Evolution question

[gunslinger06]

That is it.

After millions or even a few billion years of amino acids being formed, they would have formed basic organic compounds and then basic proteins.

Random question. If life is found on Mars or somewhere else in our solar system....how would that be justified by you?

The Miller experiment is a far cry from running electric current through a pool of chemicals. Miller was able to produce amino acids under very controlled conditions,by running a precise electrical current through specific ratios of gases that are assumed to be the early atmosphere of Earth. How did they determine what the atmoshphere was billions of years ago? Because that's what it would have to be to for amino acids. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. Even if some amino acids formed, many would have also broken down under the same conditions.
Life on Mars? I don't see where that would change my position unless they were an advanced race who demonstrated how they created life on Earth. I don't read anything in the Bible that states Earth is the only place God created life. I personally,not anyone's opinion but mine, think He did. Why else make such a vast universe? Either way, it doesn't really effect me or this discussion.

In the end, there is no evidence proving evolution. In science, we observe, hypothesize, and experiment to prove or disprove. All we have with evolution is the observation and hypothesis. No reproducible experiments. A theory or postulate cannot become a law if it conflicts with a law- ie the second law of thermodynamics. Might evolution be proven one day. Possibly. Will that negate the possibility of God? No. The reason I am adamantly against it today is that it is taught as fact(evidenced by some comments here) and is used to dissuade people from belief in God. That is a dangerous thing.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jack]

The Miller experiment is a far cry from running electric current through a pool of chemicals. Miller was able to produce amino acids under very controlled conditions,by running a precise electrical current through specific ratios of gases that are assumed to be the early atmosphere of Earth. How did they determine what the atmoshphere was billions of years ago? Because that's what it would have to be to for amino acids. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. Even if some amino acids formed, many would have also broken down under the same conditions.
Life on Mars? I don't see where that would change my position unless they were an advanced race who demonstrated how they created life on Earth. I don't read anything in the Bible that states Earth is the only place God created life. I personally,not anyone's opinion but mine, think He did. Why else make such a vast universe? Either way, it doesn't really effect me or this discussion.

In the end, there is no evidence proving evolution. In science, we observe, hypothesize, and experiment to prove or disprove. All we have with evolution is the observation and hypothesis. No reproducible experiments. A theory or postulate cannot become a law if it conflicts with a law- ie the second law of thermodynamics. Might evolution be proven one day. Possibly. Will that negate the possibility of God? No. The reason I am adamantly against it today is that it is taught as fact(evidenced by some comments here) and is used to dissuade people from belief in God. That is a dangerous thing.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

You don't think that environmental changes can and has lead to selective breeding, which causes changes in a population of animals?

 

[Leonidas]

You're right that science can't explain or disprove our spiritual nature. But on the other side of the coin religious doctrine is not a substitute for scientific fact.

You mean like the Piltdown Man, which for 70 years was the "scientific fact" that proved man's evolution. At least until it was proven to be a scientific fraud. Or more along the lines of butter will kill you, eat margarine.......wait, margarine will kill you, eat butter........wait.....oh, screw it....we scientists don't know wtf we're talking about, because many of us are every bit as agenda driven as any religious zealot or left wing radical.

 

[Leonidas]

We did not evolve from monkeys and apes. Humans and monkeys and apes all evolved from a distant common ancestor.

Perhaps the most intelligent post in this thread.

The common ancestor's name is I AM.

 

[rtr_rtr]

In the end, there is no evidence proving evolution. In science, we observe, hypothesize, and experiment to prove or disprove. All we have with evolution is the observation and hypothesis. No reproducible experiments. A theory or postulate cannot become a law if it conflicts with a law- ie the second law of thermodynamics. Might evolution be proven one day. Possibly. Will that negate the possibility of God? No. The reason I am adamantly against it today is that it is taught as fact(evidenced by some comments here) and is used to dissuade people from belief in God. That is a dangerous thing.

The chemistry of molecular orbitals is "theory" that is taught as our current state of knowledge (also was a chemistry major), in the same line as evolution, as they both should be, both of them having a very substantial body of evidence supporting them. What exactly is hard to believe about evolution? You're just discrediting anything that comes up and jumping to the next way you can argue against it. The entropy of evolution and how it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics has already been discussed. The Miller-Urey experimental conditions were not established as a self-fulfilling prophecy (http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_311/article_references/Sc_Feb93_EarthEarlyAtmos.pdf). Evolutionary theory is tested experimentally, to the best we can do so given the generally large number of generations needed to see an effect. Thus, a significant portion of the studies conducted are on bacteria and flies, but there have been those conducted on mammals as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution).

I don't really know why I'm bothering here though, when you say yourself the reason you're against it is philosophical, not scientific. I would say that the majority of perceived conflict between evolution and religion is with strict adherents to creationism, who will never believe evolution on dogmatic grounds, regardless of scientific support. Evolution has no attack on religion whatsoever that chooses to explain evolution as a tool of God.

 

[gunslinger06]

You don't think that environmental changes can and has lead to selective breeding, which causes changes in a population of animals?

I believe in selective breeding, but it presents an argument against evolution- not for it.
Selective breeding happens in nature but is based on size strength and availability, not environmental considerations. A female dog doesn't look at a group of male dogs and think " Hmmm, he is the best camouflaged, but that one is really smart. Which one should I choose? " She sits back and waits to see who wins the ensuing fight. Winner gets to party.

The Darwinist idea is that when an animal developes an advantageous mutation or when environmental conditions favor a certain characteristic the animal with that mutation/characteristic breeds more than others of its kind. This process changes that species or creating a new one given enough time. The major problem with this theory is that most animals don't breed with animals with what they would see as a substantial defect. They simply aren't smart enough to access environmenal conditions and breed accordingly. Another huge problem for this argument is that many species will kill deformed infants.

Darwins finches are often used to bolster the environmental argument. In this case the environmental change didn't lead to a change in the population of a species- it lead to one species having a higher population than another species. Could this have eventually lead to the elimination of one or the other? Sure, but it wouldn't have produced anything new. For evolution to stand it has to produce a new species or substantially and irreversibly change an old one.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[gunslinger06]

The chemistry of molecular orbitals is "theory" that is taught as our current state of knowledge (also was a chemistry major), in the same line as evolution, as they both should be, both of them having a very substantial body of evidence supporting them. What exactly is hard to believe about evolution? You're just discrediting anything that comes up and jumping to the next way you can argue against it. The entropy of evolution and how it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics has already been discussed. The Miller-Urey experimental conditions were not established as a self-fulfilling prophecy (http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_311/article_references/Sc_Feb93_EarthEarlyAtmos.pdf). Evolutionary theory is tested experimentally, to the best we can do so given the generally large number of generations needed to see an effect. Thus, a significant portion of the studies conducted are on bacteria and flies, but there have been those conducted on mammals as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution).

I don't really know why I'm bothering here though, when you say yourself the reason you're against it is philosophical, not scientific. I would say that the majority of perceived conflict between evolution and religion is with strict adherents to creationism, who will never believe evolution on dogmatic grounds, regardless of scientific support. Evolution has no attack on religion whatsoever that chooses to explain evolution as a tool of God.

None of the arguments I've used here are philosophical. I have not curled into a ball and said "Its this way because the Bible says so." For each web ranger claiming to demonstrate why the 2nd law isn't violated, there is another ready to show it does. I frankly do not know whether or not God used evolution as a tool. My point is simply that we do not know whether evolution is a fact that will be proven true in years or decades to come or whether it will become join the flat-earth theory. The reason I moved from point to point was to match the questions or arguments posed. My position has not changed.
I've outlined several things that I find wrong with the theory of evolution. I just refuse to accept on blind faith that we will some day figure it out.
As I said before, either idea requires faith. I just choose to put mine in God.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rtr_rtr]

None of the arguments I've used here are philosophical. I have not curled into a ball and said "Its this way because the Bible says so." For each web ranger claiming to demonstrate why the 2nd law isn't violated, there is another ready to show it does. I frankly do not know whether or not God used evolution as a tool. My point is simply that we do not know whether evolution is a fact that will be proven true in years or decades to come or whether it will become join the flat-earth theory. The reason I moved from point to point was to match the questions or arguments posed. My position has not changed.
I've outlined several things that I find wrong with the theory of evolution. I just refuse to accept on blind faith that we will some day figure it out.
As I said before, either idea requires faith. I just choose to put mine in God.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

I linked a math-based explanation of evolution and entropy authored by a doctoral physicist at George Mason. That isn't what I would call a web ranger. In a previous post you say that you're adamantly against evolution because you feel it's taught as fact and used as evidence against God. Even in this post you establish a dichotomy between putting faith in evolution and putting faith in God. These are philosophical arguments that you're loosely justifying by throwing in random bits of science

 

[gunslinger06]

I linked a math-based explanation of evolution and entropy authored by a doctoral physicist at George Mason. That isn't what I would call a web ranger. In a previous post you say that you're adamantly against evolution because you feel it's taught as fact and used as evidence against God. Even in this post you establish a dichotomy between putting faith in evolution and putting faith in God. These are philosophical arguments that you're loosely justifying by throwing in random bits of science

Again, a simple Google search will produce plenty of mathematics on both sides. It is true that my opposition comes from the use of evolution to throne God. If not for that use, I wouldn't really care one way or the other and certainly would not spend this much time debating the issue. In short, my belief is not the reason I don't buy into evolution but it is the reason I argue against it. Without religion, evolution still has gaping holes.
As far as me justifying philosophical arguments with a bit of science, I don't know how that's possible since I have made no philosophical argument.
I made the statement about faith because so many accuse Christians of accepting God blindly when they do the same thing to evolution. They blindly accept "scientific facts" that are either known to be false or are mere observations. That may tip a bit to the philosophical, but its hardly the crux of my criticisms of evolution.

If anyone is still reading this- go look for yourself. Ddon't listen to a couple of guys sitting behind keyboards. Be skeptical of what you are told and who tells you. Use your brain.
* Warning religious content coming* The Bible says God gave every man a measure of faith. I firmly believe that. We must all decide what to do with that faith and we all make that decision. I believe we will all be judged according to that choice. As I said before- Choose wisely.* END OF RELIGIOUS CONTENT.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[LNSvince]

Can we talk about abortion next, HUH, please !

That way we can get ready for the next presidential election. [ Think hard about that statement ]

BTW, I still have my pharyngeal [ pouches ] gill slits, they never closed up ! and my son has 1 of his.

My mother never knew what they were, and use to try and squeeze them. [ like they were a zit]
Well, I lived with severe ear infections. Even hospitalized until a wize "OLD" doctor told her what they were and to leave them alone. Been Normal ever since. [ Except for a funny little twitch !]

For the record, I Believe in God. I love the dude.
If anyone here has lost a CLOSE parent and know they have communicated with them . [ and continue to ]
It will change the way you think about EVERYTHING !
Because I use the word "communicate". Be careful on how you understand and define the way I use the term.

 

[LNSvince]

hdfinder47,

YOU MUST be Bored !

 

[Jack]

I believe in selective breeding, but it presents an argument against evolution- not for it.
Selective breeding happens in nature but is based on size strength and availability, not environmental considerations. A female dog doesn't look at a group of male dogs and think " Hmmm, he is the best camouflaged, but that one is really smart. Which one should I choose? " She sits back and waits to see who wins the ensuing fight. Winner gets to party.

The Darwinist idea is that when an animal developes an advantageous mutation or when environmental conditions favor a certain characteristic the animal with that mutation/characteristic breeds more than others of its kind. This process changes that species or creating a new one given enough time. The major problem with this theory is that most animals don't breed with animals with what they would see as a substantial defect. They simply aren't smart enough to access environmenal conditions and breed accordingly. Another huge problem for this argument is that many species will kill deformed infants.

Darwins finches are often used to bolster the environmental argument. In this case the environmental change didn't lead to a change in the population of a species- it lead to one species having a higher population than another species. Could this have eventually lead to the elimination of one or the other? Sure, but it wouldn't have produced anything new. For evolution to stand it has to produce a new species or substantially and irreversibly change an old one.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

I think we are on different pages. I don't think anyone believes that the animals with a major defect are the ones reproducing, it is the slow shift towards an extreme. The example you gave of dogs is pretty fitting. The bigger dog wins the fight and reproduces creating more bigger dogs, this trend continues until the dogs reach a size that isn't sustainable by the environment, something like a lack of food, or their own bodies like hip dysplasia. Humans have accelerated this type of selective breeding in dogs, the teacup chihuahua is a perfect example of this. We caused the selective breeding of the smallest ankle biter with another tiny ankle biter until we arrived at that little rodent. The same thing happens with the environment, but on a much longer time frame.

I understand the teacup chihuahua isn't much of a difference between a regular one, but I hope you get my point from the example.

 

[TomTerrific]

Two other chemist degrees on the list! I have a B.S. in chemistry from Centenary in 1961.

I appreciate the lack of rancor in this discussion but I don't think anyone's beliefs/opinions are going to change.

Evolution and creationism are two distinct entities.

I get the feeling that some here go along with the notion god said it; I believe it and that settles it.

Remember Rule 62: Don't take yourself too damn seriously.

 

[tim9lives]

I got into this discussion with family over the holidays....And it perked my interest in other religions. I checked out Wikipedia and was surprised to find out Hindu's kind of believe in the Big Bang timeline. In any case...its interesting to at least have a clue of other religions.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology

A religious cosmology (also mythological cosmology) is a way of explaining the origin, the history and the evolution of the cosmos or universe based on the religious mythology of a specific tradition. Religious cosmologies usually include an act or process of creation by a creator deity or a larger pantheon.


Main article: Hindu cosmology
The Hindu cosmology and timeline is the closest to modern scientific timelines and even more which might indicate that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything but just the start of the present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes. It also includes an infinite number of universes at one given time.

The Rig Veda questions the origin of the cosmos in: "Neither being (sat) nor non-being was as yet. What was concealed? And where? And in whose protection?…Who really knows? Who can declare it? Whence was it born, and whence came this creation? The devas (demigods) were born later than this world's creation, so who knows from where it came into existence? None can know from where creation has arisen, and whether he has or has not produced it. He who surveys it in the highest heavens, he alone knows-or perhaps does not know." (Rig Veda 10. 129
The Rig Veda's view of the cosmos also sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, Vaak, 'birthing' the cosmos that we know, from the monistic Hiranyagarbha or Golden Womb. The Hiranyagarbha is alternatively viewed as Brahma, the creator who was in turn created by God, or as God (Brahman) himself. The universe is considered to constantly expand since creation and disappear into a thin haze after billions of years.[citation needed]This universe is called as 'Brahmanda' meaning, It looked like an 'egg' to begin with. According to big bang theory, the universe was as small as a coin with infinite mass, infinite temperature and infinite weight. Thus having the similarity. An alternate view is that the universe begins to contract after reaching its maximum expansion limits until it disappears into a fraction of a millimeter.[citation needed] The creation begins anew after billions of years (Solar years) of non-existence.

The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya (Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. Similarly at a given time there are an infinite number of Brahma's performing the creation of each of these universes that are infinite in number. Brahma is the creator but not necessarily regarded as God in Hinduism. He is mostly regarded as a creation of God / Brahman..................................

 

[Mac 1]

hdfinder47,

YOU MUST be Bored !

I wondered what happened to him since he started this discussion, LOL. By the way, I agree with gunslinger06. We were created by God along with the monkeys, apes, etc.

 

[hdfinder47]

hdfinder47,

YOU MUST be Bored !

Not any more.

 

[Leonidas]

Here's my question though: If an all-knowing, all-powerful god wanted the Bible to be a universal guidebook for communicating religious truths, why did he leave it up to fallible men to write, edit, and compile it over centuries? There were countless different religious texts based on the teachings of Jesus that formed countless different sects and variations of Christianity up to the Council of Nicea. Why do you trust that the version the self-appointed religious leaders and political elite that decided what was going to make up the Bible over 300 years after the fact is exactly what God wanted for humanity, and not just a case of history being written by the victors?

If you are serious about your question, and care even moderately about approaching it with a degree of intellectual integrity, there is an excellent source for you to explore.

"The Case for Christ" by Lee Sobel

It is clear and concise and relatively brief. It was researched and written by an attorney/newspaper journalist who decided to either prove or refute his personal opinion. It deals with exactly the issue you raise, concerning the authenticity, accuracy, veracity and reliability of the Christian canon. If you participate in such discussions, you owe it to yourself to do so in an informed, thoughtful and honest manner.

If you then wish to go deeper, try "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. He was an attorney considered to be at the top of the heap of evidenciary experts. He set out to disprove scripture by the prowess of his knowledge, experience and expertise and with the zeal of an atheist.

 

[Armed Mage]

If you are serious about your question, and care even moderately about approaching it with a degree of intellectual integrity, there is an excellent source for you to explore.

"The Case for Christ" by Lee Sobel

It is clear and concise and relatively brief. It was researched and written by an attorney/newspaper journalist who decided to either prove or refute his personal opinion. It deals with exactly the issue you raise, concerning the authenticity, accuracy, veracity and reliability of the Christian canon. If you participate in such discussions, you owe it to yourself to do so in an informed, thoughtful and honest manner.

If you then wish to go deeper, try "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. He was an attorney considered to be at the top of the heap of evidenciary experts. He set out to disprove scripture by the prowess of his knowledge, experience and expertise and with the zeal of an atheist.

I was raised in a devout evangelical household. I mostly just believed in it because it what I was brought up to believe up until around high school when I felt a longing for a true spiritual connection and was trying hard to justify it within the belief system I was brought up in. I got very involved in researching Christian apologetics and Biblical history, from both orthodox and unorthodox sources, including some of Strobel's work, so I'm well familiar with the arguments on the Christian side. No matter who I asked I could never find true answers to the questions like the ones I've posted, and the more I researched and dwelt on it the more I felt like I was being pulled away and finally realized that I never really did have true faith in Christianity, just belief. I was seeking gnosis, not faith.

It's late and can't get into everything right now, but here's a brief summary that addresses some of the key points Strobel makes in his book.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

 

[deuxlatch]

God didn't create robots, HE created man in his image, and gave him his free agency to choose. Put yourselves in God's shoes, which would you love more, robots you made or your own children? Whether you believe it or not it's still your choice, but God loves us all, even with all our fallacies. I don't believe we came from apes, but I do believe there is resemblance between man and apes like there is some resemblance between eagles and canaries.

Kinda reminds me of the story where a man debated a little girl about her belief in the Bible story on Jonah and the whale. He asked her to prove it and she said she would ask Jonah when she gets to Heaven. He said "What if Jonah is in Hell?" She said "Then YOU can ask him!"

 

[AustinBR]

God didn't create robots, HE created man in his image, and gave him his free agency to choose. Put yourselves in God's shoes, which would you love more, robots you made or your own children? Whether you believe it or not it's still your choice, but God loves us all, even with all our fallacies. I don't believe we came from apes, but I do believe there is resemblance between man and apes like there is some resemblance between eagles and canaries.

Kinda reminds me of the story where a man debated a little girl about her belief in the Bible story on Jonah and the whale. He asked her to prove it and she said she would ask Jonah when she gets to Heaven. He said "What if Jonah is in Hell?" She said "Then YOU can ask him!"

Are you preaching at us? You have no proof that some higher being created humans yet you are 100% sure about it? How do you know that other animals aren't his children? Why do you think he has something against robots? That's rather insulting to other amazing creatures on this planet...

--Sent From My Galaxy S4