two important questions for Servant

Well, I neither DID nor WOULD say that, though. Theistic evolution should even be in the mix, at least not main-stream. The two predominant ideas, based upon full-acceptance of one over the other, are Darwinian evolution and young-earth creationism.The thing is, a clear and straight reading of the Bible does in fact disallow the possibility of there being millions of years of evolution to fit in (thus, the argument posed is not whether there is or isn't a God/Creator, but whether Scripture is correct or Charles Darwin and his predecessors). Not exactly true. Study the creation model from several different viewpoints--in conjunction with the standard: Scripture, of course--and you may find that adding a Creator disconfuses most puzzles. The problem is, the majority of people who accept evolution as a non-questionable fact are ignorant of the explanations about nature and science offered by Scripture and the creation model.Give me an example of a puzzle that creation fails to address. I would be glad to--using the Bible as my standard of argument and as much evidence as I can find to back it up--display any possible alternatives to the ToE ("possible" = legible, not just a random what-if). First of all, your question here suggests an underlying bias ("better than the theory of evolution" implies an answer that is already suggested within the question... whereas the question's answer should be determined on a case-by-case basis based upon each person's beliefs). Now that answer does not sound scientific enough, I imagine; nevertheless, Scripture serves as the hypothesis--from a scientific perspective--for the creation model while all other arguments posed serve as observations/explanations/evidence in support of the hypothesis.The problem is, evolution is not a final conclusion of science.
"No conclusions in science are final." --Craven, M.S. Computer ScienceFurthermore, evolution as described by Darwin and his predecessors is in the past--that is, all mutations/adaptations/variations seen today does not necessarily add up to anything other than that which has been going on since the creation of the earth only 7000 y.a. In other words, evolution is a past phenomena and all evidence to support it are based upon not current observations but rather a gathering of data that has been interpreted to fit with Darwin's ideology. Show me an example and I'll show you what I mean.Thus, since evolution is a past-phenomena (as is creation) all evidence to support both sides is based upon an illogical trail of "well, we don't know of any better explanation, therefore OURS must be true..." Can't you see the flaw in this logic. That is why I accept my beliefs not based on logic necessarily but based on faith, reason, and prior knowledge of the fact that neither side can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by our current understanding of scientific processes.Thanks,
Servant

I ASSUME you meant non-mobile? Anyway, not that important, so moving on...The problem with the fossil record is that it had been taken from the geologic column of strata--a still-shaky argument *speculatively* in support of evolution. The record of fossils bears a collection of many fossilized plants, lichens, fungi, etc. Nevertheless it has been interpreted to mean evolution has occurred.Using the fact that we have a "well-sorted" record of plant fossils proves nothing. Truly how difficult can it be to point out the flaws in that logic? First off, "well-sorted" suggests what, exactly? That the evolutionary biologists sorted them in accordance with evolution theory? Or perhaps the geologic strata is a phenomenon that seems to preserve and all the "well-sorted" plant and animal fossils so perfectly within each age, giving such an irrefutably, perfectly-secure record of every age.If you found fossils of moss and lichens in a "400-myo precambrian" layer and the log of an extinct species of flower preserved in a "60 myo devonian" layer and then a tree of similar design preserved in a "2-myo" layer, what conclusion would you draw from that in regards to alleged evidence in support of a particular theory of origins? Nothing, unless of course you start interpreting your alleged evidence with evolution in mind.Yes, I believe yet another falty argument comes up:Interpret the fossil-record evidence in accordance with your previously-held belief in evolution, examine and analyze your interpretation, and note how it seems to confirm your theory! Well, it would, wouldn't it?Now, if this seems as though I am not addressing exactly what you had in mind, forgive me... you gave me only a 9-word answer to work with and I am going off of what I suspect you were trying to say...As far as a creationist's answer to your alleged problem goes as follows:Biblical creationists regard the history of life on earth as following the same exact order given in sequence with Genesis chapter 1. Thus, we look upon the orders given.Here's what one would find in a straight-forward reading of Genesis 1:day three God creates grass, plants, trees, seeds, fruit, etc. (plants and herbs yielding seed)...day four God creates the stars in the firmament...day five God creates fish, whales, birds, etc. (everything that flies or swims)...day six God creates all the rest of the animals and finally humans...Thus, a Flood in Noah's lifetime would have had catastrophic significance in determining how and where certain organisms would be burried and petrified. Thus, we would not conclusively expect to find all the fossils in THAT order in the geologic column (and we don't). Likewise, we do not find in the geologic strata any evidence of gradual accumulation (no evidence that the layers really DO mean different ages).The problem with evolutionism is greatly due to the fact that rebuttals offered against creationist observations and arguments are not based in evidence but merely in speculation (ie saying "we don't have evidence to support our rebuttal, but because evolution is true your argument doesn't work"). That same faulty logic is used in "refutting" most creationist arguments that would otherwise still hold water in mainstream science.I am NOT suggesting that the creation model is provable to the point of becoming a theory or law--at least not in the eyes of western science--but what I am saying is that there exists neither enough evidence to prove evolution nor creation. Science is, again, knowledge gained--and applied for that matter--based on what we can observe, test, and demonstrate. The observations and tests done in the sceintific method in terms of evolution have proven only one thing: that it has NOT proven evolution. That is, a scientist will read a book, gather a hypothesis, find evidence, test it, research, interpret the observations and data, and form a conclusion that either confirms the hypothesis or require the hypothesis to be revised.All in all, the idea that evolution is the best argument because its the best explanation of observations gathered in nature suggests only: "we can't think of any other way to explain it, therefore WE MUST be right!"Sincerely,
Servant

I have to say that Mike said something that made me look at this issue in another light...Looking at things outside of the box is a simple matter of trying to see other people's point of view.I have always been amazed how two people can look at the same thing and arrive at opposite conclusions.A humanist will look at the earth and say "due to all natural processes observed currently, it it most logical to speculate that the Big Bang has created all that which we see today."A Christian will look at the world and say "just open your eyes... the obvious evidence is that there must have a designer!"Now it may seem as thought the Christian has a flaw in his logic at this point. However, looking at why a tree grows, produces beautiful arrays of millions of tiny pink flowers in the springtime, hundreds of thousands of seedlings soon following, then a dazzling spectacle of lush green canopy encompassing every branch, followed by gradual changes from green to yellow to red, and eventually the leaves fall and white covers the branches. Two months later the entire cycle is repeated exactly the same with the exception that the tree is slightly larger. Look up and you'll note that the sky is blue, clouds appear white until their thickness has blocked out enough of the sun that they turn light shades of gray, a human being will fight off disease because of an immune system that is not strengthen by anything MAN has created but rather with vitamins, minerals, and certain responses to stimuli such as muscic and laughter.All evolution aside for the moment, that alone is enough to convince me of the existence of God. Now, going to prove that that same God is the Creator of EVERYTHING else I see and is the same God who loves me and sent his Son to die for me is a longer process that requires a perfect balance of logic, faith, reasoning, and growing wisdom which comes from keeping an open mind.I use the term "open mind" broadly... not meaning necessarily that you are accepting or tolerant of everybody else's view, but rather that you see the entire earth as how it truly functions and can provide a logical, reasonable, understandable account for everything that we observe and see.I was asked to offer a theory that can explain ALL the evidence. Well I come forward with not a theory but a belief system--a "what if" if you will--based on a balance of faith, logic, and reasoning and can offer an explanation to everything we see in nature if we only keep an open mind and "see what everyone else chooses not to see..."I call it Biblical Christianity. Come forward with a puzzling question either fails OR succeeds at offering an explanation and I'll discuss it with the views of a Bible-believer and not necessarily with just science. Mind you, though, creationism is only a small piece of this Scriptural ideology.Refer to my signature below also... in regards to what constitutes an open mind...Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

So apparently, because adding God into the picture confuses you, evolution is true? I am less confused now than I EVER was back when I believed in evolution. Simple fact is, believe in God and you don't NEED an answer to what gravity is made of, what CAUSES magnetic polarity, why energy decreases in intensity in a closed system, etc. As far as evolution goes, adding a Creator WOULD INDEED confuse things... however, taking evolution out of the picture and replacing it with God and a 7000-year-old universe would take away any confusion whatsoever if you're looking deep enough into it... a perfect balance of faith, reasoning, and logic thus excludes the NEED for explaining things that are not important in the grand picture--namely WHY certain mysteries are unexplained.Likewise, adding a Creator to a world that is indeed evolving would cause confusion, yes, but that is not what I was contending in the first place. So are you denying that what Mike said about mainstream evolutionists is true? Even "they" would not contend against the idea that "they" are not open-minded to non-scientific manners of discussing the origins of the universe. And if they respond to my last sentence, it only goes to show that "they" care more about attacking the things that I say than doing what really counts--defending their theory from the core. Or perhaps they don't WANT to find a better explanation of ALL the evidence because the current one is doing just fine with dethroning God.Yes, evolutionists will suppress any alleged arguments and evidence that questions their theory without showing it to the public, if it is a valid argument.Likewise, evolutionists will be quick to pounce on the flawed logic of some of the arguments creationists have used and use THAT modem as incentive to denounce creationism altogether. If anybody disagrees, perhaps you could offer me an example of when an evolutionist took a seemingly-sound argument offered by a creationist and used it to analyze THIER own theory before throwing it ontop of the mountain of "false evidence."All in all, scientists cannot think of a better way to describe what they see in nature, so they ASSUME their theory is correct. Most of them are not looking for evidence against it and therefore do not question their theory to the point of looking deep enough to see if it's wrong. Part of the reason why is the bias against creation is seats of power that will withdraw the grant money of any researcher who is set out to find flaws in evolution theory. It has indeed happened.Sincerely,
Servant

Please...Honestly, is that what you have been led to believe? It was keeping an open mind that led me to stop believing in evolution.Now I KNOW ahead of time that somebody will probably say that's not true--that it was CLOSING MY MIND that led me to believing in creation. But again we're not only getting off subject but also ignoring the real question. I have looked at the evidence. The sad fact is there EXISTS no evidence that can stand on its own without endless interpretation to FIT a particular theory. Again, the alleged evidence offered is posed by a one-sided party. There have been examples of where that has been known to be true, yes. And it upsets me. Nevertheless, I have seen quite my share of evolutionists with an equally closed mind and thus you cannot be meaning to offer that statement as a reason to denounce creationism, could you? If a Bible-believing Christian studies science enough to gain a firm grasp on both sides, lame excuses would not be necessary in pointing out the flawed logic of evolutionary arguments. Perhaps you need to understand how a debate works:
The side who WANTS an explanation of their theory is the side who will provide the arguments and the evidence. It is not my job to show YOU what YOU believe and THEN explain why it is wrong, if this is a true debate. It is my job to point out the flaws in your arguments AFTER you have given me an argument.I don't mean that in a hostile way...
My offer is still on the table (read my last response above this one)...Sincerely,
Servant

Okay, I apologize for my lateness. I only have so much time in the day to spend on the computer (in a week, I should say) and this website is not my largest priority in that matter (sorry to say so). Anyway, I'll try to address an important issue brought up by Lam: I was not using the belief in God to dismiss the idea of technological advancement (which is what you seem to have interpreted out of the statement you quoted from me).Can you please tell me, what IS gravity? Obviously, nobody can say what it is in a natural/physical sense. It is a fact, yes... well, the existence of gravity cannot be argued (if anybody thinks it can, I invite them to jump off the roof of their house and use THAT as their argument against the existence of gravity). Anyway, that is the point, however; what IS gravity? What IS magnetism? Is magnetism made up of a cloud of literally billions of physical particles--much much smaller than electrons or leptons--which interact with one another to either repel or attract larger bodies? If it is not, then what is the explanation for gravity? Literally, nobody as far as I know has been able to say what light IS or what gravity IS or what magnetism IS and, frankly, I don't care (they exist in the natural realm but, for the time being, can only be explained by attempts to bridge the gap between the natural and the supernatural realms).If my statement, Lam, led you to believe that I don't care about technology or scientific knowledge, I am sorry for misleading you.Let me remind you what I said: And let me remind you how you responded to that: I DID NOT say such a thing. I am grateful for many of the advancements in technology and knowledge (otherwise I would not be wearing a watch, I would not have driven my car today, I would not have popped open the can of soda that I am drinking right now, etc.) Let me quote a phrase from my most valued writer:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen..." (Heb. 11:1).All I am saying is that, with the existence of God, there is no reason why people should spend their time on issues not necessary. For instance, this entire website and the purpose thereof are significantly less important to the main issue--the most important thing is not which story of origins is true, but rather, how we are affected by the existence of such a God/supernatural being.Yes, I am a young earth creationist and an advocate for the divine intervention as to the origins of the original ancient Scriptures. Nevertheless, if the Bible were PROVEN scientifically to be fallacious it would not phase my faith whatsoever because my faith is not in the Bible, nor is it in the story of creation; my faith is in God and HIM alone.Let me ask three questions: (for simplicity sake, I'd like a yes or no, and I am not asking for an argument or justification for your answers).1) Do you believe, whatsoever, in the existence (or possibility of an existence) of a God? Yes or no please.2) If you answered to yes to (1), do you think that there is a specific reason and purpose for your existence? (Afterall, if there exists a God, then there most likely exists a reason for YOUR existence beside just random chance). Yes or no, please.3) If you answered yes to (1) and (2), do you think that God cares what you do with your life?Finally (sorry, number 4), if you answered no to (1), could you please explain why? (I'm not asking for evidence of evolution... I'm merely asking for your reason for being and atheist). And if you answered yes to (1) and/or (2) then question four doesnt apply to you.So, with that said, I hope you understand that my argument you read was not directed toward the idea that, if there is a God, then we can ignore technological and scientific research... rather, I was stating that the existence of God should serve as a guideline for us not wasting our lives on trying to understand the less important (notice I did NOT list medicine, engineering, the education system, agriculture, biochemistry, genetics, or--God forbid--politics as areas that we do not need answers to in the presence of God... I only listed explanations for what gravity and magnetism are composed of, and WHY energy decreases within closed systems).So, hope this is a little to chew over... and once again I apologize in advance if I do not get around to returning to this thread any time soon due to my schedule.Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

First of all, you have not even BEGUN to explain what gravity is. Saying that it is an illusion is only dismissing the real question of what it IS. Furthermore, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Physics, gravity is the attraction between two bodies of a given mass (in simplest terms). To say that it is an illusion, and then to try and explain what causes it, is a leap of faith. BTW, where did you get that explanation from anyway? Was it from a peer-review? And if yes, what mechanisms were used to determine what gravity is?To this day, what gravity truly IS is a mystery; completely inevitably a mystery. If not, could you please offer the evidence for your claim. Furthermore, could you please explain why our alleged knowledge of gravity is the correct truth about such a field (or light or magnetism, or the neutron force for that matter)?Thus, while an interesting idea, an "illusion caused by straight-line motion through curved space" does not explain what causes the attraction between two bodies (which is the affect of gravity).Thank you for trying, though.sincerely,
ServantP.S. Your arrogance is neither flattering nor necessary.

Gravity, by definition, is the attraction between any two given bodies. However, that is the effect of the force that has been labeled "gravity," not the true sense of what the force IS and what causes it... the question I'm getting at is what is the cause and physical property of such a force?

Hmm, then I wonder what the Oxford Dictionary of Physics meant when saying: --Isaacs, Alan. "Oxford Dictionary of Physics." Oxford University Press. 2003, p. 200."Force" is defined as the agency that tends to change the momentum of a massive body. Thus, gravity is a force (hence the wording above). Also, if gravity is not a force and is merely straight-line motion through curved space, then what causes the attraction between two bodies? Is there a truly a PHYSICAL property of gravity that can explain WHY two bodies of mass feel an attraction? Emphatically no--not with our understanding of science anyway.Also, if gravity is simply straight-line motion through curved space, what CAUSES the motion in the first place?Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

Your second sentence contradicted your first. Attraction is the tendency for two objects to move toward each other. Btw, how does mass bend space? Space is a three-dimensional void, so where does the power of bending space come from? Matter is, by definition, compressed energy (positively, neutral, and negatively charged subatomic particles) and therefore the mass of an object already boasts energy within, but from where does the kinetic energy from two bodiesfrom two different points in open spaceto move toward each other come? What causes the kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion. What causes the motion? Potential energy? Then what catalyzes the potential energy into the form of kinetic energy? Are you suggesting that people like me are normal and don’t have a scientific background. It’s just that I refuse to rely so quickly on a touch-base and move on explanation of how gravity works. We still do not know what causes it, or what it is (yes, gravity is the movement of two bodies toward one another, but we do not know where the movement originates or WHY it happens that way). I have not forgotten about your requests for a response. However, I see a greater importance in closing a can of worms that has already been opened FIRST. True. But this has nothing to do with how it REALLY happened (emphasis on your use of the phrase they thought is in order okay, moving on) WOW! So you’re saying that the tree of life that the geneticists constructed and speculated fit that of the morphological tree of life? And the evidence that EITHER tree (or both, in fact) is how it REALLY happened in nature would be. . . ? Neither argument for biological evolution (genetic or morphological) can stand on its own. Therefore, the concept that they coincide is the only evidence for evolution (shaky, but it’s all you’ve given me). Yes, we can use genetics to test for hereditary traits, and often predict them quite accurately. However, that is based largely upon the works by Gregor Mendel and his successors in genetics, who were studying the PRESENT genetic variations within a gene pool but not the HISTORY of genetic variations within a gene pool. Seeing a pattern, and connecting the dots to make the pattern fit how they speculate earlier life forms to have originated only means one thing: that their interpretations of genetic paternity fits with their conjectures of neo-Darwinian evolution. But that does not point to a common ancestor.Okay, they see a pattern, yes, but that does not give them the right to speculate common ancestry whatsoever. For instance, if I saw you driving north on Highway 101 in Oregon, passing mile-marker after mile-marker and gassing up every 150 miles (hey, you’re in an SUV so what do you expect), am I allowed to speculate--based ONLY on your periodic pattern of driving north through Oregon on Highway 101 past mile-markers and gas stations--that you started your journey in Los Angeles three days ago? If I predicted that, in 97 miles you will need to gas up again (based on the fact that you’ve driven 53 miles on your current tank) it would be an accurate assumption. However, I do NOT see your odometer, nor do I see the maps or driving directions sitting on your dashboard--all I see is the pattern of your driving (I’m on the side of the road in, say, Cannon Beach Oregon)--and thus, by a similar stature, the geneticists of today can see a periodic pattern of DNA placement (much like the pattern of driving in a specific direction) but the geneticists are taking a leap of blind faith by agreeing that the pattern implies common ancestry (much like the implication that a car driving north on Highway 101 started in L.A. several days ago).A construction worker building two houses in different months will likely use the same brand of tools and the same types of bricks for both jobs (much like how all life forms on earth use the same basic chemicals) and therefore the evolution argument for genetic variation-- while compelling and perhaps possible to be true-- is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, for the doubt is offered by the advocates of Intelligent Design who use the argument that such similarities in the frequency of gene pools points to a common creator instead of a common ancestor. Such an argument is not backed up by empirical evidence because it can’t be, but that does not make it any less of a POSSIBILITY.Sincerely,
ServantP.S. gas prices are staggering!

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

Interesting point. However, this point raises a questionable suspicion in my mind. After all, new discoveries in science are constantly altering our previous perceptions of the workings of the universe and life, right? Well then, why would the scientists' construction of the genetic tree of life fit so perfectly well with the morphological tree of life without any contradiction. By mathematical probability and statistically, there surely should have been some type of contradictions or conflicts between the morphological tree of life and the genetic one. The idea that the two fitted so perfectly well with one another poses the question of, did the geneticists constructing the tree of life have any evidence of how evolution occurred beside the morphological tree of life, or did their conjecture of the tree of life originate based upon pre-concieved ideas regarding evolution? If one or the other were true, or if neo-Darwinism as a WHOLE is true, one would expect that the scientists' construction of the genetic and morphological tree of life to show some sort of conflicts with one another BEYOND the typical margin of error, otherwise I would suspect a bias was used in determing the "genetic tree of life" and how it fits in with the morphological one.Okay, I must be gone,
Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

So you're telling me that, because I cannot PROVE something then therefore it's not even a possibility? Hmm, let me know when you run for president.The mere fact that the two line up so well indeed implies ONE of two possibilities:1) The scientists were very fortunate to find such a striking coincidence in the idea of how evolution took place from a genetic and morphological perspective, beyond mathematical probability and the statistical likelihood, OR2) The scientists who built the genetic tree of life allowed the pre-concieved morphological tree of life to influence their judgement in the creating of the genetic tree of life.Forgive me for throwing possibility (2) out there, but if I didn't then I ran the danger of people using the correlation-argument between the two as evidence for their theory.If you are going to criticize my judgment only on behalf of the fact that I gave you a possible creation-compatible answer as to why we see a correlation in the morphological and genetic tree of life, then you are acting as the naive one in this case.

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

{AdminSylas notes: None of this post is written as a response to the post which is listed in the "This message is a reply to" field. Servant2thecause is responding to two other posts. It starts as a response to Message 135 by NosyNed}That’s not my job. It’s the job of the geneticists to show that the genetic sequences have been analyzed CORRECTLY and the job of the peers to determine whether the analysis has been done correctly and my obligation to question whether it’s been done correctly, for the mere sake of helping an otherwise viable theory stand up to questioning and scrutiny before it’s accepted as reality. You totally misunderstood my point. Libel applies to a written statement spelling out what is not true. I simply said that there are two possibilities: I said that there are two possibilities, then I said that I MYSELF believed in the latter, and THEN I questioned whether the first one was the truth about offering astonishing evidence for evolution. Plain and simple, either it is a coincidence or it is wrong. Now then, show me where the libel is! Also, I do not have to have proof for saying that there are two possibilities. And lastly, I was not making any accusations; rather, I was stating that there are two possible reasons as to why we see what we see in genetics and morphology, so please stop antagonizing the true point I’m trying to make by throwing accusations at ME. I was pointing out a possible (emphasis on possible) flaw in the logic behind using the correlation of morphology and genetics as evidence for neo-Darwinism, nothing more. Therefore, tell me what evidence I need. I was pointing you towards a what-if possibility. I don’t know for certain that my hypothetical what-if is true or if your more refined, well-documented ideology is correct; I was giving both possibilities a fighting chance, and leaving it at that. Explain this to me like I’m a ten-year-old: where is the evidence of common ancestry? Let me back in to this, actually intellectually, I understand the argument that neo-Darwinists are trying to make in the field of genetics and morphology; however, they’re still taking a leap of faith, unless of course I’m missing something major (highly unlikely, because I expect that you would have come forth with your strongest arguments first and then given me the supplements, which apparently you EITHER have not done yet OR you have no strong arguments whatsoever). {AdminSylas notes. Here end responses to Message 135 by NosyNed. Here begin responses to Message 136 by crashfrog.} Interesting point. When you answer my question first (same thing but without the not) then I’ll be sure to get back to you on this one. When I said void I did not mean that space was featureless. You missed my main point. Between a void and a sheet of paper, space would classify under the realm of void. That is because of the dimensional nature of open space. Space is not just a fabric that can be torn and opened and mended; space is the physical realm in which all interactions between bodies occur. How can you explain the catalyst for the potential energy within the openness of space, without a non-physical explanation? Understandable, but if there is no attraction within the realm of gravity, and no force behind it, and nothing except movement in a strait line, (as you suggested) then what catalyzes the potential energy? What acts upon the two objects TO move toward each other? I understand that you told me the reason why they move toward each other is because a strait line is the distance between two points, but why TOWARD each other and not just moving around randomly (toward each other implies an attraction of SOME sort whether it be physical or a metaphysical phenomenon). And your driving to Idaho analogy embodies a flaw: it would require intellectual input to get our cars to move toward each other. If you and I hopped into our cars and drove around randomly, what are the chances that we’d end up in Idaho, let alone moving toward each other? Your argument implies one of two things; that either it requires intelligent input for two bodies to move toward each other in space, OR that you have no rational explanation for why it happens in such a manner. I understand completely how gravity is the movement of two objects in a strait line towards each other. You have done an excellent job (although unnecessary and irrelevant) explaining THAT part to me. However, you have not explained what I asked in the first place. What IS gravity. You already gave me a conjured answer, but you have not given me the physical properties of the movement which catalyzes the potential energy or WHY two bodies move toward each other in the first place. Sounds like you’re saying that evolution is the answer because it’s the most CONVENIENT explanation for why we see what we see. What does it matter what we THINK we know? In the end, there will always be missing information and detrimental facts left out of the equation. Granted, but if you make an inference and I make an inference and they match up it is a 50/50 whether each (or both) is true. The morphological tree of life was not a measurement, it was an inference as to what scientists of the past speculated to have happened. It’s not evidence for reality, it’s circular reasoning. We have evidence for evolution based on morphology, and genetics supports it. We have evidence for evolution based on genetics, and morphology supports it. But wait, did we ever have conclusive, empirical evidence to BEGIN with or must we rely on the fact that our two conclusions agree with one another. Still sounds shaky to my mind, but perhaps that’s because I’m too scientifically-challenged to grasp anything you say. What is REAL is a fact that speaks for itself (like the sky is blue). What is POSSIBLE is a fact that needs to be interpreted or corroborated with another fact to become theoretically or hypothetically real. There are not too many people that I can think of that would argue against the sky being blue on a sunny day. However, such is not a fact that needs to be tested and predicted and corroborated with other evidence (just go outside and look up). Science does not, and would be wasting its time to, need to prove this to me. However, science needs to prove to me the age of the earth and the origin of life and the process that living organisms have been undergoing since their origins are all aspects of POSSIBLE reality that need to be proven before I can accept them scientifically. Logically, however, they are facts that speak for themselves.
I believe in universal absolutes. I also believe that humans are in search for higher meaning. The ultimate pillars of learning are, respectfully:
* What
* How
* WhyScience can tell us the what quite often, and sometimes even the how, but never the why. This may sound like a stretch. However, science always attempts to tell us WHAT happens (the direct observations of the universe) and even HOW (the methods in which processes take place) but I’ve never seen an example of a clear and direct WHY (the reason BEHIND a process or occurrence). As far as my understanding of the universe goes, that is where science starts and faith begins (a little radical, yes, but bear with me). For instance, precipitation:
Scientists understand much that there is to know about what precipitation is, for precipitation is the gravitational activity upon water, thus causing H20 to fall to earth in the form of liquid (rain) or solid (snow, sleet, hail). Scientists also offer a HOW: the kinetic energy of the individual water molecules within a liquefied body (lake, river, ocean) collide constantly and are often violently hurled from the body, breaking all polarized attraction within the ions (that is, the individual hydrogen and oxide). That is, essentially, evaporation. Once enough water molecules have accumulated, a cloud is formed. Eventually the cloud grows and rises, causing compression and a decreased temperature. Once enough mass AND density (mass divided by volume) is reached, the water clumps together and falls back to earth to accumulate in puddles and lakes and streams, only to start the process over again. However, science cannot offer a WHY (that is, why does it happen that way). Why does water evaporate? You may say that water evaporates because the kinetic energy of the individual molecules collide with on another till they are thrown from the massive gathering, but that only answers HOW water evaporates and STILL a WHY remains. WHY is there an attraction between positive and negative charged particles in atoms? There is (that’s a WHAT question) but there is no answer given as to WHY.
Crashfrog has done an excellent job in attempting to answer what gravity is (although there are a few issues I still disagree with you on, buddy, you have done a great job defending your point) but he has not addressed WHY gravity is (only what it is). I can go on forever with the why questions, because the simple fact remains that sometimes people get confused between the HOW and the WHY, partly because the line begins to fade as somebody spends much of his time studying how something happens and still can offer to valid reason for why. If I said this happens because God did it that way I am not advocating ignorance, but rather I’m addressing an issue that science fails at: WHY (not WHAT or HOW, which science often does a great job with addressing).If you walked into the kitchen and saw a kettle of water boiling, and asked me, why is the water boiling? I might answer two ways. First, I may give you an answer in relation to the kinetic energy of the molecules of dihydrogen monoxide increasing in speed thus causing the molecules to collide more and more profusely until they become violently thrown from the kettle in the form of steam once they reach the temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, OR I may answer with, I wanted to make myself a cup of tea. Only one answer TRULY addresses the question EXACTLY as it was intended, and that is the latter. The first answer, while more intellectual and more vivid, only addresses HOW the water boils, but WHY it boils was much more simple and direct. The existence of a God is difficult for many people to grasp because they attempt to throw God in with the rest of the mix (trying to label him with a WHAT and a HOW category when in reality science does a sufficient job in those areas). However, when left to the WHY category science has yet to offer TRUE knowledge. By TRUE knowledge I mean facts that speak for themselves and do not need interpretation or corroboration with other models or evidence.
By WHY I do not necessarily mean to what purpose. After all, THAT can be discussed in the HOW category of the physical realm. If you asked me WHY a person is benefited by oxygen and I explained the relation and need of respiratory processes in correlation to the bloodstream’s ability to transport oxygen throughout the body, I’d still only be giving you a more or less HOW response, but WHY is still a mystery that science cannot explain for the simple fact that WHY something is.
If you’d like to challenge my What-How-Why hypothesis, then please answer me this: WHY is (not IF or HOW is) a rainbow made? I would love to hear your response. I know that the illusion of red-orange-yellow-green-blue-violet is what appears to the eye when light is bent through a prism (and Lord knows I’m not asking what light is: let’s not get into another tangent) but WHY does a rainbow affect happen WHEN light is bent into a prism (again, I’m not asking for HOW or IF but literally WHY). If you can offer me a better explanation than the existence of a supernatural entity with his/her own purpose, the I’d love to hear it.
In that case, also, allow me to base my assertion on a single hypothesis. But let me first back into it. I love science, and it is no wonder why I enjoy reading about it in peer-reviewed literature as well as published texts. I also believe that the advancements made in modern science have contributed greatly to our wellbeing as humans on earth. Likewise, I will continue to study science and the evidence of things as long as I live. I believe that no evidence should be shot down without first being open to contrasting interpretation AS WELL AS scrutiny and the possibility of missing data that would affect the outcome or conclusions to be drawn. Therefore I believe that neither neo-Darwinian evolution theory nor intelligent design hypothesis should be shunned from open research and scrutiny.
On a reality-basis (not on interpretive science, but on a blue-sky analogy) I believe that the earth is roughly 7000 years old and created by God. I believe that God (and Satan) had an impact on the world and has caused us to end up where we are today. I also believe in a flood that covered the globe AND a biodiversity caused by the spreading of God’s created creatures. Call it science; call it faith; call it a pain in the neck. But above all call it a possibility nonetheless. I am not dumb to science and I want to continue to seek learning and higher intellect in scientific terms and processes, but I would not rely on science for all the answers, especially if it is my personal belief that such answers can be instilled within us by spiritual influence (sounds absurd, but dismiss it as something that you don’t believe for the fact that you don’t believe it if you will, DO NOT dismiss it because it sounds stupid or ridiculous). But the problem is, if I saw a picture of you in front of the Golden Gate Bridge, it would offer utter PROOF of how something came to be. The fossil record more or less offers a blurred picture of a man that fits your description standing in front of an SUV that is the same color as yours (can be convincing depending on the advocate’s ability to argue a point, but nonetheless still a speculation).Oh and btw, thanks Sylas for your input. I have been trying to keep up in spite of my lifestyle. Addressing topics one at a time is difficult when more than one topic is brought up in between the times that I log onto this website, so I apologize for that. { AdminSylas notes. Nevertheless, you must try harder. If you respond to two completely different posts by different writers, then you should write two posts. Furthermore, each one should be given as a reply to the post you are addressing. You hit the reply button for Message 137, but none of your post is actually a reply to that post. My previous comments in Message 138 continue to apply in spades to this thread.

​

I appreciate the difficulty, but so far your posts confuse the thread by failing to maintain the proper flow and reply linking. Each post contains a reply button at the end of that post it. Use the current button when you reply to a particular post. Good luck. }Sincerely,
ServantP.S. on a lighter note, have I mentioned my disgust at the local gas prices? This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-16-2004 04:15 AM