From jellyfish fossil finds to the newly discovered function of the appendix, a science and technology watchdog group has released a list of some of the year's top news that reflect mounting evidence supporting intelligent design.
The Access Research Network – which reports on science, technology and society from an intelligent design perspective – recently released its "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories" list for 2007.
"Overall in 2007 I'd say we've observed a growing consternation running through many scientific disciplines over Darwinian explanations of the evidence that were once thought to be resolved long ago," said Kevin Wirth, ARN director of media relations.
Among the top stories the group considers a "growing burden" to Darwinists is the increasing level of complexity being discovered in small biological systems such as living cells and in early life history such as jellyfish. Newly uncovered jellyfish fossils in Utah were dated back 200 million years earlier than the oldest specimens of the modern jellyfish yet showed the same complexity as modern orders and families of jellyfish. These findings, according to ARN, challenge Darwin's molecule-to-man theory because they reveal that there was an insufficient amount of time for complex life to have developed only via the Darwinian principles of random mutations and natural selection.
Darwin's "Tree-of-Life" model was also hit hard in 2007 when a scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information published a paper claiming the tree pattern could not explain major transitions in biological evolution and instead proposed a "Biological Big Bang" model.
ARN executive director Dennis Wagner noted that science is still recovering from a whole generation of people who have been raised according to "Darwinian fairytales," such as the teaching that human and chimpanzee genetics only differ by 1 percent and that the appendix is a leftover evolutionary vestige.
"These are Darwinian 'arguments from ignorance' that continue to be discarded as scientists uncover the incredible design and purpose of biological systems," he said.
But the challenges to Darwinism have not been without opposition.
The group notes in its list that political and academic persecution against those who question the evolutionary theory has also been a hallmark for 2007.
"Our modern western culture is so ingrained in the naturalistic Darwinian creation story that those who challenge the story, even with scientific evidence in hand, are treated as outsiders and outcasts," observed Wagner.
He hopes that Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," scheduled for release in early 2008, will serve as a "eye-opener" to Americans on the growing hostility toward individuals who have suggested alternative views to Darwinism.
The debate about origins is expected to heat up again significantly in 2008, Wirth said.
"I think we're beginning to see a growing trend overall that the sufficiency of Darwinian explanations to describe how life evolved is turning out to be substantially inadequate in a growing number of fields, particularly in the areas of genetics and molecular biology," he noted.
"I think it's becoming clear that Darwinism is on the verge of one of the greatest challenges it has faced in many decades."
On the Web: ARN's "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories" at www.arn.org/top10
RSS
schumacr,
“So if 99% of the people say rape is OK, it's morally OK?’
This is the weirdest proposition in some time. Our own perception of what is tolerable is what is to be condoned in our society varies if one compares it to all societies worldwide. However, in a democratic consensus to make a statement like this to ignore that no such modern secular society would ever condone such a thing in the first place as no amount of the voting public would ever find it appealing, justifiable and within the bounds of reason. You’re basically arguing a straw man.
What modern secular society would openly condone killing or rape or any such horrid acts? Easy, none.
“But we do - so how did the nonpersonal manufacture the personal?”
Not all organisms have a personality, most in fact don’t. From this we can see that the intention of life itself was not based on being personal in nature alone, nor was it a required trait. Plenty of insects live on successfully without any personal nature at all. This ‘personality’ that some higher grey matter organisms have is the result of a high intellect via a larger brain. You can’t have a personality if you’re grey matter isn’t insufficient.
How did the non-personal manufacture all non-organics that aren’t personal and constitute the vast majority of all matter in the Universe?
"You are completely double minded by claiming to be an evolutionist, but then borrowing from the Christians world view to make sense of your reality"
How exactly am I borrowing anything from christian doctrine? I am not advocating anything dealing with religion at all.
"According to your worldview- I can punch you in the nose, steal your wallet and so forth, and you have no standard other than your opinion to tell me I am wrong. You might not like it- but it's not wrong according to the evolutionist view. "
Ugggh, major fail.
Darwinian evolution and how it regards survival of the fittest never strictly implies that 'only the strong survive'. In fact, if you knew biology you'd see how many organisms operate in the highest level of ethical standards and moral consideration of their closest kin. Organisms exhibt altruistic and symbiotic behavior in which they collectively work together for eachother benefit.
Some animals even show signs of empathy and compassion for their closet kin. Studies have shown for rats, chimps and others animals that when one member is exposed to a electric shock everytime another member of its group tries to eat, the member attempting to eat eventually catches on that they are responsible for shocking their kin. In many cases, particularly with rats, they gave up food altogeher and starved themselves to death.
you assumption that darwinian evolution as having meaning on human ethics is one built on ignorance. we wouldn't consult other science theories for ethical concerns, so what made you think we would for evolution? evolution is just a process life undergoes, nothing more. ethical concerns are best made when all parties involved are considered, in other words via Democratic Concensus.
Gen1_28,
"You also continue to say that the things which happened in the Bible are impossible"
I think a basic understanding of cosmology, astronomy, geology show without a doubt that a 6000 year old earth/universe are without question wrong. I think a simple understanding of how many civiliations that existed prior to, durring and following the noachian flood show it for what it is, a local flood. A local flood that mirrors the Epic of Gilgamesh that predates it by a 1000 years thats its an obvious adaptation. Only a person who didn't understand that the 5th and 6th Dynasties of Egypt went on uninterupted, which is right when the flood supposely occured, would consider a global flood logical.
Somehow 2,000,000+ jews that wandered out of Egypt for 40 years havent't a scrap of evidence of such numbers let alone the event. also consider how illogical it is considering that Canaan at the time was under Egyptian rule, so they left Egypt to remain under Egypt?
"We might know the ball dropped earlier- but what is to say it will drop tomorrow? "
Uniformity in the laws of our Universe say they will pal. B/c we live in REALITY pal and not some fantasy land or the Matrix where the laws of the Universe can change on a whim.Tthis is why we can know, at least with the utmost probability that the ball will indeed fall according to gravity. If it didn't fall and instead floated (like with zero gravity) it wouldn't mean we'd scrap the entire theory of gravity altogether, rather we'd try to explain such new evidence within the confines of the theory.
By all means explain to me why evolutionary theory is any different and how exactly its wrong.
agentorange -
<<Earth worms and other lower grey matter organisms have no ‘personality’ so this trait is only unique with organisms with a certain level of intelligence, it’s not a Universal trait amongst all life. Not all life has personality, in fact considering insects are the most numerous group it seems most don’t.>>
But we do - so how did the nonpersonal manufacture the personal?
agentorange:
<<What do you mean who? Who else….us, the people via Democratic consensus regarding laws and ethics, just like we do here in the states.>>
So if 99% of the people say rape is OK, it's morally OK?
Agent Orage
In Conclusion, you have not proven or given any reason for the uniformity of nature, which you continue to use, nor for the basis of morality, which you continue to claim. You have to borrow these ideas from the Christian worldview. You also have no understanding of what the scientific method is and have slunk down to throwing childish remarks and sidestepping valid arguments which you are unable to answer. Lastlely, just because you don't like something, doesn't make it invalid. Just because you don't like AIG or other creationist scientists doesnlt make their points invalid.
According to your worldview- I can punch you in the nose, steal your wallet and so forth, and you have no standard other than your opinion to tell me I am wrong. You might not like it- but it's not wrong according to the evolutionist view.
You are completely double minded by claiming to be an evolutionist, but then borrowing from the Christians world view to make sense of your reality.
And I can't tell you what transitional species is missing BECAUSE IT"S STILLL MISSING!
Can you honestly answer the questions I have in this post for you? If you can't I just won't waste my time on this further.
Agentorange-
It seems we are at an impass. A presupposition is NOT an assumption. An assumption is something you take for granted. A presupposition is an opinion often based on incomplete evidence made prior to any review of the evidence.
I have heard many "scientists" claim evidence for evolution- and they are completely false and easily disproved. Like I said- it all depends on how you interpret the evidence. I have never seen science that was in conflict with the Bible- only the interpretation of said science by certain scientists who draw biased conclusions based on their presuppositions.
You also continue to say that the things which happened in the Bible are impossible. But you have not shown me how they are impossible. It is simply that you cannot explain them. Again, just because you do not understand something does not make it impossible. If something is not understood that means we must accept the possibility of it- not outright condemn the notion as impossible, as you continue to do.
Finally- you mentioned dropping a ball and assuming it would fall. To do this you are again borrowing from the Christian view and accepting the uniformity of nature without explaining WHY an evolutionist can use such an idea as the uniformity of nature. The scientific method ( I can believe I have to explain this to an evolutionist) can't test anything in hostory. It is impossible to scientifically prove Abe Lincoln was president. It is impossible to prove that the ball dropped yesterday will drop tomorrow. You can only use scientific method to prove things in the here and now. We might know the ball dropped earlier- but what is to say it will drop tomorrow? That would be an assumption based on the uniformity of nature which you are unable to validate a claim towards.
Gen1_28--
part 2
’Finally- a Christian can have claim to the uniformity of nature because all things reflect their creator.“
How so? We don’t see supernatural acts as depicted in every holly book occurring anymore, so our reality conflicts with such supernatural nonsense. We don’t anything supernatural depicted in the bible occurring anymore do we? We don’t see Thor controlling lightning and thunder or Poseidon controlling the ocean as other texts mention. The very stories of such holly texts are super natural and DON’T CONFORM to our Universal laws and Uniform reality.
AIG, yes that same huckster group that brought Kentucky the ‘Creation Museum’. Thanks, but no thanks.
”You make many claims that the bible is full of ununiform acts- but you fail to mention those acts or show how they are ununiform.”
Do I really need to mention ALL of the non-uniform acts? Might I just say the supernatural acts as we would agree, no? Like groups of people directly speaking with Yaweh, people living over 900 at ease, a 6000 year young earth/universe, Noachian flood, etc. all such things AREN’T UNIFORM with our reality, get it? Well it’s either it’s ALL uniform with our REALITY or it’s not. Since its not, it’s own authority on this matter of uniformity is in question, and not uniformity itself. Think critically for a change.
“My final rebuttal is that I hear a lot about evoultion, but the only place I ever see it is usually on paper and never in reality.”
Perhaps you’re understanding on evolution makes you think we should see an ape give birth to a full formed human, this isn’t what evolution predicts at all by the way.
”By the way, have they found the missing link yet?”
Well, read a book like ‘From Lucy to Language’ and you’ll see regarding human evolution and the links. Which species to species transition are you referring to? If you mean a specific instance I’ll site which transitional species we do have evidence for.
Gen1_28-
”Christians believe completley in science.”
Right. Until said science conflicts with their literal interpretation of a 6000 year old universe/earth (this means you as you’re a YEC) and other such nonsense only found in holly texts. Since they believe completely in astronomy (science), they should find no problems with the evidence that shows that the earth and universe ISN’T 6000 years old. More liberal xtians can accommodate such passages as being symbolic musings (which is how they should be), fundy’s like Ken ham and Kent Hovind…not so much.
“Presuppositions are not based on scientific facts in and of themselves.”
Presupposition = assumption. Agree? We can assume that when I drop this ball it will continually fall to earth (as we assume we live in reality which is uniform and not the matrix) and we can use other tests to discover what causes such actions.
Scientific hypothesizes are untested scientific assumptions, but assumptions can be tested and proved or disproved within scientific testing that conform to a given theory. So, in the context of scientific theory (which is composed of 1000’s of independent such tests) a scientific theory is more analogous to a cumulative view of facts rather than a laymen terminology ‘theory’. So, contrary to what you think we can build such tested assumptions based on scientific method.
”Just because yo udon't understand something doesn't make it impossible.”
It doesn’t make it possible or rationale to believe in such things either though. Great comeback….I’ll be sure to use that one! =) What are we in 5th grade now?
Chris333,
(Regarding Dawkins).” This makes him agnostic, not that he hasn't thought about it enough, as in all he would have to do to become atheist is think about it some more. Nor does it mean that he doesn't care, this is obvious.”
He is Atheistic towards religious depictions of ‘god’. He defines himself in this manner so as to avoid implying he’s not thought about it at any length. But those depictions of ‘god’ that fall in the realm of being harder to disprove or even form an educated guess of (Deistic, Pantheist,) he is Agnostic of, but still highly skeptical about their existence as well. B/c ‘god’ depends highly on one’s view of what it all entails god could be so impossible as to define that to base judgment on insufficient quantitative qualities make either propositions of absolute theism or atheism on a scale harder, if not impossible to judge. This is why, considering the present evidence, his stance on being atheistic towards religious gods is rationale, while being less atheistic towards deistic concepts of god is also rational.
Agentorange-
You ask many good questions- but they are all based on presuppositions. I will try to make this short.
Christians believe completley in science. God created science and science is merely an understanding of nature (God's creation). All facts, including scientific ones, are validated THROUGH presuppositions. Presuppositions are not based on scientific facts in and of themselves.
Just because yo udon't understand something doesn't make it impossible.
Finally- a Christian can have claim to the uniformity of nature because all things reflect their creator. Art reflect the creative understanding of the artist, machines reflect the mechanical understanding of their creators, and creation reflects the Creator, God, who is never changing, hence uniform. I see no possible way for the evoutionist to make claim to ununiformity of nature- sure it suports your point- but you have to borrow from my world view in order to make sense of your crazy idea of evoution.
You also asked about young earth scientists. Please look up "Answers in Genesis" a famous YEC group.
I appologize I am not able to give more time to this discussion.
You make many claims that the bible is full of ununiform acts- but you fail to mention those acts or show how they are ununiform. Even if they are, how does that support the evoutionist view of believeing in the uniformity of nature? It doesn't. It just goes to show that God can do all things. I do believe all those things have scientific reasoning- we just don't necesarily understand them all.
My final rebuttal is that I hear a lot about evoultion, but the only place I ever see it is usually on paper and never in reality.
By the way, have they found the missing link yet?
Schumacr-
You have to admit regardless of who's correc, at the very least we are opening new avenues of thought for those that read this, no? =)
”Why so?”
Your very own bible and other holly books implies he’s a Omni benevolent being, but a short objective overview of all things in our Universe doesn't show any benevolence with strictly us humans in mind. Do you realize how vast and large the universe is and how many 100’s of billions of stars exist and their trillions of planets that orbit them? To think we are the only life in all of this is quite arrogant. To think that is the height of arrogance.
“Further, explain how impersonality creates/causes personality.”
Earth worms and other lower grey matter organisms have no ‘personality’ so this trait is only unique with organisms with a certain level of intelligence, it’s not a Universal trait amongst all life. Not all life has personality, in fact considering insects are the most numerous group it seems most don’t.
This is similar to asking how evolution could ever from A-Z end up producing such wide varieties of complex life and how some have emotional feelings much like us. Rats, Chimps and others mammals exhibit empathy, emotions and an innate sense of ethics and morality to their closest kin. This is the result of a lower level conscious that their actions have consequences, which stems directly from their wiring of their brains. They are biologically wired to care, just like us. But for religion this makes no sense as it declares animals have no souls and have no self-interest to behave morally or with ethics at all. They are according to religion, beasts remember? But in the context of evolutionary and biological understanding it makes perfect sense.
“An effect can never be greater than its cause so tell me how a purposeless, meaningless, impersonal universe created beings obsessed with purpose and meaning, and who are full of personality.”
From an evolutionary perspective, all varieties of life main and principle end purpose/goal is to reproduce and pass on its genes and nothing more. Other non-organic organisms also have purpose, like stars that their purpose is to be pulled together under gravity to cause fission, which in turn emits energy. This isn’t so much as purpose as it is the end result of how the universe works according to laws that govern it. Just like the very same laws that govern us and gave rise to initial microbial life, which eventually via evolution gave rise to higher intelligence organisms that have personality and lastly those that embody consciousness- us.
In the coming decades, following Quantum computing when we do create AI robots that too have a conscious, personality and purpose would you argue WE are then by definition also gods? Of course not.
Schumacr-
”Your error was first committed by Bertrand Russell when he asked the same thing – only everything that begins must have a cause. It’s a category mistake – much like asking: Where is the bachelor’s wife?
“God has no beginning so He doesn’t need a cause.”
Well, isn’t that a convenient for your side of the argument! You, by FIAT get to DEFINE and DECALRE his existence as outside of causation and is thus self created!? How the hell do you know he isn’t? Your argument is one from ignorance as you know no better, but instead of having to admit the logical fallacy of implying causation, in that it would refute your very own god existence you declare him self created so as to avoid having to answer it. This argument is no better than how those will argue that a given complex system is so’ because god made it that way’, which is completely vapid of any logic at all. Well, if that’s a good enough logical explanation for you, then I pity your logic.
If your god can be ‘self-created’ and outside of causation, why can’t the very Universe be equally self-created?
“And before you try and refute that, remember you must go back to an eternal, unmade ‘something’.”
Well, Energy/Matter is scientifically proven to be ETERNAL (1st law) and only can be transferred within a system and not created or destroyed. That coupled with the universe being self created, just like your god, removes him entirely. Unless you’re considering praying to gravity or other universal laws of our Universe, but that would be irrational.
”Why so?”
Your very own bible and other holly books implies he’s a Omni benevolent being, but a short objective overview of all things in our Universe don’t show any benevolence with strictly us humans in mind. Do you realize how vast and large the universe is and how many 100’s of billions of stars exist and their trillions of planets that orbit them? To think we are the only life in all of this is quite arrogant. To think that is the height of arrogance.
schumacr-
”Very simply, you’re confusing “do” and “ought”. Just because people act wrongly doesn’t mean there isn’t a good and perfect Law that says they ought to be better.”
You’re right, perhaps a ‘true moral’ exists, however it doesn’t require referring to a holly book. Much of the NT depicts Jesus as a pacifist (turning the other cheek) however, this type of moral sense can and is counterintuitive in a world where other countries are seeking nuclear weapons. We can only ‘turn the other cheek’ to our enemies so many times before they take this as a weakness and use such weapons against us. Even there, the moral precepts of Jesus aren’t universal, nor are they timeless.
You implied that ‘godly people’ are (somehow) able to attain a higher moral high ground simply b/c their blind faith in god and said laws. However, many instances of godly people acting in the most horrid manor disprove this. Inquisitions, Witch trials, Crusades, all those nice godly xtians that joined and participated in Nazi Germany’s ‘Final Solution’ for the Jews, etc. There might be a higher road to ethics and morality, but our own sense of morality as already mentioned is one that has evolved. You can’t have your cake and eat it too in this instance.
“Your argument of contradiction, etc., still don’t mean there isn’t a “real” reality and a God who exists in that reality. “
Well then which book and rules are we to adopt then? And how are we to follow rules of said book? If we are to follow it as it’s godly, then we must emphatically follow ALL 100% of the rules and punishments within it and not pick and choose which ones to use and not to use as this would be hypocritical and be self defeating for the grounds of using a holly book to begin with. If we took the Bible as our guide, that would mean we would be stoning the following acts to death: witches/wizards to death, stoning adulterers, gays, kids that curse their parents, anyone who asks people to worship other gods, and so on.
”The Dead Sea Scrolls were/are one of the strongest evidences that the Bible we hold in our hands today mirrors what was originally written down.”
They sure are, they also reveal how early Judaism, like all earlier religions originally worshipped a pantheon of gods (Sons of El) in the Elohim, of which EL was the supreme god and not Yahweh.
schumacr-
”And who defines a good and lawful system? Where does that morality come from? You? Me? Culture?”
What do you mean who? Who else….us, the people via Democratic consensus regarding laws and ethics, just like we do here in the states. Taking one look at all the laws and ethics in every single holly book will reveal ethics and laws already side wide ranging that would by defacto destroy any idea of ‘moral truths’ or a ‘timeless moral standard’
“And will that standard change?”
Well I would assume in some minor regard yes, but like how slavery, sexual equality and others were changed, it was an obvious change for the better, no?
“Again, without an absolute and unchanging God, you have both feet firmly planted in mid air. Your evolutionary morality doesn't measure up to what you want.”
As mentioned earlier, even with a given book regarding morality, each holly book varies on ethics and morality and so the choice of choosing amongst them all would be a hard enough task. Consider also the punishments regarding the commandments that were quite ‘absolute’ and resolute in the OT that are also not observed. We no longer stone to death anyone for any such trivial acts like working on the Sabbath or an acquaintance that is asking you to seek other gods. Consider how utterly brutal and ethically backwards most consider the Muslim world and it’s a good thing we no longer use such outdated OT laws and punishments.
agentorange:
<<If you’re going to argue from Causation, ‘that everything that exists has a cause’, then what may we suppose caused your god? We do know matter/energy is>>
Your error was first committed by Bertrand Russell when he asked the same thing – only everything that begins must have a cause. It’s a category mistake – much like asking: Where is the bachelor’s wife? God has no beginning so He doesn’t need a cause. And before you try and refute that, remember you must go back to an eternal, unmade ‘something’.
<< A personal god implies that this god would be benevolent, omniscient and so on, and that WE would be the principle reason for this whole Universe to exist (awfully arrogant don’t you think?).>>
Why so? Further, explain how impersonality creates/causes personality. An effect can never be greater than its cause so tell me how a purposeless, meaningless, impersonal universe created beings obsessed with purpose and meaning, and who are full of personality.
agentorange:
<< No reason? Sure I do. I don’t want to live in a corrupt system where lawlessness is rampant and in order to ensure that doesn’t happen I don’t feed into that type of system.>>
And who defines a good and lawful system? Where does that morality come from? You? Me? Culture? And will that standard change? Again, without an absolute and unchanging God, you have both feet firmly planted in mid air. Your evolutionary morality doesn't measure up to what you want.
<<Well, look at past societies that no doubt believed in god and how chaotic and dysfunctional they were. It shows your argument is bankrupt. Simply believing in god was hardly enough to sway all the horror that the Jews wrought on Canaan or the Nazi’s on their neighbors and so on.>>
Very simply, you’re confusing “do” and “ought”. Just because people act wrongly doesn’t mean there isn’t a good and perfect Law that says they ought to be better.
<< But your comparison of religion to math isn’t one of true analogy>>
It most certainly is. Your argument of contradiction, etc., still don’t mean there isn’t a “real” reality and a God who exists in that reality.
<< I know. Just like with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the OT passages and how they differ on their accounts of one god>>
You need to go back and check your references again. The Dead Sea Scrolls were/are one of the strongest evidences that the Bible we hold in our hands today mirrors what was originally written down.
Gen1_28-
part 2
”Yep- I am a young earth creationist“
Without evidence no one believes anything. So where is the credible peer reviewed evidence for a 6000 year old universe/earth? From every branch in science, from astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry and so on we can attest that the universe isn’t 6000 years old. Where is the credible peer reviewed evidence for the Noachian flood? Where’s the archeological evidence that the exodus of 2 million Jews really occurred?
Evidence and the critique it undergoes determines how credible it is and that in affect is what determines what propositions were are willing to consider and therefore what presuppositions we could draw from them.
“The Bible supports itself and explains morality- the uniformity of nature”
What are you talking about? It was I that was charging the supernatural acts religion, like all others, as being outside of Uniformity of our Universe to begin with. Either Universal Laws have existed as they are since just after the beginning of time or we live in fantasy land/matrix without Uniformity and where we can float and nothing is attestable and can’t be falsified, as nothing is predictable. Only in a world of Supernaturalism that mirrors yours and other holly texts would Uniformity not make sense, as according to the bible supernatural acts happen all the time. But we know this isn’t the case as we live in REALITY and things can be falsified and proved or disproved via scientific methods.
”Sure, bad things happen to "good" people, but where do you get your definition of what "bad and good" is? ‘
No, my intention in stating this is that good things do happen to bad people and vice versa all the time and that there isn’t some divine plan or benevolent being who is continually looking out for the righteous and where only sinners are punished as theology implies that they would be.
Gen1_28-
“A christian can claim and have logical reason for the uniformity of nature”
Such as? Elaborate please. How can anything in this universe be assumed, predicted, or could we as humans even has presuppositions of unless the Universe was in fact Uniform? (as I’ve been saying all along) How can you, as a Christian claim to have a logical reason for uniformity outside of your mystical story of ‘adam and eve in the garden’ and their fall? What, ‘god made it that way’? How’s that a logical reason for anything? That’s an argument from ignorance.
To say that your theology can explain Uniformity is counterintuitive as in fact no such supernatural acts occur anymore and to argue that it provides Uniformity is illogical as the very acts in the bible are Non-Uniform with reality.
If you’re going to be partial to your faith and it’s fantasy stories simply b/c they are holly, or supernatural, then you should logically accept the mystical stories of all other religious books as being true, as least on face value. Why do you doubt Mohammed ascended into heave on a winged horse? It’s supernatural after all. But you reject it b/c its not your faith and to be critical of another faith is easy. Try being critical of your own faith for a change.
Someone asked me the following questions and made such comments... and here is my reply:
Your words
"Without uniformity the scientific method would breakdown and we’d lack much of what science has given us."
That was my point- without the uniformity of nature all your science breaks down- A christian can claim and have logical reason for the uniformity of nature- an evolutionist cannot explain it.
Your words
"I don't know if you're a YEC, or of a more liberal denomination, so please don't take offense if that's the case. Does as biblical story about a 450ft long boat with all the worlds animals make sense? Does a 6000-year-old earth/universe make sense? Do insects with only 4 legs make sense? Does stoning to death an adulterer, wizards, witches, etc. as your bible asks for make sense?"
Yep- I am a young earth creationist and I believe the basics of what you were saying in your above comment- but then we have to go back to what I said previously about WHY I believe those things. There is tons of scientific evidence to support all of this- but as in my previous post last thursday, our evidence is interpreted through our presuppositions. You think I am mincing words, but I am comparing evolutionary logic to Biblical logic. The Bible supports itself and explains morality- the uniformity of nature- and so on- but evolution cannot answer these things and must borrow from the Christian worldview to explain them.
Your words
"good and evil. Well ,bad things happen to good people and vice versa all the time. But i don't presuppose gods, angels, ... we are the results of our OWN actions and the responsibility lies with us."
Sure, bad things happen to "good" people, but where do you get your definition of what "bad and good" is? Where do you derrive your standard? Again- you have to borrow from Christianity to make sense of these things-
This all means that the only way your evolutionary science can make sense is by borrowing from God's worldview. It's like a child sittin on daddy's lap just to slap him in the face! Do you realize your logical inconsistencies?
”My point is you have *no reason* to behave properly. “
No reason? Sure I do. I don’t want to live in a corrupt system where lawlessness is rampant and in order to ensure that doesn’t happen I don’t feed into that type of system. Just like you and most everyone else. You should ask yourself why should those like myself behave morally at all, b/c after all they have no concept of hell or heaven as a result of their disbelief and so their motives of their actions fall back entirely on the realization that this is all there is and it makes it even more important to carry out good deeds for the betterment of humanity. We don’t operate morally b/c we fear hell and damnation nor do we envision heaven as there is no rational certainty for either and to succumb to emotions like fear as a way of compelling someone to behave morally is irrational and illogical and in turn belittles your own theology that only godly people are moral. If you reason we have no reason to remain ethically, then inversely we can state you’re only being good out of fear, or as a response for a reward.
“With no God, you can’t even recognize right and wrong because you have no absolute and unchanging straight line from which to judge other lines crooked.”
Well, look at past societies that no doubt believed in god and how chaotic and dysfunctional they were. It shows your argument is bankrupt. Simply believing in god was hardly enough to sway all the horror that the Jews wrought on Canaan or the Nazi’s on their neighbors and so on.
“If you sit 50 good math students down and give them a challenging problem to solve, many will arrive at a wrong answer, but that doesn’t mean a true, correct answer doesn’t exist. “
But your comparison of religion to math isn’t one of true analogy, for throughout time of all the 3000+ religions, each has had their own view of ‘the truth according to their god’ and this ‘known truth’ is obvious in you’re the OT of your book as it requests those of other religions to be put to the sword. To say one path to the ‘right answer’ is the end result also doesn’t consider the ‘none of above’ as part of the equation. And in math and physics this does occur when the problem is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions – like how theology books tend to be.
”No, only that certain manuscripts don’t contain the passage, so there’s a debate among scholars why some have it and others don’t.”
I know. Just like with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the OT passages and how they differ on their accounts of one god or many, or how the Gospels of Judas and Thomas and the ‘Q’ document give different accounts of NT passages. It’s clear that early Christian doctrine was anything but uniformed until Nicaea, at which point some 12 books were deemed unworthy.
I like how my comments are censored here. Some of you are nearly as bad as the Muslims who censor critical debate about their faith. Awfully nice people!
Schumacr-
”You’re dodging my question: what caused the ‘bang’? And everything else…?”
The big bang is the beginning of our universe, so there is no ‘everything else’. And as far as science can reveal nothing was before it. Both time/space began at its very unfolding.
If you’re going to argue from Causation, ‘that everything that exists has a cause’, then what may we suppose caused your god? We do know matter/energy is
“but a macroevolutionist stance doesn’t qualify.”
I don’t know, I mean Theistic Evolutionists believe in both god and evolution, as do Catholics and Anglicans. Only those that literally consider the adam and eve story and a 6000 year young earth via literal translation would find issues with it. Well, I was only supposing the Deistic god as a means to explain how one can equally reconcile believing in god and evolution and other information from science at the same time.
”Not a moot point at all; in fact, if you can’t answer that question properly, you have the potential to err in every possible way. “
Sure it’s moot. If there was ‘nothing’ as opposed to ‘something’ then we wouldn’t be here to talk about/think about it in the 1st place.
“C’mon – lay on me your proofs for an eternal universe so a personal God gets ruled out.”
We do know that energy/matter can only EXIST and NOT exist in its current state and in accordance with the laws of the Universe is timeless. A personal god implies that this god would be benevolent, omniscient and so on, and that WE would be the principle reason for this whole Universe to exist (awfully arrogant don’t you think?). Considering how vast the Universe is and it’s diameter, to suggest ‘it’s all for us’ is the pinnacle of arrogance. However, a benevolent god would have no reason to create black holes, Quasars, gamma ray bursts and so on that are utterly hostile to life outside of our own earthly disasters that make life existing more precarious.
Here’s one from Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
“ethics, meaning, purpose, or destiny.”
What are you talking about? Just b/c a person lacks faith in god doesn’t mean they’re Nihilistic and think that ‘nothing matters’ and no consequences exist for their actions. Look at radical muslims who no doubt believed in god and flew planes into buildings.
They acted so irrationally only b/c of their faith and in their supposed destiny with virgins.
”regarding Mark 16:16-18. First, realize you’ve landed on a disputed passage that many older manuscripts don’t contain.”
Well it’s hardly the only disputed passage. So you’re saying it’s fake or ½ truth then? And it’s been in your very own holly book all this time? And you’re also going to tell me that the bible still has authority and is the inerrant word of god then right? Hypocritical if you ask me. But apologetics are good for something.
“Second, understand that miracles have never been a regular character on the stage of human history.”
They haven’t? Considering we have records of over 3000+ gods and religions, each of which had their own mystical miracles and supernatural stories intertwined, I call BS again. What, you think jesus was the only god that was casting out demons and performing such miracles too? So, Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, Ra, Baal, Zoroaster, Poseidon, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Jupiter, etc. didn’t have miracles or supernatural stories then huh?
“And with the closing of the canon and the finished work of Christ, there is no need for the regular occurrence of them anymore save for one coming period – the Apocalyptic period – when they will be used”
Well, it says quite clearly that those that believe in Jesus will have the power to perform such miracles, cast out spells. But since that obviously isn’t the case today I can understand why you resort to the only refuge left by implying that during some yet undefined will it be possible.
agentorange –
Thanks again for your comments. My responses:
<< Um…big bang theory would be a start. And more closer to home that we share a common ancestry with modern higher apes>>
You’re dodging my question: what caused the ‘bang’? And everything else…?
<<doesn’t negate the concept of a Deistic god, and would only conflict with those that take the Genesis creation account as literal. Who actually believes in a 6000 year old earth anymore?>>
Why is a deistic god the only possibility and not a personal theistic Creator? Regarding Genesis, there are (to my knowledge) 7 orthodox positions on Genesis that one can hold (not just young earth) and retain a historical, grammatical hermeneutic, but a macroevolutionist stance doesn’t qualify.
<< Well if we had nothing, we wouldn’t know the difference, as we wouldn’t be here to even think/talk about it in the 1st place pal, so it’s s moot point. >>
Not a moot point at all; in fact, if you can’t answer that question properly, you have the potential to err in every possible way. C’mon – lay on me your proofs for an eternal universe so a personal God gets ruled out.
<< What are you talking about? Just b/c a person lacks faith in god doesn’t mean they’re Nihilistic and think that ‘nothing matters’ and no consequences exist for their actions. >>
My point is you have *no reason* to behave properly. With no God, you can’t even recognize right and wrong because you have no absolute and unchanging straight line from which to judge other lines crooked. And why do you think people can’t get things wrong with religion/theology (like the radical Muslims)? If you sit 50 good math students down and give them a challenging problem to solve, many will arrive at a wrong answer, but that doesn’t mean a true, correct answer doesn’t exist.
<< So you’re saying it’s fake or ½ truth then? >>
No, only that certain manuscripts don’t contain the passage, so there’s a debate among scholars why some have it and others don’t. And unless you embrace the Jesus Seminar, there aren’t many other debated passages up for grabs.
<< They haven’t? Considering we have records of over 3000+ gods and religions, each of which had their own mystical miracles and supernatural stories intertwined, I call BS again >>
You can keep the ad hominem attacks coming, but that won’t help your understanding of things. Comparing Christianity that is rooted in space/time history with Greek myths is a logical fallacy. The disciples died because they said they saw the resurrected Christ alive. People may die for the truth or what they believe is the truth (like the radical Muslims), but no one dies for what they know to be false. They witnessed Christ miracles first hand and would not recant that fact. Further, my point is that when you pick up the Bible, you find specific/short periods of time God used miracles to confirm His message; they were used for a specific purpose.
Schumacr-
“Can anyone fully explain the ERV? There are good thoughts out there, but it seems like they’re accompanied by plenty of opinion and questions.”
Well every answers leads to other impending questions, it’s just the nature of it. Right, like the question of why we even share 7 Identical ERV’s makes no sense unless one considers common ancestry. Why else would they be in identical locations in our genomes when ERV placement is entirely random?
So just argue by fiat ‘that god made em that way’ is an argument from ignorance and an attempt to avoid having to admit you know no better.
“So I don’t think such things outweigh the evidence and rationale for a Creator and it certainly isn’t an argument from ignorance.”
Well you have to ask yourself why god would purposely make 7 of our ERV’s in IDENTICAL genetic locations with Chimps if we weren’t in fact related via common ancestor? Why would he bother? He too would have to have a reason/purpose for making all 7 in the same genetic location, any ideas why? There is no reasoning for interjecting god as a means as you’d have to explain why he would bother in the first place. What, is god purposely attempting to make it look like we’re related to modern Chimps, is that it?
“Operational science doesn’t have the capability to bury belief in God, so don’t think that will happen.”
Well, I am only talking about evolution and common ancestry between Sapiens and Chimps via the evidence and it doesn’t negate the concept of a Deistic god, and would only conflict with those that take the Genesis creation account as literal. Who actually believes in a 6000 year old earth anymore? Theistic Evolutionists see no conflict with evolution, as do the Pope and Catholics. I don’t see the big deal.
”Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”
Well if we had nothing, we wouldn’t know the difference, as we wouldn’t be here to even think/talk about it in the 1st place pal, so it’s s moot point. That’s more of a philosophical question, and not scientific.
“In the end, you have no ultimate answers for your origin”,
Um…big bang theory would be a start. And more closer to home that we share a common ancestry with modern higher apes
Topekan - What? You have a problem ending a sentence with a preposition? If I held you or any of a number of other posters on this site to that standard - you'd never post here again.
As for your comment: was there a point or were you just being snarky?
agentorange –
Thanks for your comments. If you’re going to quote me, quote in context – I said in “some things” we don’t know why God did things the way He did – yet. There are plenty of things science can’t explain right now, but do you say “Well, science must be wrong/of no use/etc.”? No, you keep learning, which is what the Christian does in the world of theology. Can anyone fully explain the ERV? There are good thoughts out there, but it seems like they’re accompanied by plenty of opinion and questions. So I don’t think such things outweigh the evidence and rationale for a Creator and it certainly isn’t an argument from ignorance. Few, if any, juries have 100% of the evidence to make a decision, but they’re still able to reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Operational science doesn’t have the capability to bury belief in God, so don’t think that will happen.
Further, it can’t answer questions like: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? It can speculate about collapsing universes, parallel universes, imaginary time, etc., but there’s no proof for such things, so you’re in the dark. In the end, you have no ultimate answers for your origin, ethics, meaning, purpose, or destiny. In other words, it’s time for the ignorant little kid on your side to grow up and face some facts.
A few comments on your point regarding Mark 16:16-18. First, realize you’ve landed on a disputed passage that many older manuscripts don’t contain. Second, understand that miracles have never been a regular character on the stage of human history. There are only three periods of time they make an appearance – the Mosaic, Prophetic (Elijah/Elisha), and Apostolic (Christ and the apostles) periods. And each time they were used by God for one purpose: they were acts of God that confirmed key messages by God through a prophet of God to the people. Period. Miracles are the apologetic tool God used to separate His word from the competition. And with the closing of the canon and the finished work of Christ, there is no need for the regular occurrence of them anymore save for one coming period – the Apocalyptic period – when they will be used again.
Thanks again.
iffeelfine72-- where did you get your expertise in English grammar?
maranatha7593-
“First of all, read the laws regarding sanitation which God gave to Moses for the Jews, and you'll see that it took scientists centuries to discover the same principles.”
What, you mean the laws regarding a women’s period and her being unclean for seven days and other nonsense? Or that in order to atone for such afflictions and disease they were ordered by the Jewish priests to sacrifice a goat , turtle doves or some pure animal?
They had no clue what caused diseases and thought by sacrificing animals would somehow aid in sanitation, how horrid.
“Thirdly, you've misquoted Matthew (he never mentioned that) and you've also twisted that scripture.”
Here are some where they think ‘demons’ are the result of illness, that they think can be cast out.
Matthew 9:32-33 As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil. And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.
Luke 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
Luke 11:14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
Acts 19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Well I never mentioned Matt, but did know one of the gospels ( I thought Luke, but it’s Mark) mentioned handling snakes and drinking poison., so I think my original statement stands that they think drinking poison and handling rattle snakes is perfectly sensible.
Mark 16:16-18 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
If we take Mark 16:16-18 to be true then those that even believe in Christ can heal others and cast out such illnesses, so don’t we see this portrayed so abundantly today?
Schumacr,
“Inserted by who or what?”
I recommend you google Endogenous retroviruses, it, it’s pretty interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Not by who, but by the Virus itself by reverse transcribing its code into a germ cell, which later is transcribed on the hosts DNA. The virus can express itself, but isn’t required (it could be a dormant infliction that isn’t expressed fully and the host would never know they had it) Then, when the host reproduces it passes this unexpressed ERV signature onto its offspring and so long as the linage survives that ERV marker will remain intact.
So how does the Virus know how and where to insert itself? Well, it has receptors that allow it to affix itself prior to replication and insertion. Most importantly the Virus insertion is entirely random according to where the particular virus inserts itself in its host.
The ERV placement is expressed in the ‘junk section’ of genome.
“we really don’t know how/why God designed things the way He did”
Well if you’re going to argue out of ignorance than you really have little authority to disagree with anything. If when confronted with confounding data/evidence and you by defacto reply ‘he made it that way’ or ‘well, he works in mysterious ways’ you’re defeating your own arguments regarding how personally and well you know your god to begin and it’s a basic intellectual shrug of the shoulders so as to avoid to admit you don’t know any better than any other but still insist that ‘he made it that way’ and so on.
Arguing as you did, is like replying to a ignorant kid that the sun is bright and shiny, b/c god made it that way and not b/c it’s b/c its actually b/c of the Fission process that all stars undergo.
“On the topic of random processes – they really don’t prove a lack of intelligence and design.”
I agree DNA is astronomically complex, and in itself displays such design that mirrors human engineering design, but that is a different topic. If you realized how error prone the mitosis processes is of DNA and all the negative effects as a result you’d hardly think it was work of any god. However, the process of ERV and its location of insertion is entirely random and is not contingent on the complexity of DNA itself. HIV is an example of a modern ERV that has it’s own locations to choose from and it too can be passed down to its offspring as a relic ERV maker. All ERV’s are, are ancient relic viral markers that are located in a particular section an animals ‘junk DNA’. To suggest that god intentionally made both our ERV markers and Chimp ERV markers in identical locations is absurd to begin with as it explains nothing and it mirrors the sun example above.
agentorange: "Well I agree, but according to Luke (I think) and or other gospels such illnesses were the direct cause of demons or other evil spirits. This is why so many died in all 3 major waves of the Bubonic Plauge as they instickly resorted to praye to save themselves and never connected the dots regarding rats, fleas and sanitation. So, only till we developed the germ theory was this poor conclusion of demons causing sickness put to rest. All kinds of senseless stuff like this is in every holly book. I mean according to Matthew we can handle venomous snakes and drink poison and belief in god will spare us from death."
First of all, read the laws regarding sanitation which God gave to Moses for the Jews, and you'll see that it took scientists centuries to discover the same principles. Several famous scientists, including Joseph Lister who made groundbreaking discoveries in the field of sanitation, germs, and prevention of infection, were firm believers in the Bible and saw there these principles which laid the foundation for our modern knowledge and practice.
Secondly, realize that the Jews of Jesus' day followed all those principles of germ prevention. It wasn't Luke who addressed demons and commanded them to leave people, it was Jesus. Also, no one ever said that "such illnesses were the direct cause of demons or other evil spirits". You evidently don't know the scriptures very well and you're misquoting and twisting them.
Thirdly, you've misquoted Matthew (he never mentioned that) and you've also twisted that scripture.
ifeelfine: Thank you for asking,we hold up the Bible as truth. if though you are interested in where i read alot on the subject of evolution it would be a great site called answersingenesis.org these scientists on the site also write some great books on the subject. i guess that is where you could say i get the viewpoint of scientists that are not bent on filtering their information through darwins theory. it is a very informative site. of course even if these men were not there to challenge Darwin's ideas,i would still hold up the scriptures as our guide and complete revelation of all truth about our beginings,our world,our soul and sin nature. they do not contradict God in their research but rather they have the humilty to know they are mere men.
Hmm,
"Mounting Evidence for Intelligent Design Discovered in 2007" my Bible tells me that GOD Himself put the evidence out there about Himself and that it has always been there. Not all want to see the Evidence of Almighty God, Jehovah is HIS Name, and HE is a Mighty, Glorious, God!
"Oh Lord, what is man that You are mindful of him?"
The only thing this GREAT Creator has done is love us and man continually denies Him and looks for the least little thing to use as evidence against Him, and now they want to say
"mounting evidence" The HEAVENS declare HIS majesty and HIS glory! But men are rebellious and seek to keep themselves on the thrones of their own hearts and so they deny the very one how BREATHED LIVE INTO THEM and they became a living being.
I am NOT an animal, thank you very much, I was fearfully and wonderfully made in the Image of my Father in Heaven! I know whose I am, I am the daughter of The King of Heaven and I don't need mans evidence to tell me who HE is!!!
He's your Father too, if you would open the eyes of your heart to see our GREAT GOD!
Be blessed,
From His loving daughter, Annie
agentorange -
Thanks for the tutorial, and nope, I’m no expert on ERV’s.
<< has been inserted into our and Chimps genomes >>
Inserted by who or what?
I do understand the point you’re trying to make, but the reason I’m not 100% convinced is that in some cases we really don’t know how/why God designed things the way He did. Used to be folks said certain bodyparts like the appendix proved no design because they didn’t appear value to survival, but that’s been disproven. Used to be that Gould and company said the Panda’s thumb was a classic case of “no design”, but then came the Nature articles showing how efficient and effective the ‘thumb’ is and how it suits the Panda perfectly. I think your point is interesting and deserves attention/recognition though.
On the topic of random processes – they really don’t prove a lack of intelligence and design. I can write software programs that generate random numbers and do other random acts, but there is still intelligence behind the software; it’s just one step removed from the process.
Thanks again for the info.
ARN executive director Dennis Wagner noted that science is still recovering from a whole generation of people who have been raised according to "Darwinian fairy tales," such as the teaching that human and chimpanzee genetics only differ by 1 percent and that the appendix is a leftover evolutionary vestige.
"These are Darwinian 'arguments from ignorance' that continue to be discarded as scientists uncover the incredible design and purpose of biological systems," he said.
Has this man never taken a course in logic? Does he even know what the "argument from ignorance" is?
Argument from ignorance
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case. This is not the same as arguing against something that can, by its nature, never be proven.
Science is the exact opposite of the argument from ignorance. If a scientist doesn't know something, he will say that there is not enough data or something hasn't been observed. If he makes something up to fill in the gaps of his knowledge, like, say a creator, is he would be arguing from ignorance. In other words, "we don't know how this occurs, so goddidit." Then, he wouldn't be a scientist any more. He would be a theist trying to get stuff to fit into his world view. He would be a "creation scientist" or an advocate of ID.
fieldmouse - where did you get your expertise in evolutionary biology at?
agentorange -
agentorange
No, I am not naïve. They do use a sort of “best guess procedure”, as in “The World Health Organization coordinates the contents of the vaccine each year to contain the most likely strains of the virus to attack the next year.” Someone would need a crystal ball in order to KNOW which strain would be prevalent in any given year.
It would of course be foolish to not use whatever knowledge we have to fight disease, and I’ve never said that we shouldn’t or didn’t do so. My explanation was made to be simple, and very simply speaking it is accurate. What I am saying is that your evolutionary mindset sees all things from an evolutionary perspective. Yes, pathogens “change their coats”, which is part of their genetic capability. For instance, Tuberculosis used to be an illness we could fight quite effectively with a number of antibiotics, but the current strains are mostly resistant to these same antibiotics making it extremely difficult to treat with our current pharmacology. Yes, it has “changed it’s coat”. We used to call this a survival feature, the now politically correct term is microevolution. But call it what you will, the Influenza virus will never become a Herpes virus, nor will it ever turn into a bacteria. It’s ability to change is part of it’s genetic code. We still identify strains by identifying the strains, and we still immunize against them by using the virus itself as an antibody builder.
A good example of survival of the fittest might be the Mustangs. Horses that were to survive in the wild had to have certain characteristics, such as a darker color to make it harder to see them, strong hooves to protect their feet for mobility, speed and agility to get away from predators, excellent sense of smell, heightened senses, ability to thrive on less than adequate food sources, etc. etc. Did they give birth to offspring that didn’t include these features? Yes, and their survival rate was poor. Hence, the survival characteristics needed became dominant. Were they still horses? Of course, and they will never be camels or cows or gazelles, because their genetic structure will always make them horses.
As Christians we recognize God’s ability as Creator to imbue His creation with the proper framework to survive. Surely, if He could create “something from nothing” then it would be an easy task for Him to include what was needed in any individual set of genetic codes. His Word tells us that He made each “kind” individually, and ongoing research of all kinds is showing us more and more of this. I realize that you do not believe this, and that’s okay. But there are in fact many reputable people in the science field that have come to the conclusion of a necissity for “intelligent design” to explain the complexity of living organisms – that or “aliens”! For myself, I’ll stick with with the Creator.
GMG –
“They use a very educated “best guess” type of procedure in order to predict which strains will show in any given year, and they are not always correct.”
GMG, are you naive? That 'best guess procedure' as you so eloquently put it is designed and ‘guessed’ according to evolutionary biology that predicts the most prolific, ‘the most fit’ as it were will win out. And no, vaccines for the Flu aren’t a ‘Silver Bullet’ against a given strain anyway. Many times it fails simply b/c the body doesn’t recognize the proteins of the flu strain, while other times the strain has already mutated by the time it reaches a new host and the hosts body has no immunity to this new evolved variant strain so they are screwed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine
“Well, if they got the immunization for Type A and were exposed to Type B, then they will indeed get the flu. This does not mean that we don’t know about Type B, only that they didn’t get the immunization for it.“
Or, that the Influenza Virus evolved and mutated to its host environment, like all Viruses do, and upon replication recreated an entirely new strain that the most common vaccine would be useless against. This is the veryr principle reason why mass production is inpractical.Typically, this is how and why traditionally the flu would spread so fast and a person could get the flu several times over in a short period as it would mutate according to its hosts evironment. The only way to stem such mass outbreaks of many strains is to disrupt the most common virulent strain(s) head on so they in turn dont infect others and further replicate new variants.
’As Maranatha has so aptly pointed out, the pursuit of understanding of biological issues has been going on for centuries.”
Well I agree, but according to Luke (I think) and or other gospels such illnesses were the direct cause of demons or other evil spirits. This is why so many died in all 3 major waves of the Bubonic Plauge as they instickly resorted to praye to save themselves and never connected the dots regarding rats, fleas and sanitation. So, only till we developed the germ theory was this poor conclusion of demons causing sickness put to rest. All kinds of senseless stuff like this is in every holly book. I mean according to Matthew we can handle venomous snakes and drink poison and belief in god will spare us from death. This is why hicks in Kentucky think it’s perfectly sensible, which is also why they recently created a law against handling snakes in that area.
rubinlueski: Part 2
With this being the case, then it might just be that God had to create the universe so that the fall would be included in His plan for the very purpose of demonstrating and manifesting His perfect character: Love! To demonstrate the very greatest part of His nature of love, He would have to die for someone else. This could not be done if there was no one to die for and no reason to die for them. There could be no reason to die if there were no need for an atonement. There would be no need for an atonement if there were no sin. If there was no fall, there would be no sin.
Therefore, perhaps it is possible that God created the universe with "free will" creatures in it who would fall into sin. Without this fall, ultimately no death would be necessary to atone for them and without that death, the greatest act of love could not be demonstrated. Also, this would mean that the truest and most perfect quality of love would not be fulfilled. Would this then mean that God would not be perfectly fulfilled without having given of Himself? I don't know. But I can't help wondering that for God to truly express His perfectly loving nature, He Himself had to be one who laid His life down for others. For this to happen, He allowed sin to exist in this world.
With this I do not believe God made a mistake nor do I believe He had unrealistic expectations.
rubinlueski: Part 1
“"The entrance of sin into the world has resulted in pain, sorrow, and death - all of which was not in God's plan."
Why should the boy and his family pay the price for the entrance of someone else's sin's?
Another thing, why did God expect that humans were going to be so "perfect". Wouldn't that be virtually impossible- to go around perfect and sinless all the time, after all we are only human. Besides, how much fun would that be. Since humans are not perfect, that would suggest God made a mistake (or at least had unrealistic expectations)- didn't go according to plan. "”
I think this is a great question and one that needs to be answered. I think the best way to answer this is by exploring God's nature. A few clues to this are spread out through God's word. To begin with, God is love (1 John 4:16) and the nature of love is to give. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son..." I cannot help but believe that the most natural quality of love is to give, to be other centered, and, according to Jesus' own words, to give of one's self to the point of death. John 15:13 is where Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."
According to Jesus, there is no greater demonstration of love than self sacrifice to the point of death. Since God is love (1 John 4:16) and there is none greater than He, I conclude that God can and will be the one who demonstrates the greatest act of love. I cannot see God allowing a mere creation to demonstrate this in a better way than He. It would be a necessary outcome of His own nature and a necessary manifestation in any universe He created that the two greatest commandments spoken of by Jesus to love God and love your neighbor would be supremely demonstrated by none other than God Himself. Jesus was God in flesh who loved the Father perfectly and He loved us completely by laying down His life for us. This is the greatest and most perfect act of love according to Jesus.
schumacr-
"DNA similarities between humans and certain animals could point to a common ancestor but it could also point to a common designer. "
Well, apparently you don't understand how ERV's work. ERV's are reverse transcribed code that has been inserted into our and Chimps genomes. Even more important is when an ERV is inserted into the genome it does so in a completely RANDOM PROCESS and chooses witch receptors to afix itself to.
If you ague that both Chimps and Sapien DNA is designed a certain way, that is one thing. But to realize that we and Chimps share 7 IDENTICAL ERV's (endogenous retrovirus) which are dormant relic codes of ancient viruses WE AND CHIMPS ONCE EQUALLY HAD, and you conclude that ALL 7 are in IDENTICAL LOCATIONS IN BOTH OUR GENOMES, then the ONLY logical conclussion is we can Chimps either have common descent via a similar ancestor.
god or and ID wouldn't need or bother to create DNA with relic dormant ERV markers and make them both in IDENTICAL LOCATIONS between two different species. why would he? it makes no bilogical or logical sense to. ERV's exist in a part of the genome known as 'junk dna' and serve no active biological fucntion other than as a record of similarities, namely between what ERV's we and other higher primates have. and yes, we and other higher apes share other ERV's and have our own unique ones.
Oglefam-
You make a good point that it is always better to follow God's ways- but you are in some error. People ALWAYS recognize a god- wether that be the God of the Bible or another (even science of self afluence). If people do not recognize the God of the Bible while living according to Biblical principles (which happens ALL the time) then they are living with inconsistent beliefs- and ultimatly will burn in a firey hell forever. Sucks to be them. We MUST conscieously recognize God- the God of the Bible, following all his command, and bringing every thought and action into obedience to Him. Otherwise, even if we follow His principles (while not acknowledging Him) we are dishonoring Him.
I am suprised no one has pointed out in this post that all this- even pain sorrow and death- were a part of God's plan. This discussion over evolution and Christians who willingly send their children to those (often government run) schools which support such things is part of God's plan. What, you think it isn't? You think we screwed up God's plan and now He's working overtime to correct it? No way. God is Soverign. That means he is ALWAYS in control. God didn't make a mistake- He made us fragile and able to sin. He made us sinless. He did not make us sin proof.
it is really sad how people still cling to darwin's theory even when all evidence would clearly point to this being a theory full of holes in it. oh, wait a sceond,i forgot,they are in teaching this as "fact" . what a pity that all of our "science" is filtered through this viewpoint. yes,viewpoint when others who present other scientific evidence refuting it's clamis aren't allowed to speak out without the fear of being branded as traitors to the lie.
DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
For centuries man has tried to explain God. Does he or doesn't he? Did he or didn't he? My question is: Matthew 16:15 "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Each person has to answer this question. I think of it like this. If the world followed Biblical principles and there is no God, the world would be a better place, people would respect each other. And since there would be no God, death would just be death. Conversely, accepting by faith Gods existence in addition to living by Biblical principles offers hope of eternal life as well as treating those in ones life with respect. Man's wisdom is foolishness but does make for interesting conversation. My take on evolution or ID...Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” I know that scripture in context was Yeshua talking about salvation, but God is God and nothing is beyond his abilities.
rubinlueski -
Thanks for your comments and sorry for the late reply. Concerning my statements on existence, you said:
<<1 Something exists- probably true..
2. Non-being cannot create being- we don't know that to be true.
3. Therefore, a necessary and eternal being exists- we don't know that to be true.>>
Point one has to be true – you have to exist to deny existence so it’s self-defeating to try. On point 2, you aren’t saying that something comes from nothing are you? I've not talked with anyone who really holds to that view. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. This means point 3 has to be true.
I think your agnostic position is certainly fine to hold while examining the evidence – many great thinkers like Kant and others were in the same boat. I also understand your desire to know what God is like in detail; I’m with you. If we examine the cosmological, teleological (intelligence), and moral arguments for God and don't even turn one page of the Bible, we actually get a decent picture of Him painted. From them, it is reasonable to conclude that:
He must be supernatural in nature as He exists outside of nature.
He must be powerful (incredibly) to create everything we know.
He must be eternal (self-existent; no infinite regress of causes).
He must be omnipresent (he created space and is not limited by it).
He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
He must be personal (impersonality can’t create personality).
He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
He must be diverse yet have unity.
He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
Lastly, to agentorange and others: I see a lot of evidence for microevolution from your points, but none for macroevolution. DNA similarities between humans and certain animals could point to a common ancestor but it could also point to a common designer.
"The entrance of sin into the world has resulted in pain, sorrow, and death - all of which was not in God's plan."
Why should the boy and his family pay the price for the entrance of someone else's sin's?
Another thing, why did God expect that humans were going to be so "perfect". Wouldn't that be virtually impossible- to go around perfect and sinless all the time, after all we are only human. Besides, how much fun would that be. Since humans are not perfect, that would suggest God made a mistake (or at least had unrealistic expectations)- didn't go according to plan.
The entrance of sin into the world has resulted in pain, sorrow, and death - all of which was not in God's plan.
holito8 "Thru Slacker post wisdom came. God is good.
Atheist says there is no God. There is no purpose but that is simply not true. Everything in the world has a purpose. My car has a purpose, my job has a purpose, children have a purpose, schools have a purpose; Even their argument against God has a purpose. God said we have a purposed. So if everything has a purpose is that not a part of a grand design to give us purpose."
A neighbor kid was recently killed in a car wreck. Hope that wasn't part of the plan. Seems without purpose to me except to bring extreme pain to family and friends.
GMG, I have an excellent book here called _21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible_, by Ann Lamont. I believe it's OOP but it might be available through an internet search. It is filled with such fascinating truths as I recounted about Louis Pasteur. A real gem of a book. :-)
agentorange -
agentorange –
How do YOU think they decide which flu strain they decide to produce vaccine for?
They keep on hand live viruses for a number of Influenza strains. The vaccines take quite a while to produce in sufficient quantities, and must be made well in advance. They use a very educated “best guess” type of procedure in order to predict which strains will show in any given year, and they are not always correct. Have you ever heard someone say “I got the flu shot this year but I still got the flu”? Well, if they got the immunization for Type A and were exposed to Type B, then they will indeed get the flu. This does not mean that we don’t know about Type B, only that they didn’t get the immunization for it.
They have experienced a commendable record with their methods, which predate all of our sophisticated DNA, etc. methods, knowledge obtained over many years of experience, trial and error, and logical deduction. As Maranatha has so aptly pointed out, the pursuit of understanding of biological issues has been going on for centuries.
Maranatha -
Happy New Year to you too :)
Thank you for adding such an apt addendum to my post.
Gen1_28-
“How do you explain morality? Do you think that these things are from God and ultimately binding?
Well, I don’t know. I do think we all have an innate level of right and wrong on morality, especially in our species. We have studies of rats and other animals that show they have empathy towards their closest kin as they realized they were causing them to be electrically shocked every time they attempted to eat. Eventually, the rats that were initiating the shocking caught on that its own actions of eating was causing its kin to shreek as it tried to eat and gave up food altogether, most starving themselves to death.
If god hands down moral laws and the impending consequences, we sure don’t operate under that manner today. We don’t stone to death adulterers, or kids that defy their parents and so on. Even our sense of morality has changed as we have banished slavery and inequality of the sexes that were prominent up till 200 years ago. It’s a pity such obvious injustices took some 6000 years of recorded history to begin to get rid of, especially under countries/societies that spoke from the supposed higher moral high ground of religion that supposedly would have done away with such things much sooner.
“Or do you believe that these are Human conventions?”
Certain moral aspects are, if not most as it was in our best interest in small tribes to be moral and ethical amongst our closest kin. To attempt to continually cheat and steal from your closest kin would result in one finding themselves evicted from the group or punished. Look at the moral conventions that were devised in the OT that hardly any one longer upholds. Do we stone people to death for working on the Sabbath anymore? Of course not, we’ve come a long way since their barbaric times. Morality is more of a relativistic concept as it’s not always wrong to lie or to kill, depending on the circumstances of course.
The Germans that in WW2 lied to the Nazis about locations of their Jewish friends saved their lives. No doubt this is the more moral act, as to do otherwise would be to capitulate in their unjust death.
“If they are human conventions, what makes one persons opinion right over another?“
Democratic consensus. I’ve already shown that a given set of rules on morality isn’t something that is ‘set in stone and unchanging’. Rather it is malleable.
“Quantity? If more people believe that Child rape or murder is corect, does that make it "right"?”
No, of course not. You might as well be asking if more people believed that regular rape was correct, or that killing people unjustly is ok. And obviously for all they’re all wrong and no such modern secular place would condone such things, even via democratic consensus.
God is not the God the ingorant. O the riches of both the Wisdom and Knowledge of God.
Wisdom and Knowledge.... God is the source of all useful knowledge and wisdom. But just because you are smart does not mean you are an expert at all things. The devil is the source of destruction. For every good word that proceeds the devil has an anti. But good things prosper greater. We have better knowledge that acient Israel, thus we chould have a better appreciation for God.
Gen1_28-
'Evolution claims, in generic terms, "survival of the fitest". "
Nope. natural selection, VERY loosely means 'survival of the fitest'. Natural selection involves varying levels of processes and it's what guides evolution. it doesn't imply that only the most strong will win out. some organisms are symbiotic and operate in altruistic means that benefits both organisms for their survivability.
Evolutionary theory has no bearing on human morality, or how we should ethically treat each other. Scientific theories aren't consulted in such manners, you would consult gravity or atomic theory to know how you should deal with a certain dilema would you? of course not. evolution is a model that describes how life evolved and continues to change, nothing more.
"how do we know that gravity will continue to work tomorrow?"
b/c we have to assume that what we live in is REALITY! if we assume this is some fantasy land where Universal Laws change on a whim we couldn't make such assumptions, much less presuppositions on them. Only in applying this type of uniformity can we make such scientific hypotheses, predictions and tests later on which either back up or debunk said theory. Without uniformity the scientific method would breakdown and we’d lack much of what science has given us.
"So the only way we can really answer these questions is to start asking if our presuppositions make sense."
I don't know if you're a YEC, or of a more liberal denomination, so please don't take offense if that's the case. Does as biblical story about a 450ft long boat with all the worlds animals make sense? Does a 6000-year-old earth/universe make sense? Do insects with only 4 legs make sense? Does stoning to death an adulterer, wizards, witches, etc. as your bible asks for make sense?
If you think so, then you have some warped presuppositions as the scientific evidence we have shows it's not so.
good and evil. Well ,bad things happen to good people and vice versa all the time. But i don't presuppose gods, angels, and other UNFALSIFAIBLE and UNDENTIFAIBLE agents that cause such things. we are the results of our OWN actions and the responsibility lies with us.
GMG,
well how exaclty do you think biologists determine which strain to mass produce? how can they which strain to attempt to ward against unless they understand evolution and mutataion at the biological level? if they don't have a model on why organisms adapt, advance and change, producing a vaccine would be impossible as they would have no way of knowing which strain would survive.
Gen1_28-
Like any other scientific theory we have evidence to build a model, make predictions and verify and test their hypothesis. i can drop a ball and it falls according to graviy and thus via other evidences and testing we can form a model/theory for gravity. just as we can for quantum, germ, atomic etc. theories so yes, evidence for evolution is like evidence for a gravity. the more we have the more we can test, and draw conclussions from.
You didn't even both to debunk the evidence for evolution and istead opted for word semantecs.
Since you're so convinced we didn't evolve via mutations and evolution induced by natural selection, how do you explain the aparent fusion of Human Chromsome 2? This is why we have 1 less chromosome than other great apes. This was the precdicted long before we mappend the human genome and it backs evolution.
Or consider that Sapiens and Chimps share 7 IDENTICAL ERV markers in the exact same genetic locations? Keep in mind that ERV placement is entirely random in the genome too.
Why would your ID/god create us and Chimps to have Identical matching ERV markers that would suggest we share a common ancestor if it wasn't so? Why leave this and countless hominid fossils that show a progression from primitive apes to the Homo Genus unless we did share a common ancestory and evolution is true?
But by all means, try to explain such evidence WITHOUT evolution and common descent.
HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone here. May it be a year filled with God's blessings and wisdom. :-)
Hi, GMG, and Happy New Year! :-)
I think it worthy of note that Louis Pasteur, who discovered the potential of and pioneered the use of iimmunizations, was a Bible-believing Christian who strenuously opposed Darwinism. Many scientists who made ground-breaking discoveries, and on whose shoulders today's scientists stand, were indeed Bible-believing Christians who saw no conflict whatsoever between faith and true science, for they understood that God as Creator had created everything with design and for a purpose. A goodly number of them credited His Word and His guidance as the Source of their intellect, knowledge, and creativity.
Thru Slacker post wisdom came. God is good.
Atheist says there is no God. There is no purpose but that is simply not true. Everything in the world has a purpose. My car has a purpose, my job has a purpose, children have a purpose, schools have a purpose; Even their argument against God has a purpose. God said we have a purposed. So if everything has a purpose is that not a part of a grand design to give us purpose.
agentorange -
you said "Do you like to have flu shots that are principly made via evolutionary science knowledge?"
Immunizations are generally made from the killed virus, which stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that are then in place to fight the live virus, thereby stopping the disease before it can ever take hold. So, how do you equate this with evolution?
Well said, Gen1_28.
If you have not, please read my previous post.
Since we all have the same evidence, and yet we all interpret it differently, how do we come to a conclusion? We have to understand that we all have differing presuppositions. For those who don't know, a presupposition is an idea that we hold unquestioningly before we even view the evidence. These presuppositions are like a coffe filter which we use to filter our facts.
The Evolutionist will unquestionably see all evidence point to evolution because of his presuppositions. Same for the Christian. Same for everyone. We ALL end up using circular reasoning to validate our viewpoint. So the only way we can really answer these questions is to start asking if our presuppositions make sense.
Evolution claims, in generic terms, "survival of the fitest". So, according to the Evolutionist, what is wrong with beating up or killing the homosexual if they don't help us promote the species? How can the Evolutionist claim any standard for "right" or "wrong"? How can an Evolutionist make any claim to moral law? According to evolutionary thought, a man is justified to do something BECAUSE he is able- so according to evolution, Hitler was justified because he was able- the child molester is justified because he could.
... even science (ID theory) is not neutral. Science REQUIRES uniformity in nautre. Think of it like this, how do we know that gravity will continue to work tomorrow? (your answer: Well that's stupid- it worked yesterday!) You are basing this answer off the idea that it will continue in the FUTURE the same way it did in the past- but that ASSUMES things are unifrom. So how can a scientist (or evolutionist) account for this uniformity. The Christian understand that science is merely an understanding of creation and creation reflects the Creator- God.
My point is simply this- you have a lot of unqualified presuppositions which end up making you look really stupid if you carry those presuppositions to their end result. Christian presuppositions brings understanding and order, realizing that God does nothing without reason, that God is never contradictory- in word or deed, and that God has designed everthing, reflecting his orderliness and creativeness.
So, How do you explain good and evil? How do you explain morality? Do you think that these things are from God and ultimatly binding? Or do you believe that these are Human conventions? If they are human conventions, what makes one persons opinion right over another? Quantity? If more people believe that Child rape or murder is corect, does that make it "right"?
Agentorange:
You pose some interesting questions whic should be answered. I will try to do so sufficiently.
First, you make claims that because of similarities between certain animals and humans that this is evidence for evolution. I would like to point out that it is not evidence FOR evolution- but merely evidence. I could as easily imply that it is only logical for God to use similarities within His creation and that similarities are an evidence FOR God because it makes logical sense that a logical God would create similar things within a similar environment. So, you see- we both have the same evidence- but the question is how we interpret the evidence.
Second, it seems you insinuate this strange notion that God and science cannot exist together. I derrive this from your comments on skin tones. Let me clarify that the God of the Bible is the author of science- and it only makes me believe more so in his supreme intelligence and design to see that he is not self contradictory, but that he upholds his own scientific laws by creating people of different skin tones. You pose this as evidence for evolution... but here again, I point out that the same evidence supports Creation. It all depends on your underlying presuppositions. You presuppose evolution- Christianity presupposes creation.
Science isn't a supporter of evolution or Creation- Science is understanding our world/existence, wether you believe in Creation or evolution. ID Theory is suppose to point this idea of science being independent of God or evolution- no matter where be say it leads. The problem is that we all ahve the same evidence- but we all interpret the evidence differently. Why? I will answer this next.
Topekan - " It is true that ID is consistent with the Biblical Creation view "
Oh, so you're saying 'ID theory' mirrors the creation view then? well, I've heard from some YEC's that ID doesn't cut it as it excludes 6 day creations and other biblical nonsense like the 'no-way flood' or that it doesn't mention jesus emphatically. For instance, b/c it doesn't exclusively mention christ, it could implied that the ID/god/creator could be one of any of the known recorded 3000+ gods, which for YES/biblical literalists this is sacreligous. But Behe and others don't use such methods as to do so would kill 'ID theory' before it got off the ground. But the 'Pandas and People' articles that were used in the Dover case shows they replaced ' creator with Intelligent Designer' following the 1987 trial that 'creationism couldn't be taught in public schools'.
"ID also does not make any statement as to the nature or identity of the "designer"
Topekan, get real. We weren't born yesteday. how else would one embody an 'Intelligent Designer' outside of calling the designer 'god? equating the ID that is personified by god is a no brainer. besides, considering all the chaos in our universe involving black holes, quasars, gamma ray bursts, etc. and how utterly devoid of life is all is, it's horrid logic to conclude that it was all expressely 'designed for life'. even more illogical when one tries to argue that their is benevolence involved at any level of this chaos.
'ID theory' obviously implies god, as only it preposes him/it as the designer of the universe in which we all live and all things exist and not simply the arhitech behind organic cells and life. If ID resorts to being just how life is 'intelligently designed' then it would have a hard time overcomming the idea of aliens that genetically engineered our organic life. although these aliens would be insanely wise, they wouldn't still be a 'god'.
Whoops, missed out the"is"
Hello Topekan; Lets agree then shall we that ID is a science which has as much or more basis than evolution, the next step the science of ID should come up with is predictiins that can be falsified, I don't know of any, can you help? Thanks, Steve
Hello Topekan; Lets agree then shall we that ID is a science which hasas much or more basis than evolution, the next step the science of ID should come up with predictiions that can be falsified, I don't know of any, can you help? Thanks, Steve
Paul Burnett asked, "Is there a clue there for anybody as to whether intelligent design creationism is science or religion?" The scientists who propose ID as an alternative explanation to Darwinism use the same type of scientific observation that Darwinists do. It is true that ID is consistent with the Biblical Creation view, however it is not arrived at in the same way. ID also does not make any statement as to the nature or identity of the "designer", because that cannot be determined through empirical observation. In other words, ID (not ID Creationism) is a science, and has as much or more basis to be considered so than does molecules-to-man evolution.
Slacker,
Since you doubt even human evolution, how do you explain the following...
In our own species of HomoSapien we can clearly see certain mutations among us that result in certain beneficial (and negative) traits. IE, Latco tolerance among the decendants of people who ancestors herded milk bearing cattle. adults being able to digest milk isn't typical as this part of the gene is typically responsible for allowing infants the required enzymes to break it down and digest it.
we also find that Sickle cell anemia, mostly common in blacks/Africans, is the side affect result of a gene mutation that increases the bodies immunity to malaria, which in Africa makes sense as Malaria is more of a threat so natural selection would guide evolution to suit people that lived in such a habitat to have a higher resistance to Malaria. ToE predicts such things, but ID/creationism. Why would yor god/ID make only blacks able to have a higher resistance against Malaria, and why would only a small % of the population as adults be able to digest lactose foods when clearly lactose foods are nutrient rich it would've been more sensiable for ALL Sapiens to have such a trait. but we don't find this.
Or, consider the amount of melantonin that our skins have and this explains the wide variation of pigments that *just coincidently* coicides with where we as humans would be most exposed to sun light. the further north one is the less sun exposure, so the skin lightens on many numerous generatons to aide in absorbation of vitamin D as this would be a natrually selectable trait for survival.
Or consider all the fossils in the Genus 'Homo ('I won't even mention the Australopithecus Genus) and it's quite apparent that our existing species, Sapien has common ancestory with extinct species from this same Genus.
Also consider how gentically similar we are to great apes, namely Chimps 95% and Bonobos 95.5 % identical to our DNA. Or consider the relative DNA similarity between Sapiens and Neandethal DNA is 98% Identical.
Since you're so convinced we didn't evolve via mutations and evolution induced by natural selection, how do you explain the aparent fusion of Human Chromsome 2? This is why we have 1 less chromosome than other great apes. This was the precdicted long before we mappend the human genome and it backs evolution.
Or consider that Sapiens and Chimps share 7 IDENTICAL ERV markers in the exact same genetic locations?
But by all means, try to explain such evidence WITHOUT evolution and common descent.
Slacker - "If evolution is true, what does it provide the average person???"
Do you like the food you eat that is gentically modified via evolution to provide larger crops and those that are more natrurally resistant to pests?
Do you like to have flu shots that are principly made via evolutionary science knowledge?
I'll give some examples in the next post.
"...is the lack of Hope, such as you evolved from nothing so therefore you mean nothing."
Just b/c one realizes that all life evolves doesn't mean that they are therefore worthless, or nothing matters. only those that think in such Nihilisti terms would even consider
" And so no one misquotes me I am saying that evolution brings the lack of hope which in turns brings turmoil"
what nonsense. the world even prior to evolutionary theory was quite violent and offered equally less hope. you act like only b/c of evolutionary theory has things gone bad or are bad, but clearly that's not true as before plenty of horrid acts were occuring. hell, just pick up and chapter in your OT bible. joshu and his legions must have believed in evolution and thats why they went made causing genocide then right?
That is exactly right slacker, the deal is that atheist proponents say that they aren't concerned with morality or giving people hope, they are only concerned with their truth, wait I mean the truth, excuse me. Intellectually honest proponents of atheistic evolution realize that it is not a very bright picture for human kind, however they just brush it off and say make your own morals and reasons for life, I mean after all that's what atheistic evolution says we do anyways.
I am not going to disagree with you outright about the 6 day interpretation, but I am going to say that I do not believe you have to believe in 6 literal days, in order to believe 100% in the Bible.
Oh and Rubin, ID proponents do not say, "Oh lets just say some creator created the universe and leave it at that!" And so far, in every single case, 100% of the time, being comes only from being. It will take a huge leap of faith to say, well the universe JUST IS. WIliam Lane Craig does a pretty good job of defending the point that a necessary, immaterial, creator is necessary. His website has some pretty good debates.
The question i have is this. If evolution is true, what does it provide the average person???
Personally i don't believe that evolution is accurate, I belive that God created the world and all that is in it (in 6 days as the Bible said), What kind of science he used to create it is prolly more then we can fathom, its prolly not that it is "intellectually unsatisfying", its moreover that you wouldn't be able to understand how it was done. Something like the created understanding how he was created.
What I am getting at with this question is, over the last several decades as evolution has been taught in classes across this country all it has brought with it, is the lack of Hope, such as you evolved from nothing so therefore you mean nothing. This if detrimental to young kids and is very dangerous to be teaching. When we have no hope what do we have, we have Virginia Tech, we have Columbine. Thats what we get. And so no one misquotes me I am saying that evolution brings the lack of hope which in turns brings turmoil.
Good points, Chris333. I remember there was some controversy because PBS would not allow any ID-believing or even just honest doubters of evolutionism to speak on their "Evolution" series a couple years ago. This is so typical, that the other side is not allowed to be heard. There is no honest debate allowed anywhere in our public arena.
Rubin,
The reason why prestigious scientific journals like Nature don't show more of ID theory is because they will not allow their articles in, just like the Smithsonian Institute in the case of Richard Sternberg. However prestigious scientific journals like Nature have conducted surveys of the scientific comunity and found that 40% believe in a personal creator God, 40% do not, and 20% do not know.
Paul,
Of course religious sources are going to support ID! But that doesn't change the truthfulness about ID or evolution. The thing is that many of the "scientific" community have an axe to grind like Dawkins, but this is becoming less and less so.
schumacr, thank you for your comments, they are interesting and thought provoking
Allow me to clarify my take on "a creator who was uncreated" and I stated "is intellectually unsatisfying to me" The reason I find it intellectually unsatisfying is that it doesn't say anything meaningful. Its like in Genesis with the "In the beginning god created all things and saw that they were good.......stuff. What does that mean? It would be more meaningful to me if it told me something about the technical details. What physics, chemistry and biology were involved. I am a curious person and I want to know the science behind the universe. To say the universe and life was created by God and leave it at that, is intellectually unsatisfying to me. Science is going to get mankind closer to finding those answers then religion studies ever will. Perhaps there is a god that created us and the universe, god would still have to use certain scientific principles to create the galaxies, stars, planets and life. God would have to be everything from a quantum physicist to a genetic engineer, that would be very impressive. I consider myself an agnostic which basically means that whether there is a god is unknowable, at least so far and as far as science is concerned. If there is God, I don't believe God would hold it against me for wanting to know the science of the universe. I think God might also cut me some slack for being skeptical of its existence, after all, I'm just a simple human being. The problem i have with much of religion in general, and christianity specifically, is the notion that I am going to hell because I don't believe in this that or the other thing. I find the hell fire business absurd. Then again, I could be completely wrong and spend an eternity in torture, so be it. I cant help how I think or feel.
You quoted John Locke :
1. Something exists.
2. Non-being cannot create being
3. Therefore, a necessary and eternal being exists
1 Something exists- probably true..
2. Non-being cannot create being- we don't know that to be true.
3. Therefore, a necessary and eternal being exists- we don't know that to be true.
"Logic" was also used at one time to explain the earth as motionless and the center of the universe. I believe science has shown that to be FALSE.
Philosophers and Theologians have been debating about the world and the universe for centuries. The debates by theologians now are probably not much different than 200 years ago, in the mean time science has taught us much about the nature of the universe...thats what i find intellectually satisfying. I do think it is reasonable to ask "if there is a god, then how did God come about"? Perhaps the answer is, there is no God. Perhaps God was created through a quantum event..........
rubinlueski -
<< But I think the same thing applies to the creator, what / how was the creator created....... "a creator who was uncreated"- I dont see the logic there. The "a creator who was uncreated" is intellectually unsatisfying to me.>>
I would respectfully ask you – why is a universe that is uncreated intellectually satisfying to you, especially in light of the evidence against an eternal universe? You see, you have to go back to an eternal ‘something’. Why? Because nothing cannot create something. Or as John Locke (an English empiricist/philosopher) put it:
1. Something exists.
2. Non-being cannot create being
3. Therefore, a necessary and eternal being exists
Asking who created God is a category mistake; it’s like asking where is the bachelor’s wife? You don’t make the unmade. And again, you’ve either got to choose an eternal creator or an eternal universe, and since the universe isn’t eternal, you’re left with an eternal creator.
On the topic of science and God: using operational science to prove God is an unfruitful and frustrating task. You must use either a forensic science approach or the legal methodology of proof and evidence.
Finally, don’t believe for a minute there is not a philosophy and worldview behind the anti-supernatural/evolution crowd. It is far from just ‘going where the evidence leads’.
danny posted: " As arguments for ID become futher refined each year, they are beginning to convince large sections of the population (Christian and Non-Christian alike)."
Its probably true that "large sections of the population" are buying in more to the ID stuff. Doesn't mean much however. Most of the population is largely ignorant of science. The average person knows more about paris hilton than they know about science. The important statistic would be amoung scientist, and that number is pretty LOW. the only way the title "Mounting Evidence for Intelligent Design" is going to make it into say the prestigious scientific journal "Nature", is if there is scientific evidence for it. last time I picked up Nature, I didn't see anything like that.
It's interesting that this religious website is beating the drum for intelligent design creationism, while intelligent design creationism continues to try to (publicly at least) distance itself from religion.
Why do you suppose all the support for intelligent design creationism comes from overtly or covertly religious people and organizations, while essentially every actual scientific organization and association has issued a statement condemning intelligent design creationism because it is not science?
Is there a clue there for anybody as to whether intelligent design creationism is science or religion?
For an article call "mounting Evidence of ID", they sure don't really mention any of it. Jelly fish fossils as an example... You first have to give up the 6 day creation to argue that there has been little change in 200 million years (at least there is some progress made with IDers on the age of the earth) and the fact that some species evolve little over time reenforces the natural selection forces that create change or do not when environmental factors do not demand it. I won't argue that there is plenty we don't know but to say that ID research is generating "evidence" is a joke. I look for it, but never see it. As soon as there is evidence explaining why things are, don't expect me to accept unanswered questions as evidence of Dawin theory shortcomings. If that is the best you can do, then the Bible is totally up for grabs as there is little to no evidence that any of it occured as written. ID has a place in the classroom, the philosphy classroom.
DP, thanks for the reply, funnily enough I am a Christian who moved from 6 day creation etc...to evolution etc...it's funny old world. The only point I would make is that evolution had nothing to do with the origin of life, evolution proceeded after that.
BW
sTEVE
::begin quote::
Danny, what is these these peoples understanding of eveolution before they accepted ID as an adequate explanation?
::end quote::
Well I would imagine that, they probably either believed in the existence of a God or a spiritual force of some kind. I say this just from knowing the statistics of the percentage of Americans who believe in Supernatural forces of some kind, but I have not gone out and asked these people individually to know what their prior beliefs were. However, I can vouch for myself and even as a Christian I believed in Evolution for 10+ years before I decided to study out whether evolution can work (That is a discussion for another time) before I decided ID was a reasonable theory (please note: that my motivation was minimal, as at that time I didn't believe evolution contradicted my belief in God). I will state I believe Evolution is also a reasonable theory and believe they should both be taught in our schools (im sure we disagree on that). Obviously even if Evolution is true, it does not mean by necessity there is no God, so I have no problem with it being taught as one theory for the origin of life.
" see where your coming from here, I really do. But the question goes back, who then created those Extra terrestrials etc. It goes back and back until there must be a beginning which to me seems to be logically, a creator who was uncreated."
dannypoo, I couldn't agree more. But I think the same thing applies to the creator, what / how was the creator created....... "a creator who was uncreated"- I dont see the logic there.
The fact is nobody, so far, knows the answer to these questions, thats what cosmologists and physicists are trying to figure out. The "a creator who was uncreated" is intellectually unsatisfying to me. Perhaps it is the correct answer, but nobody knows whether it is at this point. happy new year.
Danny, what is these these peoples understanding of eveolution before they accepted ID as an adequate explanation?
Thanks
Steve
::begin quote::
If ID is the reason for life on earth, then it might simply be that our "god" may possibly be a highly advance extraterristrial. Radio astronomers and others have on-going projects to attemt to detect electomagnetic signals from other possible life forms in other parts of our galaxy and universe. We might someday detect them and find our creator. Or, there may actually be a creator of the entire universe, nobody knows. The god created entire universe thing seems very unlikey to me.
::end quote::
I see where your coming from here, I really do. But the question goes back, who then created those Extra terrestrials etc. It goes back and back until there must be a beginning which to me seems to be logically, a creator who was uncreated.
If ID is the reason for life on earth, then it might simply be that our "god" may possibly be a highly advance extraterristrial. Radio astronomers and others have on-going projects to attemt to detect electomagnetic signals from other possible life forms in other parts of our galaxy and universe. We might someday detect them and find our creator. Or, there may actually be a creator of the entire universe, nobody knows. The god created entire universe thing seems very unlikey to me.
Well thats a little better. But the real question is. Why is it wishful thinking? As arguments for ID become futher refined each year, they are beginning to convince large sections of the population (Christian and Non-Christian alike).
Okay then let me rephrase that
It is wishful thinking to believe that there is mounting evidence to support ID
Thats much better
Regards
Seve
::begin quote::
It is wishful thinking to believe that there is mounting evidence to support ID (unless you support ID of course).
::end quote::
It is wishful thinking to believe that there is NOT mounting evidence to support ID (unless you don't believe in ID of course).
It is wishful thinking to believe that there is mounting evidence to support ID (unless you support ID of course). I do though think it is really good that Darwinism is constantly challenged because it is only in this way that it is shown just what a comprehensive explantion of life on Earth it is. My hope is that 2008 will bring on more challenges for it....it is the Manchester United, in the Premier League of scientific theories...