Before we had advanced science, religion was more important. However, now that
we have advanced science, if we make religion more important, we will
undoubtedly destroy ourselves.
Religious principles + nuclear bombs = everyone dead
Quote by fearfirefoesThe other day
at work, I thought up quite the theory
To understand this, we must first have two truths
1. The majority ovverrules the minority, simply because the will of most
ovverrides the will of some
2. The majority of the world believes in an onipitent being, or 1 god.
Now, if the majority ovverrules the minorety, and the majority believe in 1 god,
doesnt that god then begin to exist, simply because the majorty believes it so?
This god takes many forms, because this god is omnipotent, capible of being
everything to everybody, for power is only powere when it can move the thoughts
of another individuals. This god, by simply existing in the minds of the
majority, is playing an active roll in the deciding percent of the majority is
therefore weilding unstoppable, on omnipotent power, because it crushes out all
opposition, thus becomes alone in its power, and the all power, and thus all
powerful.
I havent fully reasoned it out yet, but i would appreciate
oppinions
I've thought of the perfect response to
this:
The majority of people believe will power alone does not change reallity.
Therefore, by your own reasoning, they must be correct.
So, even this theory is correct, it doesn't affect reality at all.
A religion is defined by the actions and beliefs of those who follow it.
Holy wars are not caused by only a few people. Huge numbers of people have
fought huge numbers of another faith for no reason except their religion.
That people of the Christian faith no longer do this is an indication that the
religion has changed. The interpretation has evolved into a more humane belief.
This does not mean the religion has always been good. On the contrary, it only
shows that the original barbarism of Christianity has been forgotten for a more
modern viewpoint.
Quote by beethoven
Last May, I helped organize a New York University symposium on religion and
science, with the participation of Mr. Flew and others. Our starting point was
science's new knowledge that the universe's history is a story of quantum leaps
of intelligence, the sudden yet systematic appearance of intrinsically
intelligent systems arranged in an ascending order.
Many people assume that the intelligence in the universe somehow evolved out of
nonintelligence, given chance and enough time, and in the case of living beings,
through natural selection and random mutation. But even in the most hardheadedly
materialistic scenario, intelligence and intelligent systems come fully formed
from day one.
No, this is completely untrue. Claiming
something is a "intelligent system" doesn't prove anything.
Quote by beethovenMatter came with all
its ingenious, mathematically precise laws from the time it first appeared. Life
came fully formed with the incredibly intelligent symbol processing of DNA, the
astonishing phenomenon of protein-folding and the marvel of replication from its
very first appearance. Language, the incarnation of conceptual thought with its
inexplicable structure of syntax, symbols and semantics, appeared out of the
blue, again with its essential infrastructure as is from day
one.
You have no evidence here execpt "This is too
complicated to be chance." That is not a rational arguement in this case.
We don't know what the first life was like, but it could have been quite simple.
All it needed was some form of replication and the rest could be developed from
there by natural selection. As for language, there is no way to tell exactly
when it developed, but it didn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Chimpanzees
have been shown to be capable of learning some sign language.
Quote by beethovenThe evidence we have
shows unmistakably that there was no progressive, gradual evolution of
nonintelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of
energy, life or mind. Each one of the three had intrinsically intelligent
structures from the time each first appeared. Each, it would seem, proceeds from
an infinitely intelligent mind in a precise sequence.
This
is complete crap. Your saying intelligence is defined by "energy, life, and
mind", then claiming they must be created by an "infinitely
intelligent mind". This is completly irrational and you have given no
evidence to support anything you have said.
Quote by beethovenScience assumes that
the universe follows laws, which leads to the question of how the laws of nature
came into being. How does the electron know what to do? In A Brief History of
Time, Stephen Hawking asks what breathes fire into the equations of science and
gives a universe for them to describe. The answer to the question of why the
universe exists, he concluded, would reveal to us "the mind of God."
Quote by beethovenWe can, if we want,
declare that there is no reason why there are reasonable laws, no explanation
for the fact there are explanations, no logic underlying logical processes. But
this is manifestly not the conclusion adopted by Einstein, Heisenberg and, most
recently, Antony Flew.
So, 2+2=4 therefore, God exists? This
is not evidence, it is a belief. Just because we don't know everything about the
nature of the universe doesn't mean there is any scientific justification for an
all-powerful God. Saying some intelligent people believe in God doesn't prove
anything. There are plenty of intelligent people who are atheists.
Quote by algadoreoI would say changes
in science are random if you look at it from an evolutionary point of view - it
would take the right person at the right time at the right place to discover
something. If Einstein was never born, we probably wouldn't have relativity, on
which to build our new theories.
But how would you know what is considered a "victory" now is
"nothing" the next? What is "proven" could become
"unproved" the next day. Until then, it is taken as the
"truth". If relativity is violated, then what about all the math that
initially supports it? Science is merely facts - they are neutral. How you want
to interpret them is your own decision. I have my way of looking at it, you have
your way. I can only explain to you how I see it, but I may not necessarily be
able to change your way of thinking.
And as for the speed of light - yes, it is decreasing because the universe is
expanding - c is merely a speed at which a distance along the "fabric"
of space is travelled. This is a fact that physicists believe in, not just
creationists. Since the "fabric" is expanding at a rate that is higher
than c, there is a "slowing down" of the light. I'm not sure whether
it's 1000c though, all I know is that it's >c. Of course, this, being
science, could always change. New discoveries may indeed be able to show more
about our universe. But as Stephen Hawing wrote in his A Brief History of Time,
science can merely provide answers to how our universe works - the set of rules
in which everything will play out; there will be no answer to the big questions
of "who are we?", "why are we here?", etc.
Okay, but what if the speed of light is constant? Then that means that time
cannot be constant. This is a well known effect known as time
dilation.
*sigh* I can see I'm not getting anywhere here.
Science is not changing randomly; it is improving. The speed of light is
constant. Time is not constant, it changes as speed increases. Your denial of
reality does not make it invalid.
Quote by algadoreoYour destiny does not
have to be in hell - that's why He sent Christ our Saviour to die on the cross
for our sins - so that whomsoever believes in Him shall not perish but have
eternal life. I wouldn't blame Him for sending you to hell for denying Him
though - basically you chose the path to Hell by listening to the Devil.
Those who don't try but are given a chance - I don't think they need special
treatment.
If you really believe this then you are a fool.
There are good, honest people who don't believe in God. There are charitable and
hard working people who aren't Christians. Your faith puts them all in hell
forever. Even the kindest and purest person in this world is destined for hell
if they don't believe in God. What kind of garbage is that? Have you really
become so deluded you think people who don't have your faith are listening to
the Devil? To you really think that non-Christians deserve an eternity of
suffering just for their choice of religion? A God that allows such a thing
would be neither kind nor just.
Quote by algadoreoIf you're not going
to do anything about it, then I don't see why you're saying God isn't doing
anything about you. Even if He is doing something (which He is), you're not
responding to it. Kinda like a one-sided conversation. You have to open up
yourself first. To do that, you have to believe that God will come to you if you
open up. If you don't try that, then who are you to say that God doesn't
exist?
Ender, perhaps it was a bad anology, I apologize if it doesn't make my point
clear. But what if I told you that the million dollars was absolutely
"findable"? Here's my point - I saying that you will not find the
answer unless you go look for it. If you tell me that you have spent your entire
life looking for God and haven't found Him, then by all means, I would consider
you to have the credentials to say that He doesn't exist and I would probably
believe you. But you have to first show me you were indeed looking in the right
direction (simply reading the Bible looking for answers doesn't cut it - you're
not actively searching - that's like looking for a buried ancient tomb with only
a surface map; you have to start digging to find it). For those who give up
halfway, that's just sad - you are ending your conversation with God in
mid-sentence.
Why do people have to be looking for God in
order to find him? To me that only shows me that it is very likely it is all in
your head. By believing in God, your perception of the world changes and you
start to see the work of God in the world. That's not divine conversation.
That's a psychological effect of believing in God. If God was all powerful, I'm
sure he could find a way to communicate that's not shrouded in mystery and
exclusiveness.
Quote by algadoreoEnder, how do exactly
do you know that I am wrong; that I believe in a "false hope"; that
your stance is correct; that "science" isn't "false hope" as
well? Even science, with whom you hold a high regard, bases itself on a lot of
hypotheses as well. Experiments only go so far, and only serve to provide
answers, not causes. Science is also constantly changing - even the once
almighty Theory of Relativity is undergoing tests to look for discrepancies (CPT
violations, broken Lorentz symmetry, etc) just to prove that the Higgs field
exists. If no discrepancies are ever found, then we are nowhere closer to
finding out what exactly the Big Bang is - after all, all the math and science
that we have break down as we appraoch the dawn of time. What is the Higgs field
then? If discrepancies are found, then we still are nowhere closer to finding
out what exactly is the Big Bang - what does it mean to have discrepancies? Does
it hint at an new unification theory? What is it? What may have been the answer
one day may become nothing the next when proved wrong.
I
explained in my last post some reasons I know you are wrong. "You believe
in an all-powerful God who allows evil to roam through this world. You believe
in a merciful God who allows people to suffer for eternity, just for not
believing in him. You believe in a God who knows my destiny is hell, but creates
me anyways and changes nothing. I cannot imagine such a thing. It is unspeakably
cruel."
Your idea of God is so contradictory that any thinking person would know it
cannot be correct. You claim I need to meet God halfway. I say that is selective
thinking. It does not change the cruelty of what happens to those who don't
try.
Science was never meant to replace philosophy. The problem is that you don't
recognize philosophy that has no religious aspects. The constant change you
portray as a weakness of science is actually its greatest strength. The change
in science isn't random. Every time new knowledge is gained, science improves
itself. Every experiment moves us closer to the truth. If experiments disprove
the Theory of Relativity, it is a victory for science. If experiments reinforce
the Theory of Relativity, it is also a victory for science. What's important is
that new knowledge is gained and retained, and we become one step closer to
knowing the truth.
Quote by algadoreoAs for scientific
evidence that all you people want - well, quoting ProgramZERO, he says that none
of these things can be proven scientifically, so maybe you all have to look in a
different direction if you want answers. What kind of evidence are you looking
for anyways? Any that I provide will probably be cast aside by you without a
second thought since those sources aren't "credible" for this topic.
Besides, those things aren't called miracles without reason. Miracles are events
in which God chooses to intervene in the natural order that He has put into
place. What, you want medical records of Jesus' healings? I don't think any
ancient civilization kept those - prove me wrong if you find anything though.
And the evidence is there - we all have the same evidence, after all - we live
in the same world, breathe the same air... Facts are neutral - it's just the
different ways that we interpret the evidence that gives us different
conclusions. Archaeologists would know all about that - did those people really
live like we say they're living? Or are we using our imaginations a bit too much
- or too little?
No, I'm afraid you are incorrect. The
evidence supports my position. For example, we receive light from stars millions
of light years away. That is a fact. The speed of light is constant. That is
also a fact. We can safely conclude that the light from those stars as traveled
more then a million years to reach us. That means the universe is proven to be
much older then 6000 years old. There is no imagination or guessing here. This
is as clear cut as it gets.
However, for every reasonable proof I can provide, there is a creationist denial
of reality to counter it. I've seen one site claiming that they have proof the
speed of light is slowing down by picking and choosing the semi-accurate
historical measurements they use. I've seen another site explaining that the
universe actually expanded at more then 1000x the speed of light. You can see
why I find these explanations as illogical, but even so, people believe them
regardless of the evidence.
Quote by algadoreoMany things happen
today are called "miracles" as well. Medical researchers have
identified clear links between prayer and good health. For example, in a 1988
project in which Dr. Randolph Byrd, a cardiologist at San Francisco General
Hospital, studied 393 patients in the coronary-care unit. He assigned patients
to either a prayed-for group or a control group. The first group was prayed for
every day by Christians they had never met -- and from a distance. After 10
months, the patients who were prayed for had fewer symptoms and required less
medication than the others. I did not make this up - in fact, I saw this article
on msn.com.
How would you explain that? A weird coincidence that somehow those were the
people who were prayed for could heal faster? Those that were prayed for were
given special treatment? I don't think so. There was no evidence whatsoever to
show how the groups could have differed besides one was being prayed for and the
other wasn't.
This is what is known as the placebo
effect.
Quote by algadoreoOf course I
understand the seriousness of this issue, I wouldn't be asking if I didn't. Look
at it this way, I can still live my life to the fullest - with what I believe to
be right. You see me wasting my life pursuing a false hope, I see myself living
a happy life doing what I want.
Are the evil not punished? Where did evil originate? Do animals have evilness?
Who is letting evil loose on this world? What is "evil"? How can you
say that God, who is good, is working with evil?
If God
defines what is good and what is evil then he must claim responsiblity for
creating both.
Quote by algadoreoIf I am ultimately
proved wrong by time, then what have I got to lose? My pride, my ego, etc. won't
exist anymore to feel any suffering, then what would it matter?
But what if you were wrong? I WOULD be able to say "we told you
so".
The human race cannot live in an illusion forever
just because they think it makes them happier.
Quote by algadoreoA question to the
atheists and agnostics (or nihilists or any person out there who doesn't believe
in God):
Have you ever TRIED to look for God?
Because if you haven't, then I don't see why you don't believe in God. Here's an
anology: if I told you that there are a million dollars (or more) hidden
somewhere in a my house, and if you want it, all you have to do is to find it
using the clues I give you, then wouldn't you want to find it? But if you don't
believe me that there is indeed a million dollars in my house, then you'll just
turn away and end up not finding it at all - but that doesn't change whether the
million dollars are in my house or not.
That is a very bad
anology. Here is a better one: If I told you that there was a million dollars in
your house, but it is unfindable, invisible, and will only be yours if you do
good deeds, would you believe me?
Quote by algadoreoIf you want to talk
science, then I'll talk science. If scientists don't perform experiments, how
will they ever know the answer? If Einstein decided to live a happy life as a
patent clerk instead of devoting his life to physics, we wouldn't have the
theory of relativity. If particle physicists all of a sudden stopped looking for
the hypothetical Higgs boson and the Higgs field (both are speculated to be
responsible for giving objects mass by interacting with leptons and W and Z
bosons), then how will they know what mass is? So far, they have yet to be
found, but particle physicists believe in it. (What makes them believe,
hm?)
What makes string theorists believe in themselves? Their work can never be
proven by the scientific method, yet String Theory is widely accepted. (In case
you don't know, strings are supposed to be a billion-billion times smaller than
an electron).
Not all science is proved. However, the science
that has not been proved is subject to change. Science changes with
experimentation. Old theorys are abandoned and new ones emerge that are closer
to the truth. String theory has a very large number of critics because of its
lack of evidence.
Quote by algadoreoYou see, you have to
believe what you are looking for is out there before you actually start looking,
but seek and you will find. You have to believe that the answer is out
there.
Don't you find it even slightly suspisious that you
don't see a higher power unless you are looking for one?
Quote by algadoreoYou can laugh all you
want at the "pointlessness" of this, or you can call me an idiot as
well, but if you're going to do that, why don't you go and try to look for God
(wholeheartedly, of course) before you make a judgment? You can start by saying
a simple prayer to ask God to reveal Himself to you. It's only going to take
maybe 5 seconds of your life. If you're not going to spend those 5 seconds, then
chances are, you'll never see Him, even if He's right in front of you. He's
waiting for you to open your heart to Him.
But don't expect Him to suddenly appear in front of you. Rome wasn't built in a
day, and neither will faith. You have to wait on God's perfect timing. I only
know Him because I have experienced His power firsthand - so could you. I could
tell you I had my doubts as well - I would probably have been the first to
laugh, but not anymore.
Have you ever wholeheartedly looked
for Zeus? Have you ever wholeheartedly looked for Ra? Try replacing
"God" in this paragraph with some other deity and you'll see how
ridiculous it is to non-believers.
Quote by algadoreoHowever, watch out
for the Devil - he will try to knock you off course by giving "false
clues" that point you away from God - he's like that villain in treasure
hunting movies that don't want the main character to get to the treasure and
plots to put him in jail. After all, the Devil can perform "miracles"
as well. Why does the Devil want to do that, you may ask? Think about it this
way - you don't have to believe in the Devil to go to hell, but you have to
believe in God to go to heaven. In fact, I'm sure he's quite happy right now
that you don't believe in either himself or God, because when the time comes,
you'll be spending eternity with him in hell.
Conform or go
to hell for eternity. What a kind and loving god you promote. I won't bother
pointing out the huge number of contradictions that come from a powerful evil
deity working with a kind and loving all-powerful God.
Quote by algadoreoStop playing
Hide-and-Seek with God (regardless of how much you love that game). This is a
life-or-death ordeal that you must understand.
I'll do my part by praying for you as well - you are not
alone.
I understand completly how serious this is. The
question is, do you? You are allowing yourself to spend your only life working
for something that will never come. Being an athiest means knowing that this is
it. This is the only time we have to do whatever we wish to do. It is sad to see
people throw away the only time they have for a false hope.
I do not know with certainty that I am right, but I know with absolute certainty
that you are wrong. A God like you suggest simply cannot exist. You believe in
an all-powerful God who allows evil to roam through this world. You believe in a
merciful God who allows people to suffer for eternity, just for not believing in
him. You believe in a God who knows my destiny is hell, but creates me anyways
and changes nothing. I cannot imagine such a thing. It is unspeakably cruel.
Freedom is always an exchange for safety. One of the perils of letting people
choose their own path is that sometimes they choose incorrectly. The choice of
freedom over safety is a part of the foundation of the United States. Bush's
choices are contrary to the spirt of this country. Under his leadership, the
United States we know is dying.
In terms of helpfulness, science is clearly the winner. Power, however, is
clearly a different matter.
Science makes it possible for us to manipulate the world with ease. It lets us
control the tiniest particles and launch satelites into space. It provides us
with easy food, water, comuication, ect. The power of science is very
clear.
All godly powers, real or imagined, always act indirectly. There is no way to
know with certainty what the gods of religions can or can't do, but odds are its
very little to nothing.
However...
Religion can cause people to do things no science ever could. For religion, a
person will kill their family and be thankful for the opportunity to serve. For
religion, people will gather to launch wars on those who disagree with them. For
religion, they will blow themselves to pieces to kill civilians, just in the
hope they will be rewarded after death. Religion has a terrible power over the
human mind.
Even the most popular religion, Christianity, with all variations pushed into
one group, make up only about a third of the world population. No matter what
you believe, a majority of the world disagrees with your beliefs. You have
statistical proof people are easily fooled by incorrect religions. Whether they
are ignorant the truth or they are denying the truth, a majority of mankind is
fooled into having untrue beliefs.
Now here's the question: If the majority of mankind is fooled into believing an
untrue religion, why are you immune to mankind's tenancy to believe a religious
falsehood? Isn't it more likely that, regardless of whether it is true, most of
us believe what we are raised to believe? Doesn't this suggest that all
religious beliefs may be a product of the human mind, rather then an accurate
description of reality?
Quote by mountainTo Bluedestiny
"we prove that Earth is much older then 6000-6500 years old via Carbon 14
dating and such"
In fact, carbon dating is running to the rescue for creationism
taking from Walt browns book-
"Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much
improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, a specimen's
carbon-14 atoms can now be actually counted, giving a more precise radiocarbon
date with even smaller samples. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon
dating technique only counts the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which
are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations.
This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small
amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimenâ?even
materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This
small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that
contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by
this new "accelerator mass spectrometer" technique, give surprisingly
recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated
at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less!...
anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed...
PREDICTION 34: Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are
believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be
relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction, first published in
the 6th Edition (1995), p. 157, has now been confirmed."
What we have here is a common misconception. First,
mountain, you are correct about the age limit for carbon dating. Carbon dating
can only be used on organic material, and becomes inaccurate at about the 70,000
year range. Second, Carbon Dating is NOT the dating method used to find the age
of fossils older then 100,000 years and it is NOT the dating method used to
determine the age of the earth.
"Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by
observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger,
which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s
was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:
Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break
down, at predictable rates.
Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for
half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter
element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element
decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and
knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which
archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730
years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as
rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead,
all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.
Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good
dates for rocks of any age.
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was
hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have
made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have
refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary
simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can
be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different
techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology. Every few
years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for
major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but
younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that
the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the
dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using
ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is
accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise,
methods, error bars are often only 1% or so." Source
Quote by mountainradiometric dating,
which is the dating method for all rocks and fossils and the way the 4.7 billion
years age as I said before is subjected to major unreasonable
assumptions
"These special dating methods are seriously flawed: too many assumptions
are made without any factual evidence. We can easily show the problems arising
from the disregard of the following:
-The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during
their long decay process underground. For the results to be accurate, the
systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn't happen in
nature.
Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were
present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this.
It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive
mineral.
-The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure,
changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high
temperatures influence it. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories
have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to
radioactive lead.
-Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments
show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.
-Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.
Answer to all of these: We have tested meteorites and moon rocks to the 4.5
billion year age range.
Quote by mountainand more accurate
evidence of a young earth
"The rotation of the earth, which is currently 1000 mph (1600 km/h) at the
equator, is slowing down. This is caused by the gravitational drag of nearby
celestial bodies, such as the sun, moon, and other factors. If it were billions
of years old, the earth would already have stopped turning. Extrapolating back,
5 billion years ago our planet would have been spinning so fast, it would have
been shaped like a flat pancake. Obviously the earth is not billions of years
old."
"The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate
of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having
a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible. "
"Source
Quote by mountainDNA (deoxyribonucleic
acid) is a double helix. Duplicate copies of this long tape of coded information
are coiled up in each of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in
your body. You have 46 segments of DNA in almost all of your cells. You received
23 segments from your mother and 23 from your father. DNA contains the unique
information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and
how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.
If the DNA (46 segments) in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and
stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details
could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very densely
coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would
fill a library of about 4,000 books.
Relevance- We are far too complex to have just evolved by chance and natural
selection. Our genetics contain a huge amount of information, too great for us
to have evolved just by chance. Evolutionist basically propose that from an
inorganic source (no coded information at all) that all this huge amount of
coded information just appeared by chance like 4000 books were written by
itself
97% of our DNA is non-coding DNA, also called "junk
DNA". It is called this because it has no proven function. It's as if 3900
of the 4000 books were filled with nonsense. It shows that evolution promotes
what works, whether it is perfect or not.
Second, there is no known factor that could limit the amount of information or
the complexity that can be gained through the process of evolution.
Third, natural selection does nothing by chance. Mutations that provide an
advantage are promoted; mutations that are harmful are dropped.
Quote by mountainerrrr.... huh, still, I
guess its ingrained in you that creationism cannot be a science. I have
explained before, creationism does not test God directly, it tests nature and
points to the fact that there must be God. But for the completeness of sciences
sake, I will change that and say that creationism shows that we were extremely
complex in the beginning, we did not evolve into a higher form and from one
point of time, we miraculously came into existence at our current state. How we
got there, science cannot test, after we got there science can test.
How about you state some scientific evidence for evolution, and I'll state some
scientific evidence for creationism.
plz dun state evidence supporting microevolution, creationism scientist agree
that microevolution exist. And please don't say that because microevolution is
shown to be true, macroevolution is inevitabily true.
Quote:
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis
further scientific test support that life cannot be created for inorganic
matter, so far scientist have not been able to create living things from
inorganic matter. How is this relevant?, inorganic matter according to science
came first. the first life form is nothing short of a miracle.
LOL. You both fail to see the irony. You're both saying,
"Because you cannot prove the beginning, your theory is invalid."
You're both claiming the exact same thing then claiming that scientific evidence
is all that is needed. LOL.
Seriously, both of you, the beginnings do not change the physical evidence. That
is why the theory of evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis, and that is
why we cannot simply dismiss creation science as religious. Both must be
confronted, not on their origins, but on their evidence.
Quote by mountain
"If the DNA (46 segments) in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected,
and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its
details could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very
densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it
would fill a library of about 4,000 books"
we are far to complex to appear by chance
This, of course, fails to account for the massive amount of
junk DNA. However, even if it did, it would not matter. Life did not evolve by
chance. It was guided by natural selection. Mutations are random, but which
mutations advance and which ones die is not random at all.
[url=www.genomics.arizona.edu/PDFs/Hughes_PNAS_2005.pdf ]PDF file of scientist
talking about details of gene duplication and subfunctionalization[/url]
I can't understand the parts past "Archael tRNA Endonucleases" in that
last one. Its hard to find understandable sites on this subject. Most
information seems to be in scientist to scientist articles.
Quote:
There is nothing known that could limit creatures from becoming more complex. An
increase in complexity happens just as easily as a decrease in complexity, but
both take time and happen in small steps.
totally wrong, A decrease in complexity is 1 million times easilier than an
increase in complexity. So far scientist have been able to show a decrease of
complexity in organisms through the experiements that they have done. On a
theory sense/ genetic explanation sense, any loss of complexity is far easilier
than a gain of complexity. A loss of complexity is defined as when people have
loss some of their genetic information, a increase in complexity is defined when
people have gained some genetic information. So far there is strong evidence
that people do lose their complexity such as children born with down syndrome
are lacking in some genes. But there have been no evidence of people gaining any
complexity genetically, such as talented people having extra genes that we don't
see in normal people. No experiement has ever shown that complexity can be
gained. Thus your claim of people gaining complexity lacks major scientific
evidence.
This is untrue. First, down syndrome is caused when
someone has an extra 21st chromosome, not
a lack of one. It's called trisomy 21. Second, we do have studies showing an
increase in genetic material, if that is how you are defining complexity. I have
found a couple of examples but they are exceedingly technical. I'll keep
searching for a simple explanation, but the understanding I have is that there
are many different types of mutations. Some increase active genetic material,
some decrease it, and many just modifiy it. My impression is that many increases
in genetic material are caused by an extra duplication of an existing portion of
DNA. These portions are then free to mutate independently of the original,
creating a way for the raw amount of active genetic material to increase. I'll
keep searching for an easy to understand example.
Quote:
This does not mean evolution always promotes the most complex creature. If an
environment allows a simpler creature to have an advantage over a more complex
one, it is possible and likely creatures in that environment would become less
complex. In short, evolution always supports the creatures with the best ability
to survive and breed in a given environment, regardless of complexity. When
viewed that way, there is no such thing as "devolution".
this makes a huge difference, if organisms are only shown to lose their
complexity, then the theory of evolution is false.
another point about organisms losing their complexity is that they lose their
potential. previously, they have the required genes to adapt to the enviroment
due to their complexity, but if the enviroment changes back to what it was
before, they will no longer be able to adapt back.
For example, humans who have migrated to Africa developed dark skin to protect
themselves from the sun, however, if they were to migrate to say Canada right
now, will they still be able to produce white offspring which has an advantage?
would white australias be able to produce dark skin offspring to better adapt to
the enviroment?
I'm not sure if they can, that was just an example to explain what I meant.
(this is not meant to be racist or anything...)
Organisms can
gain or lose a trait if needed. But you must understand that large changes take
a large amount of time and happen step by step. Native Africans would not
suddenly have white babies if thrown in Alaska. In each generation, if
conditions were harsh, the children who are better suited to survive would
survive more often. If isolated in Alaska for thousands of years, or maybe tens
of thousands of years, people a isolated cold environment would eventually show
a gradual lightening of skin color.
There is nothing known that could limit creatures from becoming more complex. An
increase in complexity happens just as easily as a decrease in complexity, but
both take time and happen in small steps. I could show you proven cases of
evolution, but they are just a few steps in evolution. We haven't had the time
to see large changes happen. What could we find that proves an organism is more
"complex" than it was before? We have studies that show evidence of
increases in ability, genetic variety, and genetic material. Evolution happens
in small steps. Any evidence of creatures very quickly developing new working
organs would disprove evolution, not prove it.
Evolution isn't a magic change by organisms to survive better. It is a slow
process brought on by competition and harsh conditions. Each small change must
help a creature survive better in some way. Eventually those small changes add
up until the creatures are very different from what they were before.
Quote by mountainI think theres a bit of
mix up between the concept of microevolution and macroevolution. macroevolution
is when the people has evolved to a "higher" form, ie increased
complexity. microevolution is when people change to a form that is equal to or
less than the complexity of which the original organism has. Now fossil record
can be read in two ways, by using the example that you have given me, assuming
the dating method is accurate which I doubt, what proof is there to show that
those organisms did not "devolve", and as a consequence of their
"devolution" that were wiped out by natural selection (do you get what
I mean there) as in instead of organisms evolving and gaining complexity as
suggested, organisms lose their complexity and therefore is wiped out by natural
selection.
That could be a possible explaination of the fossil records that are shown. and
in many experiments, we have shown that through mutations, organisms can
"devolve"(lose their complexity)
one thing that I'd like to point out is that scientist have been breeding fruit
flies for about a century now, from all this time, there has been no evidence to
show that these creatures have gained complexity in any way.
another thing which evolution, if mutations occur that are damaging which can be
shown in many cases, thus devolution occurs, wouldn't the organism devolve
before it evolves to the next stage? thus we should not have reached the
complexity we have today. (hope you understand this)
I
believe I understand what you're saying. Most mutations are either harmless or
not beneficial. There are many mutations that could decrease an organism's
ability to survive. However, these mutations would have no way of continuing to
create a new species or change a current one. Organisms that had a harmful
mutation would die out in competition with others who are unhindered. They would
not be likely to survive and breed to spread the mutation to a large group. Only
mutations that provide an advantage would have a chance to propagate to a large
group. A species as a whole could never become less able to survive as a result
of evolution.
This does not mean evolution always promotes the most complex creature. If an
environment allows a simpler creature to have an advantage over a more complex
one, it is possible and likely creatures in that environment would become less
complex. In short, evolution always supports the creatures with the best ability
to survive and breed in a given environment, regardless of complexity. When
viewed that way, there is no such thing as "devolution".
Quote:
Science cannot work properly if God is allowed into it. Science is a method of
observation and experimentation. If science is to produce valid and repeatable
results, it must make some assumptions. One of those assumptions is that all
forces are natural, not supernatural. If every time we found something we could
not explain, we attributed it to God, science would never advance. Don't you
agree that if there is a natural solution, we should try to find it? Even if it
looks like divine intervention, science must always look for the natural
solution because to do otherwise would be foolish.
that is grossly incorrect, science in essence can never explain many things,
these things include the laws of physics stuff like the conservation of mass.
These things have been proven to exist by no one can explain why? I don't see
how science can ever say why, its just like driving on the right side of the
road. these things just exist. thats what creationist have proposed, God is just
something that exists, but it doesn't mean that creationist explaination of
everything is "God made it that way" we cannot prove the same things
that science cannot prove (the very origin/beginning) but through SCIENTIFIC
evidence, we can show that the universe started in a short amount of time, with
SCIENTIFIC evidence we could infer that a great flood had occurred in the past,
these things better explain our world and how our world is the way it is right
now. Good science is science that accepts all possibilities. Creationism in
essence has never directly attempted to prove the essence of God, it has merely
attempted to prove things such as the two statement I have stated above. If it
makes it easier for you, you can leave out the "God" part in creation
science, and I will use pure science to present the ideas such as that there has
been a global catalysm flood in the past (not caused by God or anything, God
will not be mentioned anywhere). Its just somehow, this event is mentioned in
the bible for some reason...
for more information http://www.creationscience.com/FAQ12.html#wp1619382
As good scientists we should accept all possibilities, not reject hypothesises
just because they were derived from a "so-called" illogical
ideas.
I stand by what I said, however, if you want to argue
your ideas on purely scientific grounds, you will lose. I have read much of the
evidence for a flood from the site you provided. It is interesting, but every
piece of evidence has an alternate scientific explanation that is widely
accepted. In addition, there are other consequences of a world wide flood that
we do not see evidence of. Link to some flood
issues
This link is problems with Noah's ark. If you wish only problems with a world
wide flood with few survivors, read parts 6, 7, 8, 9, and part of 10.
Quote:
I don't understand the basis for this. Sexual animals and plants have more
variety and variation than asexual ones. The variety gives the species a better
chance of surviving different conditions and different environments.
but still this does not explain the fact that there are pretty much no asexual
animal (none that I know) even if sexual animals did have an advantage. and in a
genetic sense, chance of sexual animals developing from asexual animals in a
mathematic sense is a mere impossibility, u're not talking macro evolution, u're
talking super macro evolution when there hasn't been one case of macroevolution
to be shown yet.
"The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of
being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin,
with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The
earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information;
they need not be distinct sexes." -talkorigins.org
Quote:
If science can prove microevolution is true, then macroevolution is inevitable
if species are given enough time
thats like saying if babies can learn how to walk, it is inevitable that they
will learn how to fly
microevolution and macroevolution are different things. macroevolution organisms
have to get NEW genes that never existed
microevolution is just a selections of the genes that ALREADY exist in the gene
pool and activating these genes so that the pesron can have different
traits.
No, it like saying if babies can learn how to walk, it is inevitable that they
will walk a large distance. There is no known limit on variation and time is all
that is required.
Quote:
The best example is probably human evolution because of the large amount of
research. However, It would probably be a waste of time to go through the entire
line. Let's just concentrate on a few examples:
so far evolution is only based on phenotypical data (ie this thing looks like
that thing), it is very subjective, this itself is not solid science, even
evolutionist argue among themselves of which evolutionary step came first or
sometimes what is human and what is not.
you also mentioned that those skull are like 1.9 million years old... how do
scientist know this, according to the fact that scientist admit carbon dating is
inaccurate for specimens older than 50 000 years
There is
also some genetic evidence. There are disagreements about human evolution
because of the many different species discovered. Some are offshoots that died
out and some are a part of the human line. It is difficult to get a precise
picture, but doesn't change our evidence.
We have multiple different dating methods. Some are more accurate than others. I
do not know how these fossils were dated.
Quote:
That is an unsolved issue. We have several theories but none are proven.
However, consider that the first life would not have been nearly as complex as
even the simplest life today. All it really needed was self-replication, and
that requires far less complexity than anything that must survive in a
competitive world.
In addition, evolution does not require an explanation of what created the first
life. If you want to, you can believe it is divine intervention. Evolution
explains what came after that.
lol don't even go there, u're bound to get slaughered, u're trying to argue
against the LAW of biogenesis (living things can only come form living things)
which most evolutionist admit to themselves. this is a topic which evolutionist
would try to avoid because there is NO evidence whatsoever to support their
ideas
The law of biogenesis was developed during a time they were not sure if life
spontaneously came into being all the time (before they had proof of airborne
life). It doesn't prove it never happened, only that it is not a regular event.
However, as I stated, you're right about the lack of evidence for the origin of
life. It makes no difference to this debate. What difference does it make if God
or chance created the first life? It doesn't change the evidence for
evolution.
Quote:
So what's your answer? These can't be apes, the brains are too large. They can't
be human children, because human children don't have projecting faces or the
other differences.
maybe people who wrap tight cloths around their heads to
make their heads smaller? like bandaging their head up :P, most probably another
example of microevolution, if we can go as far as to change our skin colour, a
little more definition of the eyebrows and a smaller head is not out of the
impossibility, just like in the early 1900's white ppl vs subtropical people,
white ppl were on avg 30- 50 cms taller with different body propertions, yet no
one ever stated that this was an example of macroevolution. The differents of
appearence and traits of differnt races, no one ever said it was macroevolution
in the making. difference sized/coloured dogs, the same there, evolutionist all
agree that it is microevolution, so whats the big deal about a little change of
proportions in the skull?
I would hardly call a skull that is half size a little
change. If you think they are children, then it is extremely odd how many
fossils we have found of ancient children with no adults. If you want, you can
go back further in time and find fossils that look less and less human. These
fossils are all from species that were bipedal. Apes can bipedal for short
periods of time, but they are not built to be that way all the time. Humans are
the only current species on earth that is naturally bipedal. These bipedal
fossils also suggest a common ancestry.
Quote by 9fenix9(taken from another
forum. Please excuse any errors)
To everyone here; i understand why some of you may doubt the bible (not only
genisis) but on the topic of man's creation (sorry origination) i would like to
give some food for thought. to those who believe in evolution; do you know how
complex this world is in terms of life sustainability is? the big bang theory is
the scientific explanation for this world's creation believed by both non
believers and believers (referred to as the 'light' in genesis) but my question
is how can such a chaotic event produce such a perfect world? Some one once told
me, concerning the big bang theory, he told me to think of the pyramids (not
actually the pyramids it was a building in my country but i will use the
pyramids) somebody planted a bomb next to a pile of stones, blew it up and boom
behold the pyramids of egypt. Although the 'probability' aspect of it is what
keeps this hypothesis alive there are too many complexities involved what about
the human body? any human biologist would tell you how complex the human body
really is in great detail. they will tell you about the mind (the greatest
computer ever 'created') and how it causes your every move although it feels,
conciously, that 'you' actually control your hand when it is really that it is
your mind (under your control) actually moves your hand. Im going to leave you
with this i understand that according to evolution man's creation started when
tiny microscopic organisms combined with other organisms to form a new organism.
so what this says to me is that these organism had the 'ability' and the
'intelligence' to produce a smarter, more advanced being than themselves if this
is true and knowing that man up to this very day cannot create an being whose
intelligence can equal or even outmatch that of a human being's then (enlighten
me please) then we did'nt go through an evolution, we devolved
I hope you are kidding. However, assuming that you are not,
I should point out that
1. The big bang was not at all similar to any explosion on earth, this world is
not perfect, and that a pile of stones is not equivalent to the universe in any
way.
2. You don't control your mind, you are
your mind.
3. Your devolving explanation shows you have a complete lack of knowledge about
the theory of evolution. In fact, I think you have created some completely
different theory, called it the theory of evolution, and decided correctly only
fools would believe a theory like that.
Quote by mountainits just logic, what
evolutionist are trying to propose, first, what proof do scientist have that
shows that the earth is 4.6 billions year old?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
We have multiple independent tests on different rocks and meteorites that show a
similar age for the solar system. Lunar rocks have also be tested to the same
age range. We are using different tests and coming up with the same
result.
Quote by mountainanother thing I don't
understand is why is there a lack of asexual animals, theoretically, if
evolution proves true, there should be as much (actually there should be more)
asexual animals than sexual ones.
I don't understand the
basis for this. Sexual animals and plants have more variety and variation than
asexual ones. The variety gives the species a better chance of surviving
different conditions and different environments.
Quote by mountaindo you understand how
complex the genome is, if it was put into computer coding, it will fill like
thousands of sets of encyclopedias worth of information, and u're saying that
all this is due to some random mutation? how on earth did the first living
organism evolve?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
That is an unsolved issue. We have several theories but none are proven.
However, consider that the first life would not have been nearly as complex as
even the simplest life today. All it really needed was self-replication, and
that requires far less complexity than anything that must survive in a
competitive world.
In addition, evolution does not require an explanation of what created the first
life. If you want to, you can believe it is divine intervention. Evolution
explains what came after that.
Quote by mountainif DNA is require to
make protein, and protein is required to make DNA, which came first? and how can
they support each other?
Quote by mountainwhat evidence is there
to support that there is no God? that was the largest inference that science has
made without evidence?
Science cannot work properly if God is
allowed into it. Science is a method of observation and experimentation. If
science is to produce valid and repeatable results, it must make some
assumptions. One of those assumptions is that all forces are natural, not
supernatural. If every time we found something we could not explain, we
attributed it to God, science would never advance. Don't you agree that if there
is a natural solution, we should try to find it? Even if it looks like divine
intervention, science must always look for the natural solution because to do
otherwise would be foolish.
Quote by mountainyou say science has
solid evidence to evolution? why do creationist still exist? the evolutionist
should have flushed them away with their evidence
already?
Unfortunately, there is a book in the bible,
Genesis, that directly contradicts the theory of evolution. As this book is
believed to be divine truth by many, they seek any other solution that supports
their beliefs, no matter how little evidence they have.
Quote by mountainwhy don't buddists try
and argue on scientific grounds that their religion is
correct?
Maybe they are not foolish enough to try.
Quote by mountainwhy is there only like
a dozen of transitional fossil evidences that exist when thousands and thousands
of fossils of other animals have been found?
The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so
the transitions between species will be uncommon.
Quote by mountainwhy are entire
families, such as the families of insects, not a single one of their family tree
has been found? isn't science only believing in things that can be tested and in
things that you have evidence in? there is a huge lack of evidence for
evolution, just because u are able to prove a little part of evolution doesn't
mean that the whole part is true, (ie that a few genes can mutate) so far
science has been unable to show that there can be any major mutations that cause
benefits.
if u can show that evolution does and can make major changes like the additional
of an organ, then evolution is true
If science can prove microevolution is true, then macroevolution is inevitable
if species are given enough time. Evolution is not usually created by one major
mutation event. It is created by a accumulation of small changes and competition
in an isolated community.
We have significant evidence evolution has happened from the changes in the
fossil record. We can also prove that minor evolutionary events do happen, like
the discovery of a nylon eating bacteria. What more do you want? Some mother to
give birth to a baby with a working extra heart? It won't and can't happen. Its
not how evolution works.
Quote by mountainif you can show that
there is a series of fossils that depict evolution in the making, then evolution
holds true.
The best example is probably human evolution
because of the large amount of research. However, It would probably be a waste
of time to go through the entire line. Let's just concentrate on a few
examples: Homo erectus skull
picture This picture definitely does not show an ape skull. Just by looking
at it, you can see it is human like. But consider, this skull has a brain size
of 1000cc. Modern humans have a brain size of about 1400cc. In addition, this
skull has heavy brow ridges that are found on no living person today. Also, the
face projects forward more then modern people, and has very large cheek bones.
This skull has been dated to be almost 1.7 million years old.
Then there's this skull: Late Homo
HabilisAbout 1.9 million years old, it is again not very ape like, but it
does have a projecting face. The brain size of this specimen is only 750cc,
about half modern size, but significantly larger than an ape's brain.
So what's your answer? These can't be apes, the brains are too large. They can't
be human children, because human children don't have projecting faces or the
other differences.
If you don't like these, and really want a full description of a fossil line, I
could always go into a long and boring description of the evolution of the
horse, which we have a good record of, but I thought this would be more
interesting. If these two skulls don't convince you, look up more. We have lots
of fossils which don't fit into the category of human or ape, not just these.
Quote by starbase1I Just want to point
out that the entire science community supports the theory of evolution. And just
to be clear a theory is a well tested and supported observation made by
someone.
no it doesn't, there are many people in the science field that don't believe in
evolution, it just that they have agree with evolution for the moment because
their funding comes form evoutionists who occupy most of the science
field.
and a theory is just a theory, the big bang theory was made when there were no
testing or supported observation from anyone, it was just made up. a theory is
just an idea, ie, theory of evolution.
Evolution is a theory
and a fact
As the site says, scientific theories are explanations of fact. They can never
be completly proven, but they can have large amounts of evidence, like the
theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of
evolution. The vast majority of the scientific community has accepted the theory
of evolution based on the evidence, not some funding issue.
Quote by RSAge of all, we did not evolve
from monkeys. Any one person that states that shows nothing but ignorance.
Evolutionary theory states that we shared a common ancestor -- austrolopithecus.
We have found fossil evidence for our human ancestors.
Here's some food for thought: why do we have a tail
bone?
depends what u call fossil evidence, the fossil could be just an person in the
past suffering from rickets or something (a disease) or a person who is hunched
back
dude, do u know how much variance there is in the skeletons of humans? I could
probably take any other humans skull and compare it with u'res and say that one
of u is the peking man and the other is a human. and when u take the variance of
humans and the variance of apes into account and try to judge with looks, you
would get no where
We have skulls that have human features
and ape-like feature that belong to species that no longer exist. Of course
there are variations in skulls, but you could not find these skulls on anyone
living today unless they had heavy brow ridges, a brain nearly half normal size,
and many other minor but significant differences.
You know what I think? I think that no matter what the skull looked like, you
would never accept it as coming from another human species. When I asked earlier
what would prove evolution to you, you said you didn't think proof was possible
for either side. That is incorrect. I'm not asking what would prove evolution to
the world, science can already do that. I'm asking what it would take to prove
it to you.
If the age of the Earth could be scientifically shown to be less than 20,000
years old, and the evidence it is billions of years old discredited, I would be
convinced evolution is false. If it could be shown all life was an exact replica
of the parent(s), and non-fatal mutation did not exist, I would be convinced
evolution was false.
Tell us something that would convince you the theory of evolution is true or
that creationism isn't true, or concede that you are completely blinded to all
evidence by your beliefs.
Quote by RSAgent007First of all, we
did not evolve from monkeys. Any one person that states that shows nothing but
ignorance. Evolutionary theory states that we shared a common ancestor --
austrolopithecus. We have found fossil evidence for our human ancestors.
Here's some food for thought: why do we have a tail
bone?
depends what u call fossil evidence, the fossil could be just an person in the
past suffering from rickets or something (a disease) or a person who is hunched
back
Quote:
2. Does the improbable happening necessarily constitute a will?
no it doesn't, but u're talking about the probabilty of evolution EVER happening
is like 100x less than the chance of getting lotto, it not a matter of keep
trying until it happens, its like u buying 100 lotto ticket and winning
consecutively 100 times and u have only and can only ever have bought 100 lotto
tickets. if you believe that this possiblilty won't happen, you should believe
that evolution won't happen.
Maybe if you claim you need to win the lottery 300 times,
people will give up on evolution altogether. Of course, then people might
realize that this is absurd. It's much nicer when statistics are based on, you
know, reality.
As I have said, evolution has a very large amount of evidence. Random claims of
impossibility don't change that.
Before we had advanced science, religion was more important. However, now that we have advanced science, if we make religion more important, we will undoubtedly destroy ourselves.
Religious principles + nuclear bombs = everyone dead
I've thought of the perfect response to this:
The majority of people believe will power alone does not change reallity. Therefore, by your own reasoning, they must be correct.
So, even this theory is correct, it doesn't affect reality at all.
A religion is defined by the actions and beliefs of those who follow it.
Holy wars are not caused by only a few people. Huge numbers of people have fought huge numbers of another faith for no reason except their religion.
That people of the Christian faith no longer do this is an indication that the religion has changed. The interpretation has evolved into a more humane belief. This does not mean the religion has always been good. On the contrary, it only shows that the original barbarism of Christianity has been forgotten for a more modern viewpoint.
No, this is completely untrue. Claiming something is a "intelligent system" doesn't prove anything.
You have no evidence here execpt "This is too complicated to be chance." That is not a rational arguement in this case. We don't know what the first life was like, but it could have been quite simple. All it needed was some form of replication and the rest could be developed from there by natural selection. As for language, there is no way to tell exactly when it developed, but it didn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Chimpanzees have been shown to be capable of learning some sign language.
This is complete crap. Your saying intelligence is defined by "energy, life, and mind", then claiming they must be created by an "infinitely intelligent mind". This is completly irrational and you have given no evidence to support anything you have said.
So, 2+2=4 therefore, God exists? This is not evidence, it is a belief. Just because we don't know everything about the nature of the universe doesn't mean there is any scientific justification for an all-powerful God. Saying some intelligent people believe in God doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of intelligent people who are atheists.
*sigh* I can see I'm not getting anywhere here. Science is not changing randomly; it is improving. The speed of light is constant. Time is not constant, it changes as speed increases. Your denial of reality does not make it invalid.
If you really believe this then you are a fool. There are good, honest people who don't believe in God. There are charitable and hard working people who aren't Christians. Your faith puts them all in hell forever. Even the kindest and purest person in this world is destined for hell if they don't believe in God. What kind of garbage is that? Have you really become so deluded you think people who don't have your faith are listening to the Devil? To you really think that non-Christians deserve an eternity of suffering just for their choice of religion? A God that allows such a thing would be neither kind nor just.
Why do people have to be looking for God in order to find him? To me that only shows me that it is very likely it is all in your head. By believing in God, your perception of the world changes and you start to see the work of God in the world. That's not divine conversation. That's a psychological effect of believing in God. If God was all powerful, I'm sure he could find a way to communicate that's not shrouded in mystery and exclusiveness.
I explained in my last post some reasons I know you are wrong. "You believe in an all-powerful God who allows evil to roam through this world. You believe in a merciful God who allows people to suffer for eternity, just for not believing in him. You believe in a God who knows my destiny is hell, but creates me anyways and changes nothing. I cannot imagine such a thing. It is unspeakably cruel."
Your idea of God is so contradictory that any thinking person would know it cannot be correct. You claim I need to meet God halfway. I say that is selective thinking. It does not change the cruelty of what happens to those who don't try.
Science was never meant to replace philosophy. The problem is that you don't recognize philosophy that has no religious aspects. The constant change you portray as a weakness of science is actually its greatest strength. The change in science isn't random. Every time new knowledge is gained, science improves itself. Every experiment moves us closer to the truth. If experiments disprove the Theory of Relativity, it is a victory for science. If experiments reinforce the Theory of Relativity, it is also a victory for science. What's important is that new knowledge is gained and retained, and we become one step closer to knowing the truth.
No, I'm afraid you are incorrect. The evidence supports my position. For example, we receive light from stars millions of light years away. That is a fact. The speed of light is constant. That is also a fact. We can safely conclude that the light from those stars as traveled more then a million years to reach us. That means the universe is proven to be much older then 6000 years old. There is no imagination or guessing here. This is as clear cut as it gets.
However, for every reasonable proof I can provide, there is a creationist denial of reality to counter it. I've seen one site claiming that they have proof the speed of light is slowing down by picking and choosing the semi-accurate historical measurements they use. I've seen another site explaining that the universe actually expanded at more then 1000x the speed of light. You can see why I find these explanations as illogical, but even so, people believe them regardless of the evidence.
This is what is known as the placebo effect.
If God defines what is good and what is evil then he must claim responsiblity for creating both.
The human race cannot live in an illusion forever just because they think it makes them happier.
That is a very bad anology. Here is a better one: If I told you that there was a million dollars in your house, but it is unfindable, invisible, and will only be yours if you do good deeds, would you believe me?
Not all science is proved. However, the science that has not been proved is subject to change. Science changes with experimentation. Old theorys are abandoned and new ones emerge that are closer to the truth. String theory has a very large number of critics because of its lack of evidence.
Don't you find it even slightly suspisious that you don't see a higher power unless you are looking for one?
Have you ever wholeheartedly looked for Zeus? Have you ever wholeheartedly looked for Ra? Try replacing "God" in this paragraph with some other deity and you'll see how ridiculous it is to non-believers.
Conform or go to hell for eternity. What a kind and loving god you promote. I won't bother pointing out the huge number of contradictions that come from a powerful evil deity working with a kind and loving all-powerful God.
I understand completly how serious this is. The question is, do you? You are allowing yourself to spend your only life working for something that will never come. Being an athiest means knowing that this is it. This is the only time we have to do whatever we wish to do. It is sad to see people throw away the only time they have for a false hope.
I do not know with certainty that I am right, but I know with absolute certainty that you are wrong. A God like you suggest simply cannot exist. You believe in an all-powerful God who allows evil to roam through this world. You believe in a merciful God who allows people to suffer for eternity, just for not believing in him. You believe in a God who knows my destiny is hell, but creates me anyways and changes nothing. I cannot imagine such a thing. It is unspeakably cruel.
Freedom is always an exchange for safety. One of the perils of letting people choose their own path is that sometimes they choose incorrectly. The choice of freedom over safety is a part of the foundation of the United States. Bush's choices are contrary to the spirt of this country. Under his leadership, the United States we know is dying.
In terms of helpfulness, science is clearly the winner. Power, however, is clearly a different matter.
Science makes it possible for us to manipulate the world with ease. It lets us control the tiniest particles and launch satelites into space. It provides us with easy food, water, comuication, ect. The power of science is very clear.
All godly powers, real or imagined, always act indirectly. There is no way to know with certainty what the gods of religions can or can't do, but odds are its very little to nothing.
However...
Religion can cause people to do things no science ever could. For religion, a person will kill their family and be thankful for the opportunity to serve. For religion, people will gather to launch wars on those who disagree with them. For religion, they will blow themselves to pieces to kill civilians, just in the hope they will be rewarded after death. Religion has a terrible power over the human mind.
Even the most popular religion, Christianity, with all variations pushed into one group, make up only about a third of the world population. No matter what you believe, a majority of the world disagrees with your beliefs. You have statistical proof people are easily fooled by incorrect religions. Whether they are ignorant the truth or they are denying the truth, a majority of mankind is fooled into having untrue beliefs.
Now here's the question: If the majority of mankind is fooled into believing an untrue religion, why are you immune to mankind's tenancy to believe a religious falsehood? Isn't it more likely that, regardless of whether it is true, most of us believe what we are raised to believe? Doesn't this suggest that all religious beliefs may be a product of the human mind, rather then an accurate description of reality?
I've heard it's like trying to see from your knees. It's just not there.
What we have here is a common misconception. First, mountain, you are correct about the age limit for carbon dating. Carbon dating can only be used on organic material, and becomes inaccurate at about the 70,000 year range. Second, Carbon Dating is NOT the dating method used to find the age of fossils older then 100,000 years and it is NOT the dating method used to determine the age of the earth.
"Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:
Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology. Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so."
Source
Answer to all of these: We have tested meteorites and moon rocks to the 4.5 billion year age range.
"The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible. "
"Source
97% of our DNA is non-coding DNA, also called "junk DNA". It is called this because it has no proven function. It's as if 3900 of the 4000 books were filled with nonsense. It shows that evolution promotes what works, whether it is perfect or not.
Second, there is no known factor that could limit the amount of information or the complexity that can be gained through the process of evolution.
Third, natural selection does nothing by chance. Mutations that provide an advantage are promoted; mutations that are harmful are dropped.
LOL. You both fail to see the irony. You're both saying, "Because you cannot prove the beginning, your theory is invalid." You're both claiming the exact same thing then claiming that scientific evidence is all that is needed. LOL.
Seriously, both of you, the beginnings do not change the physical evidence. That is why the theory of evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis, and that is why we cannot simply dismiss creation science as religious. Both must be confronted, not on their origins, but on their evidence.
This, of course, fails to account for the massive amount of junk DNA. However, even if it did, it would not matter. Life did not evolve by chance. It was guided by natural selection. Mutations are random, but which mutations advance and which ones die is not random at all.
Back to the matter of gene duplication. I have found some sites, although I still hope to find more on specific examples.
Easy to understand guy talking about new genetic information
Same guy talking about gene duplication
[url=www.genomics.arizona.edu/PDFs/Hughes_PNAS_2005.pdf ]PDF file of scientist talking about details of gene duplication and subfunctionalization[/url]
I can't understand the parts past "Archael tRNA Endonucleases" in that last one. Its hard to find understandable sites on this subject. Most information seems to be in scientist to scientist articles.
This is untrue. First, down syndrome is caused when someone has an extra 21st chromosome, not a lack of one. It's called trisomy 21. Second, we do have studies showing an increase in genetic material, if that is how you are defining complexity. I have found a couple of examples but they are exceedingly technical. I'll keep searching for a simple explanation, but the understanding I have is that there are many different types of mutations. Some increase active genetic material, some decrease it, and many just modifiy it. My impression is that many increases in genetic material are caused by an extra duplication of an existing portion of DNA. These portions are then free to mutate independently of the original, creating a way for the raw amount of active genetic material to increase. I'll keep searching for an easy to understand example.
Organisms can gain or lose a trait if needed. But you must understand that large changes take a large amount of time and happen step by step. Native Africans would not suddenly have white babies if thrown in Alaska. In each generation, if conditions were harsh, the children who are better suited to survive would survive more often. If isolated in Alaska for thousands of years, or maybe tens of thousands of years, people a isolated cold environment would eventually show a gradual lightening of skin color.
There is nothing known that could limit creatures from becoming more complex. An increase in complexity happens just as easily as a decrease in complexity, but both take time and happen in small steps. I could show you proven cases of evolution, but they are just a few steps in evolution. We haven't had the time to see large changes happen. What could we find that proves an organism is more "complex" than it was before? We have studies that show evidence of increases in ability, genetic variety, and genetic material. Evolution happens in small steps. Any evidence of creatures very quickly developing new working organs would disprove evolution, not prove it.
Evolution isn't a magic change by organisms to survive better. It is a slow process brought on by competition and harsh conditions. Each small change must help a creature survive better in some way. Eventually those small changes add up until the creatures are very different from what they were before.
I believe I understand what you're saying. Most mutations are either harmless or not beneficial. There are many mutations that could decrease an organism's ability to survive. However, these mutations would have no way of continuing to create a new species or change a current one. Organisms that had a harmful mutation would die out in competition with others who are unhindered. They would not be likely to survive and breed to spread the mutation to a large group. Only mutations that provide an advantage would have a chance to propagate to a large group. A species as a whole could never become less able to survive as a result of evolution.
This does not mean evolution always promotes the most complex creature. If an environment allows a simpler creature to have an advantage over a more complex one, it is possible and likely creatures in that environment would become less complex. In short, evolution always supports the creatures with the best ability to survive and breed in a given environment, regardless of complexity. When viewed that way, there is no such thing as "devolution".
I stand by what I said, however, if you want to argue your ideas on purely scientific grounds, you will lose. I have read much of the evidence for a flood from the site you provided. It is interesting, but every piece of evidence has an alternate scientific explanation that is widely accepted. In addition, there are other consequences of a world wide flood that we do not see evidence of.
Link to some flood issues
This link is problems with Noah's ark. If you wish only problems with a world wide flood with few survivors, read parts 6, 7, 8, 9, and part of 10.
"The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes." -talkorigins.org
No, it like saying if babies can learn how to walk, it is inevitable that they will walk a large distance. There is no known limit on variation and time is all that is required.
There is also some genetic evidence. There are disagreements about human evolution because of the many different species discovered. Some are offshoots that died out and some are a part of the human line. It is difficult to get a precise picture, but doesn't change our evidence.
We have multiple different dating methods. Some are more accurate than others. I do not know how these fossils were dated.
The law of biogenesis was developed during a time they were not sure if life spontaneously came into being all the time (before they had proof of airborne life). It doesn't prove it never happened, only that it is not a regular event.
However, as I stated, you're right about the lack of evidence for the origin of life. It makes no difference to this debate. What difference does it make if God or chance created the first life? It doesn't change the evidence for evolution.
I would hardly call a skull that is half size a little change. If you think they are children, then it is extremely odd how many fossils we have found of ancient children with no adults. If you want, you can go back further in time and find fossils that look less and less human. These fossils are all from species that were bipedal. Apes can bipedal for short periods of time, but they are not built to be that way all the time. Humans are the only current species on earth that is naturally bipedal. These bipedal fossils also suggest a common ancestry.
I hope you are kidding. However, assuming that you are not, I should point out that
1. The big bang was not at all similar to any explosion on earth, this world is not perfect, and that a pile of stones is not equivalent to the universe in any way.
2. You don't control your mind, you are your mind.
3. Your devolving explanation shows you have a complete lack of knowledge about the theory of evolution. In fact, I think you have created some completely different theory, called it the theory of evolution, and decided correctly only fools would believe a theory like that.
Here is the theory I am defending
Please read. You cannot effectively fight or defend what you do not understand.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html We have multiple independent tests on different rocks and meteorites that show a similar age for the solar system. Lunar rocks have also be tested to the same age range. We are using different tests and coming up with the same result.
I don't understand the basis for this. Sexual animals and plants have more variety and variation than asexual ones. The variety gives the species a better chance of surviving different conditions and different environments.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
That is an unsolved issue. We have several theories but none are proven. However, consider that the first life would not have been nearly as complex as even the simplest life today. All it really needed was self-replication, and that requires far less complexity than anything that must survive in a competitive world.
In addition, evolution does not require an explanation of what created the first life. If you want to, you can believe it is divine intervention. Evolution explains what came after that.
Early life probably used RNA
Science cannot work properly if God is allowed into it. Science is a method of observation and experimentation. If science is to produce valid and repeatable results, it must make some assumptions. One of those assumptions is that all forces are natural, not supernatural. If every time we found something we could not explain, we attributed it to God, science would never advance. Don't you agree that if there is a natural solution, we should try to find it? Even if it looks like divine intervention, science must always look for the natural solution because to do otherwise would be foolish.
Unfortunately, there is a book in the bible, Genesis, that directly contradicts the theory of evolution. As this book is believed to be divine truth by many, they seek any other solution that supports their beliefs, no matter how little evidence they have.
Maybe they are not foolish enough to try.
The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.
If science can prove microevolution is true, then macroevolution is inevitable if species are given enough time. Evolution is not usually created by one major mutation event. It is created by a accumulation of small changes and competition in an isolated community.
We have significant evidence evolution has happened from the changes in the fossil record. We can also prove that minor evolutionary events do happen, like the discovery of a nylon eating bacteria. What more do you want? Some mother to give birth to a baby with a working extra heart? It won't and can't happen. Its not how evolution works.
The best example is probably human evolution because of the large amount of research. However, It would probably be a waste of time to go through the entire line. Let's just concentrate on a few examples:
Homo erectus skull picture This picture definitely does not show an ape skull. Just by looking at it, you can see it is human like. But consider, this skull has a brain size of 1000cc. Modern humans have a brain size of about 1400cc. In addition, this skull has heavy brow ridges that are found on no living person today. Also, the face projects forward more then modern people, and has very large cheek bones. This skull has been dated to be almost 1.7 million years old.
Then there's this skull: Late Homo HabilisAbout 1.9 million years old, it is again not very ape like, but it does have a projecting face. The brain size of this specimen is only 750cc, about half modern size, but significantly larger than an ape's brain.
So what's your answer? These can't be apes, the brains are too large. They can't be human children, because human children don't have projecting faces or the other differences.
If you don't like these, and really want a full description of a fossil line, I could always go into a long and boring description of the evolution of the horse, which we have a good record of, but I thought this would be more interesting. If these two skulls don't convince you, look up more. We have lots of fossils which don't fit into the category of human or ape, not just these.
Evolution is a theory and a fact
As the site says, scientific theories are explanations of fact. They can never be completly proven, but they can have large amounts of evidence, like the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution. The vast majority of the scientific community has accepted the theory of evolution based on the evidence, not some funding issue.
We have skulls that have human features and ape-like feature that belong to species that no longer exist. Of course there are variations in skulls, but you could not find these skulls on anyone living today unless they had heavy brow ridges, a brain nearly half normal size, and many other minor but significant differences.
You know what I think? I think that no matter what the skull looked like, you would never accept it as coming from another human species. When I asked earlier what would prove evolution to you, you said you didn't think proof was possible for either side. That is incorrect. I'm not asking what would prove evolution to the world, science can already do that. I'm asking what it would take to prove it to you.
If the age of the Earth could be scientifically shown to be less than 20,000 years old, and the evidence it is billions of years old discredited, I would be convinced evolution is false. If it could be shown all life was an exact replica of the parent(s), and non-fatal mutation did not exist, I would be convinced evolution was false.
Tell us something that would convince you the theory of evolution is true or that creationism isn't true, or concede that you are completely blinded to all evidence by your beliefs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html This page deals mostly in defeating creationist claims the fossils are human/ape, instead of an intermediate, for each species we have found.
Maybe if you claim you need to win the lottery 300 times, people will give up on evolution altogether. Of course, then people might realize that this is absurd. It's much nicer when statistics are based on, you know, reality.
As I have said, evolution has a very large amount of evidence. Random claims of impossibility don't change that.