[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……

I’m kinda/sorta guessing that you’re a……Christian…..?
(…..duhhhh…….)
Again, not-a-problem.
I’m Irish-Catholic.

I began my prior post by clearly stating I had no issue with anyone’s religion.
I clearly stated that I felt the written word (mine, or anyone’s) was open to misinterpretation.
I clearly stated that I wanted this to be “2 guys sitting at a table having a chat”

You responded thusly:

“….you’re either not paying attention, dense or are trying to push some christian buttons around here because it seems to be entirely out of the realm of possibility that you otherwise can’t understand this yet.”

And this….
“I’m pretty sure now that this guy is just some smart-ass with no life getting off trying to push buttons on what he in his wisdom probably regards as “ignorant people”.”

Wait…there’s more:

“…to see if he can offer up something by way of an intellectually honest answer. I’m guessing he won’t because we haven’t seen one yet.”

My last post boiled down to: I don’t think it’s wise to allow/consider unproven data/items into scientific research, because this then allows ANYTHING to be put on the table.

…..and you chose to counter with insults.

Insults.

Not-very-christian…….

“Because as an objective scientist searching for truth you never shut the door on anything unless it has been catagorically disproved…”

Completely backwards…..and….completely wrong.
Scientists deal with factual components to arrive at a solution.
Sure, a scientist could say: “It could be anything…”
But that’s speculation, not research.
Once the research begins, the speculation gets whittled-away with fact(s).
You can’t be ‘objective’ when dealing with facts.
Facts are ‘what is’, not ‘what could be’.
It either ‘is’ or it ‘isn’t’.
To deal with ‘facts’ objectively is to say: “2 plus 2 equals 4…..but I’m open to other answers…….”

Continuing….
“…you never shut the door on anything unless it has been catagorically disproved, and then you still keep it on the table in the event – just in case.”

I’m staring at your words – shaking my head back and forth – and wondering how any human being with such a thought process is able to function and exist in this century.

That statement (YOUR words) implies that ‘anything goes’.
The amount of ‘anything’ that can’t be ‘Categorically disproved’ is infinite.
And then you want to KEEP it on the table even AFTER it’s been ‘categorically disproved’…?????

And why bother going through the process of disproving anything if your intent is to keep it on the table anyway…???

And ‘just in case’….?
Of what???
If something has been categorically proven, then what’s the ‘just in case’…?

‘Water is wet. Fire is hot. The Earth rotates on an axis and revolves around the Sun. But…. let’s keep religion in there because, well…just in case…..”

And if scientists all over the world should consider God/creator/religion as part of any scientific analysis….then which one should it be?

Your entire premise boils down to: “Well…..because…no one has disproved it…”

How about this:
A car is created along the assembly line at GM.
From start to finish, humans and machines worked together and produced a fully-functioning automobile.

Or did they?

It’s quite possible – if you believe in a creator – that the creator is responsible for the automobile you are now staring at.

Yes, we’ve witnessed the actual manufacturing process of that automobile…..but NO ONE has disproved that it wasn’t created by the almighty. It’s quite possible that he switched the cars in the blink of an eye. And unless it can be disproved….then it’s quite possibly true!

re: Einstein
Just because Einstein nailed relativity doesn’t make him an expert in everything/anything else. Yes, the man was a genius, no argument. But his statement ‘….probably a creator/god…’ has no more validity than ‘…..probably a giant winged elf, dressed in blue sequins….’
Einstein….a genius. But being a genius does not make you flawless.

Keeping all options on the table is fine, providing they’re provable.
Scratch that.
You don’t keep options on the table when doing scientific research.
You keep facts on the table.

Would it be wise for medical science to be based on ‘Could be this….or could be that…’
Surgeon: “It could be this….maybe……maybe not….OK….now just close your eyes and count backwards from 10…”

You’ve asked me to disprove the existence of god/creator.

Following that logic opens the door for anyone to come up with anything and then to insist that it must be true (or it must exist) because it can’t be disproved.
And that’s just ridiculous…

And why would you – or anyone – insist that the statement “we don’t know yet” is a cop-out?
You’d prefer a lie?
Or just any assumption will do…?
NASA: “Well, we’re still working on the re-entry systems, guys. Until we figure it out, we just don’t know (if you’ll survive re-entry)….”
Astronauts: “Nonsense! Let’s get this show on the road!” (Climbs into shuttle)

Isn’t “We don’t know yet” much better than: “You could survive re-entry……or not……Here, let me close that hatch for after you get in…..”

Your chair/god comparison is just downright………silly. You’re comparing a chair – something that can be recreated easily, with a ‘supreme being’. If the only evidence for that particular chair is a verbal description, then it’s referred to as ‘hearsay’…..or ‘legend’.

The year is 1990.
A plane crashes into a very, very, very remote area of the wilderness.
The local people (still stuck in the stone age) worship the wreckage as a ‘god’ because it came from the sky.
Years go by.
There is much worshiping.
Eventually the plane is located and the wreckage recovered.
It is explained to the locals that it is a flying machine created by man.
They’ve been around for years and people use them all the time.

……uh-oh……….the bite from that reality sandwich will be very hard to swallow…..

Your entire argument seems to rest on: “Of course God exists! Has anyone ever disproved him?”

You ask:
“Can you personally disprove the existance of God?”

Dragons
Sea-serpents
Bigfoot
Mighty Mouse
Shadow people

No-one has disproved their existence…..therefore, they must be true!

You’re perfectly willing and eager to believe in something (or anything) because it hasn’t been disproved….and is real old.

My friend, if that’s your rationale….if that’s your belief system…then it is completely pointless to attempt any further discussion with you.

But I’m sure I’ll check back to see how you further display your teeming intellect.

(Yeah, that’s an insult. I figure I’ll get in at least one. I wonder how many will be in your reply….?)

See you in church.

God’s love (….and mine xoxoxox….)

I must be honest about one thing, when I began doing a little more looking into on Walt Brown, I did find evidence that he hasn’t really stood his ground on his conlcusions.

However, (and I’m really tired, so please bear with me), I have read his work, and my own minuscule engineer training (I never graudated) says he has some points.

On the Hydroplate theory, the critics did not address one thing: the process of liquification, a process that can be seen today during earhtquakes and repeated experimentally. That is what Brown and some others I have heard say caused the tremendous continental movement during the massive flood event.

Could some of Brown’s theories be wrong? Sure. I’m not 100% sure I believed every one of them when I first read them. But I have seen enough, with enough supporting evidence, that there is something to it and we may indeed have mis-interpretted the fossil record.

As for the total young earth theory? I dunno. Maybe, if the flood did occur as Brown suggests. Possibly younger than we think but not as old as has been speculated.

I’ll point you both to a great book called Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, by a British science reporter named Milton, I think. (The book is way down in my car.) He is not a creationist, but an early chapter points out that radiocarbon and radiometric dating has some serious flaws.

For instacne, a clay bed containing fossils in Kenya has been ‘dated’ at between 0.5 and 17 million years. Today, paleoanthropologists say it is 2.42 million years old. Why? Because it has to be to support a find made there by one of the Leakey family.

This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts! They want me to believe that I came from an ape, but they ‘choose’ the information that best fits their theory? Not the theory that best fits the data? Or an admission that the data just isn’t quite right?

(Wow, I really am tired. I’ve been working with subject matter experts all day, writing a technical training class. You don’t know what anal is….)

Anyway, thanks for the links, guitarguy. I’m glad you provided them, and I read them. I just don’t agree with all the findings.

If you’re interested, I just picked up the Feb 08 Discover, and there is a really good article on the possible formation of simple amino acids and RNA, on a frozen earht! I think you’ll like it.

Cat, thanks to you too. Both of you have actually provided me with a great deal to think about.

No, I haven’t come to believe evolution. I still think there is too much conjecture, sometimes supported by an almost religious fervor on the part of the evolutionists. But I am glad we can talk about it here.

Goodnight to both of you, and anyone else reading, I’m going to bed.

-Steve

The links are interesting but I think I better spend what little time I have tonight on this thread addressing a more critical issue.

Guitarguy,

SHoward has been making a very clear case against evolution on the basis of form to function and you’re either not paying attention, dense or are trying to push some christian buttons around here because it seems to be entirely out of the realm of possibility that you otherwise can’t understand this yet.

over many, many years, it adapts to the new environment because of some innate spark/drive/whatever to continue on.

RIGHT. The question is, what is that driving mechanism? Evolution insists by the very foundation upon which the theory is built that it must be a random collection of circumstances. Why? Because evolution is supposed to be according to mutation, which without a guiding hand would make it random.

By citing evolution through adaption, you’re going back to Darwin’s initial theory of progressive evolution – these adaptions are slow and long and shaped, like a sculptor slowly shaping and reshaping a species. NO! Even Darwin and his initial followers understood that couldn’t be the case even in his lifetime. Why not? Because the fossil record does’t support it – indeed, it disporves it. It didn’t then and it doesn’t now. That’s why we have “evolution through mutation.” Which means the process of evolution is RANDOM. (Okay? get it? It really isn’t complicated) I’ll say it again: RANDOM. Mutation doesn;t occur to make life easier for the species. It can’t, though you would think so the say alot of scularists talk.

And maybe that’s part of the problemn with your understanding. You always hear secularists scientists trying to split the logic of it down the middle. Case in point, I was watching a dinosaur show on Discovery and an interviewed scientist said “Why did T-Rex grow a big head and teeth? Because that’s what you want to be a successful preditor.” Cut away to something that seems to support the statement, but only obliquely. Why to the leaves fall from the trees in winter and regrow in summer? “Because it’s natures way.” “Nature’ WAY“.

Understand? In both statements the lack of a credible mechanism is glossed over by cute semantics whcih infer an intelligence without admitting one. SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION: forget about agreeing with this, do you understand this?

“Start all scientific query and debate on the assumption that any religious concept, including a creator, is off the table.”

Makes complete sense. It’s a scientific query……..so why should religion be part of the mix?

Because as an objective scientist searching for truth you never shut the door on anything unless it has been catagorically disproved, and then you still keep it on the table in the event – just in case. By closing the door on a supreme creator, you close the door on a long-held belief, and that is bad science if the long held belief has yet to be disproved. Can you personally disprove the existance of God?
If not, since it answers alot, you absolutely don’t disregard it as a potential solutuon. NOW, ANOTHER YES OR NO QUESTION: do you understand this?

This is the impression I’m getting: ‘The theory of evolution is flawed. Therefore, it must’ve been God.’

Almost, with slight correction: The theory of evolution is disproved by the manifest evidence which was originally cited as the cause of the theory. Therefore, it is likely, scientifically, with no other options (being a scientist means being practical, too)that there is a God.

Again, that’s the impression. “If science can’t explain something, then God did it…” If science is unable to prove….whatever, we’ll just say that god (equally improvable) did it.

That makes perfect sense. You don’t say “we don’t believe in God even though we have no evidence of anything else against him – yet.” That’s worse than bad science, it’s really intellectually dishonest. You could say “there is evidence of a chair that had been here. people spoke of it, there are rumors of it’s color and fabric and the trype of wood from which it was constructed. But I refuse to believe in it and choose not to – but I hope the evidence that it never existed will show up sometime.” Whether you realize it or not, that’s what you’re saying. Remember, there is no fossil record to support evolution. None, because the mechanism of the mutation which favors progression cannot be random by any intellectual excerise you want to throw at it.

No. There has never yet been a religious conclusion arrived at via science.

Unless you were to ask Einstein, who came to the conclusion in his old age that the universe simply must have been created by God. So if you’re more intelligent than Einstein, be my guest and work out his unified field theory, would you, because after 60 years we’re all still waiting.

The same force that caused it to open it’s eyes initially is still churning away,

I won;t ask you what this force is, because you’ll fall back on the usual cop-out of “we don;t know yet.” But this I insist upon: what do you know either personally or academically about that force has you convinced that there is no God?

“…they have developed their own religion: a hope based on assumptions and belief.”

Well…..that defines all religion.

So your admitting that sefcular science is a religion? Well, now you’re getting somewhere. Except that the law of averages, statistical possibility, the fact of a racial memory built into all societies of a creator and the fact that science is still holding onto a defeated theory of evolution defeated by the very lack of eveidence it was hoped would support it makes the christian religion far more substabntial in the liklihood of representing the eventual truth of the mechanisms that drive the life on earth.

This is what I’m having a tough time wrapping my head around. “We don’t know why……..so for now, we’ll say God did it.” Or “As we do our research, let’s keep in mind that God may be responsible.”

To cut to the chase, because this is becoming a time-waster, if you can make such a remark and still not understand it, then you just never will. You can’t understand the dumbfoundingly simple concept that an intellectually honest researcher – like Einstien – keeps all the options on the table. It’s unimportant to me that someone who can say that and still not get it eventually will understand it. I don’t know you, but I’ll check back one last time to see if you’re capable of an intellectually honest response without the creeping sarcasm . Oh well. that’s that. Have fun.

SHoward,

I’m pretty sure now that this guy is just some smart-ass with no life getting off trying to push buttons on what he in his wisdom probably regards as “ignorant people”.

I’d like him to answer my questions straight up, but I’m dismissing this conversation because I know he won’t. Still, I’ll check back to see if he can offer up something by way of an intellectually honest answer. I’m guessing he won’t because we haven’t seen one yet.

Anyway, SHoward, I hope you’re having a good day.

Please read this as 2 guys sitting at a table having a chat. It’s too easy to misinterpret the written word. It’s hard to get nuance and inflection down on paper.

I have no problem with any religious belief. Christian? Not a problem. I was raised (and still am) Catholic. (Got a bit worried when some folks implied that God carved the Grand Canyon with his finger, though.)

I’m just trying to understand how God/religion/supernatural-whatever, fits into scientific research.

This is the impression I’m getting: ‘The theory of evolution is flawed. Therefore, it must’ve been God.’

Again, that’s the impression. “If science can’t explain something, then God did it…” If science is unable to prove….whatever, we’ll just say that god (equally improvable) did it.

……..hmmmmm……..*scratches chin…..squints…..*…..

When you refer to the amino acids and elements that began life, are you taking into consideration the staggering number of places in the universe where life could’ve begun? Or are you only considering Earth? There are a mind-blowing number of areas in the universe that would allow for the odds of those gasses and elements to combine in just the right way to create life. The odds were in favor of that recipe being ‘just right’ SOMEWHERE in the universe…….and Earth had the winning ticket. (Or one of them….)

Looking back through the posts I came upon these:

“Start all scientific query and debate on the assumption that any religious concept, including a creator, is off the table.”

Makes complete sense. It’s a scientific query……..so why should religion be part of the mix? I don’t understand how it would be valid (when analyzing a phenomenon in an attempt to understand and explain it) to say: ‘Let’s not forget to add religion/something supernatural to the list…”

If there’s an acceptance to add/consider something intangible and unproven to the investigative process, then it becomes completely valid for anyone to add anything to the mix. This is what I’m having a tough time wrapping my head around. “We don’t know why……..so for now, we’ll say God did it.” Or “As we do our research, let’s keep in mind that God may be responsible.”

“….they feel certain that science can never lead one to a religious conclusion.”

No. There has never yet been a religious conclusion arrived at via science. When/if that ever happens……….well, there ya go.

“Starting with abstract assumptions is the worst kind of science.”

By ‘abstract assumptions’……….you mean, like adding a deity into a scientific analysis…? Then we agree.

“Ignore the lack of facts with the statement: “We just don’t know yet”.

No, That’s not ignoring a lack of facts, That’s acknowledging a lack of facts. Completely the opposite of what you said. And ‘We just don’t know yet” is a perfectly acceptable – and honest – way of saying you just ‘don’t know’. It’s much more honest than saying : “…..it was probably God…..”

“…they have developed their own religion: a hope based on assumptions and belief.”

Well…..that defines all religion.

Also….Walt Brown might not be the best reference to counter evolution.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie025.html

http://www.fsteiger.com/debunk.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbrown2.html

You obviously aren’t terribly familiar with the body of evolutionary thought.

They say exactly what I stated: things must have happened by chance. In other words, something did sit around waiting for a thumb. tic, tic, tic…

In fact, according to evolutionary scientists, that’s exactly how life began. In the primordial atmosphere, lightning struck, and the right gases and water were present to make simple amino acids. There is no explanaition for how these simple compounds formed proteins, a necessary part of the chain to become complex life.

Guess the amino acids were laying around in the early ocean just hoping for a shot at life too…

There are two facets: one is survival of the fittest, exactly what you described and something not in dispute. The other is vertical evolution, species changing into other species, not merely surviving.

Survival of the fittest does not necessarily involve changing from one species into another, even to survive. And there is NO mechanism in evolutionary science for how that might take place.

Now, are you going to add any new arguements, or keep repackaging the same one?

“My entire point is that a biological organism cannot evolve to survive any more than I can sprout another hand by thinking about it really hard.”

Why would you equate thousands (or millions) of years of time with ‘thinking really hard’…? Your scenarios make it sound as though you (or any species) just kinda hangs around…..waiting….hoping that a thumb will pop-up in a few minutes…..tick-tick-tick……yup…..just sittin’ here waitin’ for a thumb is all….really want that fruit…

“According to evolutionists, my species might accidentally change into something else, instead.”

Well…no. A species doesn’t ‘accidentally change’. When any environmental change occurs, the species that survives that change has to adapt to the new environment. That adaptation can take a very-long-time.
The environment wins out, every time. If a species is unable to deal with the new environment, it moves on….or it dies.

The species that can survive a serious environmental change will adapt to that new environment…..but-it-will-take-time. Species ‘x’ survives the meteor crash….or the ice age….or the nuclear holocaust. All other species die, but this one manages to eke out an existence. But slowly…….over many, many years, it adapts to the new environment because of some innate spark/drive/whatever to continue on. The same force that caused it to open it’s eyes initially is still churning away, looking for grub.

Is there is a creator (a ‘god’)? Don’t know. It has not been proven. But if there is a ‘god’ then that means that ‘god’ created creatures who died…..and creatures who survived a great many environmental changes but adapted to their new environment. They evolved.

If you – or anyone – believes in an almighty, that’s fine with me. Not a problem. But then why not take it a step further and assume that this same ‘almighty’ instilled a mechanism for all of his creatures to evolve and survive?

God: “I think I’ll create a universe…..and some planets…..and on this one I’ll add water, and plants, and rocks……..and some creatures. And now I’ll set EVERYTHING in motion. There! Now everything is spinning and rotating beautifully! But wait! Some stuff is banging into each other…..some of my planets are changing…..they don’t look the same anynore. My creatures are dying! Now everything is dead! Darn. If only I’d given my creatures some basic instinct and ability to survive……”

Firstly, you have well described survival of the fittest, but this is not evolution. That some species live while others die because they cannot adapt is elementary and widely accepted.

But it does not explain how one species changes into another. I think you have ducked this question entirely. And please do not make the Finch mistake. What Darwin observed and what occurs today is called Species Differentiation, not evolution. A Finch is still a Finch.

You are right: if I cannot knock the fruit out of the tree, and have no other food source, I and my species will die. According to evolutionists, my species might accidentally change into something else, instead.

My entire point is that a biological organism cannot evolve to survive any more than I can sprout another hand by thinking about it really hard.

Ultimately, this means that there must be some other cause for human existence, not mere chance and hopefulness at standing upright and someday speaking.

If there is some other cause for human existence then that is what made my body ‘know’ when to breathe.

You see, if evolution did not occur, and we didn’t simply pop into existence, then there must have been a creator. If there was a creator then that may be the cause of all that we have seen.

I’ll leave you pondering a question: If I could offer an alternate explanation for the geology we find on the surface of earth as well as the fossil record, are you interested in hearing it?

Keep in mind, I am in no way trying to force any dogma on you, so please don’t feel that.

If you are convinced that my position is only a dogmatic one, just say no thanks and we won’t waste each other’s time any longer.

Why are you breathing? Who told you to breathe? How do you know you’re supposed to breathe?

Perhaps the question should be: “How does an organism survive?”

Or “Why does an organism survive?”

My point is: The organism isn’t thinking ‘evolve’, it’s thinking ‘survive’.

“….I can knock fruit out of the trees, but it’s getting harder…”

If the ‘paw’ animal can’t get to the fruit….and if it cannot adapt to that situation – it will die. The tall animals (the ones who can reach the fruit) survive. The ‘paw’ animal isn’t going to just kinda hang around waiting for a thumb to sprout so it can eat.

“How do my cells know they should grow an opposable thumb and some fingers?”

If that species encounters an event it cannot adapt to, it will die. If it encounters a situation it can easily survive, then it stays as is. If it encounters a situation it can survive (but perhaps not as easily) it will survive, but it will adapt. And it will adapt because it is still alive to adapt.

If you have a paw, why would you need a thumb? Unless we’re talking about a solo creature, then there are other ‘paws’ about. This implies that the ‘paw’ species was doing just fine….until the fruit ran out…..or started growing only on really tall trees.

And then they died…..because they couldn’t adapt.

Not that politics are more important than the current discussion, but my part in the current discussion will have to wait until tomorrow. See you then.

How does an organism know it must evolve to survive?

I’ll restate it like this: assume I am below a primate (an assumption that has been made before about me), and all I have is a paw, no finger and no opposable thumb. I can knock fruit out of trees most of the time, but it is getting harder and harder.

Here’s the question: how do my cells know they should grow an opposable thumb and some fingers?

The core of evolution is that either I will grow some fingers by accident or my cells just know they need to grow some.

How do you say this squares? If cells know they need to do that, who told them? What, pray tell, are the immense odds of it happening by accident?

The fundamental question goes to the root of evolution: what is the mechanism by which ‘things’ know they should evolve?

??????????????????????

Evolution is the ability of an organism to change and adapt to it’s surroundings & environment. That ability ensures it’s survival. It’s not a ‘belief’, it’s an observation of a reality. Some species die, others survive. They survive because they adapt. They evolve. Evolution is the way life survives, not how life is created.

And what about the ‘truth’ you’d mentioned earlier. Exactly which truth are you referring to? (In post #84)

As I stated, it’s easy to refute evolution but that does not prove creation is the correct answer. Pick your faith. Faith in evolution, something that connot even be labeled a scientific theory because one cannot observe or reproduce it. The ability to observe and reproduce results is required of a scientific theory.

You might also look up the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Both of them speak against evolution being true. Believing in evolution is the mark of a lazy mind.

………and that would be….what….exactly…?