How can evolution be responsible for a universe of complexity?

[NikolaeVarius]

My personal definition of God is not unlike Albert Einsteins, a single theorem or formula that unifies everything we know about how the Universe goes round. A.k.a The Theory of Everything.

I believe you don't have the right idea of what God would be...he's beyond a "being", outside of what any human could fully understand or grasp. To him, creating the universe, time, everything we know, would have been nothing. No human can truly grasp the concept of "God", and I believe you're having trouble with that because you're trying to fit "him" into an understandable human thought.

See this is the problem with religion and science coexisting. You say, we can't fathom "him" with our human brains. Than whats the point? There would be no motivation toward scientific research if we just can't "fathom" him. Also this ties in with Occams Razor. It rejects the notion of a god because it is the most complex thing that can exist, which is why we can't "fathom" him.

Evolution is a theory

Everything is technically a theory. A fact is a theory that hasn't been disproven and has been shown to explain a phenonme with lots of experiments. Evolution is a theory strongly based on experimentation.

"Evidence for Christianity"

Read it. Don't remember much from it though. Except thinking how some ideas were just absurd.

The author mentioned that if you study our current atmosphere, there's an area where water could have been located

Such as this. The entire atmosphere has crap loads of water vapor in it. If you are talking about liquid form, I introduce you to rain.

(I believe Venus has something similar...I could be wrong, but it's completely possible)

Venus has a Co2 dominated Atmosphere. We have a Nitrogen Dominated Atmosphere. I don't get it

The earth also had a different land "layout"

Tectonic Plates?

Basically, with the water layer and the condition of the earth during the pre-flood time, the climate, weather, etc. provided perfect living conditions for humans (a sort of tropical environment, I believe). The water layer added extra protection to the earth/climate (especially against certain harmful rays), allowing people to live much longe

Yeah. I remember laughing at this. You would think ice core data would have shown this, don't you? Or hell, anything really. The water layer? Thats called Ozone. Pre Flood? What happened to post flood? And taking the Bible literally, are we all descendants of Moses? Does that mean that everyone is being incestuous?

Isn't it a bit silly to limit God to a sort of "law" than humans created? "Even though you have a bit more wisdom and power than us, you're just way too complicated for our brains...so we're leaving you out."

See above. Its not silly. God IS incredibly complicated. For example, you don't think God somehow coming down from his heaven up high, and somehow communicating with us in a way our puny chemical based brain can decipher isn't complex? god has no place in science, most scientists work with the assumption its not some sort of heavenly being thats doing everything, and its turned out well so far.

I've heard of many archeologists, or people in some similar field, trying to ultimately disprove "stories" written in the Bible. They want to just disprove the Bible in general...yet, many end up finding that the Bible matches up so well, that they can't help but believe its historical accuracy.

I don't doubt that the Bible says actual events I doubt the back story and actual event description. Theres not enough water in the world for a global flood. Its stupid to try and disprove something thats based off someone saying "I believe in it" its not possible. Unless aliens come to earth and say that we were just some big reality show for the entertainment of the Universe.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Now we're getting somewhere. However, even if the Bible has real places and people in it, that does not mean that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate. Earlier examples posted included the Garden of Eden, the parting of the Red Sea and the Flood. Are these events verifiable in the archaeological record? Absolutely not. You have taken a sample of Biblical stories that are supported by evidence and built an argument that because some are true, everything in the Bible is irrefutable. This is demonstrably false, and poor argumentation on your part.

And given that this thread discusses evolution, the primary reason the Bible is brought in at all is for the seven day creation and the Garden of Eden, neither of which are supported by the archaeological record. Everything else is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you really think we're debating whether Thutmose IV was the heir to Amenhotep?

Firstly... The parting of the red sea has been confirmed archaeologically. Nearly 75-85% of post flood chronology has been verified.

Secondly... Using Sattelite Imagery and several geographic studies, several possible locations have been found for the 4 river system which would mark the location of the garden of eden. There is no reason to suggest that such a place did not exist.

Thirdly, Given the amount that is confirmed true archaeologically, and that nothing has been verified false yet, gives me no reason to doubt it thus far.




My problem with evolution is there are still many many holes which make the theory both incomplete and contradictory.
1) The theory fails if abiogenesis is proven to be false.
2) The theory fails to explain the cambrian explosion.
3) Reconciling the converging and diverging specieation problems of the theory. (Example Rhea vs Emu, and Cytocrome C)
4) Why Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium matches the fossil record much better than Darwins phyletic graduation
5) Certain unique examples of irreducable complexity

 

[sao123]

DP due to forum software error.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I wonder how anyone could seriously doubt evolution once the idea and a certain amount of evidence has been introduced to them. In school I once saw a photo of the fossilized remains of proto horses lined up consecutively right up to a modern horse, the only thing I thought was "Hot Damn, I think we're on to something here". I didn't feel the need to interpose anything extra into my interpretation of the photo. It seemed a rather good explanation for horses all by itself. Regardless of the presence of the facts upon which evolution is founded (of which there are far more than enough to convince any truly objective person) it's one of those rare things that just seemed to fit observed evidence well.

I'm not saying that you should just throw caution to the wind and set up a Church of Darwinism or anything, but just look at nature without trying to shove any moral or philosophical baggage you might have into it. The only reason most people reach so doggedly for intelligent design is because THEY need it, not because nature or any Gods that may be need it. Why put God in there at all?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Now we're getting somewhere. However, even if the Bible has real places and people in it, that does not mean that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate. Earlier examples posted included the Garden of Eden, the parting of the Red Sea and the Flood. Are these events verifiable in the archaeological record? Absolutely not. You have taken a sample of Biblical stories that are supported by evidence and built an argument that because some are true, everything in the Bible is irrefutable. This is demonstrably false, and poor argumentation on your part.

And given that this thread discusses evolution, the primary reason the Bible is brought in at all is for the seven day creation and the Garden of Eden, neither of which are supported by the archaeological record. Everything else is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you really think we're debating whether Thutmose IV was the heir to Amenhotep?

Firstly... The parting of the red sea has been confirmed archaeologically. Nearly 75-85% of post flood chronology has been verified.

Secondly... Using Sattelite Imagery and several geographic studies, several possible locations have been found for the 4 river system which would mark the location of the garden of eden. There is no reason to suggest that such a place did not exist.

Thirdly, Given the amount that is confirmed true archaeologically, and that nothing has been verified false yet, gives me no reason to doubt it thus far.




My problem with evolution is there are still many many holes which make the theory both incomplete and contradictory.
1) The theory fails if abiogenesis is proven to be false.
2) The theory fails to explain the cambrian explosion.
3) Reconciling the converging and diverging specieation problems of the theory. (Example Rhea vs Emu, and Cytocrome C)
4) Why Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium matches the fossil record much better than Darwins phyletic graduation
5) Certain unique examples of irreducable complexity

Archaeological evidence does not support the conclusions you are making. The fact that early Christians considered a location in the Middle East to be the origin of mankind does not prove that we were created there. I could claim that life originated in my backyard and call the location whatever I want. This would not prove that life begin in my backyard. The only "fact" is the claim that I am making.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: hans030390
Um...no? Evolution is a theory. Well, microevolution has more or less been observed and proven to be true, but macroevolution is just a theory based on how people explain the origin of life/species based on the evidence found in application to their theory (microevolution also being tied in with that). Evolution (as in macro) has not, and never will be solid "fact" until we can observe first hand the evolution we are trying to prove (purely natural and random). Yes, that may be millions of years, but calling it a "fact" because "everyone believes it!" is a pretty poor excuse. I respect it if you believe it to be true, but not when it's called a scientific fact (and the bandwagon effect does not make it so either). Accept it as a theory you believe to be true, and believe that based on personal, logical analysis and research (please). Also, keep an open mind, and be respectful towards those who may believe differently (even if they have done zero research...).

Again, there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. So what if we never see a "species" change to another one.
"Species" is a purely arbitrary organization method devised by humans. I can say a dog and cat are the same "species" if I wanted to, or I could also say that people from Iceland are a different species than those from Italy.
We see life forms changing all the time. If they didn't adapt, the drug industry would be able to lay off a lot of their workforce, because they have to keep working to stay ahead of pathogens that become resistant to antibiotics.

Or look at the path corn has taken, from being a grain with small kernels and low yield, to what it is today. In fact, I think that would be an example of a species changing from one to another.
We did a little "selection" of corn throughout the centuries, selecting the ones we wanted to survive, eventually leading to the species of corn we have today.

Nature does its own selection. Life forms that are able to survive in a changing environment get "selected" to continue to survive, by simple virtue of being able to live long enough to reproduce themselves.



As for the stuff about the Bible being "proven," yeah, it was written by people a long time ago, people who liked to listen to and tell stories. There is evidence that the flood stories were prompted by a large comet or asteroid hitting the Indian Ocean, leading to huge tsunamis. If you're living thousands of years ago, you hear or see a large explosion, or bright light in the sky, and then the oceans rise up and flood far inland, what do you say? You'd better believe some wild stories will be told about that day.

My problem with evolution is there are still many many holes which make the theory both incomplete and contradictory.
1) The theory fails if abiogenesis is proven to be false.
2) The theory fails to explain the cambrian explosion.
3) Reconciling the converging and diverging specieation problems of the theory. (Example Rhea vs Emu, and Cytocrome C)
4) Why Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium matches the fossil record much better than Darwins phyletic graduation
5) Certain unique examples of irreducable complexity

1) You can't prove something like that to be false. Logical impossibility.

2) The fossil record is, by its very nature, going to have lots of gaps. And no, we don't have all the answers. Yet.

3) Why are converging and diverging species an issue? The environment changes. Weather changes. Food availability changes. Populations get split up, and find themselves in different ecosystems.
It happens among humans. Those who've long lived near the equator have different physiologies than those from higher latitudes. If you want to go back to that arbitrary "species" designation, you could easily say that Europeans, Orientals, Africans, and Native Americans are all different species. Each has different adaptations to their specific environments.

4) Different theories on how things work. Different ways of describing the same phenomenon. And again, the fossil record, by nature of how it was formed, is going to have gaps.

5) All easily, and often debunked. Two main ones often used: Eyes and flagellum. Both have been debunked by genuine scientists who actually know something about biology. Neither is "irreducibly complex."

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Anyone who simply claims "someone must have designed it" is weak-minded, in my opinion.

There was a mention of disease earlier. I know of a mental disease that billions of people have that is seemingly incurable.

Let's say for the sake of your argument that God and religion are mere products of the imagination. And to continue in this line of thought let's assume that evolution is more than just a theory, this would lead us to ask several questions.

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

Actually, it's an extremely popular stance and Christians just enjoy pretending that they are some persecuted minority. That said, all the questions you asked have at least in part, been answered by science. You came to this thread a breacher in disguise and now the wolf has removed his sheep's clothing.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: So
Evolution is a fact...


Um...no? Evolution is a theory. Well, microevolution has more or less been observed and proven to be true, but macroevolution is just a theory based on how people explain the origin of life/species based on the evidence found in application to their theory (microevolution also being tied in with that). Evolution (as in macro) has not, and never will be solid "fact" until we can observe first hand the evolution we are trying to prove (purely natural and random). Yes, that may be millions of years, but calling it a "fact" because "everyone believes it!" is a pretty poor excuse. I respect it if you believe it to be true, but not when it's called a scientific fact (and the bandwagon effect does not make it so either). Accept it as a theory you believe to be true, and believe that based on personal, logical analysis and research (please). Also, keep an open mind, and be respectful towards those who may believe differently (even if they have done zero research...).

Sorry, I'm not directing that just at you...it can apply to anyone.

No, evolution is an observed fact. The terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are terms created by people grasping at straws to try to fight something they see as a threat to their belief system. Evolution is evolution is evolution, period. It's a fact because we have observed evolution and pretending we haven't is simply self delusion.

The data is in, evolution is real. If you don't like the facts, it's more of a personal problem, really.

Respecting others doesn't mean pretending that someone presenting incorrect information or incomplete facts correct. Sorry.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sao123
Firstly... The parting of the red sea has been confirmed archaeologically. Nearly 75-85% of post flood chronology has been verified.

Secondly... Using Sattelite Imagery and several geographic studies, several possible locations have been found for the 4 river system which would mark the location of the garden of eden. There is no reason to suggest that such a place did not exist.

Thirdly, Given the amount that is confirmed true archaeologically, and that nothing has been verified false yet, gives me no reason to doubt it thus far.

My problem with evolution is there are still many many holes which make the theory both incomplete and contradictory.
1) The theory fails if abiogenesis is proven to be false.
2) The theory fails to explain the cambrian explosion.
3) Reconciling the converging and diverging specieation problems of the theory. (Example Rhea vs Emu, and Cytocrome C)
4) Why Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium matches the fossil record much better than Darwins phyletic graduation
5) Certain unique examples of irreducable complexity

I'll concede on the Red Sea, as I have not studied it enough to suggest otherwise. Your following two premises are flawed, however. Even if the Garden of Eden exists, there is nothing to suggest it is the birthplace of humans; the archaeological record puts early humans in Africa several hundred thousand years ago, not in the Middle East 6,000 years ago (or rather, it shows that even though humans existed 6,000 years ago in the Middle East, they had existed for hundreds of thousands of years before that, which the Bible does not account for). Your final point, that because some of a particular text has been verified, the entirety of the text is true, is absolutely absurd. Rational thought is based on verifying every point, not a high enough percentage to get by. 75% of science textbooks from the 70s was accurate, but we don't still teach them in schools. Why? Because 25% was wrong and needed to be updated. Even now, our science textbooks have problems in them; a good science teacher makes that abundantly clear to his/her students. A good preacher doesn't need to tell his/her congregation that the Bible may or may not be accurate...

As for your five points about evolution, let me address these one by one:
1) Absolutely false. Evolution does not offer up ANY suggestion for the origins of life. If abiogenesis is proved false, it does not do ANYTHING to the theory of evolution or the principles of natural selection. Evolution does not answer where life started, it addresses why there is such a wide diversity of life.
2) The fossil record is woefully incomplete, especially from 500 million years ago. And for someone who is touting the authenticity of the Biblical version of creation, bringing up ANYTHING from more than 6,000 years ago shoots holes in your own explanation of events.
3) This, again, is most likely related to an incomplete fossil record, though tectonic shifting helps account for some of the convergent animal forms we see in disparate locations today.
4) Punctuated equilibrium IS a theory of evolution. Saying that one theory of evolution is better than another doesn't disprove evolution; if anything, it strengthens our understanding. It shows that science adapts to new information, while religion remains rigid, based on data thousands of years old.
5) You're giong to have to list some, and we'll do our best to examine how these seemingly impossibly complex adaptations could have come into being via natural selection versus God snapping his fingers.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
Firstly... The parting of the red sea has been confirmed archaeologically. Nearly 75-85% of post flood chronology has been verified.

I demand a source on that. As far as I can tell, that's a number you just pulled out of your a**.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Think about the animal and plant relationship. Plants give off life sustaining oxygen, they provide food, nutrients and vitamins which help sustain the animal life. In turn animals breathe out carbon dioxide which the plants need, animal waste also nourishes the soil which plants use for survival. It's hard to believe that this complex relationship came into existence by chance or evolution.

It seems like you have a serious misconception about evolution. What you wrote is *perfectly* explained.

It's like this-

- Earth stats out very rich in carbon dioxide.

- Life begins which feeds on carbon dioxide (plants). Probably some life begins that feeds on other substances, but because those substances are not plentiful enough it dies out.

-Lot of time passes, during which the initial plants are producing oxygen.

-Life evolves to make use of other gasses, including oxygen. The life that evolves to use less plentiful gasses all die out because there isn't enough, but the life that uses oxygen flourishes because there is a large amount of oxygen in the air due to plants.



So no. It's not by "chance" that we use oxygen, the reason we use oxygen is that if we used any other gas we would have died off billions of years ago because there wasn't enough of it.

That's a poor argument. Nitrogen is the most plentiful gas in the atmosphere, and yet it is far more common to see species using either carbon dioxide or oxygen (even though nitrogen is used in many biological processes)

What if the atmosphere were made of 100% Argon? That stuff is almost completely inert. It would not be viable for life forms to feed on.

 

[0roo0roo]

sao, the main problem is you seem to be relying on "experts" who clearly have no credibility. and thats pretty much by definition if they take such positions.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
...
I guess creationists and evolutionists are from two different worlds so to speak. ...

Kinda like neanderthals and homo sapiens. Guess which one is going extinct.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Think about the animal and plant relationship. Plants give off life sustaining oxygen, they provide food, nutrients and vitamins which help sustain the animal life. In turn animals breathe out carbon dioxide which the plants need, animal waste also nourishes the soil which plants use for survival. It's hard to believe that this complex relationship came into existence by chance or evolution.

It seems like you have a serious misconception about evolution. What you wrote is *perfectly* explained.

It's like this-

- Earth stats out very rich in carbon dioxide.

- Life begins which feeds on carbon dioxide (plants). Probably some life begins that feeds on other substances, but because those substances are not plentiful enough it dies out.

-Lot of time passes, during which the initial plants are producing oxygen.

-Life evolves to make use of other gasses, including oxygen. The life that evolves to use less plentiful gasses all die out because there isn't enough, but the life that uses oxygen flourishes because there is a large amount of oxygen in the air due to plants.



So no. It's not by "chance" that we use oxygen, the reason we use oxygen is that if we used any other gas we would have died off billions of years ago because there wasn't enough of it.

I admit I'm not an expert in evolution so I don't know the different theories and terminologies that are used. However I do have a grasp of the concept. But getting to your example what is the explanation for life beginning that feeds on carbon dioxide or any other substance? And if that is how life really started on this planet should'nt we see countless other examples on other planets? I would imagine that there are planets, systems and galaxies that are likely older than the Earth. So should'nt there have been a similar pattern in the evolution of life in other locations? All these questions basically lead up to the one, what makes Earth so special that it was able to create life that evolved to what it is today?

That would be a good hypothesis. We havent visited any other planets yet that are similar to earth.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

Bad parody thread = ban...

 

[JTsyo]

Even if you follow the Bible's version of creation, there still has to be evolution. Otherwise how did the different races of humans come to be when God only make 2?

 

[Capitalizt]

CHRISTIANITY

lol

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
Even if you follow the Bible's version of creation, there still has to be evolution. Otherwise how did the different races of humans come to be when God only make 2?

Thats like asking how the hell were there cities in the time of Cain and Abel. Did God make boatloads of other humans in the 20-40 or so years after Adam and Eve were evicted? If he did, why isn't it mentioned?

And is Adam having sex with Eve really sex, masturbation, or incest? I mean, Eve was basically a female clone of Adam.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452


And you still demonstrate that you believe science and religion to be incompatible.


I don't know why this keeps coming up, I do not believe that religion and science are incompatible. In fact there are many instances where the bible and science both support each other. A few examples:


1. Centuries ago popular belief held that the world was flat and it was possible to sail or fall off the end of the world. This was such a firmly rooted belief that it was considered heresy to argue the point. However in the bible before science could prove it be to true the Earth was described as being circular.

Isaiah 40:22 There is One (God) who is dwelling above the circle of the Earth.

2. Also many years ago it was believed that the planet resided on an object or an animal (an elephant and a giant turtle I think). While this seems silly today, centuries ago people truly believed that to be the case. Again the bible before science could confirm it had this to say.

Job 26:7 God is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing


It depends on a person's beliefs. If they simply believe in a god as a neutral entity then I would have no problem. Neutral in the sense that they believe such a thing exists alone considered to a belief in god corresponding to the associated dogma. Basically, you believe in a god or gods but you don't necessarily believe in the dogma that a certain group follows.

See that's the reason why science and god are not contradictory. "Why?" is a philosophical problem when taken to the utmost extent. "Why does this thing behave the way it does?"and on and on and on. Science can answer how to the best of its ability. Now science cannot prove that there is no god because no experiment can be devised.

Basically, god cannot be proved/disproved. Religious claims and dogma cannot be dis proven either because they all relate to god. However, religious claims about history, and their explanations can.

So if the bible says something happened a couple thousand years ago, scientists may have the ability to suggest what actually happened if in fact it is contradictory. Ala the evolution debate.

You might as well believe that god created the big bang. Answer to your problems if your god is "neutral".

Really, not to be offensive, but I don't think you "can" believe it, if you consider yourself to be a believer.


I'm interested in your response to this.



I read through the article and I don't think this case disproves the bible. Again just for clarity, I believe in evolution in the sense that lifeforms have the ability to change and adapt to their environment. However I don't believe that the variety of lifeforms as we know it evolved from a similar a source. That goes contrary with the Genesis account (Genesis 1:20-28) where it explains how each animal, plant, etc.. was created according to its own kind or species.

Like I mentioned before in a previous reply, belief in the bible these days is unpopular but that does'nt neccessarily mean that is wrong. Despite science being a benefit to man, at times science has been known to be wrong. Sometimes the data that we have at our disposal is incorrectly analysed, other times we might lack the whole picture on a particular subject and draw invalid conclusions. A few examples of that, science once taught:

1. That heat is a fluid called caloric?
2. That the atom is the smallest particle of matter, and that it was impossible to divide it?
3. That an impassable barrier between matter and energy prevented any possibility of one being changed into the other?
4. That sleep is caused when the nerve cells shrink, thereby no longer making contact with one another?

Of course, scientists have long rejected these theories and replaced them with others more consistent with the facts as they now know them. New facts discovered in the future, or different approaches to facts now in their possession, could lead to modifications, or even abandonment, of theories scientists now hold. So I believe this to be true of evolution as well, it's quite possible in time new data or research will change the opinions currently held today.



There is no logic in saying that you believe in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. Both these terms are misnomers to be exact. It's just evolution. You purport that science has not adequately explained evolution to you how species can evolve? If you don't deny the logical steps and don't deny the logical experiments, then how exactly can you logically deny evolution? You really can't.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Praxis1452


And you still demonstrate that you believe science and religion to be incompatible.


I don't know why this keeps coming up, I do not believe that religion and science are incompatible. In fact there are many instances where the bible and science both support each other. A few examples:


1. Centuries ago popular belief held that the world was flat and it was possible to sail or fall off the end of the world. This was such a firmly rooted belief that it was considered heresy to argue the point. However in the bible before science could prove it be to true the Earth was described as being circular.

Isaiah 40:22 There is One (God) who is dwelling above the circle of the Earth.

2. Also many years ago it was believed that the planet resided on an object or an animal (an elephant and a giant turtle I think). While this seems silly today, centuries ago people truly believed that to be the case. Again the bible before science could confirm it had this to say.

Job 26:7 God is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing


It depends on a person's beliefs. If they simply believe in a god as a neutral entity then I would have no problem. Neutral in the sense that they believe such a thing exists alone considered to a belief in god corresponding to the associated dogma. Basically, you believe in a god or gods but you don't necessarily believe in the dogma that a certain group follows.

See that's the reason why science and god are not contradictory. "Why?" is a philosophical problem when taken to the utmost extent. "Why does this thing behave the way it does?"and on and on and on. Science can answer how to the best of its ability. Now science cannot prove that there is no god because no experiment can be devised.

Basically, god cannot be proved/disproved. Religious claims and dogma cannot be dis proven either because they all relate to god. However, religious claims about history, and their explanations can.

So if the bible says something happened a couple thousand years ago, scientists may have the ability to suggest what actually happened if in fact it is contradictory. Ala the evolution debate.

You might as well believe that god created the big bang. Answer to your problems if your god is "neutral".

Really, not to be offensive, but I don't think you "can" believe it, if you consider yourself to be a believer.


I'm interested in your response to this.



I read through the article and I don't think this case disproves the bible. Again just for clarity, I believe in evolution in the sense that lifeforms have the ability to change and adapt to their environment. However I don't believe that the variety of lifeforms as we know it evolved from a similar a source. That goes contrary with the Genesis account (Genesis 1:20-28) where it explains how each animal, plant, etc.. was created according to its own kind or species.

Like I mentioned before in a previous reply, belief in the bible these days is unpopular but that does'nt neccessarily mean that is wrong. Despite science being a benefit to man, at times science has been known to be wrong. Sometimes the data that we have at our disposal is incorrectly analysed, other times we might lack the whole picture on a particular subject and draw invalid conclusions. A few examples of that, science once taught:

1. That heat is a fluid called caloric?
2. That the atom is the smallest particle of matter, and that it was impossible to divide it?
3. That an impassable barrier between matter and energy prevented any possibility of one being changed into the other?
4. That sleep is caused when the nerve cells shrink, thereby no longer making contact with one another?

Of course, scientists have long rejected these theories and replaced them with others more consistent with the facts as they now know them. New facts discovered in the future, or different approaches to facts now in their possession, could lead to modifications, or even abandonment, of theories scientists now hold. So I believe this to be true of evolution as well, it's quite possible in time new data or research will change the opinions currently held today.



There is no logic in saying that you believe in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. Both these terms are misnomers to be exact. It's just evolution. You purport that science has not adequately explained evolution to you how species can evolve? If you don't deny the logical steps and don't deny the logical experiments, then how exactly can you logically deny evolution? You really can't.

I hate to tell you this, but people have known that the earth was a sphere since at least 600BC, and smart mariners probably knew long before that.

That said, science's changing theories are a STRENGTH, not a weakness. There are plenty of religious viewpoints that stay fixed in spite of the obviously contradictory facts of reality. Evolution is the PERFECT example of this.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Well, as you can tell by previous posts, I am a strong Atheist. But some events in the Bible ARE historically recorded, or explainable by normal means.

Like Moses and the Red Sea. Well, technically , not the Red Sea as there is controversy if there was a typ when recording the Bible originally. But the water splitting is indicative of a pre-tidal wave, which then killed the people who were going across it.

There probably WAS a big flood of some kind, indicated in Noah's Ark, but its most likely just a localized heavy flood.

Lots of Bible stories are probably just like stories of Egyptian Gods,created to explain a natural event thats unexplainable.

Where is there evidence of the whole Moses thing? I'm not going to take hearsay as proof on something that ridiculous.

Noah's flood is stated as globe-wide. Bold-faced lie, there.

It's all just so absolute fantasy it's impossible to get over it. Yeah, yeah, that's where the "faith" comes in.

At face value it would seem that something like a global flood would be ludicrous, but if you do a little research into the event there are some facts that should be considered. For example if the global flood was simply a myth, would the bible include accurate details as to what kind of dimensions and materials the ark should be built with (Genesis 7:14-16)? Also if the flood account was just a fable, it would be unlikely that other bible writers (Peter) and Jesus himself would refer back to that account.

2 Peter 3:6 - and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water

Matthew 24:37-39 - For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.

Since I know not everyone here believes the bible to be true I won't use it as my only reference source. But its a well known fact that ocean and sea levels would rise significantly if the glaciers and other forms of ice found in the mountains, Anarctica (sp?) and other areas would begin to melt. Then there has been evidence of animals who were encased in ice with food remains still in their mouths and stomachs. Not to mention all over the earth there have been traces of sediment and minerals found in fossilized states that would normally only exist in large bodies of water. So there is lots of evidence that would support the notion that a globalized flood did take place. If anyone is interested I could look up specific sources to support this.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Well, as you can tell by previous posts, I am a strong Atheist. But some events in the Bible ARE historically recorded, or explainable by normal means.

Like Moses and the Red Sea. Well, technically , not the Red Sea as there is controversy if there was a typ when recording the Bible originally. But the water splitting is indicative of a pre-tidal wave, which then killed the people who were going across it.

There probably WAS a big flood of some kind, indicated in Noah's Ark, but its most likely just a localized heavy flood.

Lots of Bible stories are probably just like stories of Egyptian Gods,created to explain a natural event thats unexplainable.

Where is there evidence of the whole Moses thing? I'm not going to take hearsay as proof on something that ridiculous.

Noah's flood is stated as globe-wide. Bold-faced lie, there.

It's all just so absolute fantasy it's impossible to get over it. Yeah, yeah, that's where the "faith" comes in.

At face value it would seem that something like a global flood would be ludicrous, but if you do a little research into the event there are some facts that should be considered. For example if the global flood was simply a myth, would the bible include accurate details as to what kind of dimensions and materials the ark should be built with (Genesis 7:14-16)? Also if the flood account was just a fable, it would be unlikely that other bible writers (Peter) and Jesus himself would refer back to that account.

2 Peter 3:6 - and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water

Matthew 24:37-39 - For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.

Since I know not everyone here believes the bible to be true I won't use it as my only reference source. But its a well known fact that ocean and sea levels would rise significantly if the glaciers and other forms of ice found in the mountains, Anarctica (sp?) and other areas would begin to melt. Then there has been evidence of animals who were encased in ice with food remains still in their mouths and stomachs. Not to mention all over the earth there have been traces of sediment and minerals found in fossilized states that would normally only exist in large bodies of water. So there is lots of evidence that would support the notion that a globalized flood did take place. If anyone is interested I could look up specific sources to support this.

I have seen reports of evidence that localized horrible flooding took place, surely enough that primitives would call it global.
The Bible's account of the great flood is pretty much just a rehash of the flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh, IIRC.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: So


I hate to tell you this, but people have known that the earth was a sphere since at least 600BC, and smart mariners probably knew long before that.

That said, science's changing theories are a STRENGTH, not a weakness. There are plenty of religious viewpoints that stay fixed in spite of the obviously contradictory facts of reality. Evolution is the PERFECT example of this.

I don't doubt that some people were aware of that fact since that 600BC time period. But like I mentioned before it was a widely held belief for many years that the world was flat which the science at that time upheld. As far as science changing its theories I'm not mentioning that in a critical way, I'm just pointing out that at times science has been wrong about what was believed to be a fact until new evidence suggested otherwise.

Can you point out some examples of religious viewpoints that are fixed despite scientific claims otherwise? No need to mention evolution again since I've been addressing that point all throughout this thread.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Chronoshock

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Some of the Bible is based on actual places, people, and events. That does not mean that everything in it is fact.

Precisely, no one is arguing about the history of human civilization, we are arguing about an omnipotent entity. None of what sao mentioned confirms the presence of god or contradicts current scientific knowledge.
The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old. It is a scientific fact that it is older. The bible is not to be taken literally. A lot of the language is archaic/poetic and can be interpreted in many different ways.

That's actually a misconception many people have about the bible, the Earth is much older than 6000 years. Its the account of human history that is referenced at being about 6000 years old.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: So


I hate to tell you this, but people have known that the earth was a sphere since at least 600BC, and smart mariners probably knew long before that.

That said, science's changing theories are a STRENGTH, not a weakness. There are plenty of religious viewpoints that stay fixed in spite of the obviously contradictory facts of reality. Evolution is the PERFECT example of this.

I don't doubt that some people were aware of that fact since that 600BC time period. But like I mentioned before it was a widely held belief for many years that the world was flat which the science at that time upheld. As far as science changing its theories I'm not mentioning that in a critical way, I'm just pointing out that at times science has been wrong about what was believed to be a fact until new evidence suggested otherwise.

Can you point out some examples of religious viewpoints that are fixed despite scientific claims otherwise? No need to mention evolution again since I've been addressing that point all throughout this thread.

Dinosaurs. Blood Transfusion. STD. HPV vaccine.