Transitionary Fossils

[flyingcheesehead]

My twist on your question would be "Why are evolutionists so adamantly opposed to and alarmed by a creationist teaching an opposing viewpoint?"

I'm not opposed to teaching it at all. It simply belongs in the right place, and public schools are not the right place.

Especially if the evolutionist is so secure in their theories and can back up their theories with solid proof using accepted scientific methods.

It is creationism which cannot be backed up with any scientific method, so why on earth would you teach it in a science class?!?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How do you test that God does NOT exist in a science class? Which is what evolution teaches. "We are not created beings, created in the image of God. God does not exist."

They do not say any such thing in a Science class.

And how do you test the hypothesis that man evolved from apes? Do you put an ape in the lab and watch it for the millions of years that evolution claims it takes?

No, you analyze DNA and note that a chimp and a human share (IIRC) 99.6%. Less similar mammals, less similarity. Is it absolute proof? No. That's why it's a "theory." But, a theory is the best explanation available given a body of evidence.

As I recall from my HS science classes, when evolution was taught, it was made very clear that it is a theory. Science teachers aren't standing in front of the room saying "Your pastor and/or parents are liars, this is what really happened."

 

[gkainz]

Not being much of a bible scholar, I'll just put it like this:

Creation basically says that God created man. But does it say how? Was there a voice from the sky? Was there a lightning bolt from a giant index finger, and suddenly Adam was standing in the garden of Eden?

I'm not either, Ken, nor do I claim to be. But Genesis tells us that God fashioned man out of dust and breathed life into him.

How about this for an alternative. God created the universe and all matter therein, shaping said matter into galaxies, solar systems, etc. On one particular little blue ball, He had created a primitive landscape of molten rock and water. God cooked the primordial soup and the basic amino acids formed. (This has been repeated in a lab, FWIW.) The building blocks of life. He further molded these into small microorganisms, and later sea creatures, all the while pushing continents around and creating the landscape. When finished with that, he gave a fish a little nudge and it crawled up on land. God continued to modify his creations until finally, the first human, Adam, stood in the garden of Eden, etc...

Ok, God created the universe, all matter, galaxies, solar systems, the whole shootin' match... the bible account agrees with all that. If God the Creator can make all that simply by speaking it into existance, why would He then take the hard route of concocting the primoridal soup, stir the pot, hang around for millions of years with the egg timer and thermomoter to see "is it soup yet?"

If God made all of the universe out of nothing, doesn't creating man, li'l ol' us, seem somewhat trivial?

Sometimes, assumptions are made about things that may or may not be true... I am reminded of a line from the movie "Oh, God!" where Jerry, played by John Denver, asks God, played by George Burns, if He really created everything in seven days:

"Yeah, but you gotta remember, my days aren't the same as yours. When I woke up this morning, Sigmund Freud was in medical school."

I remember that - funny! However, I've read a number of bible and Hebrew scholar discussions that support a 24 hour day explanation of the Genesis account of creation.

 

[SkyHog]

Bernoulli's Principal is only a theory. Something can come along at any time and prove that it is not the way it works, and poof - no more.



Bernoulli's PRINCIPAL is just that, it's proven and works...

But it is still a theory, in that there could be something else that causes the same effects that has been undetected yet. Could be that Bernoulli was dead wrong. But that possibility exists, which is what makes it science.

FWIW - before the next person chimes in and says "but what about scientific laws?" They are also just theories that can be proven wrong. Is there an instance where equal and opposite forces don't work? Then its wrong.

Btw - there are still apes because we didn't evolve from apes. It is believed that we evolved from an ape-like primate. Apes also evolved from an ape-like primate.

 

[Richard]

But it is still a theory, in that there could be something else that causes the same effects that has been undetected yet. Could be that Bernoulli was dead wrong. But that possibility exists, which is what makes it science.

FWIW - before the next person chimes in and says "but what about scientific laws?" They are also just theories that can be proven wrong. Is there an instance where equal and opposite forces don't work? Then its wrong.

Btw - there are still apes because we didn't evolve from apes. It is believed that we evolved from an ape-like primate. Apes also evolved from an ape-like primate.

And the ape-like primate just stood up one day and said, "Here I is."? Or maybe it was ooga mooga.

 

[Greebo]

How do you test that God does NOT exist in a science class? Which is what evolution teaches. "We are not created beings, created in the image of God. God does not exist."

What scientific document pertaining to evolution states, "Because of this theory, there is no God"? I've never seen that in any of the text or material I've read. The only people I see putting that argument forth aren't using science to do it - they either WANT God not to exist, or choosing to imagine that evolution says that because evolution presents a method of development of our species that differs from their own creation beliefs. The latter tend to be the "literal word of God" types who don't seem to appreciate that their "literal word" has been translated and retranslated for 2 to 5 to I think even 10 thousand years, depending on the particular chapter and verse. (Trying to remember just how far back the early chapters of the Old Testament date)

And how do you test the hypothesis that man evolved from apes? Do you put an ape in the lab and watch it for the millions of years that evolution claims it takes?

The hypothesis is tested against what evidence we DO have. Thats why I've said before that its not conclusive - its suportive. If we dug deeper into the earth and found that about 20k years ago, human skulls were found, but no skulls from earlier periods were found that were remotely similar to human - then there would be an argument that there is no fossil evidence to support the idea. But since we can see over time a progression of skulls that go from more simian to more sapien until we get to the modern skull, the evidence supports the theory and stands up to what tests we are able to use.

I assert that one can no more test the theory of evolution than one can test for God in a science class. Although I can attest that there IS a God, especially in science class, since answer to prayer is the only logical conclusion I have for passing tests in science class!

Thats where I have to disagree - one can not test for God because one can never provide evidence that says God doesn't exist. God being Omnicient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent makes it very easy to allow for anything he throws at it because he can do anything.

One can test evolution to an extent - by applying reason and logic and examining the historical evidence we DO have. Thats why evolution is a theory.

And we also can test evolution another way.

We can wait. As a species, all we have to do is keep recording the gradual changes in mankind over time. We are taller now than we were even a thousand years ago, for example. In 50 thousand years, how different will we be? You and I will never be here to see it - but our descenents will.

Once upon a time, the argument that the earth was not the center of the universe was seen by the fervently religious to be an argument that God didn't exist. Miraculously, God has survived that percieved challenge, and adapted and evolved with us. How is the response of the religious community to the idea that the world, once again, doesn't work exactly the way they think it does any different from the reaction of the religious community to Copernicus? To Gallileo?

 

[Greebo]

And the ape-like primate just stood up one day and said, "Here I is."? Or maybe it was ooga mooga.

No, this has been covered. The theory is that about 5.2 to 3.4 million years ago, the first ape-like primate started standing up to look over the tall grasses when they were forced to leave the trees because the trees were dying off. They survived because standing up to look around when moving let them see predators. They weren't built for it and couldn't do it for long, but they did.

Over thousands and millions of years, the bodies adapted to the motion and became homo habilis, and then homo erectus, and finally homo sapien.

It didn't happen "one day" - it happened one millenium. It took millions of years for our ancestors to reach the point where walking on two legs was the norm and more comfortable than walking on four. It was just a matter of survival.

As for those who ask "why are there still apes then" - well why are there still thousands of species of fish or any other animal classification. Because it isn't like there are 100,000 apes one day and the next day there's 100,000 austro's. They were spread out all over a continent. One group lived in a region where standing up helped it survive - so some branched off in one direction, others branched in others and didn't take the same path.

 

[Richard]

Let them see predators, huh? So with our more evolved eyes attached to our more evolved brains balanced on bi-ped bodies we should be even more able to see predators. But I'll be dipped if it's any easier to spot a still, ready to pounce predator hiding in the tall grass.

The Rangers down at Benning are put through the same task and they can't see the sniper lying motionless in camo. And they've been told what to look for and in what direction to look.

And was it savanna or arboreal jungle? Certainly, not both.

 

[EdFred]

Maybe we should start teaching alchemy in science class again. I think people need to get a grasp on what SCIENCE is, before saying what should be taught in a science class. If you want to teach creation in a science class, perhaps you also think the the best way to solve the quadratic equation is by quoting Robert Frost.

 

[Greebo]

Let them see predators, huh? So with our more evolved eyes attached to our more evolved brains balanced on bi-ped bodies we should be even more able to see predators. But I'll be dipped if it's any easier to spot a still, ready to pounce predator hiding in the tall grass.

The Rangers down at Benning are put through the same task and they can't see the sniper lying motionless in camo. And they've been told what to look for and in what direction to look.

And was it savanna or arboreal jungle? Certainly, not both.

You know, Richard - I wasn't there, and I certainly don't know all of the finer ponits of the theories - heck maybe it was just easier to see where they were going.

However, I would point out that I don't see people in this thread who believe in evolution being sarcastic or snitty about creationists beliefs, and in fact we're going out of our way to suggest that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

As far as motionless predators - yes but although predators are very hard to see while motionless, they are very easy to see once they start running - and easier to see when they're running *if* you're looking from a vantage point above the grass. The sooner you see the movement, the sooner you can start running away. Goes a long way towards understanding why our eyes are attuned to motion, in my opinion.

As for the type of jungle - beats me - all I know was that as I've heard it, at the time, the jungles were receeding - the world was more arid so the trees were sparser.

Now let me ask you this, if evolution is incorrect - and heck it might be - its a theory and it is subject to change based on new evidence, but I digress. If evolution is incorrect, and Genesis is the absolute, literal word of how the world was created, then why did God make the world to appear that its a few billion years older than the Bible suggests? Why did he make dinosaur bones and skulls that appear to progress over millions of years from simean to sapien? Why, if evolution is so rediculously flawed, did God go to all the trouble of making it so convincing?

 

[Dart]

But also remember that theories are not "hunches". This is a mistake that a lot of people seem to make when making the statement "It's a theory, not fact"

Theory: "[SIZE=-1]a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

Law: "[/SIZE]a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature"

(Both definitions from Princeton's WordNet)

The theory of evolution is accepted in the scientific community. There is no debate. Why? Because the theory of evolution (along with other theories) is the cornerstone of modern biology. Among other theories are the theory of gravity, atomic theory, and theory of germ disease. Each of these theories are falsifiable. Intelligent Design or Creationism is not falsifiable. Science deals with this earth and the data we glean from the physical world around us. ID/Creationism deals with the metaphysical.

(bold my emphasis)

Goodness but we could save time, ink, and hot air if people would just understand the above distinctions.

Whether or not there is a God has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Creationism is not science, it may be the Truth, it it IS NOT science. It has no place in science class. For a science teacher to say "There is no God" is equally wrong and has NO PLACE in a science class either.

Whatever any science reveals to us is, utltimately, a revelation of the mind and works of God. What's the problem people??????? Sheesh.

 

[Greebo]

What's the problem people???????

I think the problem is that people have a hard time when God turns out not to do things the way they want to believe he does...

 

[Frank Browne]

Whatever any science reveals to us is, utltimately, a revelation of the mind and works of God. What's the problem people??????? Sheesh.

Amen!

 

[gkainz]

What scientific document pertaining to evolution states, "Because of this theory, there is no God"? I've never seen that in any of the text or material I've read.

It's the implication I'm referring to here.
A. My God said "I created man in my own image."
B. Evolution says "Man was not created, he evolved."
Two contradictory assertions. Asserting B says what about A?

...the "literal word of God" types who don't seem to appreciate that their "literal word" has been translated and retranslated for 2 to 5 to I think even 10 thousand years, depending on the particular chapter and verse. (Trying to remember just how far back the early chapters of the Old Testament date)

Do you feel that the bible is inaccurate because of that? Consider the information here:

http://www.concernedchristians.org/nocomparison_bible5.php

1. 90 percent of the most recent critical edition of the Hebrew text contain no variants.
2. 95 percent of the Old Testament is textually sound.
3. Only a few percent of the 10 percent of variants are significant.
4. Most variants are insignificant and do not affect essential Christian doctrine.
5. The textual differences are inconsequential.
6. Variants present in the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts are representative of the kinds that Jesus and the Disciples faced; yet, they viewed scripture as authoritative.
(See Dockery, Mathews, Sloan, Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, 1994, pp. 156-159)

Second, the New Testament writings are survived by ~25,000 manuscripts, fragments, uncials, and minuscules, etc. (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol. 1, 1991, p. 40). The amount is overwhelming and unparalleled by any other ancient document or set of documents in history.

I've heard it said that if every modern day Bible were destroyed today, one could reconstruct it to more than 99% of its entirety by referring to the over 24,000 manuscripts that still exist. The modern day Bible, in spite of translations and time, accurately reflects the manuscripts of the original - moreso than any other known literature we have.

 

[gkainz]

I think the problem is that people have a hard time when God turns out not to do things the way they want to believe he does...

Good one. I try to remember two important points like that...

1. God is God
2. I'm not

 

[Greebo]

It's the implication I'm referring to here.
A. My God said "I created man in my own image."
B. Evolution says "Man was not created, he evolved."
Two contradictory assertions. Asserting B says what about A?

B is an incorrect assertion. Evolution doesn't say anything about whether we were created or randomly happened. All it says is that there was a logical progression from species to species.

In fact, the concept of Intelligent Design is based on accepting Evolution as the method, but that the implementor of the method was a divine source. Evolution isn't concerned with whether or not there was an implementor, or if it was all just random chance.

I see no conflict between the idea of Evolution and the idea of Creation.

Regarding the literal accuracy of the Bible: Why is it then that there are multiple English versions of the Bible and that between the versions each has subtle variations in the language?

Christian teaching tells us that Christ used parable and allegory to make his points understood to those who could not otherwise understand his message. If Christ is the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity, then that means that God uses parable and allegory.

So if the Bible is the divine word of God, and God uses parable and allegory, why can't Genesis - and "in my own image" be allegorical? A way to explain to our ancestors, whos scientific knowledge was extremely limited, how the world came into being and man came to be?

 

[gkainz]

Regarding the literal accuracy of the Bible: Why is it then that there are multiple English versions of the Bible and that between the versions each has subtle variations in the language?

What about Shakespeare? I'm not a big fan, but I have to believe that someone has translated Shakespeare's works into common, American English? Simple adaptations to the common vernacular but I believe faithful and accurate translation does not change the message.

Since I don't read Hebrew, I can't speak to how well other translations, such as King James, reflect the original, but the scholars I've read say it's accurate. King James translation reflected the common vernacular of the time, as does the New King James, the New International Version, and the most recent modern translations.

Christian teaching tells us that Christ used parable and allegory to make his points understood to those who could not otherwise understand his message. If Christ is the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity, then that means that God uses parable and allegory.

So if the Bible is the divine word of God, and God uses parable and allegory, why can't Genesis - and "in my own image" be allegorical? A way to explain to our ancestors, whos scientific knowledge was extremely limited, how the world came into being and man came to be?

Agreed - at times Jesus, when speaking directly to his contemporaries, used parables in order to have his audience relate his teachings to things they were familiar with; things common to their everyday life. But isn't a parable ineffective if the hearer cannot relate to the story? I mean, if I gave a presentation on database architecture and tried to use stories of herding sheep and docking lambs, I don't think I would make a very strong presentation. However, Jesus using a parable of a lost sheep, or his sheep knowing his voice when talking to people of Galilee makes perfect sense, does it not?

If God intended Genesis to tell the creation story for all generations, I can't see a parable or allegory being the method He would choose to imploy. But, again, I'm not a bible scholar nor do I think I know the mind and intent of God. I've read a number of textual analysis of the Hebrew words used in Genesis for things like "day" and using the other text, believe that it means the literal 24 hour period of a day. I don't recall analysis of "in our image", but I'll do some digging. Wouldn't you agree, however, that as complex as our physical bodies are, that it points to a master craftsman as a creator?

 

[ScottM]

This is one of my favorite articles on science and religion.

Eric Cornell, Why is the Sky Blue? ( What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell )

Scientists, this is a call to action, but also one to inaction. Why am I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have made me a renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll soon see what I mean.



Let me pose you a question, not about God but about the heavens: "Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1) The sky is blue because of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh scattering; 2) The sky is blue because blue is the color God wants it to be.


My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say that the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of science don't speak to that answer.


Before we understood Rayleigh scattering, there was no sci*entifically satisfactory explanation for the sky's blueness. The idea that the sky is blue because God wants it to be blue existed before scientists came to understand Rayleigh scattering, and it contin*ues to exist today, not in the least undermined by our advance in scientific understanding. The religious explanation has been supplemented — but not supplanted — by advances in scientific knowledge. We now may, if we care to, think of Rayleigh scattering as the method God has chosen to implement his color scheme.


Right now there is a U.S. federal trial under way in Dover, Pennsylvania, over a school policy requiring teachers to tell students about “intelligent design” before teaching evolution. The central idea of intelligent design is that nature is the way it is because God wants it to be that way. This is not an assertion that can be tested in a scientific way, but studied in the right context, it is an interesting notion. As a theological idea, intelligent design is exciting. Listen: If nature is the way it is because God wants it to be that way, then, by looking at nature, one can learn what it is that God wants! The microscope and the telescope are no longer merely scientific instruments; they are windows into the mind of God.


But as exciting as intelligent design is in theology, it is a boring idea in science. Science isn't about knowing the mind of God; it's about understanding nature and the reasons for things. The thrill is that our ignorance our knowledge; the exciting part is what we don't understand yet. If you want to recruit future scientists, you don't draw a box around all our scientific understanding to date and say, “Everything out*side this box we can explain only by invoking God's will.” In 1855, no one told the future Lord Rayleigh that the scientific reason for the sky's blueness is that God wants it that way. Or if someone did tell him that, we can all be happy that the youth was plucky enough to ignore them. For science, intelligent design is a dead-end idea.


My call to action for scientists is, Work to ensure that the intelligent-design hypothesis is taught where it can contribute to the vitality of a field (as it could perhaps in theology class) and not taught in science class, where it would suck the excitement out of one of humankind's great ongoing adventures.


Now for my call to inaction: most scientists will concede that as powerful as science is, it can teach us nothing about values, ethics, morals or, for that matter, God. Don't go about pretending otherwise! For example, science can try to predict how human activity may change the climate, but science can't tell us whether those changes would be good or bad.
Should scientists, as humans, make judgments on ethics, morals, values and religion? Absolutely. Should we act on these judgments, in an effort to do good? You bet. Should we make use of the goodwill we may have accumulated through our scientific achievements to help us do good? Why not? Just don't claim that your science tells you “what is good” ... or “what is God.”


Act: fight to keep intelligent design out of science class*rooms! Don't act: don't say science disproves intelligent design. Stick with the plainest truth: science says nothing about intelligent design, and intelligent design brings nothing to science, and should be taught in theology, not science classes.
My value judgment is that further progress in sci*ence will be good for humanity. My argument here is offered in the spir*it of trying to preserve science from its foes — but also from its friends.

Eric Cornell won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2001.
Source: Time Magazine , November 14, 2005, p. 68.

 

[Greebo]

What about Shakespeare? I'm not a big fan, but I have to believe that someone has translated Shakespeare's works into common, American English? Simple adaptations to the common vernacular but I believe faithful and accurate translation does not change the message.

Well I don't know if Shakespeare has been translated - I am a fan and have seen many if not most of his plays - and they've always been in Shakespearean english.

But I appreciate your point.

Personally, I think "in his image" is better applied to the freedom of will we posess than the literal 'image' as in picture. IE I think "In his image" is only reasonably taken as allegorical If Man was literally created in Gods image, then God's awfully confused - he must not know his color, hair style, height, weight, or even his gender.

Likewise, I think much of the rest of the Bible is better applied as a guidebook and metaphore its followers can understand and accept regardless of the age.

If God intended Genesis to tell the creation story for all generations, I can't see a parable or allegory being the method He would choose to imploy.

Given the uproar that evolution causes today with our advanced knowledge of anatomy, biology, physiology, metabolism, genetics, and so forth, not to mention physics and astronomy, can you imagine the reaction people of two thousand or 6 thousand years ago would have had to being told, in a religious context, that their creator chose to develop a simian species into an intelligent, clothed, walking, talking, community builder? 500 years ago or so they probably had people arguing to kill Gallileo for saying the world wasn't the center of the universe - c'mon - no one can know the mind of god, but the mind of MAN ain't so hard to figure out.

Genesis is a creation story that can survive any science because its a GOOD story and it has a GOOD parallel to evolution if considered from the right angle. Earth created first, fish of the sea next, then creatures of the land, then man... hmmm Oceans, microbiological life evolving into, over much time, fish, crawling onto land and growing legs, branching out into myriad species, and then developing intelligence and a chronic hair loss problem. STRONG parallel. Adam and Eve and Eden a racial parallel to the time when we had no farms, no towns, no buildings, we lived in the wild and from the wild. And Genesis fails to explain quite a lot - like where did all those other people come from that Cain lived with after killing Abel (or was it the other way around)? Evolution fills in the details where Genesis leaves off.

Wouldn't you agree, however, that as complex as our physical bodies are, that it points to a master craftsman as a creator?

I agree that it leaves open the possibility, but then I'm not an aethiest. I don't know if God exists or not, but if he does, he has to exist in a manner consistent with the universe he's created, or I can't believe. It is not possible for me to accept as truth that which contradicts that which follows logic, reason, and science.

Which raises the question again - why would a God give man reason, logic, intelligence, a sense of curiosity and discovery if we were not intended to use it to learn all we could about what he did?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Wouldn't you agree, however, that as complex as our physical bodies are, that it points to a master craftsman as a creator?

Even something as common and relatively simple as a single hydrogen atom is so complex and precise that it points to just such an intelligent creator of some kind. Try making one from nothing as further evidence.

The real question is, what is the true nature, intent and level of power of that Creator?

 

[Greebo]

The real question is, what is the true nature, intent and level of power of that Creator?

Well, see, 500 million years ago, the evil Galactic Overlord...

sorry, couldn't resist...

 

[ScottM]

Well, see, 500 million years ago, the evil Galactic Overlord...

sorry, couldn't resist...

Ahhh Xenu

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

That can be used to illustrate the need for bridges found in evolutionary theory. So many questions (such questions begat more questions moreso than provide answers) and contrary examples--just make it fit so as to preserve the theory.

There is logic in God's creative plan. That your or I are not privy to that does not obviate the same. Lest you think it is merely a statement of faith in the unseen, one only needs to be responsibly objective in their attempt to harmonize the natural world with the Biblical record. F'rinstance, it takes both the earth and the sun to make a solar day. Once we rid ourselves of the dogmatic carelessness found on both sides of the argument we can begin to see the logic. Remember, God does not need man to be God.

Yikes Richard, if I could scrape all the glittering gold off those generalizations, I'd be rich!

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

already been found. it's called homo erectus.

http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/chp22.htm

Check out Koko the gorilla sometime. The gorilla that was taught sign language and uses it fluently to not only talk rapidly by signing but makes up her own words for objects new to her by using combinations of signs she already knows, as well as signing conversation concerning emotions.

I've observed humans with less visible intelligence and emotion than that gorilla commonly displays.

http://www.koko.org/

The script on the website gives some idea how close the "apes" really are to humans but the videos I've seen of her signing are what really is amazing to see. there appears to be a short clip on the website under the KOKO SPEAKS window.

 

[Dart]

Which raises the question again - why would a God give man reason, logic, intelligence, a sense of curiosity and discovery if we were not intended to use it to learn all we could about what he did?

"Question all things" - Jesus

Ya know, for rebel-PK-agnostic you have a lovely, solid, understanding of the Word, and a strong faith... ya just don't wanna admit it.

Folks, the Scriptures are the inspired Word but,

The Bible has amazing scientific accuracy - but it isn't a science text.

It is an indispensible guide to middle eastern history - but it isn't a history archive.

It has solid advice for life's problems - but it isn't a self help book.

It isn't about how we should behave - although if we followed the suggested forms most of us would certainly be better off.

It has great poems and music, but it isn't an arts guide.

What it is is the story of God's love for us, his constant desire for our love and fellowship despite our constant rejecttion of Him, and finally a plea for faith in Him that all is as He wills. One of these days, despite millenia of patience and hope, his Will could well be, "You don't want me, well I don't want you. To Hell with ya'll!"

Bible thumping others into submission is a waste of time because the Bible isn't so much about how to behave, but about who to love.

When asked by the scholars and Pharisees which Commandment was greatest Jesu answered, "The first is... The second is... There is no other greater commandment than these."

 

[Dart]

I think the problem is that people have a hard time when God turns out not to do things the way they want to believe he does...

Boy! ain't that the truth.

 

[Greebo]

"Question all things" - Jesus

Ya know, for rebel-PK-agnostic you have a lovely, solid, understanding of the Word, and a strong faith... ya just don't wanna admit it.

No, Dart. All but the last. I have a fairly strong understanding of "The Word" because my father is a Lutheran Minister and an Academic.

I can cite Christian beliefs and history quite well - my early years were steeped in it. I simply lack the faith.

 

[fgcason]

Even something as common and relatively simple as a single hydrogen atom is so complex and precise that it points to just such an intelligent creator of some kind.

Why does an intelligent creator have to be involved at all? It could just the basic levels of physics for this Universe at work. Complicated things are just a bunch of simple things put together. Complicated things can be broken it into it's simple component parts. Hydrogen is made of a bunch of other stuff. That stuff can be broken down too.
The problem with breaking things down and sorting it all out is that we're not necessarily smart enough yet. Reverse engineering the Universe is a bit of a task. Remember that it wasn't that log ago that the highest respected PhD professors of physics from the greatest educational campuses on the planet had the entire universe already figured out as fire, earth, water, air while the supreme religious leaders of the world were tossing virgins into volcanos to placate the angry gods because this years crops washed away again.

Try making one from nothing as further evidence.

Ok. But I insist on the same set of ground rules though. I get to start at the same start point hydrogen came from otherwise you're invalidating the conditions of the experiment. After you delete the entire Universe from existence I'm willing to give it a go...but there is that closed loop system problem we'll have to work out first and that's a tuffie.

The real question is, what is the true nature, intent and level of power of that Creator?

The real question behind that question is why does there have to be a creator in the first place?

This entire Universe and everything in it could be pure total random chance. A bunch of basic physics principles just happen to bump into each other in just the right pattern to create everything as it currently is. It's way more difficult than winning 10,000 digit lottery number sequences 817,949,806,437 times in a row but it only has to happen once and that once does not have to be the first round out of the gate. When there's no Universe or time to count from there's plenty of time to get it right before anyone is around to start the stopwatch that doesn't exist yet.
Think of it this way: It's difficult to think of our minds and body and planet as derivatives of hydrogen all strung together. Hydrogen to Helium to Carbon chains then on to DNA goo is a tuff pill to swallow. It's a lot easier to believe poof you now exist and something smarter than you had a hand in it.

Religion is easy. It's comfortable. Life is so much easier when something you don't understand is being handled by someone else that's smarter and more knowledgeable than you are. It's self reinforcing in a closed loop based on it's own assumptions from it's own text. (oversimplified I know but that's pretty much the concept)
Physics theory is hard ball with rocks and lead filled steel bats to the head with no protective gear. Observe what the world around you is doing, make assumptions based on observation, test assumptions against real world observations, keep the theories that work, toss out the theories that don't work. As infuriating as it can be, if you have a 1000 year old theory that based on new findings just consistently doesn't hold up to real world observations, you have to dump the nonsense 1000 year old theory. It's hardball, it sux, but it's pretty darn reliable and consistent.

Where did the Universe come from? I'll tell you: We're not smart enough to figure that one out yet so we'll have to get back to you when we get out of the dark ages...but just because we don't have an answer right now doesn't mean a god created it. Based on what I've seen (cosmology to subatomic) if there is a god, he sure is going out of his way to stay hidden and not interfere in anything that's been going on for about 15-20 billion years now...but there's a lot of organized physical universe behavior right in our faces.

 

[wbarnhill]

"Question all things" - Jesus

Ya know, for rebel-PK-agnostic you have a lovely, solid, understanding of the Word, and a strong faith... ya just don't wanna admit it.

Folks, the Scriptures are the inspired Word but,

The Bible has amazing scientific accuracy - but it isn't a science text.

It is an indispensible guide to middle eastern history - but it isn't a history archive.

It has solid advice for life's problems - but it isn't a self help book.

It isn't about how we should behave - although if we followed the suggested forms most of us would certainly be better off.

It has great poems and music, but it isn't an arts guide.

What it is is the story of God's love for us, his constant desire for our love and fellowship despite our constant rejecttion of Him, and finally a plea for faith in Him that all is as He wills. One of these days, despite millenia of patience and hope, his Will could well be, "You don't want me, well I don't want you. To Hell with ya'll!"

Bible thumping others into submission is a waste of time because the Bible isn't so much about how to behave, but about who to love.

When asked by the scholars and Pharisees which Commandment was greatest Jesu answered, "The first is... The second is... There is no other greater commandment than these."

I would love to keep giving you positive rep points for your posts in this thread, but someone restricts me from doing so... *glares at Greebo*

Thanks for all your input, and the excellent way you state it

 

[Frank Browne]

Thanks for all your input, and the excellent way you state it

I'll second that William.

 

[Richard]

You know, Richard - I wasn't there, and I certainly don't know all of the finer ponits of the theories - heck maybe it was just easier to see where they were going.

However, I would point out that I don't see people in this thread who believe in evolution being sarcastic or snitty about creationists beliefs, and in fact we're going out of our way to suggest that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

As far as motionless predators - yes but although predators are very hard to see while motionless, they are very easy to see once they start running - and easier to see when they're running *if* you're looking from a vantage point above the grass. The sooner you see the movement, the sooner you can start running away. Goes a long way towards understanding why our eyes are attuned to motion, in my opinion.

As for the type of jungle - beats me - all I know was that as I've heard it, at the time, the jungles were receeding - the world was more arid so the trees were sparser.

Now let me ask you this, if evolution is incorrect - and heck it might be - its a theory and it is subject to change based on new evidence, but I digress. If evolution is incorrect, and Genesis is the absolute, literal word of how the world was created, then why did God make the world to appear that its a few billion years older than the Bible suggests? Why did he make dinosaur bones and skulls that appear to progress over millions of years from simean to sapien? Why, if evolution is so rediculously flawed, did God go to all the trouble of making it so convincing?

No one was there, yet we've all heard the same garbage. It's speculative at best and spurious at worst to say that bipedal motion (square peg) evolved from climatic changes (round hole).

I've watched predators on the hunt. They slink as close as possible and then pounce. Sometimes it's only a few feet. I've seen domesticated felines slide right up to birds or rodents that they didn't need to even pounce.

Any disdain from me you may have felt is that you have repeated the same stuff I've heard for years. Nothing has changed and yet it seems highly imaginative in how these casual relationships are derived. I haven't seen any supporting cold, hard evidence, have you? And yet the presupposed causation still exists.

Chuck said,
"As for the type of jungle - beats me - all I know was that as I've heard it, at the time, the jungles were receeding - the world was more arid so the trees were sparser."

That's my point: beats me too, but repeating it and and using it as a foundation for a theory is monumentally troublesome. The apes dropped out of the canopy, lost their tail, moved to the grasslands, and stood upright all in a single climatic event? It appears that the theory of evolution requires both uniformitarianism AND catastrophism in order to remain viable. Depending upon the circumstance as identified by scientists and researchers, the rate of change quickens or slows. Sometimes, it quickens to a blinding speed and sometimes it slows to a crawl. This suggests an arrogance of unheard of proportions.

I received a degree in Chemistry, I was on my was to another degree in Geology when I found myself in trouble. Speaking only for me, I concluded I could not serve two masters. I had already seen too much speculation (way outside of empirical proofs) in science so even though I didn't like the decision I, as a person, had to make I knew which way to fall.

For a very long time I wrestled with the question you asked:
"...(if) Genesis is the absolute, literal word of how the world was created, then why did God..." parenthesis is mine

Sometimes I catch a bit of insight in answering that question, most often the answer eludes me. But we are not to know everything. (I have been most curious all my life; you can imagine the disappointment I felt when reading that verse.) Now I am mostly content with knowing that the knowledge will be revealed to us at the most opportune time. Bottom line is I cannot pretend to know God's mind. I can know his will for me but there are some things I just will not know. It is a source of humility to realize that.

OTOH, it is with contempt that I view the arrogance found in certain tenents of the theory of evolution. Quite often, the myriad suppositions found in the theory require leaps of faith moreso than any spiritual pursuit.

My perception of the theory can be described as thus:

A small child playing with thousands of building blocks of all sizes and shapes. some of the blocks are interlocking on one side are maybe all sides. Some blocks have certain configurations which allow that block to interlock with only certain other blocks, and only in a certain way. Some blocks have holes drilled in them, some have squares, etc. Suffice to say the child has blocks of every imaginable shape, perhaps even some which are unimaginable.

The child decides to build some kind of sctructure. Call it a building, airplane, dinosaur, whatever. Some blocks SEEM to fit but not quit....

You know where I'm going with this.

Using only his limited understanding the child struggles to make sense of the mess before him. While it is a worthy endeavor to strive towards an understanding it is sheer arrogance for the child to shout that he's got it!

 

[wbarnhill]

While it is a worthy endeavor to strive towards an understanding it is sheer arrogance for the child to shout that he's got it!

I think that's kinda a bad way of putting it... Under that statement, we have no reason to pursue knowledge. Is it okay for us to shout 'We've got it!" in reference to the theory of gravity? Or how about the laws of thermodynamics? Or in chemistry, Boyle's Law? Ideal Gas Law? Or how about atomic theory? Was it sheer arrogance for any of those scientists to declare they figured it out?


Very simplistically, I'd put it like this.

A bag holds 100000 small spheres of different colors. So you start pulling out spheres one by one. The first one you pull out is a light grey. The next one a darker grey. The next one is almost black. The next one is lighter than the darker grey, but darker than the lighter grey. This continues for about 50000 of the spheres. Sitting in front of you are 50000 shades of grey, and you've lined them up showing that they go from darkest to lightest, with a few holes where you think it jumped a little too much but you can imagine what that transitional sphere would look like. Now. You have 50000 spheres left to choose from. You still don't know what color they are, but you have an idea. You theorize that based upon the evidence you have seen, the 100000 spheres in that bag range from black to white, in different shades of grey. Your theory could be proven correct if you got all of the 50000 spheres left in the bag out and they were all shades of grey, or you could be proven incorrect if on the second to last sphere, you pull out a red one. It's falsifiable, but it is a theory based upon evidence.

 

[Richard]

Mr. Barnhill, I was speaking solely of the theory of evolution.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

No one was there, yet we've all heard the same garbage. It's speculative at best and spurious at worst to say that bipedal motion (square peg) evolved from climatic changes (round hole).

I've watched predators on the hunt. They slink as close as possible and then pounce.

Not this predator!
I stand fully erect among the straight tree trunks when they're available to camoflage me and hold my rifle, bow or spear vertically, the same way, just like God and the force of matter's replication intended.

You're right, it wasn't climate that spawned the evolution of true bibedal motion. It was more likely simple genetic mutations in both the physical bodies and their cerebral minds that were instrumental in defining the elevation of the human species to its present day form and level of intelligence.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Why does an intelligent creator have to be involved at all? It could just the basic levels of physics for this Universe at work.

If for instance, it was just matter doing its life thing, then by definition, Matter itself would be the form of God. God (Matter) is everywhere, and can be neither created nor destroyed, except maybe by God.

Complicated things are just a bunch of simple things put together.

Not when it comes to true advanced intelligence.

Remember that it wasn't that log ago that the highest respected PhD professors of physics from the greatest educational campuses on the planet had the entire universe already figured out as fire, earth, water, air while the supreme religious leaders of the world were tossing virgins into volcanos to placate the angry gods because this years crops washed away again.

I actually never can forget that one but a lot of preachers & faithful do.

Ok. But I insist on the same set of ground rules though. I get to start at the same start point hydrogen came from otherwise you're invalidating the conditions of the experiment. After you delete the entire Universe from existence I'm willing to give it a go...but there is that closed loop system problem we'll have to work out first and that's a tuffie.

Could it be just as difficult to conceive of the notion of true pre-universe nothingness as it is to create the universe from nothing?

Think of it this way: It's difficult to think of our minds and body and planet as derivatives of hydrogen all strung together. Hydrogen to Helium to Carbon chains then on to DNA goo is a tuff pill to swallow. It's a lot easier to believe poof you now exist and something smarter than you had a hand in it.

Religion is easy. It's comfortable. Life is so much easier when something you don't understand is being handled by someone else that's smarter and more knowledgeable than you are.

Ain't that the truth. I've never felt so fully secure as when snug, warm and fuzzy and eternally forgiven in my faith.

Based on what I've seen (cosmology to subatomic) if there is a god, he sure is going out of his way to stay hidden and not interfere in anything that's been going on for about 15-20 billion years now

I figure it's just been real, real buzy for the Big Guy since He came up with the free will for humans and the chaos/anti matter deals. God is like us in enjoying a challenge but as we know, the really big ones eat into one's free time immensely.

...but there's a lot of organized physical universe behavior right in our faces.

Again, Matter all over the place.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Based on what I've seen (cosmology to subatomic) if there is a god, he sure is going out of his way to stay hidden and not interfere in anything that's been going on for about 15-20 billion years now

You are assuming that we as humans have the capability and perspective to "see" God in the first place. Perhaps all that is and has been is God.

I don't know either which is why I am a faithless agnostic but not an atheist.

 

[ednowlin]

Science teachers aren't standing in front of the room saying "Your pastor and/or parents are liars, this is what really happened."

when kids are taught creationism from birth, then they go to the public school and are taught evolution as if it were TRUTH, they ARE calling parents and preachers liars.

 

[fgcason]

You are assuming that we as humans have the capability and perspective to "see" God in the first place. Perhaps all that is and has been is God.

Agreed on the capability/perspective to observe issue. You may be completely right, or completely wrong. I don't know and don't pretend to know. The problem is that assumes there is a god to start with and that some god most likely created everything and that pure random chance isn't possible. The god concept seems to be separated from the rational analysis process that works for the rest of the observable universe. From current observations however (and you have to start thinking somewhere if you're going to think at all and work your theories from there), there are unknown blanks in the sequence from T=0 to now but they all appear to be round universe holes and we have a triangular god peg that doesn't seem to fit without changing the equation to fit the desired answer. Is it an anomoly datapoint that obsoletes all the other theories or a poorly sampled data point based on bad concepts?

I don't know either which is why I am a faithless agnostic but not an atheist.

I'm on both sides of the fence of this one. The Universe is far too large and unknown, from either side of the argument, whether it be god, science, evolution, poof-it-exists, gravity, airplanes, lego's or whatever to confidently say, "here is the solution, everyone else is wrong, I won't listen anymore because they're blithering idgets, ppfftthh, {fingers in ears} lalallalll lallallallla." Attempting to be that narrowminded about all the alternate possibilities doesn't make sense to me. There's much more to everything than this teeny little planet can dream up anytime soon.

What a mess.

 

[Richard]

Frank, why is it a mess? Have you ever looked at a familiar thing and from your angle of viewing it doesn't appear to be what you know it is? This isn't about how are senses can be decieved. It is about how our perceptions and the concepts we develop are limited by our incomplete knowledge.

That we should not understand what we are looking at or that we fall short of conjuring up a unifying theory does not matter to anything but our own perceptions. That is, the existence of a thing is in no way dependent upon our understanding of that thing. Also, our incomplete knowledge of a thing in no way renders that thing any less than the purposeful intent of it's existence.

To rise up and say you possess a full understanding of something as large as the universe or as small as a virus is borne of arrogance and pride.

 

[fgcason]

If for instance, it was just matter doing its life thing, then by definition, Matter itself would be the form of God. God (Matter) is everywhere, and can be neither created nor destroyed, except maybe by God.

Ok. But the run of the mill hydrogen atom or quark or whatever doesn't fit the accepted image of what god normally is defined as. We now have a sort of accepted universal god but it's behavior patterns according to physics and religion are in conflict. It can be interpreted as the same but lay the equations and text out and take them literally with no interpretation, it doesn't balance too well. Curiously if one takes the matter=god concept one step further, god suddenly becomes pure random chance, not human type planned design thought process intervention. Think about it.

Not when it comes to true advanced intelligence.

Not necessarily. Try to break it down into it's base components anyway. A not so extreme example but on the same exact principle anyway: My computer gives every sign that it's intelligent. It's really just a bunch of wires and sand and junk. If there are 4 bits, it can count 0-15 which is 16 defineable intelligent points. 4<16 in reality but suddenly 4=16 operationally. Add just one more bit and the intelligence capability doubles instantly to 5=32. Greater than the sum of it's parts when put together and handled in the proper manner. It's now advanced intelligence especially when multiplied by several trillion or more bits. All that is needed is the right wiring to those bits to go from drone machine to functional intelligence but there's no readily available wiring schematic laying around anywhere to start soldering up a hand made prototype. That doesn't mean it won't work if a schematic can be drawn up.


Not religious, not not religious. Not trying to start a belief/nonbelief war. Just trying to point out that there is an extremely intense desire as a society, and individually, to unconditionally without exception insist that an outside influence god of some sort is a valid data point from step1 just because it's an easy datapoint to emotionally accept. Right or wrong? I have no flippin clue because I can't do the math.
This is what the observable Universe has taught me about analyzing things: The only way I can figure out whether a datapoint is truly valid is to step back from it and no longer covet that datapoint as important emotionally to myself, then objectively plug that datapoint into the rest of the equations that function properly (as best we can figure out today right now) for the rest of the universe and see what balances out. If the equations don't balance out, either (1) the datapoint is bunk or (2) the equations are bunk or (3) there's more to the equations than we currently know. If the equations functionlly work for 100,000,000+ real universe datapoints and that one datapoint doesn't fit....... The real kicker in this is that the universe and our observations of the universe is directly teaching us that those 100,000,000+ datapoints and the equations used to derive them are correct or at least not wildly inaccurate.


As the big huge 20ish foot long sign above the professors door in college said "QUESTION AUTHORITY"

Sorry. I shouldn't even be posting in this discussion however the scientist in me just couldn't keep his trap shut about such a potentially glaring basic oversight whether it's right or wrong.