Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

What originated the originator? If the originator didn't have an originator why would the universe need one?

To need anything the universe would have to exist.

You are asking me what originated the originator. I understand the question.
God always exists. NO originator.

I am asking you something now. Did whatever caused the universe have an originator? I have called it energy, but you may call it anything you like.

 

[ArtieE]

I am asking you something now. Did whatever caused the universe have an originator? I have called it energy, but you may call it anything you like.

The universe is just all or some of what exists in the form of the universe. Something has always existed and now that something or part of it is our universe.

 

[savagewind]

The universe is just all or some of what exists in the form of the universe. Something has always existed and now that something or part of it is our universe.

I agree with that.

 

[ArtieE]

That is more likely to be due to the timeframe that life on earth exists in. The Creator lives in a realm that is outside of our time. We earth bound humans must live according to the rotation of the earth....24 hours in a day...7 days in a week, 52 weeks in a year....and the earth just happens to be at the right tilt, and rotating at the right speed and is the right size to sustain life beautifully. Science tells us that the environment produced life (somehow) whereas ID proponents believe that the earth was purposely prepared with life in mind. Everything that was needed to support life was here long before the first creatures took breath. (which just happens to have the right mixture of gasses as it turns out)
What amazingly fortunate flukes you believe in.....on a par with belief in a Creator IMO.

There's an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable universe. What an amazing fluke if not a single one of them happened to be like Earth.

EDIT: Forgot the link. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/05/how-many-planets-are-in-the-universe/

 

[metis]

I see evolution as the real delusion....but its just marketed better than ID.

What a bizarre statement that is so terribly off the mark.

There is no such thing as "theistic evolution".....its more about saving face that standing up for the truth....not me.

Oh yes, all those theologians are just "saving face" while you claim to know better. Ya, that's really impressive story telling, Deeje.

And you have been led to believe that from whom? Are you easily led my friend? Do you believe everything you hear? Or only when it agrees with your own bias?

If I was "so easily led", then why did I switch in light of what the research clearly shows?

Not everything is as it seems Metis...the world is ruled by God's adversary, so what do we expect? (1 John 5:19; John 15:18-21)

It's so "telling" that you so willingly believe in that which cannot in any way be confirmed, and yet you reject what the overwhelming evidence clearly shows.

BTW, if you believe that Satan operates independently from God, then you are actually a believer in a form of polytheism that posits two or more sovereign deities. You might actually spend some time reading the beginning of the book of Job before blindly believe that. And if the "world is ruled by Satan", then exactly how do you know that you haven't been duped by Satan to believe in what you believe in? Is it that you know-it-all while most of the rest of the people on Earth are just ignorant schmucks, Deeje?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Remember discussing Darwin's observations, and the many similar observations that human beings have been making for thousands of years? Darwin wasn't the first to notice that evolution happens.

Good point.
The common reasoning before Darwin's work expanded on it was called the Transmutation Of Species. At the time, parent populations were referred to as Locus of Creation. Their assumption was that God (or whatever was popular phrasing at the time) created one type of "thing" and than it would then expand it's reach into different environments, slowing altering the species into something else.

It's not like the whole world suddenly abandoned their faith in the late 1800s because some bearded guy on a ship drew a few finches, as many creationists obviously believe...
Evolutionary understanding has been a long time coming.

 

[savagewind]

And you have been led to believe that from whom?

We would like to know this about you. The Bible? Jehovah? Jesus? The men of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses? All of that? Which one @Deeje?

Are you easily led my friend?

You can't be a Jehovah's Witness and not be easily led

Do you believe everything you hear?

Only if it comes from The Society of The Faithful and Discreet Slave, according to most of you.

Or only when it agrees with your own bias?

You like Jehovah 100% in charge. Who wouldn't or who shouldn't?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes there is Metis. The Bible account of creation can be interpreted to accommodate an old earth and ancient creatures that came and went before man's arrival. There is no conflict with science on that score.

There was no death before the Fall, according to your own book. So, yes. There's a problem.

Darwin is known as the Father of Evolution. He is the one who is mainly credited with science's views on the subject. I assume that is why they call it "Darwinian Evolution"?

This is how creationists describe it because they are horribly misinformed on the topic. It is not called "Darwinian Evolution" outside of creationist circles and rhetoric. Darwin could just have easily been no part of it at all, and the Theory would still be sound. Today, it has almost no reliance on his work at all.

When people suggest that you should stop lying, this is the kind of thing they are talking about. It's not because you are a liar, personally. It's because you constantly repeat inaccurate falsehoods that have been allowed to propagate within your creationist circles due to a combination of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

I tell the truth as I understand it. I assume that you do too. That is not repeating lies, because I can accuse all evolutionists of doing exactly the same thing.
Quoting science to me is like me quoting the Bible to you.....I don't believe that evolutionary science tells the truth. I believe that they take their "evidence" and interpret it to suit their presuppositions.

This is called a false equivocation. Your opinions and faith in God are wonderful things - but they are not equal to verifiable discoveries made by scientific observation. The Earth was round even when 100% of the ancient world believed that it was supported by pillars of the back of a great tortoise. Planetary objects orbited their stars even when people believed in perfect harmonic layers of glass that suspended the sun and moon above the Earth. And species adapted to their environments over time, continuing the long cycle of descent with modification that has existed since life first arose, even when people very KNEW that an invisible man in the sky wished them into existence for the purpose of serving a mythological man and woman walking around naked in a mythological garden of perfect and endless life... Reality is not dependent on opinion or faith. If scientific Theories about the origin of life are wrong, that's wonderful! At least we'll eventually learn the truth. If anything about your religious dogmas regarding creation and salvation are wrong, then you're whole belief system is totally f@cked. There's a big difference between those two things.

How does bringing in the beliefs of heathens, thousands of years ago, add to your argument?

The root of your current position on creation and your ideas about unrealistic biological processes are founded on the beliefs of those heathens... That's the point. You're actively rejecting centuries-worth of scientific field observations, and daily discoveries, and replacing them with uneducated mythologies. That doesn't cause you to take pause and evaluate why nearly ever professionally productive scientist alive today rejects your position on the nature of existence?

The Israelites were never told about evolution and neither were the first Christians. I really don't care about what other religions teach....OK?

You should - if you paid more attention to it, you would come to recognize the similarities between the "false" religions that you currently reject and your own. We don't reject Christian mythologies for no reason. We do so using the same methodology that you do when rejecting Zoroastrian creation stories, or Hindu creation stories, or Muslim creation stories (which are similar but not the same), or a Hellenistic creation stores, etc... You see those things as misguided beliefs by people who are led astray by The Adversary, do you not? Why is your faith any different from theirs?

This thread is about how we got here, not how we adapted after the fact. Nothing is "accidental".

That can be a beautiful way to look at life - but it's 100% subjective and it's not science. If you want to talk about how we got here, please present some evidence to support your position. If all you have is the Bible and your faith, then you have a few more hurdles to jump through before you can be taken seriously.

Currently, your claims about "how we got here" are no more legitimate than my claim that we arose from the Sea Foam of Poseidon after a long night of undersea congress. (For those who don't know, the ancient Hellenes believed that sea foam was the ejaculate of the Ocean God. Remember that next time you enjoy a nice stroll along the beach.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good point.
The common reasoning before Darwin's work expanded on it was called the Transmutation Of Species. At the time, parent populations were referred to as Locus of Creation. Their assumption was that God (or whatever was popular phrasing at the time) created one type of "thing" and than it would then expand it's reach into different environments, slowing altering the species into something else.

It's not like the whole world suddenly abandoned their faith in the late 1800s because some bearded guy on a ship drew a few finches, as many creationists obviously believe...
Evolutionary understanding has been a long time coming.

Thank you.

Apparently human beings have been noticing this stuff for a very long. Which makes sense because it's actually pretty obvious.
It's not like Darwin just pulled it out of his derriere one day to tick off religious people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We are material creatures who live in a material world. Science can test matter, yet they cannot create matter. But the one who created the universe can produce matter, but is himself not a material being, therefore he requires no originator because his existence is not testable by any means known to science. Rather than place such a being in the realms of possibility, they place him in the realm of fantasy, whilst concocting another equally improbable fantasy . Go figure.

Prove it. Any of it. Hold yourself to the same standards that you do everyone else.



By the way, as mentioned, God's existence could be potentially be demonstrated if such a god supposedly interacts with the material world, as you seem to believe.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's not like Darwin just pulled it out of his derriere one day to tick off religious people.

Correct - he in fact had a huge problem with printing his conclusions because he realized the ramifications that it would have among very deeply entrenched social norms.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is more likely to be due to the timeframe that life on earth exists in. The Creator lives in a realm that is outside of our time. We earth bound humans must live according to the rotation of the earth....24 hours in a day...7 days in a week, 52 weeks in a year....and the earth just happens to be at the right tilt, and rotating at the right speed and is the right size to sustain life beautifully. Science tells us that the environment produced life (somehow) whereas ID proponents believe that the earth was purposely prepared with life in mind. Everything that was needed to support life was here long before the first creatures took breath. (which just happens to have the right mixture of gasses as it turns out)
What amazingly fortunate flukes you believe in.....on a par with belief in a Creator IMO.

More empty assertions.

What are the odds that the specific god you believe in exists and what does this paragraph have to do with what I said?

There is no " kinda, sorta, right-ish" in any of it. It is quite specific actually.There are just two events to go....the destruction of Babylon the great and the end of this entire world system of things. That's it. Humans will then have no more chances to listen and to come on board with what the Creator is offering. Its their choice because he will force no one to do anything against their will.

It's kinda weird how you're being so vague and can't quote any prophecies for me. And yet you seem to think you're being specific.

Maybe the last 2 events will never happen. Then what? You're speaking as if they have already happened. Also, as I pointed out, you ignore all the "prophecies" that didn't come true? (Tyre comes to mind.)

I find all this longing for the end of the world stuff to be quite bizarre. I'd rather focus on taking care of the world and safeguarding it for future generations to flourish.

There is no one making anyone believe anything. All I am is a messenger and you are free to ignore me and my God.
But it is my firm belief that you will believe in him one day. He promises to rectify everything, soon by all accounts.
We already know that we can't hurry him up as much as we would like to.

You're just making more empty assertions.

One day you're going to realize that Thor is real and is the one who has been making lightning bolts all these millennia. You'll be sorry you didn't worship him. See, I can do it too!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Science cannot provide proof that life could appear by random chance.

This is for the exact same reason you can't prove there is a God. And it's because you haven't been "everywhere" and haven't seen "everything" that has gone on. You can't have, and even if you could have, perhaps what you are trying to witness isn't even visible to you.

It's the exact same with the possibility of life starting from non-life. Scientists can't have been everywhere, in every time, to witness every exchange of matter. If the circumstances are rare enough, perhaps they don't happen but by chance once every trillion years - and are obscure or complex enough that trying to even dream them up in a lab is a shot in the dark (the immense darkness of the entire universe, no less). And even if you could be there, the scale upon which this is all happening is so small as to require a grossly powerful microscope pointed in EXACTLY the right direction.

But I'll tell you one thing - based on what is observable in our world - life spawning from the matter of the universe makes one hell of lot more sense than conjuring up some magic-user in your imagination and claiming he popped everything into being.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I tell the truth as I understand it. I assume that you do too. That is not repeating lies, because I can accuse all evolutionists of doing exactly the same thing.

No, you can't. Try to divert to someone or something else to cover up your own dishonesty doesn't help you.

Quoting science to me is like me quoting the Bible to you.....I don't believe that evolutionary science tells the truth. I believe that they take their "evidence" and interpret it to suit their presuppositions.

And that's the fundamental problem here. You don't seem to understand how science operates, even after all these posts.

Darwin is known as the Father of Evolution. He is the one who is mainly credited with science's views on the subject. I assume that is why they call it "Darwinian Evolution"?
How does bringing in the beliefs of heathens, thousands of years ago, add to your argument? The Israelites were never told about evolution and neither were the first Christians. I really don't care about what other religions teach....OK?

This thread is about how we got here, not how we adapted after the fact. Nothing is "accidental".

I've explained why it adds to my argument. More than once.

So what? It's called the theory of evolution. Why would the Israelites have been told about a scientific theory that didn't exist yet? Many people throughout human history have noticed that organisms change over time. How about actually speaking to the point?

You're still not getting it. This isn't about "being told" that something is true or not. I don't know why you think that's how it happens. Nobody told Akhlaq-i-Nasri about evolution when he first started postulating about hereditary variability - 600 years before Darwin was even born. Nobody told ancient Chinese Daoists about evolution when they were talking about how species seem to adapt in response to differing environments. Nobody told Darwin about evolution and then he just accepted it because somebody told him to. Rather, he took down careful observations about the world around him, exposed himself to the careful observations and measurements of the many scientists and naturalists (many of whom were religious) who came before him and put together a pretty decent explanation for the diversity of life on earth. But it didn't end with him, because we are always learning new things (thanks again, to science!) that need to be incorporated into our understanding of the world. It's about human beings throughout history noticing how the world around them operates and trying to piece it all together. Darwin was not even close to being the first person to notice and think about the mechanisms that are now part of the theory of evolution. Knowledge builds upon knowledge.

 

[Sapiens]

Where are the lies? The evidence she presents is in the obvious complex structure of living organisms! Even Flew and Einstein recognized there had to be an Intelligent Source behind it all!

You're dishonestly quote mining Einstein. Flew, in his dotage, fell into the augment from ignorance/god of the gaps trap.

Tell me, where's the lie, if it's not to believe that a written language, developed itself and began replicating, gaining its own knowledge to form the variety of life we have today? If it was trial and error -- and natural selection is based on trial and error -- the fossil record would be filled with half-formed creatures, manifesting little function. (This is precisely why Gould proposed 'punctuated equilibrium'.)

No that is not why Gould proposed 'punctuated equilibrium'. You are creating straw-man and red herring fallacies.

This is not the case!!!

Furthermore, how could Darwinian evolution account for and maintain the balance between predator-prey interaction? Natural selection, by definition, would upset that balance, as the 'selfish genes' would select for the prey to defeat the attacks from the predators!

Bunny rabbits, et.al., would be developing claws and other defensive body plans!

Deeje is a reasoner, not easily misled by what's accepted. So am I.

You could not be more wrong, you have an abysmal misunderstanding of predator prey interactions both on the immediate and evolutionary levels.

"Zero credible PhD holders in biology say that."

This is completely subjective! I think -- I know -- there are many, who present arguments that I and others consider reasonable and very credible.

Many? Hardly. That you and your fellow travelers, in your demonstrable ignorance, consider something reasonable and very credible, is hardly evidence. If you want to make and argument from authority you must establish first that a actual authority exists.

I asked you to:

You take your pick and please demonstrate how behaviorally, sexual selection, or genetically the structural diversity of functional, biological proteins, or apoptosis
provides the mechanism that acts as a barrier to small changes becoming larger changes over large periods of time.

How about it?

Wow, and I think the same thing about your group!

So what, you have not demonstrated that anyone should take your views seriously.

CDer's have to ignore much evidence, the Cambrian Explosion being one category (with partial explanations rife with special pleading imo), and other evidence contorted to fit your presupposed view.

Good day.

You do not understand science. evidence is not contorted to fit a presupposed view, the view is reshaped to conform to the evidence found.

Lets explore what a logical fallacy is.....

"Logical Fallacies


An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.


What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above."

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
So when we apply this to evolution, we can see that it too can just as easily be deemed a logical fallacy. When your first premise is flawed, then everything you build on it will be equally flawed.

There are two belief systems each with those who "believe" them based on what they want their truth to be. Neither has solid provable science to back them up.

You have no evidence, you have only your presupposition, that there is no provable science to back the ToE. There is much provable science that has been presented, that you reject, without reason or evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

The fact that stuff exists is proof that it had to have an originator. Stuff doesn't just "poof" itself into existence. Your fantasy is worse than mine.

A staw-man fallacy.

Good grief another Mr Grumpy.

What is it with you people? Does the topic of evolution vs creation make you lose your sense of humor? Did you evolve your funny bone out of existence or something? This whole question is about what people choose to believe. Its about whether scientists are really being truthful with the ordinary folks out there who don't have the benefit of a science degree and who just might find the investigation here of interest because it is conveyed in layman's terms. No fancy scientific jargon...just plain old in your face, facts....with real pictures of real creatures...not contrived diagrams of long extinct critters.

You have already, based on you stated preference for ignorance, disqualified yourself.

If you have chosen to support the ToE, then go for it. Believe it all you want....but seriously, if you really think this thread is nonsense, then how come we have over 15,000 views already? Does this make you uncomfortable?

Doesn't it demonstrate that this topic is of interest to those who may be questioning either one view or the other? We are helping them with their choices...isn't that
wonderful?

You're letting your ego get ahead of yourself again. It has more to do with the fact that people love to watch a train-wreck, and your lack of effective argumentation meets that specification.

Putting things simply, I believe that I have shown evolutionary science to be the deceptive fraud that it really is.

Only in your own mind.

It is pure conjecture based on assumptions it has made about how life changed on this planet. The "chain" of evolutionary species that is supposed to have led to man, is lacking verifiable evidence that any of it is true. Its circumstantial evidence at best.....complete fraud at worst.

The fraud is all yours, the fallacies are all yours, and now you introduce another fraud: "supposed to have led to man"

I have noticed the level of disdain that is heaped upon those 'uneducated morons' who have the hide to question the 'god' that science has become for many. It isn't sacrilege.....its just plain, honest, logical truth.

Disdain is reserved for those hold forth on subjects that they demonstrably have so little exercise about that all they can do is regurgitate logical fallacies fed them by others.

If you believe that microbes can morph into dinosaurs given enough time, then I am going to call you out on that.

Yep, you called and lost your bet, your bluff failed.

If the best you can do is show me fossil fragments or bones and then paint me a picture of how this evolved into that over several million years but you have no way to actually prove that, then what are we to conclude? What you are saying is nothing more than the fairy story you think we are telling.....you have no more proof for what you say, than we have.

You do not understand the bones, you do not understand the data that was used to make the reconstructions as probable as can be, yet, with no falsifying evidence more telling than your own, admittedly ignorant, opinions, you set yourself up to contradict the best minds on the planet who have spent a lifetime engaged in detailed analysis of the issues. You do all that because they disagree with something that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the issue ... a bronze age fable that you choose to cling to in the face of all reasonableness.

Read Sapiens posts #1215 and #1216 and see what is written there. Take the biased glasses off and really read it.

If only you had taken your own advice.

There is no verifiable proof for evolution....and there is no verifiable proof for ID. Choose your belief system.

That has already been show to be false, there's lot's of verifiable proof, choose between a realistic and probable reconstruction and a belief system.

Evolution forces ordinary people to question their own common sense, deny what they see with their own eyes and believe everything scientists tell them for no other reason than that they are scientists. They have a decided bias towards the subject and if they don't have verification for some aspect, they will invent a scenario that they believe is convincing, complete with wonderful graphics....but its all smoke and mirrors.

What does it matter if evolution "suggests" most of what it posits as "evidence"? What if its "interpretation" of the evidence is way off the mark because it reads things in a biased way? It matters because people are told that ToE is unquestionable fact, when it clearly is no such thing. Even school children are brainwashed at a very young age.

I won't allow pompous men to feed people something presented as truth, when it isn't. It is assumed to be truth, but there is no way to prove it. Just be honest about that.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” ― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality.

 

[Sapiens]

The original definition of a theory is.....
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;
opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention"

And that is exactly what the ToE is. Changing the meaning of the word so you can call it the truth is deceitful.

I agree, you are deceitful:

Claim CA201:
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.
Source:
State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504: Schools; requiring all textbooks to have an evolution disclaimer; codification; effective date; emergency. http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/2003-04hb/hb1504_int.rtf
Response:

1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
   • Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
   • Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
   • Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
   • Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
   Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
   
   
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
   
   
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
   
   
4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
   
   
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

Links:
Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Isaak, Mark. 1995. Five major misconceptions about evolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
References:

1. Barnhart, Clarence L., ed. 1948. The American College Dictionary, New York: Random House.
2. Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217.
3. Eisen, J. A. and M. Wu. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology 61: 481-487.
4. Milgrom, Mordehai. 2002. Does dark matter really exist? Scientific American 287(2) (Aug.): 42-52.
5. Searls, D. 2003. Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 613-623. http://www.nature.com/nature/view/030731.html

Further Reading:
AIG. n.d. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Gould, Stephen J. 1983. Evolution as fact and theory. In Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 253-262. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[Sapiens]

Poor form. God isn't "stuff". God is a spirit. For those not understanding spirit, think of energy.
Did energy have an originator?

Correct. And to help you reason on it I offered to call spirit energy. Do you believe in energy? Did it always exist, or did it poof into existence?

Matter is stuff, energy and matter are interchangeable (E=MC^2), thus your "god" should be properly considered "stuff."

Why can't God as a Creator not experiment with his creativity? We do. Variety in creation is not necessarily a sign that one creature evolved into another, but I see it more as God giving life to a variety of living things before deciding on the ones who would share life with man. The dinosaurs were long gone, but perhaps needed to mow down a very overgrown earth at some period? Who knows....science doesn't and neither do we.



He did keep creating more and more. The creative "days" were epochs, each with a monumental amount of achievement. So much so that God declared each period to be satisfactory in his estimations.



As I see it, creation ended at the end of the 6th creative period. But that didn't mean that adaptation did not continue. The ability to adapt is given to all creatures as a natural way to cope with a changed environment. I don't see it as relating to macro-evolution in any way, so using one as proof in support of the other is just wishful thinking IMO.

Since evolution depends entirely on scientist's ability to "interpret" evidence, don't you think that the creation account might also be more a matter of correct interpretation? There are as many conflicting scientific arguments as there are religious ones. Who is telling the truth and what if both of them are in error? What if there is a middle ground that is reasonable and logical, and accommodates both true science and creation without compromising either? This is what I am advocating on this thread. But this topic often makes evolution supporters cranky because the mere suggestion of a Creator turns some of them into monsters! I am grateful for the ones who can retain a sense of humor in discussing this emotive topic, which I see as merely one belief system competing with another. We are all free to choose, but let the truth from both sides be told because informed choice is the only kind we need.



Yes there is Metis. The Bible account of creation can be interpreted to accommodate an old earth and ancient creatures that came and went before man's arrival. There is no conflict with science on that score.



Again, interpretation of the evidence is based on a foregone conclusion...that evolution is a verifiable fact and that shared DNA proves a slow and gradual production of new species. But what if all that shared DNA is simply the act of a common creator who used the same raw materials to create everything? Are we not all made of the same elements as the earth itself, just as Genesis states? Wouldn't that explain the similarities? Evolution takes those similarities and assumes many things which may not be true if their first premise is flawed.



That is the frustrating part....science only claims to "think" it knows. How is it possible to take a theory, based on suggestion, which is based on educated guessing, and make it sound like absolute truth, when it cannot be proven by any scientific method. The best science can do is take what it already believes and try to squeeze everything they find into that belief. Then it calls that belief, fact. That is what I object to. There are no "facts"...only educated assumptions.



I found the Bible to be enlightening only after I left the church. I was never given alternatives growing up. Creation was the '7 literal day' process and that was that. In High School I began to learn about evolution and was really excited about it. The church's teachings were old hat to me anyway, so I fully embraced the theory....yet somehow, as much as I was disenchanted with the church, I never stopped believing in God.
But the more I studied evolution, the more purposeful design I saw in everything....even in inanimate things. I concluded that they both had to be wrong and that God must be hiding somewhere else. I made excursions into Eastern religions and even Mormonism, but there was only emptiness and a feeling like I was missing something.
It wasn't until I examined the teachings of JW's that I saw that something that was missing in all the rest. A reasonable middle ground where science and creation met without one compromising the other. They didn't try to sell theistic evolution as a sell out to science, but combined true science and creation in a very reasonable and logical way.

Everyone is free to choose, so I cannot understand why some get so heated when these truths are brought to their attention. Everyone is entitled to their own choices in this issue.

Neither macro-evolution, nor ID have any scientific method of validation.....I just wish that people could understand that they are choosing between one belief system and another. But science won't have a bar of that.

If a god is perfect and omnipotent then experimentation would be rather a waste of time, no?

Why are you quoting the Bible when you know nothing of what it says?

"Light" appeared on the first day. (Gen 1:3) The only source of light for this planet is the sun....which was made right along with "the heavens and the earth", "in the beginning".

When God made the luminaries appear, it was by dispersing whatever it was that was obscuring them. Cloud layers perhaps. The simple language used in Genesis was aimed at ordinary folks...not science geeks...OK?

Here I am, again, Deeje! I thought I was gone....guess I'm not.
(Just can't stand it when somebody call me a liar!)

Then please, tell the truth, you said that you, "were leaving," not, "leaving only if not one calls me a liar."

You might find this interesting, I did. In fact, I downloaded the entire book to my 'ibooks'!
(Keep in mind, not believing in a "personal" God, does not mean, Einstein didn't think God is a higher intellect. It only means he thought God wasn't interested in any person.... Or us, as people.)

Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book, not mine.)
(Double asterisks and bold type are mine, to highlight.)

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. Besides, it's just a labor in the Einstein quote mine. Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic.

I tell the truth as I understand it. I assume that you do too. That is not repeating lies, because I can accuse all evolutionists of doing exactly the same thing.
Quoting science to me is like me quoting the Bible to you.....I don't believe that evolutionary science tells the truth. I believe that they take their "evidence" and interpret it to suit their presuppositions.

Darwin is known as the Father of Evolution. He is the one who is mainly credited with science's views on the subject. I assume that is why they call it "Darwinian Evolution"?
How does bringing in the beliefs of heathens, thousands of years ago, add to your argument? The Israelites were never told about evolution and neither were the first Christians. I really don't care about what other religions teach....OK?

This thread is about how we got here, not how we adapted after the fact. Nothing is "accidental".

Actually the ToE can be, at least, traced back to Aristotle's Scala Naturae .

You believe what science suggests. That makes you a believer. I believe what the Bible suggests...that makes me a believer.

Science claims evidence for evolution but they cannot categorically state that it is true. Interpretation of the evidence is necessary to make a hypothesis into a theory.

ID proponents claim evidence for special creation, but they cannot categorically state that it is true. Interpretation of the evidence is necessary to make that into a viable belief.

Its a choice. Regardless of the objection...both are beliefs.

No, this has been dealt with repeatedly, I suggest you go back an reread it.

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory dealing with scientific data, not a system of metaphysical beliefs or a religion. It does, however, set the sorts of general problems biology deals with, and also acts as a philosophical attitude in dealing with complex change.

see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[Sapiens]

No, you can't. Try to divert to someone or something else to cover up your own dishonesty doesn't help you.


And that's the fundamental problem here. You don't seem to understand how science operates, even after all these posts.

I've explained why it adds to my argument. More than once.

So what? It's called the theory of evolution. Why would the Israelites have been told about a scientific theory that didn't exist yet? Many people throughout human history have noticed that organisms change over time. How about actually speaking to the point?

You're still not getting it. This isn't about "being told" that something is true or not. I don't know why you think that's how it happens. Nobody told Akhlaq-i-Nasri about evolution when he first started postulating about hereditary variability - 600 years before Darwin was even born. Nobody told ancient Chinese Daoists about evolution when they were talking about how species seem to adapt in response to differing environments. Nobody told Darwin about evolution and then he just accepted it because somebody told him to. Rather, he took down careful observations about the world around him, exposed himself to the careful observations and measurements of the many scientists and naturalists (many of whom were religious) who came before him and put together a pretty decent explanation for the diversity of life on earth. But it didn't end with him, because we are always learning new things (thanks again, to science!) that need to be incorporated into our understanding of the world. It's about human beings throughout history noticing how the world around them operates and trying to piece it all together. Darwin was not even close to being the first person to notice and think about the mechanisms that are now part of the theory of evolution. Knowledge builds upon knowledge.

It goes back, documented, to at least Aristotle.

 

[savagewind]

Matter is stuff, energy and matter are interchangeable (E=MC^2), thus your "god" should be properly considered "stuff."

Interesting that it seems you are proving my point. Thank you.