Evolution

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375669
I didn't intend for the thread to go in this direction, but I'm fine with it. You can believe in both God and evolution. Some scientists do. What if we are made in God's image but not immediately. What if all life started from one cleverly engineered cell and a planet for it to flourish. Being omniscient, God would have realized exactly how each of us would look after a few billion years of evolution. I don't believe this, this is just an example of how one can believe in God and evolution. I'm not sure that idea could be considered divine creation. Then there's abiogenesis. I can't remember the person who played with this, but in any case he found abiogenesis to be possible, but incredibly unlikely. He came up with some figure to gauge the likelihood. I see his work as being only slightly better than a complete guess. It may or may not be credible. Scientists haven't had any luck, but then again no scientist has lived for ten billion years. I personally hope that we can synthetically create life one day. How awesome would that be? Maybe abiogenesis is impossible. Maybe abiogenesis is not only possible but inevitable. If there are an infinite number of universes, then not only would abiogenesis exist in this universe, but in an infinite number of universes. Things get crazy from there.
I watched a video once (I doubt I can find it again). There were a couple of philosophers (I think anyway) that were talking about how if there are an infinite number of universes all of which were different, then only one universe could exist that contains nothing. If we were to take a pin which is infinitely thin and throw it at this field of universes, the odds of hitting a universe with matter is infinitely likely. I wouldn't post the video anyway, it probably wouldn't be worth anyone's time to watch as it is very lengthy.
Both science and religion have the same problem though. Where did matter come from? Okay, so God right? Where did God come from? Some people say that God created himself. I'm not sure if Quill was implying that he was one of those people. I'm also not sure that it matters.
Why do I feel as though I've opened a can of worms on this thread? I like talking about this, but I've learned that this really isn't something to get too worked up about. It doesn't get us anywhere.
I've seen a similar program on television, well a few of them that touch upon the multi universe theory. And they were interesting.
As far as god creating himself I wasn't implying anything, I was just posing a hypothetical question.
I chose to respect the fact that people are free to explore their own paths and beliefs. I think it's better that way. It's our lives so what we believe for ourselves is all that really matters. But that doesn't mean that we should be allowed to talk about it. If we could all just put our emotions asside and not get all worked up when others don't believe the same thing that we do then perhaps we just may find that we are all essentialy talking about the same thing. Just in our own and different sort of way.

 

[mantisman51]

As far as believing in God, while God can be seen in creation, logic cannot explain Him or allow us to believe. It is a matter of faith. If you don't have it, it doesn't mean you are evil or less important. It means you don't believe and that is all. But having faith in infinite accidents explaining all that is, that I find peculiar.

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375701
As far as believing in God, while God can be seen in creation, logic cannot explain Him or allow us to believe. It is a matter of faith. If you don't have it, it doesn't mean you are evil or less important. It means you don't believe and that is all. But having faith in infinite accidents explaining all that is, that I find peculiar.
I feel as though I cannot believe in God and that I have no faith. It really isn't a matter of needing to be right. If I had any sort of faith, I would feel differently about it. If I am wrong and go to hell for that, then God wouldn't be omnibenevolent.
You can't say that life forming is improbable. Humans suck at probability especially when we don't have all the data. Throw out a guess, if you were in a room with 24 people how likely do you think it would be that two of those people had the same birthday?

 

[reefraff]

When did time begin? Who created God? Where does space end? What is after space? If you believe in the Big Bang Theory do you think Sheldon will ever sleep with his girlfriend? (sorry, I love that show)

 

[mantisman51]

Well, the Bible never says He's omnibenevolent. Just that He wants the best for us. He won't force us to believe, but if belief in God does nothing else, it gives me the ability to sleep easy, knowing that someone bigger than me is out there and concerned with someone as unimportant and rediculous as myself. I don't think He's the great Santa in the sky, but it brings me comfort to know that He is.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375702
I feel as though I cannot believe in God and that I have no faith. It really isn't a matter of needing to be right. If I had any sort of faith, I would feel differently about it. If I am wrong and go to hell for that, then God wouldn't be omnibenevolent.
Get ready for a hilarious post coming up...I love that show.
Oh, but you do have faith. You seem to have faith in science and its ability to explain all of the answeres of the universe to you. Perhaps science is your god and you just haven't realized it yet.

 

[pezenfuego]

Omnibenevolence is something I don't understand. It stands to reason that if God is perfect and wants the best for us, he could accomplish that. Then again, is a utopia really what is best for us?
I didn't intend for this debate to go this deep into religion, but so long as it stays mellow like this, I'm more than fine with it.

 

[mantisman51]

It's all good.

 

[darthtang aw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375698
The erosion caused by time may never allow science to fit the pieces together like an unedited movie, but there seems enough irrefutable science that the theory really is science. As human beings become more science-minded, demanding rationality to believe, then that 40 percent will become less and less.
Someone here early on in this discussion pointed out that the belief in a creator does not have to be at odds with science. I believe that. Its really the interpretations of the religious doctrines that seem always at odds with science. Religious dogma will have to change, though, eventually, or it will die-out.
Just think, 500 years ago, I would have been burned alive for saying this, as would all of us. Everything evolves--even our thinking.
You and I think the same...but for different reasons...lol

 

[mantisman51]

Um, Beth, you are equating all of Christianity with the dogma of the Catholic church. Most of which is not in the Bible. So the Christian faith has not changed, the Bible still says and means what it has since it was written. The stupidic doctrines of popes has been changed.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375804
Um, Beth, you are equating all of Christianity with the dogma of the Catholic church. Most of which is not in the Bible. So the Christian faith has not changed, the Bible still says and means what it has since it was written. The stupidic doctrines of popes has been changed.

Sorry to disagree but 100% every Christian religion since the year 325 AD is a spin off from the Catholic Church. In fact they are protestors of the Catholic Church, hence the term protestant. Modern day Christianity is NOT in the Bible...original Christianity was a sect of Judaism that believed the promised Messiah had come.

Modern Christianity is a hodgepodge of different pagan religions, including some and not much of the original Judaism. Most of the religion Christians follow is Mithraism. Go ahead look up the word Mithras and see your religion unfold with different names.

 

[mantisman51]

Correction: again, Catholic mysticism, not Apostolic Christianity. While the Catholic church dominated and persecuted those who did not follow their teachings, there has always been a non-Catholic church. Which is why the Catholics had their "inquisitions" from time to time. The pagan observances are a distinctly Catholic tradition. Which is why I (and many before me) do not follow the pagan traditions such as Christmas and Easter(the pagan holiday "Ishtar"). I don't want to start an argument, but the "Protestant movement" was a public uprising that was a continuation of the non-public (for survival) anti-Catholic, Apostolic church. Of course the Catholic church, proclaiming to be God's church and all others heretics, have tried to erase all other sects. The Ethiopian church is one such example, as is the Syrian Christian church, who hid in cave cities.

 

[mantisman51]

A great source for the history of the non-Catholic Christian history is Simcha Jacobovich(Jacobovici). He is NOT a Christian, but as an honest archeologist has found dozens of non-Catholic Christian sects all over the Middle East.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375810
A great source for the history of the non-Catholic Christian history is Simcha Jacobovich(Jacobovici). He is NOT a Christian, but as an honest archeologist has found dozens of non-Catholic Christian sects all over the Middle East.

So who said there was never any Christian religion except the Catholic Church? The Dogma of modern day Christianity is not the same dogma that was followed in the beginning. The Christian church was corrupted by Emperor Constantine, some say he honestly thought his sun god and Jesus were one and the same, some say he just wanted to keep the peace, and incorporated the religions, some say it was purely a political move to gain control not keep the peace.

It really doesn’t matter what his reasons were, the Christian belief system changed and I really don’t want to argue on all the points from which truth has strayed.

Do you believe Sunday is the Sabbath of rest? In the beginning Friday night to Saturday night was and still is the 7[sup]th[/sup] day of rest declared by God as Holy. Do you hold Passover or Easter? That’s a big no brainer for what was originally held as a Holy day, the easter bunny is a big clue. Do you believe Jesus is God himself or his equal? That was decided at the council of Niacin, an idea that never crossed the first believer’s thoughts. I have to tell you, that concept is not in the Bible either. The answer to those questions will tell you if your religion is also a spinoff of the Catholic church.


So the archeologist is correct, Christianity did indeed exist a full 325 years before the Catholic church. Now if you want to discuss religion more...PM me and I will gladly give you my private e-mail so we can go in circles with this. LOL...There are enough Christian web sites that go round and round on what they believe, I'm sure we can keep this going for years, all of us who feel passionately about God/religion can.

 

[mantisman51]

What is a historic fact is that there has always been a non-Catholic Christian church, not just before Constantine. You might read up on the New Testament, most of what you wrote was done away with by Jesus and the Apostles, long before the Catholic church. But, I agree with most of what you wrote though. I think that you have succomed to Catholic history revision.

 

[beth]

Christianity has been evolving since its inception.
Oh, and plenty of non-Catholics killed for their way of thinking as well. Lets not demonize the Catholics or any other belief system.
The discussion is evolution and how that differs from some religious beliefs.

 

[geridoc]

Please don't accuse science of ignoring things that you feel you have observed. The argument that you raise is called "irreducible complexity", and has been argued forcefully by Michael Behe for many years. Unfortunately, every example of irreducible complexity that he has cited (the flagella of bacteria, the blood clotting cascade of human beings, for example) have turned out to be reducible. Evolution seems to prefer to work with existing genes, rather than relying on mutation to produce new genes from scratch. This has actually be observed to happen in laboratory experiments in which the common bacterium, E. coli, when grown over many years in a glucose deficient medium, repurposes other genes to play the role of metabolizing other substrates for survival and reproduction.
You are correct when you say that "Natural selection does not produce new genes." Natural selection simply selects for new expressions of genes that are more beneficial to the organism. New genes arise all the time - many are detrimental, occasionally one is beneficial, but modern evolutionary theory is focusing more and more on how evolution repurposes existing genes, and then natural selection goes to work to pick the winners.
The lava story you are choosing to believe is a common misstatement first committed by Morris in 1974, based on an even earlier report. What Morris "forgot" to mention was that the dates were based on argon content in xenoliths, which are inclusions in lava, and which contain large amounts of argon. The lava itself was not dated, because it did not contain sufficient argon to conduct the dating, consistent with an age on the order of hundreds of years, which is the true age of the flow. Don't rely on what you hear from others, get the facts!
Your population projections are also from a report by Morris, in 1985 (he didn't get any better since the argon fiasco, by the way). Morris assumes a population growth rate of 0.5%, which is inaccurate. Using that assumption, and assuming that the Great Pyramid at Giza was built 100 years after the putative date of the flood (it was actually built before the flood, but for calculation's sake...), then the human population at a growth rate of 0.5% would have been 13 people. The Exodus of Moses, which is believed to have included 600,000 people, the total population of the world would have been 726 using Morris' calculation method.
And finally, heres one we agree on, that evolution has no explanation for the creation of matter - where it came from. It also doesn't explain television, or why the Mets beat Philadelphia in their first game this year. Evolution only speaks about the changes that occur in living organisms after life appears. It does not address how life arose, nor the origins of the universe. Just life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/100#post_3375630
Pez, here is why I do not totally buy into the evolutionary theory. Just observations on my part that science seems to ignore.
No creature that has a heart, lungs, or brain can live if one of these are removed or lowt. Evolution calls for a baby step approach in our evolvement......thus meaning...say we came from fish (born to a creature in water with lungs instead of gills we would die as we would be inwater. Slight genetic mutation and ev olution can not explain how the body became so complex as to need every organ or death results.
>The complexity of the mammal body alone implies a creator over evolutionary process for this reason.
Natural selection does not produce new genes.
Gene mutations are usually fatal. Of the mutations observed scientifiacally...none have produced new organs. Those in modern times such as down syndrome, dwarfism, albino, are not advances neither.
Pottasium argon dating has dated volcanos as millions of years old..but carbon dating places them attwo hundred years old.
If you track the average world population growth and then work backwards...it would take about 4000 years to get where we are today.
Evolution has no explanation for the creation of matter......where it came from.
Here is the cause for the 40% figure you were asking about........wow...I didn't even bring up cosmic dust.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375814
What is a historic fact is that there has always been a non-Catholic Christian church, not just before Constantine. You might read up on the New Testament, most of what you wrote was done away with by Jesus and the Apostles, long before the Catholic church. But, I agree with most of what you wrote though. I think that you have succomed to Catholic history revision.

PM me for a real discussion... Modern Christianity has turned a good Jewish God sent messenger into the antichrist. maybe you should read up on who changes the dates and times and teaches to go against the covenant (the law)...it is not a messiah sent from God.

 

[darthtang aw]

Please don't accuse science of ignoring things that you feel you have observed.  The argument that you raise is called "irreducible complexity", and has been argued forcefully by Michael Behe for many years.  Unfortunately, every example of irreducible complexity that he has cited (the flagella of bacteria, the blood clotting cascade of human beings, for example) have turned out to be reducible.  Evolution seems to prefer to work with existing genes, rather than relying on mutation to produce new genes from scratch.  This has actually be observed to happen in laboratory experiments in which the common bacterium, E. coli, when grown over many years in a glucose deficient medium, repurposes other genes to  play the role of metabolizing other substrates for survival and reproduction.
 
You are correct when you say that "Natural selection does not produce new genes."  Natural selection simply selects for new expressions of genes that are more beneficial to the organism.  New genes arise all the time - many are detrimental, occasionally one is beneficial, but modern evolutionary theory is focusing more and more on how evolution repurposes  existing genes, and then natural selection goes to work to pick the winners.
 
The lava story you are choosing to believe is a common misstatement first committed by Morris in 1974, based on an even earlier report.  What Morris "forgot" to mention was that the dates were based on argon content in xenoliths, which are inclusions in lava, and which contain large amounts of argon.  The lava itself was not dated, because it did not contain sufficient argon to conduct the dating, consistent with an age on the order of hundreds of years, which is the true age of the flow.  Don't rely on what you hear from others, get the facts!
 
Your population projections are also from a report by Morris, in 1985 (he didn't get any better since the argon fiasco, by the way).  Morris assumes a population growth rate of 0.5%, which is inaccurate.  Using that assumption, and assuming that the Great Pyramid at Giza was built 100 years after the putative date of the flood (it was actually built before the flood, but for calculation's sake...), then the human population at a growth rate of 0.5% would have been 13 people.  The Exodus of Moses, which is believed to have included 600,000 people, the total population of the world would have been 726 using Morris' calculation method.
 
And finally, heres one we agree on, that evolution has no explanation for the creation of matter - where it came from.  It also doesn't explain television, or why the Mets beat Philadelphia in their first game this year.  Evolution only speaks about the changes that occur in living organisms after life appears.  It does not address how life arose, nor the origins of the universe.  Just life.
 
 
Hey, I believe a lot of science...just some science is inaccurate..man is not infallable..so mans observations onto science would follow the sam path.
The volcanos are just one example...how long did those numbers stand for before corrected....another example of dating that science itself called in correct and changed the dating period due to other fossils............
KNM-ER 1470

 

[pezenfuego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375846
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375840
Please don't accuse science of ignoring things that you feel you have observed. The argument that you raise is called "irreducible complexity", and has been argued forcefully by Michael Behe for many years. Unfortunately, every example of irreducible complexity that he has cited (the flagella of bacteria, the blood clotting cascade of human beings, for example) have turned out to be reducible. Evolution seems to prefer to work with existing genes, rather than relying on mutation to produce new genes from scratch. This has actually be observed to happen in laboratory experiments in which the common bacterium, E. coli, when grown over many years in a glucose deficient medium, repurposes other genes to play the role of metabolizing other substrates for survival and reproduction.
You are correct when you say that "Natural selection does not produce new genes." Natural selection simply selects for new expressions of genes that are more beneficial to the organism. New genes arise all the time - many are detrimental, occasionally one is beneficial, but modern evolutionary theory is focusing more and more on how evolution repurposes existing genes, and then natural selection goes to work to pick the winners.
The lava story you are choosing to believe is a common misstatement first committed by Morris in 1974, based on an even earlier report. What Morris "forgot" to mention was that the dates were based on argon content in xenoliths, which are inclusions in lava, and which contain large amounts of argon. The lava itself was not dated, because it did not contain sufficient argon to conduct the dating, consistent with an age on the order of hundreds of years, which is the true age of the flow. Don't rely on what you hear from others, get the facts!
Your population projections are also from a report by Morris, in 1985 (he didn't get any better since the argon fiasco, by the way). Morris assumes a population growth rate of 0.5%, which is inaccurate. Using that assumption, and assuming that the Great Pyramid at Giza was built 100 years after the putative date of the flood (it was actually built before the flood, but for calculation's sake...), then the human population at a growth rate of 0.5% would have been 13 people. The Exodus of Moses, which is believed to have included 600,000 people, the total population of the world would have been 726 using Morris' calculation method.
And finally, heres one we agree on, that evolution has no explanation for the creation of matter - where it came from. It also doesn't explain television, or why the Mets beat Philadelphia in their first game this year. Evolution only speaks about the changes that occur in living organisms after life appears. It does not address how life arose, nor the origins of the universe. Just life.
iv>
Hey, I believe a lot of science...just some science is inaccurate..man is not infallable..so mans observations onto science would follow the sam path.
The volcanos are just one example...how long did those numbers stand for before corrected....another example of dating that science itself called in correct and changed the dating period due to other fossils............
KNM-ER 1470
We once thought that the Earth was flat, and we were wrong.
Then we thought that the Earth was round, and we were wrong.
Then we thought that the Earth was an imperfect oblate spheroid...and we were right.
Some people would argue that correct is correct and wrong is wrong, but that's like saying that downloading a song is as bad as murder (again some people...)
That's science though, we were wrong when we decided that the earth was round, but to say that this wasn't progress is (in my opinion) ridiculous.
Darwin's ideas were not perfect either and they have changed a little, but they laid a foundation for a young and still evolving theory. You can't always just take something flat and make it into the shape you want. Sometimes you need to make it round first. So you're right, science isn't infallible, but that doesn't mean it isn't close and that doesn't mean that it isn't improving and that doesn't mean that it isn't important.