Creation vs Evolution

[Tim Jonas]

Although a good, Mass-going Catholic, I have great difficulty with creation.


Fight's on!

[orectolobus]

If you found a Hitec 555 receiver washed up on a beach
would you conclude that it had an intelligent designer or
just happen to assemble itself by chance from random
bits of matter and perfect circumstance over millions of
years.

Probably not, as it is far too complex and organized to
have made without some serious itelligence, thought
and planning behind it.

[SchiessCo]

Ah, but the 555 evolved from the 535...

[Mitch G]

I was thinking of starting a thread on this topic myself after reading about a school board decision recently that allowed theories other than Evolution to be taught in schools. It was actually a very well phrased resolution by the school board, imho. But, that's a bit off-topic.

Anyway, I don't think someone/thing created life on Earth. Instead, I think the Earth is a place where life can't help but come into existence. And, I generally think that there are other planets (or satellites of planets) where life probably arises. But, it's probably single cellular or maybe some simple form of multicellular life, or even possibly a form of animal life. But, the process of cell specialization that is required in animals makes me think that we (Earthlings) just got lucky.

So, I think Earth is probably a very special place in that sentient life, let alone complex life, formed here. When you think of all the things that had to conspire to make us, we are pretty lucky to exist.

In fact, I'm currently reading Rare Earth which does a pretty good job making the case that complex life is rare in the Universe. Another interesting book on the subject is Early Life by Lynn Margulis, et al.



Mitch

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by orectolobus
If you found a Hitec 555 receiver washed up on a beach
would you conclude that it had an intelligent designer or
just happen to assemble itself by chance from random
bits of matter and perfect circumstance over millions of
years.

Probably not, as it is far too complex and organized to
have made without some serious itelligence, thought
and planning behind it.



who designed the designer then?

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Mitch
I was thinking of starting a thread on this topic myself after reading about a school board decision recently that allowed theories other than Evolution to be taught in schools. It was actually a very well phrased resolution by the school board, imho. But, that's a bit off-topic.

Mitch

if you are thinking of georgia, actually, it is a terrible resolution.

there is no other scientific theories that explain the observations.

evolution is as solid of a science as you can get.

for example: we know how evolution changes allele frequencies in populations of organisims (genetics, natural selection, sexual selection, gene transfer)

we do not know how gravity functions.

so do people think an alternate theory of gravity should be discussed in science class?

[Ben C]

Originally posted by Mitch
Instead, I think the Earth is a place where life can't help but come into existence. And, I generally think that there are other planets (or satellites of planets) where life probably arises. But, it's probably single cellular or maybe some simple form of multicellular life, or even possibly a form of animal life. But, the process of cell specialization that is required in animals makes me think that we (Earthlings) just got lucky.Is the universe thought to be infinite? If it is, there are an infinite number of planets, like ours, with solar systems and complex, intelligent life forms. Which, as a sidenote, evolved all by themselves. For they know nothing of our god(s). :p


-Ben :)

[logan5]

I think a couple 100 million years ago a bunch of really advanced aliens came and messed with Earth's gene pool and thereby set the stage for inteligent life. I have no doubt that somewhere in our future we'd do the same on some other planet.

logan5

[Ben C]

Originally posted by logan5
I think a couple 100 million years ago a bunch of really advanced aliens came and messed with Earth's gene pool and thereby set the stage for inteligent life. I have no doubt that somewhere in our future we'd do the same on some other planet.

logan5 Ah, but who messed up THEIR gene pool? Etc, etc.... I love infinity, don't you..?


-Ben :)

[Doc Data]

Originally posted by logan5
I think a couple 100 million years ago a bunch of really advanced aliens came and messed with Earth's gene pool and thereby set the stage for inteligent life.

...and when they visited recently they were heard to say...
"Rats! There's another experiment that didn't work out!"

:rolleyes:
dd.

[Viper Pilot]

Why not some of both????

"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. "

and

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Both quotes are from the finals paragraphs of Darwins "Origin".

Why can't God "originate" and then let His "Laws" take over from there. I see no real dispute, except when people start talking about "special creation".

VP

[Mitch G]

With regards to the resolution, what I liked about it was that it did not require teaching creationism and evolution as other school districts have done (or at least tried?). My interpretation of it was that, sure, perhaps one teacher may introduce creationism, but another may use it as an opportunity to look at other theories of evolution such as punctuated equilibrium. And, I figured if a teacher started teaching creationism, the parent could always set the kid straight (if the parent was so inclined).

To Viper's comments, I think I agree with your comment. But, the devil (or God) is in the details. For some folks (e.g. me) God is the very nature of the Universe that allows/causes planets like Earth to exist which in turn allows/causes life to arise. For others, God is a conscious being that started things rolling and in some cases continues to tweek things over time. Either of these are fine with me. But, I really have a problem when God is a conscious being that created dogs, cats, humans, etc. about 5000 years ago or whatever it is.


Mitch

[leccyflyer]

Because VP if that were accepted as the case by Christians, then the Biblical account of The Creation in Genesis would not be completely factually correct.

Once the Biblical account of Genesis is thus discredited as the true Word then by extension the rest of the Bible would be discredited to a certain extent as well.

Thus any diversion from the Creation account in Genesis is considered to be a fundamental departure from the faith of the literal believer in the nature of Scripture as Holy Writ and would undermine the entire concept of the Bible as the given Word of God.

Brian

[petn7]

could God make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it? :D

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by Brian Cullen
. . . . .Once the Biblical account of Genesis is thus discredited as the true Word then by extension the rest of the Bible would be discredited to a certain extent as well. . . .

That's the crux of the whole thing. IMO, Genesis is NOT a scientific Doctrine in any sense. It is the "logical" attempt at explaining something, and that the people of that time had NO concept of science. Look at the various religions explanation of the Creation. It varys, but not that much. A feeble attempt at explaining things they had no deductive knowledge of.

Creationism, as a science, holds no water (in fact it leaks like a sieve). Special creation is pure egotism.

But the concept of evolution does not exclude the presence of a Creator (this subject bothered Darwin to no end, both personally and socially).

Enough rambling. I think you get my point.

VP

[Daren]

Originally posted by MrMootsie
Fight's on! Ah, this is a good subject which should lead to many rational, thoughtful insights. :rolleyes:

Daren

[Sparky Paul]

*"Ra, the great god of Egypt, lord of the sun and the sky. He lived for countless millenia in a lotus growing in the depths of the ocean until he ascended in his full splendor.
Neither gods nor man existed until Ra created them. He created Shu and Tefnut, ancestors of all the gods, out of his own body, and created mortal man and woman out of his tears.Consequently they have known little but sorrow."
.
Makes sense to me.
.
*"Maui, the creator of many islands and peoples of the Pacific. In the days when the world was nothing but dark ocean he was born to the woman Taranga, a daughter of Hine-nui-tepo, the Goddess of the Underworld...
He became tired of perpetual darkness and raised the heavens from the ocean, pinning them to the stars. ...
(more science stuff left out..catching and taming the sun, making land from his brothers' bodies..stealing fire)..
.
Makes sense to me.

.
.
*ref:"Enclyclopedia of Things That Never Were"
.
In the context of the cultures explaining "creation", all such tales make sense, to extent they explain the universe in terms known at the time.
We know more now.
.
It isn't elephants all the way down, really!

[Looooeeee!]

Originally posted by logan5
I think a couple 100 million years ago a bunch of really advanced aliens came and messed with Earth's gene pool and thereby set the stage for inteligent life. I have no doubt that somewhere in our future we'd do the same on some other planet.

logan5

You sure you didn't subconciously read this somewhere in a Sci-Fi novel? I can't prove or deny your statement, that's the mystery of it.. no one can..
( David Brin and Parke Godwin have both written excellent novels about this...)

[diode]

As posted by logan5:
"I think a couple 100 million years ago a bunch of really advanced aliens came and messed with Earth's gene pool and thereby set the stage for inteligent life. "

Earth may have been a side road on the galatic highway when some red necked aliens pulled off to the side and took a leak, tossed out some empty beer cans, and drove off. From this we have evolved...burrrrbpp....jeff

[Gman2]

from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. "

Life was breathed into man. It was not done until later. This does not preclude man evolving from earlier forms. Life possibly being a soul[conscience etc.].There is also a reference to gathering places of intelligent beings predating mans appearance on earth. The bible says that animals are made of the dust of the earth. Just like man. This is likely to mean carbon based. It also implies that they are from a common source.

whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity

This is incorrect. Gravity speeds along entropy. Life and especially evolution is antientropy. It is constantly renewing itself or you would be dead in no time. The intelligence of the universe is patterned in all life forms. The lifespans of creatures is somewhat arbitrary and follows a logic of generations. It is intelligent in that it anticipates the speed of adaptation required for the general environment it finds itself. This is obviously not always aligned with reality.

Why can't God "originate" and then let His "Laws" take over from there.

This is the theist version of God. This precludes most if not all miracles and doesnt explain the antientropy component of life. The chemical reactions in your body that very easily could be slightly different and therefore youre dead, follow subtle cues from the universe. They are a microcosm of the whole universe.

Once the Biblical account of Genesis is thus discredited as the true Word then by extension the rest of the Bible would be discredited to a certain extent as well.

There is no conflict with the biblical account and science. The order of appearance is identical. The only conflict is with fools that added the begats and declared that the earth has to be 6000 years old or you are a heathen. Prophecy and all else in the bible is based on this happened and then that. In the original language, it does not specify equal blocks of time. This is bogus. Therefore those that waste their time arguing whether it is one day or a thousand years are idiots. The author of Revelations did not see that imagery as set blocks of time and noone else did either.

Creationism, as a science, holds no water (in fact it leaks like a sieve). Special creation is pure egotism.

The whole message of christianity and in fact all other religions is to kill the ego and therefore reach accord with the universe. This is the opposite of most all organized religions. Jesus will be pissed as hell when he faces those that make dead people into icons or tell people that they will see their relatives in heaven. We have made ourselves more separate from the universe than without religion. Our concepts that we as egos will endure after life as we presently are is nonsense. It is not scientific and not christian and not logical.

Is the universe thought to be infinite? If it is, there are an infinite number of planets, like ours, with solar systems and complex, intelligent life forms. Which, as a sidenote, evolved all by themselves. For they know nothing of our god(s).


There has been a discovery of enough dark matter to conclude that the universe is finite. The hindu religion thinks that it is finite and that it expands until it reaches a point and then it collapses and the big bang happens all over again and life is like a cycle. There is no logical reason to believe that there are any other planets able to sustain life. There is no basis to believe either way. It is a faith decision like your beliefs of God.

There is an intellience in the universe that does more than enforce the universal laws as they appear to us as the laws of thermodynamics etc. It patterns itself on every living being. It replicates almost perfect copies of itself until the slight defects add up and then the organism dies. Only then does it follow the laws of physics.

It is too bad that those that find such wonder in evolution and life can so easily dispatch it as in war.

[Andy W]

Ben,
the universe is not infinite. Science has determined it's bounds (although it's awfully large). Question is, what contains it? ;)

I for one am reminded again of how glad I am that my daughter is not attending a government school..
..a

[Terry Lyttle]

I knew this thread would be worth reading, if for no other reason than to give the Jovial Witless another reason not to knock on my door.;)

I grew up in the midst of the row between my grandfather (a Presbyterian Minister) and my father (an atheist, not an agnostic), and all the religious input from the 50s (my Chinese buddy added his gentle part) and the 60s (LSD opens all the doors!), and I stand aside and watch in amusement. I know none of the answers, and simply live my life the best way I can, never questioning where I came from, or where I will end up, depending on the scientific explanation that energy cannot be destroyed or created. I am a happy person...:D

[omega blood]

How about neither. There is no god. And man did not " evolve".
When watch shows about early hominids the term "they appered
" is quite often used. I belive that creatures do not evolve. I belive that there is a radical change that happens some where some how that makes it possibe the the new form to appear. Things don't evolve they may change to suit their environment but that's the extent. If things do evolve why are there not more highly evolved creatures that have been around longer than man that exhibit high intelegence? Also where is the inbetween of the evolution (I.E. early man and modern man. Where is the missing link?)? What did man evolve from? Since man "appeared" he has change verry little. So what did he evolve from?

[The_Giver]

Yup, Andy's right (mostly).

The last physics book I read stated that the most widely accepted theory of the universe is that it is finite but has *no* boundary.
Like the surface of the earth is finite, but you can't point to a place on it and say "This is the beginning".

Gman: Antientropy? *cough* HOOEY *cough*

I am a Christian and believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. How He did it in 7 days and why He left all these bones around ;) is beyond me (I'm neither a theologist nor a physicist).

However, I believe that the Cobb county school board used some poor judgement here. They might as well have a mandatory Bible study class too.

-O Geoffrey

[NewbieX]

This is gonna hurt a little, but I agree with VP.

Evolution doesn't preclude Creation. Evolution can operate assuming a Prime Mover or it can all just be the glorious meanderings of endless, vast chance. Chaos in action, anything can happen, there are no rules...no safety, no reason, no heaven or hell or angels coming to you in the night to counsel you and protect you.

That's the real question for us humans...meaning, knowledge of ourselves, the unknown. Where did we come from? Endless why is all we really have after all this story telling and science and theories and discovery. There is always why.

Did a God "make" us to be ourselves (does "God" care about us) or is the birth of our planet, life force, consciousness and our success and modernity and Denny's Breakfast and WMD and lust and love and joy and pain and all that is...just random chance.

I tend toward a random chance that is Godlike in it's vastness and limitless energy. There is an order in the Chaos. Matter wants to collide and mix. Life wants to spring forth and struggle and floursih. At some point God and physics collide and meld into one and that's how I appreciate it most. It's Mega-Nature. It's all the things you can see happening in a small pond, a high mountaintop, or a jungle or a city street...just more gigantic than we can really fathom.

I think it's easier to believe in a God that gives a darn whether I fail or succeed or live or die. It gives it more weight, more readily accessible meaning, makes it seem more important or makes things not so scary and unknown. I don't think vast randomness and evolution and physics and nature is any less divine than a Prime Mover, a benevolent God or Almighty Zeus.

The whole deal is rather divine either way.

We should definately ask the questions and use all of our abilities to explore and learn...but there are some things that don't end in answers, the answer you find just begins another question.

That's why we have spirituality and religion...sometimes you just have to feel and believe things you can't ever know.

[cwalsh]

The last physics book I read stated that the most widely accepted theory of the universe is that it is finite but has *no* boundary.

I agree, but it is folly to believe in divine intervention at any point.

It seems incredible that they would teach creationism in schools, it is bound to have a retarding effect on the kids appreciation of science.

But,

could God make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

Thats a hard one.

BR,

C.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by omega blood
How about neither. There is no god. And man did not " evolve".
When watch shows about early hominids the term "they appered
" is quite often used.


this link is on whale transitional fossils http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

and this one disusses horse transitional fossils http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

and homonids
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

when they say 'appear', it is because scientists don't really have a good number of fossilized ancestors for us to really know all the information. YET. if we discover a homonid fossil today, and it is the only one of it's species, we don't really know much about how long the species was kicking around before or after this individual.


Originally posted by omega blood
I belive that creatures do not evolve. I belive that there is a radical change that happens some where some how that makes it possibe the the new form to appear. Things don't evolve they may change to suit their environment but that's the extent.


the LAC+/LAC- experiment has been done countless times in biology classes.

take (one) bacteria.
excise the gene for lactose digestion (remove it)
breed this (one) bacteria into a colony
flood the colony with lactose, and remove all other food sources

result: 99.something% of the bacteria die, but guess what? some of the bacteria live.

why?

some of the bacteria have beneficial mutations that allow them to digest lactose.

since the entire colony was raised from a single bacteria, WHERE did this ability come from?

mutation, that's where.

mutation, coupled with natural selection has caused a change in allele frequencies in a population. that's evolution, baby!


Originally posted by omega blood

If things do evolve why are there not more highly evolved creatures that have been around longer than man that exhibit high intelegence? Also where is the inbetween of the evolution (I.E. early man and modern man. Where is the missing link?)? What did man evolve from? Since man "appeared" he has change verry little. So what did he evolve from?


"the missing link" does not exist in the way you are probably thinking. the tree of life looks much more like a bush than a straight line from species A to B to C.

don't forget, a species can have many daughter species, and yet remain living.

[Looooeeee!]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
could God make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thats a hard one.

BR,

C. >>


Well in Portland, OR, in the 70's, Heavy Number Taco made burritos that were like a religous experience to eat...

And there was a never ending supply of chilies to garnish them with...:)

Looee

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by NewbieX
This is gonna hurt a little, but I agree with VP.

Evolution doesn't preclude Creation. Evolution can operate assuming a Prime Mover or it can all just be the glorious meanderings of endless, vast chance. Chaos in action, anything can happen, there are no rules...no safety, no reason, no heaven or hell or angels coming to you in the night to counsel you and protect you.

We should definately ask the questions and use all of our abilities to explore and learn...but there are some things that don't end in answers, the answer you find just begins another question.

That's why we have spirituality and religion...sometimes you just have to feel and believe things you can't ever know.

one quibble...

it seems like there are indeed many rules that the universe holds to. physics deals with finding out what those rules are.

the rest of 'reality' must play by these rules. when they don't, physicists scurry around and try to fix what is wrong with the model.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Andy W
Ben,
the universe is not infinite. Science has determined it's bounds (although it's awfully large). Question is, what contains it? ;)

I for one am reminded again of how glad I am that my daughter is not attending a government school..
..a

my favourite answer:


the hubble deep field shot. it took a picture of a slice of sky that is about what a grain of sand covers at arms distance.

http://imgsrc.stsci.edu/op/pubinfo/jpeg/HDFWF3.jpg

a zoom ride into the deep field shot.

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/01/HDF.mpg


it found over 1500 galaxies at various stages of evolution.

each galaxy contains, on average, 100-200 billion stars.

[Hopperfly22]

Ok here's what I don't get. Some people say God created man such as *poof*. Then others say he crawled out of the ocean like every other land animal. Then there's those who say that god created and guided eveolution. Also religious people discredit the evolution theory by saying "Who created the universe" or "Where did it all start?". Now here's my questions... Who made god? Either he doesn't exist or we're just in a limitless multi-dimensional universe.

[Paul]

Many moons ago all the great minds on earth “knew” that our planet was the center of the universe. Now we know that it is not. Galileo was shunned by society and banned from the Catholic church for disagreeing with the current view.

I predict history will repeat itself and what we currently “know” to be true will be just another bit of historical trivia taught by some holograph of a college professor, and the truth of tomorrow will be radically different from that of today.

[Trizza]

I reckon we're a physics experiment by a bunch of alien uni students. The physics experiment is a simulation running on a computer. They have a well defined set of rules & laws, and an underlying random number generator so all the quantum crap works.
It explains everything! It could satisfy both camps: Creationism - The alien's are "God", Evolutionism - We evolved in this little universe they are simulating.
It also explains why it seems that this so called "God" doesn't seem to give a damn what happens here, because "God" is just observing, not manipulating.

Next question: who/what made the alien's universe, or how did it come about?

[Andy W]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
[B]my favourite answer:

the hubble deep field shot. it took a picture of a slice of sky that is about what a grain of sand covers at arms distance.
..


I have that poster on my wall just off the right side of my desk. Messier chart next to it.. :)
..a

[Doc Data]

May the Force be with you!

dd.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Paul
...
I predict history will repeat itself and what we currently “know” to be true will be just another bit of historical trivia taught by some holograph of a college professor, and the truth of tomorrow will be radically different from that of today.
.
What we consider as "truth" in science today builds on what has been discovered, essentially since Galileo began the process.
"Truths" like a flat earth or a geo-centric universe aren't held by most people as fact any more.
Special relativity doesn't discard Newtonian physics, it incorporates it.
We will learn a lot more about the way the universe functions but most of what we have discovered thru scientific efforts won't be thrown out as "just plain wrong" like a flat earth, but will be part and even bedrock for things to be learned.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Trizza
I reckon we're a physics experiment by a bunch of alien uni students.
...

Next question: who/what made the alien's universe, or how did it come about?
.
Space spores floated on to their planet and began life there..

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by omega blood
... Things don't evolve they may change to suit their environment but that's the extent. If things do evolve why are there not more highly evolved creatures that have been around longer than man that exhibit high intelegence?..
.
The "change" IS evolution.
When the environment doesn't push a species in a manner which favors mutations which cope with the environment, then species remain static.
Crocodiles are a good example of something which experiences no environmental pressure to evolve past it's very successful form and fit into its niche.
Humanity, OTOH, now has the ability to circumvent "environmental pressure" to change to suit the environment, chosing instead to alter the environment itself.
Us out-of-shape, fat poor-eyesight guys that would be Similidon fodder don't have to worry about that any more. We killed all the saber-tooths! And we have eyeglasses, and 180 horsepower toys to get from point A to point B.
When humanity moves to a different environment where changes in the basic form are beneficial and selected by the environment killing off the unfit, then we'll changes in the shape(s) of humanity.
.
After all, there's no requirement for legs in zero-gravity. Another set of arms would be more useful.
Small but rotund crew.. less mass to push around, leaving more thrust for payload, and a good body surface for heat retention...
Who knows what will "evolve"?

[omega blood]

There goes my theory! thanks guys! :(

I should have paid attention in school.


I got another one though. Bornoulis theory and newton are wrong. Majic makes our planes fly.

[Vonbaron]

I see evolution at work every day. Every day a child is born, every day a plant grows. But who or what started it and if something did then where did that come from?

I don't buy the biblical account. It disagrees with observation and reads like a fairy tale made by man. The God of the bible we created in our own image. The real thing, if there is one must surely be vastly different from the petty/angry/jealous manlike God written there.

To me there does seem to be an intelligence behind the universe. Perhaps the universe itself is some kind of living being and we are just a few of it's cells.

[Andy W]

Anyone consider Sagan's point of view?
..a

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Andy W
Anyone consider Sagan's point of view?
..a


this one?

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
- Carl Sagan

or this?

"in the light of modern understanding, there is no sign of divine
guidance here, or at least nothing beyond physics and chemistry.
instead we see evidence of a time of remorseless and sustained
violence... and how the continued operation of a mindless selective process can convert chaos into order."
- sagan/druyan, 1992



I've read both "dragons of eden" and "shadows of forgotten ancestors".

I miss carl.

[Sparky Paul]

Can the Genesis story be considered a myth, or hard science?
.
Creation requires a serious "suspension of critical faculties"..
It is very slightly possible the universe was created in 6 literal days.
But at the very start, what is a day? The sun rises and sets defines a day... No sun until the 4th day?
No days before then..
And.. the events leading up to the flood.. strict adherence to the story demands the lack of water vapor in the air.. i.e. clouds, prior to the flood.
After all, the rainbow was created -after- the "waters receded"..
And since there were no clouds, there was no rain.
When Utnapishtim ..oops, Noah.. was informed by the all-too-commonly-occuring voice in his head that the world was going to be destroyed by "rain", how could he know what that meant?
But where is there sufficient water to cover the surface of the earth, to the height of Mt. Everest?
A "vapor canopy" of suspended water is invoked.. This requires MILES of water vapor, i.e. clouds, in conflict with the previous concept of no clouds. It rquires a fair degree of mental gymnastics to entertain and support two conflicting and mutually exclusive beliefs.
.
And this amount of water vapor would require a surface pressure of over 1000 pounds per square inch, and a resultant surface temperature of over 1000 degrees.. and because of its thickness, there'd be no light on the surface.
These three conditions preclude life here on earth.
But there is life, so what has to give way to the evidence? Creation, or science?

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by Andy W
Anyone consider Sagan's point of view?
..a

Among the theories developed in The Dragons of Eden is the idea that humans are essentially biological and biochemical creatures who, through evolution and natural selection, developed brains capable of problem solving, foresight, and an awareness of death. It is the latter, Dr. Sagan argues, that makes man truly unique and therefore truly human. No other creature on Earth can foresee his or her own non-existence or contemplate a time when he or she did not yet exist.

Dr. Sagan or Dr. Dolittle ? ?

How does he know this ? ?

Sagan was a genious, but not in this field. Pure conjecture.

VP

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Viper Pilot


Among the theories developed in The Dragons of Eden is the idea that humans are essentially biological and biochemical creatures who, through evolution and natural selection, developed brains capable of problem solving, foresight, and an awareness of death. It is the latter, Dr. Sagan argues, that makes man truly unique and therefore truly human. No other creature on Earth can foresee his or her own non-existence or contemplate a time when he or she did not yet exist.

Dr. Sagan or Dr. Dolittle ? ?

How does he know this ? ?

Sagan was a genious, but not in this field. Pure conjecture.

VP

certain chimps know about death. I believe it was koko who 'owned' a kitty that later died. Koko understood that it was dead, and that she knew that koko would die someday just like the cat did.

humans are not 'far and above' all other species. There are some really smart primates, and possibly dolphins.

[joao]

Fellow Ezoners interested in the present thread might want to take a look at:

"The Overview Effect - Space Exploration and Human Evolution" by Frank White, already second edition, 1998

It´s an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics publication, ISBN 1-56347-260-0

I just got a copy a few weeks ago (one click away order systems are :cool: but the $$$$$$s "Evolution" is too fast :D).
Not yet started reading but looks very interesting.
Part1 The Overview Effect
Part2 The New Civilizations
Part3 Experiences of the Astronauts and Cosmonauts

Cheers, João

[Marten]

and I refer you all to this one in particular.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat09.html

Marten

[Marten]

Brian,
You're the first person to comment on it.

A neat, but accidental, double-entendre with the subject at hand, too.

Marten

[Gerald]

...

[leccyflyer]

Oh dear, where's me petard??

I'd posted

Marten

Nice bye-line

dakka-dakka-dakka-dakka-dakka :)

Sorry folks that was a bit of a non-sequitor, referring to the quote above Marten's avatar, but on second thoughts I though it detracted from the debate, so I removed it as soon as it was posted- not quickly enough though.

Brian

[lymon]

a truly omnipotent God can eat his burrito and have it, too

[Viper Pilot]

lymon,

A truly omnipotent God can turn your planes into ash. Watch the sky for lightning bolts. ;) ;)

VP

[U2Steve]

Saw a special on the Hubble the other night- some scientist claims that based on data from the telescope, the expansion rate of the universe is actually ACCELERATING! Where does this leave both the finite-universe, and the cyclical big-bang arguments?

[GForceStress]

You have to believe we were created somehow (obviously!) but who really knows how. I think everyone knows that evolution has gotten enough research to be proved, but weather or not they want to believe their religion well thats up to them . My $.02

[Luxor]

Religion, ahh, who needs it, just an excuse to explain what we choose not to undrstand.
Spirituality on the other hand is something quite different.
With spirituality in mind consider the bible not as a factual story, but rather an instruction manual written with examples on how to be a good and moral person, some taken from truth, and others emeblished upon. That said, creationism and genesis are just the beginning of the story.
Is there a God, I don't know. I also don't have faith God exists. I try to live my life as moraly as I can. I have never had an extra-marital affair, I try not to lie, I don't steal, and certainly wouldn't kill anyone. I live my life this way not by fear of God as religion teaches, but because I believe it to be proper. So in my mind creationism does not make sense, while evloution makes perfect sense.
Just my .02

Eric S.

[Slime-Lover]

I don't see Creationism and Evolution as opposing each other. Creationism is the "poetic" description of how the life was created and Evolution is the "nuts and bolts" desciption. If you think that relegating Creationism to mere poetic status lessens it in some way, I also believe that poetry is as important for understanding the wold we live in as nuts and bolts are.

Another reason that Creationism and Evolution don't conflict for me is because of Chaos Theory. Some think it impossible for life to have arisen from random happenings. What Chaos Theory has uncovered is that randomness is not what all of us thought it was. There is actually order in randomness. The kind of order that was found in randomness is exactly the kind of order that we see in the world in the forms of plants and animals and even in events in time. This type of order never repeats itself exactly, but it mimics itself (so, you still can't predict the future and pick the right horse at the track). The mimicing/repeating order shows itself in the segments of your own backbone which are all similiar, but yet slightly different from each other; in the leaves on a fern that repeat but get smaller and smaller towards the tip; and in time, as Mark Twain once said "History never repeats itself, but it rhymes." Einstein believed that the Universe is orderly and govererned by fixed laws. His response to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal was "God does not play dice with the Universe." But Chaos Theory and its implications for the very definition of randomness, in my mind, mean that God IS the dice. Or maybe "randomness" is just another "face/image" of God.
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by Slime-Lover
I don't see Creationism and Evolution as opposing each other. Creationism is the "poetic" description of how the life was created and Evolution is the "nuts and bolts" desciption. . . . . .

But when Creationism is forced on young minds as a "Science" we get into trouble.

It should NOT be taught as a science course, but a humanities course . . . . if it is going to be taught at all.

Seems to me that would pose another "seperation" issue. Which religions' creation is to be taught. As I understand it, it is the Christian version they want to teach.

VP

[Gman2]

The misnomer scientific creationism is the real problem. I have studied this for years and almost all practitioners claim that the bible is the ttextbook against all other references. This means that when the bible doesnt reference a thing, it doesnt exist. If it is only mentioned in passing, it is of little importance. If it says something figuratively, it is literal. The begats are there to show the common lineage of Jesus to abraham for instance to prove Gods faithfulness. Not to replace carbon dating. The assumption that God placed or allowed the devil to place dino bones to mislead the masses is laughable. If you ask for bread, will god give you a rock? Footprints next to dino tracks have been proven to be fakes planted by fundamentalists. This is a evil as knowingly false gold plates in mormonism.

evolution is not humanities, but our best ongoing guess of reality. That is a good definition of science. There is no reason to have fundamentalists in the classroom as scientists. Evolution does not speak of our destiny or of moral certainty or any other realm properly addressed by theology. The greater danger to our souls is the pompous assumptions of mans role and purpose on earth espoused by fundamentalists. Gone is the caretaker role spoken of and instead is our corporate inspired interpretation of dominance over nature. Most of what inspires the religious is the fear of uncertainty. We must have some edge over cruel cause and effect even though cause and effect must be ultra reliable or we would feel in chaos. It is equivalent to the scofflaw that encourages lawfulness so that he can speed his car and not be blocked by sudden lane changers that might end his fun. There is also Neitsche who said that he would prefer that his servants believed in God as they would steal less of the silverware. Most fundamentalists cannot concieve of a reason not to act in complete selfishness and disregard for others and community if not for the constant threat of a cosmic bogeyman.

[Slime-Lover]

Originally posted by Viper Pilot


But when Creationism is forced on young minds as a "Science" we get into trouble.

VP
Very True. Unfortunately, many creationists think that Creationism (and the whole bible for that matter) only has meaning if it is taken to be a literal desciption instead of a poetic desciption. This is a symptom of the materialistic culture that we live in here in the US.

However, Chaos Theory uncovers the once hidden order in randomness and thus brings the Creationist position of "life couldn't have been created by random events, it needed a designer," and the Scientific position of "there was no designer, only random events," together by revealing that the designer is working IN randomness itself. So God/intelligent designer, is actually controling dice and the spot where every raindrop falls.

With this realization, maybe creationists will back off from trying to get Creationism into science classes because God/intelligent designer is included by the scienticfic concept of randomness.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Slime-Lover

... So God/intelligent designer, is actually controling dice and the spot where every raindrop falls.

With this realization, maybe creationists will back off from trying to get Creationism into science classes because God/intelligent designer is included by the scienticfic concept of randomness.
.
This in itself trivializes the concept of a omnipotent god.
Directing where every rain drop falls, but ignoring the 4000 deaths per day by starvation of young children around the world.
Someone's priorities are seriously askew to say the least.
This monster isn't part of science either!
To say nothing of what it means to "free will"; if every rain drop is foreordained so are all the other activities on the earth/universe.
Even this message.
Salvation? Not to worry. Either you were when you were concieved, or you weren't. There's NOTHING you can do to change that fate according to this idea.
Creationism can't be shoehorned into science by any rationalization, no matter how well the intention to disarm the conflict.
Science depends on experimentation to prove/disprove theories. There is no way at all to experiment with creationism.

[putt_13]

Hello,
I am just wondering why we arguing/converse over subjects like this. People have faith that they will never let falter, and people can pipe out facts that can neither prove nor disprove the beliefs of that person. I think we should just let it rest. It will never be known how life started, but people will always think they know the answer. Just my 2 cents. -Patrick

[DNA]

Patrick,

>I am just wondering why we arguing/converse over subjects like this.

It must have been a slow news day for MrM.

[Slime-Lover]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul


This in itself trivializes the concept of a omnipotent god.
Directing where every rain drop falls, but ignoring the 4000 deaths per day by starvation of young children around the world.
Someone's priorities are seriously askew to say the least.
This monster isn't part of science either!
To say nothing of what it means to "free will"; if every rain drop is foreordained so are all the other activities on the earth/universe.
Even this message.
Salvation? Not to worry. Either you were when you were concieved, or you weren't. There's NOTHING you can do to change that fate according to this idea.

I guess I've really opened up a can of worms now that I don't have all the answers for myself. Let me give it a try anyway. Well, it is a Budhist idea that nothing exists in the first place so, salvation and free will are moot points if there IS nobody. I guess that determinism is a step in that direction by saying at least one thing, free will, does not exist. Modern scientific concepts of cause and effect are deterministic. The second law of thermodynamics states; Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. No room for choice there. A poolball hit acrcoss a billiard table into another doesn't have a choice on what angle it wants to rebound. When people are in a panic and don't have time to think they are really no more than billiard balls bouncing off eachother. Their actions being totally based on their cumulative knowlege gathered in the past. Certainly there are many things in our lives that we did not choose--parents are probably the biggest deterministic effect in our lives other than the weather and the planet we live on or the number of moons that planet has.

Even when we are not in a panic and are being thoughtful like in this thread aren't we still goverened by things that happened in the past. Who decided that this thread would be in English? Aren't you just being classic "Sparkey Paul" by replying to this thread? Did you really make a conscious choice to be classic "Sparkey Paul" when replying to this thread? Now that I've brought up the idea that you are being classic "Sparkey Paul" you might try to be something else out of spite in an attempt to demonstrate your free will, but where did you get the idea or the impetus to try to be other than "Sparkey Paul". The answer-- the past, and since we cannot change the past, and the laws of cause and effect are unchangable, how can we change the future?

Determinism is not a life sentence of being a robot as I see it. Determinism is a comfort to me. It takes alot of weight off my shoulders and allows me to leave things up to God. I still don't want to bad things because I don't like the consequences of bad behavior (you know, what comes around goes around), but when I find myself having done somthing I'm not proud of determinism helps me view things in a larger context. It helps me realize not to worry, be happy because everything will be alright.

Determinism doesn't take away the excitement of living eigther because we still cannot know what will happen in the future. Think about this--you go to a movie knowing that the movie's outcome does not change because you are there to watch it. The movie has aready been shot and printed yet you still enjoy watching events unfold on the screen. I think Shakespeare said, "All the world is a stage, yada, yada, yada, somthing-or-other"



Originally posted by Sparky Paul

Creationism can't be shoehorned into science by any rationalization, no how well intended to disarm the conflict.
Science depends on experimentation to prove/disprove theories. There is no way at all to experiment with creationism.

I guess I was just trying to ease the tension among Creationist by saying that God is in the scientific concept of randomness as defined by Chaos Theory. So they don't have to push their way into science classess any further than that. I did not mean that Scientists have to acknowlege God in the concept of randomness and alter their experimentation.

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
. . . . .There is no way at all to experiment with creationism.

Exactly. In order to be accepted, the experiment must be able to be repeated. Biblical Creation cannot be repeated in the lab.

VP

[MrBungle]

Originally posted by Trizza
I reckon we're a physics experiment by a bunch of alien uni students. The physics experiment is a simulation running on a computer. They have a well defined set of rules & laws, and an underlying random number generator so all the quantum crap works.
It explains everything! It could satisfy both camps: Creationism - The alien's are "God", Evolutionism - We evolved in this little universe they are simulating.
It also explains why it seems that this so called "God" doesn't seem to give a damn what happens here, because "God" is just observing, not manipulating.

Next question: who/what made the alien's universe, or how did it come about?

HAHA! thats not unlike something I thought up many years ago, I don't believe it, but it was good fun thinking it.

What I was thinking was that our bubble of a Universe is a sub atomic particle(electron,proton or neutron) in some other beings body, and that that being's Universe is also a sub atomic particle in another beings body, and that its universe is a sub atomic particle in another ..... you can see where this is going :D

Great fun!

Simon

[Gerald]

...

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Slime-Lover


I guess I've really opened up a can of worms now that I don't have all the answers for myself. Let me give it a try anyway. Well, it is a Budhist idea that nothing exists in the first place so,

.
This is one area where I have a disagreement with philosophy for the sake of philosophy. It's absurd at the git-go. If "nothing exists" then there's no way to discuss it.
.


[quote] salvation and free will are moot points if there IS nobody.
.
See?
There IS somebody, and we're discussing it!
Free will is evident. Salvation, well, that's promised -after- death, when you can't complain if you don't get it.
.
[quote] I guess that determinism is a step in that direction by saying at least one thing, free will, does not exist. Modern scientific concepts of cause and effect are deterministic. The second law of thermodynamics states; Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. No room for choice there. A poolball hit acrcoss a billiard table into another doesn't have a choice on what angle it wants to rebound. When people are in a panic and don't have time to think they are really no more than billiard balls bouncing off each other. Their actions being totally based on their cumulative knowledge gathered in the past.

.
There's an infinite number of ways people respond to situations, unlike the billiard ball which can't make a decision. It's constrained by the surface of the table, the speed it has, etc.
People can go above the table, below it, away from it,... Everyone's perceptions of the world are different from all others, and are for the most part unpredictable, and certainly have many more degrees of freedom than the ball.
.

Certainly there are many things in our lives that we did not choose--parents are probably the biggest deterministic effect in our lives other than the weather and the planet we live on or the number of moons that planet has.

Even when we are not in a panic and are being thoughtful like in this thread aren't we still goverened by things that happened in the past. Who decided that this thread would be in English?
.
The "decision" is made by the culture of the people participating. English is the language for this URL. It could be Romanian on another site.
There wasn't any "prime mover" determining that this site will be in English only, it's just that this site uses English.

Aren't you just being classic "Sparky Paul" by replying to this thread? Did you really make a conscious choice to be classic "Sparky Paul" when replying to this thread? Now that I've brought up the idea that you are being classic "Sparky Paul" you might try to be something else out of spite in an attempt to demonstrate your free will, but where did you get the idea or the impetus to try to be other than "Sparky Paul". The answer-- the past, and since we cannot change the past, and the laws of cause and effect are unchangable, how can we change the future?

.
As Sparky Paul I could be arguing in my spare time! :) The 'laws of cause and effect" don't apply to human interactions. We can only guess at how someone will react to ourselves at any given time.
.

Determinism is not a life sentence of being a robot as I see it. Determinism is a comfort to me. It takes alot of weight off my shoulders and allows me to leave things up to God.

.
I prefer a more substantial basis for my life.
I haven't seen a direct intervention by anything supernatural in my life yet, and in viewing the past several thousand years of history there's an equal dearth of such. Otherwise, so many bad things wouldn't have happened to so many good people!
.
I still don't want to (do) bad things because I don't like the consequences of bad behavior (you know, what comes around goes around),

.
There's a lot of bad people who die natural deaths after creating incredible chaos while alive. What they should have experienced for death, they didn't.
. but when I find myself having done something I'm not proud of determinism helps me view things in a larger context. It helps me realize not to worry, be happy because everything will be alright.

.
Everything will not be all right! **** happens. Can't even pump gas in the DC area without worrying about getting your brains shot out!
You have to work at being happy, not expect it as a perk for just being you.


Determinism doesn't take away the excitement of living either because we still cannot know what will happen in the future. Think about this--you go to a movie knowing that the movie's outcome does not change because you are there to watch it. The movie has aready been shot and printed yet you still enjoy watching events unfold on the screen. I think Shakespeare said, "All the world is a stage, yada, yada, yada, somthing-or-other"

.
Again, life isn't scripted. Our freedom to make choices every minute of the day alters the direction our life takes as we make them.
.


I guess I was just trying to ease the tension among Creationist by saying that God is in the scientific concept of randomness as defined by Chaos Theory. So they don't have to push their way into science classes any further than that. I did not mean that Scientists have to acknowlege God in the concept of randomness and alter their experimentation.
.
As mentioned before, until a testable feature of religion can be determined, religion and science are not teachable as equals.

[MrBungle]

Originally posted by Gerald


Closer to the truth than you realize.

How so?

I understand there are theories about our universe being just one of many 'bubble' universe's. But how is this close? and has it ever even been proven?
And what truth? I didn't realise that the second biggest question('whats out there?') had been answered. (the first being 'why are we here?' )

Please enlighten us.

Simon

[Gerald]

...

[Slime-Lover]

Way to go Gerald! Now were diggin' deep. Where did you pick up this stuff? I like it. I was going to make some points about non-existance but I think the concept is included in your list of absolutes.

[Slime-Lover]

Just so we don't get definitions mixed up, the chaos that I metioned in relation to Chaos Theory has infinitely recursive order in it. Therefore "chaos" as defined by Chaos Theory is also defined by one of the universal absolutes that you listed. I think that before Chaos Theory came about the word "chaos" only meant "disorder".

[leccyflyer]

Originally posted by Gerald
you can't point to something and say "that is chaos."


You've never seen my workbench G ;)

Leccy

[Slime-Lover]

Originally posted by Brian Cullen


You've never seen my workbench G ;)

Leccy

Chaos Theory says that there is no true disorder, only simple "linear" order and complex "nonlinear" "fractal" order. Tell that to anyone who says your workbench is messy.

[Gerald]

...

[Gerald]

...

[DNA]

If "nothing exists" then there's no way to discuss it.

Say what?

Then I guess no one discusses santa claus or superman.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by DNA
If "nothing exists" then there's no way to discuss it.

Say what?

Then I guess no one discusses santa claus or superman.
.
Nothing as in nothing. No awareness whatsoever. No feeling of the environment... No perception of anything... No possibility of even conversing, since there's no mouths, no lungs, no larynx.
Without those, the lack of a language isn't even important. Can't even put nonexistent little black marks on computer monitors which also don't exist.
As I said, such foolishness is typical of some philosophy and are basically self-eliminating, right? And non-existent in the first place.

[Gerald]

...

[Slime-Lover]

Did any of you see Bill Moyers interview Joseph Campbell on PBS? Campbell said that what we are experiencing in the here and now is "Eternity." He defined eternity as "All things that ever were or ever will be," and they all "ARE" right now. This is just what Gerald said in his list of absolutes, "Anything that can exist and ever will exist already does exist."

But Eternity, being all things, is actually no thing. It is us who divide it up into good and bad, beauty and ugly, life and death, time and space, matter and energy. All of those constructs do not really exist, they are our inventions.

Simon, MrBungle, asked "Why are we here?" The answer -- We are "here" only because we believe that there is a "here" that we can be, and also that there even is a "we" that can be anywhere. All of those constructs are illusion and are not real. So, nothing exists but the illusion that something exists.

[Slime-Lover]

Oh wait, modern science has already shown that time and space, which were once thought to be different things, are actually not different. The same is true with matter and energy (E=MC*2). These are both examples of how illusion is overcome with a bit of understanding. If you extrapolate this overcoming of illusion to other seemingly different experiences that we think are real, it is not too hard to imagine how all phenomena in the universe are actually an inseparable whole. This unseparable whole would be called Eternity.

[Mark Wood]

Then there is... The Matrix.http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/blackeye/2ar15smilie.gif

mw

[Slime-Lover]

Originally posted by Mark Wood
Then there is... The Matrix.http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/blackeye/2ar15smilie.gif

mw

Yes, great flick. There are a lot of Budhist overtones to how Neo becomes enlightened to the true nature of the matrix and is able to overcome its illusory nature. At the end when he sees that everything is made of the same "Stuff" (portrayed in the movie by the green 0's and 1's on the surface of everything) he is no longer bound by its imaginary laws of physics and is able, in effect, to perform miracles.

I think the same is true for us in our universe. If we can understand the true nature of things we can perform miracles. Christ was enlightened to the true nature of our universe which enabled him to walk on water without the aid of big floaty shoes.

[Slime-Lover]

Oh yeah, and the line "there is no spoon" is just what I'm trying to get at when I say the illusion that things actually exist is what holds us back from true understanding and enlightenment.

[Gerald]

...

[Slime-Lover]

Originally posted by Gerald


It takes more than "belief" to create the reality we experience.
Lets explore belief and reality. In India where they train elephants for manual labor, they "break in" a newly captured elephant by chaining it to a tree with a big unbreakable chain on its leg. They let the elephant pull and pull on the chain. Eventually it learns that it cannot escape and it stops trying. Now, the elephant trainers no longer need to use a big chain on the elephant's leg. The elephant believes it cannot escape when tied up even though it could actually easily break the rope that has replaced the chain.

In the human realm, there is a phenomena known as "self fullfilling prophecy". It has been lab tested that if you tell people that they are smart or dumb that they will do better or worse respectivly on mental tests.

Advertisers are all about reality manipulation. Reality manipulation is worth big bucks to them. Toothpaste manufacturers want to make you believe that people won't like you if your teeth are yellow, and that you should run in horror from a person with yellow teeth. All just to modify your behavior so that you'll give your money to them. Psst... they don't really care what color your teeth are.

And then there was 9-11. A group of people believed that their'd be virgins in the afterlife for them if they killed some Americans. So, reality is All about belief, and belief is as moldable as Silly Putty. What you behold is what you become.

[Luxor]

Slime-Lover, simply put, you've described what is called "Preception Conditioning", or, a better term is "Brain Washing". The experiment has also been done with fleas in a fish tank. The flea can clearly jump higher then the tank and escape until a screen is placed on top, after awhile the flea doesn't believe he can jump any higher then the screen, remove the screen and the flea only jumps that high. Yes, it works on all species,and it seems the more intelligent the species the better it works IE "Religion".
Back on topic here, I personaly believe that certain religions have brain washed people into believing Creationism. That is why IN MY EYES religion is a dangerous thing, thus the thought of creationism scares me.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Slime-Lover
...All of those constructs are illusion and are not real. So, nothing exists but the illusion that something exists.
.
I'd be REAL cautious crossing the street against the light.. that non-existent 18-wheeler WILL smash you flat, believe it or not!
I can only imagine the carnage at rush hour in tbose areas where this silliness is taken seriously!

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Gerald
Isn't the phrase "nothing exists" an oxymoron?
.
Well, it could also said "Also, nothing exists." That's how we can discuss the concept of nothing.
But stating that there is nothing is not an oxymoron, it's downright silly!

[DennisG]

What piqued my interest in this topic was a statement by Jim Bourke in another thread that he believed in creation as a "viable scientific theory"...
This thread seems to be dominated by people who favor evolution over creation.
I'd really like to hear from someone who believes in creation but not blindly so.
Isn't there anyone who will discuss the scientific validity of the theory of creation?
I vaguely remember from Intro to Physical Science a definition of the scientific method - or was it empirical method?
Can anyone state that definition and how it applies to creation?
I believe in evolution, but don't wish to flame anyone who doesn't - I'd simply like to hear an intellectual explanation of why intelligent people believe in creation as scientific fact.
(an intellectual and intelligent explanation being more than "the bible says so").
It is, of course, all a matter of faith.
My ex-girlfriend believed in the bible as literal truth. While discussing my belief in evolution vs. creation, and referring to carbon dating and the like - she pointed out to me that I only know of these things what I've read in books or been taught - So, just like her, I've put my faith in someone's teachings.
I don't believe I can be shaken from my belief in evolution - and I really don't want to shake anyone else's religious faith.
I just want someone to make as convincing an arguement for creation as what I know of evolution.
'Reality' is subjective. What an individual 'believes' is reality for that individual.
It's been my experience that those who believe in science have a much more flexible and objective view of their own reality than, for example, religious fundamentalists.
I think I'm starting to ramble - This is a dificult topic to make a succinct statement on.
I've now made myself late for work, so I think I'll just stop here and hit 'submit'.
Peace to all no matter what you believe.
Dennis

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by DennisG
...
My ex-girlfriend believed in the bible as literal truth. While discussing my belief in evolution vs. creation, and referring to carbon dating and the like - she pointed out to me that I only know of these things what I've read in books or been taught - So, just like her, I've put my faith in someone's teachings.

.
The faith you have in what you read is supported by the verifiability of what you have read, should you take the time to learn carbon dating, or how fossils are made, whether burning bushes can speak etc.
Properly conducted, scientific tests lead to the same results every time.
A good case for this is "cold fusion". There's been only a single instance, the very first, where "cold fusion" was found to exist. No tests since then have managed to duplicate the featn and it's a remarkable simple test setup. The obvious conclusion is the postulated effect doesn't exist. But of course there's those who despite continuing failures persist in the belief they someday will find "cold fusion".
A scientific test for creation thinking. Take a live mouse. Insert it into the gut of a large living fish. Remove the mouse after 3 days.
Does it require more than a thought experiment to determine the end condition of that mouse?
.
Reality' is subjective.
Reality is not subject to alterations by someone's perceptions.
The tree makes a noise when it falls...
It goes on regardless. Someone can perceive reality contrary to what someone else does, and both can be wrong.
Simple things like Ohm's law, the speed of light, boiling point of water..., are not subject to popular opinion.

[DennisG]

SparkyPaul - I agree with you as always :D
Your opinions on this matter are the most in line with my own.
(also, from reading your posts, I do believe that you know everything;))
I guess the 'reality' thing was where I started rambling.
In any case, what I'm really looking for is someone who can argue for the 'science of creationism'.
You & I, Paul, believe that this is an oxymoron - I'm very curious as to how someone as obviously intelligent as Jim can find 'scientific validity' in creationism.
Jim - I really don't mean to pick on you, it's just that your comment is what got me interested in this discussion in the first place. Although, you have yet to chime in on this thread.
Obviously, you'd be of the minority opinion in this particular thread, and that must be intimidating.
I'm a self-proclaimed agnostic. To me, this means that we can't know the absolute truths of our existence and that of the universe.
Therefore, I personally would never declare anyone else's beliefs as 'wrong'.
I'm willing to entertain anyone else's notions of who, what, where, how & why we 'are'.
So please add your opinions to this thread - even if only to 'represent' the as yet absent other side of the coin.
Thanks.
To each his own, live and let live, peace on Earth, do unto others... etc -
Dennis
:)

[Lucas in Alaska]

I am a creationist a Christian and I believe what the Bible says. It was not always that way. In the past I can't say I believed in macro-evolution but I wasn't a creationist either. I just looked at evidence that I saw and read.

In high school we had to watch a very large video series on evolution- it took weeks to watch. It presented evolution as an absolute and we were not given any other teachings on any other options (creation). I didn't really believe what we were being told at that time and I did do research myself in latter years.

I would like the time to type every rebuttal to evolution I know of but that would take a long time, more than I have. There is a Christian web site called Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) which uses science to help prove the validity of creation and the bible. I encourage anyone to look around the web site and see for yourself. I don't want you to feel like I'm pushing Christianity on you I just want you to see what the other side has to say. You all say you ask questions so look at some Creationist answers.

As far as rebuttals to Evolution here are 2 good short pages
THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION (http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-160a.htm)
The Scientific Case Against Evolution (http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html)

Lucas


DennisG- I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

[me11owman]

Then you belive we should"turn the other cheek" to Al Quieda????:rolleyes:

Or are you going to pick and choose which parts are Literal and which are not??? So what if you and I choose that differently...??

I have been round and round about this with christian friends...( that is the ones that won't de-list you as a friend if yo disagree with them)
What it boils down to is that the "Creationists" start with a belief and search for evidence to support it. Dis regarding information that is antagonistic to thier views.

Science on the other hand finds evidence or does experiments and then take that info and try to form an explanation for it......The key difference is that with new information gathered, science is not afraid of or bound to the old explanation.....If for example science were some day be able to prove tha God kicked off the system and began and guided evolution. Then this would be accepted by any scientist that could repeat the experiment .


My $.02

Jim

[Lucas in Alaska]

me11owman,
Was that at me or DennisG?

[me11owman]

Not at any one.
Just my $.02 on the subject.

Jim

[Slime-Lover]

I said, "nothing exists."

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

.
I'd be REAL cautious crossing the street against the light.. that non-existent 18-wheeler WILL smash you flat, believe it or not!
I can only imagine the carnage at rush hour in tbose areas where this silliness is taken seriously!

Here is a quote from on of the sites I'm going to list that comment on the problem of comprehending the true nature of the Universe, and ourselves. But yet, in the end, we will all "get it."

"The Tathagata Bhaisajyaraja said, 'Noble son, the Dharma-worship is that worship rendered to the discourses taught by the Tathagata. These discourses are deep and profound in illumination. They do not conform to the mundane and are difficult to understand, difficult to see and difficult to realize. They are subtle, precise, and ultimately incomprehensible. As Scriptures, they are collected in the canon of the bodhisattvas, stamped with the insignia of the king of incantations and teachings. They reveal the irreversible wheel of Dharma, arising from the six transcendences, cleansed of any false notions. They are endowed with all the aids to enlightenment and embody the seven factors of enlightenment. They introduce living beings to the great compassion and teach them the great love. They eliminate all the convictions of the Maras, and they manifest relativity.

That is from this site. http://www.tbsn.org/english/library/sutras/vimala/vima12.htm

Free will and more http://www.ualberta.ca/~tlorentz/homepage.html#anchor34210

[Slime-Lover]

I said "nothing exists"

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

.
I'd be REAL cautious crossing the street against the light.. that non-existent 18-wheeler WILL smash you flat, believe it or not!
I can only imagine the carnage at rush hour in tbose areas where this silliness is taken seriously!

I just thought of a real good smart-*$$ reply to this. You most certainly Would experience non-existance if you got hit by an 18 wheeler. At that moment you would be meeting your maker and be "at one" with the Universe, or at least be "at one" with the grill of the 18 wheeler, and come to realize that you and the grill are not different anymore. :)

[lymon]

back to the burrito...

in other threads that have treated this topic I've brought up the odd Robert Heinlein reconciliation, from his final novel,
to wit:
that a truly omnipotent burrito eating God created Creation in a week (fit of pique?) about five thousand years ago, but he made it five billion years old as a gag to test our faith in Him, or for some other unfathomable reason

if I take Genesis literally, but observe the world in a scientific manner, only this explanation fits

yes, it is flippant...

[Mark Wood]

Obviously, God has a sense of humor. To whit: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65185 ;)

mw

[DennisG]

Lucas - thanks for joining the fray.
I would like the time to type every rebuttal to evolution I know of
I'm actually not looking for a rebuttal to evolution, but scientific evidence for creation.
I've seen that ICS website before, and after reading the links you posted, I haven't learned anything new.
"The Scientific Case Against Evolution" is anything but scientific in my opinion.
Basically, you can swap Creation for Evolution in that argument and get the same results for the other side of the argument.
ie: "Evolution Is Not Happening Now" - when was the last time God favored us with a new creation?
or "the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen." - conveniently, God is the only one who's ever seen creation happen, and aparently, He ain't talking.
The author of that particular page discusses the lack of real scientific proof for evolution. He says that this lack of proof shows that evolution never happened and goes on to say that any arguement against evolution is an arguement for creation.
I'm sorry... but what a load of hooey! Again, swap the positions of creation and evolution in that arguement and you get the same but opposite results!
Where is the real scientific proof of creation?
Now, on the other hand, on the page "Things you may not know about evolution" a different author opens by saying,
"Unlike true science, both evolution and creation are, at best, historical reconstructions of the unobserved past since no one can empirically observe either. "
Thank you! That is an opinion I can live with. That author obviously has a slightly more rational outlook than the other.
As far as I understand the situation, both sides are theorizing, and neither theory can be proven.
The difference, as I understand it, is that the theory of evolution is based on scientific facts and the theory of creation is based on a book of stories.
Here's a question for you... "The Scientific [not] Case Against Evolution" discusses the fossil record and seems to accept fossils as real. I thought that in the creationist dogma, there was no room for dinosaurs. The author never addresses the fact that these fossils are known to be millions of years old, but that the Earth according to the Bible is only 5000 years old. Correct?
I'm sorry Lucas, but I think that ICR website is nothing but a propaganda mill.
Their arguements are full of holes, and they do more disproving the validity of evolution than proving the validity of creation.
I'm willing to accept that evolution may not be proveable, and therefore may not be fact - But I've not been shown any evidence that creation is any different.
I'll admit that I didn't read the entire ICR website, but I saw many claims of 'scientific' proofs of creation and could find none such proofs.
That's all for now...
Dennis