(NOTE: When I say evolution, I mean in regards to it being our origins which I don't believe. I believe in evolution as in "change" of species. There is a difference!)
Evolution Of The Leg
Once upon a time in a far away time there lived a water dwelling creature. He had no form of fin or leg but was similar to the liking of an eel. Then one day as the population lived and died, a mutation happened that formed a "blip" in the side of this creature...yes a "blip". This gene that was formed slowly got diluted amongst the population as he reproduced.
Many, Many years passed and the blip grew bigger as a mutation amongst the population.
Eventually they started to find it useful so it became what is known to be a fin.
Then one period of time the creatures had another weird group of mutations heading in the right direction of usefulness that enabled them to leave the water and breath air.
Well they didn't find fins useful on land so over the years the population had many more weird mutations and blips on the end of the fins which later became toes... The fins stiffened and became legs.
And so we have it...the evolution of the leg.
And it lived happily ever-after,
THE END
Personally I think the idea of evolution is not probable, if it is, it is a fluke. Firstly it is said that the fittest survive. In order for something to be fitter than the others (like developing a fin) it would be a long time before the "helpful" fin even became useful, so the ones with the blip would die off first would they not?
Animals leaving the water to breathe air? What did they do, jump up out of the water flapping away heaving and gasping with their gills and then fall back into the water, each generation each having its turn to do this until they developed lungs?
Why would fish leave the water when water is what they were designed for and found useful? Even if random mutations enabled them to develop lungs why would they use them when they didn't need them? All slight mutations in that direction would be a hindrance for a long time rather than an asset. Any fish that tried his new mutation (before it was developed to be useful) outside of water would die wouldn't he/she?
There is another thought, how did the sexes come about and why change from single sex into two? That would mean the new mutation is less fit for survival than the other wouldn't it?
Would it be reasonable to think that one day we as humans may evolve an extra arm which would be more useful? If so how would that happen? Why don't we have weird mutations hanging off of our bodies?
So goes my philosophical approach to evolution.
As the picture shows, a mutation towards something helpful or even helpful at all is rare... a fluke. Neutral ones are most common and bad ones are less common.
"However, random changes in information do not create new meaningful 'paragraphs', or 'chapters', of information. They only corrupt it. Mutations destroy; they do not create...Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not due to an increase in meaningful information due to mutations. In all mutations studied, there has been a loss of function causing the resistance."1.
Molecular biologist Dr. Ian Macreadie states "All you see in the lab is either gene duplication, reshuffling of existing genes or defective genes (with loss of information) that might help a bug survive-e.g., by not binding to an antibiotic as effectively. But you never see any new information arising within a cell. Evolution would argue for things improving, whereas I see everything falling to pieces."
If evolution were true then where are all the in-between fossils? That is not too much to ask for is it since it is such a wide scaled happening?
There are hundreds of types of creatures in the fossil record like snails and jellyfish which are alive today. The creatures today are very much like the ones in rocks that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. 1.
Interestingly there are approximately 10,000 practising scientists in America alone who do not accept the evolutionary picture. 1.
The Bible does not rule out evolution wholly but at this stage I cannot accept it as truth about our origins.
I have to be honest, there are too many questions for me to believe this. It takes more faith to believe that everything designed itself than for me to believe that God created us. If everything designed itself then God may have guided it. Who knows? We weren't there. But we are here now, so we must use our reasoning to decipher truth its all we got.
Einstein said:
Anthony Flew the famous atheist of atheists who is now deist believes in evolution but now claims because of scientific discoveries that there must be a God who started it all. He wrote the book "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind". Though I have not read the book...sounds interesting."In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Whether God created using evolution or not, I understand that He created, Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."
1. Answers to the 4 BIG questions by Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland
Hey Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"Sorry, too many questions for me to believe this."
There's your problem right there. You're unwilling to do the necessary research to educate yourself as to what evolution actually states, so it's no wonder that you don't 'believe' it.
This is strange though, because I've seen Steven J and Dimensio, among others, describe evolutionary processes in detail to you many times. So I wonder why you're still flogging these same straw men?
And, to be clear, I'm not stating that evolution is true, merely that you are deliberately misrepresenting it to make it easier (more convenient) to bash. Why do you feel the need to do this? If evolution is as ridiculous as you say, it should be easy to dismantle the actual theory and not have to resort to these old canards. No?
Are you willing to admit that the basis for your non-acceptance of evolutionary theory is the fact that you trust the Bible to be the Word of God and therefore anything that contradicts it is, by definition, false?
That's my hunch anyway. I think you know that there's something to this evolution business, but you don't want to look at it too closely because it raises challenging questions about your interpretation of Genesis.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but that's my opinion.
Regards,
Matt
Thankyou Matt for your post,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late reply but here it goes.
Point number 1. The Bible leaves room for evolution. A number of people believed in evolution and yet were still christians. C.S. Lewis is one and I have a friend who once did but then realised that it was not reasonable since the findings on the complexity of the cell and DNA etc.
So evolution should not effect my belief on God very seriously. How ever at first glance the Bible does not imply it.
Yes I did make an exagerated story to make the point more clear I guess.
When I say that it has too many questions that is exactly what I mean. Steven J. and Dimensio give explanations but the probability of their explanations are not high. What they are saying is a possibility but a small one. They don't give strong evidence but ideas.
For example:
Dimensio said: "In fact, lungs most likely evolved from swim bladders, not from gills. The author, again, demonstrates a lack of actual research rather than an actual understanding of biology."
Notice he says "most likely"
Take Steven J. "This is, at least, a fact about the interpretation of evidence, how the experts think things most likely are." (speaking of evolution).
These quotes are taken from Ray Comforts blog on April 8, 2009 6:07 PM. http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/
So evolution is an idea with possible evidence, nothing to stand on yet. The explanations they give are possible but not probable. Organisms gaining new information to improve themselves come only from mutations which are mostly unhelpful or damaging.
"There's your problem right there. You're unwilling to do the necessary research to educate yourself as to what evolution actually states, so it's no wonder that you don't 'believe' it."
So are you saying that because you have not researched Buddhism it is possibly right?
If I have a strawberry in my hand and someone comes and tries to tell me that strawberries aren't real would I believe him? But if that person gives me evidence I can't refuse I will consider it.
It does not mean I will go looking for it. Not saying that I have not researched at all but I have not researched it exaustively. Just because I don't have a degree in evolutionary thought does not mean I have not researched enough to make my mind up about it.
Hope it helps.
Hey Da Bomb, thanks for the reply
ReplyDelete"Point number 1. The Bible leaves room for evolution."
Cool, that dispels my hunch that your reasons for not accepting evolutionary theory are Biblically-based; thanks.
"They [Steven J & Dimensio] don't give strong evidence but ideas."
I assure you, if they were allowed to post links, they would both refer you to the mountains of peer-reviewed articles that contain the actual data and evidences that back up what they are saying.
"For example:
Dimensio said: "In fact, lungs most likely evolved from swim bladders, not from gills. The author, again, demonstrates a lack of actual research rather than an actual understanding of biology."
Notice he says "most likely""
It is intellectually honest to say 'most likely' because we cannot know with absolute certainty. But 'most likely' does not mean 'rough guess', it means 'based on all the accumulated evidence we have so far, from multiple fields of research, this is the most plausible explanation for what we see'.
"So evolution is an idea with possible evidence, nothing to stand on yet."
No, evolution is a fact, with evidence coming out the wazoo. Some of the mechanisms are not fully understood and most of the developments in individual species are not understood yet - because there are billions of them and it takes time!
"The explanations they give are possible but not probable."
You are free to posit a more probable explanation that accounts for all the data. Creationists have been free to do this for decades, but they haven't. I wonder why?
"Organisms gaining new information to improve themselves come only from mutations which are mostly unhelpful or damaging."
Incorrect. Most mutations are neutral. See nylonase for an example of an organism mutating and gaining new information.
"So are you saying that because you have not researched Buddhism it is possibly right?"
I have researched Buddhism and the only unverifiable claim it makes is the whole reincarnation thing. It's possible, but I see no reason to think that it's true.
"Just because I don't have a degree in evolutionary thought does not mean I have not researched enough to make my mind up about it."
The thing is, there are people who do have degrees in evolutionary biology and their opinion on the subject counts for more than ours. Just as, I'm sure, you have an area of expertise that a biologist would reasonably take your word on.
The thing is, you could get a degree in evolutionary biology and research and check these things out for yourself. It's verifiable, that's what makes it science.
I'm not trying to have a go at you, but if you're going to bash evolution, at least bash what it actually claims. Otherwise you just come off sounding like a Ray Comfort clone (and that ain't a good thing).
Cheers,
Matt
Thanks again for you reply and concern,
ReplyDeleteI said: "So evolution is an idea with possible evidence, nothing to stand on yet." and
"The explanations they give are possible but not probable."
Matt said: "No, evolution is a fact, with evidence coming out the wazoo. Some of the mechanisms are not fully understood and most of the developments in individual species are not understood yet - because there are billions of them and it takes time!"
Well I am not dumb, I know that adaptions occur if that is what you call evolution but to say it is our origins is speculation. Especially abiogenesis. If someone wants to explain that we came about without premeditated thought or without meaning then they need to show how it did happen.
I said: "Organisms gaining new information to improve themselves come only from mutations which are mostly unhelpful or damaging."
Matt replied: "Incorrect. Most mutations are neutral. See nylonase for an example of an organism mutating and gaining new information."
Sorry I did not word it right, you are correct. Most mutations are neutral (that is what I meant by unhelpful). Rarer still are bad mutations and even rarer still are good mutations. I cannot see how a whole lot of mutations heading towards something useful would benefit the creature before it became useful.
Here is an example of an assupmtion. Some text books claim we start developing gills in our embryos however it is not so.
However even though these "pharyngeal arches" look like gill slits we find out they are not and actually develop into the thymus gland, parathynoid glands and middle ear cannals, non of which have anything to do with breathing.
Matt said: "I have researched Buddhism and the only unverifiable claim it makes is the whole reincarnation thing. It's possible, but I see no reason to think that it's true."
I was using Buddhism as an example.
Catchya,
Thanks again for your concerns. We all want to find truth ay!
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI agree with ExPatMatt.
Your post doesn't show any evidence that you have done any research on the evolution of fins.
You may believe that you don't need to do any more research to know its false. But doing just 5 minutes of research would greatly improve the quality of your post. A Google search on "Evolution of fins" would be a good start. It is not a waste of your time. To me it seems that writing long posts without research is a greater waste of time.
Btw, I'll be back up north on Thursday for a week or so. Hope we get a chance to catch up before then. See ya.
@cantareus
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply, I will add abit more researched evidence as you and Matt so desire. I looked up the fin thing and it took me longer than 5 minutes... I found this page but it was really nothing. A load of dribble...just interpretable ideas http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/11/evolution/zimmer-text/1
I will look further and see if there is any evidence for or against that is worth standing on. Stay tuned guys.
@ ExPatMatt
"It is intellectually honest to say 'most likely' because we cannot know with absolute certainty. But 'most likely' does not mean 'rough guess', it means 'based on all the accumulated evidence we have so far, from multiple fields of research, this is the most plausible explanation for what we see'."
Ok so it is as you say...intepretable. If it was a fact then there would be no "most likelys".
If I said "it is most likely that trees exist", I would be unreasonable and not intellectually honest in my opinion.
I'll do some more improving of my previous post.
I found this site it was a bit better, but it really does not convince me. I read a few pages it was more food for thought.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081015144123.htm
Evolution if it was real I would think would be so convincing it would not be disputed. Think about it. If every single living thing is related somehow because of evolution...imagine how many fossils there should be around of all the transitions...where are they? There would be many because each population would take a long time to "evolve" in fact millions of years as it is claimed.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI hope you had a good Easter Weekend!
There's been a lot going on on this thread, but I'll just reply to this one point, because I think it's the crux of a lot of misunderstanding.
You said;
"Ok so it is as you say...interpretable. If it was a fact then there would be no "most likelys".
If I said "it is most likely that trees exist", I would be unreasonable and not intellectually honest in my opinion."
'The tree exists' is a data point. It is a statement of fact. Scientists have collected a large set of facts from which to draw their conclusions.
This is different from proposing a process that occurred in the past, that explains why we find these facts the way we do. You know this and I think you're being unreasonable.
This is almost as bad as the old Creationist saying of 'evolution's just a theory, not a proven fact'.
It's what people say when they don't understand how science works.
Look at any apologetics site where they talk about the Global Flood. You'll see them say the same sorts of things; Noah most likely used this construction method, the animals were most likely this age range....
The 'facts' that they are basing their work on do not alter the way you have to describe a proposed historical process or method - we don't know for certain, so we say 'most likely'.
Why is this such a big problem?
".imagine how many fossils there should be around of all the transitions...where are they?"
ReplyDeleteYour lack of awareness of the existence of multiple transitional fossils (note: this includes entire series of fossils showing the evolution from one form to another) does not equate to their not being any in the first place.
Actually, just to clarify - what would qualify as a transitional fossil in your mind? Give us a rough idea as to what you would expect. I'd be very interested to hear.
Regards,
Matt
Hey ExPatMatt!
ReplyDeleteI had a great Easter Weekend thanks. Very busy! And you? What did you get up to?
I just had family times/walks, a great Sunday service at church and an Easter outreach at the park.
Thank you for your posts!
Well evolution is a theory not a fact. Yes there is evidence for evolution but it is not.
What I mean by evolution, I mean humans evolving from a cell or whatever the going trend of theory is.
I find it confusing how there are molecular biologists with phd's who reject evolution and then there are some who do not. I am no expert. It’s a matter of choosing which person you listen to. LOL
You are right, evolution is a thing of the past so it is harder to prove. This is why there are so many varying opinions.
Regarding your Noah's ark analogy, yes I can see the point you are making.
However I believe Noah's ark is a fact, yet with what tools he used it does not matter, it would only be a guess...even if there would be evidence it would still be interpretable and open to speculation.
Regarding evolution there a varying opinions as to how we evolved from fish. Evolving from fish is a fundamental part of evolution...on which the rest of evolution (us being related to apes etc) hangs.
As to how Noah built the ark does not hinder the fact that the ark was built.
"Actually, just to clarify - what would qualify as a transitional fossil in your mind? Give us a rough idea as to what you would expect. I'd be very interested to hear."
A systematic transition of fossils showing the species developing into another species.
Catchya,
Dan
"I'm not stating that evolution is true,"
ReplyDelete"No, evolution is a fact"
These two quotes from you I wondered about. First it sounded like you were unwilling to state that evolution were true but then later you stated it was a fact?
Sorry, just wondering?
I looked up "nylonase" on wiki,
ReplyDeleteLooking at duplication and frame shift mutation... it doesn't seem to create "new" information. It looks from what I see (with my limited understanding) just swapping around, deleting or multiplying different genes to assemble a "new" grouping. In a way you are right but it looks like genes are newly assembled rather than newly created.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"I'm not stating that evolution is true,"
"No, evolution is a fact"
In the first instance I was letting you know that my criticism wasn't based on the truth of evolution, but rather the fact that you had mischaracterized it to the point that it wasn't even evolution anymore. For that purpose, it doesn't matter whether evolution is true or not.
If I was arguing against God, but was basing it on a misunderstanding of what God was, you'd be justified in saying; "Not saying God is true or not, but what you're talking about isn't the God that I know".
Something like that, OK?
This is where people get confused about the reaction to what Ray Comfort (and other Creationists) write. Half the time, it doesn't matter whether evolution/Big Bang/whatever is true or not, because what has been described doesn't accurately reflect current evolutionary/Big Bang/whatever thinking.
The second quote is me dispensing with conversational niceties and letting you know that, as far as the experts are concerned, evolution is a fact. It has happened, it is happening and it will continue to happen for as long as imperfect replicators exist.
The mechanisms and pathways that evolution has taken life down are not fully understood; we are still learning about them. But just because we don't know EVERYTHING about a subject does not render all knowledge about that topic suspect.
As for nylonase.
It eats nylon. A man-made substance that didn't exist until the 70s. I'd say that the ability to digest a brand new substance is a novel one that would require some new information. Whether this comes about by re-shifting existing information or not, it demonstrates that novel traits can evolve rapidly in the right environment.
Now, on to the other comment, above, that I didn't see until now...
Hey,
ReplyDelete"Well evolution is a theory not a fact. Yes there is evidence for evolution but it is not."See, this makes me think that you haven't listened to a word I've said.
Fact: observed evidence, data point, verifiable event etc...
Theory: Explanatory model that incorporates all known facts and laws and provides predictive power for further research and analysis.
You really have to learn this stuff if you're going to effectively write apologetics.
I suggest you go to talkorigins.org and read through some of the articles there - this is creation/evolution 101.
"I find it confusing how there are molecular biologists with phd's who reject evolution and then there are some who do not."And of the ones that don't, how many are religious?
"However I believe Noah's ark is a fact,"
You believe Noah's ark is a fact? Something is either a fact or it's not, belief should not be necessary. For arguments sake, let's say it is a fact, you go on to say;
"...yet with what tools he used it does not matter, it would only be a guess...even if there would be evidence it would still be interpretable and open to speculation."You're so close to getting it! With evidence, we would be able to speculate on a likely method for how he constructed the ark. We wouldn't know for sure, and it wouldn't change the 'fact' that he did build the ark, but it would enhance our knowledge and we might be able to replicate it in a local shipyard.
Can you see how this is analogous to evolution?
Evolution is a fact. With all the evidence we have, we can speculate as to how it happened, even if we're wrong it doesn't change the fact that evolution happened.
You summed it up nicely;
"As to how Noah built the ark/evolution happened does not hinder the fact that the ark was built/evolution happened."As to transitionals, you said;
"A systematic transition of fossils showing the species developing into another species."This is called speciation and has been observed to happen during our lifetime. We actually have evidence of transition from one genus to another.
I suggest you go to talkorigins.org and search for transitional fossils, there's a lot of information there.
Howzit,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't let me know how your weekend went? I wasn't just being polite...I'm interested... thought I would let you know :)
Thankyou for the clarification of those quotes regarding your view of evolution :)
Well...I would like to clarify what we agree on and what we mean by evolution.
Yes evolution is a fact...take the moths example that were brown and black if I remember correctly and all the brown ones got eaten by birds so it left all the black ones that camouflaged better on the trees...the fittest. (can't remember the details).
If that's what you call evolution then I agree with you. I believe in Natural selection. I like to call it "changelution" if it makes more sense (like my new word) LOL.
Just to clarify what I mean by believe (you liked picking a hole in that one :) ), believe to me means "What I know to be true through my reasoning".
I think your interpretation of my statements regarding the ark and evolution were misunderstood...my blunder.
A fundamental point for evolution (in regard to our origins) is us evolving from fish. As to how an ark was built it is not fundamental as to whether the ark was built. Did I clarify myself?
As far as evolution being a our origins (from the beginning)...I don't think it is a fact...it is a theory. So in some ways some aspects of "evolution" I agree with..it depends on the ideas it is connected with.
Regarding you pressumptions about anti evolution scientists being religious...ponder this quote. I know it was said 80 odd years or so ago but the idea is interesting:
Professor D.M.S. Watson writing in Nature magazine; "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
Evolution can be an some atheist's crutch because it is the only alternative to God.
I think you made a good point, if I understand correctly what you are saying:
"Half the time, it doesn't matter whether evolution/Big Bang/whatever is true or not, because what has been described doesn't accurately reflect current evolutionary/Big Bang/whatever thinking."
Evolution is not the be all and end all of all things. When talking about God it isn't. I think you a quite possibly right.
Cya,
Dan
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, that was rude of me. I had a pretty good Easter weekend - lots of family stuff and plenty of good food. It does make the return to work more difficult when you've had a long weekend though...
On to evolution.
Evolution, as a fact, is defined as 'change in allele frequency in a population over time'. Alleles are basically traits of a given species.
This has been proven and observed and is generally not contested by opponents of evolution. I think it's commonly referred to as 'micro-evolution' or 'change within a kind'.
The Theory of Evolution is the concept that the fact of evolution (see above) has worked to change populations over time to generate the many varieties of life we see all around us, from common ancestors.
The Theory makes many predictions about what we should find when we look at, for example, genetics or the fossil record.
As an example, a prediction would be that you won't find a mammal fossil in pre-Cambrian rock because, according to the theory, mammals hadn't evolved yet. Finding a mammal in pre-Cambrian rock would disprove the theory of evolution.
There are many, many other pieces of supporting evidence and verified predictions that make the theory very solid and near-universally accepted by working scientists without a religiously-based agenda.
Which brings me on to your quote from Professor D.M.S. Watson.
I recommend that you check out this web page;
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html
It looks at the quote, in context, and what it was actually saying. Let me know what you think.
I recognize that the evolution debate has no bearing on your salvation (or my damnation, I guess), but it is interesting nonetheless!
It seems that your only real problem with it [evolution] is accepting the following;
a) how life began,
b) how we get complex, modern animals from single-celled organisms, and
c) mankind's place in nature
Would that be fair to say?
Have a great day Dan, I'm enjoying our ongoing discussion.
Regards,
Matt
Just a little personal theory here about fish going from water to land.
ReplyDeleteThe Beta Splenden (Siamese fighting fish) developed what is called a labyrinth lung. This was a way for it to "breath" while in water that had little oxygen in it. The natural habitats for this fish are muddy puddles in rice fields. This fish has overcome the low oxygen in the water by being able to go to the surface and breathe air. It has the ability to do both; it has gills like a fish and a labyrinth lung to allow it to take oxygen from water and to breathe air. Perhaps this is what started the transition from water to land. Just a thought. (Humans have taken this rather plain fish and bred it to be the colorful variety you see in pets stores.)
With evolution you have to take the changing world into account. At one time the earth had only one continent. They called this continent Pangaea. When the continents started to ‘drift’ apart, some animals were separated. As the climate changed, the animals had to change as well. Animals located at the Polar Regions had to adapt to the colder climate by growing fur, developing insulating fat ect. Animals in desert regions had to deal with heat (some became nocturnal) and lack of water (camel humps for example)
So this is why some animals had to evolve and keep up with the changing world. As land became more prominent, some fish were probably trapped on land and had to develop ways to breath in water that had lower oxygen. These rivers/lakes/ponds probably became smaller and smaller as the climate changed. Food might have become harder to find and so they went on to land to basically find a better life.
I’m not a scientist so I can’t give you all the facts with 100% accuracy, but I can at least grasp the basics and to me, this all makes perfect sense. I don’t believe this makes God’s power seem less, it only means that we can look for ways everything developed over time. If we had never tried to answer these types of questions, we wouldn’t have the technology we have today. If everyone had believed the bible, word for word, no one would have gone searching for answers as to how this all came about. We wouldn’t have the lifestyle we have today. The fact that we gather evidence and test theories allows us to move forward as a species. We have to continue to try and understand the world and universe around us. I don’t think this means everyone has to become an atheist, it just means we can’t expect the Bible to have all the answers. Perhaps God wants us to find these answers instead of expecting him to give them to us without doing any of the work.
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteSounds like a good Easter! Food YAY!
I remember one time (even though i'm in NZ) celebrating thanks giving because we liked the meaning of it. LOL That was a good feed.
I looked up that web page you gave me regarding that quote.
After reading it...I don't see the problem that atheists have with creationists quoting it? (I know some can misuse it).
I was not quoting it because it is evidence that there is not much evidence of evolution (as pointed out it is an old quote).
I was pointing out which the article also did "So in essence, Watson is saying that evolution was accepted because of “the collapse of alternative explanations”".
For me and many creationists evolution regarding our orgins is incredible and intelligent design is the best alternative. Supernatural explanations of the natural. I do not agree with Watson that other explanations have collapsed. Anthony Flew would tell you differently. That is if Watson was teaching Naturalism as the only option left. (Sounded like that)
If I have correctly interpreted that article rightly my context of quoting that quote is correct. Some people believe in Naturalism even when it cannot be proven because other views are not credible.
"It seems that your only real problem with it [evolution] is accepting the following;
a) how life began,
b) how we get complex, modern animals from single-celled organisms, and
c) mankind's place in nature
Would that be fair to say?"
Yeah I would say you have it just about right. All those points encompass Naturalism. Naturalism would be the problem for me. A big one. Which I think is incredible.
Thanks again for your comments,
Catchya L8r,
Dan
Anonymous person...
ReplyDelete"Perhaps God wants us to find these answers instead of expecting him to give them to us without doing any of the work"
Yep maybe you are right. Some animals may have changed since creation. God has given us free-will to work His land and to have fellowship with Him and to study His creation. His wonders a found in it! Exciting
I just want to point out something,
"As the climate changed, the animals had to change as well. Animals located at the Polar Regions had to adapt to the colder climate by growing fur, developing insulating fat ect. Animals in desert regions had to deal with heat (some became nocturnal) and lack of water (camel humps for example)
So this is why some animals had to evolve and keep up with the changing world. As land became more prominent, some fish were probably trapped on land and had to develop ways to breath in water that had lower oxygen."
and...
"Food might have become harder to find and so they went on to land to basically find a better life"
I notice something said over and over... something that implies direction or willfull purpose. The last little quote is clearer. The words "To find". So did they accidently change and devolop all these wonderful new features or were they designed? Evolution doesn't have a mind of its own to create itself.
See my point. I can't see how Naturalism is the explanation.
Thanks for your comment though!
Dan
So did they accidently change and develop all these wonderful new features or were they designed? Evolution doesn't have a mind of its own to create itself.If they were "designed" they wouldn't need to change would they? This wasn't "accidental" it was "necessary" for survival. Evolution doesn't have a "mind" nor does it "create" it is a "process" You either change and survive, or you don't and you die off. If you survive then you continue to breed passing on this beneficial adaptation to the next generation and so on. If an adaptation is helpful then the animal has a better chance of breeding then the ones who don’t adapt. This is sometimes called “survival of the fittest”
ReplyDeleteIf animals and plants couldn’t change according to their changing environment, they would have less chance of surviving in our world. The world is always changing and so life has to follow suit. If these changes are slow, life can adapt over time. If changes happen to quickly we see that some animals can’t keep up, and end up dying off. This is something that affects an animal like the Polar Bear. It adapted to life in the snow and ice by taking all the pigment out of its fur, making it appear white. As the climate changes and gets warmer, its habitat is shrinking and this once beneficial adaptation is starting to become a disadvantage. This is happening so fast that the Polar Bear can’t evolve to keep up and may die off. Some of them may survive in a different form as they start to breed with the Grizzly Bears that are now entering their habitat but the pure breed Polar Bear will probably die off if this climate change continues.
Anonymous said: "If they were "designed" they wouldn't need to change would they?"
ReplyDeleteWhere did I or God say that?
I am simply putting forward that God has a blueprint for basic kinds of animals and to some degree they change and a adapt. But I do not not know to what extent. If I go back too far into primitive life forms it is starting to get slippery for the imagination to grasp that those lifeforms evolved into us.
thanks,
Dan
I can understand it being hard to imagine, I also find it to be an almost unbelievable event and it can certainly boggle the mind. Life is an almost unbelievable thing especially if you take God out of the equation. It’s very easy to imagine a God like being, making and forming everything. Perhaps God is at the root of it all, but I do think we evolved from very different creatures then what we are. I find it a little easier if I think about how human life starts. We go from an egg so small it can’t be seen and then as if by some miracle we grow and divide and grow and divide and eventually we are the human child being born.
ReplyDeleteHere is something else for you to think about, I’ve read this today actually. I was looking into the evolution of whales. We know these creatures are mammals and we can trace their roots to creatures that were much smaller and walked on land before living in the sea. Some find this very hard to believe but the closest relative on land is the hippo. This is an animal that is more comfortable in the water then on land so it’s not hard to imagine how something might evolve even further to never leave the water again. Now one fact I just learned that really proved this to me (other then the fossils found to corroborate this) is the fact that whales still have a 4 chambered stomach. This is what animals use to help process the grasses they eat, and allows them to chew cud. Whales of course, do not chew cud. So why do they still have this type of stomach? This stomach poses no adverse problem to them and so it has never changed. So you see, at one time these now massive creatures walked the earth and fed on grass. That kind of change is almost unbelievable, and yet it is true. It’s amazing to think a land animal the size of a hippo or smaller would change into the massive blue whales in our oceans today.
http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=41 check it out, it’s very interesting.
Sorry I just wanted to correct myself a tad. I said ‘4 chambered’ when it should have just been ‘chambered’ and not every whale still has this feature.
ReplyDeleteThe more we learn, the more amazed I am at life. I do find the literal process of the bible is harder to believe then an old earth that matured slowly, but I can understand some people believing that God is still part of the process. I think that keeping an open mind is a good thing as long as you keep it open. Looking for these answers is a healthy thing and the knowledge may be important at some point in our future. If we understand what happened in the past, we may be able to use it to understand what the future may bring. I’d like to know if there is life out there somewhere in the universe. If this is the only world with life on it, I think it’s tragic; our world will not last forever. Eventually our sun will die and take our solar system with it. Maybe by then we’ll have learned how to go out in to the cosmos and life will continue. That’s why I want scientific knowledge to keep growing and trying to understand it all. I just hope humanity will learn to live together so that this kind of goal can be realized.
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said: "Maybe by then we’ll have learned how to go out in to the cosmos and life will continue. That’s why I want scientific knowledge to keep growing and trying to understand it all. I just hope humanity will learn to live together so that this kind of goal can be realized."
Yep if that is your focus and purpose for living then so be it.
I would have thought that seeking God our Maker and Designer would have been more interesting and of more eternal worth. If you find God you find everlasting life. If you find more science...you only find out about one more temporal thing.
Sorry, I cannot comment on the stomach thing (I don't know alot in that area), maybe when I put aside the time I can study it.
If the whale is working well with a stomach like that then why could not of God make him like that?
However you are at liberty to think that whales came from Hippo like creatures.
Thanks for your comments.
Dan
Why would God give it a stomach that's designed for eating grass on land ;)
ReplyDeleteOh I wouldn't mind everlasting life, but just in case that isn't true, I'd like life to keep going in the universe. I really hope there is more life out there in the universe. I think life is a very wonderful thing.
I don't think God wants us to just sit on our hands down here, I think he wants us to keep learning. This is something of value for all earthbound children of every age and ever moment in time.
I don't think the search for knowledge should go against the belief in God. I have serious doubts about the creation story in the bible, but that shouldn’t mean science automaticly disproves God. I think of it as a way to understand the ways of God better. If he gave us this existence, then the search for knowledge is a way of honoring that. This is why I have a problem with old world texts saying they are all we can know of God on earth. I think God speaks to us in everything that exists in this universe and knowing what those things are brings us closer to God.
The idea of eternal life is appealing to me because I'd like to be able to see how far the human species on earth can go, how much can we learn about our world and universe? Can we settle our differences and find peace? These are answers that I will probably never know, in my lifetime. I just can't live my life as if I’m guaranteed an afterlife, I want to live my life as if this is all we get because if there is no afterlife, that my life will have been a tragic waste. If I’m wrong, then I don’t want to face God and tell him that all I did on earth was wait until I could die and go to heaven. He put us on earth for a reason, and I think the reason is to learn and share knowledge.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteJust trying to shorten the comments a bit, you basically agreed with the following;
a) how life began,
b) how we get complex, modern animals from single-celled organisms, and
c) mankind's place in nature
Being your stumbling block with evolution. Naturalism just doesn't cut it, you say.
Well, we could easily posit any number of supernatural explanations for the origin of life on Earth, but how would you test it? How would you ever know if you were right?
There have been numerous experiments that have shown that the building blocks of life can spontaneously arrange themselves when in the right conditions.
But let's say, for arguments sake, that a supernatural agent was at work - starting off life. OK?
Part b) is evolution. We know that evolution happened, we know the pathways down which modern animals/plants evolved to arrive at their present appearance and we can make predictions based on this that bear good fruit.
There is no need to invoke a supernatural agent in this process because it is very well described and modelled by natural methods.
c) mankind's place in nature
I think this is the big one. I don't think you like the idea that you are related to chimps. We are, by definition, apes. Specifically, we are one of the Great Apes, our closest living relatives are chimpanzees, gorillas and then orangutans.
As a thought experiment, try and identify something that sets us apart from the animal kingdom. It's harder than you think.
None of this rules out the possibility that a supernatural agent created life, watched over (perhaps even guided) its evolution and holds a special place for humanity. None of it.
Regards,
Matt
@Anonymous
ReplyDelete"Why would God give it a stomach that's designed for eating grass on land ;)"
My Fiancee found this interesting site that explained the uses of the whale's stomach, very interesting. It uses it's stomachs quite satisfactorily. http://graysreef.noaa.gov/whalebook/anatomy.html
------------------------------------------------
BALEEN, MOUTH, AND DIGESTION
Food passes through the whales mouth into its esophagus, on its way to the whale's multi-chambered stomach. Scientists believe the baleen whales have three major chambers (and perhaps a fourth smaller chamber which may be an extension of the intestine). This similarity to ungulates may not just be chance. Perhaps the whales are descended from the same line of land animals that gave rise to ruminants -- even-toed, hoofed animals, with four-chambered stomachs (usually) like cows, sheep, giraffes, camels, and deer. Food then passes through the intestine, with the remaining waste materials being eliminated into the ocean.
The total capacity of the stomach of a large whale is about 760 liters (200 gallons). This is relatively small compared to the cow with a capacity of 209 liters (55 gallons) and the human with a capacity of 17 liters (4.5 pints). The first chamber in all whales is a dilatable, sac-like, extension of the esophagus with no digestive glands. This is the compartment that "chews" the food -- as the gizzard does in birds (remember -- baleen whales have no teeth and toothed whales don't use their teeth to chew). In baleen whales, the first compartment is quite small (little need to "chew" since their prey is so small), while in toothed whales the compartment is relatively large. The second chamber is where digestive juices are released -- pepsin and hydrochloric acid have been found in this part of the stomach of some whales. Most cetaceans have a third large chamber which is the pyloric part of the stomach. The intestine is quite large, usually five to six times the length of the body (human intestines run about two times body length or about 12-13 feet in an adult). Baleen whales also contain a distinctive caecum and colon, and, as with other mammals, have a pancreas and liver which deliver digestive enzymes by way of a duct into the digestive tract (there is no gall bladder in contrast to humans).
These large mammals, eating some of the smallest prey, need upwards of a million calories a day to maintain body functions. That amounts to about 2,000 kilograms (4,400 pounds) of plankton daily. In contrast, the average human requires only 3,200 calories for mainenance. But these numbers can be deceiving. A million calories to a 50 ton animal is equivalent to 1,500 calories to a 150 pound person. So the whale actually has a more efficient system than the human. This relationship of lower metabolic rate with greater size is seen throughout nature. For example, mice and birds have extremely high metabolisms compared to humans.
------------------------------------------------
I obviously disagree with your view of God. If I took your view of God and that God is in everything (correct me if I am wrong)...its like you are saying God is relative.
I believe that God is objective if that makes sense. Jesus said... I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me.
If the Bible is the word of God then Jesus is the only way. Seek Him first and you will have life in abundance. If the Bible is just about one god of many or merely a "view" of God, then God must be confused and giving us mixed messages. I believe He is not confused... He is not relative.
However I do not think you are saying this altogether. I re-looked at your comment and yes I do agree with you that God speaks to us through creation...that is one way we can know that there is a God. We know that He is a God of order. Our universe is a cosmos not a chaos.
Regarding looking after our world I couldn't agree with you more but our focus should be on our Maker first and then creation. Don't get them around the wrong way or else you place the creature before the Creator which is absurd.
Thankyou for you comment,
Dan
Hey Matt,
ReplyDelete"There is no need to invoke a supernatural agent in this process because it is very well described and modelled by natural methods."
Well at the moment we need to because presently it is a "theory" that we came from vertually nothing to now without a "Guider". Where I see design and order I assume a designer.
Ok differences between animals and people...
HMMMM let me think.
That's one thing...thinking. Man has the ability to reason, or in other words inference something "about" something else, kind of like the understanding of "ground and consequence" over "cause and effect".
I don't see animals doing this to any great deal of complexity if at all. Man can grasp the abstract.
Animals don't make up gods for themselves. They don't "wonder" where they came from or how the universe came to be. They don't have a sense of (regarding morality) "I OUGHT to try and save my herd member even when it seriously endangers myself" implying guilt. Some species may be suicidal in that sense but in the hearts of mankind there seems to be that specific "I ought to" instead of just reacting to stimuli eg.
"He ought to keep his promise to me!"... "even though I don't keep my promises, but I have good excuses to justify myself in failing to keep my promises".
There is a universal understanding of what is right and wrong in the human race. It seems to be engrained into us, but we so often go against it by our choices.
People have complex emotions unlike animals. We cry...we laugh...
People have an understanding of abstract beauty (a sunset).
"Well, we could easily posit any number of supernatural explanations for the origin of life on Earth, but how would you test it? How would you ever know if you were right?".
Yeah you are right. That is why we need to seek that supernatural Being. If He cannot be found by us then we are wasting our time but if we do find Him well...we find Him. I claim to have found Him and many ohers do also. I encourage you to keep seeking. (I hope to post soon a really cool testimony I heard from a friend that is mind blowing...it may encourage you).
The Bible is a good foundation for me to believe in God with its many supernatural elements to it that seem to explain my own life and the world around me so well...also prophecy.
I don't believe we can test God in a science lab.
C.S. Lewis put it this way "If there was a controlling power outside of our universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe-no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or fireplace in that house."
But He can put His mark or image in that universe. Do you know who or what the Bible says that image is?
God made man in His own image.
I understand that there are many ways in the Bible in which God's relationship to man is described. I just thought Lewis had an interesting thought.
"Just trying to shorten the comments a bit"
Sorry mine has escalated a bit...sorry. LOL
Thanks for your comment,
Dan
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteYou're still using the word 'theory' to imply 'uneducated guess' or 'idea'. I've shown you that this is not what is meant by the word 'theory' when it comes to science, why do you keep flogging that horse?
You assume 'designer' where you see design because you live in a world full of man-made objects and we understand the process behind making stuff. You can't apply that to the universe because there is no universe-making-factory that you can visit to see how it's all done.
Could you please give me a good working definition of 'design' so we're on the same page with this? Cheers.
Man vs Animals...
"Man has the ability to reason"
So do crows, chimps, octopi and cats.
"Man can grasp the abstract."
See above.
"Animals don't make up gods for themselves"
That we know of. I would say that this is an extension of the above.
"They don't have a sense of (regarding morality) "I OUGHT to try and save my herd member even when it seriously endangers myself" implying guilt."
Altruism and empathy are well documented in multiple animal species.
"There is a universal understanding of what is right and wrong in the human race. It seems to be ingrained into us, but we so often go against it by our choices."
We're social creatures and right and wrong are abstract concepts to describe beneficial/negative actions with respect to oneself and the group. Other Great Apes exhibit these same qualities.
"People have complex emotions unlike animals. We cry...we laugh..."
Chimps and a number of other species mourn the death of loved ones. A penguin in Berlin zoo died of a broken heart with his partner was injured and died.
"People have an understanding of abstract beauty (a sunset)."
Birds of Paradise 'tidy' an area of forest to look pleasing for prospective mates, showing a good eye for aesthetics.
Harder than it sounds, eh?
I think the 'abstract concepts' thing is the big one, but it merely something that we do to a greater degree of complexity than other animals, that's all.
Interesting stuff though.
Regards,
I wrote you back a post and it kinda got out of hand, so before I paste it here I thought I should ask if you'd rather I send it to you another way, it got a little long. I can be rather wordy at times. I will give you this link to another cool animal. These primates are quite interesting. You won't see them in many zoos because they can be a bit... naughty but I assure you that is not in the video, the researcher just mentions it at the beginning.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteWell how could you call an educated guess being...everything made itself millions of years ago. There are many theories as to how it happened.
I will not stake my life on it (Naturalism).
Naturalism: "is a philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."
When I say design I mean exactly what I mean. For me nature as we know it needs a cause for everything. You cannot have an effect without a cause. Explain one to me if you know of any.
So something needs to be outside of nature in order to break the natural laws of causuality. SUPERnatural.
Design I see as a complex order of something being that cannot logicaly come from or be formed by itself.
Our universe is a cosmos not a chaos. Just as a watch is.
I like Einstein's quote on the actual post about being a child and wondering Who wrote the books.
Sorry but you might find the following offensive...
If we came from fish and the fish could one day be us...then why do evolutionist's go fishing? Its like us being cannibilists...eating our relatives. Its like commiting murder.
I know that man is different and superior from animals. You do too. Man is both natural and supernatural.
I find it contradictory that atheists will search for intelligent life form signals out in space when there are very intelligent (complex) signals are right under there noses (creation).
Thanks for the discussion thus far, :)
Dan
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIs that link what you were wanting to say?
Or have you got more? I'm not sure of your question?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI don't think your link is correctly copied in place.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"Well how could you call an educated guess being...everything made itself millions of years ago. "This doesn't really make much sense. But what I was getting at was that the hypothesis of evolution has been demonstrated to work as a predictive model. Where evolution predicts that a certain kind of animal should have existed in a swampy region some 300million years ago...paleontologists go digging in that location and, surprise surprise, they find that exact creature.
This would not be possible if evolution was just a hunch. It's an explanation for how life evolved over billions of years and it has been shown to be correct many thousands of times over.
Not only this, but it would be very easy to prove evolution wrong - just find a modern mammal in pre-Cambrian rock. If evolution is just a guess, we wouldn't be able to predict things with such accuracy and we'd regularly find things that were 'out of place'.
"You cannot have an effect without a cause. Explain one to me if you know of any."Quantum fluctuations.
"Design I see as a complex order of something being that cannot logically come from or be formed by itself."Well it's a good job we have good, logical explanations for why complex things exist, eh?
Take snowflakes, for example. They certainly look design, don't they? I would presume that early man thought they were divinely created somehow, but now we know very well how they are formed and can even replicate it ourselves.
The same is true of many other things and I think you're falling into a God of the Gaps fallacy here - you can't conceive how the universe could be the way it is; therefore God.
I prefer to think that we should follow the evidence and continue to investigate everything. Because we have been doing this, the Gap that God fits into gets pushed further and further back until it is out of the realm of science entirely.
"If we came from fish and the fish could one day be us...then why do evolutionist's go fishing? Its like us being cannibilists...eating our relatives. Its like commiting murder."We didn't come from the fish that is alive today though, did we? And the only way we have survived as a species is by killing and eating other organisms, that's the way our bodies work.
"I know that man is different and superior from animals. You do too. Man is both natural and supernatural."I certainly do NOT think that man is superior to animals. We are different, that is all.
"I find it contradictory that atheists will search for intelligent life form signals out in space when there are very intelligent (complex) signals are right under there noses (creation)."And we study those too.
sorry I didn't make it a link I just posted the address ;)
ReplyDeleteclick here
and no I wrote about 2 pages more :P I can get very wordy..
Hey again Matt,
ReplyDelete"I prefer to think that we should follow the evidence and continue to investigate everything"
Yeah that is what Anthony flew says "follow the evidence whrer it leads". His evidence leads to God as the best explanation so does mine.
So what's wrong with eating people if they are not superior to animals?...sorry I couldn't resist.
If evolution does not cause you to struggle in relation to belief in God then why are you so upset that people don't take the assumptions of the evolutionsists. (I am not denying there is evidence but there is evidence against evolution as well). Which you seem to ignore (that's what you accuse me of).
Are you just upset that I don't accept evolution or are you upset that I believe in God who according to you and I is a separate issue?
I have not studied quantum physics really at all before. You stating "Quantum fluctuations" doesn't mean anything to me. I know that imagining an effect/event without a cause is intellectually absurd when observing the world around us. Yeah things might appear to come from nothing (because we can't test them) but it is silly to say that nothing caused them, something must have decided that effect had to be exactly how and when that effect was.
Because the universe is structualy formed this is why we creationists assume a designer...we ask the question WHY? is everything like this. There must be meaning. To say no one decided it would be like that, it seems incomprehensable.
Catch ya
Dan
Hey Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI don't really want to go around giving my email so maybe it is just best if you post it on here or maybe shorten I to make it mroe readable? I don't know.
I can't view that video site you sent me on my laptop. I need a newer flash player or something.
I thought there was a way to email off blogs without giving away info.. sorry :)
ReplyDeleteI'll give you one example of the Bonobo, he told it she wanted to light a fire and to get wood, and he got the wood and put it in the fire pit, she then told him she had a lighter in her pocket and he could get it out if he wanted and he got the lighter out of her pocket, and lit the fire. He learned how to flick the lighter, it's really amazing.
They also learned how to write basic symbols with chalk on the floor to say they wanted to go outside without being taught. They had a sound board which is used with primates, but they noticed one was making the symbol on the ground when they were out side, they gave her a piece of chalk and she wrote the symbol for an A frame they had outside...
It's an amazing primate, makes a chimp look like a toy. Unlike chimps who get agressive when mature, the Bonobo are very gentel. Chimps tend to comunicate with agressive action but the Bonobo do it with intamacy, really amazing stuff.
Hey ya Anonymous,
ReplyDelete"I thought there was a way to email off blogs without giving away info.. sorry :)"
There might be...I don't know of any though.
Sounds like a fascinating primate. Very interesting. Some animals are really smart aren't they!
Dan
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI'll just focus on this bit;
"If evolution does not cause you to struggle in relation to belief in God then why are you so upset that people don't take the assumptions of the evolutionsists. (I am not denying there is evidence but there is evidence against evolution as well). Which you seem to ignore (that's what you accuse me of).
Are you just upset that I don't accept evolution or are you upset that I believe in God who according to you and I is a separate issue?"I'm not 'upset' about anything. People can believe what they want to believe. The main reason I'm active on Blogger is precisely because I enjoy interacting with people who hold opinions that differ from mine.
I'm not out to change anyone's mind here, just looking to discuss some interesting stuff.
Such as your claim in the above quote...
Sorry, what was the evidence against evolution again, I must have missed it?
I'm not talking about your personal incredulity - the fact that you can't imagine how all this could have happened without a 'Designer' is irrelevant in terms of evidence for/against a scientific theory.
I'm not talking about the origins of the universe or of life; that's the Big Bang and abiogenesis.
I'm not talking about the fact that some, quite intelligent, people don't accept evolution; it's not a popularity contest.
I'm talking about straight-up evidence that contradicts the current understanding of descent with modification by means of random mutation and natural selection.
You're claiming that I'm ignoring evidence. I'm saying that you haven't provided any.
I'd love to see it...
Oh, and those Bonobos are amazing!
Shalom Matt,
ReplyDeleteThankyou for clearing up your reasons for drilling me about evolution...LOL
I am no scientist...I am not raising people for a popularity contest. I am merely pointing out that there are people a heck of a lot more knowledgable in scientific areas than I and the best thing I can say a lot of the time is "look so and so with this phd or so and so who has studied this and said this..."
I thought I might collect some odds and ends that present to you some possible problems with an old earth. If there are problems with an old earth then it will question the "Theory of Evolution" meaning: every species we have today are related all the way back from a simple beginning.
It does not deny "evolution" which means change. Naturalism is even deeper still than these two issues.
Some examples I read about are as follows:
Apparently the rate of erosion of the earth's continents, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the lack of helium in the atmosphere, the low number of type-II supernovas and lack of type III supernovas in our galaxy, the existence of short-period comets all are evidence against an old universe.
Saturn's rings are evidence against an old age, because they are decaying so rapidly.
So say some experts...I AM NO SCIENTIST, probably neither are you, I don't know :)
Dan
One thing I don't really like about science (I have to be honest), it changes from year to year.
ReplyDeleteThe only reliable thing we have that is consistant is our understanding of why everything is, inferences (see Lewis's "argument from reason"). I think you could call that philosophy possibly. When scientists start saying that something can come from nothing and everything is based on something totally random, my mind tells me "that's not possible, how is that knowable?"
Science told us hundreds of years ago that the sun went around the earth. People believed it. I wonder what things we think we know today, are actually different tomorrow?
I admit thinking is not always reliable and science is useful...but I do not think we should stake our lives on science. I trust my understanding of the universe as a whole because that is the best we have. If God made us then that is what He expects us to use. If you challenge reason then you challenge every single belief that you have.
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God" - C.S. Lewis
I hope I make some sense... LOL :) WOW! this is a long comment. I will split it in two to make it more readable.
Lahet-ra-ot! ("See ya later") -in Hebrew.
Dan
So no evidence against evolution then?
ReplyDelete"Apparently the rate of erosion of the earth's continents, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the lack of helium in the atmosphere, the low number of type-II supernovas and lack of type III supernovas in our galaxy, the existence of short-period comets all are evidence against an old universe."All of these claims have been shown to be bogus - you might as well talk about dust on the Moon.
Spend some time at Talkorigins.org that's where the actual science is presented for lay people (such as we) to understand.
"One thing I don't really like about science (I have to be honest), it changes from year to year.""Science told us hundreds of years ago that the sun went around the earth. People believed it. I wonder what things we think we know today, are actually different tomorrow?"What do you want; science to stay the same or science to change?
Scientists update their thinking based on the information and data available to them at the time - what more can they do? That's the best thing about science, it is open to correction and isn't grounded in dogma.
Different strokes, I guess!
"What do you want; science to stay the same or science to change?"
ReplyDeleteI think science is useful but it is not the road to take regarding finding truth about our being and the big "WHY" behind our universe. It helps in our search but it changes on us.
Anthony Flew would have believed in God (I assume) all his life should he have known what science has found out today about the complexity of life. So he wasted...I pray that he becomes a Christian one day...all those years of atheistic thinking.
Some atheists base their atheism on science. Not a good idea since sciense does not deal with Supernatural things, it deals with the natural.
I like to look at the here and now. Seeing evidence of God working in my life (and others). My family influence my life...I don't know how they scintificly work regarding "them" but I know they are real.
I might be spliting hairs but oh well I hope you get my drift. :)
Dan
Hello again DB :)
ReplyDeleteScience has to always change, it has to follow what evidence is presented, tested, and corroborated... You seem to think that when scientists date the universe, that they have a motive, they do not; they are following the evidence and trying to see what that evidence tells them. You are free to not believe the evidence but it HAS been tested and retested and corroborated by other scientists. They don't start with an answer and try to prove that answer; they start with a question and “try” to answer that question.
Science isn't out to find "the truth" it is the search for evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, they are not out to prove or disprove divinity, they are following the curiosity of some (or most) of the members of humanity. If you're not curious about it then that's fine but don't expect them to find any "truth" that follows biblical "truth", that's not it's function. Creationists are trying to do that and that is THEIR function. I don't think science will ever find the "Why" it simply looks for the "how" because they are interested in it.
You believe the Bible, and that's fine for you. You then look for evidence that might support your view taken from the bible, and that's fine for you but not for science. That would mean starting with an answer.
I know you think that we find this evidence for an old universe because a scientist at some point was wrong about it being an old universe. That isn't true; many scientists found it was old. Many scientists looked at the evidence that was presented to them that the universe was old, tested that evidence and verified the findings of that evidence. That is why scientists think the universe is old. The proof is in the stars, it's in our solar system, in our planet. You may not believe it, but the evidence is still there whether you believe it or not.
I believe it, I think it makes sense, I understand why I think it makes sense. I've seen fossils, I understand fossils, I believe fossils are more then thousands of years old, they are millions of years old. I’ve seen the Grand Canyon, I believe in the process that made the Grand Canyon, I believe that water eroded the Grand Canyon over great amounts of time, not in one big flood. I have seen some evidence of how the passage of time and water caused the erosion, and that makes me disbelieve the idea of a global flood being the creator of the Grand Canyon.
The Bible has probably made you skeptical of science, and I think that's to bad, I think understanding scientific discovery is an amazing and wondrous thing and I wish you could share that. But I understand that your faith in the words of the Bible is strong enough that you might never accept scientific discovery.
As long as you don't impede scientific discovery and education, then I think you are welcome to enjoy your faith forever. However there is some that are trying to do just that, and so I speak out against that, not against you for your beliefs but the ones who want to take their beliefs and impose them on the rest of the world. They are free to try and find evidence that support their own beliefs, but if the scientific community can’t corroborate that evidence then it should not be taught in schools. Some say this is a conspiracy of the scientific community to automatically disprove any evidence they find, that is not true. They simply look at the evidence and see that it can’t be corroborated, and that’s that.
Shalom Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYep, I hope their are some genuine old earth people out there. But I hope that you will not be ignorant as to their motivations being correct all the time. We all know that many "missing links" of the human race have been hoaxes, the others I don't know about. If that can be done then many more can be done. I am not pointing fingers as a generalization.
"Science isn't out to find "the truth" it is the search for evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, they are not out to prove or disprove divinity"
You are right,
I quite like how David Pawson puts it once:
You can be scientificaly correct and the Bible be is correct.
To science earth is a spec in the universe... to the Bible, earth is the centre of the universe.
Both are correct.
WHY?
I live in a big town in New Zealand, socialy the centre is the town basin, scientificaly the centre is probably in a random place no one knows about. Both are right.
I am saying science is interesting but there are more important issues at hand and that is regarding God and our relationship to God.
"That would mean starting with an answer."
I suppose that rules out atheists as well. They start with an answer "I believe there is no God" when they don't have sufficient evidence for or against Him. Should they be more honest and be agnostics instead?
Are you saying that everyone should not claim to know anything until it is tested?
You can see that this can then lead to rediculous conlusions and ideas eg. "test that glass of water before you drink it, it may be unsafe".
Dan
Why is it ridiculous to test a glass of water before you drink it?
ReplyDeleteThe water you drink has been tested, many times, before it even gets to your house. Just because we delegate the testing to someone else, doesn't mean it isn't done. If you came across a stream in the jungle, you'd take a tiny sip before you gulped, right?
I don't think you've thought this one through...
Your statement about human 'missing links' is right out of the Creationist Propaganda Handbook. Do you actually know anything about what you are claiming here?
You also repeatedly confuse scientific and religious thinking throughout your post and it makes it look as though you think that atheists set out, with the answer; 'I don't believe in God', to disprove God's existence via scientific research.
If you think this is the case then, not only are you ignorant (not an insult) of how science works, but you're also ignorant of history - the age of the Earth was determined to be very old by Creationists who were looking for evidence of the Global Flood.
There is no doubt amongst the scientific community that the Earth is over 4billion years old. Only people with (fundamentalist) religious bias think otherwise and they don't tend to be the most scientifically astute people, in general.
The Earth is over 4billion years old. That's a fact.
A 6,000 year old earth is the result of a literal reading of ancient Hebrew poetry that drew inspiration from the Sumerian creation myth.
Matt
Hey again Matt
ReplyDelete"Your statement about human 'missing links' is right out of the Creationist Propaganda Handbook. Do you actually know anything about what you are claiming here?"
Yes I do know what I am talking about. Or do you have more information with which to correct me?
"You also repeatedly confuse scientific and religious thinking throughout your post and it makes it look as though you think that atheists set out, with the answer; 'I don't believe in God', to disprove God's existence via scientific research"
I am saying that SOME atheist's don't believe in God because they can't scientifically proove Him, some search to disproove God, I know of some Italian archeologists who set out to disproove a Bible account (If I remember correctly), Josh Mcdowell set out to disproove the Bible and failed.
Science does not have anything to to with disprooving God except maybe when it might contradict the Bible which Pawson's descriptions suggest a way of understanding some situations.
"A 6,000 year old earth is the result of a literal reading of ancient Hebrew poetry that drew inspiration from the Sumerian creation myth."
Many scholars would disagree with you there.
Catchya,
Dan
"Should they be more honest and be agnostics instead?"
ReplyDeleteI think that if you press most of them, they will be honest and say they don't know for a 'fact' but that they still believe it isn't very probable and don’t believe it to be true.
I'd be one of those people. I will admit there is a possibility that there could be a creator of some type, I do not agree with how it is portrayed in the Bible however. I have my own reasons for my belief, none of which was taught to me and with very little of it to do with science. The fact that people do believe in him is fine with me, unless they want to take that belief and say the bible is 100% literal and then want to teach that (6000yr old earth) in 'science' class.
I don't think it should be mixed with science. Taught in a religion class or a philosophy class is a solution I would agree with and is done in many schools. My Niece had a class like that in Catholic school which surprised and impressed me. You can get a much better appreciation for your own faith that way.
I learned about mythology in school and I think we both agree that isn't science or religion but at one point it was believed and taught as such. If you were to argue that Christian creation beliefs should be taught in science, then I would have to argue that all mythological/religious creation myths would then also have to be taught. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair. ;P
If we allowed the Christian creation, then the Muslims would want theirs taught and then the Hindu’s and the Wiccans... we would spend the whole class teaching all the different creation beliefs and after all that, you may as well call it a class on religions and teach science separate.
The way I look at it, you may as well leave the scientists to their work and then you can either agree with what they find, or not. I'm sure that in this day and age, there are a few Christian scientists who are indeed trying to see if science can fit into their religious beliefs. The problem is that most of what they find isn't what they really hoped for or doesn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.
As for the idea of testing the water before you drink it... If you have a well and not city water, it's what you actually should do every so often. Doing it every time would be impossible because you have to send out samples and wait for the results, but it is a very good idea to not take your water being pure for granted. If you really want to be on the safe side, boil your water. ;)
"Yes I do know what I am talking about."Ok, tell me about the 'missing links of the human race'.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm still waiting for you to provide positive evidence against evolution....
as per your statement;
"(I am not denying there is evidence but there is evidence against evolution as well)"Also, Josh Mcdowell was not a scientist (or an atheist), he was a member of the Air National Guard until he sustained a head injury and left to get a bachelor of Arts degree from Wheaton College. He investigate the claims of Christianity and found them to be compelling enough to believe. Each to their own...
What do you do when scientific evidence contradicts a claim in the Bible?
Cheers,
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteOk, tell me about the 'missing links of the human race'.
Piltdown man etc was a hoax. I was pointing out that not all lovely evolutionists are honest.
"And I'm still waiting for you to provide positive evidence against evolution". You mean the theory of evolution of the coming together of everything from simple life forms?
That my frind is firstly your job. It's a big story to tell.
I state again I am no scientist and I rely on other scientists. You say they are all religious liars...I say...I don't know? I know that to a christian if he lies he goes to hell. If an atheist lies...nothing happens. Who would I believe? Some evidence I gave already you have waved.
I can't wave yours because I don't know.
Your statement regarding Josh Mcdowell confuses me. What was the point in saying "he had a head injury", are you saying he had all the sense knocked out of him?
Rubbish, he seems pretty smart to be dumb or confused. He even lectures in universities!
Oh woops...you are right he was an agnostic!
Cya
Dan
Hello Anonomyous
ReplyDelete"If you were to argue that Christian creation beliefs should be taught in science, then I would have to argue that all mythological/religious creation myths would then also have to be taught. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair. ;P"
Everything making itself is an idea aswell...not proven. So why is that taught? Shouldn't they be more balanced and teach other ideas?
Catchya
Dan
I have never been in a class that teaches what you just said. Which adds weight to my argument, you should only teach scientifically tested and verified information in a science class... I wouldn't want "Everything making itself" to be taugh in a science class, I think that's pretty much as bad as "Creation" really.
ReplyDeleteas for what you said previously to EPM: What was the point in saying "he had a head injury", are you saying he had all the sense knocked out of him?
I think he was giving a reason for him to have left the air force...
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"Piltdown man"? Really? Come on, do some research before you start slandering an entire field of scientific researchers.
Here's a head start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
Next.
So, you say that there is evidence that both supports and contradicts the theory of evolution. I ask you what this evidence against it is. You ignore my request for a while. Then you tell me that, in fact, it's my job to tell you what the evidences against evolution are! Are you joking?
I'll ask you again, just so we're clear; what are some (one will do) of the evidences that contradict the theory of evolution as modern biologists understand it?
"I know that to a christian if he lies he goes to hell. If an atheist lies...nothing happens."And yet, alarmingly for your side of the discussion, creationists are caught in far more lies, far more often and tend to repeat the lies even when they've been exposed. They do it so often that unsuspecting amateur creationists get caught up in the lie without realizing and parrot the lies word-for-word.
Science, on the other hand, is self correcting and when hoaxes, lies and mistakes are uncovered, they are exposed for what they are.
I'm not saying that scientist never lie or fudge their results. But the nature of science ensures that these lies will be found out and so much depends on your reputation these days that you can't afford to be caught out like that.
Hovind, Ham, Comfort and others have made a living out of lying about science - and they're supposed to be the True Christians!
I said that the guy had a head injury because that's what it said in his bio, with regard to leaving the service. No hidden meaning intended.
From your reply to 'anonymous' you said;
"Everything making itself is an idea aswell...not proven. So why is that taught?"If anyone actually taught that, you'd have a point.
Cheers,
Sorry I have another comment ;)
ReplyDelete"Piltdown man etc was a hoax. I was pointing out that not all lovely evolutionists are honest"
ahh yes, that's one, and that was revealed as a hoax by scientists...
"Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan."
So you see, science never stops when an answer is presented, it must be tested and tested and verified and verified just in case someone thinks to try and put another 'hoax' in the books.
The creationists had a bit of the same thing happen on their side...
"For many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists."
So you see, even 'christian' scientists who will 'go to hell' for lying, still lie.
"I know that to a christian if he lies he goes to hell. If an atheist lies...nothing happens."
So you have to question, is this christian really a christian? You can't just assume that because they say they are, they are. A Christian might risk going to hell to try and prove the bible is accurate and the scientists are wrong. They can always ask for forgiveness later, or rationalize their lie as being necessary to save thousands of souls from hell. If anything, they have more reason to lie.
How do you know that the christian isn't just being deceptive and saying they're christian when they're not? Do you check into their past, see if they have something to gain by their claim, check to see if other scientists agree with his finding? Or do you simply trust God and therefor the christian?
You seem to think that there is a great conspiracy that all atheists would lie just to keep the bible from appearing to be true. I think that's because a lot of Christians think that Atheists "hate" god and would do anything not to believe in him... but they can't hate what they don't believe in, so why would they do that?
Scientists are on a quest for the truth, Christian scientists are on a quest for biblical truth... who's got more reason to lie?
Always take these truths with a grain of salt and try to check the facts before you reach a decision, that's what I do :)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFood for thought,
I have a friend who comes from Australia and she said that in her school they were taught evolution. The teacher made one point that other people do not accept this view and say that the eye is too complex to have made itself.
The teacher got in trouble by one of the class pupils.
I think that is sad.
Dan
I believe that teacher may have gotten into trouble for using an example that many creationists have made, and therefore her personal beliefs and agenda were improperly taught in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteThis statement "the eye is to complex to have made itself" is an obvious false statement, since no eye has ever "made itself" but it seems to be repeated in a lot of places by creationist who are trying to propagate their own agenda. Many people have corrected this statement, and yet it is still repeated.
Teachers are not allowed to teach their personal beliefs, it would be wrong for them to do so. I would agree that a teacher who says a statement like that, isn't being a very good teacher since the statement is obviously false and shows the teacher might have had an agenda of her own that she was trying to teach. She was hired and being paid to teach a set curriculum, not her own personal beliefs. Such teachings are not meant to be taught at school, but in a church or by family. She was telling her students that an eye was to complex to make itself, and that is an attempt to mislead the students she was paid to teach, she tried to do this by saying "some people" believe this to be true, without mentioning it’s obvious falsehood. A school classroom is not a place to make such a statement especially when it is so obviously false.
Yes, I agree, I think that is sad.
Hey Matt!
ReplyDelete"do some research before you start slandering an entire field of scientific researchers".
I did not slander an entire "field"...I said not all.
"Then you tell me that, in fact, it's my job to tell you what the evidences against evolution are! Are you joking?"
I did not mean that, sorry, :( I worded it wrong. I meant the opposite. I meant if you believe in the "theory of evolution" (being our origins) then you provide me with the evidence. Just as I believe in God, I am to give you evidence (actually I think the evidence is in front of everyone, but that is beyond the point).
I would like to give meanings for the use of my terms because we keep misunderstanding each other.
I agree with evolution that new species can be formed out of change.
I do not believe that evolution is our origin (this should not be taught in schools).
I suppose I keep confusing evolution with Naturalism?
Lots of people seem to use evolution in terms of Naturalism...an excuse to get away from God.
Thanks for your comment,
Dan
Hello Anonymous (why don't you get a name) :),
ReplyDelete"A Christian might risk going to hell to try and prove the bible is accurate and the scientists are wrong. They can always ask for forgiveness later, or rationalize their lie as being necessary to save thousands of souls from hell. If anything, they have more reason to lie."
I would disagree with that, I hope I won't be like that nor any other Christian. That is not Biblical teaching. They would be shooting themselves in the foot. Trying to prove what they know to be not true, what idiots? No person in their right mind unless they had an agenda would do that!
Personally I think if someone is wrong about something as big as this (evolution)..it's because it is so unclear whether it is true or not. It must be interpretable.
Like, as I mentioned before, to convince someone that apples aren't real when they are holding them in their hand would be rediculous.
"This statement "the eye is to complex to have made itself" is an obvious false statement, since no eye has ever "made itself"
What are you saying? That God made it...if God didn't then what did? The only other option is "it made itself"...evolution (of origins).
Do I have a sense that your just picking on terms?
I thought that the teacher was well in her right (I don't know the details of what was being taught) to bring other scientific views across that said "the Eye to some scientists is inexplicable regarding evolution being its formation, from their scientific discoveries it must have been made by an intelligent designer"
I was thinking more about that whale coming from hippos idea you were talking about before.
Are there any half hippos/half whales found before?
I really do find it extreemly hard to see a Hippo growing a big tale and loosing it's legs, growing a huge mouth etc.
I have had a lot to reply to.
Thanks for your comment!
Dan
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to suggest that the hinderence to you believing the Bible and in God is that it is unscientific. (I get that impression)
Check out this bloggers site. She believes in evolution but sounds like a sincere christian. Maybe she can help you more in that way. Her name is verandoug.
What do you think of Isaiah saying that God is above the circle of the earth? that's an interesting thought. Isa 40:22
Hope I can be of help to you finding God.
Dan
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to skip through a lot because there's something I want to know.
Are you aware of any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution as it relates to the descent and diversification of all life on Earth from one or more common ancestor(s).
No age of the Earth stuff.
No abiogenesis stuff.
Do you know of any evidence that refutes the theory of evolution?
If you don't, then say you don't. But you can't continue to say that there is evidence for and against if you don't know any that's 'against'!
Sorry to be a nag, but if we're going to talk about this stuff I have to know where you're coming from.
Cheers,
Matt
“Personally I think if someone is wrong about something as big as this (evolution)..it's because it is so unclear whether it is true or not. It must be interpretable”
ReplyDeleteThis is a personal statement, you believe it is unclear, I see it as quite clear and there hundreds of scientists, much smarter then you or I, that have looked at the evidence and came up with this view. Since they are much smarter then I, and from what evidence they have shown, I believe it is not unclear to them, therefore perhaps it is your knowledge of it and personal beliefs that makes it unclear to you.
“I do not believe that evolution is our origin (this should not be taught in schools).”
So you believe that your own understanding of evolution and your personal disbelief in it should be a reason for it not to be taught in schools. That means you believe that your own personal beliefs, should be taught in school. I mentioned before that personal beliefs should not be the basis of a school’s curriculum and what you have said is a perfect example of why this is not allowed.
Evolution as our origin is not simply a belief, it has been studied and tested and verified and therefore it is taught. So once again, you are welcome to believe or not believe it, but it should be taught in school because it is a well researched and documented scientific theory. So far, no evidence has been found to go against this theory and therefore it is taught.
“What are you saying? That God made it...if God didn't then what did? The only other option is "it made itself"...evolution (of origins).”
What I am saying is it did not create itself, since an eye has no means of creating itself. It is a sensory device that has developed over time. To say an eye created itself is to say, for example, you created yourself. You cannot create yourself because before you came into existence, you didn’t exist, since you didn’t exist, you could not create. Do you see what I am saying here? To say an eye “created itself” is to say it existed before it existed. To say an eye “created” is to say it has the ability to create, which we know is not true. An eye can send sensory data to the brain, but it can not create.
“I thought that the teacher was well in her right (I don't know the details of what was being taught) to bring other scientific views across”
There lies the problem, what she said was not a scientific view it was a belief. There is no scientific evidence that an eye would create itself or that anyone with scientific knowledge would say it was true, so to say that is to state a belief, not a scientific view. This is a view that goes against the scientific view.
"the Eye to some scientists is inexplicable regarding evolution being its formation, from their scientific discoveries it must have been made by an intelligent designer"
This is not a scientific view, I’m not sure where you obtained this information but I doubt any scientist would say that the eye being inexplicable regarding evolution would prove it was made by an “intelligent designer” especially since our own eyes are not a very good design when compared to the eyes of other animals in the world. The eyes of a hawk or eagle, if thought to be designed, are better then our own. So with that in mind, would this designer be best described as “intelligent”? The human eye has flaws so if it was in fact designed, then it was designed with flaws, which is not what I would consider to be intelligent design.
“Are there any half hippos/half whales found before?
I really do find it extremely hard to see a Hippo growing a big tale and loosing it's legs, growing a huge mouth etc.”
Your confusion here seems to stem from the fact that whales were once hippos, they were never hippos so there would be no “half hippo/half whale”. There are fossils of an animal that had the features you described, “Loosing its legs, growing a huge mouth, and growing a big tail” so yes, we do have evidence of that happening. You seem to think this would happen very dramatically and all of a sudden. This is something that happened very slowly and gradually over a large amount of time in very small steps. For example, the legs of this creature would very slowly become smaller and over a long period of time, since there was no use for them in the animal’s new habitat, they would change to better fit the habituate and the life of the animal in the water. Another example would be the nose of this animal. We can see thought out the fossil record the location of the nostrils moving slowly from the face to the back of the head, one small step at a time. It would not suddenly appear on it’s back, it moved upwards in incremental steps through each generation of the animals being born until it finally appeared on the back of the animal, making the blowhole we see today.
These steps happen over many generations, each animal being born slightly different then its predicators. Such an even took thousands of years and thousands of generations. If one were to live in this time, you would not see a change during your lifetime since it happened that slowly.
The hippo has no reason to look like a whale since it does not live in the ocean; the whale has no reason to look like a hippo because it does not live in a river. In the far distant past, there was an animal from which these two creatures, who now live in very different habitats, evolved from. The animal that lived near the river, evolved into a hippo, and the animal that lived near the ocean, evolved into a whale.
Let me use an example you probably know. The Crocoduck shown as a question to evolution, why is there no such animal in the fossil record. The reason we don’t see such a creature in the fossil record is because, even if the crocodile and duck had a common ancestor, that ancestor is so distant, that it neither looks like a duck or a crocodile. The distance in evolution of these 2 animals is so far from each other that they no longer have any shared, recognizable features. There is also no reason in nature for such an animal to exist. The duck and the crocodile live in very different environments and have very different adaptations to their environments.
As for my disbelief in God and the Bible, it has nothing to do with science.
Hi guys!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you said, "How do you know that the christian isn't just being deceptive and saying they're christian when they're not? Do you check into their past, see if they have something to gain by their claim, check to see if other scientists agree with his finding? Or do you simply trust God and therefor the christian?"
You are perfectly right - obviously not everyone can be trusted! I think that most of us are aware that there are many people out there who call themselves Christians and deliberately lie. God Himself warns us in the bible of people who do that very thing. We do need to be very careful with who we listen to and believe. Simply "trusting God" and believing everything that every "Christian" says is naive.
So yes, we do need to check people out, and, as you say, checking into their past and how their views line up with other scientists is a good way to start. But if two scientists tell me something, and they disagree, who am I to be able to tell them which is right (scientifically)? I don't know enough science to be able to direct scientists, and point out where one is wrong and the other is right.
What do I do then, if I cannot believe them both? I suppose most would go with the majority... (funny, that!) But we know from history that the majority is not always right. :)
I know the flat earth example is used a lot, but it is a good one! What would you have told a guy in ancient times if he dared to suggest that the earth was a ball? "Go see if your view lines up with everyone else's"? I don't think so, somehow. I think you might have told him to examine the evidence himself, and then compare it with what others have discovered.
This is what I have done. I do not take every word of so-called Christian scientists as the gospel truth (although a lot of what they say does make sense). To me the universe and the existence of life itself screams out, "GOD MADE IT ALL!!" Everything does line up. It makes perfect sense. Life. Death. Suffering. Happiness. Morality. Everything.
Hmmm... over to you, Dan! :P
Hello again Anonemouse,
ReplyDelete"So you believe that your own understanding of evolution and your personal disbelief in it should be a reason for it not to be taught in schools. That means you believe that your own personal beliefs, should be taught in school. I mentioned before that personal beliefs should not be the basis of a school’s curriculum and what you have said is a perfect example of why this is not allowed."
To me evolution from origins is a belief...so it should not be taught as truth but a possible theory. You see me belief as a personal belief so it should not be taught. Science can not only show how something happend but it also can show how something could not happen, regarding the eye etc.
"What I am saying is it did not create itself, since an eye has no means of creating itself."
I think you knew what I meant "creating itself".
"Another example would be the nose of this animal. We can see thought out the fossil record the location of the nostrils moving slowly from the face to the back of the head, one small step at a time."
Can you give me a link to these animal fossils? I have never seen nor heard of any such systematic findings of fossils.
"The animal that lived near the river, evolved into a hippo, and the animal that lived near the ocean, evolved into a whale."
So life start in the water...then evolved onto land...then returned to the water...hmmmm
"As for my disbelief in God and the Bible, it has nothing to do with science."
I'm curious as to what your problem is then?
From memory Ray Comfort goes as far to say that even if the Bible were not real he would know that there was a God up there somewhere who decided that everything woud be as everything is. I suppose a similar to a deist.
Catch ya,
Dan
Hey there Matt!
ReplyDelete"Do you know of any evidence that refutes the theory of evolution?
If you don't, then say you don't. But you can't continue to say that there is evidence for and against if you don't know any that's 'against'!"
Well I want to be honest.
I have read about different evidences against evolution but for me to gather them together and form an argument would be difficult because I have heard them far and between and know little about them. The information I heard regarding that were from scientists who know a heck of alot more than me. Also friends who have looked into for example the eye...they were explaining to me the difficulties of it evolving. But that, I can't re-call exactly what they said but it sounded convincing.
My main argument really is that it seems improbable that evolution happened according to thinking it through...regarding how and why. I suppose science can answer the how (although it happened a long time ago which makes it difficult to call it "science") but not the why.
I remain unconvinced that it has happened to the extent that you suppose.
I will be honest aswell that the Bible although evolution can be read into it does imply at first glance that the main basis of what we see today was made not evolved-made. So that is my stance.
There we go that is what I honestly think.
Dan
You guys didn't answer my question...
ReplyDelete"What do you think of Isaiah saying that God is above the circle of the earth? that's an interesting thought. Isa 40:22"
You know he said that 2500 years ago. :)
Dan
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't actually "say' anything in your response, Dan. You just waffled a lot about hearing stuff from some guy one time and so, yeah, there you go, evolution's wrong because some sciency types think it is so there.
You said, at the start of this thread that there was evidence 'for and against' evolution. I have asked you, repeatedly, to produce a single piece of evidence that refutes the theory and you have yet to do so.
Your only evidence so far is your own personal incredulity - that's not evidence. At the end of your comment, you seem to concede that your denial of evolution is based on the fact that it doesn't jive with your interpretation of the Bible; is this the case?
As for the Isaiah quote.
The Greeks knew of the shape of the Earth before 2,500 years ago, so it's not that impressive really.
Also, the Earth is not a 'circle' it is an 'oblique spheroid'. A circle is a 2D shape, a disc. This is odd because there are Hebrew words, used in the Bible, for 'ball' and 'round' so the use of the word for 'circle' seems deliberate....
Regards,
Hey there,
ReplyDelete(You will see my new post " My thoughts on evolution 2").
Note Matt that evidence doesn't refute or prove (as atheists keep telling me) but merely points in a direction.
Yes evolution does not fit my view of the Bible's account but if I had to I could read it into the Bible as many have. I know the Bible is the truth.
Technically you are right that the earth is a ball. Technically you are wrong in saying that the earth is not a circle.
Viewing a car is oblong and having circular wheels, this would not be a wrong account but only a part of a true account.
Like Joshua viewing the sun being stopped in the sky. Technically the earth stopped spinning but to Joshua the sun stopped in the sky which viewing from earth was an accurate account. It did "stop" in the sky.
Isaiah actually said it before Pythagoras did.
Cya,
Dan
"Technically the earth stopped spinning but to Joshua the sun stopped in the sky which viewing from earth was an accurate account. It did "stop" in the sky."Except that it never happened... ;)
ReplyDeleteThe 'circle of the Earth' thing is a poetic device, the Bible is not a science textbook. If it was meant to be used for that, God could have inspired someone to write about DNA or the wave/particle duality of light in an unambiguous way.
Regards,
sorry, I don't have time to answer your properly, but I did find this interesting graphic, it's not a fossil but I thought it was pretty cool looking ;)
ReplyDeletetake a look
Hey anaughtymouse,
ReplyDeleteSo what is that link suppose to tell me?
Have Orcas been around for 30 million years un changed? (at the bottom).
Is it saying that whales came from big cats?
Are these actual fossils found or they just someones drawings of imagination?
There would need to be alot more examples of transitional fossils before it could be shown/proven that they evolved into each other. There are still huge gaps in that illustration.
They could very easily be variations of a type of whale or a type of cat designed be God, which I find more believable.
Thankyou for taking the time for showing it to me though :)
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe image shows the 'nested hierarchy' of life that you hear mentioned so often. We have fossil evidence to construct graphics like this for thousands of known species.
Paleontologists use information like this to predict where, and most importantly when, a transitional species would have to have lived. They then go digging in rocks that they know to be that age...when they do find fossils, they always fall into this nested hierarchy as predicted.
This is but a small branch of the tree of life, it connects to other species and families in a way that is predicted by evolution.
When we look at contemporary animals (say big cats and Orca) we can predict that certain genetic markers will be present, given the time since the animals diverged from each other (see graphic), we always find these markers to be supportive of common decent, as predicted by evolutionary theory.
"There are still huge gaps in that illustration."Analogy:
Say you're trying to construct a series of numbers from 1 - 10.
You have 1,2,4 & 10 and you hypothesize that you should find 3 in-between 2 & 4. Then you find it. Number-deniers say that you haven't proved that 3 is a transitional between 2 & 4, so you go and find 2.5 - this still doesn't convince them, so you go find 2.25 & 2.75.
Now we have 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3 & 4. Pretty conclusive, right?
No. The number-deniers may admit that there is micro-change between 2 & 3, but there's no evidence to show that 2 can become 4!
So you start all over again and fill in the sequence from 2 to 4 (2.1, ,2.2, 2.3.....3.9, 4.0). Now, surely, they'll admit that 2 transitions to 4....
Well, how do you know that 2.1 becomes 2.2? Say the number deniers and the scientist goes off in search of 2.15.....
This is what you're doing Dan.
We are never going to find every single individual that ever existed. We are never going to have a time machine with a time-lapse camera to witness the history of the earth first-hand.
But the theory of evolution makes testable predictions that work and they wouldn't work if it was wrong.
Common decent is a fact. It has been well established for a long time now and it is constantly reinforced by new evidence.
I don't know how else to put it.
Cheers,
Hey Matt,
ReplyDelete"We are never going to find every single individual that ever existed. We are never going to have a time machine with a time-lapse camera to witness the history of the earth first-hand."
Yep agreed. It is a huge story though...one that will have to be told with a lot of evidence before it is proven to be true. At first looks it seems improbable and as the second post on evolution 2 brings forth, there are many difficulties, with some exceptions as you brought forth.
Big cats to orcas? WOW I could only dream of such a thing.
Thanks for you comments!
Dan
"Yep agreed. It is a huge story though...one that will have to be told with a lot of evidence before it is proven to be true. "Well it's a good job we have lots of evidence then, eh? Because evolution has been shown to be true for decades now.
ReplyDelete"Big cats to orcas? WOW I could only dream of such a thing"Come on Dan, nobody is suggesting that contemporary animals known as 'big cats' turned into Orca. We are saying that there is evidence to suggest that big cats and orca have a common ancestor.
Try it out with your family tree. What you said is like; "My cousin to me? WOW I could only dream of such a thing"
and we're saying; "No, you and your cousin share a common ancestor (your grandparent, for example)."
I guess we'll carry this on in the new evolution thread...
I have just edited a few little bits to the post since the comments before this one :)
ReplyDeleteNote also:
ReplyDelete"Check out this bloggers site. She believes in evolution but sounds like a sincere christian. Maybe she can help you more in that way. Her name is verandoug."
I said this before, and I am not sure if it is true. I think she may be a progressive creationist.
I hate to give wrong information.
Vera is an old earth gal but I don't think she believes in a common ancestor. She's more open minded about the timeline of creation so I think "progressive creationist" is probably a good term, I think it also would be safe to say she's an "old earth creationist"
ReplyDeleteVera's blog was the first blog I had ever been too :)