DescentBB

Bet51987 wrote: Modern humans, like modern apes, chimps, gorillas, etc, came from a common ancestor the "great ape" long extinct. At some point, a mutation ocurred, survived, and created a separate path along the evolutionary line.

Bettina

2 words missing link

found it yet?

1 word: DELUSIONAL

you already found it.

Rush, there's one problem with what you said: the fact that species have evolved, and do evolve, has been proven by scientific research, experimentation, and observation. As such, and since it forms the core of all biology, it must be presented in any real science curriculum. In contrast, intelligent design, in whatever form it is presented, is more of a philosophy of looking at the world than an explanation of biological origins. (Drakona made some great points about this in a thread from a few months ago.) In fact, intelligent design isn't necessarily contrary to evolution; what it is contary to is natural selection, the process of "weeding out" poor adaptations due to environmental factors. While the current theory of natural selection presents the whole process as pretty much up to random chance (influenced by the pre-existing adaptational factors), intelligent design proposes some overall guiding force to the process. Looking at it this way, intelligent design actually supplements evolution, not opposes it. It provides a mechanism through which one can view an omnipotent force as having a hand in directing changes in an ecosystem; in short, it puts God's hand into the evolutionary equation. As I mentioned before, with this viewpoint, it is perfectly possible to hold Christian beliefs and still believe that evolutionary theory is true.

Stryker, one thing I've always seen wrong with treating the entire text of the Bible as literal fact is that this viewpoint fails to account for the original intentions of the authors of the Bible's various books, and indeed, the intentions of God himself. In other words, suppose, for a moment, that God intended the purpose of the Book of Genesis to be a reinforcement of his position as the one true God, the Creator of all things, and the founder of the covenant with Abraham and his descendants. If, indeed, that was the purpose of God in inspiring the original human author of Genesis to write it, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it would have been written in accordance with its intended audience? In other words, the average person at the time of the authorship of Genesis could't even begin to imagine modern physics, cosmology, and biology; if this was your intended audience, wouldn't you portray the story of the Earth's creation in a way that your audience could understand, creating a beautiful allegory that reinforced the fact that God was behind all of creation? I don't see how viewing the creation myths in this light takes anything away from one's belief in God. The same thing goes for the multiple Jewish elders described as having lifespans many times longer than natural. At that time, with the average lifespan the way it was, people who lived to be 100 were an incredible rarity. Wouldn't it make sense, then, that the supposed 900-year lifespan of Noah was simply reinforcing the fact that he lived an unusually long and healthy life? Once again, regarding one's faith, I can't see how a fact such as this not being literally true affects the rest of the Bible's message. If you were talking about something like Jesus' teachings, I would follow you, since they form the core of Christian faith, but I fail to see how saying that one part of the Bible was not meant to be literal affects the factuality of other parts of it.

*hummphh* I thought Rush was right...now I'm all

Both theories are possible.
If believing one or the other brings you peace, good on you.
If someone else's belief in either theory compels you to ridicule them then you have the problem, not them.

CUDA wrote:

Bet51987 wrote: Modern humans, like modern apes, chimps, gorillas, etc, came from a common ancestor the "great ape" long extinct. At some point, a mutation ocurred, survived, and created a separate path along the evolutionary line.

Bettina

2 words missing link

found it yet?

(Found it yet?..hahaha)
Thats the fallacy. There is no missing link and not one biologist will say that. You, like many others, have a preconceived notion that there is one. Its wrong and you need to do some research like I do.

Bettina

Top Gun wrote:Rush, there's one problem with what you said: the fact that species have evolved, and do evolve, has been proven by scientific research, experimentation, and observation

I am not saying that there isn't evidence of MICRO-evolution all around. Adaptation within a species is indeed prevalent. But I am asking you for references to the proof that trans-species evolution exists. My only reference point is that birds (penguins) cannot mate with fish(flying fish), cows cannot mate with dogs (both have 4 legs), even within a test-tube environment these mutations cannot live viably. Everything we have to observe is.....shall we say...after it's own kind.

Within those confines, it is very plausible to look at the science of life without necessarily looking at the ORIGINS. It is not a provable fact, it is the one thing we really don't know enough about to make a decision.

For instance Margulis's research in microbes indicated at one point that evolution may have happened through "cooperation" rather than "competition" the NSF refused to fund her research because it challenged Darwin's theory. Darwin died how many years ago? If Science cannot be used to test new theories, ideas, simply because it denies what many have already perceived to be fact...then what good is it? How do we remain such Narrow-minded people that we can't think to explore a different way of thinking? Even if that way of thinking gives reference to an Intelligent Designer.

The basic building blocks of biology are not so necessarily rooted in their "origin" of "millions of years" that the simple structure of a plant cell cannot be explained in and of itself. I love science, but the origins explanations often left me stymied as to why there couldn't be another perfectly viable explanation. We are more concerned with the How it all started, than How it all WORKS in the here and now. How it started doesn't necessarily explain how a single cell in human muscle tissue can't exist on it's own without it's other systems supporting it. We haven't been able to make that leap yet. I want to know how it all works. Those are the basics. Over the written history of man-kind...our only observable facts are those that we still have today, with a greater understanding and knowledge base with which to interpret them by.

Erwin Schrodinger, co-architect of QUANTUM THEORY, even talks about Science's silence when it comes to this:

"[Science] is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously."


It is where we find the quandry that we are discussing right now....A person of faith has no need of reason, and a person of reason has no need of faith? Are they opposed? I don't think so.

For ages scientists believed in the truth of the parallel line principle (that the two can never meet). Then in the 1800's mathematicians proved that completely wrong. Then came Einstein....wholly cow, did he make a shake up.... C'mon folks, the principles in science are relatively the same....but even science has has some radical changes in the way we view data. Some changes dash the theories presented as facts before to utter dust. If science has the ability to change, then why can't we look at this?

Will Robinson wrote:Both theories are possible.
If believing one or the other brings you peace, good on you.
If someone else's belief in either theory compels you to ridicule them then you have the problem, not them.

I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is being "forced" by law to accept something that cannot be proven and has no scientific fact. ID is just another word for god.

Creationists are trying to force schoolkids to believe in something without evidence.

Bettina

The creationists that I know, aren't trying necessarily to force their theory into schools, but take the evolutionary theory OUT of schools and not put theirs in it's place. Like I said in my post earlier. Take it all out of the public school system, leave the basics without the subjective theories on origins and let that subject matter be placed in an environment of higher learning where the minds are more apt to thoughtful discussion on the matter and make your choice from there.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Both theories are possible.
If believing one or the other brings you peace, good on you.
If someone else's belief in either theory compels you to ridicule them then you have the problem, not them.

I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is being "forced" by law to accept something that cannot be proven and has no scientific fact. ID is just another word for god.

Creationists are trying to force schoolkids to believe in something without evidence.

Bettina

So are evolutionists. There has never been "PROOF" that evolution exists. Mearly assumsions based on fossil records that comparatively appear to be simular. That's all, nothing more. And i might add that many of the early examples were horribly modified to fill a gap. A whole stage of man was created from a mear fragment of a skull. o_0 One was created from an animals jawbone. That isn't science... that's an agenda.

Will Robinson wrote:Both theories are possible.
If believing one or the other brings you peace, good on you.
If someone else's belief in either theory compels you to ridicule them then you have the problem, not them.

Agreed.
I went into kindergarten mode with the short sentence thing. It seemed appropriate since I don't believe in a 'designer'.

You have to cut us some slack, the ones who don't accept the bible as fact, but only as a respected moral guide (minus the subjugating of women part).

I only type for myself... I don't need a club to support me...

CUDA was asking for the "missing link" and Iâ??m asking for any proof that the bible is nothing more than a bunch of words that some faithfully follow, and drum as fact. You cannot prove that it is 'true'.

So both theories (ID and â??the other oneâ?

In essence, Neither theory can be explained implicitly by SCIENCE. You cannot say that either is implicitly WRONG with that comparison. This is not about "children's fables". This is about taking a set of data....wether it be looking at fossil data, micro-biological data, you name it...the stuff is there to look at.

It's more about not having a PRE-SUPPOSITION before you look at that data. That is what makes Science inherently neutral on the subject.

but it is on record that was put forth to "destroy" God.

I'll see if I can track down the source of this.

(btw..Hi Rush!!! /me waves)

[quote="TheCope"]
So both theories (ID and â??the other oneâ?

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Both theories are possible.
If believing one or the other brings you peace, good on you.
If someone else's belief in either theory compels you to ridicule them then you have the problem, not them.

I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is being "forced" by law to accept something that cannot be proven and has no scientific fact. ID is just another word for god.

Creationists are trying to force schoolkids to believe in something without evidence.

Bettina

You aren't being forced into anything. In spite of Mobius' rantings President Bush has no authority to make school children study anything!
He didn't even say what Mobius has you thinking he did!
Bush merely tried to run between the raindrops and stay dry at a press conference trying to please his christian base and at the same time not sound like he was challenging the validity of the theory of evolution. He simply said he just thinks there is room to have school kids exposed to both theories. And he doesn't have the power to even cause that to happen.

The only way Mobius would be happy is if he said 'F jesus, Darwin is da' bomb!'

A couple of posts back rush mentions that scientific theories are often altered, changed or thrown away altogether, because new theories emerge and "prove previous ones wrong". Or something along those lines.

I'd like to state that science is also subject to evolution, because each new theory is an expansion of the previous one, not scrapping it.

A theory is a mathematical model that is accurate within the boundaries it was designed in. Newton derived his gravitational theory by looking at apples falling from the tree. Newtons model describes this phenomenon very accurately and as such, this model is very useful to calculate and predict everyday influences of gravity. However, using Newton's model, the projections of planetary trajectories were inacurrate. Couple of centuries later comes Einstein with the relativity theory. This theory doesn't trash Newton's theory, in fact it's exactly the same but with additions. Newtons theory is valid in flat space with universal time and infinite speed of light. Einstein proposes a new model, which at low speed and low gravity matches the results from Newton (thereby keeping what's already established, such as apples falling from trees), but the correction terms in the relativity theory start to dominate at high speed and/or in high gravity environments, so that the results are altered compared to Newton. And so the model is more precise. Couple of decades later the Quantum theory emerges. It introduces, among other things, the uncertainty principle. Does that mean we can trash the relativity theory? No, as long as you use it within it's parameters you'll find it very useful and accurate. But a relativity theory that embraces quantum effects would be an even more precise model.

Now, what do kids start with in school? You guessed it, they start with Newton's principles, because they are simple enough to help you understand the concept of gravity, force and etc.. It is a mathematical explanation for an apple falling from a tree, and the model will match your intuition.

What I'm trying to say is, while the Newton theory isn't the most precise model we have, it isn't necessarily wrong. It's interesting to study, and one may study its shortcomings and consider relativity instead to appreciate the similarities and the differences.

With ID however, there supposedly *is* a God -- or at least a higher being -- that controls things, or did so in the past. This concept is not an expansion of anything existing, it's been around since the creation of religion and beliefs. It's never been refined or actually defined since it emerged. It's just vague and doesn't enable one to make calculations or predictions. It only allows for assumptions. It's spiritual, and only exist through the minds of humans.

All of this make it too weak and vague to stand a chance against the evolution theory. While the evolution theory may still leave some things unanswered, it doesn't mean it's wrong or less probable. We still have to refine the model a little. What model refining is there to do with ID? It's merely an excuse to explain what's still left open by real science. And then there's the problem of multiple religions. Is yours the right one and the others are wrong? That's pretty stupid, because the others reason the same way.

And lastly, I am not Gods pet or plaything. Screw ID.

Is that actually an argument against ID, or just why you don't like it (being a cop-out, effectively)?

Just because you don't have to change it every few years doesn't make it any less valid. Likewise the whole 'scientific process' on it... although, at any rate, some of that does go on as people wind up having to explain certain phenomena using those terms. It generally isn't too hard to at least come up with a plausible explanation, though, and sometimes winds up being fairly convenient (continental drift).

In my personal opinion, neither system - the abiogenetic/macroevolution theory set by the naturalists or the (comparatively easy to name) intelligent design theory - is inherently wrong; both have to deal with some tricky questions though (the sheer odds against increasing order, especially that fast, versus perhaps how you would explain transitional fossils). Most of the so-called 'proof' one way or the other is merely based on misconceptions.

The massive controversy over what actually happened, even among those who accept the Bible, is so great I get sick of hearing about it sometimes...

Another way of saying what I mean is that the precision of the evolution theory and science in general is a few orders of magnitude higher than the precision offered by ID and religion in general.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Both theories are possible.
If believing one or the other brings you peace, good on you.
If someone else's belief in either theory compels you to ridicule them then you have the problem, not them.

I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is being "forced" by law to accept something that cannot be proven and has no scientific fact. ID is just another word for god.

Creationists are trying to force schoolkids to believe in something without evidence.

Bettina

I take exception to the idea that kids would be "forced" under these laws to believe in creationism. In the case of Kansas, it's simply a sticker put in the books that says "there are other ideas out there that have a lot of backing" in essence. It's not even really mentioning God, Christianity, or the Bible in any manner. I don't call that forcing kids to believe in creationism.

My point being, Tricord...that because Science is Neutral on the subject of origins...IT HAS TO REMAIN NEUTRAL. Neither system should be presented as fact. There are way too many problems with both views to make a valid scientific analysis regarding which is right. We simply don't have enough SCIENTIFIC information to make that decision.

That is why I say either shouldn't be taught in our Elemtetary/Secondary education systems. Leave it for those of us in higher-education (i.e. UNIVERSITY) to discuss, synthesize, extrapolate, disect, experiment, and ultimately conclude for ourselves which is the proper avenue to look at.

And the main reason so many people make it a controversy is:

Tricord wrote:And lastly, I am not Gods pet or plaything. Screw ID.

This attitude already pre-disposes you to a view on God or even Nature around you that makes any other "empirical" data not worth looking at. You paint yourself into a corner by allowing that kind of attitude to cloud your way of thinking.

If we get into the discussion on how Christians view their God...it is not that they are his "pets" or "play things" rather something completely different. And perhaps, that discussion warrants some exploration in another thread so that those with a true curiosity (rather than a closed view on the subject) can discuss those issues.

I'm not going to say too much, because I really don't think there's much to say about evolution and ID.

First, Bush was being political. It seems clear to me that he's a fan of ID, but at the same time- can you imagine the outrage it would be for him to say that? I think he's got a point- the best way to properly address the issue of origins is to present the viable options to a person and let them choose for themselves what they would like. I also agree with what has been said here earlier- elementry/middle school kids don't really have a capacity to handle that- so I'd say leave origins out of it until high school, and then feed the kids the theories and simply ask that they be able to repeat the tenants that they hold to. That way no one can complain that they are being forced to believe something- they just have to know what the something is. (Similar to teaching what christianity, islam, budhism, etc. is in social sciences.)

Secondly, when it comes to the validity of ID and Evolution, they are both in exactly the same position as far as I'm concerned. They are both effective in the present. We all know that natural selection is at work. We all know that evolution happens in the form of bacteria mutating to become resistant to antibiotics and other examples. We all use a systematic filter to determine is something was intellegantly designed (man-made) or not. Both have yet to be disproven as good, realiable theories of how the world ticks right now. Both can be extrapolated to explain the origin of the universe, and both claim to do so reliably.

The kicker is: neither does extrapolate reliably. Evolution can't be proven as a mechanism of our origins, because macro evolution can't be proven... and no amount of evidence from the past will prove it. (Even if macro evolution in the present is proven, it still doesn't mean the evolution is necessarily the mechanism of our origins.) ID attempts to limit the probabalistic resources out there by limiting the statistics to a single universe, thus making it possible to establish a probability bound beyond which something is probabilistically impossible to have happend by chance. Problem: there isn't anything that forces there to only one universe, thus assuming the existence of an infinite number of universes our universe becomes 100% guaranteed to have happened somewhere by chance. So, I hate to burst all of your bubbles, but origins are, and always will be a matter of faith and speculation, not a matter of science. (Time travel might give heavy weight to a given theory, but the time travellers can still lie about what they saw happen.)

rush wrote:That is why I say either shouldn't be taught in our Elemtetary/Secondary education systems. Leave it for those of us in higher-education (i.e. UNIVERSITY) to discuss, synthesize, extrapolate, disect, experiment, and ultimately conclude for ourselves which is the proper avenue to look at.

We agree on that point. It isn't something for little kids to ponder on.

We just happen to be here, and we happen to have the history that we have. Evolution theory, chemistry and biology is all I need to understand the rough principles of life and how it came to be. If you need a reason though, you're leaving the scope of science and you enter philosophy (which is a human and thus inexact science) and religion (which is no science at all). If the "why" question is answered by God for you, go ahead. But on this level, nothing is factual so I'd personally rather stay away from it. It's like saying religion A is right and X, Y and Z are completely wrong. No, they're just religions. They're not right and wrong, they're the product of the mind. Their purpose is not to be right or wrong. Their purpose isn't even to explain something or to account for things.

ID is not a right/wrong thing. It's a "personally I believe" thing with a "because I feel better about myself that way" reasoning.

Tricord wrote:We just happen to be here, and we happen to have the history that we have. Evolution theory, chemistry and biology is all I need to understand the rough principles of life and how it came to be.

If that is your philosophy and how you choose to view life then you are limiting yourself to a view that could perhaps be enhanced by looking beyond the visible. Why is that so scary to so many people? And Evolutionary THEORY is not a visible, absolute, concrete thing. Evolution is not a right/wrong thing. It's a "personally I believe" with a "because it makes me feel better about myself that way" reasoning. Don't you see?

You feel better about yourself because you're not God's pet or plaything as you yourself said it. That is the core of this argument. Take SCIENCE completely out of the equation between Evolutionists/Naturalists and ID/Creationists and you have the real reason behind the controversy.......Our own want to be our own gods. In control of our universe the way we want to see it.

When people refuse one thing or another because of looking at life with blinders on to the rest of their surroundings, what they see in front of them may very well be true..but how wonderful it is to look at the WHOLE picture, without the bias of the blinders. Limiting one's self to one or the other so completely without so much as a glance in the other direction ultimately diminishes our ability to really explore who we are. And WHY we are here to begin with.

Sigh, I don't believe this. How's this for an idea:

If evolution theory leaves questions unanswered, at least we know what to look for in order to answer them. We know answers to questions we still have today, will be answered by thourough DNA analysis. It will exactly tell us how we descended from primates, and how primates descended from earlier common lifeforms. ID is just an assumption, evolution theory is a bunch of established facts coupled with a bunch of perspectives on how to establish the rest of the facts. Our technology and our ability to measure and explore has to catch up with the level of complexity locked inside genetic coding and survival of life through reproduction of said genetic code. But we know it's there.

Another thing. Evolution is the long-term effect of genetic recombining that occurs during the conception of each individual. Due to the sheer amount of individuals and the sheer amount of complexity involved in genetics, evolution cannot -- yet -- be traced back on a individual by individual basis. But in theory, it could. Where does God come into play then? Because if there is no such thing as evolution, then God would have to have a hand in the conception of every individual, some way or another. Do you think God was there when you fucked your wife and had kids?

I'm willing to bend my own view to accomodate those of others, but this is really pushing it. You have to admit that the supposition of the existance of a higher being is a personal and psychological need. It has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with assumptions.

God is by definition immeasurable and untouchable, so aside from the concept, what makes it real? The feeling in your gut or the blind conviction in your mind? If there is a God, there might be a Devil as well? Does God have Gods? The only place where God exists is in the mind of humans. The concept of God drives some men to kill themselves in suicide attacks. Now that same concept supposedly explains where I come from and through it defines the being that I am? No sir, not from where I'm looking at it.

The question lies in, Are you prepared for the conclusion if it doesn't end up pointing at Evolution? Likewise, are religious people prepared for the result if it does? This boils down to a non-scientific situation ultimately.

PHILOSOPHY 101.

Stryker wrote: I take exception to the idea that kids would be "forced" under these laws to believe in creationism. In the case of Kansas, it's simply a sticker put in the books that says "there are other ideas out there that have a lot of backing" in essence. It's not even really mentioning God, Christianity, or the Bible in any manner. I don't call that forcing kids to believe in creationism.

Please don't take exception to what I was saying. I didn't mean that the laws are here now, but I see some form of it coming. The "evolution is a theory" sticker comes to mind.

When President Bush makes a statement in his idiotic, unprepared, bafoon, mannerism, like it or not, he sends a "signal" to church leaders, bible thumpers, and creationism teachers, that he's the holy cheerleader, and a powerful one at that. In church, what bush said becomes part of the sermon which is drummed into parents who go home and drum it into there kids to make sure they are on time for there religious instruction. Believe me, I know what "forced to go" means.

The facts are that evolution is fact, backed by data, not theory backed by faith. It can't come out and say positively that it is, because that would upset the christians. Science is solid too, and doesn't need "evolutionary interpretation" for every paragraph and can stand completely on its own. The bible, on the other hand, hasn't changed in 2000 years yet it continually needs "biblical interpretations" from theology instructors, and thumpers because it is constantly being questioned, full of contradiction, and a need to "keep up". How can it keep up when it can't add "new data". It is an inherently flawed work because it was written by humans who wanted to build a powerful entity to control the masses.

"Why is the sky blue daddy?". He sat down and told me why. Later, I looked it up, and understood it and no matter where I looked, I got the same answer. I know why its blue, how neanderthrals survived for as long as they did, how mutations form. These are facts....Why did she die daddy?. "I don't know honey, but I know god wanted her and has a plan for all of us." I tried to look it up, but got confused and sick. Everyone I talked to gave me different answers and everywhere I went I saw unproved theory. Fiction.....Except our priest. He placed his hand on my head and simply said "I don't know Bettina". Somehow, I felt comforted and I still admire him for his beliefs.

ID, god, heaven, and the burning place, should remain personal and belongs in church, religious classes, and our personal minds. It does not belong in school, attached to science books, or spouted out of the mouths of high ranking officials. Religion, if it is to survive, will have to separate itself from science and not try to compete with it. Separation of church and state will benefit both science and faith, but it will perish if it trys to compete. It will be pushed back to the only point that it can hold on to....what happened at the singularity, one tenth of a second before the big bang. God will always have a place there. (no sarcasm intended).

I don't dislike bible thumpers unless they try to insult my intellect and tell be what I already know to be false. Drakona and Lothar, as nice as they are, cannot offer any proof of god but only interpret what is written in a book supposedly written by god and I admire them as I admire my priest for there strong faith. I would have liked to have had faith or something that would comfort me when I'm at a dark point, but I see nothing there.

I know I'm offending some of you, but this is nothing personal and is just an expression of whats in my head. Science and Faith need to be separate. See you in the mines....

Bettina

Bettina wrote, "When President Bush makes a statement in his idiotic, unprepared, bafoon, mannerism..."
I think it's safe to say she is not a supporter of the Bush Admin.

Bett', I'm shocked @ your use of those descriptives

The facts are EVOLUTION IS STILL A THEORY.......Bettina...even those of us in college or beyond agree. It isn't proven, not yet anyways. So please don't insult my intellect by telling me that it's fact. Simply put, it's what you've been taught all your life in a public school system. Therefore you accept it, because it's been taught that way. I also spent most of my youth in the public school system, and as I've gotten older, and I would hope, wiser, I realize that not everything I've been taught has indeed been fact. That is also not to say that everything I've been taught in church is also fact.

I take exception to the idea that you continue to lump people of faith into this category of "thumpers". In essence you are behaving in the exact same manner many who have a faith structure do. You have become sincerely blinded to the other side.

Science is neutral. What I'm trying to get across again and again and again is that it simply cannot PROVE either side. especially as we view the world today. What we have is at best a form of Archaeology of our world. We look at a set of data and try to form an opinion on what happened before based on what we find now. The deeper we get, and the more we look at those findings, the better understanding we have of the workings of our biological sphere.

Let me say it this way, Even those that adhere to religion need to have an open mind. Otherwise, the world would still be flat, not spin on an axis. and they would have an indefensible position that can be viewed as incredulous and non-credible.

Ralph Waldo Emerson put it "The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide."

People of faith need SCIENCE because it is NEUTRAL. Without people of faith we wouldn't have the huge insurgence of advances made, especially when it comes to human health. Most hospitals were born out of church backed poor-houses in the mid 17th century.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science created a division in 1995 called the Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion....ummmm...excuse me? but why would the world's largest scientific society and publisher of science even need to discuss such subjects if they weren't even remotely important to the way we think about things?

To that end, why not have science take a stab at the claims of religion? Experiment on the effects of prayer or positive thoughts directed at an ill person. Explore every avenue into what makes humans different.....if it's mere evolution, then we will inevitably find out.

rush wrote:The facts are EVOLUTION IS STILL A THEORY.......Bettina...even those of us in college or beyond agree. It isn't proven, not yet anyways. So please don't insult my intellect by telling me that it's fact. Simply put, it's what you've been taught all your life in a public school system. Therefore you accept it, because it's been taught that way. I also spent most of my youth in the public school system, and as I've gotten older, and I would hope, wiser, I realize that not everything I've been taught has indeed been fact. That is also not to say that everything I've been taught in church is also fact.

I take exception to the idea that you continue to lump people of faith into this category of "thumpers". In essence you are behaving in the exact same manner many who have a faith structure do. You have become sincerely blinded to the other side.

Science is neutral. What I'm trying to get across again and again and again is that it simply cannot PROVE either side. especially as we view the world today. What we have is at best a form of Archaeology of our world. We look at a set of data and try to form an opinion on what happened before based on what we find now. The deeper we get, and the more we look at those findings, the better understanding we have of the workings of our biological sphere.

Let me say it this way, Even those that adhere to religion need to have an open mind. Otherwise, the world would still be flat, not spin on an axis. and they would have an indefensible position that can be viewed as incredulous and non-credible.

Ralph Waldo Emerson put it "The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide."

People of faith need SCIENCE because it is NEUTRAL. Without people of faith we wouldn't have the huge insurgence of advances made, especially when it comes to human health. Most hospitals were born out of church backed poor-houses in the mid 17th century.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science created a division in 1995 called the Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion....ummmm...excuse me? but why would the world's largest scientific society and publisher of science even need to discuss such subjects if they weren't even remotely important to the way we think about things?

To that end, why not have science take a stab at the claims of religion? Experiment on the effects of prayer or positive thoughts directed at an ill person. Explore every avenue into what makes humans different.....if it's mere evolution, then we will inevitably find out.

First.....NOBODY brainwashes me. Science or the church. I find my own answers thru actual things I can hold in my hand, and experiments I can do. I have seen skulls from cro-magnon man and I know cavemen walked the earth long before religion said they did. (do they believe in cavemen?)

Darwin was correct in his findings. You are looking at Science with christian eyes and are struggling to keep creationism on an even keel with evolution. If you continue to do that, then you are fooling yourself. I have seen streams of data that I do on my own and see nothing but proven science.

On the other hand, I am forced to believe that there was a god (first entity) who sent himself down to earth to be born in an unconventional way by virgin birth, (sex was dirty then), then walked around pretending to be his own son (second entity), then died and became yet another person, the holy spirit (third entity), thus the holy trinity was born. Geez, he really liked himself. Show me how this can compare with any type of science.

The problem with Creationists is that they take offense at the word "FACT", because they have none, and take exception to everything. I challenged my religious instructor once....big mistake...and he burned me by telling my dad that I wasn't taking him seriously. I'm quiet in class (but not here) and I didn't even say a thing except I frowned once.....or twice and I got in big trouble for that. He is a "pound it into her until she submits" kind of person and I succumbed to it. My dad was upset and so I'm now a good religious student, the best.....but on the outside only.

I'm sure your a good person and don't take exception. I'm not insulting anyone but god (the word)...and our president.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science created a division in 1995 called the Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion....ummmm...excuse me? but why would the world's largest scientific society and publisher of science even need to discuss such subjects if they weren't even remotely important to the way we think about things?

Money....Christians have a lot of money.

Bettina

Don't pour your hatred for God/Religion out on me, my dear. I went to public school....was taught this stuff. I also went to church..but perhaps the difference is, I never felt like I was being FORCED to believe anything in church. My parents strongly encouraged me to come to my faith of my own accord. I have a sister who is one of the top 100 doctors in this state. I have another who struggled with drug addiction, and yet another who is the "good child". How strange is it that we all have similar environmental influences, yet grew up to be such totally different people. (I'm not about to get into a discussion on human psychology here) I have challenged everything I believe down to the very core. I have sat and doubted God and His existence because I didn't want to believe in Him. To this time I have not met a data stream that refuted what I believe about the origins from whence I came. And believe me, I've looked, especially recently.

I'm sorry you feel so burdened by your "faith" and your family's wishes to make you a part of that. And I did not say BRAINWASH. That is simply how you interpreted what I had to say.

So...the skulls of Cro-Magnon man....do they have complete skeletons? Have you taken courses in forensics, human anatomy, physiology, paleaontology, to determine that what you are really looking at is indeed that of a human that we evolved from? Did they extrapolate DNA from said skulls and make that statement? These are not rhetorical questions. I am asking them with a true curiosity to understand the seething resentment you have at anything that challenges what you have been looking at.

I will always never know enough. I am limited by my life span. I will always hunger to know more about the workings of the human body, and the mind, and everything. Being a person of faith inspires me to go forth and study, to use my mind, and not deny the world because I refuse to look at a piece of data that may make me think differently. I'm seeking within the very confines of the world we live in and the cosmos evidence of my creator, or the evidence of no creator. But I am prepared to deal with the consequences of either conclusion. Are you?

rush wrote:Don't pour your hatred for God/Religion out on me, my dear.

It was never my intention now or ever. You are a good person.

rush wrote:To this time I have not met a data stream that refuted what I believe about the origins from whence I came. And believe me, I've looked, especially recently.
So...the skulls of Cro-Magnon man....do they have complete skeletons? Have you taken courses in forensics, human anatomy, physiology, paleaontology, to determine that what you are really looking at is indeed that of a human that we evolved from? Did they extrapolate DNA from said skulls and make that statement? These are not rhetorical questions. I am asking them with a true curiosity to understand the seething resentment you have at anything that challenges what you have been looking at.

I have tons of info, but this link will do to ask yourself if this looks human enough.
No picture or sample will ever be good enough for a biblically educated bible th.....oops...sorry, bible person. They have had years of education of how to challange any findings, and to the less learned person, how to "teach" them where the fallacy lies.

http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fo ... php?fid=55

rush wrote:I will always never know enough. I am limited by my life span. I will always hunger to know more about the workings of the human body, and the mind, and everything. Being a person of faith inspires me to go forth and study, to use my mind, and not deny the world because I refuse to look at a piece of data that may make me think differently. I'm seeking within the very confines of the world we live in and the cosmos evidence of my creator, or the evidence of no creator. But I am prepared to deal with the consequences of either conclusion. Are you?

Yes, and when I ask myself what kind of world this would be if god didn't exist, the answer becomes clearer each day with the rapes, torture, and murders of little kids being dragged out of there bedrooms, wars, death, hatred, disease, what the BTK killer did to that 11 year old girl, it becomes pretty easy for me to come to a conclusion.

Now, I want to ask you a few questions. How far back (in time) in human evolution are you willing to go? For example, what year do you think humans came into existence. Just a rough guess will do.

And, do you believe cavemen walked the earth, had mates, and fathered children?

Bettina

Okay, I clicked on the link.....and in the listing there it shows MODERN HUMAN. Nothing different than you or me. What does it show us about evolution? not much.

Dates are an iffy subject. Modern science tells us that we came into existence within the last 80,000 years or so (which I might add is but a blink of time in the whole "geological age" theory) Also, there's nothing to date that explains the leap forward in complexity from a "great ape" or chimp or Rhesus Monkey.....to a human. My theory on ages determined by Carbon dating shifted when I read an article published by scientists on Mt St Helens and the effect of Argon Gas on the appearance of age of the rocks just formed from the lava dome and the tested dates for the rocks. I don't believe we've looked enough at the potential for outside sources to change the results of such tests. Say we find a skull in the ground, we don't know if it's been exposed to any number of environmental hazards that can change even the appearance of age. I'm content to say that we are somewhere between 80,000 years old and 10,000 years old.

I will say this, Men lived in caves, had mates, created art to describe their lives for the future, and yes, had children. Is that statement so inflammatory to my faith? no. neither does it explain anything in regards to evolutionary theory, except the fact that we now live in houses, create with computers, have mates, have children.,.....we're still humans.

Again, going back to the topic. There is simply too much data to look at to make a truly informed decision either way, especially for the school-aged youngster. Why have this stuff there to begin with..on either side?

Bet51987 wrote:
First.....NOBODY brainwashes me. Science or the church. I find my own answers thru actual things I can hold in my hand, and experiments I can do. I have seen skulls from cro-magnon man and I know cavemen walked the earth long before religion said they did. (do they believe in cavemen?)

----------------------------------------

Money....Christians have a lot of money.

Bettina

Bettina. You are brainwshed to some extent as is everyone. you are not that original in your thinking and you are not entirely "your own person" as you think you are. Or lives and shaped and influcenced by our environment beyond what we're born with.

um.. and Christians are not rich. I'm a Christian and I'm BARELY making a living. Don't be guilty of the same things you accuse the church of being guilty of. While you might not have ment what I just said, it's reckless to make such statements. The Catholic church is "rich" yes. But it's an organization; not the individual on the street. The Christian is that person and they vary from instance to instance.

I say reckless because as I just shown, it's a very bigoted thing to say, showing only resentment and distain and nothing constructive.

Also on the cromagnon man. It has been shown that the configuration of his skull of an individual that had lived for several hundred years. You have not lived long enough to have seen how facial features and facial bones continue to grow and change even into old age. The atmosphere was several times denser thousands of years ago (preflood .. which actually has a different term i heard the other day)as was the amount of carbon14 existing at that time at a higher level.

I wouldn't mind ID being taught...as long as ID doesn't equate to God. Keep the deity side out of ID and one can have a interesting discussion.

LOL! Obviously you don't know what "Intelligent Design" is.

The facts are EVOLUTION IS STILL A THEORY.......Bettina...even those of us in college or beyond agree.

hehe, you went to college in Kansas

Birdseye wrote:
hehe, you went to college in Kansas

heh.

My humble opinion...ID can (and should) be taught in school as long as its in philosophy class. see, science is something testable in the sense that it may be refuted. ID is not testable since it can never be refuted. that makes it a cosmological theory, not a scientific one. sorry!

perhaps some day ID will be testable, though i doubt it. Either way, it belongs in a science classroom only as a footnote. To teach it as science would be perverse and dishonest.

Birdseye wrote:

I wouldn't mind ID being taught...as long as ID doesn't equate to God. Keep the deity side out of ID and one can have a interesting discussion.

LOL! Obviously you don't know what "Intelligent Design" is.

I know what the christians would like to think it means but in a purely conceptual idiom, ID should not be construed as anything more than a intelligent species building a system. An example:
Mankind is wiped out and semi intelligent chimps come out of the jungle and see their first sky scraper building. The chimps have no idea how such a edifice could be made so they assume it must be some sort of god that placed it there. The limits of the chimps tool using ability would indicate to them that the structure looks like it was built but they can't fathom the process so they think a supreme being placed it there.
Some of us look around and can't fully comprehend our environment. You can see bits and pieces of how it went togeather but just don't have enough knowledge to grasp the whole so chimp-like you say a diety must have placed it here.

We have the capability right now to terraform Mars. We could seed the planet with artic style lichens and mosses and gradually work up to more complex plants. As O2 levels rise, insects would be introduced and then more complex organisms would be placed on world.
Might take 500 years, might take a 1,000. In the end though humans would be the "Intelligent Designers" of Mars. Whose to say something similar didn't happen on Earth?

woodchip wrote:I know what the christians would like to think it means but in a purely conceptual idiom, ID should not be construed as anything more than a intelligent species building a system. An example:
Mankind is wiped out and semi intelligent chimps come out of the jungle and see their first sky scraper building. The chimps have no idea how such a edifice could be made so they assume it must be some sort of god that placed it there. The limits of the chimps tool using ability would indicate to them that the structure looks like it was built but they can't fathom the process so they think a supreme being placed it there.
Some of us look around and can't fully comprehend our environment. You can see bits and pieces of how it went togeather but just don't have enough knowledge to grasp the whole so chimp-like you say a diety must have placed it here.

woody, i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. the universe is much more vast and complex than a building - or even a whole planet of buildings. the sublime power of one who would be the designer of the universe could not be easily attributed to a being of less than divine nature.

the point is that if you are saying that ID need not necessarily point to god you are dead wrong. however, many proponents of ID claim nevertheless that they are not pointing to god or proselytizing in any way. they are either ignorant or dishonest.

and i would say to thorne: that it is proponents of ID who have an axe to grind. they are advancing a philosophy that supports their own belief system at the expense of truth and knowledge. it is science under attack here, not religion.


i'm surprised no one here has mentioned the "wedge document": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

basically ID is an old argument with a new name that is a political and cultural tool made with the designed intention of undermining real science with the express goal of replacing real science with good old primitive fairy tale faith. any claim that ID is science or something that can be taken apart from god is a bunch of hooey (and they know this).

ID arguments lead necessarily to a presumption of god's existence. if we say that the UNIVERSE was created with an intelligent design, then we beg the question of 'who could be the designer?'. clearly there is only one answer, and it is not the flying spagheti monster.

i'm not saying there is anything wrong with god's existence or with believing in god. i'm saying there is something wrong with advancing ID as a scientific theory when it is not. i'm saying there is something wrong with teaching children that ID is somehow able to compete with evolutionary theory qua science when this is TOTALLY UNTRUE. ID is no more scientific than UFOlogy.

Of course, some may believe ID is a logical and that it supports their faith - good for them! Yet it is not science and it is dishonest and harmful to present it as such.

anti intellectualism will drag us down. scientists do not accept evolution on faith! they accept it as the best scientific theory we have at the time, knowing that it is not perfect, i.e. true per se. scientists understand that evolution could be refuted, modified, or discarded at any time due to new tests. ID is not in the same category. Anyone who does not realize this does not understand science.

I'm just going to make one or two comments about this thread; it seems to be slowly spiraling out of control at the moment, and for my own sanity, I don't feel like jumping into the general melee. I will have to say that this thread is in sore need of a Drakona uber-post.

Firstly, I've heard some people refer to evolution as "just a theory." I think you're confusing the general usage of the word with its scientific definition. In science, a theory is a set of principles, equations, or statements that explain a group of phenomena, have been repeatedly and thoroughly tested, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Scientific theories come about only after hundreds of hours of research and experimentation and must be independently and widely verified in order to be generally accepted. Giving evolution the title of "theory" confirms what has been said before, that it is a comprehensive explanation for the development of our planet's biological family tree, and while it by no means explains all aspects of speciation, the places in which it is incomplete do point to areas of further research. This is in the same way that such theories as Einstein's general relativity or quantum mechanics are tested; while neither are complete, new research every year allows them to be refined. It's a rare thing indeed that something that reaches the level of a theory is competely and utterly overturned; while new developments may require significant additions and revisions (as Einstein's did to Newton's theory), the original theory usually holds true in at least some circumstances or situations.

Bettina, I think your understanding of the concept of the Trinity is somewhat flawed, but I don't want to get into that in this thread. Suffice it to say that the Trinity is one of the most complex concepts in Christianity, and perhaps the most difficult to wrap one's mind around. Indeed, in some sense, the human mind really isn't capable of fully understanding the concept of one God in three divine persons. (That's one place where your understanding was flawed; God did not pretend to be His own son through the Incarnation, nor did Christ become the Holy Spirit after His death. I'd be happy to go a little more in-depth elsewhere if you so desire.) As for the statement that the presence of evil in the world means that God is absent, this is an issue that every person of faith has had to deal with in their lives. To discuss it would require ten thousand words or none at all. I believe it's been talked about in some recent threads. I do feel sorry about the negative experiences you've had with religion; it's almost impossible for me to try to explain my beliefs to you when I really don't know the circumstances that have led you to your beliefs. I do hope that you are able to find peace, whatever you choose.

Tricord, as someone said before, the concept of humanity as God's "playthings" really isn't consistent with the feelings of those who believe in God. The Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths all view humans as the absolute pinnacle of all of creation, as sharers in God's joy and happiness. That seems pretty opposed to calling humanity "slaves" of God. Once again, I don't really want to draw out a discussion about this, since it would most likely drive this thread off course.

The one thing I do want to say is that I feel that faith and science can peacefully co-exist in one's mind, that there is a fundamental difference between the teaching of evolution as a scientific theory and cornerstone of biology and the teaching of intelligent design as a philosophy on origins, and that the concept of intelligent design need not be opposed to the scientific study of evolution. Even the most compete theory of evolution that it would be humanly possible to create would by no means explain everything about how and why exactly life originated or came to be exactly as it is represented today. Certainly, evolution will never be able to explain its own greatest achievement: the development of a sentient consciousness and sense of self (a soul, if you will) in the human person. That's something that requires some thinking about, no matter what your background is.

Palz well put, the only problem with teaching evolution in school is they teach it as fact when it obviously is not, I'm refering to the begining of time evolution. as a parent I feel they should not require my child to sit through a science class that teaches evolution. if they want to offer it as an elective class that fine, but they should offer ID as an elective class also, they dont and only because the far left feels that it is promoting a religion. I wont get into thier constitutional distortions. teaching science and teaching evolution should not be the same thing, but they have chosen not to seperate the two. why? it is abviously a political thing.

I believe strongly in ceation through Intelligent Design especially with the belief in the creation by God.

I also believe that God follows ALL the laws of nature (he set the laws up, if he doesn't follow them, he would cease to be God).

Having said that, I believe there is MUCH for us to learn that he already knows. Therefore, who are we to say he doesn't use the very items we consider as possible indicators of evolution? He's got a whole lot more time to work with than we do.

Either way, no matter if you believe in God or Evolution or I.D. by aliens... you'll probably find out what is right when you die... but then it'll be too late to make any changes in yourself. I prefer to improve myself now, before I get to that point.