Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him

[Atrocities]

Please understand that I mean no offense. I am just interested in seeing which train of thought will prevail.

[Renegade 13]

It all depends on your point of view. Some people believe in a god, other's believe humanity arose out of a gelatinous goo of organic molecules that just happened to arise into...us. Personally, I think that we were created, but that God can be one evil, sadistic, cruel SOB (note that this is just my opinion, and not meant to offend anyone). I mean, what are the odds that humanity could arise out of simple chance?? I don't know, but the odds must be vastly against life arising spontaneously. And even if it did, where did the universe come from? It all points to the existance of a "higher being" of some sort or another.

Dont' get me wrong, I'm not a religious person. In fact, the opposite. But who really knows whether "god" is real or not. I've never seen him, and I don't know anyone who has. But does he exist? Maybe.

It's simply tough to believe that if there was a god who cared enough to actually create humanity, that he'd be willing to let all the sh%t happen that happens.

[Kamog]

A long time ago, when I was a kid, I believed in God because I just automatically believed what people told me. Then when I was a bit older I started to realize that it seemed there wasn't really any convincing evidence to support it, so I stopped believing. Today, I'm still not convinced that there is a God. So it's a maybe.

[David E. Gervais]

Here's My Humble Opinion..

The Idea and philosophy behind there being a God is a good one. It's the man-made 'Conditional Modifiers' That form the different religions which divides and spoils the concept.

I hear what you're saying,.. "What?"

Simply, I believe in God and the 'One' true message common to all religions.. Peace, Love and Kindness. It's not rocket science, broken down to the simplest terms it's basically "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Oh, and the "Tho shall not kill" thing is simplistic too, I mean, there is one certainty in life, we will all die. So what is the point of wasting time and energy on something that is inevitable.

There are two things and two things only that prevent humanity from becomming the sanctuary (aka: Eden) that we all wish it was. These two things are 'Religion' (not God, but the man-made rules on how to worship him) and 'Boarders'. Until we can unify these two things One God, One race, we are doomed to live in strife.

Nuf said, Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Instar]

clockmaker god if anything
(deist its called I believe)

[Will]

Pretty much the same thing as Kamog. I believed as a kid, just because that's what all the adults told me to believe. Then I realized there wasn't really anything that was supporting the belief other than the Bible (and that's rather dubious, circular support at that) and "intuitions". And for me, when I examined my intuitions, I came across the puzzling question "If God created us, who created God?". The only answer I've really ever seen for this boils down to "God was always here". But then, it seems to me, the entire objection that theists have to a more scientific worldview (eg. Big Bang, self-organizing chemical reactions which we like to call "life" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif, etc.) -- mainly that the question of where everything came from stops before Big Bang -- still holds with the theist worldview. In other words, "What was there before the Big Bang?" is the direct analogue to "What created God?". So, it seems to me, anyone who is attempting to be rational and accepting scientific theories of origins, and then puts forth the answer of "God" as what came before the Big Bang, is really just adding a layer and replacing one unanswerable with another unanswerable.

And really, whenever you speculate about the past that far back in time, it really is nothing more than idle speculation with very no real direct evidence, and only some indirect and theoretical evidence supporting it. IIRC, the only evidence that science currently has for the Big Bang is the "static" of background radiation that fits the theoretical models given. It's already been established time and again that there is no way to prove either position, it just depends on the personality of each individual.

[Atrocities]

If we invented God, then who invented us?

[Will]

Atrocities said:
If we invented God, then who invented us?


In my view, the more pertinent question is why do we think humans were "invented"?

[Azselendor]

My parents brought me up with the option to choose what religion I wanted or if I wanted none at all. I chose none at all, religion just didn't make sense to me.

[Gandalf Parker]

Klvino [ORB] said:
My parents brought me up with the option to choose what religion I wanted or if I wanted none at all. I chose none at all, religion just didn't make sense to me.



I totally agree with what you said (although it might not be what you meant). Personally Im a very religious person but I find that religion gets in the way of being religious.

[Atrocities]

Will said:

Atrocities said:
If we invented God, then who invented us?


In my view, the more pertinent question is why do we think humans were "invented"?



My response to this would, because we have nothing to go on except the belief that we either evolved from pond scum, or were engineered. I believe that both are valid, or that even combined they are more valid. We are engineered pond scum, or better yet, an engineered virus that kills planets.

[Azselendor]

By saying we evolved from pond scum is simply an overly simplified way of refering to the process of Evolution. Understand, Evolution has no direct purpose except to make use of energy in the most efficient way. What put humans ahead of our other cousins is that we managed to develop a means to plan ahead for the long term. Not one or two seasons, but three or four years and reason out problems that arise.

I do believe our origins tie back to simple ocean dwelling microbes and that via natural competition with other species, we evolved from that and obtained a wholely original place in nature.

Now, the thing about religion and me is choice. religion just didn't make sense to me because it didn't allow me the choices I wanted to make. It is a great foundation for morality and an excellent collection of ethics. Some of my own are drawn from the Bible, the Vedas, Classical Civilization, Native American mythos, and such.

Take the sacrifice of Jesus. It's about one man, willing to die for his belief that humanity can be better than what it was and that his death will wipe earth clean of sin. Go over to India, the God Shiva consumed the sins of the world in his effort to save it - almost killing himself (it's why shive wears a snake around his neck). Both are great tales of self-sacrifice and hope for humanity's better nature.

But I wandered off topic.

I think we occured naturally, not as a fluke or enginneered. Life itself happens where ever it can take root, only the conditions determine how far that goes and what form it takes.

[Kamog]

I once read in a book the following argument: Out of the three statements below, only two of them can be true:
(1) God is all powerful
(2) God is all good
(3) Terrible things happen

If God knows that there is evil but cannot prevent it, he is not all-powerful. If he doesn't know that there's evil, he's not omnisicent. If he knows that there is evil but does not wish to prevent it, then he is not all good.

The only possible way that all three can be true, is if God knows there is evil in the world but chooses not to stop it for reasons that are beyond our understanding.

[Mephisto]

Mmm, I can think of 2 explanations for terrible things to happen out of my box:

a) It is for a greater good not (yet) seen by us.

b) Free will. The Christian believe is that man was created in the image of good. Man has the ability of free will and choice. He choose to do good or evil, belive or not believe to create or destroy. Hence good can be good and all powerful but choose to give us free will so that evil not by his doing is possible.

[Will]

Atrocities said:My response to this would, because we have nothing to go on except the belief that we either evolved from pond scum, or were engineered. I believe that both are valid, or that even combined they are more valid. We are engineered pond scum, or better yet, an engineered virus that kills planets.


(boldness mine) AT... have you been watching The Matrix again? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Just curious, are you taking the (God >= Universe) position here, or something else? If it is the former, is it of the "more than" or "same as" variety?

[Gandalf Parker]

Personally whenever anything comes up questioning belief my attitude tends to be "who cares". Some would say that beliefs are harmful and the same effects can be achieved by science. Trading "faith in an outside source" for things like "power of positive thinking" or "self-hypnosis". But for many people having strong faith in self or science is more difficult therefore achieves less good. Best results are still a good goal and I dont really care how anyone gets there.

-- [sig file]
Be thankful. Be thankful to God, Goddess, Thetans, Honorable Ancestors, Spirit Guides, or the Random Chance Happenings over Millions of Millenia. But be thankful.

[Atrocities]

Will, I honestly don't know what position I am taking other than to say that the universe is virtually endless and is the oldest thing known to man therefore there are bound to be things that we do not yet understand, and perhaps the concept of God is one of them.

[Renegade 13]

I think the original question boils down to "do you believe in God, or do you not?" Hence, it seems that the only sensible answer is this: We do not currently have enough information to form a valid hypothesis.

I mean, think about it. If God exists, then why does he allow suffering? And at the same time, creates such beautiful things that fill us with awe, such as the Northern (or Southern) lights, a snowcapped mountain seen in the distance, or a beautiful woman. Why? That's what I'd love to know.

[Atrocities]

Actually the original question has nothing to do with the belief in God, but rather .... wait ... yes I guess your right, it does in a way. But please do not take it that way.

I just wanted opinions on the original question without it being distorted or misinturpted. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Renegade 13]

Sorry AT, guess I'm one of the one's who misinterpreted http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif Trust me, I'm good at it. Do it all the time in fact.

[Rasorow]

Could it also be that God created us.. but we have recreated God?

Rasorow

[Electrum]

A basic scientific precept is that of cause & effect. If we see the effect, there must be a cause. There is wide agreement among scientists that the universe had a beginning. Most also agree that before that beginning, something real must have existed. Some scientists talk about ever-existing energy. Others postulate a primordial chaos as the preexisting condition. Whatever terms are used, most presuppose the existence of something—something without a beginning—that extended back infinitely. So, when it comes to life, the universe & everything, the basic progression is like this:
The Universe was either always their or had a beginning
If the Universe had a beginning, it was with a cause or without a cause
If their was a cause, it was by something eternal or someone eternal.
The question for each of us is what is more logical.
The deep one digs into the fabric of life, the universe & everything, the more we are struck by the intelligence of design. It is outside of human experience to have intellegence without design. For me, the only logical solution is their was a designer.

[Azselendor]

I recall once, and I may have mentioned this before, is a lecture steven hawkins once gave and the pope (or someone of his staff) read about later on. The pope then went on to tell dr. hawkins that he commends his study of events after the big bang and that he should avoid studying the big bang itself as it was a 'divine act' and man should not understand such things. The thing about this is that dr. hawkins was lecturing that the universe didn't even have a big bang to begin with. That it always existed and always will. Hawkins proposed the idea since the Universe may lack to matter to produce an ending that it must lack the matter to produce a beginning as well.

Electrum, again your arguements are full of logical fallacies. You are appealing to science to prove religion right and science wrong.

[Electrum]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Electrum, again your arguements are full of logical fallacies. You are appealing to science to prove religion right and science wrong.



To the contrary, I'm stating that that science & belief in a creator can co-exist

[Azselendor]

That I certainly agree. Faith and Science can exist in the world together. The point I make is that Faith has no place as Science unless we are talking about the mechanics by which religion function. Faith is the means by which we live, not the means by which the universe functions. Science, on the other hand, has no right to be a religion, but an method by which we can obtain answers to questions we ask.

My problem was with your arguments for that being based in logical fallacy to justify it.

[Electrum]

Klvino [ORB] said:
That I certainly agree. Faith and Science can exist in the world together. The point I make is that Faith has no place as Science unless we are talking about the mechanics by which religion function. Faith is the means by which we live, not the means by which the universe functions. Science, on the other hand, has no right to be a religion, but an method by which we can obtain answers to questions we ask.

My problem was with your arguments for that being based in logical fallacy to justify it.



Am interesting viewpoint. Albert Einstien said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Perhaps you know better.
I having difficulty understanding what you perceive as fallacy. Is it that Cause & effect is an established scientific principle? Is it that the Universe had a beginning? Or is it just using these things to come to a solution that you don’t like?
One big fallacy is that science has ruled out the possibility of an intelligent designer in the creation of Life, the Universe & everything. Though such is promoted by some in the scientific community, Science can neither prove nor disprove such a thing. Science, true science, deals with the physically tangable, and such a discovery is outside it’s perview. My statement merely shows that the existence of a Creator is a logically viable solution, and for me, the most logical.
An unfortunate truth in the scientific community is that there is a political side to it. John L. Casti in his book Paradigms Lost stated: “Scientific truth is determined at least as much by the social climate of the times as by the dictates of reason and logic alone” Unfortunately, as politics in ant other arena, some nasty things take place, including intimination and peer pressure.
In his book Science under siege, Michael Fumento was discussing the scientific controversy over Dioxin, a key ingredient in Agent Orange. He made this observation: “We are all, depending on whom you listen to, either potential victims of poisoning or potential victims of gross disinformation.” Isn’t politics grand! It makes it hard to dig in and determine what is really scientificly factual. Unfortunately, many just get swept along with the current, going along with what is popular without ever trying to look beneath the surface. Fortunately, there have been those not happy with the staus quo, or else we would al bw learning Alchemy.
Have you ever heard some expert say something like: All reasonable scientist accept …, or Only the uneducated would deny … This is a form of intimidation & peer pressure. It has been employed in many areas, including the existence, or non-existance of God. In this area, there are plenty of well respected experts in the different scientific fields that recognize, not even the plausibility of a Divine Intellect, but also the logic of His existence.
PHYSICS professor Ulrich J. Becker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated when commenting on the existence of God: “How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given. If you discovered how one wheel in the ‘clock’ turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring.”
Mathematics professor John E. Fornaess, of Princeton University, was asked for his thoughts on the existence of God, he replied: “I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies.”
Physics professor Henry Margenau, of Yale University, said that he was convinced that the laws of nature were created by God, adding: “God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence.”
The book The Mystery of Life’s Origin, three scientists explain that a Creator is a plausible explanation for life’s origin.
There are a lot more, but, hey, I’ve used enough of this thread.
One more Qoute, more in line with AT’s thread:
Voltaire stated, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”
Now I know I’m going to get flamed, though I really don’t know why some find me so threatening. To keep it from getting out of hand, I will not respond to such flaming.
By the way, I respect the all the views that have been stated in this thread. Keep it up.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Azselendor]

Electrum said:
Am interesting viewpoint. Albert Einstien said: “Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Perhaps you know better.




That's a cheap shot right there, personal attack and a foul on you. Don't debate if you can't keep it clean.


Electrum said:
I having difficulty understanding what you perceive as fallacy. Is it that Cause & effect is an established scientific principle? Is it that the Universe had a beginning? Or is it just using these things to come to a solution that you don’t like?
One big fallacy is that science has ruled out the possibility of an intelligent designer in the creation of Life, the Universe & everything. Though such is promoted by some in the scientific community, Science can neither prove nor disprove such a thing. Science, true science, deals with the physically tangable, and such a discovery is outside it’s perview. My statement merely shows that the existence of a Creator is a logically viable solution, and for me, the most logical.
An unfortunate truth in the scientific community is that there is a political side to it. John L. Casti in his book Paradigms Lost stated: “Scientific truth is determined at least as much by the social climate of the times as by the dictates of reason and logic alone” Unfortunately, as politics in ant other arena, some nasty things take place, including intimination and peer pressure.
In his book Science under siege, Michael Fumento was discussing the scientific controversy over Dioxin, a key ingredient in Agent Orange. He made this observation: “We are all, depending on whom you listen to, either potential victims of poisoning or potential victims of gross disinformation.” Isn’t politics grand! It makes it hard to dig in and determine what is really scientificly factual. Unfortunately, many just get swept along with the current, going along with what is popular without ever trying to look beneath the surface. Fortunately, there have been those not happy with the staus quo, or else we would al bw learning Alchemy.
Have you ever heard some expert say something like: All reasonable scientist accept …, or Only the uneducated would deny … This is a form of intimidation & peer pressure. It has been employed in many areas, including the existence, or non-existance of God. In this area, there are plenty of well respected experts in the different scientific fields that recognize, not even the plausibility of a Divine Intellect, but also the logic of His existence.
PHYSICS professor Ulrich J. Becker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated when commenting on the existence of God: “How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given. If you discovered how one wheel in the ‘clock’ turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring.”
Mathematics professor John E. Fornaess, of Princeton University, was asked for his thoughts on the existence of God, he replied: “I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies.”
Physics professor Henry Margenau, of Yale University, said that he was convinced that the laws of nature were created by God, adding: “God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence.”
The book The Mystery of Life’s Origin, three scientists explain that a Creator is a plausible explanation for life’s origin.
There are a lot more, but, hey, I’ve used enough of this thread.
One more Qoute, more in line with AT’s thread:
Voltaire stated, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”
Now I know I’m going to get flamed, though I really don’t know why some find me so threatening. To keep it from getting out of hand, I will not respond to such flaming.
By the way, I respect the all the views that have been stated in this thread. Keep it up.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif



Now let's list your logical fallacies from various fallacy-arguments you've posted over time on this subject.

- Ad hoc, The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument.
- Affirmation of the consequent, This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true."
- Anecdotal evidence
- Argumentum ad antiquitatem, This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been." The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.
- Argumentum ad hominem, Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
- Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
- Argumentum ad logicam, This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
- Argumentum ad nauseam, This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
- Argumentum ad populum, This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language.
- Argumentum ad misericordiam, This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
- Argumentum ad verecundiam, The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion.
- Bifurcation, Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
- Circulus in demonstrando, This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument.
- Converse accident / Hasty generalization
- Converting a conditional, This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A."
- Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. (This is the fallacy most commonly used t support Noah's Flood and I included it for that bit of trivia)
- Denial of the antecedent, This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false."
- The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter
- Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms, Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument.
- The extended analogy, The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other.
- Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion, The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.
- The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature, The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One Version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar.
- Non causa pro causa, The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause.
- Non sequitur, A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it.
- Petitio principii / Begging the question, This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form.
- Plurium interrogationum / Many questions, This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question.
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc, The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event.
- Red herring, This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.
- Reification / Hypostatization, Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.
- Shifting the burden of proof, The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
- The slippery slope argument, This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.
- Straw man, The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
- Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle / "A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies, These fallacies occur if you attempt to argue that things are in some way similar, but you don't actually specify in what way they are similar.

These fallacies are pretty much entirely from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html which includes several more fallacies that didn't fit properly. i encourage all to read it because it's useful in more than just religious debates. Of course, I've also commited a couple of these fallacies too and I'll admit to them. Hopefully, electrum, this clearifies my point of your logical fallacies in your arguments.

As for you getting flamed, the best way to avoid it is to not flame in the first place (Yes, I know that too is a logical fallacy but you get my point!)

[Jack Simth]

Of course, you just claimed that he has, you said little, if anything, of how, or when. What would that be? Red herring, perhaps? Reification, possibly? Non-Sequiter, perchance? Ad homien? Argumentum ad logicam? Shifting the burden of proof, maybe?

As for the Posts he has made recently in this thread, yeah, there could be a fair amount of appeal to authority, aurumentum ad nausium/popularum, but that's mostly used in support, not as his main arguments. Fluff, even, easily thrown out to no real effect.

Seriously though, can you actually get around his point that if you follow cause and effect backwards, you must either conclude that at some point there was a cause that did not have a cause of it's own (a termination to an infinite recursion), OR conclude that there was an ever-present (if potentially ever-changing) "something" that pre-existed to infinity (either another form of termination to an infinite recursion, or a conclusion that the recursion continues infinitely)? Note that he did not specify which must be so, nor did he specify there was any concrete way to choose, nor did he specify any neccessitated form to the "something" when that route is chosen - in fact, he said "The question for each of us is what is more logical." (emphasis added)
He did not specify that anyone must of necessity pick a specific one over the other.
"For me, the only logical solution is their was a designer. " (emphasis added)
He did not specify that this must be the only conclusion - he specified very clearly that it was HIS conclusion, after specifying that all such conclusions pretty much amount to opinion. Do you have a way out of his "One or the Other" logical proof? Perhaps one or more additional option(s) that fit(s) without being a subset or mixture of one or more of his listed potentialities? If so, please, enlighten me.

[tesco samoa]

perhaps a little change of topic.

Evolution vs co existance vs Divine.

What is everyone thoughts on this and what should be taught in schools.

I feel the Evolution is a theory just like the Divine Versions .

As Evolution is based on faith as well. Since no one can prove how Evolution began or what steps are required to say develop an eye.

Thoughts ?

[Phoenix-D]

Ah, that argument again.

Point A: Science uses "theory" different from the way most people, yourself included, uses it. Hypothesis is the word you're looking for. (GRAVITY is a theory..)

Point B: Science, including the theory of evolution, has to be falseafiable. By definition religion is not.

Point C: Yes, we -can- show what steps are needed to make an eye. You start with someone like, say, the light-sending organs on a jellyfish and go from there..and those organs are quite simple. The irreducable complexity argument doesn' t work.

Point D: I always have to ask this question. WHICH Divine Version? Perhaps you'd like the Navjo, or Hindu Version?

[Azselendor]

Electricty is also a theory, but like evolution it happens to fit the facts with the evidence that currently exists. Evoltuion itself is slow change via natural selection and/or the result of energy trying to optimize itself (imagine if we unleashed evolution on WindowsXP - we could create a virutal self-feeding black hole.)

This is what I think about Creationism in school.

It should not be taught in the science class - ever. However, the schools should - at the expense of local organized religions and various other Groups - provide a class devoted discussion of philosphy of religion.

Jack, I'm in Dr. Hawking's camp that there may not have been a big-bang in the means portrayed by popular entertainment. That the universe has always existed and always will as it lacks the matter and material to create an ending in the form of a "Big Crunch". I don't see an "intelligent design" to the universe even when going down the chain and examining each link. Now I do believe there is a cause behind the formation of the universe that is natural, not intelligent. That cause is the optimization of energy.

Now you are right, this is a question of what we each think is more logical. However, his "One way or the other" is a Logical Fallacy. It's assuming if A is true, B is false. or vice versa. By far it's his worst fallacy of them and a common fallacy used against proponents of evolution and other theories. There is no proof to such a fallacy as it is hardly a black and white subject as you clearly argued and You yourself, in your rebuttal just used the logical fallacy of accent by placing emphasis on certain phrases in your comments.

This is what science is for me: The process by which the illogical, the fallacy, and the fiction is stripped away and all that remains is the reality, the fact, the truth and this process is ongoing, it does not reach an end at any time. This itself is the processes behind evolution. It doesn't have all the answers, but it looks for them. Progress.

Creationism, however, is the exact opposite. It presents itself as having all the answers already and you don't need to go farther. This in itself is a means of preventing people from even looking for more.

Now, Jack, you argue about the infinite when we much consider the plight of the creator-god in question. Who created him? If no one did, then has he always existed? If so, how? If he did not, then who created his creators? and so on and so forth.

-corrected a grammatical error

[Jack Simth]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Jack, I'm in Dr. Hawking's camp that there may have been a big-bang in the means portrayed by popular entertainment. That the universe has always existed and always will as it lacks the matter and material to create an ending in the form of a "Big Crunch". I don't see an "intelligent design" to the universe even when going down the chain and examining each link. Now I do believe there is a cause behind the formation of the universe that is natural, not intelligent. That cause is the optimization of energy.

Now you are right, this is a question of what we each think is more logical. However, his "One way or the other" is a Logical Fallacy. It's assuming if A is true, B is false. or vice versa. By far it's his worst fallacy of them and a common fallacy used against proponents of evolution and other theories. There is no proof to such a fallacy as it is hardly a black and white subject as you clearly argued and You yourself,

So the concept of non-overlapping sets whose union is U, such as A and A', is a fallacy? It's a fallacy to treat the set of real numbers as three cases: <k, ==k, and >k (for some real value of k) when the function under scrutiny calls for it? Interesting.
Klvino [ORB] said: in your rebuttal just used the logical fallacy of accent by placing emphasis on certain phrases in your comments.


So my pointing out that you didn't actually address any of his arguments - at all - in a large section you quoted - is a fallacy? Interesting. So I picked a little bit of a method you aren't quite used to. I suspect you may be a little trigger-happy on fallacies.
Klvino [ORB] said:
This is what science is for me: The process by which the illogical, the fallacy, and the fiction is stripped away and all that remains is the reality, the fact, the truth and this process is ongoing, it does not reach an end at any time. This itself is the processes behind evolution. It doesn't have all the answers, but it looks for them. Progress.

Creationism, however, is the exact opposite. It presents itself as having all the answers already and you don't need to go farther. This in itself is a means of preventing people from even looking for more.


Gee, and you were slamming me for being black & white. Talk about your double standard.
Klvino [ORB] said:
Now, Jack, you argue about the infinite when we much consider the plight of the creator-god in question. Who created him? If no one did, then has he always existed? If so, how?

Nobody, far as I've read up in The Source. Yes, as far as I've read up in The Source. The precise form of God's existance is not addressed in The Source, as far as I'm aware. This is something we probably will not know until after doomsday.

And you're dodging again.

[Azselendor]

And you're attacking without debating. Don't turn this into a flame war because you think you have an easy prey. Yes I will slam you for being balck and white and then throw the same kind of arguement right back to prove how unfair it is.

I refuse to address, fully, any argument based largely in fallacy. we're not talking about numbers in this discussion, it's about what faith is each of a member as you and electrum have pointed out.

Now something I'll point out to those against evolution is that evolution never said there isn't a god. The frequently mis-quoted CS Lewis himself was a thiest evolutionist.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

[Phoenix-D]

Klvino [ORB]..it has been my experience that those who point out fallicies a lot mostly do it to cover issues in their own arguments. -Especially- when they do it as you've done, names and all.

Actually you're in a bit of a logic loop, given that you're refering to the fallices almost as an Authority, which is in and of itself a fallacy.

[Azselendor]

I don't consider my pointing out fallacies in another's argument a form of covering issues in my arguements. Basically it allows me to cut through to the core of the other's claims without having to debate the fluff.

I may over use it, but at times it is more than required.


But we are sliding even further off topic now.

[Mephisto]

Easy, guys! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

[Electrum]

First, Klvino, I would like to apologize for what you have labeled a cheap shot. Biting sarcasm usually works so well for me. Although, I would ask you to consider this:

2 boys, Johnny & Billy, are on the playground. Well, Billy says something that Johnny doesn’t care much for. Johnny fires off: “Your ugly Billy!”, and no more.

Is Billy really ugly? Maybe he is & maybe he isn’t. Making a charge without the needed specifics amounts to nothing more than name calling. Now, if Johnny started pulling out pictures & pointing to the obvious disfigurements (My apologies to any ugly people reading this. You know who you are.), he is in a much better position to make his claim.

So, when you made your charge without the specifics, along with the condescending way you phrased it (your doing it again), I was feeling a tad attacked when I made the above mentions retort. Still, it was sarcastic, and I apologize. Nuff Said

A couple questions that are kind of fuzzy in you statement. I’m not sure if you are saying you believe the universe is eternal or the energy that the produced the universe is eternal. Would you please clarify this.

Also, please explain why your argument against a Creator (Who created the Creator, etc. infinity) wouldn’t equally apply to the Universe or Energy, perhaps not it the Who sense, but in the what sense (what created energy, what created the force that created energy…etc. infinity)

When it comes to you statements comparing evolution & creation, you picked “creationism”. I’ve previously voiced that, IN MY OPINION, creationism is as flawed as, er…ah.. evolution http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif . Isn’t that black & white thinking. Creationism is flawed, therefore creation is wrong & evolution is right. Creationism is not the same as creation. As I’ve already mentioned, there are many in the scientific community that consider it scientificly viable.

AS far as intelligence in design, consider the field of biomimetics, the study of structure in nature, usually for the purpose of copying it. This field has given us things like Velcro (I’m still trying to figure out if this is a good thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif ). We praise the genius the man that “creates” such things, when in effect, their poor imitations of the original. If the imitation is a product of genius, how much more so is the original.

Carl Sagan said this regarding the search for Extraterrestrial life:
“It is easy to create an interstellar radio message which can be recognized as emanating unambiguously from intelligent beings. A modulated signal (‘beep,’ ‘beep-beep,’ . . . ) comprising the numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, for example, consists exclusively of the first 12 prime numbers—that is, numbers that can be divided only by 1, or by themselves. A signal of this kind, based on a simple mathematical concept, could only have a biological origin.”

if 1,271 bits of information in a certain sequence suggested order and design and “unambiguously” proved an intelligent source, what about the some ten thousand million bits of information encoded in the chromosomes of every living cell?

Regarding your comparison of the theory of evolution to the theory of electricity, there are some fundamental differences. With electricity, there are tangable processes which can be observed and measured. What about evolution? Evolutionist have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began. It sounds more like … I’m sorry, but I need to use the “f” word. That’s right, faith. By all appearances, evolution has emerged as a new religion, complete with dogmatic rhetoric and swift retribution for heretics. And I’m not the only one that feels that way.

The lack of evidence causes scientist T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’
Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.”
Dr. Evan Shute even said “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist.”
Astronomer Robert Jastrow said, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”

I found this quote interesting:
George Greenstein, an evolutionist, In his book The Symbiotic Universe, talking about the mysterious and incredible series of coincidences that are beyond explaining, coincidences without which life on earth would be impossible.
“I believe that we are faced with a mystery—a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment.” … “to detail what can only seem to be an astonishing sequence of stupendous and unlikely accidents that paved the way for life’s emergence. There is a list of coincidences, all of them essential to our existence.” …t “the list kept getting longer . . . So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance.”
“But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust . . . Nor has this reaction faded over the years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism. …. As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially drafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
Greenstein recovers from such heretical thinking and reasserts his orthodoxy to evolution, reciting one of their creedal dogmas: “God is not an explanation.”
One more quote:
Le Figaro-Magazine Magazine of Paris. Reporting on an international conference held in Blois, France, where 200 leading scientists from around the world met to discuss the origin of life,
“At present, we no longer have a global explanation for the evolution of life on earth …. the old theories are collapsing.” The magazine sums up the comments of several scientists this way: “The Darwinian theory can explain a certain number of secondary things but not the essential stages of evolution, such as the appearance of new organs or new types of organization such as birds or the vertebrates.” Commenting on the huge gaps that riddle the theory, paleontologist Robert Fondi said: “If we picture a genealogical tree of evolution, only the leaves and a few branches exist but no knots or trunk. It is a tree that cannot stand!”
Nuff for now
Oh! One question off the subject. Where is Mt. Kailasa?

[Azselendor]

Thank you mephisto.

Electrum, apology accepted and I offer my apology back for the shots I fired across your bow. You make a good point with kids. They'll fight one minute, and be best buddies the next. that's something the world needs more of.


Basically my thoughts are that since the universe lacks the matter to end itself, as Dr. hawkings suggests in his theories and papers, that it may not have a beginning and it's expansion (which is inconsistant as we are expanding faster now than at the big bang whch was faster than 2 billion years ago) is very inconsistant with the theory of the big bang.

Actually my argument against a creator has nothing to do with evolution. It's basically that I believe, under any kind of scientific examination possible or invented, that a creator god cannot exist without creating a terminal unresolving contradiction in the fabric of reality itself. Now I would not be opposed to the theory of a god that is not an all-in-one-everything god. IE, a god that is limited in power and scope.

Energy itself, I do not view and some kind of deity or god, it simply something that does not cease to completely exist. It changes, adapts, and continues in one form or another. But it also decays over time. many so-called PEM's sold on the internet prove that even recycled energy can be exhausted. Energy itself has always existed, in the universe in many, many forms. Gravity, weak attractors, quarks, atoms, electricty, wind, dirt, ice, the sun and so on all contain energy to varying amounts. Where did it come from in the beginning, I'll point out I don't feel the universe had a beginning to begin with. So where it came from is a great mystery none of us will ever live to see answered. That's the best part of science, the quest to find out, however.

On Creationism vs. Evolution. Creationism is something that assumes all the facts up front are true at face value without examination or proof. It's unwilling to budge from that. Infact, Evolution and Creationism cannot be compared at all. It's like comparing star wars and star trek. Evolution is a theory designed to explain why things change over time slowly. It has flaws since the original theory has had little revision work done to it since its inception. More energy was wasted in fighting it. Evolution actually never rules out a divine hand in it, nor does it rule out that outside intervention can happen. IE, genetic enginneering. Creationism does have tis flaws, like light before a source of light and plants without a sun to power photosynthsis (spelling?). And even if we plug in the theory that one day was a 3/4s of a billion years or something, I don't think any plant cold live that long without the sun. You are right many don't rule out a divine creator. What they do, however, require is hard proof.
It's like a court case. Unless you have real proof, that cannot be debunked under cross examination, expect it to get knocked down in a few minutes.

Arguing about the copying of velco from nature is in itself a type of fallacy. Sorry to call it again, but I do. The flip side of this arguement, on the same fallacy, is that many praise god's genius in creating humans in his image, but note how much of a poor imitations of the original we all truely are. "If the imitation is a product of genius, how much more so is the original?" <-Now I just flipped your closing into accent fallacy?



Carl Sagan aside, since first-contact scenarios are not of debate at the moment. http://www.research.ucla.edu/tech/ucla04-099.htm and beside that, I'll bring up mention of the nearly 3000 genetic, built in diseases all humans have in them. I'll also point out that heating and cooling DNA triggers combination and speration. Which is in effect, driven by a form of energy. Soemthing our planet 3.5 billion years ago had a lot of. Next on the list is you msut remember that DNA wasn't discovered until after darwin's death and long after he wrote his celebrated theory. As such, a new study into evolution is warranted.

You are equating a computer program to genetic structure. That's the velcro arguement again.

There is proof of evolution existing. In humans, vestigial organs provide us with links back to our past. We don't need them any more because we evolved beyond the need for them. Appendx is alone, while no longer serving any clear purpose, may be the remains of of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors. The list of vestigial organs in humans have gone down from the original list. Some no longer being found in humans, others turned out to be needed organs. The coccyx (tail bone) is another, Wisdom teeth, plica semilunaris (It's a fold of skin in the corner of your eye that is the remains of a nictitating membrane - 3rd eye lid). Goosebumps is a vestigial reflex that actually served one purpose, now serves another. There are vestigial organs based on gender as well. Why to male mammals need nipples? Well, that's because we don't. It's just because up until a certain point in pregnancy, we're all gender neutral/female. That means while we have no gender early on, our genetics default to female unless a certain hormone from the mother changes that.

Several kinds cetacians have leg bones, despite being unable to live on land as of right now. So why would they have such bones? The wings of ostriches and emus provide more evidence in the bird families.

Now because vestigial organs are supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, the concept has been vigorously attacked, with creationist claiming that anything "vestigial" it must be utterly useless. This is a misrepresentation of the term and function: An organ can be vestigial if it serves no function or a different function in a modern animal than it did in an ancestor. Goosebumps, for example, in human ancestors may have been used to raise up body hair to make one appear larger before a perceived predator (like a dog or a cat will raise the hair on thier back). Now it is more of a tell-tale sign of the body being too cold or a sudden cold breeze. The gas baldder of many fish may indeed be a vestigial lung, left over from the occasionally-air-gasping ancestor is common to both ray-finned fish and land vertebrates.

Evolution occurs slowly, over time. Not suddenly or with the flick of a finger. It was a slow process, taking its time. Evolutionist have observed beneficial changes. For example, they observed a specific kind of moth in england that changed fro it's natural white to a dark grey. Why? most likely because of the pollution and industrial soot that covered thier habitat made it easier for preadators to eat them. I think that's a pretty useful change that took several generations of moth to generate.

Is evolution a religion? by all means no. You're attacking it on baseless grounds. The Theory of Evolution is like any theory and some day, it may be debunked and replaced by a more accurate theory of evolution in the future. Evolution itself, however, made a lot of sense and still does. As the theory of evolution by natural selection has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism (often mistaken by creationist for evolution even today). I think what is happening here is that you mistook Lamarckism for evolution. Evolution doesn't lash out and torture people who tink otherwise, nor does its followers break into homes of the non-blievers and murder them all. It doesn't trigger microscope burnings in people's lawns or go door to door harrassing you on your day off. By accusing evolution of relgious dogma and rhetoric you are now trying the a is true/b is false fallacy.

T. H. Janabi, is not a credible source. This guy attacks evolution the same way he attacks non islamic creationist. This guy's book was listed with "Garlic - Nature's Original Remedy" by Stephen Fulder/John Blackwood and "Incredible Islamic Scientists - Vol. 1 & 2" by K. Ajram and "The Miracle Of Islamic Science " by Dr K Ajram (now he's a doctor!).

Sir Fred Hoyle, whom died 4 years back, also -In his later years with Chandra Wickramasinghe- promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.
Evan Shute. My intial research into him revealed two men. One is in heart medicine and the vitamin fad. The other man apparently ahd one book and little-to-no biographical information about his scientific career and research processes. However, absed on his claims, he appeals to the theory that because something is complex, it cannot happen by chance or random occurance.

Robert Jastrow's comments, however, I found have been taken out of context with his original statements on intelligent design.

George Greenstein, I'll need a complete text, not abrdiged quotes to render a decision on his comments. however, He does tend to argue devil's advocate which I respect.

Le Figaro-Magazine, Link please? Afterall, anyone can say "The Union-Leader recently covered a scientific conference in bostom where 500 of the top minds in science all discussed and eventually ruled that the world is flat". Then list quotes.


Now my hands hurt... lol

Mt. Kailasa or Mt. Kailash is a 6000+ footer in Tibet. It's a sacred point for at least four religions - two of them being major religions. Those those it's the Navel of the World (so I guess earth has an outie?) or it's also the sacred home of the God Lord Shiva. It's also has the distinction of never being climbed - but the chinese gov't keeps handing out permits to climb it that no one follows through with. For myself, I simply like the way it looks and some pictures of it are breathtaking. The Chinese gov't, however, is hell-bent on building roads and tourist traps all around it and over it which is destroying a huge amount of cultural heritage which is mind boggling given that the chinese gov't only hands out 200 permits a year to visit the site.

But otherwise, it's a really spectacular place.

[Instar]

Creationism = teh suck
That is all.
I'd debate it but people are too close minded.

[bax]

Holy, deep thread Batman. I think about God alot. Or, the concept of God, I should say. And that's what I think needs clearing up. You can talk all you want about "God" but what's the definition? A "person-like" presence, up there, in charge of it all. Unlikely. So, no I don't think God "invented" us.

The argument of "what are the odds that humanity could arise out of simple chance??" doesn't hold because if you look at it that way you can also say. Well, if this is one of the possibilities, of course it's happening somewhere.

No matter what, all that really matters is what we choose to do. We can use faith to either decide we believe in God, or to not believe in him. There is no proof. Either way our daily conduct matters.

Atrocities: you asked the question, and I wonder what you think more precisely? What makes me curious is the belief in fate and freewill. Whether or not there is a God. Whether or not he invented us, or we invented him...

Do we have a destiny?
Are we really in control of the decisions we make?
Does everything happen for a reason?

[Atrocities]

Have any of you ever read the book Sphere? Not the movie, as the movie was quite bad. The book is very interesting in that it makes you believe that what you think becomes your reality.

Don't ask me why, but it is one of the better books I have read in recent years, and for some odd ball reason, I honestly believe that in some small way what we think does effect events in our lives.

If you have faith and believe in God, then the belief itself has a reality for you. If you do not believe in God, then that to is a reality.

What if God is real and God gave us the power to make our own way in this demension / reality? What if we have all forgotten how to use that ability, or worse, have given it up?

One thing that cannot be denied about anything is that the universe is so vast, so incredable that anything is possible. All because we have not thought it up, or cannot expain it, does not mean that it does not exisit or that it defies comprehension. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that we thought the world was flat and cruicified those who said it was round. Keep an open mind and be willing to accept the facts as they are proven without killing the messinger.

[Azselendor]

The Movie Sphere was about that! Holy crap, that movie was really bad.

[Atrocities]

The book was much much much x 10 better than the movie. I guess it is like that with most movie adaptations of books though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[tyrrian]

this topic brings up several questions and points i'd like to offer my own two cents on.

*first and foremost, i must offer an admonishment. the fallacies i notice most often can easily be used to misinterpret the following post. i will identify them so that hopefully, you won't.
Fallacy #1 - assuming that since word or phrase "XXXXX" means YYY to you, Joe used it also to mean YYY. especially when dealing with words or phrases such as God, Creator, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Big Bang, Science, Faith, and so on... even if Webster agrees with you, its still important to interpret based on context. so many theological scholars fail to do this, quite as often as scientists arguing counterpoint. lets be wiser than them.
Fallacy #2 - assuming that YYYism and YYYists universally believe/teach/admire/promote XXXXX. logically this can never be true. for as many people as are Christian, each one has learned/been taught/explored Christianity under a different set of circumstances and thus a unique perspective has arisen from it. we necessarily cannot be the same person as anyone else and therefore cannot hold the exact same perspective on anything.

That said, the following is what i believe. in a sense, they are the articles of my faith.

*to me, faith is the intense feeling of belonging to the Creator, of knowing God loves me, and of loving God.

*i believe in the Creator(God). not everyone does. i accept that. i'm sure my Creator accepts it to, as i know that they are as much Children of the Creator as i am.

*the Creator is a being beyond my comprehension, existing both as a distinct identity and throughout all that exists.

*i have free will, a gift of the Creator, to act, speak, and believe as i choose.

*the Creator is a good and loving God, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, and full of compassion for all that is in existence

*the Creator is the spirit of love and compassion.

*we know evil and sin; they are actions, words, and thoughts which deny the spirit of love and compassion.

*we have all sinned, no one is perfect.

*the Creator loves all, thus all are welcome to forgiveness of their sins.

*heaven is the presence of God and the eternal co-existence with our Creator

*hell is not fire and sulpher, nor physical torment. these are our metaphors for the rejection and denial of God and an eternity without our Creator

*from my perspective, the complexities of our living universe provide further evidence of a Divine Creator, aside from what my instincts/intuition/heart/soul tell me. this serves as a great comfort in times of uncertainty and doubt.


you may poke holes in whatever you wish. the faith i hold today has grown from the Lutheran upbringing i was given. i used to think being a good Christian meant believing the Bible word for word. i don't think that's so important anymore. the Bible is a wonderful guide, and i prefer to accept it as a truth. but i also accept that the sum of God cannot possibly be found within its pages.


i remember a "logic test" from an earlier post. something like if two of the following are true the other can not be:
a) god is all powerful
b) god is all good
c) bad things happen
[/i]but i think it has left out the following point:[/i]
d) we all have the capacity to heal and overcome the bad

i present this analogy: as a child, i sometimes fell while trying to learn how to ride my bike. my parents knew that this could happen. they knew bikes can be painful to learn how to ride. they also knew that in time my scrapes and cuts would heal, that i had the ability to overcome them.

i believe the Creator does stand by us in bad times, after all i think we all have the ability to heal and overcome. and we've been given other human beings to share our lives with and support in the bad times.

[gbrutt]

Being new to the site I was looking for information about games, but was interested by this subject. It is good to see that other concepts and ideas are accepted. There are a few folk weighing in on the topic and I am working my way through them. As to the debate whether God invented us or we invented Him, I would have to say that as a Christian, neither of the proposed statements is proper. God did not invent, He created. We could not invent a concept such as God, for it is a universal one and dates back to the beginning of mankind. As to which of the opposing point of view is correct, you would first have to examine them. As far as I can tell from the posts I've read, the debate tends to center on evolution. Has anyone read, Darwin's Black Box? The subject, that of irriducible complexity, is one that I've never heard refuted. And the author, Behe, isn't even a Christian. He does make an interesting case for the conundrum of the complexity of systems in life forms and the inability of scientists to account for it, outside of special creation. There is also spontaneous generation, that life cannot come from non-life, but must always have a source. Francis Schaeffer is most eloquent on this subject. To believe in evolution, he states, you must go by this equation, Time + Chance + Nothing = That which exists. There is no way for this to have happened.

[Instar]

Well, I haven't read the book, so I can't debunk the claims specifically...
But the author sounds ignorant of systems and how relative complexity can arise from a very simple system. I've seen it happen, with software; I am a software developer, and a complex system can arise from basic, even simple elements. Evolutionary software has demonstrated this better than I could demonstrate in ten thousand lines of code. There are many examples of genetic and evolutionary algorithms, indeed, many creationists have tried to find flaws in such algorithms and systems, and have failed miserably.

No one knows what the first life form is (that is, in the evolutionary system), but speculation usually revolves around a proto-bacteria of sorts, perhaps a strand of proteins (which could have been created in the chemical soup of early earth) sourrounded by a simple member, if at all. As soon as it is able to reproduce and change (even slowly) over time, you have the beginning of life.
There is most certainly a way for it to have happened. The chemistry for the proteins has actually been reproduced (after a manner) in a test tube.

Frankly, creation myths (like the Christian "creationism") are rooted in the psychology and cultures of those that created them; useful for only anthropologists.

[Phoenix-D]

One more time for those that haven't caught the hint yet.

EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.


The spontanious generation argument doesn't work either, unless you can prove that the early earth didn't have the conditions we think it did; all the experiments showing spontanious generation doesn't work assume current conditions.

And really, if you go with that argument you have the interesting and really thorny problem of explaning where God came from..and if you don't you get the only somewhat less thorny problem of explaining where the universe began.

[Instar]

What do you mean by "spontaneous generation"? Life of course, doesn't just randomly create itself from nothing, but given certain certain environmental factors, the precursors of life can be generated.

[Azselendor]

Evoltuion, actually, is totally random.

As I stated before, if you go to any place on the surface of earth, presumably devoid of life, and I assure you - you will find life. Even the most basic forms of it. There are sealed volcano tubes, that should be totally devoid of life for millions of years - yet they are teeming with simple lifeforms. Undersea volcanos.

Life finds a way, and I assure you that the chances of life happening isn't remote, but far more likely giving the sheer size of the universe, dynamics, and possibilities that exist.

By assuming there is some kind of "intelligence" or "controls" on the process of evolution, you make an assumption based totally in fallacy.

And I'll assure each and every one of you, the single greatest miracle in all of this universe and the next is that of random chance and the process of evolution, not an act of the divine or a creator.

[Instar]

I wouldn't categorize evolution as random. Evolution at the same time isn't a system with a finite number of states.
Random mutations can crop up in genetic information due to just pure chance, such as errors in copying DNA, but usually it occurs as DNA is mixed together in reproduction, or even when bacteria exchange bits of genetic material or absorb other bacteria's genetic material.
Strong genes will be generally selected for, at least in the wild, and those genes will perpetuate themselves until something changes. In some ways, it can be predicted, but it can surprise very quickly.

[Suicide Junkie]

Evolution is most definitely nonrandom.

Lots of random and semirandom changes are introduced via mutation and gene swapping.
The individuals with positive changes get copied because they survive to breed.
The individuals with detrimental changes get killed off.

If you take a random distribution of new individuals similar to your current population and then kill off the lowest 90%, the average goes up.

We are the top 0.0000...001% of our class, because we passed the survival exam and its brutal, bell curved marking scheme.

[gbrutt]

Too many posts to reply to them all at once. I will try to deal with some of the material. First of all, the author of Darwin's Black Box is Michael Behe. He is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. Before you "debunk" his book, try reading it. He is far from ignorant. Instar, your example of coding is a good one. No matter what you say about complexity, there is a mind behind it, writing, entering, debugging the code. It did not arise of its own will. Your second paragraph also contains speculation, not facts. It takes far more faith for you to adhere to this than for a man to believe that God exists. The chemical reproduction also shows that under controlled conditions, man can manipulate materials to make responses. This is hardly creation.
Phoenix D, could you please explain your statement, "Evolution is not random." It isn't clear, unless you provide an example. Spontaneous generation, that is, starting with nothing, or non-life, and coming up with order, and life, does not work. You still need to start with something. Those who have tried to "recreate" a proto-earth, are using controlled conditions to simulate random patterns. That is hardly scientific, and it never has produced life, even when all of the materials were present and properly manipulated. You still need to begin with something being there or you will never get anything. Instar admits as much when he says, "given certain certain environmental factors, the precursors of life can be generated." Someone is doing the generating, for without manipulating these precursors, the experiment fails. Unfortunately, precursors of life and life are not the same. Klvino, makes an interesting comment when he says that, "the single greatest miracle in all of this universe and the next is that of random chance and the process of evolution." It is impossible to wholly rid ourselves of theological terms like miracle, even when we are trying in vain to be atheists. That's the way that we were made. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. It's the only thing which lends meaning and purpose to this life. If you really believe in microevolution, that all that exists arose from non-life and fell by random chance into the intricate order which we find on planet earth, that you and I are nothing more than a glorified ape, what ultimately, is the purpose of life as we know it? Even your debating this issue is meaningless, for you are nothing more than a random arrangement of molecules destined to rot in the grave. The Bible tells us that, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." All that is is created by Him and owes its very being to Him. That's the real reason most men find the subject troubling to them. They don't like the fact that there is something greater than themselves and to which they are endebted for all that they have.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Psalm 14:1

[Azselendor]

SJ, your example of evolution being non random is an example of forced evolution where if artificially eliminating a large majority of the population, you improve the gene pool. However, there is a flaw in this. Bananas, believe it or not, will more than likely be extinct in all of our life times because humans have pretty much bred all genetic diveristy out of the modern banana. As a result, it can easily be wiped out if a banana-born disease manages to get free.

GBrutt, As for michael behe, his ideas about 'intelligent design' are with the rest, as the overwhelming majority in the scientific community reject it as baseless creationist pseudoscience trying to pass itself as hard science. His Book, Darwin's Black Box, reads like it's based on personal incredulity instead of an actual explanation for his examples. Indeed, a couple of them been used to actually disprove his ideas by his critics. lol

As for the designing of software, keep in mind that software evolution, while done by man, actually evolves not because of the efforts of the programmer, but that of the industry, the community, users, testers, need, and improvements. These are natural influences that influence the direction the programmer (IE force of program evolution) to improve and make new versions of a program, which may spin off into seperate programs that may or may not survive and then further evolve at the hands of yet more programmers and influences around it.

Take Any program, remove the users' and customers' needs. What do you have? A program without enough influenece for dramatic change that will, pretty much, not advance more than what it is. Why? Because the programmer, being the force of program evolution, does not have anyone buy and using his program, thus he is unable to continue to develop it.

Moving on, You are right, life didn't start from nothing. I more than likely started about 8 billion years ago when a red giant went supernova and left enough stellar material behind to create our star system 3.5 to 4 billion years later. Those materials, by random chance and good energy managed to come together and create the right conditions on earth for life and create the building blocks for life which took form in earth's primitive oceans billions of years ago. Computer driven recreations of protoearth enviroments will never yeild the correct responses, mainly because they are best-guess simulations.

Ask yourself what DNA is and then ask yourself what it is made of. Sugars, Amino Acids, etc. What are they made of? basic elements and all of these things exist, already in nature and can form on their own. Often, creationist argue that life had to start at one point. How can we be sure of that? For all we know, CNN might report evidence that many kinds of microbacterial life formed on earth, at different places, all around the same period. Simply, no one knows and no one will know until a proto-earth enviroment can be found.

Now you are assuming that someone is behind everything, someone pulling all the strings, not so. Does lightening have direction? No. It lands on chance and probilities. Then factors increase that chance or decrease it. And remember, Lightening can strike twice.

Now as for you twisting my words, don't. My statement was never about god or religion and the word 'miracle' is used for the purpose of stating the extreme possibility of life, not the fact someone did it. The way you twisted it around would be me saying you endorse free thinking because you uttered "Athiests" The fact is that creationism mythology
is not science and cannot ever compete with it.

Now if "god" did make us in his image, then I think his Xerox needed a serious toner replacement. He got a lot of stuff wrong. The human knees are not load bearing structures. Try standing at attention all day with your knees locked. Humans have some 3000 genetic diseases and faults bred into us alone!

The fact is the complexity of evolution is not complex at all. It only appears complex because it has aeons upon aeons of history behind it that we are yet to uncover.

The bible says the world was created one way, but every religion has different ways. Who's to say who is right and wrong. Hell, the egyptians claimed the unvierse sprung up from godly intercourse and endured because they kept up at it! Can you disprove the egyptian creationism? Greek? Hindu? Zulu? Native Americans? and so on.

You seem to think athiests and free thinkers have an issue with god, in reality most of us don't. As we don't believe in a god-figure or divine-lifeform, we cannot have an issue with it. We won't go to hell, because we don't believe in it thus we cannot go. We don't believe in satan or the devil, so clearly they can't influence us.

So really, how can a free thinker be endebted for all eternity to someone they don't believe even exists? At the risk of insulting all the religious folk and bring down their wrath on me with my next example, but "How many of us owe the toothfairy money for our babyteeth?"

Athiesm has been around since 300bce, if not earlier. I don't think we are going anywhere.



A man called Löffler who was burned in Bern in 1375 for confessing adherence to athiesm is reported to have taunted his executioners that they would not have enough wood to burn "Chance, which rules the world".

[Instar]

I'm afraid you missed the point of the software example. The process of evolutionary software does NOT involve any human input, besides the design of the algortithm, that is, setting the code up to evolve. The software itself creates several versions of a program, each with some randomly chosen changes, and then runs simulations to see which version of the program works best, and then combines the best ones to be members of the next generation.
To reiterate, there is absolutely NO human intervention beyond actually setting it up to evolve. Evolutionary software mimics the natural process, and even can create many novel and interesting solutions to problems.

[Phoenix-D]

Evolution is not random, Klvino [ORB]. It is mainly driven by natural selection; the organisms that aren't good at dealing with their current envioroment don't do as well as the organisms that are. Either they just breed more, they live longer, whatever.

Yes, you've got mutations and genetic drift in their too. And those are important, since they can seperate two otherwise identical populations into sub-species or species, given enough time. But natural selection does most of the 'work'.

GBrutt, see the above and also note that abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics. Evolution theory doesn't care how life got here- it just covers what happens when it did.

Abiogensis does rely on random processes to an extent, though, but you don't have to maniuplate anything. Give conditions much like the early earth and early components of life will form spontantiously. Given that its estimated it took several billion years to go from that to single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, its not surprising we haven't gotten any farther yet.

That's why research is still continung in that area. It gets really murky because the early life left very few traces; bacteria simply don't fossilize well, and just to make things complicated bacteria "species" are very flexible, given that many bacteria can eat DNA and sometimes instead of eating it use it in their own chromosome.

[Instar]

gbrutt, the Bible also says that God killed a guy for, well, spilling his seed on the ground. God also says in Malachi 2:3 that hes going to wipe poo on people's faces.
Skeptic's Annotated Bible has a ton of such inconsistencies (and yes, there is a Skeptic's Annotated Koran too).

[Azselendor]

You forgot the one for the Mormons too, Instar! lol

Pheonix-D, Natural Selection is one of several evolutionary processes Darwin proposed. Had the Indian Subcontinent not smashed into Asia, then our ancestors would have never had a practical reason to climb down from their trees. Off course, it did happen and the monsoon didn't go to africa any more thus changing the climate where our ancestors lived dramatically.

[gbrutt]

Response to Klvino (and the many others)

Behe didn’t really plumb the depths of intelligent design as much as expand on the idea of irreducible complexity. He is not, by his own admission, a Christian. He is a scientist who is trying to make sense of the Creation/evolution debate for himself while at the same time is perplexed at the lack of response from the scientific community. The examples of I/C he lists the development of the eye, exploding beetles, blood clotting, all point to intricate systems which have no way of developing on their own. You say that there are some examples of scientists who disproved this, I would be interested in hearing more about them. Behe never says evolution is impossible, rather, he is a rare scientist who cannot answer the questions which face him in the evolutionary model and is honest about it. Read the book again.

On to your field of expertise, software. There I must bow to your knowledge and experience, it is quite beyond my reckoning, except for the gadgets and games that I immensely enjoy. Still, in your anecdote, each step involves a human mind adding to or manipulating data in order to achieve a desired result. No software yet has ever sprung up whole from nothing. There is always a programmer, and engineer, a tech, who put each piece in place. It all requires a mind, your mind, to make it move and work. The program may evolve, but that is only after a great many steps were taken to insure that the conditions were favorable to this result.

The reason that I say that life must come from life is that every scientist knows that it is so. The Laws of Biogenesis prove that life comes from life. All living organisms come from living organisms. We cannot create matter and energy in a lab, no matter who controls the experiment. So how is it then, according to your beliefs, that life came to be? The Steady State Theory was abandoned years ago as untenable, so it must have come about in some fashion.

Also, I never twisted your words. I quoted them and then commented on that quote. I said that no one can escape theological language as it is the way that we are. To use the word miracle is to give assent to the concept of something, whether you admit it or not. If you don't like it, choose another word. On another point, “The fact is that creationism mythology is not science and cannot ever compete with it.” Klvino, look at your own post. It is littered with phrases like, "more than likely," "by random chance," "no one knows," "the extreme possibility." This is fact that you flout, the mighty truth which is to topple Christianity? If you read the same halting words, but from another's post, would you call it science, or in the words of the Apostle Paul, “science falsely so-called.”?

I have a question for you. In the words of Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?” What evidence can you provide to prove your your hypothesis? In your evolutionist point of view, how did all that is get here? How do you explain irreducible complexity in relation to forms of life? Can you tell me how is it possible that they could have come about? What about the utter lack of intermediate forms, which should be superabundant, given the amount of time and fossils which have been uncovered? Or the fact that even given the greatest possible amount of time, the radical changes from one type to another are impossible?

As to the God made a booboo when he made man idea, you err because you assume that man is now as he always is. A man named Descartes also said something similar, but from the perspective of the philosophical. “If there is a god, he is a devil.” In trying to understand how God could make man, who is inherently beautiful and creative, yet also ugly, or evil; Descartes reasoned that if there is a God, he is a devil. This presumes that God made man as he now is. If this is the case, Descartes is right. There is another factor that changes all of the speculations. Something happened to sever the relationship that God had with man. Christians know this as the fall. As a result, man is both beautiful, capable of creating wondrous works to stir the imagination; and is able to commit unspeakable horrors. It also means that we must turn to God to be rescued from our present state. If you have further interest on the subject, Francis Scaeffer’s books are highly recommended to expand on this further. He is a far better spokesman than I could ever be. Try his trilogy, The God is There, He is There and He is Not Silent, and Escape from Reason.

Lastly, (for now), and this is to Instar. You mention two passages of Scripture. The first one details Onan, found in Genesis 38:4-10. The second is Malachi 2:3. Just what your post is supposed to mean, I'm not certain. Was there a context to this, or is the reader left to guess at the underlying motivation? Perhaps you should go back and try it again. Better yet, lay aside your Skeptic's Annotated Bible, pick up the Bible, and read it. I recommend the same to all of you. Job 38 is a nice place to start. Goodnight for now.

[Instar]

The point of those two scriptures was to show how ridiculous portions of the Bible are.
And yes, I've read the Bible. I spent a lot of time in Bible study classes. I read the story of Job too. He went though a heck of a lot of torture for some celestial game. That is a very kind God... and don't say he gets it all back either, because his first set of kids are DEAD.
You're missing the point. I've tried to explain how life is thought to have first arose, in the primordial earth of billions of years ago. Experiments in conditions similar to what the earth was like then show that some parts could have been formed from natural processes.
Admittedly, the software analogy doesn't work because you don't know software or programming enough. Essentially what evolutionary software is is a simulation of evolution. And we're not debating evolution, so the example isn't needed.

meh

[Suicide Junkie]

Klvino [ORB] said:
SJ, your example of evolution being non random is an example of forced evolution where if artificially eliminating a large majority of the population, you improve the gene pool. However, there is a flaw in this. Bananas, believe it or not, will more than likely be extinct in all of our life times because humans have pretty much bred all genetic diveristy out of the modern banana. As a result, it can easily be wiped out if a banana-born disease manages to get free.

I'm sorry. Are you trying to point out that humans are destroying ecodiversity?
We already know that humans are breaking the so-called "natural" patterns with medicine and pollution and clearcutting.
Hell, we've halted the ice age cycle and put people on the moon.

ANYWAYS.
With your typical group of critter, the worst mutations die before birth. The pretty bad ones will die after birth when they can't do basic things nessesary for survival.
Lots of the rest get eaten by predators because they were a little bit slower, a little bit more stupid, or has "lower stats" that contribute to their failure.

In non-social critters, they still have to compete against each other for food. Only the best get to eat consistently, and the rest starve.
In social critters, they still have to compete against each other to attract mates.

---

There is a pretty high attrition rate, especially during developmental stages, I'm afraid to say.

Out of all the eggs and embryos, there is an average of just one per parent that survive to breed again in a stable population. That's pretty bad odds.

[Suicide Junkie]

What evidence can you provide to prove your your hypothesis? In your evolutionist point of view, how did all that is get here? How do you explain irreducible complexity in relation to forms of life? Can you tell me how is it possible that they could have come about? What about the utter lack of intermediate forms, which should be superabundant, given the amount of time and fossils which have been uncovered? Or the fact that even given the greatest possible amount of time, the radical changes from one type to another are impossible?


1) Reams of results from archaeology, biology, physics and everywhere.
2) It starts with a large star. Star goes nova, generating heavy elements. Heavy elements are mixed into galactic gas, from which Sol & system forms. Add energy indirectly from Sol, in various forms, and relatively complex molecules form. You roll the dice in billions of places for ages, and you get the jackpot of a simple self replicating molecule. Then it really starts steamrolling.
3) Quite simply, its not.
4) Too vague.
5) See Zeno's paradox, and quit your silly recursion.

[gbrutt]

Perhaps they seem ridiculous, as they are lifted out of context without any backround or explanation. A tenent of basic Bible study is that, “A text without a context is a pretext.” The Bible is never meant to be taken as some pretty, sanitized look at what we want life to be. It is life and death and war and love. There are songs and psalms, history, battle accounts, science and every other imaginable detail that God wants us to know. That is why it resonates with such force. Lewis Sperry Chafer said this about the Bible, “It is not such a book as man would write if he could, because it condemns him, or could write if he would, because it surpasses him.” There are details in it that are disturbing and difficult to explain, but they are hardly ridiculous. Read the Scriptures yet again, my friend.

As to your comments on the issue of prebiological evolution, there is still too much- perhaps, maybe, kinda- in the pro-evolutionist posts to even pretend that it is rooted in science. The sticking point of this is the fact that there has never been a way for Darwinists to explain how life got started in the first place. It is one thing to say that this is what could have happened, given the right conditions. It is quite another to show that it did happen, let alone how it happened. That is precisely what evolution cannot do; prove any of its claims. The Miller-Urey experiment of the 50’s showed all too well the fact that even under controlled conditions, all you end up with is a dirty glass beaker, not life.

The software analogy doesn’t work, not because I do not understand programming, but because the analogy is faulty. Even if it is a simulation of evolution it is not evolution. First, because it is only a simulation of what someone thinks might have occurred, given the properly staged conditions. Second, evolution is at best a philosophy. In desperation, some cling to this old and unproven theory and look in vain for anything to support their hope of random order derived from nothingness. Lacking this, as all evolutionists do, they go to any and every concievable extreme to cling to their beloved “faith”. Such are men like Eldredge and his admission that, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradual adaptive change, all the while really knowing that it does not.” Better still is Francis Crick and his “directional Pan-spermia” theory. He believed that aliens seeded our planet. Isn’t this the humanist equivalent of a miracle? At its worst it all smacks of a bizarre form of pseudo-religion, with all the trappings and none of the content.

Consider this for a moment. If what you and others believe is true, that we are nothing more than accidental groupings of molecules, what is the purpose to life? What ultimate meaning and reason do you have for your existence? Does your faith in nothingness and chance give you comfort at the end of the day? Does it lead you to strive for excellence in all that you do? That’s not the answer given in the Bible. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Each and every man has great worth in God’s eyes. We can choose to ignore the truth, or look into it for ourselves and see if these things are not so. I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” Romans 1:19, 20

[Instar]

I tried my best to explain it, but I guess it wasn't good enough. You failed to understand, which is partly my fault, but I guess you didn't want to understand, either.
The evolutionary algorithm analogy IS relevant. Self-modifying programs can create concepts similar to what we see today: a diversity of life, natural selection, and so on. Of course, I'm just repeating myself.

"that we are nothing more than accidental groupings of molecules"
Accidental? Hardly, evolution can explain where we came from, and study into the first life forms can find that origin. Study of astrophysics tells us that everything seems to have come from the Big Bang.
"what is the purpose to life?"
Why must there be one?
"Better still is Francis Crick and his “directional Pan-spermia” theory"
His ideas are NOT representative of the whole. Just as I cannot judge you by the words of Anne Coulter ("Hang all liberals from lampposts" and "Forcibly convert muslims to christianity"). Anne Coulter is a horrible person (specifically, she is ethnocentric, racist, and suggesting mass homicide).
"Does your faith in nothingness"
Who said I have faith in nothingness? I have faith in myself, in science, and other things. I think you're just tossing an emotionally loaded and vague term around here.
"Does it lead you to strive for excellence in all that you do?"
In fact, yes. I strive to be the best person I can be, everyday.

You've had your turn.

The Christian faith is full of logical inconsistencies.
Christian dogma says that God is omniscient -- past, present, and future -- and omnipotent. This premise is core to the Christian faith.
Also, the Christian faith says that man has free will.
The premise that a supernatural being being omniscient, past, present, and future, automatically negates free will. You are not free to choose if someone has already charted your every thought and action. You cannot choose a different path. It has already been determined.

Christian dogma also states God is benevolent. It would seem that this supernatural deity isn't omnibenevolent, because it is well within this omnipotent deity's powers to prevent all suffering, and indeed, "save their souls." Given that you have no choice in the matter (no free will), human suffering and eventual trip to purgatory (for bad people) is all but determined. What kind being would arbitrarily condemn many individuals to eternal torment?
It would be like a child care facility sourrounded by stoves, with the children unable to stop themselves from getting burned.

The Christian faith has also divided the world many times. If God was so kind, he would not have let the various factions of Christian war against each other for so long. Christianity must not be his chosen church, because of its fractitious nature. Also, I hope you're willing to condemn at least 4/5 of the world's population to eternal suffering. How kind of God to let only the majority of Europeans and related groups only go to heaven.
"Each and every man has great worth in God’s eyes"
Unless you're a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist.

If the only way to get people to behave is through the promise of eternal paradise (heaven), that doesn't say much about humanity. In my opinion, people ought to be good, not for some reward, but because it is the wrong thing.

" I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul."
If you keep quoting the Bible, I will start quoting the Qu'ran, or better yet, some crazy *** Wiccan stuff. Or maybe one of the many Christian cults. Or Satanists. Big whoop.

[Phoenix-D]

One comment since I don't have time to do a thourgh reply tonight:

If the Bible is not meant to be taken out of context and used as examples, etc..

WHY do Christians insist on doing it? You begin your post telling him not to do that and end it doing exactly that!

[Azselendor]

Gbrutt, That's the problem, behe didn't discuss the topic he used, he simply offered opinions. Thay didn't expand on the topic, this is what his critics point out. Oddly, you say he's not a christian, however, any research into his work history shows the amount of work he did for creationist/intelligent design schools. By simplying saying someting is complicated and thus has to have someone design it on purpose, means nothing. It's grasping. Blood Clotting is a bio-chemical process and any doctor can tell you how it happens. Eye Development could more than likely be answered or even covered by any high school biology teacher. Exploding beatles? Come on now, that's something you can look up in a library. Science is never about answers, it is about finding the answers. Behe really needs to think before he rights. You should be able to find his critics by simply running a google search just like I did and pulling up the relevent articles and clippings.

On computers, while each step does involve a human mind, it's not the direction of a sole individual. It's the input and suggestion and needs of many being realized via the efforts of a single process. the programmer merely acts as evolution, not as god. that is a significant difference. As for the outcome requiring favorable conditions, not always. Infact, life has shown a remarkable ability to endure and continue even when faced with certain doom. to quote, "Life Finds a Way"

Excuse me, Biogenesis today is a corruption of the original concepts of Biogenesis. Creationists have latched onto it hoping to unseat evolution. Keep in ming the Miller-Urey experiment produced some of the organic components of life, but failed to produce a living, reproducing organism. not a borken breaker. This should be looked as not as a failure, but as a simple example that the technology doesn't exist yet to preform the tasks. And yes, we can create matter and energy in a lab. living creatures are just harder http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Yes, the Steady State Theory has been alrgesly disproven, but keep in mind that the rate of expansion in the universe shouldn't be accelerating either. Big Bang theory doesn't make allowances for that.

Using the word 'Miracle' doesn't validate theology. Miracale is a way of expressing extreme probability.

The problem with creationist mythology is the fact that it does not answer questions. It just provides commentary from a book that people write off as answers without giving it a citital thought. You attack my phrases, but examine your own. You'll say one thing, a retract it or say something counter to a previous post. Behe, for example. How can you not know his religious standings? did you even read his book or just the inside dusk jacket flap? You own attacks on evolution are merely questions poised to look like you mock it. Answer Colin Patterson if they were directed to a creationist. The bible doesn't provide testable answers, it just says, "this is the answer, don't question it or you're satan". Besides, SJ's beat me to it. lol

Actually, I do not assume humans are as they always are today. Humands today differ from humans 100 years ago and from humans another hundred years more. Creationism and Bible Apologists assume humans have always been the same. You're entire argument on the lines from your misassumption of what i was talking about actually has nothing relevent to what I was saying. lol

What I was saying, and you didn't grasp it, was that if you assume god designed humans as they are today, then you also assume he did a piss poor job of making us in his image. Not a booboo, a PissPoor Job. The kind of job I'd expect from someone not paying attention to what they are doing.


SJ, I was pointing out humans are promoting evolution in various insects and bacteria by allowing the strongest of them to survive and reproduce by eliminating the the lower 99.9% of all life. Survivial of the fittest via dues ex machina.


back to gbrutt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Read an learn beyond the bible thumping. You need to get your facts straight.

[Atrocities]

I think, no better to say that I believe, I believe that we are doing more harm in the long run by tampering with the genetic code, biological make up, and the use of hormons in live stock and in the field of bioengeneering than we could possibly even begin to comprehend now. By splicing this bugs dna with that bugs dna in the hopes of creating a super bug that eats bad bugs, we are putting ourselves, and indeed our world at risk. This goes for insects, animals, planets, as well as virus - bugs and such.

[Instar]

Atrocities said:
I think, no better to say that I believe, I believe that we are doing more harm in the long run by tampering with the genetic code, biological make up, and the use of hormons in live stock and in the field of bioengeneering than we could possibly even begin to comprehend now. By splicing this bugs dna with that bugs dna in the hopes of creating a super bug that eats bad bugs, we are putting ourselves, and indeed our world at risk. This goes for insects, animals, planets, as well as virus - bugs and such.


So you're against animal husbandry? We've been genetically manipulating animals and plants for thousands of years. Genetic mondification isn't some bogeyman we can just invoke to scare people.

[Azselendor]

Take bananas, I mentioned them before as being open to extinction due to a lack of genetic diversity. Most livestock is the same way, it's part of the reason why Mad Cow and Hoof&Mouth diseases spread so quickly in the cattle population.

Let's say Cattle, Pigs, Goats, and a large vareity of popular fruits all go extinct. How much world starvation and suffering would that lead to? How many deaths? Genetic Engineering can prevent that. And don't forget the numerous genetic diseases that plague millions upon millions of humans.

As isntar said, Genetic Engineering isn't some boogymen that can be used to scare people one way or another.

[Suicide Junkie]

ISTM that Genetic engineering today is comparable to the technology of Fire back in the stone age somewheres.

We can see it happening naturally, and direct it a little with breeding. We've just recently discovered how to start our own in a very rough manner by rubbing sticks and scraping flint.
We've got a long way to go before we can make the steam engine of genetics, and like fire, it will have its dangers long past the time when we do have fine control.

[Instar]

SJ, you raise a valid point. But, as I said, we shouldn't fear it or ban it. GM food is one example. The general public sees it as "frankenfood," which just is not true. Copious amounts of research has gone into this field, and I can say that the chance that someone will get hurt is nonexistant.
This does not mean that I am for any genetic modification. Responsible science is needed, and thorough investigation is always needed.

[Azselendor]

Instar is right, care has to be taken in this process. Many conservative agendas portray Genetics as a negative and evil thing, but it's far from it and only used to energize the close minded.

[Atrocities]

Actually I am against the genetic labratory gene splicing thing. I have to say that it alarms me.

A new thought:

What if God had nothing to do with our creation. What if God created the race, be it by evolution or by *ZAP* your created, that then after eons created us? What if they are here right now but we simply cannot see them. What if they can manipulate time in a way that we have not yet concieved of?

It was an amazing thought when I ponder the possibility that God may not have created us, but instead created, or had a part in, the creation of the races that in turn created us.

Think about it, here we are doing the samething now with genetics, creating new plant and animal hybrids. It is also quite possible that in the forseeable future that we might even create an Artifical Intelligence like androids, robots, and other. Mechonisims that can think and anticipate and interact with us. Granted they will not have a soul, the thing that makes us human, but they will have something entirely differant. Eventually the technology can develop to the point where our inventions will create / reproduce themselves, and quite possible, one day invent something on their own such as a new life form.

What if the cycle has gone on and one and on since the beginning of time itself?

[Azselendor]

To mea more likely thought would be that god/alien created humans to improve or replicate himself, however we humans wouldn't remain under his control and we drove him off the planet and he took revenge on humanity before we finally got rd of him - assuming he existed in any form at all.

[Atrocities]

That would make for some good books. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif The God Wars of Earth

Written by: Klvino & Atrocities

[Azselendor]

lol, If we do it, we need to have a sequel where man faces off against AI in The Human Wars of Earth .. Or maybe Plearth?

Plearth, if anyone watches George Carlin, is the ultimate goal of Earth. Earth could not create plastic, so humans were made to make plastic and once we make enough of it, the earth will destroy us and absorb all the plastic into itself creating Plearth.

[Leslie]

I feel like I'm bringing a wet noodle to a gun fight somehow.

But.

For me, watching an hour or more of what the Hubble telescope sees, does wonders for my peace of mind.
I know where I came from, and I know where I will be some day.
It just isn't some place called heaven or hell.

I watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos episode "The Backbone of Night" and I know why man insists on pursuing religion.
I can understand why some need their religion.
But I see it for what it is.

And it doesn't matter if I don't know how old or big the universe is. Or exactly what moment life was created on earth, or specifically how.

It is enough, that I know why religion is here.
And it is enough to know, I will not be able to stop looking, just because of what is written in one of the many books claiming to know.

Some day the person I am, will die. That much I know.
What happens next, it isn't written in any religion's books of teachings.

[Atrocities]

We are all star stuff.

[Joe 98]

In yesterday's news, a man suddenly spoke and rememebered his family after an accident 10 years ago.

Is 10 years in an institution man's free will or an act of god?

[Leslie]

Joe 98 said:
In yesterday's news, a man suddenly spoke and rememebered his family after an accident 10 years ago.

Is 10 years in an institution man's free will or an act of god?



I think they're called comas, but not being a MD I could be mistaken.

I think it pointless to see god in anything I can't currently understand.

I think it just as pointless to blame god for anything I think was harsh or unfair (war, death and famine), as giving god credit for anything nice and generous (seemingly miraculous events).

God is the ultimate placebo. But that is about all god is.