why naturalist evolutionist scientists are so adamant, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Master_Keralys The real point of the debate is getting lost, though. Here's my thoughts on the crux of the question, Skin. If evolution is so foolproof and is in fact, the correct theory of the development of complex organisms, then why should it feel threatened by the inclusion of Intelligent Design? I don't see how a theory can feel threatened. A scientific theory either is supported by observations or it is not. If not, then the theory has to be modified or thrown out and replaced by another one that is supported by the observations. Evolution does not "feel threatened" by creationism because that does not rely on observations, but on faith instead. Since creationism has no arguments based on observations, it does not affect the theory of evolution, just as evolution does not affect the idea that there is a supreme being, because it has no observations to do so. Originally posted by Master_Keralys The answer is, it's way too defensive. And there's no reason for it. If the theory is as good as everyone always says, and it can stand against any argument against it, what is it going to hurt to say that there is an alternative theory? Is it going to destroy the minds of young scientists by indoctinating them into a horrid disbelief of the tenets of evolutionary theory? I don't think so. It kind of makes you wonder why naturalist evolutionist scientists are so adamant, though... But if in fact the evolution theory could stand against any argument, then that is even more reason not teach any other theories, because evolution would have been proven to be correct. At this point the theory becomes fact, and then there is no room for other theories, since they won't be fact. But by the same token, why should creationism feel threatened by the teaching of evolution? Should we then enforce the teaching of evolution in the church? If not, why not? I personally don't have a problem with creationism being taught in schools. What I have a problem with is it being taught in a science class. Creationism is not science because it is not reached by the Scientific Method. It is reach by religeous means (for lack of a better term). The problem is that there is no common reference point. Science relies solely on observations as the basis of its argument. Creationism relies on religeous principles and teachings (the Bible). Frankly, the only way an individual can decide for themselves what they choose to believe is to look at the methods by which each has reached their conclusions. But this may be beside the point. If creationism is taught in schools as a possibility for why things are, then really they should teach each and every explanation from all the other religions as well. Why should only the Christian view be taught? Has its view of creation been shown to be more correct than all the other religions' views? If not, then should it really be the only one that is a part of the ciriculum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PerfectAgent_ Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 The Bible says that the Earth was created in six days. Many Christians take this to mean six rotations of the Earth, because this is how we define "day." In the original language, though, what was translated as "day" could also mean "a period of time," which could be 1 day or 1 million years. Well, in the original Hebrew translation, the word that was used was yom. Yom means day, but it does not refer to the word day but instead to a specific frame of time, the twenty-four hour period (or one rotation of the earth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Skin, you say that it doesn't seem to matter whether it's horizontal or vertical evolution; I beg to differ. It is not fact, however much people like to say so, I'm beginning to think that you haven't read what I wrote I don't recall anyone stating that "evolutionary theory is a fact." In fact, I've stressed that it is a theory that is supported by testable and tested hypotheses. It's not a "fact," just the most probable explanation given the evidence. Originally posted by Master_Keralys that the one proves the other. Horizontal evolution is all bounded within the existing traits and possibilities of a species. Vertical evolution is transcending that, Evolution is evolution. It seems likely to me that the delineation of "vertical" and "horizontal" are largely pseudoscientific misnomers whose purpose is to muddy the waters of evolutionary theory. Most people have a difficult time grasping the concepts of time in large enough amounts to take the forces of evolution into account. There are four evolutionary forces: 1. mutation - which includes various types of mutations in DNA that involve inversion, insertion, deletion or substitution of single or sets of alleles in a chromosome. 2. Genetic drift - in which phenotypes are simply bred out of a population that has little or no contact with other populations of the same species. 3. Gene Flow - in which new alleles are introduced to a population from other populations (such as European blue eyes to Mesoamericans in the 15th century); and 4. Natural Selection - in which phenotypes of individuals within a species are favored and passed on where as other phenotypes are eliminated because of starvation or predation. By simply implying that "vertical evolution" has no evidence you either demonstrate the fact that you didn't take a basic class in biology or that you failed to pay attention. Evidence abounds for evolution on the scale that is very suggestive that all life began from a central source on our planet. Attempting to differentiate or delineate evolution into "horizontal" and "vertical" (or micro- and macro-) only demonstrates a lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject. For someone that is attempting to advocate an "alternative," I would expect a more serious education in the field. I say this, because even the most rudimentary classes that include evolutionary theory point out that the driving forces of evolution are most likely the result of gradual biological changes over great periods of time that involved populations rather than individuals. The available evidence supports this. Originally posted by Master_Keralys The real point of the debate is getting lost, though. Here's my thoughts on the crux of the question, Skin. If evolution is so foolproof and is in fact, the correct theory of the development of complex organisms, then why should it feel threatened by the inclusion of Intelligent Design? First, I think that this discussion is right on target for the point of this debate, since this is exactly the problem that is being exemplified within the various state's school districts and administrators. Second, I don't think proponents of evolution feel threatened enough. The inclusion of a pseudoscientific concept of "intelligent design" would undermine the very core of our educational fabric. Education of young people in the sciences must be limited to that which can be supported by evidence or which can have the possibility of being falsified. To suggest metaphysical / supernatural causation is an affront, first, to the efforts of science, which relies on direct observation and logical positivism and, second, to the many religions and cultures that have their own worldviews of creation. Christianity is, by far, not the only religion that matters, nor is the genesis mythology the only story of creation that is possible. Moreover, intelligent design, is merely a cover for creationist apologetics who are attempting to subvert the educational system to meet their own fundamentalist worldviews. Originally posted by Master_Keralys If the theory is as good as everyone always says, and it can stand against any argument against it, what is it going to hurt to say that there is an alternative theory? If an alternate theory is postulated that holds water, teach them both. The problem is, "intelligent design" is not a theory but rather a hypothesis. To graduate past hypothesis, it must be tested. What tests does the "intelligent design" hypothesis pass? The General Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, readily passes tests. If you took any offense to my post, please accept my apologies. I'm rather passionate about this topic and will likely always be vocal on it. I believe that there is a pattern of "ignorance" and "dumbing-down" that is occuring in our society and that the whole "evolution/creation" debate is a symptom of it. Technologically and scientifically, our nation is falling behind many of the other countries in the world. It it isn't, we are certainly demonstrating a lag in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Skin- I was all set to agree with you, then I did some research. I came up with this website. This part in particular answers the question of dinosaurs (at least for me, I don't know what it'll do for you, Skin). I found this to be a much better resource than I ever will be when it comes to the creationism/evolutionism debate - it's very thorough & provides references for its evidence. Check it out & let me know what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 heh... How about this: give me one "fact" on that site that you believe answers your questions and I'll comment on it. There was far more on that site that I'd like to get into, but I didn't see much that made any sense. Personally, I think you're pulling my leg on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Personally, I think you're pulling my leg on this one Yeah...that was about the response I expected from you on this one. However, I think that it may be informative for someone who is honestly questioning the validity of creation theory and Genesis, rather than someone who rejects it outright because "there just isn't enough evidence." but I didn't see much that made any sense. That's because it used the Bible as a source...something I wouldn't expect you to really understand, having rejected the Bible as false already. give me one "fact" on that site that you believe answers your questions and I'll comment on it. I never said it was fact - it's a theory that happens to be ground in Biblical Truth (which, I know, you don't consider to be true). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Biblical Truth Beware the oxymoron police!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Beware the oxymoron police!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I saw that one comin a mile away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 However, I think that it may be informative for someone who is honestly questioning the validity of creation theory and Genesis, rather than someone who rejects it outright because "there just isn't enough evidence." Actually, I reject the biblical mythology of creation because it isn't testable. Not being testable means no evidence. Originally posted by rccar328 I never said it was fact - it's a theory True, you didn't say "fact," but neither is it a "theory," since a "theory" is the result of one or more tested hypotheses. But since you didn't pick a fact point of discussion, I'll choose one (which I did nearly at random, believe it or not). If you go down to the section "What do the bones say?, you'll see these quotes: There is also physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated. This is an obvious ruse on the part of the site's owners, since Schweitzer stated that she and her team found "evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures which might represent altered blood remnants." Moreover, she stated just a few lines down from the quote of her that the site uses, "Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn't possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur. Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes." In addition, Schweitzer points out that the bones of the T. rex were very well preserved but fossilized. They didn't, however, have any diagenetic effects (cracking, splitting) or permineralization (filling of the bone with minerals. The ancient age of the bones was estimated using amino racemization in addition to radiometric dating techniques. The two techniques supported one another. Finally, why should we think that some remnants of heme (the conclusions of the papers are that actual, preserved hemoglobin isn't present, but possibly mere remnants are) couldn't survive the millions of years in the ground? Certainly, that's at least as plausible as a young Earth. So, as you can see (and if you still can't, go to the sources below), the creationist website quite readily offered new context to Schweitzer's data. Like you said in another thread.... go to the source. Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997. The Real Jurassic Park. Earth, June, pp. 55-57. Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey, 1997a. Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 6291-6296. Schweitzer, M.H., Johnson, C., Zocco, T.G., Horner, J.H., Starkey, J.R., 1997b. Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(2): 349-359. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Master_Keralys RayJones: earlier you said teach both: exactly right. That's my idea anyway. Teach them both equally, and if one is proven to be wrong, so be it. But give something besides Darwinism a chance. Seriously. i can't remember that i've said i don't give something besides darwinism a chance. the opposite is the fact, i do not deny possibility, until proven otherwise. and/ or vice versa. another point of me is that they try to replace evolution theory by intelligent design, and this is, in my opinion, inacceptable behaviour and typical for the religious institution church. i find it sad that such an attempt is even possible. it's just sad and doesn't fit into the year 2000+ at all. so, i'd give any theory a chance, as long as a) it's based on a logical context b) it's testable c) if, then it only refers to other theories from the type a), b) and c) also a theory is not just one point which is wrong or right or not proven, whatever.. "bigger" theories, as for instance evolution theory, commonly are a construct of several points/ (sub-)theories which seperatly can be proven wrong or right. if only one point is proven wrong, this means the theory as a whole can't be right, but this does not mean that other, perhabs already "right-proven" points/ subtheories will turn wrong. there is just something in the concept of that certain theory that has to be reconsidered. what i am trying to say is that many points/ subtheories of evolution theory can be proven or testified and this with referrance to other (testable, logical based) theories. so the possibility that a theory as whole is right is growing with every right-proven point or subtheory. also theories/ things must "fit together as a whole" so that they create an even bigger and more complex "view on things" or theory. for me, that is one important aspect, too. rccar328: biblical truth is interpretation of vague expressions in a very very old book that hasnt changed any information for a long time.. sure, with some effort and cleverness one can find any kind of "truth" in it, but must that mean this truth is fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 you can't teach religion as a scientific theory, as you have said, by it's very definition it is a matter of faith and belief. You can't teach faith and belief, it has to be something that the individual finds on their own. You can teach FACTS ABOUT religions, such as explaining what different religions believe, but you can't tell someone to believe it. Teaching facts about numerous religions is a good idea as it opens peoples minds and promotes tollerance, but if they then want to know more about the religion then it should be up to the religion, not the school, to teach them. If you are going to teach the bible's version of creation as a valid "theory" then you need to teach everybody's version of creation as an equally valid theory because there is no more proof to support the bible's version than, for example, Tolkiens version about Arda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Quotes from the site which rccar328 linked to above... Because of difficulties in reconstructing the past, those who study fossils (paleontologists) have diverse views of dinosaurs.9–12 As has been said: ‘Paleontology [the study of fossils] is much like politics: passions run high, and its easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.’ These kinds of disagreements exist - to a greater or lesser extent - in not only every single field of scientific knowledge, but also within religious thinking. ...you could equally argue that because various Christian religions disagree about the exact meaning of particular Biblical verses, this indicates that Christianity is having 'difficulties reconstructing the correct meaning of the Bible'. (At least when scientists have disagreements, they just have a few heated discussions, maybe even shout a bit. ...when religious people have disagreements, they tend to start wars and kill each-other) And this guy is clearly implying a greater disagreement than is warranted. For example, I'm positive you'll find very few scientists with any kind of credibility who will claim that dinasours existed 6000 years ago!! ...I'm sorry, but that idea is simply ludicrous... Ultimately there are only two ways of thinking: starting with the revelation from God (the Bible) as foundational to all thinking (biology, history, geology, etc.), resulting in a Christian worldview; or, starting with man’s beliefs (for example, the evolutionary story) as foundational to all thinking, resulting in a secular worldview. Most Christians have been indoctrinated through the media and education system to think in a secular way. They tend to take secular thinking to the Bible, instead of using the Bible to build their thinking (Rom. 12:1–2, Eph. 4:20–24). The first part of this quote. while nievely narrow-minded, is actually bearable, but the second part is not. ...here's how the last part should look if written without bias... Most Christians have been indoctrinated through the media and education system to think in a secular way. They tend to take secular thinking to the Bible, instead of using the Bible to build their thinking (Rom. 12:1–2, Eph. 4:20–24). It is also true that a lot of Christian 'scientists' have been indoctrinated through the Bible and it's teachings. They tend to take Biblical teachings to secular and scientific knowledge, instead of using secular and scientific knowledge to build their thinking. ..more to come when I can be bothered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Here's the problem, Skin: you're failing to acknowledge that ID is a valid theory. It's predictions include that certain traits, if organisms have been designed, as opposed to created by chance should appear both to have been designed and to be irreducibly complex at certain points. A perfect example of irreducible complexity is the eye. We've had this argument before, and the evolutionists always throw out answers like, well it came from an eyespot, and so forth and so on, from even little protists that have stuff like that. Guess what. That argument really isn't valid, because (a) there are degrees of complexity in an eye that would have to develop all at once to be useful and (b) speaking from a molecular standpoint, even the "eyespots" in protists are so complext that without any single part, they do not function. From a molecular biology standpoint, there are multiple chains of different proteins necessary to the functioning of even a very simple eyespot; the chemical interactions are necessarily complex - even more so than the chemical reactions necessary for, say, aerobic respiration. I'm not as good at explaining this as some; part of the disadvantage we have here is that the ID-ists on this forum are all relative amateurs in science, even those of us (like me) who are getting an education in it. In contrast, we have guys like Skin who are actually scientists and argue it with us. bleah. But for anyone who's actually interested in a good critical look at Darwinist evolutionary theory, I again recommend Philip Johnson, the foremost critic of the modern evolutionary theory. The best place to start is Darwin on Trial. He's not so much trying to prove ID as to show why many scientists are dissatisfied with the Darwinist theories dominating the scientific world. And thus, where the concepts behind ID have come from. The largest problem is that people - both on this forum, and in places like Georgia - can't seem to get it through their heads that it is entirely possible to separate ID from a religious context. It is simply a verifiable, testable theory. Oh - and Skin, you'r right, as a theory it can't "feel" anything, even threatened. However, just as I as a Christian who does not believe in the Darwinist evolutionary theory do not feel threatened by it (we should never be threatened by science) neither should the proponents of evolutionary theory be threatened by the inclusion of a theory that does not conveniently coincide with their own worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 It's predictions include that certain traits, if organisms have been designed, as opposed to created by chance should appear both to have been designed and to be irreducibly complex at certain points. It only seems complex because our minds cant handle the chances involved. The organisms on Earth apear magnificiant because we dont know anything else. A perfect example of irreducible complexity is the eye. We've had this argument before, and the evolutionists always throw out answers like, well it came from an eyespot, and so forth and so on, from even little protists that have stuff like that. Guess what. That argument really isn't valid, because (a) there are degrees of complexity in an eye that would have to develop all at once to be useful and (b) speaking from a molecular standpoint, even the "eyespots" in protists are so complext that without any single part, they do not function. If we are really made from intellegent design, then why does the eye have inate flaws? If you notice, our eyes tend to start change for the worst, causing gel in the eye to go out of place. As well, when we grow older we become even more blind, or even at birth we may be color blind, surely an intellegent creator would see those flaws, right? Evolution allows for flaws like this. From a molecular biology standpoint, there are multiple chains of different proteins necessary to the functioning of even a very simple eyespot; the chemical interactions are necessarily complex - even more so than the chemical reactions necessary for, say, aerobic respiration. The eye itself can start out as simple light processors, making the creature able to see obstacles and other moving creatures. Then it develops more, so it can see more detail. Then it goes into color, and slowly it evolves into the human eye which is still flawed. Theorectically, I'm not as good at explaining this as some; part of the disadvantage we have here is that the ID-ists on this forum are all relative amateurs in science, even those of us (like me) who are getting an education in it. In contrast, we have guys like Skin who are actually scientists and argue it with us. bleah. But for anyone who's actually interested in a good critical look at Darwinist evolutionary theory, I again recommend Philip Johnson, the foremost critic of the modern evolutionary theory. The best place to start is Darwin on Trial. He's not so much trying to prove ID as to show why many scientists are dissatisfied with the Darwinist theories dominating the scientific world. And thus, where the concepts behind ID have come from. Hmm, seems like an interesting book. I'll check if it's at the library sometime. The largest problem is that people - both on this forum, and in places like Georgia - can't seem to get it through their heads that it is entirely possible to separate ID from a religious context. It is simply a verifiable, testable theory. Oh - and Skin, you'r right, as a theory it can't "feel" anything, even threatened. However, just as I as a Christian who does not believe in the Darwinist evolutionary theory do not feel threatened by it (we should never be threatened by science) neither should the proponents of evolutionary theory be threatened by the inclusion of a theory that does not conveniently coincide with their own worldview. Verifiable testible theory? How the heck do you verify that there's a creator? The closest thing ID can be is an axiom, even then we still cant say it's true. You simply cant say "Obviously, the universe was too complicated to be created on itself. Thusly, it was created by a God". There's absolutely no proof right now you have to say that was what happend, meanwhile with evolution we do have proof of it in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 It is also true that a lot of Christian 'scientists' have been indoctrinated through the Bible and it's teachings. They tend to take Biblical teachings to secular and scientific knowledge, instead of using secular and scientific knowledge to build their thinking. Yes...because their beliefs are built on their faith. Frankly, this debate has become quite pointless - How can I possible debate faith (which can't be proven) with people who refuse to understand a belief in something that cannot be proven with physical evidence. Futile. I'm forced to resign myself to the fact that you don't understand, and nothing I could say will make you understand. I've tried to go with evolution theory, but no matter how hard I try, I cannot give up my belief in a Creator. Evolution is certainly a viable theory, but it's false. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 imagine your "creator" has not directly created humans.. or plants.. the universe or whatever. imagine he just has created the "basics" like physical, mathematic or logical laws and dependencies which make the universe and anything else possible. THAT would something to "beliefe" in. and it would fit more into "reality" then "normal" religious views.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.