Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Here's why -- someone built that house.

How would you know that? Were you there?
Couldn't god have created it that way?

Somehow there was a fire that damaged it.

Ow? How do you know?
Were you there?

Can you repeat it in a lab so that we end up with the exact same result as in the picture?

Looking at that picture does not tell you where the fire came from

That's why we have forensics.

. Reasoning of a normal mind would tell a person (yes, tell without words) that the house was built by human hands. Therefore -- someone built that house. Someone of the human species cut the lumber and put it together. Somehow there was a fire. That's what the evidence shows.

So you recognize the past event of fire due to the known effect fire has, because you know how fire works and what it does. And the results match the stuff a fire does to things. Right? That's the evidence you refer to, right?

On top of that, you also acknowledge to not know how the fire started / originated. But clearly that doesn't stop you from knowing that fire happened anyway, right?


Now realize that geneticists know what DNA is and how it works. How it mutates. How viral DNA gets inserted into it and is then past on to off spring in its changed form. This is how they recognize a brother from a cousin. This is how they can estimate levels or genetic relationships - because they know how to recognize the effects of the known processes.

This is how we know that when a species shares ERV's with another species, they are genetically related through a common ancestor in which that viral DNA got inserted, after which it was past on through the generations.

And the same goes for all other DNA markers. And comparative anatomy. And geographic distribution of species (both extant as well as fossilized) - and that cross referenced with geological history / plate tectonics.

This is how we know that evolution took place on this planet. In the exact same way as you know that that house in the picture burned down.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is interesting that those I see here who absolutely without question believe in the certainty of evolution as the reason for life also say that it (evolution) alone is the reason life happens.

Literally nobody here is saying that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

“Simply”, huh?

Nah, sorry...genetic mutations rarely produce novel, functional information. And if mutations do create a different process, the organism always loses function in another. The LTEE started by Lenski is a good example of this.

I did not follow this thread, I hope they did not hit you too hard.

From a Baha'i perspective Evolution of man was as a distinct species, we are not a mutation from Ape.

There are also many Baha'i Scientists that have embraced God, so we'll done to all those scientists.

It will be a great future when they all do.

Regards Tony

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA is not evidence?


ps: you, unsurprisingly, completely misunderstood what I said about how common ancestry is a genetic fact and how evolution theory is the body of explanation that explains that fact (among many others).
If evolution theory (descend with modification followed by selection) is shown to be false, then the facts remains. Species will genetically still be related in a family tree. This is simply how the collective of DNA is arranged. Sequence it, map it out and a family tree is revealed. It didn't have to be that way, but there you go: it is.

You can either deal with that or remain in denial.




So your argument against evolution theory, is the fact that gorilla's don't wear underwear?

You expect me to treat that "argument" seriously?



Now, now... be nice.

Can you please show me where dna is evidence of evolution? Please do explain in your own words, not referring me to a link or telling me to take a course. One of those reasons I want YOU to explain the process of evolution concerning dna as evidence is to see if you understand it. I will wait for your response and hopefully ask you questions to see how you understand dna as evidence of evolution, thank yoiu very much.

 

[YoursTrue]

I did not follow this thread, I hope they did not hit you too hard.

From a Baha'i perspective Evolution of man was as a distinct species, we are not a mutation from Ape.

There are also many Baha'i Scientists that have embraced God, so we'll done to all those scientists.

It will be a great future when they all do.

Regards Tony

Thank you for your honest answers here. Not to interfere, I wonder just how many here promoting evolution would 'reason' with you about that -- the perspective as to the distinct species but not part of the "ape family"? (Not sure exactly what you believe or what Baha'i teaches), although you say it was evolution. May I ask evolution from what, if not from apes? Thanks for your input, by the way. The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the soil. What's in it. But I leave that for now. BTW, there usually is some gap of inbreeding somewherer along the line, isn't there? Don't want to go into too many different situations here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you please show me where dna is evidence of evolution?

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

We can construct family trees by comparing DNA.
We can do this, because DNA mutates and is inherited by off spring in mutated form.
This forms a nested hierarchy - a tree.

By comparing DNA, we can reconstruct this tree.
This is how we can distinguish your brother from your cousin, using only DNA.

When we comparing lots of different species and map out the matches, we get the above tree.
This tree matches comparative anatomy and geographic distribution of species.

This makes common ancestry of species, a genetic fact.

One of those reasons I want YOU to explain the process of evolution concerning dna as evidence is to see if you understand it.

Please............. the guy who keeps on making the same basic mistakes, like saying "but they remain humans!!!!", is going to judge the level of knowledge of others? Really?

I will wait for your response and hopefully ask you questions to see how you understand dna as evidence of evolution, thank yoiu very much.

Go ahead, ask your questions.

 

[paarsurrey]

If I believed in the theory of evolution I might figure you're correct when you say that Adam & other "fellow humans" evolved in millions of years. But I don't. In fact, the more I think about it, the less sense it makes in some rather substantial ways, for which I see no validation (in other words, no proof).

There is a hint in Bible that God talked "face to face" with Adam and with Moses that means that God had a Converse with them directly, I understand.
Bible is not pristine and secure in its original form so one will find only clues of reality in it, please. Right?
No harm if one differs with me, please.
Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thank you for your honest answers here. Not to interfere, I wonder just how many here promoting evolution would 'reason' with you about that -- the perspective as to the distinct species but not part of the "ape family"? (Not sure exactly what you believe or what Baha'i teaches), although you say it was evolution. May I ask evolution from what, if not from apes? Thanks for your input, by the way. The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the soil. What's in it. But I leave that for now. BTW, there usually is some gap of inbreeding somewherer along the line, isn't there? Don't want to go into too many different situations here.

Thank you for your response.

The evolution of the species was a talk given buy Abdul'baha in America in the early 1900's. Abdulbaha was the Son of Baha'u'llah and was appointed as the Head of the Baha'i Faith after Baha'u'llah passed in 1892.

This is a link to a few talks he gave on the subject, it enables you to see what I offered in my comment.

Evolution | Bahá’í Quotes

This is an extract

".......... This anatomical evolution or progression does not alter or affect the statement that the development of man was always human in type and biological in progression. For the human embryo when examined microscopically is at first a mere germ or worm. Gradually as it develops it shows certain divisions; rudiments of hands and feet appear -- that is to say, an upper and a lower part are distinguishable. Afterward it undergoes certain distinct changes until it reaches its actual human form and is born into this world. But at all times, even when the embryo resembled a worm, it was human in potentiality and character, not animal. The forms assumed by the human embryo in its successive changes do not prove that it is animal in its essential character. Throughout this progression there has been a transference of type, a conservation of species or kind. Realizing this we may acknowledge the fact that at one time man was an inmate of the sea, at another period an invertebrate, then a vertebrate and finally a human being standing erect. Though we admit these changes, we cannot say man is an animal. In each one of these stages are signs and evidences of his human existence and destination. Proof of this lies in the fact that in the embryo man still resembles a worm. This embryo still progresses from one state to another, assuming different forms until that which was potential in it -- namely, the human image -- appears. Therefore, in the protoplasm, man is man. Conservation of species demands it."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 358-359

Thus you will note the talk is given on intelligent design. Abdulbaha's Father Baha'u'llah is seen as a Messenger from God by Baha'i and those passages are seen as God given knowledge.

Personally I see that is what science needs to consider and they may make many amazing discoveries.

We are also told that man has walk this earth far longer than we are aware of.

Regards Tony

 

[YoursTrue]

There is a hint in Bible that God talked "face to face" with Adam and with Moses that means that God had a Converse with them directly, I understand.
Bible is not pristine and secure in its original form so one will find only clues of reality in it, please. Right?
No harm if one differs with me, please.
Regards

In reference to the Bible and its purity, I believe there are many aspects to think about and explore. But for the most part it seems clear to me that it was copied and passed on as strictly as possible among the people it involved and encompassed the history of. As for God speaking directly to Adam, or face to face, there are various ways to look at it, since we know from the account with Moses that no man can see the Almighty God and live. I take this to mean that the sight of Him for human eyes is too much for our fleshly bodies to bear. Why and how I do not know except that the sight would kill us. I go by what I know (from the Bible and reasoning on it. When the Bible is in conflict with what scientists say, I choose to go with reasoning on the Bible's historicity. When and if that is proven without doubt wrong, I will of course change my view about the events as recorded as we see it now. When the Bible says that someone saw God, it is with the understanding that it was not a fleshly encounter with the Almighty, but rather a direct message from Him via however He chose to do it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you for your response.

The evolution of the species was a talk given buy Abdul'baha in America in the early 1900's. Abdulbaha was the Son of Baha'u'llah and was appointed as the Head of the Baha'i Faith after Baha'u'llah passed in 1892.

This is a link to a few talks he gave on the subject, it enables you to see what I offered in my comment.

Evolution | Bahá’í Quotes

This is an extract

".......... This anatomical evolution or progression does not alter or affect the statement that the development of man was always human in type and biological in progression. For the human embryo when examined microscopically is at first a mere germ or worm. Gradually as it develops it shows certain divisions; rudiments of hands and feet appear -- that is to say, an upper and a lower part are distinguishable. Afterward it undergoes certain distinct changes until it reaches its actual human form and is born into this world. But at all times, even when the embryo resembled a worm, it was human in potentiality and character, not animal. The forms assumed by the human embryo in its successive changes do not prove that it is animal in its essential character. Throughout this progression there has been a transference of type, a conservation of species or kind. Realizing this we may acknowledge the fact that at one time man was an inmate of the sea, at another period an invertebrate, then a vertebrate and finally a human being standing erect. Though we admit these changes, we cannot say man is an animal. In each one of these stages are signs and evidences of his human existence and destination. Proof of this lies in the fact that in the embryo man still resembles a worm. This embryo still progresses from one state to another, assuming different forms until that which was potential in it -- namely, the human image -- appears. Therefore, in the protoplasm, man is man. Conservation of species demands it."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 358-359

Thus you will note the talk is given on intelligent design. Abdulbaha's Father Baha'u'llah is seen as a Messenger from God by Baha'i and those passages are seen as God given knowledge.

Personally I see that is what science needs to consider and they may make many amazing discoveries.

We are also told that man has walk this earth far longer than we are aware of.

Regards Tony

Thank you for your reflection on this matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

View attachment 54387


We can construct family trees by comparing DNA.
We can do this, because DNA mutates and is inherited by off spring in mutated form.
This forms a nested hierarchy - a tree.

By comparing DNA, we can reconstruct this tree.
This is how we can distinguish your brother from your cousin, using only DNA.

When we comparing lots of different species and map out the matches, we get the above tree.
This tree matches comparative anatomy and geographic distribution of species.

This makes common ancestry of species, a genetic fact.




Please............. the guy who keeps on making the same basic mistakes, like saying "but they remain humans!!!!", is going to judge the level of knowledge of others? Really?



Go ahead, ask your questions.

I will but it would be helpful if you wouldn't make snide comments about the level of my understanding, ok? Perhaps if you can agree to that we can continue to talk after this. So here is my question if you care to give an explicit reply. (Thank you.) The question I have is about DNA and if DNA ascertains whether a fossil or bone fragment is considered homo sapien or not. For instance, if a person finds a fragment and it is examined by an expert for the DNA composition, but no other bones are around, and it's a small bone not necessarily determined to be of a certain organism upon initial examination, can the DNA indicate what type of form it was, whether it was might have been from a gorilla, for example, or prehaps a homo sapien? I am talking about a small bone fragment, not something that is recognized by sight as a human bone or that of another organism. Rather whether the DNA alone can settle the classification of the specimen. If you care to answer without rancor, fine. If not, thanks anyway, and we can consider the conversation closed.

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you know that? Were you there?
Couldn't god have created it that way?



Ow? How do you know?
Were you there?

Can you repeat it in a lab so that we end up with the exact same result as in the picture?



That's why we have forensics.



So you recognize the past event of fire due to the known effect fire has, because you know how fire works and what it does. And the results match the stuff a fire does to things. Right? That's the evidence you refer to, right?

On top of that, you also acknowledge to not know how the fire started / originated. But clearly that doesn't stop you from knowing that fire happened anyway, right?


Now realize that geneticists know what DNA is and how it works. How it mutates. How viral DNA gets inserted into it and is then past on to off spring in its changed form. This is how they recognize a brother from a cousin. This is how they can estimate levels or genetic relationships - because they know how to recognize the effects of the known processes.

This is how we know that when a species shares ERV's with another species, they are genetically related through a common ancestor in which that viral DNA got inserted, after which it was past on through the generations.

And the same goes for all other DNA markers. And comparative anatomy. And geographic distribution of species (both extant as well as fossilized) - and that cross referenced with geological history / plate tectonics.

This is how we know that evolution took place on this planet. In the exact same way as you know that that house in the picture burned down.

Let me understand what you're saying here. You're saying that if you take a trip and see a house in the middle of the desert built with wood and stones that it's possible God could have done it, and you might reason that way?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no "first" piece of evidence. That request makes no sense.

The fact is that evolution is supported by a great multitude of independent lines of evidence, where each line itself consists of mountains of individual pieces of evidence.

There's no one single piece of evidence, that makes evolution convincing or acceptable. It is in fact the combination of all of it that does.

OK, so is it that you are saying that scientists have not found the first evolved entity? Or is it speculation as to what is the first organism to have evolved.

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA is not evidence?


ps: you, unsurprisingly, completely misunderstood what I said about how common ancestry is a genetic fact and how evolution theory is the body of explanation that explains that fact (among many others).
If evolution theory (descend with modification followed by selection) is shown to be false, then the facts remains. Species will genetically still be related in a family tree. This is simply how the collective of DNA is arranged. Sequence it, map it out and a family tree is revealed. It didn't have to be that way, but there you go: it is.

You can either deal with that or remain in denial.




So your argument against evolution theory, is the fact that gorilla's don't wear underwear?

You expect me to treat that "argument" seriously?



Now, now... be nice.

Why is that not nice? Either homosexuality is, as now speculated, to be evolving in humans, or it is not. And of course, then it would be survival of the fittest, right?
So please, let's go back to the DNA history of humans and gorillas, and how to tell from a specimen if something was a human or not, going by DNA findings.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will but it would be helpful if you wouldn't make snide comments about the level of my understanding, ok? Perhaps if you can agree to that we can continue to talk after this. So here is my question if you care to give an explicit reply. (Thank you.) The question I have is about DNA and if DNA ascertains whether a fossil or bone fragment is considered homo sapien or not. For instance, if a person finds a fragment and it is examined by an expert for the DNA composition, but no other bones are around, and it's a small bone not necessarily determined to be of a certain organism upon initial examination, can the DNA indicate what type of form it was, whether it was might have been from a gorilla, for example, or prehaps a homo sapien? I am talking about a small bone fragment, not something that is recognized by sight as a human bone or that of another organism. Rather whether the DNA alone can settle the classification of the specimen. If you care to answer without rancor, fine. If not, thanks anyway, and we can consider the conversation closed.

Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me understand what you're saying here. You're saying that if you take a trip and see a house in the middle of the desert built with wood and stones that it's possible God could have done it, and you might reason that way?

I don't even know how to respond to this.
Maybe you should read the post again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, so is it that you are saying that scientists have not found the first evolved entity?

???

Your lack of knowledge is causing problems again in your line of questioning.
The "first evolved entity" makes little sense.

Or is it speculation as to what is the first organism to have evolved.

99.99% of all species that ever lived are extinct today. And we will never know about the vast majority of them as they are lost in the pages of history. Most species don't leave fossils behind. And even when fossils are left behind - we still have to find them first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is that not nice? Either homosexuality is, as now speculated, to be evolving in humans, or it is not. And of course, then it would be survival of the fittest, right?

It's not nice because there is absolutely no need to drag homosexuality into this.
I can only guess why you did that. I have a hypothesis. I'll let it go before your attempt at derailment is succesful.

So please, let's go back to the DNA history of humans and gorillas, and how to tell from a specimen if something was a human or not, going by DNA findings.

You think that when geneticists are given a DNA sample, that they can't tell if it's human DNA or not?

It's like you literally know close to nothing about the fields you are talking about.

 

[paarsurrey]

In reference to the Bible and its purity, I believe there are many aspects to think about and explore. But for the most part it seems clear to me that it was copied and passed on as strictly as possible among the people it involved and encompassed the history of. As for God speaking directly to Adam, or face to face, there are various ways to look at it, since we know from the account with Moses that no man can see the Almighty God and live. I take this to mean that the sight of Him for human eyes is too much for our fleshly bodies to bear. Why and how I do not know except that the sight would kill us. I go by what I know (from the Bible and reasoning on it. When the Bible is in conflict with what scientists say, I choose to go with reasoning on the Bible's historicity. When and if that is proven without doubt wrong, I will of course change my view about the events as recorded as we see it now. When the Bible says that someone saw God, it is with the understanding that it was not a fleshly encounter with the Almighty, but rather a direct message from Him via however He chose to do it.

So one agree with me. Right?

Regards

 

[tas8831]

From a Baha'i perspective Evolution of man was as a distinct species, we are not a mutation from Ape.

So that faith is wrong, too.