Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8134 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-02-2014 2:24 AM
114 online now:
GDR, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 110 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tali_Zorah
Upcoming Birthdays: Aurelia
Post Volume:
Total: 736,917 Year: 22,758/28,606 Month: 59/1,786 Week: 248/384 Day: 1/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 1515 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 151 of 176 (485797)
10-11-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by lyx2no
10-11-2008 6:26 PM


Re: Are
lyx2no, thanks for the correction.

My question now is can the same thing be said about the evolution theory's explanation of the origin of life? Has anybody ever been able to generate an irreducibly complex system using only completely random forces?

I have heard many theories on how it might be possible for this or that to have happened but never see any experiment or observations to back it up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by lyx2no, posted 10-11-2008 6:26 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by lyx2no, posted 10-11-2008 8:43 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded
 Message 153 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2008 8:56 PM Kevin123 has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1160 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 152 of 176 (485806)
10-11-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Kevin123
10-11-2008 7:34 PM


Evolution is not Origin
lyx2no, thanks for the correction.
You're welcome, but it wasn't a correction, it was an argument. But my next sentence will be a correction. I'll apply your gratitude to it.

My question now is can the same thing be said about the evolution theory's explanation of the origin of life? Has anybody ever been able to generate an irreducibly complex system using only completely random forces?

The ToE say nothing whatsoever about origins. Furthermore, any failings of the ToE, real or imagined, have no value as evidence of creation; it must stand on its own.

Discovery of an irreducibly complex system could be problematical, possibly fatal, to the ToE; but, one has yet to be presented; and, that still would not support creationism until such time that "creationism" is defined in a much less nebulous fashion.

I have heard many theories on how it might be possible for this or that to have happened but never see any experiment or observations to back it up.
Have you been looking in the right places? Your questions so far cast suspicions about where you have been looking.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel … everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 7:34 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4732
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 153 of 176 (485810)
10-11-2008 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Kevin123
10-11-2008 7:34 PM


Origins again
My question now is can the same thing be said about the evolution theory's explanation of the origin of life?

The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life.

Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

    a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

    b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

    c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

    d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

    e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

The theory of evolution works just fine with any one of them. Why to you keep referring to "evolution theory's explanation of the origin of life" when there clearly is no such theory yet?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 7:34 PM Kevin123 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Kevin123, posted 10-12-2008 12:26 AM Coyote has responded

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 1515 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 154 of 176 (485820)
10-12-2008 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Coyote
10-11-2008 8:56 PM


Re: Origins again
Coyote, the theories except for a) require an intelligent agent..

Considering the mathematical improbability of the evolution by natural selection, I don't understand why anyone would follow that theory if an intelligent agent had to be introduced to explain origin. If an intelligent agent seeded/planted the early earth would it not be more logical to assume that they used a mixture of seeds (one for each family or genus) rather than a single seed from which all known organisms evolved? It would be easier than trying to explain how all these complex systems might have evolved and they wouldn’t have to explain the missing fossils for the millions of intermediary animals. Therefore, I consider ToE and origin to be closely linked.

Lynx2no says: You're welcome, but it wasn't a correction, it was an argument.

How is that an argument? Yes I only presented an observation that shows intelligence can be the source of complexity. Can ToE boast as much? What have evolutionists observed could accounts for an animal sprouting a new organ or what observations lead to the belief that one species becomes another? Mutations as far as we have observed are always harmful. Why would evolution be the exception billions and billions of times?

Lyx2no says: that still would not support creationism until such time that "creationism" is defined in a much less nebulous fashion.

I agree, unfortunately religion seems to be holding ID back. I think fewer people would have a problem accepting ID as a scientific theory if religion was not always brought up.

Lyx2no asks: Have you been looking in the right places? Your questions so far cast suspicions about where you have been looking.

Please enlighten me, where do I look or what should I read? So far everything I’ve read contains a lot of “might have”s and “could have”s with some nice illustrations. The only proof I’ve seen from evolutionists is changes within species, some flat headed animal and a bird with teeth. I really am open to any theory but I want proof based on observation and experimentation not based on creative thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2008 8:56 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by bluescat48, posted 10-12-2008 1:50 AM Kevin123 has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Coyote, posted 10-12-2008 2:09 AM Kevin123 has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 10-12-2008 2:13 AM Kevin123 has not yet responded
 Message 161 by obvious Child, posted 10-16-2008 1:52 AM Kevin123 has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 155 of 176 (485824)
10-12-2008 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kevin123
10-12-2008 12:26 AM


Re: Origins again
Mutations as far as we have observed are always harmful.

Oh really, how about the bacterium that evolved the capability to digest plastics. How is that harmful?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kevin123, posted 10-12-2008 12:26 AM Kevin123 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4732
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 156 of 176 (485826)
10-12-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kevin123
10-12-2008 12:26 AM


Re: Origins again
Considering the mathematical improbability of the evolution by natural selection, I don't understand why anyone would follow that theory if an intelligent agent had to be introduced to explain origin.

I disagree with your "mathematical improbability." Try this online lecture:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Garrett Odell.

    Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

In other words, the mathematicians you cite may be modeling the wrong variables.

If an intelligent agent seeded/planted the early earth would it not be more logical to assume that they used a mixture of seeds (one for each family or genus) rather than a single seed from which all known organisms evolved?

No.

It would be easier than trying to explain how all these complex systems might have evolved and they wouldn’t have to explain the missing fossils for the millions of intermediary animals.

No problem, there are a lot of intermediate fossils, with more being found every year.

Therefore, I consider ToE and origin to be closely linked.

You have presented no credible arguments for that.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kevin123, posted 10-12-2008 12:26 AM Kevin123 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4732
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 157 of 176 (485827)
10-12-2008 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kevin123
10-12-2008 12:26 AM


Evidence
I think fewer people would have a problem accepting ID as a scientific theory if religion was not always brought up.

Scientists would have fewer problems with ID if there was some evidence brought up. So far the main proponent, the Discovery Institute, is running a PR campaign rather than a research project. (Lawyers and PR flacks don't impress scientists very much.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kevin123, posted 10-12-2008 12:26 AM Kevin123 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by JungEinstein, posted 10-12-2008 5:06 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
JungEinstein
Junior Member (Idle past 2083 days)
Posts: 8
From: Tampa Bay, US
Joined: 10-12-2008


Message 158 of 176 (485882)
10-12-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Coyote
10-12-2008 2:13 AM


Re: Evidence
There is no evidence that an intelligent designer created the physical universe that will satisfy science. Science, by default, eliminates from its field of consideration all phenomena that cannot be subject to observation, measurement, verifiability, falsifiability, and/or rationality. The Genesis creation account cannot be subjected to any of these (unless scientists and creationists are willing to consider it rationally).

The Bible is not as much a science text as it is a book of art. By “art” I mean the Bible is a work of analogy, metaphor, simile, allegory, parable, illustration, symbolism, etc. I think anyone who insists on a purely literal interpretation of a Biblical passage, such as the creation account, has missed the major point of it.

The fact is, every account recorded in the Scriptures has multiple levels of meaning in some combination of the literal, figurative, physical, spiritual, physiological, and psychological—with the spiritual facet being by far the most critical to an understanding of God’s purpose.

The Bible (the common source of revealed knowledge referenced in these forums) reveals God, and the Bible tells us that nature reveals God. Also, the Bible tells us that God cannot lie. A lie is a contradiction; it is a contradiction to truth. Since the Author of the Bible and the Creator of nature are one in the same, it’s impossible that the things revealed in the Bible should contradict the things revealed by nature.

If we insist on a religious belief that contradicts nature, or if we insist on a scientific theory that contradicts the Bible, we insist on a version of “truth” that is found neither in the Bible nor in nature. Science and religion contradict each other. Nature and the Bible do not. If we really want the truth, we need to find an interpretation of the Bible and a theory about nature that agree, even if it means letting go of some cherished or theorized beliefs.

(For example, I have let go of the notion that Eve was literally created from Adam’s rib. Gen 2:21 relates that God opened Adam’s flesh, removed the rib, then closed up the flesh afterward. This does not describe the act of an Almighty God for whom there are no physical limitations. This is clearly an allegorical description of a different meaning. I have also let go of the notion of a 6 24-hour day Creation period.)

But I suspect agreement between science and religion will be never happen. Scientists make little room for God because He doesn’t always practice what they consider to be logic or science, and religionists make little room for theories that suggest God is not the person they have always believed Him to be.

If we find ourselves in a debate over evidence and faith, it is not a debate between nature and the Bible, because these are always in agreement. At least one side of the debate is over what we perceive to be evidence, or over what we are personally willing to accept.

This is the opinion of a newbie to these forums. I apologize if I overstepped any “tribal boundaries.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 10-12-2008 2:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2008 6:21 PM JungEinstein has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15892
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 159 of 176 (485894)
10-12-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by JungEinstein
10-12-2008 5:06 PM


Re: Evidence
Welcome to the fray JungEinstein, love the name.

The fact is, every account recorded in the Scriptures has multiple levels of meaning in some combination of the literal, figurative, physical, spiritual, physiological, and psychological—with the spiritual facet being by far the most critical to an understanding of God’s purpose.

So it's a matter of interpretation.

If we insist on a religious belief that contradicts nature, or if we insist on a scientific theory that contradicts the Bible, we insist on a version of “truth” that is found neither in the Bible nor in nature.

Reality does not play favorites for science or religion. What has occurred in the past is fact, it is our understanding that may be incomplete, and an open minded skeptic will consider any reasonable concept as a tentative model with reservations.

Science and religion contradict each other.

Not necessarily. The sun rises, the sun sets. Not all religions are at odds with science, just some beliefs.

If we really want the truth, we need to find an interpretation of the Bible and a theory about nature that agree, even if it means letting go of some cherished ... beliefs.

Agreed, no matter what those beliefs involve. The question left then is how do you test for the truth of the truth? Do you use the scientific method? What do you do outside the realm of science? Is there another method? If you have an interest in pursuing this question see Perceptions of Reality

... or theorized beliefs.

What is a "theorized belief"? In science a theory is a much more defined concept than general usage. In science a theory is based on evidence and logic, and it is critically developed to achieve two goals: (1) explain all the evidence known, and (2) make testable predictions. The theory is then tested to see if it stands up, and it is quickly discarded if invalidated by new evidence discovered either through the outcome of the predictions of found through other means. In science these theories are always held as tentative explanations, works in progress, always challenged by reality.

But I suspect agreement between science and religion will be never happen. Scientists make little room for God because He doesn’t always practice what they consider to be logic or science, and religionists make little room for theories that suggest God is not the person they have always believed Him to be.

It may not happen for some people, but that does not rule out the possibility for others. There are many scientists that are religious, from Ken Miller (catholic, biologist) to Robert Bakker (evangelical, paleontologist) to many others.

If we find ourselves in a debate over evidence and faith, it is not a debate between nature and the Bible, because these are always in agreement. At least one side of the debate is over what we perceive to be evidence, or over what we are personally willing to accept.

And what you are willing to test against reality, what you are willing to see falsified.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by JungEinstein, posted 10-12-2008 5:06 PM JungEinstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by JungEinstein, posted 10-13-2008 9:01 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
JungEinstein
Junior Member (Idle past 2083 days)
Posts: 8
From: Tampa Bay, US
Joined: 10-12-2008


Message 160 of 176 (485961)
10-13-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by RAZD
10-12-2008 6:21 PM


Re: Evidence
Thanks for the tips, RAZD.

RAZD writes:

So it’s a matter of interpretation.


Yes. The Bible itself says interpretation is required. (Dan 2:45; Luke 24:27). Clues to an accurate interpretation are found in nature and within the Bible itself. Wherever clues to a specific point are found in both, the two must agree.

Reality does not play favorites for science or religion.

This was the point I hoped to make. Science and religion are human enterprises and are subject to limited human perception. It is here that we find contradictions, not between those which are the subjects of science and religion—nature and the Bible (the common source of revealed knowledge referenced in these forums), because nature and the Bible arise from one undifferentiated Source beyond human perception. Yet, as you say about natural history,
quote:
it is our understanding that may be incomplete.

JungEinstein writes:

Science and religion contradict each other.


This wasn’t intended as a general statement, but one with the qualification I hoped would be evident by its position before the statement, “Nature and the Bible do not.” I’ll try to be more precise in the future.

cherished or theorized beliefs

I was refering to concepts we hold to be true (“beliefs”), whether we hold them because they are the product of scientific research (“theorized”) or because they “bring us closer” to God (“cherished”). I didn’t allude to scientific fact as part of my meaning because I don’t wish that anyone should let go of facts.

But I suspect agreement between science and religion will be never happen.

Again, this was not intended as a general statement. I hoped my meaning would be evident from the context.
I’ll confess, I’m a creative writer first (which, of course, is debatable), and then a critical thinker. This means I have a bad habit of leaving my meaning open to interpretation, even when I have a specific point.

RAZD writes:

And what you are willing to test against reality, what you are willing to see falsified.


Exactly.

The question left then is how do you test for the truth of the truth? Do you use the scientific method? What do you do outside the realm of science? Is there another method?

The theory is then tested to see if it stands up, and it is quickly discarded if invalidated by new evidence discovered either through the outcome of the predictions of found through other means.

The other method I’m suggesting is a validation test of scientific theory against the Bible, and religious belief against nature, being careful not to attempt validation of scientific theory against religious belief. You said

quote:
In science these theories are always held as tentative explanations, works in progress, always challenged by reality.

In fact, religious beliefs were also intended to be tested continually. (Acts 17:11; 2 Cor 13:5).

Interpretations of the Bible can be revised, just as scientific theories can be revised. I don’t believe it’s a far stretch to suggest that religious belief is the side that needs to do the most revision, because, as we’ve said, it’s open to much interpretation. The point is to find agreement, not argument. Is there room on these forums for agreement?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2008 6:21 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 560 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 161 of 176 (486106)
10-16-2008 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kevin123
10-12-2008 12:26 AM


Re: Origins again
quote:
I agree, unfortunately religion seems to be holding ID back. I think fewer people would have a problem accepting ID as a scientific theory if religion was not always brought up.

Incorrect. Intelligent Design is holding Intelligent design back.

ID is nothing more then animism. If we cannot explain something now, therefore Goddidit. The water cycle was too complicated in the past to describe and explain and therefore it belonged to the realm of Gods who we had to placate with dances. Now that we understand it, we have abandoned the idea that Gods are responsible for the rains. Right now, instead of rain, it's complex biological functions and origins. In time we will determine how and why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kevin123, posted 10-12-2008 12:26 AM Kevin123 has not yet responded

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 1997 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 162 of 176 (486558)
10-22-2008 1:08 PM


Ok, I'll bite. I'm not sure the "best" evidence for creation would ever be in the form of a scientific testable theory, but since I think that's the kind of evidence you want, I'll throw some out there. Here they are, in no particular order.

1. In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted. Sometime following the eruption, a canyon on the north side of the mountain was cut in a matter of hours. The canyon is 1000 ft wide and 140 ft deep and looks like a miniature version of the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists say the Grand Canyon was cut over thousands to millions of years. This new canyon is very strong evidence that it could have been cut in hours or days by a huge amount of water, just as creationists have been saying all along.

2. In 2005, an NC State Paleontologist discovered soft bone tissue in dinosaur bones. The scientific community immediately responded, many saying that we have a lot to learn about bone preservation to explain how this tissue lasted that long as a fossil. Wouldn't an open minded scientist say that this could be evidence that the bones aren't as old as we think? That thought was immediately thrown out as not possible simply because it doesn't agree with current evolutionary models. (so how many other such evidences are thrown out because they don't agree with current models?)

3. Back to Mt. St. Helens: Since the eruption, several dating methods have been used on rocks in that area. Since we know when the eruption occurred, we know how old the samples are. The dating methods have given answers all over the chart, many saying they are millions of years old, when we know the samples are only decades old. This has drawn dating methods into question. If the readings aren't accurate for young samples, how do we know they are accurate for older ones? (http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm)

My lunch hour is over, so I'll just post a link with some other thoughts on evidences for a young earth. I know some people will be upset that it is a Christian website, but oh well.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp


Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 1:29 PM wardog25 has responded
 Message 165 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2008 1:40 PM wardog25 has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 163 of 176 (486562)
10-22-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by wardog25
10-22-2008 1:08 PM


wardog25 writes:

In 2005, an NC State Paleontologist discovered soft bone tissue in dinosaur bones. The scientific community immediately responded, many saying that we have a lot to learn about bone preservation to explain how this tissue lasted that long as a fossil.

Where are you reading this? Could you give me a link to this story? Thanks


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"

-Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by wardog25, posted 10-22-2008 1:08 PM wardog25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by wardog25, posted 10-22-2008 1:36 PM Agobot has not yet responded

    
wardog25
Member (Idle past 1997 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 164 of 176 (486563)
10-22-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Agobot
10-22-2008 1:29 PM


http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 1:29 PM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4732
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 165 of 176 (486565)
10-22-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by wardog25
10-22-2008 1:08 PM


My lunch hour is over, so I'll just post a link with some other thoughts on evidences for a young earth. I know some people will be upset that it is a Christian website, but oh well.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

I don't think anyone will be upset that it is a Christian website.

My problem with AiG is that it lies, misrepresents, and distorts a lot of the data, or ignores the data entirely. Its track record in terms of both science and accuracy is abysmal.

Here is a link that might serve you better:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by wardog25, posted 10-22-2008 1:08 PM wardog25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 9:48 AM Coyote has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014