# Creation or evolution?



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

It's exactly as it sounds... which side of the fence do you fall on?


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

4th option:

both.


----------



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

I believe that the 4th option you suggest is actually my 3rd option.

Explain how you can support both?


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Some people believe that God used evolution to create the world, I think thats what Pamela means. Correct me if I am wrong though.


----------



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

IMO - that's a thinly veiled belief in creation.

EDIT: But you've just given me the wording for a new addition to the pole. I won't let my personal view exclude this option.  

RE-EDIT: Yeah.... uhmm, I can't edit the poll. Sorry about that. Refer to IMO above.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Hmmm... I believe we're either the decendants or creations of an alien race (ie. that "God" was an alien) or we evolved on this earth. I'm really hopin' it's my first option.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

yeah...something like that wonderings....He created everything at the beginning and gave us and our surroundings the ability to evolve over time.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

C Pretty well covers it, but where is the "How the heck am I supposed to know" option?

It isn't that I can't decide. It is that I don't feel anywhere near qualified to make that call.

[jest]
Your poll is flawed
[/jest]


----------



## Glaen (Dec 15, 2004)

This is my first post. I guess I picked a clutch topic to post in.








I think that there's 'proof' for both sides, but nothing absolute. For me, i feel that it's irrelivent. Whether we were created or evolved won't affect any part of my life for it's entirety.


----------



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

No matter how extensively supported one's argument is for "both sides", everything ultimately culminates to one point:

How did things begin and who/what put things into motion?

There is abook called "God's Debris" written by the dude who pens Dilbert. It really makes you think about this issue and tests your faith.


----------



## agent4321 (Jun 25, 2004)

Here's a couple of quotes from one of the best minds IMHO of course!  

_"We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow, biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation."
"In the cosmic perspective there is no reason to think that we are the first or the last or the best." 

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering ... Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." _

- Carl Sagan 1934-1996

Can you guess what I voted for in the poll...hmmmmm


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Creation is based on faith, evolution is based on science _as we know and understand it today_. 

I'll put my *faith* in science...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

KPS - that's an oxymoron.
Better the word * trust.*

Faith does not need reason......... science relies on it.
One is a belief not needing proof, the other a method of determining the nature of the physical universe.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Why do you thing it's in bold and the winking smily...


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

I had a long e-mail dialogue with a creationist this past summer and not once did they ever answer the one fundamental question that I asked, let alone the supplementsry ones I include here. For your consideration, here's a sample ...

"What differentiates us from other animals on this planet (and make no mistake about it, we are animals) is our inherent curiosity, our desire to push back the frontiers of ignorance, to learn, to develop, to acquire knowledge for it's own sake, to ask questions, to seek answers, facts and, hopefully, truths. This is a differentiating feature of humanity that can easily be considered a God-given talent/skill/characteristic while still engaging in the essentially human qualities described above. The fear on the part of many of your colleagues, as expressed explicitly and implicitly to me in the past, is that to accept that we have evolved is to suggest that we're not created in God's own image. Why? Why must it be a literal interpretation? Why are these mutually exclusive terms? They need not be. It's not an either/or situation. We can accept our human qualities while still maintaining and belief and wonder in the divine.

• Why is it necessary for Genesis to be an historically accurate document?
• Why can faith in God or a spiritual being not coexist with an understanding of nature, earth sciences and evolution?
• Why must the Bible be the source of all knowledge, or more specifically, a certain interpretation of the Bible?
• What about the Torah and Talmud?
• What about the Qur'an, the Bhagavad-Gita, Taoist, Buddhist or other religious or secular texts through time?
• What about the books of the Bible that were negotiated out of the final edition of the Bible during the conference at Nicea? Why do they not have currency?
• Why is an understanding and acceptance of the empirical evidence gathered throughout the last 200 years or more substantiating the geological age of the earth, the age of the universe and evolution tantamount to suggesting that there is no God? Remember, much of this scientific research was and is performed by good upstanding, God-fearing, Bible-toting individuals who were simply choosing to research and understand the world around them. Yet the Creationists would want us to believe that these same people were and are out to disprove the existence of God.
• Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old? Isn't the essential part of the Bible for Christians the word of God, as spoken by Jesus Christ and recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament? If so, where does Jesus say that the world is only 6,000 years old and one must accept the metaphorical message of "man is created in God's own image" as literal? Doesn't Christ speak about the God within us rather than our physical manifestation?
• Why is the fundamentalist Christian view of creation valid while all other cosmological stories are dismissed out of hand as humourous, fanciful, pagan or just plain wrong?
• Shouldn't the message be the source of inspiration? Specifically, do unto others as you would have done unto you. When all is stripped away, we're left with a message of respect for the inherent rights and liberties of our fellow humans that spans time, places, cultures, religions, politics, commerce and, I dare say, science."

Just my two bits worth.
Raised a Catholic.
Believe in God or a supreme intelligence in the universe.
Understand and accept evolution.
No conflict here.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I would definitely put my answer for both. I think its called theistic evolution. To me, every day science reveals God's wonders. It was God who originally flicked his Bic lighter.









I don't want to start into a creation vs evolution debate. I respectfully appreciate anyone who accepts that the only things that can be known about the universe are through scientifically analyzing nature. 

I believe that some knowledge requires a leap of faith into the light and that God is not just a theoretical abstraction. Kind of like taking the red pill if you will. Anyways... that's my thoughts. Not meant as a challenge or anything.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

KPS - yeah okay but it's fav "tactic" to try and "mix" the two memes.

How well will the word play play with "the word" wonks


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Occam's razor ehMax but it's your call. 
World of wonders......period.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

That is is.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Or "that, that is, is."  

How did the article work out.....speaking of words


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Oh good grief... *That is is*.














It's a new philosophy... That is is.









For some reason, the newsletter has been delayed. Not sure if that's a good sign or not.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

As a Christian I believe in creation.

However, I can't confirm nor deny the story of creation as it is written in the Bible. You can't deny the existence of dinosaur bones or the fossilized remains of life that would predate the age of the earth that many Christians calculate from generations mentioned in the bible going back to Adam and Eve. I don't necessarily take the story of creation as a literal read although I wasn't around then so maybe I should. Its neither here nor there for me but the creation stories underlying message is what I accept as truth. Basically that God had a hand in creating the universe and all the creatures that dwell within it.

The problem I have with evolution is this. Where are all the missing links? The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings? Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don’t exist. This is true for every species and sub-species. The absence of these life forms puts the entire theory into severe question. So how can the ideas be accurate? They can’t. That said I can offer you no proof of the biblical creation story either, it takes a leap of faith as does the theory of evolution. 

But when I look at the complexity of life itself I marvel at what could only be explained as the work of a higher power. Look at the simplicity of a sperm and egg and then look at the anatomical complexity of a child born 9 months. Even if evolution were true, what set it in motion and guided its path?

So yes I am a creationist but one with an open mind regarding the matter.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> KPS - yeah okay but it's fav "tactic" to try and "mix" the two memes.


Yeah, I know what you mean...like, "In God we Trust"  



> Oh good grief... That is is. It's a new philosophy... That is is.


Ahh yes, and it's tangible...I love tangibles.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

One word McGuiver: the Dodo. I personally attribute missing links to the fact that the fossil record is likely less than 1% complete. It is not a comprehensive catalogue of what has existed and so many of the pages are missing. 

The beauty and diversity of life and the wonder of the world make this particular scientist think that its far too much of a coincidence to have arisen entirely spontaneously even though there is scientific mechanism and theory to support this possibility. It's just too dry to be enough....


----------



## New Coke (Jul 13, 2004)

We'll figure it out when we die. There's gotta be something to all this rubbish, right?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

MacGuiver, I wouldn't call you a creationist. You are what most are - you believe in religion, and that science was created. But that the evolutionary science exists. Lots of evolutionists believe in God and that God set forth the nature and science on this planet.

As for your question about missing links - I'm sure there are a lot that you don't know about. Unless you have a degree in the subject, you probably don't know about all of the "missing links". And remember, scientists are filling those holes in all the time. 100 years ago there were a lot more "missing links."


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MacGuiver "The problem I have with evolution is this. Where are all the missing links?"

I agree with 'used to be jwoodget' that "The fossil record is likely less than 1% complete" and 'hayesk's' point that "...scientists are filling those holes in all the time. 100 years ago there were a lot more "missing links." 

I submit for your consideration, the coelacanth. Just one of many missing links with many more to follow. It is a large and wondrous world after all.

Check out http://www.dinofish.com/ for a start to your own journey of inquiry.


----------



## agent4321 (Jun 25, 2004)

> What differentiates us from other animals on this planet…


_"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.

There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.

Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we are... the cure."_

-Taken from The Matrix when Agent Smith has a chat with Morpheus and is trying to break him into giving them the codes to Zion.

Don't mind me...  taken too many red pills lately


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

* The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings?*

Current theory involves the evolution of certain Dinosaur species into birds. This theory was only formed within the last 20 odd years, because the fossil record only started to indicate this in the last 20 odd years, with the development of understanding of the skeletal structure of birds and how they compare to Dinosaurs.

The picture is changing all the time, and given how poorly preserved some of the big animals are (including the remains of human ancestors), it's entirely unlikely that we'll find conclusive evidence of the ancestors of the smaller ones.


----------



## logcomet (Jun 11, 2004)

Can't help but think that evolution is a primitive attempt to understand the complex beginnings of life and the successive generations thereafter. I don't think we have hit the nail on the head and would compare our understanding of the physical world to the original theory of a flat earth. We think that we know what happened (or continues), but only arrogance leads us to believe that we have all the answers. 

We don't have all the facts, and I don't think we can evaluate what happened with our limited scientific tools. Our scientific knowledge and process is in it's infancy.

Evolution is a theory, not fact and requires as much faith as other theories on the origins of life.

I have a hard time believing in species evolution, but am more inline with inter species development.

I am not a creationist, but this machine can't just be running without an operator. Too complex and purposeful.

Oh well... what do I know.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_Not sure if that's a good sign or not_.....geez he believes in signs too  

•••

Logcomment - theories are based on factual observations - Evolution is not yet at the stage of it's complete workings being understood - neither is gravity.
Don't confuse "method" which science is - with belief

••••.

Macguiver just look at the terrific path of whale evolution for a fascinating example.

Evolution should never detract from spiritual belief. It's a known part of the world of life. Why do you think we have to have so much concern over influenza and flesh eating disease, AIDs etc.

What it does detract from is literal belief in some millenia old moral tracts that also included creation stories and concepts appropriate to the age when they were written.

Evolution is consistent with observed facts with a an underlying structure as yet incompletely understood as to its various mechanisms which is why it's still called a Theory.

So is Weather and Climate - but you can be damned sure it's based observable fact as well.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

I've always believed that God created science and that scientists discover how it all works. 

For instance, when a volcano erupts, God/Allah/Buddah/The Big Kahuna doesn't just make it happen like magic. He made is so that when the magma reaches a certain whatever, then this happens, then that, and because of the physics of air pressure that He also created, this happens and then lava comes out.

There are times when I wonder if there really is a deity. For instance, why all the secrecy? Is it enough to assume that He is just something we don't understand? Why can't we see Heaven?

As for Genesis and other stories in the Bible, Obviously they aren't meant to be taken literally. I don't mean to be blasphemous, but who decided which stories go into the Bible? Men did.

It's like _The Da Vinci Code_. Even though it's ficition based on rumours, how do we know those rumours weren't distorted over time? A rumour gets distorted within 5 minutes at my workplace!









[ December 16, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: sketch ]


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Evolution should never detract from spiritual belief. It's a known part of the world of life. Why do you think we have to have so much concern over influenza and flesh eating disease, AIDs etc.


MacDoc

First off I am no scientist and haven't spent years in university pondering the origins of man. Like I stated, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible (That I'm aware of?) but I can't deny the existence of the fossilized remains we see today. But I have read arguments against evolution that make a lot of sense. Their do appear to be some major holes in the theory for me to say I support it.
To me, the theory of evolution without the hand of a higher power would be equivalent to throwing a pile of cogs and wheels in a bag, giving it a shake and coming out with a stop watch. The complexity of life is too efficient and complex to have happened by mere chance.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

Interesting read on Dinosaurs in the Bible.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

So life, with all its complexity...and diversity, had a helping hand? Devine intervention? Why not from space debris, or an asteroid, emigration from Mars and all that.  We could come up with many theories, but to date, evolution and scientific origins of life make the most sense (to me)...holes and all. Not teaching evolution is *blasphemy*.


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

kps

Why not from God?


It's funny you should say not teaching evolution is blasphemy, look at the definition...

blasphemy

the crime of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or a religion and its doctrines and writings and esp. God as perceived by Christianity and Christian doctrines and writings

n 1: blasphemous language (expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred) 2: blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character; "desecration of the Holy Sabbath"


As it turns out, teaching evolution is blasphemy.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

If you read the whole thread, you'd understand why I chose the term "blasphemy". I was being a little facetious, see my original post in this thread and Macdoc's comments.

There are faith based beliefs, such as the existence of God (gods) and then there is tangible scientific _evidence_. I chose to favour the latter. There is nothing wrong with what you chose to believe or favour, but both must co-exist...we should not stifle one over the other.


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

kps

I read the whole thread.

Please show me some "tangible scientific evidence"


Why should both co-exist?

Check out this link and the little blurb I've taken from it. Basically, what they're saying, is that there is no Science that does not line up with the Bible.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

The Accuracy of the Bible

Some people believe that the Bible is not a scientifically accurate book, and that it is only a “spiritual book,” that forgot about dinosaurs or described them incorrectly. This is not the case. Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information. (If you think someone has such evidence, contact us and show us the evidence. We will post that evidence with our reply in our FAQ section for the world to see—literally.) You do not have to believe the Bible just because someone says you are supposed to. That is blind faith, and blind faith is something you do not need with Christianity. The Bible and Christianity have been proven to be true.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

This discussion could turn into a whole power keg!

My belief foundation was seriously shaken when my mother passed away nearly eight years ago. I thought "How can a God that is good selfishly take someone like that?"

Over the years I have done some thinking wondering if there is a divine being that created all or is science the absolute word? How do you explain the dinosaurs? Why were these beasts never once mentioned in the Bible? What proof is there that God exists? The Bible? There's a saying: It must be true. I read it on the internet.

The Bible has been translated and re-translated over the centuries. Is it entirely possible that something has been lost in the translation over the centuries? Has it been translated to get us to conform to what the church wants us to believe?

Then the issue of the missing links. Where are they?

Personally i like Pamela's definition that God created us, and we just evolved from there.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacAdmin,

Yeah sure, I'm going to take the word of some fringe religious site over verifiable scientific evidence...which, BTW, is available EVERYWHERE, if you care to look. But you do not, instead you post some ridiculous bible and dinosaur link. Listen to what I'm about to tell you...believe what you want and let me believe in what I want..or atleast respect my beliefs as I respect your belief in god. Face it, you're not going to convince me with crap found on the internet.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Logcomet: "Evolution is a theory, not fact and requires as much faith as other theories on the origins of life. I have a hard time believing in species evolution, but am more inline with inter species development."

All science is a theory. All hypotheses can be overturned or disproven by new data. All good scientists try to disprove theorems and take nothing for granted.

If you have trouble with species evolution, you should probably not speak to a comparative genomics scientist. One of the enymes we work on is >90% identical at the amino acid sequence level between humans and chickens. There are functional orthologues in nematode worms, flies and yeast (in other words you can replace the fly gene with the human gene and the fly doesn't care). Flies have 15,000 genes. Humans have about 20,000. If you compare the genomic sequences of individual people, they differ by 0.1% but in different places. If you compare the genomic sequences of people and chimpanzees, the difference is 1% or so. It is theoretically possible to genetically engineer a chimpanzee to be more human-like (setting aside the ethical issues....).

Molecular biology has revolutionized evolutionary theory and has put bones onto the observations of phenotype. I am not aware (and would love to be enlightened) of any significant incompatibilities to evolutionary theory as determined by scientific method. Like all good theories, it is standing up to the test of time and new technologies.

From page on dinosaurs and the Bible:

"Unfortunately, our public school system and the media have convinced us that dinosaurs were extinct at least 60 million years before man appeared on earth. They have done such a good job in this area that we can not imagine people and dinosaurs living at the same time. The fact is that dinosaurs were created only one day before mankind, not many millions of years earlier—and we have evidence to support that statement. Click here to see our Creation and Evolution page, and a link to many sites that fully prove this."

Stockwell Day didn't realise the absurdity of taking such beliefs at face value. Why do Creationists insist on literal Biblical language. What is wrong with dinosaurs exisiting 60 million years prior to mankind (actually, >300 million years)?

You do not have to believe in this "junk science" to believe in God or the Bible. Indeed, doing so just provides ammunition for people who may question religious faith.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I both love and hate this topic. I love reading about evolution and natural selection, hate hearing the intrusion of the oxymoronic 'creation science' into the theories and principles that have been developed to date.

Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. 

On the issue of where did the wing come from. Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. There are animals alive today that beautifully illustrate every stage in the continuum. There are frogs that glide with big webs between their toes, tree-snakes with flattened bodies that catch the air, lizards with flaps along their bodies, and several different kinds of mammals that glide with membranes stretched between their limbs, showing us the kind of way bats must have got their start. Contrary to the creationist literature, not only are animals with 'half a wing' common, so are animals with a quarter of a wing, three quarters of a wing, and so on. 

The idea of tiny changes cumulated over many steps is an immensely powerful idea, capable of explaining an enormous range of things that would be otherwise inexplicable. 

The analogy between between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

Much of this is excerpted from Dawkins.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

> How do you explain the dinosaurs? Why were these beasts never once mentioned in the Bible?


As I understand it, prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, fossils records for creatures such as dinosaurs were interpreted as beasts that were destroyed in the Flood. (Didn't make it on to the ark--presumably because they were evil or something.)

So at the time, there was an explanation that did not rely on evolution. 

Whether or not you choose to believe that explanation now is a whole other thing. 

But I'm staying out of this one.


----------



## logcomet (Jun 11, 2004)

Funny, my organized religion days are far behind me (whew!), but this topic is so intriguing and flammable - I can't resist. Like a genetically encoded fly ...

All good points used to be jwoodget. You obviously have more knowledge about recent discoveries in the science world. My knowledge is much more 'pop' like. 

However I can't help but think that this minor difference in genome templates makes earth species design even more interesting. Doesn't it seem like this 1% difference makes a inherent design more plausible? If not necessary. We are so close, yet so different. I find randomness more indicative to random influences, but templates and design require some engineering (be it God, meteors, or Isaac Asimov).

I hate it when creationists use literal days. My religious upbringing always said that 'days' in Genesis always represented ages or time periods. Of an amount never disclosed. Never was it a literal 24 hours. 

Besides we all know that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the flood!


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

kps

I have looked EVERYWHERE. I have talked to evolutionists about evolution, I have talked to creationists about creation.

A little background information on me:

I am a person on a "Journey of Enlightenment." I am researching Creation and Evolution from an unbiased opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian and believe in the Bible, but I have no issue with testing any of my beliefs.

Funny thing, every evolutionist tells me the conclusions that some scientists have come to about the theory of evolution without telling me how they've come to those conclusions. There is an assumption made that the scienists are always right. All I can assume is that most evolutionists have not done their research and tested the theory. They just dismiss creation, without challenging it.

Now creationists on the other hand. They all tell me exactly what they believe and why they believe it. They test evolutional theories, and show their flaws. Bottom line is that they do their research.

So now I must ask you, does anyone have any scientific evidence that proves the Bible's view on creation is not true? No opinions please, only science.

sci·ence (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacAdmin,



> I am a person on a "Journey of Enlightenment." I am researching Creation and Evolution from an unbiased opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian and believe in the Bible, but I have no issue with testing any of my beliefs.


I sincerely hope you find what you're looking for, whether it reinforces your religious convictions or turns you into an evolutionist. Good luck on your journey, in any case.

However, I don't hold much hope for you being "unbiased" if, as you state, "believe in the bible".

Which explanation is more plausible, the dynamic (scientific one) or the static (religious one)? There may not be absolute proof of the scientific theory, but there *IS* proof *IN* science, where as, there is no proof what-so-ever in the faith based explanation. Myth vs. the test-tube...I'll enjoy reading the myth, but I'll put my money on the test-tube.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Why, oh why have we dredged this up again (remember the Creation Theory for the Grand Canyon in the National Monument Bookstore thread?).

Creationists are telling you exactly what they believe because they are using Faith, just like our dear neighbor, George W. Faith that he is right led him towards many decisions and courses of action over the last 4 years. 

Creationists are not testing evolutionary theories at all, they are not doing science. They are not testing and trying to disprove null hypotheses at all. They are not doing science to prove or disprove anything, they are making statements of belief and opinion. They do not do research. 



> So now I must ask you, does anyone have any scientific evidence that proves the Bible's view on creation is not true?


This is why creationists are making headway and getting included on school curricula in the States. There is no evidence one way or the other because it is a story, a parable, meant to be a spiritual guide. It is beyond the scientific method because you can't design an experiment to tests it 'proof'. Does anyone have any scientific evidence that vampires and werewolves are not true???


----------



## agent4321 (Jun 25, 2004)

kps, great reply I couldn't have said it better!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macadmin

You are equating a "belief" system with a method and from your statements and writing you need far more education as a start for you to be "unbiased".

That said you don't have to be heavily trained in the sciences to know there are lots of immediate facts about evolution and how it works right now.
AIDs, influenza, blue roses, GM corn, blue eyes versus brown, everything you eat in terms of grains, fruits the observable lists go on and on.

Creationists have an agenda to promote A belief system. Scientists observe, form a body of opinion, test the opinion against experimental evidence and so it continues.

Einstein's "theory" has never once been proven wrong in predicted observation effects even 100 years later but it's still a theory - only because say, unlike Bernouli's Principle, the entire underpinnings are not completely understood.

So we have Laws of Thermodynamics - understood phenomena, and Theories of evolution, gravity, relativity - not completely understood. The phenenoma and observations are not "speculations" - they are observable repeatable physical facts.

It does not in least make gravity or evolution or relativity any less valid - it just means science and scientists have yet to develop a comprehensive understanding of all aspects.

Believe anything you want but don't step out in front of the bus - the physics will get you every time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Oh dear... this is a topic I cannot, despite my better judgement, stay out of. Hopefully we can discuss this without descending into incivility and unsubstantiated claims.

The reason I feel compelled to add my comments to this discussion is that there is _so_ much misinformation and flat-out fallacy circulating in the general population, and, as a scientist and educator, I feel a responsibility to refute the fallacies and correct the misunderstandings where I can.

First, let me address MacGuiver's commonly held misconceptions and inaccuracies:


> The problem I have with evolution is this. Where are all the missing links? The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings? Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don’t exist. This is true for every species and sub-species. The absence of these life forms puts the entire theory into severe question. So how can the ideas be accurate? They can’t.


Firstly, the 'missing-link' issue is a wild goose chase. If we hypothesize that organism X is descended from ancestor Q, the creationists will ask 'where are the missing links between Q and X?'. When fossil of organism T is found, with characters intermediate between Q and X, the creationists ask for the missing links between Q and T as well as T and X. So finding an intermediate simply adds more missing links. But the simple fact is _every_ species that does not become an evolutionary dead end, is _by definition_ an intermediate or 'missing link'. How many of these become fossilized, and how many of those fossils we actually find and correctly identify is another issue. But fossils of intermediate species are abundant. Missing links are not missing...they're simply an artifact of having 'snapshots' of a continuous process.

As it happens, with respect to the evolution of feathers & wings in the theropod lineage, we have both fossil and other evidence of organisms QRSTUVW and X, so the creationists argue we have a lot of missing links! It just happens that I was at a seminar two days ago, given by Philip Currie, the Curator of Vertebrate Palaeontology at the Royal Tyrell Museum of Natural History entitled Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Birds, which dealt with exactly this topic. But, of course, the (literally) thousands of beautifully preserved fossils of lizards with various types of feathers and intermediate structures (quite literally stub-like wings, with short feathers) leading to the emergence of modern birds (complete with pneumatic bones and all of the other characteristics of birds) will never satisfy people who operate on faith rather than reason.

To be fair to MacGuiver, and most other people who are convinced that evolutionary theory is full of 'holes', our education system and popular media do such a bad job of communicating scientific developments that it is certainly not the fault of the general public that they are unaware of the mountains of evidence for evolution. However, once made aware of this evidence, it becomes incumbent on you to change your opinions.

(Anyone who is interested in the actual science I'm summarizing above may want to check out these articles: Nature 410, 200 - 204 (08 March 2001); Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):925;JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY (MOL DEV EVOL) 298B:42–56 (2003); or even the Scientific American review (Sci Am. 2003 Mar;288(3):84-93.). Alternatively, PM me with what you want to know and I'll try to find you some good sources).

MacGuiver is also (to his credit) amazed at the phenomenon of development:


> But when I look at the complexity of life itself I marvel at what could only be explained as the work of a higher power. Look at the simplicity of a sperm and egg and then look at the anatomical complexity of a child born 9 months.


There are plenty of people who look at the process of development and are unable to imagine how such a process could occur without supernatural intervention. Fortunately, scientists are generally humble enough to realize that our lack of imagination is not evidence for the supernatural and have been working diligently for centuries in an effort to develop an understanding of the mechanisms of development.

Developmental biology (which relies extensively on evolutionary theory) happens to be my field of research, and I can assure you that, while there are plenty of things we do not have a complete understanding of, no evidence of supernatural forces have ever been observed in any developing embryo. We have, however, observed many surprising and complex _natural_ phenomena, and we have discovered that many of these phenomena are also at work in disease processes like cancer, arthritis, heart disease and ageing. There are many Christians who argue that 'man is not meant understand the mysteries of life' or that we shouldn't "meddle in God's domain', but I hope that our continued delving into the molecular and cell biology of development will continue to reveal the mechanisms of normal and disease physiology, and allow us to both improve our abilities to fight diseases and aging, and give us the great satisfaction of understanding how living organisms can build themselves from fertilized eggs.

Finally (I'm sorry this is so long) I just want to point out that evolutionary theory is among the most completely tested and best supported theories in all of science. The only reason we don't say that evolution has been 'proved' is that empirical science doesn't prove things; it only _disproves_. Evolution is so well supported now, that any rational person would accept it as fact (see November's National Geographic for an interesting commentary on why a large percentage of American's don't), but the scientific community doesn't talk about theories having been proved, so we only say that evolutionary theory is 'very well supported.' This is simply how scientists talk, and should not be construed to mean that there is doubt about the validity of the theory - there isn't.

It has been said that nothing in biology makes any sense, except in the light of evolution. The 'Holy Grail' of Physics is a 'Grand Unified Field Theory' that will unite quantum mechanics with general relativity. The successful development of such a theory (i.e. developing one that is correct) is expected to bring about a 'golden age' of progress in physics. Biologists are living in the golden age of biology, because we have our Grand Unifying Theory that unites all of biology from molecular biochemistry to behavioural ecology. Evolution gives us a paradigm from which to formulate our questions and develop our methods. If it were significantly at odds with reality, such discrepancies would (and have) become obvious and form the focus of refinements to our models. The astounding progress of biology in the past century is due to our having a unifying paradigm: evolution.

All of modern biology (including it's applied branches such as Medicine, Agriculture and Biotechnology) are founded on evolutionary theory.

Logcomet wrote:


> Evolution is a theory, not fact and requires as much faith as other theories on the origins of life.


I'm always frustrated when I hear this, because it simply isn't true. Scientific theories require no faith... science is essentially the opposite of faith. Science operates by being skeptical of _everything_. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The empirical facts of evolution are written in the fossil record, the developmental pathways of all living organisms, and the genomes of every organism, living and dead. The theory of evolution is our current model of how these facts relate. Both the facts and theory of evolution are well established and beyond any reasonable doubt.

Sadly, the majority of Canadians, and people of the world, will be unable to distinguish the unsubstantiated claims of religion from the current working models of science. I hope I have been of some help to some of you in making this distinction.

Cheers

P.S. This has reminded me of a favourite quote of mine:
"Science isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-Leon Lederman


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Excellent!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Thank you bryanc, thank you very much. I was unwilling to delve into the debacle of the Grand Canyon bookstore thread because the creation science/evolution nonsequitur debate pisses me off so much. 

From Gould,



> Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?


Unfortunately, the above quote was made before the creation science folks forced their way into the door in the States in some jurisdictions. 

Just let me state, that I have absolutely no problem with the teaching of religion so long as it is not taught in a Science class. It should be presented in Social Studies (or whatever it is called these days, I haven't been in school for too many years) and compared to all the religions present in the world to gain a better understanding of human culture.

[ December 16, 2004, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Carex ]


----------



## agent4321 (Jun 25, 2004)

Thank you bryanc! for your *educated* reply.









This whole thread can be summed up in one small graemilin for me...


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

That's the hard part. The Bible isn't absolute-- what if the people who put it together forgot a book or two? What about the books of other religions? Surely Christianity isn't the only religion out there


----------



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

Wow _bryanc_, you really nailed it. Best post in thread!


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

Thank you all for your replies...

now I must ask you all, do you understand the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion (mkr-v-lshn, -v-)
n.
Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

i.e. - different breeds of dogs, influenza virus


mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion     P   Pronunciation Key  (mkr-v-lshn, -v-)
n.
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

i.e. - Bread mold turning into a dog, frog turning into a Prince


All of your posts line up with Microevolution. Microevolution exists in the Universe, and it lines up with the Bible. The Bible talks about many different species and "its kind."

Now for Macroevolution. Does anyone have any empirical evidence supporting Macroevolution?

or my first question which still holds...

Does anyone have any scientific evidence that proves the Bible's view on creation is not true? or that does not line up with the Bible?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

do some reading - start with whales - then try dinosaurs to birds - then try primates......lemurs to **** sapiens.

How about getting educated first, in what you want to know about in the physical world. Fundamentals really help.








Last months Nat'l Geo is a terrific start.

PROOF is a scientific term

BELIEF a religious one.

Different realms.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Evolution of a species and speciation of a genus are the same process. If you want to break it down to micro and macro that is fine. The process is the same. One you can see if you look back through the fossil record. One you cannot without measuring small details of a species over a few generations (read Weiner's The Beak of the Finch for a better explanation). 

Dog breeds are not an example of evolution but an example of selective breeding directed by humans. All the same species, same genome. 

The Bible's view on creation is a myth. The west coast First Nation groups have a creation myth as well that is no more or less viable or supportable than the one in the bible. I find it more creative and more enjoyable to read than the bible version anyway.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

Thank you bryanc. 

I would like for a moment to ask everyone to reexamine this entire debate itself and to frame it outside of its polarized viewpoints (if I may). 

I used to hammer away at this argument in secondary school from the science side till I was blue in the face. Then I went to university and became immersed in the Bible (the clarity of a paradox I guess) and now I can (quite easily) let both ideas exist, with equal amounts of wonder, love and respect. 

I do, however, believe that my ideas on Creation help ME more with my relationship with God and humanity and my belief in evolution helps me more with the day to day, the pragmatic, the tangible. 

But then again this is really where the world is at today, and has always been. On one side of the fence or the other. Scientists and prophets are there to take down fences (or at least build gates). 

But for me the only way I could allow both to exist was to jump the fence and see it from the other side, that was a sacrifice that I was luck to make. If you're on the science side of the fence pick up some Northrop Frye and see what he has to say about this great divide. If you're on the "garden" side it may just be time to leave the garden for a bit (and don't worry, you can always come back). 

Again, thank you bryanc, that was so very well stated.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_Dog breeds are not an example of evolution but an example of selective breeding directed by human_ hmmmmm selective pressure is selective pressure.

Series on the other night indicated parallel development between dogs and humans where both profit and so slected for dogs that cooperated well with humans.

I'd say both are active evolutionary pressures -inadvertent selection AND guided.
How would you classify drug resistant bacterial strains??
Pressure is pressure in my mind.

Nitpicking to the topic tho









I've always been fascinated by the concept of "stored" adaptations where environment triggers suppressed genes to express to cope with sudden changes over a few generations.
Like the tadpoles that change their gene expression when predators are present.








That one blows my mind.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The whole concept that I'm here, aware of myself, conscious of my existence, typing away on this gadget with other self aware beings, discussing our existence... really, really freakin baffles my mind.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

Whoa Dude, you gotta like, not take so much in at one time dude...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hey CamCanola,

Welcome to ehMac!

You were talking to the MAYOR of ehMac there Dude! (As in the main man, dude!)

He doesn't take in anything that I know of!

Cheers


----------



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

ehMax is like... the guy who created ehmac. on the 7th day he posted.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

And it was good.







And now its evolving.  

Never mind... I'll put the bong away.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Never mind... I'll put the bong away.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Macdoc, yes, I must clarify. 

Darwin used the analogy of selective breeding (or artificial selection) to explain natural selection. In selective breeding, desirable characteristics are chosen by humans, and only those individuals with the best characteristics are used for breeding. In this way species can be changed over a long period of time. All domesticated species of animal and plant have been selectively bred like this, often for thousands of years, so that most of the animals and plants we are most familiar with are not really natural and are nothing like their wild relatives (if any exist). The analogy between artificial and natural selection is a very good one, but there is one important difference - Humans have a goal in mind, nature does not.

A good analogy, but not the same thing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Humans have a goal in mind, nature does not.


I never heard it put quite that way before Carex, but that is very true and an important difference.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_Humans have a goal in mind, nature does not._

Artificial distinction in my mind - pressure is pressure - a species "goal" will be to occupy all possible niches - ie ants do pretty well.

Human "selection" is just one amongst many pressures, salinity, food abundance or scarcity, colour of the tree trunks ( the famous English moth ). I really see no distinction.

Now specific genetic manipulation at the cellular and molecular level THAT I would say is distinct. If you end with a dog with glowing green eyes ala Hound of the Baskervilles now that I would say is a different case where an evolutionary goal is executed outside traditional evolution theory boundaries tho even there selection for the characteristic would still be in play. HOW it arises would be unique.

Taking human purpose outside "nature" I think is wrong headed......but then I don't like dualism especially "human outside nature"......I'm a monist by heart and mind.........not other.


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. 


Does anyone know the Science behind the "Big Bang" and how it all happened? Does anyone know how we formed, as perfect as we are, from nothing?

Is everyone familiar with Darwin's Tree of Life?
Is everyone familiar with the fossil record?

Does Darwin's Tree of Life line up with the current fossil record?

Can anyone explain the Cambrian explosion and how it lines up with Darwinism or Macroevolution?

"The Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals." Why were there no fossil animals before the Cambrian explosion? Why does it appear as one day they were not there, and the next day they were there? Could there be an answer in Genesis Chapter 1?


I will ask you all the same question as Dr. Colin Patterson, "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?"


By the way, I have done a lot of reading Mac Doc. I have researched both sides very thoroughly and have yet to see any empirical evidence pointing toward evolution. Please, show me why you believe in Evolution and the Science that made you believe it. We all know the theories, let's take a closer look at the Science behind those theories.

em·pir·i·cal (m-pr-kl)
adj.

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.

Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

...and here I thought we didn't come from earth at all,
I mean...Just look at the lowest place on earth...Doesn't that look strange?
Doesn't it look like a crash landing area?

I don't have a satellite image handy at the moment,
So just take my word for it.

Other thoughts...The Bible...An owners manual that was rewritten.

Think about it.

Dave


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I found an image of the lowest place on earth:










I've seen better.

Dave


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

Interesting to see what many of the top Scientists in the World think about Darwinism.

www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf


and Dave, dolawren, what are you trying to say? Please show some evidence, I will not take your word for anything.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

What Dave is saying, Tom, is that a Martian spaceship crash landed in that spot and the survivors populated the Earth...either that or a passing spaceship discharged its septic system and up we sprung.


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

kps

And where is the Science to support his theory?

Where did these Martians come from?

How could we spring up from a septic system?

Where is the spaceship?


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Just thought I'd interject some things. Please think beyond Darwinism - evolution has been refined since Darwin. Case in point - think bush not tree with lots of dead ends. Don't forget punctuated equilibrium and take a look at the Burgess Shale.

Also, remember it's not toward a goal it's simply adaptation to a pressure or even a secondary benefit as a result of another pressure (e.g. people in countries with malaria often are immune to the malaria but they have sickle cell anemia as a result as the sickel cell shaped blood cells cull out the parasite in the spleen).

This would be my answer to what is "true" about evolution.

Also keep in mind that just because science does not have all the answers it is incorrect or should be dismissed. Science involves investigating and experimenting to find the answers - it never claims to have all of them, just what it knows to be correct. I am suspect of anyone who claims to know the answers and provides them to me without proof, thought or investigation.

I also don't understand why there is often a disconnect between God and religion among humans - Jane Goodall (one of my personal heros) is theist and she has no issues with evolution or science - to me, they are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

It's a joke, man...a joke...not to be taken seriously. Just my take on this...carry on.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

I would say it's both as well. We got a starting point and have been working our way to the place we find ourselves in.

We have to rememeber that science is a man-made creation into itself.

I am reading a series of books by Brian McLaren that discuss this new versus old... where we came from.... different societies type stuff.

There is no "truth" there is only what we "believe". The sky isn't blue... it's just a word we attach to what we "see".

[ December 18, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Roland ]


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

> I would say it's both as well. We got a starting point and have been working our way to the place we find ourselves in.


I believe this is known as the "Watchmaker" God - God sets things going then steps back. This belief became popular in the 18th C.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Roland you are into a completely different area of "perception" and differentiation based on our physical senses and ability to describe in language.
Good topic but not this one.

••

MacAdmin you ARE hopelessly ignorant of science and fundamentals and it certainly shows in how you form your questions and what you use as sources.

Your 100 top scientist are not TOP at all, they are people with degrees in the list.
On the other hand, 93% of all the scientists classed as major contributors by the National Academy are aetheists or agnostics and would laugh at your febrile assertions of "well read" and "knowledgeable"...you're patently not.



> The latest survey involved 517 * members of the National Academy of Sciences;* half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism.[/b]
> 
> You want to SEE the big bang - tune between stations on a TV and watch the static. It's the residual microwave radiation for the big bang and you can SEE it for YOURSELF.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

Yeah.. I guess my topic is slighty off topic. But I still believe creationism vs. evolutionism is only a small puddle of what makes up who and what we are.

(I think that the whole creationsm and evolutism thing are easy understandings we create to simplify things we aren't ready to understand.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_ easy understandings_ !!!!!!! ?????









Evolution and it's implications for biology as field have kept scientist busy for a couple of centuries "understanding" and likely will for a while longer......hardly "easy."









Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory upon which, along with organic chemistry modern biology is built.

Just as quantum theory underlays modern physics.

Creation stories are just that, imaginative and often entertaining stories with culturally significant bits of lore for a variety of peoples.

They are NOT scientific observations or a result of scientific query, and they won't get you to or from the moon safely, or across the ocean on a plane. Application of carefully developed scientific principles leading to appropriate engineering of materials will at least offer some element of consistent success in otherwise difficult endeavours. Tasks that to our great great grandparents would be akin to magic.

It's fun to toss salt over your shoulder, keep a rabbits foot etc but the casino WILL beat you over time.
Reality tends to intrude on myth when you try to levitate a bridge over the water instead of using engineering principles to built one









Keep the myths in the anthropology and literature section where they belong.

Humanity has too little time to get human degradation of the biosphere under control without wasting time and resources on whimsical archaic ontologies pretending to be science.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> And where is the Science to support his theory?
> 
> Where did these Martians come from?
> 
> ...


Heck if I know...
All I know is...
Where are all the bodies that connect us to the apes?
As far as I know there is only one that was discovered that was
close to being the missing link, Where did the rest of the
missing link bodies go to? (Back to Mars?)  

Maybe earth was the first stop on the route for the drop off of
the space kids off on a school trip and were forgotten about.

Maybe Saddam is really the great great great great great...
Grandson of mankind...Or maybe he is another missing link.

In any case...The only Darwin theory that I can believe is the
Darwin award that is handed out each year.

Dave 

[ December 18, 2004, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: dolawren ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_Maybe earth was the first stop on the route for the drop off of
the space kids off on a school trip and were forgotten about._

There ya go creation myth in the making. It's as good as any to hang your hat on. You saw it first here.

Handed down by Saint Dolawren. Check back in a few hundred years see how it fared.
Perhaps you need to embellish it a bit Dave........chimera, fantastical beings...........keep it...y'know.....interesting like.  

Here join the fray



> *FROM THE MOUTHS of Creationists...*
> 
> The "stars" associated with the solar system, such as the planets and asteroids (and it should be remembered that the term "star" in Biblical usage applies to any heavenly body other than the sun and moon) would be particularly likely to be involved, in view of the heavy concentration of angels, both good and evil, around the planet Earth.
> 
> ...


Do ya think you might have second thoughts getting on a plane designed and built by this crowd.....??


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> Do ya think you might have second thoughts getting on
> a plane designed and built by this crowd.....??


I think planes are barbaric...So are rocket ships,
Talk about stuuupid humans.

This is supposed to be an evolved race?
Bring in the hi tech please, Enough of this cheap travel,
I want to get to Mars not to heaven (By accident...Boom)

Why couldn't people listen to Tesla at least, Ahhh...Let em go
back to the trees, Damned creationists...Evolutionists...whatever.

Okay...I take some of that back...Almost.

Dave


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I don't think anyone can come to an understanding of a spiritual, higher power through the scientific method. The assumption that almost every scientist makes, is that only the physical is real. 

Even though somethings "physical" aren't necessarily physical. Like magnetic fields. They clearly exist in space and time... but there's no physicality to a magnetic field. Its not any sort of mass or energy... but we describe it. Its wavy, it has force etc... 

Yet I have clear evidence of subjective things, of a spiritual essence. I have had moments and memories that are clearly more than just electric brain activity from life's memories. 

Being in a room with someone when they died. Dreams and yes, visions I have had. Moments during prayer or worship. (Ug... I've really exposed myself as a Jesus freak now) Suddenly awaking when a family member was sick. A scientist would *never* describe these things as being attributed to something metaphysical. They don't even allow their mind to be open to the possibility. So, its no surprise to me that many scientist would not accept the notion of a spiritual, metaphysical God. (And to be honest, with the state that "religion" is in today, I wouldn't really blame anyone) 

I like to think that I keep my mind open as much as possible. 

If I am being ignorant, please be gentle.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> Like magnetic fields. They clearly exist in space and
> time... but there's no physicality to a magnetic field. Its not any
> sort of mass or energy... but we describe it. Its wavy, it has force etc...


You are really close on this one, Now, If we can only get
everyone else in the world to understand this concept.

(On the subject of Saint Dolawren...I was actually thinking of
changing my online name to my Welsh roots of St. David)

Dave


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

> A scientist would never describe these things as being attributed to something metaphysical. They don't even allow their mind to be open to the possibility.


I disagree. I think science is open to all possiblities. Again, because it cannot be explained does not mean it should be dismissed and scienc has worked to understand these things. Science, BTW has attempted to explain these things - they have been able to stimulate the brain to feel what has been termed the "god effect". And meditation has been studied extensively - showing how people can meditate and physically change how their brain waves appear. 

I still don't really think there needs to be a disconnect between science and religious faith if all people are open to discovering the truth - science after all, is only Latin for "knowledge" - scientia. 



> This is supposed to be an evolved race?


This is not an accurate use of "evolution". As I said before, it's an adaptation or mutation not a means to an end.

And let us all remember, even as Darwin learned more he said "where is my God?"


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> This is not an accurate use of "evolution". As I said
> before, it's an adaptation or mutation not a means to an end.


Yea...Well...There'd better hurry up and mutate faster then,
Because the second hand smoke that was killing me has been
replaced with car exhaust...Blech!!!

Dave


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

> Your 100 top scientist are not TOP at all, they are people with degrees in the list.


- Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most-cited chemist in the world
-James Tour of Rive University's Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology
-Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Grad School

They look pretty top to me.


Now, are you familiar with Allan Rex Sandage? Sandage is known as "the greatest observational cosmologist in the world." He has received "prestigious honours from the American Astronomical Society, the Swiss Physical Society, the Royal Astronomical Society, and the Swedish Academy of Sciences, receiving astronomy's equivalent of the Nobel Prize. The New York Times dubbed him the 'Grand Old Man of Cosmology.'"

I'd say those are pretty good credentials, now let's see what he has to say:

"The Big Bang was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it. Science had taken us to the First Event, but it can't take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence."

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."

"Many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work."

- Allan Rex Sandage


"I believe science is pointing strongly toward design. To me, as a scientist, the development of an embryo cries out, 'Design!' The Cambrian explosion-the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of ancestors-is more consistent with design than evolution. Homology, in my opinion, is more compatible with design. The origin of life certainly cries out for a designer. Nonw of these things make as much sense from a Darwinian perspective as they do from a design perspective."

"When you analyze all of the most current affirmative evidence from cosmology, physics astronomy, biology, and so forth -well, I think you'll discove that the positive case for an intelligent designer becomes absolutely compelling."

- Jonathan Wells PHD, PHD


"Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadown over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found."

- Alan Feducia, evolutionary biology at the University of North Carolina


"Science and religion ... are friends, not foes, in the common quest for knowledge. Some people may find this surprising, for there's a feeling throughout our society that religious belief is outmoded, or downright impossible, in a scientific age. I don't agree. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if people in this so-called "scientific age" knew a bit more about science than many of them actually do, they'd find it easier to share my view."

- Physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne


So, MacDoc, we can continue to throw names, credentials and quotes from scientists on either side OR we can talk science. Which would you prefer?

Also, where'd you go bryanc? I have a lot more I'd like to talk to you about.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Been cruising the pseudo-science sites again I see.

Sandage calls it "supernatural". He is of course welcome to his opinion. But that's all it is, there is no basis for his "belief" beyond what he has concluded in his own mind - which is as all beliefs are, unscientific - they are not required to be. All you have there is metaphysical speculation, the nature of which most of his peers reject.

"Many scientist"??
That would be severely incorrect - most, more than most, almost all senior scientists see no need whatsoever for the "supernatural.'
Sandage offers no structure only his belief which he is welcome to and is NOT shared by great majority of his peers.

His "belief" does nothing to further the field.

and "big bang" is hardly "evolution" but then you really had to stretch to get a "name" given what comes next in your pet patheon,

•••

Feducia - you've taken something entirely out of context as has happened previously. That there are fake fossils there is no doubt - Piltdown man was a famous one. Are you claiming ALL fossils are fake???? - what a foolish person you are.



> *Creationists produced the following quote:*
> Concerning the alleged dinosaur ancestry of birds, ornithologist Alan Feduccia declared in Science (11/1/96, p. 721),
> 
> "It is biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened limbs and heavy, balancing tails" (because as noted by the writer of the article, that is exactly the wrong anatomy for flight). Feduccia stated, "In my opinion, the theropod origin of birds will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology in the 20th century."
> ...


and more



> Alan Feduccia who opposes the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs and instead argues that birds are descended from non-dinosaur archosaurs (a taxon that includes dinosaurs) is often quoted by evolution deniers. Feduccia is a qualified scientist and should not be just dismissed, but his views are in an extreme minority within the scientific community. It is simply bad reasoning for the evolution deniers to use Feduccia's writing disagreeing with conventional ideas of bird evolution while ignoring the many experts that disagree with him.
> 
> "Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?"1 quotes Feduccia on Archaeopteryx:
> 
> ...












Johnathan Wells!!














you MUST be joking.

a moonie!!!!



> Review of : Jonathan Wells - Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
> in Nature, 410, (2001) 745-46
> 
> Creationism by Stealth
> ...


http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience//Coyne-IconsReview.htm 

Scraping the barrel for the dregs indeed.

Gee did you forget to put Reverend in front of dear old Polkinghorne.......dear to the hearts of creationists. I guess that would be a tad TOO obvious.

Pretty slim pickings.

Let's see one legit scientist with a personal opinion about "supernatural origins" that the very large majority of his peers disagree with.

Another legit scientist quoted completely out of context ....par for the course.......... who actually confirms evolution 

Then as icing on your "argument" from authority.
A moonie and an evangelical priest. No agenda there ....naw.

Read your horoscope lately??








You're having a bad day promulgating ignorance.

You'd do better selling snake oil, at least it has some substance to it.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

> The Cambrian explosion-the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of ancestors-is more consistent with design than evolution.


Pssst, punctuated equilibrium.

The problem with this is it's really not science, but dogma in disguise. Don't they think that good scientists wouldn't revise their theories throughout, oh say the last 2 centuries since Darwin? As my Romantic Poetry professor used to tell us, "don't trust a person who hasn't changed their mind in the last 20 years". That's called dogma.

Now, the Cambrian Explosion - the most signifigant even in Earth history (biologically speaking) is well documented in the Burgess Shale - where we are fortunate to have a big chunk of the fossil record. This was the time with the most biodiversity. Ideal conditions for many body types.

But what happened when the Permian came along? You know, the biggest extinction EVER, aside from the one we are experiencing right now? Only a few body types survived. Certain pressures caused many of those body types to vanish. Gould calls this punctuated equilibrium. A few lucky little worms had just the right stuff to get them through the bad times. A crap shoot.

Same with the good ol' algae that survived the KT Event - had the ability to curl up & sleep for a while - years and years when the sun went out - the sky covered in dust. It made it through that & survives until today - good thing it had that nice little feature while the other more specialized guys joined the fossil record.

I encourage everyone to read the essays of Stephen Jay Gould. He is an excellent communicator. In particular, read A Wonderful Life and Eight Little Piggies 

A biologist, a biologist, my Kingdom Animalia, Order Perissodactyla, AND Family Equidae for a biologist (or an Equus)!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

According to mitochondrial analysis **** sapiens were down to only 80,000 world wide for a period before the diaspora began and there is some evidence one female is ancestral to ALL humans outside Africa  



> New Out-of-Africa Theory Unveiled
> 
> By Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News
> 
> ...


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020225/eve.html

It was a fascinating special. Theory underlying the mitochodrial trail is that the rift valley/Red Sea was the blocking factor for northward pressure.

Hey cuz.  

My only problem with this is, I wish she hadn't forwarded quite the propensity for PMS certain of the females in my life have very evidently inherited.







 

Oh where oh where is the Bonobo strain........life would be sooooooo much more fun.  

•••••

mbd - I somehow don't think our creationist above is listening much - more caught up in his fantasy world. I wonder if he actually looked at the residual microwave radiation? Doubtful........dogma indeed.

I have a fossil fish on my wall, some 25,000,000,000 old. It's there just to give me a shiver once in a while at just how long life has been around, and how brief our own. Amber blows me away even more to see a mosquito or a fly trapped looking perfect.

Look at this wasp - millions of years old perfectly preserved.










I owned a nice piece from the Carribean but it got lost in some move or another  
Amazing pieces and info here.
* life over time *


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The physical universe is sufficiently wonderful in an of itself. Occam's razor has been applied by an increasing number of scientists to their own satisfaction.

Science does not supply moral and ethical guidance.

As for magnetic force it's one of the fundamental forces ( physicists are still seeking a unified theory to tie them ALL together ) and is clearly understood part of the physical universe.
That's not a particularly good analogy to things 'unexplained".

The human mind is terrifically powerful and certainly not fully understood in it's complete capabilities ( things like musical savants etc ). That there might be subtle abilities of cognition that are vestigal or even inherent but little used would be no great surprise.

Hey we've been observing elephants for years without knowing how they communicated over long distances.

I love reading about magicians and wizards and dragons - the world of imagination, myth and stories is wonderful. It informs and forms our cultures.

But the plane I fly in....give me the engineer with his convictions, training and feet planted firmly in the world of science as his methodology of choice - I'll do without the incantations, incense and chanting.
Prefer a strong tested knowledge of metallurgy and aerodynamics.

Myth, belief without proof, imagination are fascinating aspects of being human and offer endless hours of debate and often are satisfying "spiritual" solutions for individuals.

They are NOT in the realm of science tho many of the very best scientists are incredibly imaginative and "dream" of new things to be uncovered...it drives their passion.
But results come from hard work and standing on the shoulders of those that tried, tested, discovered flaws in their understanding and then did it over and over and over to understand the principles, NOT the magic involved.

Dave, no amount of "wishing" will make the world a healthier place, understanding the science of what we need to do and then having the will to apply those principles to repair some of the damage will.
Pseudo -science nonsense getting in the way of that..........   

Ethical and moral issues arising from longer lives, more people on the planet, living together peaceably, reducing weapons, thosee ARE the realm of philosophy, ethics, religion, metaphysics and spirit.
"Inspiration" to heal the planet, help our fellows, enrich our lives with song and dance and excitement, deal with sorrow and loss.......... much to be accomplished there without hampering the moving forward of human knowledge based on sound scientific progress and methodology.

No amount of wishing gave the girl who could wiggle her toes for the first time in 5 years her feeling and control returning - why - because a brilliant medical researcher realized the answer was right in front his eyes, or nose ...all along.

Turns out our olfactory systems renew the nerve cells involved throughout life. The stem cells there regenerate as the correct nerve cells.

They transplanted some of those cells across the break in her spine. I SAW her push herself up on her toes.....she WILL walk sometime in the next few years.

Nothing should get in the way of that progress. That's a hard won "miracle"....explainable, repeatable, undeniable....no unreasoned belief needed, just damn hard intricate work over time and the imagination to say.......what if we try THIS.



> Paralysis Patients Tout Adult Stem Cells
> 
> Portuguese Surgery Soon to Seek FDA Approval in U.S
> 
> ...


http://my.webmd.com/content/article/89/100250.htm 

The body has amazing powers to heal and regenerate. Just as we've harnessed other tools and techniques with hard work and observation........humans will harness this as well....if scientists are allowed to work without inane political interference.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

All I ask of society (as a scientist) is that you do not create artificial boundaries for my research based on unprovable beliefs. I, in turn, will respect societal ethics in my research and will give back honest discovery without bias or ignorance. Question my science with the same rigour that you question anything.

And do not forget that all scientists, like all religious leaders, are simply humans who make the same mistakes, have the same biases and problems as the rest of humanity. No one is perfect but at least lets keep the playing field flat.

In my personal opinion, when scientists resort to "higher powers" to explain their observations, they are ripe for retirement. Science and religion are not imcompatible but using "designer" theories to explain your research is a dereliction of scientific method and indicates a personal failure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent summary.  

Ethical, moral, philisophical and religious beliefs may be informed by and draw upon, the observations and conclusions of scientific inquiry.

Belief structures should not in turn attempt to influence, suborn to their own purposes or unduly hamper the progress of science in adding to human knowledge.

There IS certainly room for ethical and moral questioning and social decision making based on the abilities derived from application of science to illness. life extension, genetic manipulation of humans, weaponry - there is a long list of where the "humanities" art, religion, philosophy intersect with the consequences of the applications developed for our use.

Scientific inquiry and it's applied science spinoffs may create the ability.........ethical and moral values inform the use or misuse that ability.

The atomic bomb is a perfect example of where the very originators were conflicted and perplexed by the potential and actual consequences of their progress and creation.

Oppenheimer as project leader wrestled with this throughout the Manhattan project yet remained true to his profession as a scientist engaged in furthering human knowledge and abilities.

Truman as political leader had to deal with the moral, ethical and religious ( the impact on Japanese "divine emperor" concept was immense ) decision to use the results of the project on other humans.

It's a clear example of where both fields of human thought structures, the purely physical query and the moral aspects are required and much care and thought needed to be taken in both areas.

Knowledge and the use of the consequences of that knowledge remain separate. Let the scientists do their work, let the leaders, political philosophical and religious, debate the use.

As Einstein did, he contributed fundamentally to the former and protested loudly at the latter.
Two realms.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently.

-Nietzsche

http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=003319#000007


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmm ......we COULD quote back the old saw attributed to the Jesuits........."Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man."



> Raised a Catholic.
> Believe in God or a supreme intelligence in the universe.
> Understand and accept evolution.
> No conflict here.


Did YOU ever step outside your upbringing or were the Jesuits correct?  

•••

Anyway dueling quotes aside you've taken it to the heart of the matter.

Something prompts you to not accept the physical universe in all its wonders and complexity as insufficient.
Occam's razor approach does not work in your case.

Would you say it's upbringing or ...............fill in the blank???

Is observation driving the belief 
or 
is the belief and upbringing the driving force in your conclusion for a godhead oriented worldview.


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

Science cannot confirm God. Science cannot confirm Macroevolution. Science has no way of telling us where matter, space, time and energy have come from. Allan Rex Sandage, along with many other scientists, are saying that they're life's work has come up short. They have spent most of their lives trying to explain everything, when it's inexplainable. "Many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work." Basically, they have come to "the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science."

This is where daBoss is getting his viewpoint from. He understands that science doesn't have all the answers. The only answer to the shortcomings of science is the supernatural. I have a great deal more respect for this viewpoint than for yours, MacDoc, which seems to find no fault in an evolutionary theory which falls at so many levels.

Science, in all its greatness, still does not tell us where we came from.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If you repeat an untruth over and over do you think it makes it correct??
Most, the very great majority, of senior scientists are NOT of the same opinion as your precious Sandage. I notice you fail to defend entirely misquotes and the use of the likes of Johnathan Wells.

Do actually read or just spout nonsense ad nauseum?

**** sapiens CAME from a long documented line of primates of which we are one branch closely related to chimps and traceable back to lemurs and beyond.

That you are incapable of comprehending that or just plain living in a fantasy world is irrelevant. You can deny gravity all you like - after all you can't "see it" - maybe it's animal magnetism, deny the Big Bang all you like ( did you actually take a look at it or was that too uncomfortable? ) it does nothing but show the immaturity and illogic of your own mental processes.

DaBoss has a healthy approach to things physical and things metaphysical. He concludes that for him a godhead is needed while taking an informed and reasoned look at the physical universe. I'm interested in his "why" for his metaphysical conclusion.

You on the other hand have nothing to offer than "past best date" snake oil. 

Perhaps your VMAT2 expression was dialed up to the max and your I.G.F.2 distinctly low. Certainly appears that way.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I think there's more to this than people needing an explanation to our origins. It makes you wonder why someone would systematically reject any and all scientific explanations.

The only reason I can think of is that a great number of humans need some spiritual connection with the world around them. The various degrees of this spiritual need manifest themselves in many forms related to thinking and behaviour.

Many who reject the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethos, turn elsewhere for their spiritual needs. Look at how eastern religions took root in western cultures as well as older pagan practices and beliefs. Exposure to other religious(spiritual) dogma seems to draw those seeking a larger spiritual consciousness or those who have rejected their early ethos.

I find that I have no need for spirituality and maybe I'm missing out something....and then, maybe not.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Quote: "Basically, they have come to "the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science"."

The world is incredibly complex. What we don't know is immensely larger than what we do know. But we are learning all of the time. The thirst for knowledge is insatiable for scientists. Will we ever be able to explain everything? It seems to me a convenient and dangerous get-out to say that we won't so we shouldn't bother trying. Who knows? We're on the first lap of a billion lap race. Just as humans are in the last few milliseconds of the historical day.

Those who state that there are things that are ultimately unknowable without testing that thesis are, in effect, subverting the very principle on which science is based.

I do not understand why people of Faith feel threatened by science. It is a win-win situation!


----------



## Rob777 (Dec 17, 2002)

_"Science, in all its greatness, still does not tell us where we came from."_

Not yet. Give us some time. What are we going to do if we figure everything out right away?

I guess we could always work on the Caramilk secret.


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

> I do not understand why people of Faith feel threatened by science. It is a win-win situation!


I am not at all threatened by science. Like you said, it's a win-win situation. Science points to a maker. Science does not conflict with the Bible. Science does not threaten my belief in the Bible, it only confirms it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But YOU and pseudo-science creationists ARE a threat to science.
You can believe in Mr. Magoo for all it matters.

Spreading disinformation under the guise of scientific inquery - that's what the issue is.
Your reasoning is patently full of holes and akin to a 3 year olds.
The sources you support and condone are dangerous in the extreme to the scientific community in particular and the general population by consequence.

You've certainly confirmed the inverse religious belief/intelligence relationship. Far out on the bell curve indeed.

•••••

kps - I think it's a survival trait and indeed the universe itself is inspiring. Some feel the need for a designer behind it all - others find it comfortable in a "oneness" as part of something enormous and complex.

Spirit is human curiousity, excitement, striving, inspiration to great works - music is universal through out culture, kinship with others both human and not.

It's a huge part of being human. An enjoyable part of being human. It's what inspired so much of culture over time - the Vedas can still speak to us 4,000 years later in parables and examples that enrich and inform.

Metaphysical questions are part of being human, whether existential angst or hanging on ancient words.

Extremist are counterproductive in any realm - be it religion, fascism or eugenics.

Ignorance needs be confronted from where ever it arises = we can as species only build on hard won knowledge.

Some will only look backward and dwell on ancient texts. As long as they do not impede those looking forward and moving knowledge forward there is no conflict.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

"Did YOU ever step outside your upbringing ..." I always step outside my upbringing. I'm nothing but an iconoclast in oh so many ways. How is it that you make the illogical leap from being Catholic to the Jesuits? All I was doing was stating my background as a pre-emptive statement, as a back-grounder as it were, to inform those who read these pages as to the original base of my life. It was intended to alleviate bias rather than indicate a bias. Knowing one's background can lead to a greater level of understanding. If, for instance, I had stated that I was raised as an evangelical fundamentalist Christian, my support for evolution would surely have been considered surprising, dare I say, an intellectual epiphany.

"Something prompts you to not accept the physical universe in all its wonders and complexity as insufficient." On the contrary. Read my previous posts. I'm firmly in the evolution camp. I wonder at the beauty, magnificence and mystery's yet to be understood within this world and our still expanding universe. I respect and admire the detective work of science from biology to geology, astrophysics to quantum mechanics. I condemn narrow-mindedness, blind faith and looking at the world with preconceived notions and a lack of independent thought.

The fact that I believe in God or a supreme intelligence does not in any way hinder my abilities to reason, question, explore, investigate, think, analyse or criticize. I do not put any intellectual stock in rationalizing biblical cosmological stories with science. I scoff at the mental gymnastics required to be a believer in creation science as it's (at best) pseudo-science with a faith-based agenda that displays an utter lack of understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry.

Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of the Nietzsche quote. Re-read it and tell me what you think I meant in the context of this thread.


----------



## MacAdmin (Dec 16, 2004)

MacDoc,

Do you ever say anything that's not opiniated? You have yet to show me any science, just a bunch of opiniated blabber. You have yet to give any reason not to believe in the Bible. You writing has been much more philosophical than scientifical.


phi·los·o·phy     P   Pronunciation Key  (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Quote to quote - corrupting youth and upbringing was the connection.

Actually I'm impressed with the synergy you show of physical and metaphysical. I'm just trying to figure out why the "godhead step". 
Upbringing comfort or navel gazing over time.....or???

Curious not pejorative.

•••••

Your quote was a bit tangental tho it made more sense with the link to my "bah humbug".

Interpreting Nietzsche is no easy task at the best of times as HIS idea of corruption was certainly not to general societal standards of his time.

My guess HIS intent on it.........questioning elders and concensus is a positive trait. Being a contrarian is positive. 
So a youth would be "corrupted" by teaching suppression of questioning and critical thought and unthinking respect for authority and "common thinking"......likely "mob thinking" in Nietzsche world.

YOUR spin.........not sure....care to clarify??

Iconoclast and godhead acceptance you must admit is a pretty rare pairing.  

Cambridge: Iconoclast _a person who strongly opposes generally accepted beliefs and traditions:_


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Hmmm...I like that...
Scientifical 

Such a nice new word for me to ponder.

Thanks.

Dave


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You could start with some training in philosophy and religion you could certainly use it.

I could care less if you believe or disbelieve any "sacred" texts.

When you propagate ignorance in a public forum expect to be called on it.

•••
BTW perhaps you should be quizzing Daboss on how he arrived at his comfort level with both his faith and evolution. You'd likely get a far more sympathetic ear.......but then again maybe not. Depends on his iconoclasm settings that day I would guess.

•• 
As to opinionated on "everything" well I'm sure not much of a gardener as evidenced by my backyard. But the birds love me.....all those nice weeds to rummage in.

[ December 20, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I love this one:
Spreading the Gospel 

Dave


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacAdmin, 

I don't think "science points to a Maker" at all. Indeed, this concept is irrelevant to pure science if one is to retain senblance of objectivity. If you mean by "pointing" that science cannot explain the universe then you are correct - as of today. The Bible CAN explain the universe but provides no evidence for that explanation. Furthermore, the Bible is hardly unique in its explanation as may other Holy books claim to have the answers too - they are incompatible and depend on Faith rather than fact. 

We're on a path and I don't bias myself as to what is at the end of that path. To do so would contaminate and subjectify the scientific process and result in the reduction of science to "model-fitting" from its current empirical stance.

Science is very much a work-in-progress, is open-minded and is subject to constant re-evaluation. The theory of evolution is but one example. Ultimately, it is not-anti religious, unless one takes the Bible literally (for example by suggesting that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 5,000 years ago). Such beliefs are an affront to science since they must undermine scientific facts in order to be considered.

Personally, I feel that religion is undermined when such literal meaning is conferred on texts such as the Bible. In science, words are unimportant as their meaning changes with context. Evidence-based understanding is all that matters in scientific writing.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

When people say to me "Do believe in the Bible"
Then I'll always have to reply "Which one?" 

I believe in the I Ching 

History of the I Ching 


Dave


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

I think that this is germane to this thread.

*Doubt 'til thou canst doubt no more...doubt is thought and thought is life.

Systems which end doubt are devices for drugging thought 

-Albert Guerard*


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I would only add "repeatable" to evidence based.

Organized religion makes itself irrelevant by being foolish in treading in realms profane.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Macdoc - All I'm reading from your posts on this thread is "I don't agree with your point therefore it is inane and comes from the bowels of hell."

Surely there is a better way of saying you don't agree. People do believe that science and spirituality do mix, because science can not explain everything in this day and age. John Archibald Wheeler said "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." Which proves both sides of the argument.

Personally I am neither convinced that creation is true, or evolution. Creation is largely metaphorical and we don't have much to prove it either way. Evolution is "this one billionth chance happens with this one billionth chance and we throw in an experiment that isn't reproducible and we have proof". Evolution is still only a *theory*. Agreed to be the best we have so far, but it is not fact.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion it's like saying gravity, or relativity don't exist, pair bonding - it's not an "opinion".

Everytime you get a flu shot - the reason you get a different one is evolution at work.
It's observable tangible - more so than many other aspects of physics such as the work you do on your Mac every day,

Just as verifiable as the electron flow at the transistor junction. 

This is not a discussion of metaphysics like dualism versus monisn.

Evolution underlays all of modern biology and is as demonstrable and present as air flow over a wing provides the lift that you fly on.

You would laugh yourself silly if I presented an alternate explanation for the reason food grows - if I invoked some supernatural power that "makes" the plant grow if a lamb is sacrificed at just the right time.

Then you'd get mad if I went out and promulgated those techniques as a "viable" alternative when it's fact it's nothing but nonsense. The very foods we eat are the result of evolution with human selection pressure.

Religious belief and physical science are two different realms. 

Evolution IS a fundamental of physical science as it relates to living organisms just as electron transport is.

Whether evolution contradicts creation stories is immaterial to science. 

Imposing "beliefs" that get in the way of the progress of human knowledge is exceeding dangerous to the scientific community.
And it gets people justifiable angry about it.


It presages dark age mentality....worth taking steps to prevent.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Macdoc is doing a fine job of trying to get his point across. The problem lies when one tries to debate one thing vs. the other when they shouldn't be presented in the same debate. Space aliens vs. god; Christian creation myths vs. Haida creation myths and the like are good topics for debate. Science vs. mythology is an unwinnable debate by either side. 



> John Archibald Wheeler said "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." Which proves both sides of the argument.


I disagree that this 'proves' both sides of the argument. My reading of this, and likely the reading by most research scientists, is that when you discover something (prove or disprove a null hypothesis) you realize how much you didn't know in the first place which opens the door for more experiments or discoveries. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know or weren't aware of in the first place.

People must also realize the reason that religion, or belief in the supernatural came into being in the first place. It was to explain the unexplainable. Why was there an eclipse? Must be angry gods. Years later it was explained by those interested in (real) celestial bodies, gravity and orbits. Why did my buddy die suddenly without apparent injury? Must have angered the wrong gods. Years later, heart attaks, poisoning or any other myriad explanations. 

Why organized religion came into being will have to be explained by others. Most likely a class oppression issue coupled with a need for moral guidance.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I see this thread has failed to subside over the weekend. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that, as I'm happy to continue to discuss this in a civilized manner, but the tone here is starting to deteriorate.

Let's see if we can get back onto an even keel.

MacAdmin wrote:


> now I must ask you all, do you understand the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?


Yes. There is none. The distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is a semantic one used primarily by people who don't understand evolution, or by evolutionary biologists trying to explain evolution to people who don't understand it. 

This is fundamentally an example of 'the fallacy of the heap': If you have a heap of sand in your driveway, and you remove one grain of sand, you still have a heap of sand in your driveway, right? So, by creationist logic, you could keep removing a grain of sand everyday forever and you'd always have a heap of sand in your driveway. But we know that _eventually_ all the sand would be gone. The point is many small changes add up to large changes. The removal of grains of sand (microevolution) will inevitably result in the qualitative disappearance of the heap (macroevolution). Creationists have been forced to concede the existence of what they call 'microevolution', but refuse to accept its logical consequence (macroevolution). However, scientists, who are forced to accept logic and evidence, have long since accepted that genetic changes in a genome accumulate.

I see that MacDoc has done a good job of rebutting the appeal to authority MacAdmin posted (the list of ostensibly 'Top' scientists who appear to question evolutionary theory or other scientific explanations of nature). However, even if one could find a significant number of legitimate scientists who claimed that Zeus created all the aardvarks as a special species, or made some other supernatural claim, that would have no bearing on the subject. As much as people are always impressed by the opinions of the famous, their opinions are not relevant to the nature of reality. We will determine the nature of reality by observation and experimentation, not by asking some guru or other authority.

MacAdmin wrote:


> "The Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals." Why were there no fossil animals before the Cambrian explosion? Why does it appear as one day they were not there, and the next day they were there? Could there be an answer in Genesis Chapter 1?
> 
> Can anyone explain the Cambrian explosion and how it lines up with Darwinism or Macroevolution?


I guess this is what happens when you get your biology from a book written by bronze-age mystics. This is so far removed from reality that I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, there are plenty of pre-cambrian fossils. But most pre-cambrian organisms were small, soft-bodied and did not fossilize well, so they are not as well represented as more recent fauna. But you can have a look at some of them 
here. 

As for a scientific explanation of the cambrian explosion (which, we should note, is a bit of hyperbole, as it occurred over a period of millions of years), yes, evolutionary theory can explain this. It's kind of complicated...it has to do with the evolution of the HOX gene cluster and I don't want to go into it here as this post is getting too long...but, most importantly, the evolutionary explanations of these empirical observations make _testable predictions_. Unlike saying 'goddidit', scientific theories can be _falsified_ by experiment or observation, and allow us to develop new theories based on their predictions.

Finally,


> Science cannot confirm God. Science cannot confirm Macroevolution.


You're right, science cannot confirm the existence of magical sky-daddies or other other supernatural entities. More importantly, science can't _disprove_ the existence of such entities, and therefore must operate on the assumption that such entities either do not exist, or do not interact with our reality.

On the contrary, science can and has confirmed what you refer to as macroevolution. Get over it.

Cheers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A superb post bryanc.

Even I understood that one!

Cheers


----------



## agent4321 (Jun 25, 2004)

Thanks again bryanc for another *educated* post!


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

I was wondering when you were going to show up bryanc!







You are one of those people I admire for being able to explain things effectively.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I seem to have painted myself into a corner not clarifying my position.









To say evolution does not occur is fallacy, just take a look at the pharmaceutical industry. However, I am not convinced that the current explanation of how we came to be through evolution is correct. Sure evolution happens, but I have yet to see how the first amino acids were made (the one experiment shown in most Biology textbooks didn't actually work).

Although the evolutionary chain of logic thought would make one lead to believe that evolution would explain much, I can't see it yet. One of the few things I know about life is that life is most definitely not linear unless so generalized it can't be characterized as life. Life also follows unseemingly connected events that make it seem illogical until one sees the big picture. I can not see the big picture.

Also, humanity isn't just like all the other animals. We aren't specialized in order to survive like other animals we encounter. We are naked, bipedal creatures that live by adapting and taming our environment. I don't see any other animal that does this completely just to survive, not to the same degree. (Reason I say this is because we could say beavers adapt and tame their environment in order to create a home - but a beaver can protect itself with their teeth and tail (to a limited but painful degree) - we can not.)

My only personal complaint about evolution is that when people do understand that evolution is how we came about, where does our sense of purpose go to? We're just here on the earth to move energy and spread our genes. It's awfully callous and depressive. I'm also looking for an answer to this, but I think this is for another thread.

I am simply not convinced of the theory, but I have no other solution or reasonable alternative.

Carex - While you are 100% correct, I had meant the quote to prove the point that even when we learn a great deal, people tend to become more and more ignorant of other view points. But this is overly general and in hindsight was not worth even mentioning. It's too general for practical use.

bryanc - Very good post! I felt it explained things exceptionally well. Didn't convince me of macroevolution, but I don't think anything will until I see the big picture myself.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Chealion, perhaps it is not something that most people think about on a daily basis, so when confronted with the opposing views, they take the path of least resistance. "Well I could read dozens of textbooks, and consult a myriad of relevant scientists and begin to gain an understanding of evolution, maybe, or I could just go to church and get the answer." 



> Also, humanity isn't just like all the other animals. We aren't specialized in order to survive like other animals we encounter. We are naked, bipedal creatures that live by adapting and taming our environment.


I suspect people feel this way because we are removed from the cave and the act of day to day survival, at least those of us privileged enough to live in western society. However, you may be overlooking **** sapiens greatest 'adaption' or evolutionary advantage; the large brain. Somewhere along the way, the large brain was selected for and that is our big ticket to the show. 



> My only personal complaint about evolution is that when people do understand that evolution is how we came about, where does our sense of purpose go to? We're just here on the earth to move energy and spread our genes.


Unfortunately, this is true. There is no end product. We are at a snapshot in time where burrowing owls, Indian elephants, western crows, Altantic salmon and human beings are what they are. Some may go extinct, others may radiate and become new species, some may stagnate. If the harsh reality of no purpose, or no end product is disconcerting, then one should turn to spirituality I suppose. Hopefully not as an opposing view, but as a complement to the excellent science that researchers are conducting. 

I must admit, my understanding of the 'way things work' really shuts down around the time of the big bang. I mean, what was there around before that. Or even before that. It's about that time that I start to swoon and turning to Buddha for answers.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Chealion, I admire your skepticism. If you had as through an understanding of the empirical evidence for, and the molecular biological and ecological mechanisms underlying large scale evolutionary changes you would doubtlessly be as convinced as I am. However, I don't expect you to take my word for it. If you would like pointers to textbooks or other resources I would be happy to provide them. But to really get a grip on this subject matter, the best currently available mechanism is to spend several years doing a postgraduate degree or two on the topic (worked for me...'course it took 10 years, but I didn't have anything better to do).

Meanwhile, let me try to clear up a couple of misconceptions.

Firstly, you seem to have conflated evolutionary theory with abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to say about how life came to be on earth. Evolution simply deals with how the diversity of modern life arose from an original population of self-replicating entities. It seems to me you are confusing the doubts you have regarding current theories about the origins of life with evolutionary theory.

Our current understanding of how life got started on earth is certainly _much_ less well developed than our understanding of what happened subsequently. However, there has been a great deal of progress made on the topic of the origins of life in the past couple of decades. You may want to have a look at the Wikipedia entry for RNA-world, for example.

As to the 'special' nature of human beings, your conviction in this is common and understandable from a psychological perspective, but you should be aware that there isn't a scrap of evidence to support this position. All available evidence says that **** sapiens is a recently evolved species of anthropoid ape who's evolutionary schtick seems to be tool-based manipulation of the environment and highly complex tribal relationships mediated by various modes of communication.

If you need to feel that the universe or some magical sky-daddy has brought you into existence for some special purpose, that's fine with me. But it does suggest some sort of deep-rooted insecurity. I'm perfectly happy being a hairless ape exploring my universe with out any policemen-in-the-sky. I realize that means I have to take responsibility for my actions, and that I have no higher authority to appeal to when things don't turn out the way I want them to. Such a philosophy makes it much more important to me that I live my life to the fullest and try to help my fellow sentient animals do the same.

I encourage you to continue to explore and learn. Perhaps one day you will have some insight worth contributing to the growing body of understanding on this topic.

Cheers


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Noooo, not abiogenesis. That is the first word in the Devil's Dictionary of Evolution !!!!

Sorry, slipped there for a second.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Carex wrote:


> I must admit, my understanding of the 'way things work' really shuts down around the time of the big bang. I mean, what was there around before that. Or even before that.


This is a non-trivial question, and I am not a cosmologist, so I can't give you an authoritative answer. I do, however, know several cosmologists and other flavours of astrophysicists, and I have asked this question myself. They patiently explained to me that the question is malformed on the basis of assuming that space-time is flat. Asking what came before the big bang is very much like asking what's north of the North Pole. Because the dimension of time was a product of the Big Bang, there was no 'before'. It's very difficult to express these ideas in English (using the word 'was' for example, is completely incorrect) but these concepts can be explored using mathematics, where they make more sense.

As for your very understandable reaction to the confusion that arises when we think about things like this


> It's about that time that I start to swoon and turning to Buddha for answers.


I suggest that is not a desirable solution. While it may be comforting to fabricate answers using fairy tales, it doesn't get us any closer to a real understanding. Indeed, saying 'goddidit' or invoking some other supernatural explanation not only fails to get us closer to a real understanding, it creates social obstacles for the people who are smarter (or more imaginative) and who want to engage in rational inquiry regarding these deep questions.

There are many aspects of the universe that are not only beyond my understanding, but which may be beyond anyone's understanding. While that may make us uncomfortable, why should that not be the case? Rather than fabricate mythologies which cover up our ignorance, why not accept that we are limited in our understanding, work on trying to understand what we can, and leave what we don't understand for later?

Cheers

[edit: corrected typo]

[ December 21, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: bryanc ]


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

> tool-based manipulation of the environment and highly complex tribal relationships mediated by various modes of communication.


And even in this we are not unique - just more highly developed. The above description applies quite well to my cat (if you count me as a "tool").  

We take pride in our intellectual prowess - and morality(?) - but what it boils down to is probably the deadliest organism to roam the surface of the earth - ever. How many complete species have we managed to obliterate - both plant and animal? That which does not fear us is fearless. If only we were smart enough to recognise that our success at exploiting the resources of this planet will not sustain us when those resources are no longer abundant.

Apart from all that... I just don't see that we're so different from the other creatures on this planet. How many different models could a Creator come up with? Yet all mammals, reptiles, birds, and fish share a startling number of similarities: a brain, spine, skull, skin, heart, blood, ribs, stomachs, intestines, bi-lateral symmetry, two eyes, two ears... two sexes... mortality...

Even comparing the skeletons of a Tyranosaurus Rex and a human, it seems to me we are essentially the same creature. Our bones may be different in scale and variant in shape (the human tail is proportionally much shorter) - but we have the very same essential structure: skull with jaw bone and teeth, brain cavity and eyesockets; spine, ribs, scapula, humerous (funny bone), ulna, radius, pelvis, fibia, tibia, fibula - wrists, hands, ankles, feet, etc - we are/were even both highly successful predators that stand on our hind legs! 

But as a creature with an intellect that has evolved to a stage from which it is able to look back upon and consider not only its terrestrial origins but also capable of tossing a lens into orbit and gaze upon the origins of time itself... what could be more spiritual and purposeful than that?

[ December 21, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: vacuvox ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There is one experiment that could be done to test the designer hypothesis which would be to sterilize all humans and see what transpired. Would a designer intervene or would we die out? 

I think I'll stick to science instead of science fiction


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Ah, good idea, but it would have to be an 'irreducibly complex' problem to correct the sterilization. We routinely select for suppressor mutations by making a population infertile in the absence of some novel mutation.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Bryanc, 

The experiment is designed to reduce the possibility of adaptive evolution such that any spontaneous fertility would have to be caused by "Designer" intervention since there would be no selection for mutation. The sterilization might only require mass vasectomization as long as sperm banks were destroyed. With only 5 billion individuals, the complexity of sperm production and lack of selective pressure (scientists would not be given funding for fertility research  ), rescue of the phenotype would have to be via Immaculate Conception (again).....

A bit extreme, I realise


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

bryanc, thanks for getting me back on the straight and narrow. Please don't take my off hand, facetious comments as my beliefs (there is that word again). I would be the last person to turn to Raven for answers to anything. 

The origins of time/space/matter/universes has got to be more befuddling to the man in the street than evolution though and look where that argument has gone. 



> It's very difficult to express these ideas in English (using the word 'was' for example, is completely incorrect) but these concepts can be explored using mathematics, where they make more sense.


That comment about explaining the big bang would just add to the complexity of hypothesising about the problem let alone explaining it to the layman. The most we can do is wish the best of luck to those that are attempting to explore the problem and hope to be enlightened one day (in English so it is easier to understand). 

Don't worry, I haven't lost my sense of purpose and I'm not wandering around in a circle chanting some ancient incantation.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

UTBJW, sounds like fun, when do we get started. Of course your experiment woulndn't rule out parthenogenesis and would have to be re-run by a competing group in a couple thousand (million?) years to see if the results were indeed repeatable. 

Talk about a genetic bottleneck!! You think the cheetahs had it bad. Imagine the personal pressure on teh new millenial Eve. And we'd better hope she had a boy so they could begin the re-population effort. Unless of course, you are just scheming to get rid of us all. Hey, wait a minute...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I did my part for the experiment after our second child more than a decade ago. Now Carex, drop your pants!

Forget reproducibility (literally), this is the grand daddy of all experiments. The big question is where to publish. Molecular Hell or Un-Nature?


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

I use to love Creation Records !!!

Evolution Skateboards aren't bad either!!











PS-there is no God. DON'T KILL ME!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah me too snip snip - let the fun begin.  

- Zero population as a deity test. Hmmmmmmmm ....good idea.!!  
•••••

Buddha?! - I'd suggest you picked somewhat the wrong example as there is little godhead in Buddhism - I'd say it's closer to a "way of life" than a deity oriented cosmology.
Even Hinduism acknowledges "man created the gods". I find it fairly comfortable to deal with a body of thought that considers "oneness" an ideal goal - I personally think it is.

It's a challenge to a human to be both a unique self conscious entity AND "FEEL" part of a larger universe instead of "apart". More of that "pacific" notion and less "dominion over the birds and beasts" I'd say would be a sociological improvement.

Not many Buddhists committing violent acts in the "name of something or other". Few of those in the Shinto world either









In my mind those are "relevant" religious/philosophical approaches.

I've always liked the Vedic notions of how illusory the world actually is. It ties so well into our understanding of "perception" in a scientific sense that we must construct the world ( I always liked the inverted glasses experiment where the brain eventually flips the world right side up after a few days the way a baby does.) Clearly we "distinguish and discriminate" the physical world inputs within our brains.

Dealing with "before time" is indeed a brain numbing concept - that the universe is a still largely unexplored world of wonders is sufficient and exciting and inspirational for me. An entire toybox entirely ( so far ) for US!!!!!  

And I accept the responsibility that implies. Don't hear that stated too often Bryanc - flows from the concept.
I think it's bloody important humans TAKE responsibility.......as opposed to Insha Allah and its ilk.
  

yeah yeah be nice.......'tis the season.......sigh.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Can't remember who it was, but I think it was someone here who recently posted a joke that really brought a smile to my face:

A Buddist walks up to a hot-dog vendor on a street in New York and says "Make me one with everything."

Cheers


----------



## FLYNSQRL (Aug 6, 2003)

MY atheism declares responsibility for one's actions:

http://hac.humanists.net/principles.html


----------

