1.Leading scientists still reject God
3. Show me one evo formulation that shows God.
4. I have not seen it stated otherwise. You could show me.
5. I have seen so much literature that is forced fit in this way - Evolution happened so even against evidence they force fit it because “they know evo happened”.
6. They have faith in BUC.
Not necessarily. Again: Peer Reviewed by the Scientific Community is what I want to see.I get it:
Anything against evo is bad and labeled creationist, a very bad thing.
- Two Links Worth Considering:
- godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html
- catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/does-it-matter-that-many-scientists-are-atheists
- Are you asking me to make a scientific statement about God?
The most I can do is offer this link: [Theistic Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution). Aside
from that, Evolution has no position on God, but by the same
token, it does not even attempt to deny God.
Nothing wrong with that. In many aspects of life we may find our position does not like neatly in one category.Rats.
I do not appear to fit any of these definitions.
Evolution sounds like an elegant theory, but I have never seen an example of one species becoming another.
I know that many point out bacteria. But I have a hard time believing a bacterium is a proper analogy for an animal.
Bacteria does things animals cannot all of the time.
Animals do things bacteria cannot all the time.
Ah I see our discussion that we had awhile back on how populations evolve, not individuals, did not stick. An individual does not give birth to a different species so that’s why you have not seen it. However, given the right circumstances and time, two or more populations may emerge that cannot reproduce with the other population even though they had common ancestors.Because cats are a much higher organism, and share so much more traits and abilities to human, I would have a much less difficult to believe that if a cat gave birth to a different species humans could to.
Because all life, whether it be plants, bacteria, or animals, have this in common (gene transfer and that sort of thing).Why would someone insist bacteria doing something means every organism can?
I know genetically speaking we are similar to other primates.
But so what? I re-use computer code all of the time.
That does not mean that my accounting program came from a computer game.
I personally would not call you a creationist then, considering the connotations and implications that go along with that.I am creationist in that I know God created everything from nothing.
But I do not take the bible literally.
This alone does not make you a subscriber to Intelligent Design. (I know you know that.)I recognize a design in everything.
Perhaps but are you sure about that? This would imply that the genes of each and every person or animal who has a chromosomal abnormalities were personally arranged that way by God. I would have thought things like Down’s Syndrome and the like could be attributed to the fall or something like that, not deliberate actions of God.I recognize God is directly in control of it all.
The bible specifies that God fashioned us in the womb.
I imagine that covers the genetic makeup.
I think if you give it its due consideration you will reject that idea based on its implications of the nature of God among other reasons. (Logistics comes to mind haha but you might not see that as an obstacle like I do.)And I have to consider now that God is directly involved in genetics for all of the species.
Not necessarily. God could be involved in some capacity without eliminating the randomness aspect.And that means random mutation is out.
So where exactly is that? Doesn’t fir any of the prescribed definitions.
I sense a lot of incredulity as the stumbling block to your acceptance of evolution. It is hard to fathom sometimes but then again no it’s not. It really makes sense. Like you said, it’s elegant. What I think you need to keep in mind is the loooonnnnngggg time span that is usually required for new species to evolve. It is hard to comprehend the time it took. MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years in some cases! I would so like to go on a trip back in time with you. We would have to travel way way back to see what you want to see. Just sit there for a minute and transport yourself to another time, not caveman times, not dinosaur times. Think about the time before there were even animals. Think of a world with just plants and bacteria and stuff. That was a long long time ago but you know it was like that at one time, and just think of how much can and did happen in the massive amount of time that has since passed.I guess I will just continue being the ambiguous one that is weighing all options.
You first. I’m interested in why you think it’s right.I would be interested to know what your number might be and how you would calculate it.
Why would space need to be included? Is space interactive? He was calculating the probability of any event occurring. The space in which events occur seems irrelevant if nothing exists within that space to interact.He doesn’t provide a justification for any of it. Why use the number of elementary particles? Why that long? Why multiply it all together? What about other things which may factor into the equation like space? He really doesn’t provide much of a justification for any of it. No extensive experiment, no real formulas of substance - nothing. He really did pull it all out of thin air.
In case, you want some source material …A person would not have to read the book if someone else comes along and tells them whats in it.
In the observable universe, probabilistic resources come in very limited supplies. Within the known physical universe there are estimated around 10^80 elementary particles. Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This frequency corresponds to the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time. Finally, the universe itself is about a billion times younger than 10^25 seconds (assuming the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old). If we now assume that any specification of an event within the known physical universe requires at least one elementary particle to specify it and cannot be generated any faster than the Planck time, then these cosmological constraints imply that the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history cannot exceed
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150.
Source: leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/CHANCEGAPS.pdf
You seemed to have missed me saying that “I’ve revised my position there (seeYou are not getting it. By your own statements soft tissue cannot survive 65 million years. Are you aware of the number of finds? And now they are looking (becuase they were assuming the same thing you are) for soft tissue and guess what. More are coming.
Actually some early Christians (even Church Fathers), such as **St. Augustine **in hisYou don’t know what came first, the science or the creationist in all cases do you?
Indeed, “Religion can purify science from idolatry and falseThe Catholic Church is the reason for modern science. Why? Because our Scripture and Tradition showed us the universe to be intelligible and worthy of study. I submit that science has been hijacked in a way. It is OK though if properly reasoned. All claims Creationist or not should be able to be backed up. Pope JPII - “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Read more at brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/popejohnpa144236.html#VsXYw3a85TEHxDGg.99
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Read more at brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/popejohnpa144236.html#VsXYw3a85TEHxDGg.99
But his is not a refutation. It barely covers the surface of the refutation. It amounts to little more than an offhanded dismissal. Like I said - there are hours worth of reading (which you don’t need to be a biochemist to read). A single page article is not a refutation. Real scientists write entire books to refute each other back and forth. (and yes, I know Behe wrote a book. It was not a refutation, though)I am not a biochemist.
Michael Behe is and the link I provided is to Michael Behe’s refuation of your grand “refutation.”
You didn’t watch them so you could hardly know if they are refutations.
I did watch them. Who are you to say I haven’t? Unlike some, I actually try to stay informed of both sides of the issue. I have seen them before.Try again.
I recall when you first entered this thread that you distinguished abiogenesis from evolution, but also allowed some connection between the two.Just think of the TIME…and perhaps your incredulity will lessen. The fossil and genetic and other evidence quite clearly demonstrate that life evolved, it just takes a bit of imagination (imagining the time span that is) to make it work out in your mind.
Ok. But that still doesn’t tell me where the line is. No one can give you the evidence you ask for if you can’t even define the parameters of what you would accept.Well, I did mention that the more traits that are similar the more I would accept one being similar to the other and indicative of the other.
Overall? Perhaps. But in the context of what is considered too different and what isn’t? No.And while it is true that this is all about the genetic code, how this code is changed and passed from one generation to the next is perhaps more important.
That doesn’t really answer my questions.True, I am more convinced the earth is billions of years old then I am thousands or even millions.
Can you elaborate on these flaws?But I also can see flaws in the testing methodology that lead me to say not entirely convinced.
What do you mean why not? I just explained why not. Science is the study of the natural world. By definition, it cannot study or comment on or posit the supernatural. Asking why not is like asking why historians don’t study the future. They simply can’t. Its not possible.Why not?
Again, ITS NOT SOFT TISSUE. What part of that don’t you understand?You are not getting it. By your own statements soft tissue cannot survive 65 million years. Are you aware of the number of finds? And now they are looking (becuase they were assuming the same thing you are) for soft tissue and guess what. More are coming.
I don’t think so anymore, unless I’m wrong, what can be said of this:Again, ITS NOT SOFT TISSUE. What part of that don’t you understand?
Why is that ridiculous? do you know the formal definition of an ape? Nothing about the brain or the ability to love is a part of it. An ape is covered in hair. Are we? Yes. (and no, it does not mean a fur coat. We are “covered” because we have hair all over) Do we lack a tail? Yes. Do we have a broad chest (comparative to other animals)? Yes. And long limbs (again, comparative to other animals)? Yes. Those are the kinds of things that make us apes.Evolution has been studied and proven in smaller degrees, yes species adapt and change with their environment as needed. However, to believe that we are all apes is ridiculous.
I don’t know about read, but they can learn sign language and converse with their handlers. They can certainly express empathy, too.Please, tell me an ape can read and understand a book, have empathy, or pray.
No one said it wasn’t.It is possible to believe in science AND believe in God the almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible.
How telling. The one third of Americans who reject evolution made up their own minds. The two thirds who accept evolution, however, did not. That’s quite a bit too convenient.I applaud those one-third of Americans who each made up their own minds.
I know this may be a ludicrous question, but I am willing to bury my pride and risk derision.Ah I see our discussion that we had awhile back on how populations evolve, not individuals, did not stick. An individual does not give birth to a different species so that’s why you have not seen it. However, given the right circumstances and time, two or more populations may emerge that cannot reproduce with the other population even though they had common ancestors.
So can anyone list any sexually reproducing animal that produces viable offspring that are not their species?Ah I see our discussion that we had awhile back on how populations evolve, not individuals, did not stick. An individual does not give birth to a different species so that’s why you have not seen it. However, given the right circumstances and time, two or more populations may emerge that cannot reproduce with the other population even though they had common ancestors.
Right. I believe that evolution supporters call this transition species.One species can give rise to one or more new species but it is not individuals doing so. Remember we talked about that?
method of gene transfer is important here. Not just gene transfer.Because all life, whether it be plants, bacteria, or animals, have this in common (gene transfer and that sort of thing).
thanks.I personally would not call you a creationist then, considering the connotations and implications that go along with that.
Just following my experience with.Perhaps but are you sure about that? This would imply that the genes of each and every person or animal who has a chromosomal abnormalities were personally arranged that way by God. I would have thought things like Down’s Syndrome and the like could be attributed to the fall or something like that, not deliberate actions of God.
An omnipotent God has no problem designing everything on the fly.I think if you give it its due consideration you will reject that idea based on its implications of the nature of God among other reasons. (Logistics comes to mind haha but you might not see that as an obstacle like I do.)
You think God allows randomness. Perhaps. I would not be opposed to that.Not necessarily. God could be involved in some capacity without eliminating the randomness aspect.
I understand.I sense a lot of incredulity as the stumbling block to your acceptance of evolution.
It is hard to fathom sometimes but then again no it’s not. It really makes sense. Like you said, it’s elegant. What I think you need to keep in mind is the loooonnnnngggg time span that is usually required for new species to evolve. It is hard to comprehend the time it took. MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years in some cases! I would so like to go on a trip back in time with you. We would have to travel way way back to see what you want to see. Just sit there for a minute and transport yourself to another time, not caveman times, not dinosaur times. Think about the time before there were even animals. Think of a world with just plants and bacteria and stuff. That was a long long time ago but you know it was like that at one time, and just think of how much can and did happen in the massive amount of time that has since passed.
Like I stated before, it is elegant.Just think of the TIME…and perhaps your incredulity will lessen. The fossil and genetic and other evidence quite clearly demonstrate that life evolved, it just takes a bit of imagination (imagining the time span that is) to make it work out in your mind.
In a sort of way, yeah. According to the big bang, space itself expanded at the beginning of the universe. That’s kind of a big deal that needs to be covered.Why would space need to be included? Is space interactive?
That’s something you can calculate in the same way “the question of life, the universe, and everything” is a question. Its not really something with good parameters that can be tested. You really just kind of have to pull it out of thin air.He was calculating the probability of any event occurring.
Yes, but why ELEMENTARY particles? Why not go deeper? Or higher?The number of particles is important because it is particles that interact to create events within time.
Yes, which is why I know that sometimes you have to divide or add or subtract or use an exponent. Why did he decide to simply multiply it all?Why multiply it together? Do you understand probability and how it is calculated?
I know what they do. But why THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER. Where did he get it from? Thin air.Why that long? Interactions occur in time and require time.
He needs to do something to formally and professionally determine what numbers he should and should not be using and why. Without it, he’s just musing.Why would he need to do experiments? This is a theoretical upper limit. It is a mathematical calculation regarding the upper “bound” for the probability of any real event occurring in the universe since its beginning 13.7 billion years ago.
Providing formulas and having support for why they are the right formulas is two different things. I’m definitely curious to see his justification for not factoring in forces that would bring elementary particles together, considering it would obviously hurt his case to include them.You haven’t actually read any of Dembski’s papers or books, then? I can assure you he provides formulas.
already read that part, thanks. Doesn’t really explain it enough, though.In case, you want some source material …
I’ve seen this before. It really isn’t soft tissue. The media, just like they do with the Church, likes to hype things up way too much to the point of misleading people. There are cells, yes. But they are fossilized. The cool thing that scientists took note of was that fossilization was so perfect that they could see the cells. And when the scientists say “soft tissue”, they did not mean tissue that was still soft. They meant what would BE soft tissue in a modern creature - tendons, blood vessels, blood, marrow, etc., as opposed to bone. This is apparent in the papers published on these finds. But the media saw “soft tissue”, foamed at the mouth, and read no further.I don’t think so anymore, unless I’m wrong, what can be said of this:
youtube.com/watch?v=N22jYppVjZI
(Apparently there are other interesting examples)
Still far older than that Creationist site claimed by carbon dating, but isn’t it “soft tissue?”