Intelligent Design Vs Evolution

[Traveler]

Currently we are hearing a lot about the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. I think it is important to understand the two concepts being presented and the differences between the two.

First off allow me to summerize evolution. Evolution includes the scientific discovery of DNA and the process by which DNA replicates new life. There are in the replication process two ways in which the evolutionary process produces variations in new life. The first is called mutation. This is where the DNA is altered producing changes in the replication process. There are many things that can cause mutations that include disease, damage and other things that cause the DNA to change. The second process is called replication error. This is a process in which the DNA is translated incorrectly producing a mistake in the reading process, sort of speak, so that the next generation of DNA is changed. Changes that are not passed to the next generation are not evolutionary changes. The theory part of evolutions is that, for the most part, evolution that produces inferior traits in an organism will result in the early death of that organism. But if the process introduces an advantage then that organism will survive passing the changes on to it children. It is in this evolutionary process that makes every individual unique. Evolution is observable in every life form that exist. It is extremely well documented. There is not a real scientist today that does not believe evolution is a fact of life. Evolution is a proven and tested process. The theory of evolution is that all life is linked by this creative process, therefore all life is related to all other life through an ancient common source.

Intelligent design is a theory put forth by religionist that oppose the concept of evolution. In reality it is exactly the concept coming out of the Dark Ages that asserts that G-d created every creature as a new life form from dead matter or from nothing at all. That all creation took place about 6,000 years ago and outside of G-d’s initial creation there is no new “kinds” or variations of living types. This supposition is based on interpretations of biblical scripture. Obvious I am somewhat prejudice of the Intelligent Design theory and there may be others that can explain it better. I think of this theory as the ceramic creature creation theory in which G-d makes all creatures from clay as the ceramic parent from which everything kind of thing is a direct copy. The proponents of intelligent design will not accept the possibility that G-d altered DNA and genome as a possibility of creation. They do not believe G-d could or would make one thing from another. In every way intelligent design appears to be the static concepts of life that science rejects. But they also want this theory taught to every other religion as the only alternative to evolution as a complete result of random G-dless chance. Personally I don’t buy it and I see no reason to advance the concept. Nor do I believe that any scientific advancement has resulted from such backward thinking.

The Traveler

[lisajo]

I find it hard that they can teach evolution in school but not the christian view....But yet my son came home and told me about the chapter in his history book about mormons and how we are a cult.....I checked it out and it was true....the princaple at the school just said it was history...........ah no it wasn't mormon history i knew!

[Guest bizabra]

Mormonism is a cult. See Merriam-Webster definition below:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

cult

2 entries found for cult.

Main Entry: cult

Pronunciation: 'k&lt

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Creationism is a BELIEF about how the gods or god created the universe/world. There are many different variations of creationism, you prefer the christian one be taught. I say we need to teach ALL versions of creationism, EACH AND EVERY ONE, THEN let the students make up their minds. I want them the learn the Hindu versions, all the various Native American versions, all the ideas of the Dogons, the Australian Aboriginies, ALL!

Just keep it in the SOCIAL STUDIES portion of the curriculum and leave it the HECK out of the SCIENCE CLASSES!

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by bizabra@Nov 12 2005, 09:38 AM

Mormonism is a cult.  See Merriam-Webster definition below:

 

   Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

cult

2 entries found for cult.

Main Entry: cult

Pronunciation: 'k&lt

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Creationism is a BELIEF about how the gods or god created the universe/world.  There are many different variations of creationism, you prefer the christian one be taught.  I say we need to teach ALL versions of creationism, EACH AND EVERY ONE, THEN let the students make up their minds.  I want them the learn the Hindu versions, all the various Native American versions, all the ideas of the Dogons, the Australian Aboriginies, ALL! 

Just keep it in the SOCIAL STUDIES portion of the curriculum and leave it the HECK out of the SCIENCE CLASSES!

←

You have just described Shaun Hennedy and his faithful Bush followers.

But if devotion to God is a cult... LOL I am a cult all by myself...

[Josie]

Mormonism is a cult. See Merriam-Webster definition below:

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP This could be true of any religious denomination

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

Same with this definition

3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherentsAny religion is unorthodox to someone, yes

4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults> LDS Church is not a system for the cure of disease. That may be a benefit of living its teachings, but that is not what the Church is set up for.

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion This one just totally cuts the LDS Church out. We are not devoted to a person, we are Devoted to Jesus Christ and no one else. We have proved that we are not a fad. Fads come and go. We have been on the earth 175 years and are continuing to grow every day. We started with 6 members in 1830 and now have over 12 million members and are being recognized by world leaders religious, political, and otherwise as the fastest growing church on the face of the earth. Sure cannot call us a small group of people, by any means.

[Guest bizabra]

Um, a word can have several meanings. They are listed in a 1) 2) 3) way in the dictionary. Any ONE meaning, or any several meanings, can be applied to a word based on context. The definitions do not ALL have to apply. If you do not feel that definitions 4 and 5 are correct for the word "cult" when applied to Mormonism, fine, however, the first 3 definitions DO apply, and thus, Mormonism can be considered to be a CULT, just as Catholicism can, since the first 2 definitions fit for THAT religion.

Just because YOU do not consider that ALL the deifintions do not apply does not make Mormonism any LESS of a cult!

Sheesh, people.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by bizabra@Nov 12 2005, 11:41 AM

Um, a word can have several meanings.  They are listed in a 1) 2) 3) way in the dictionary.  Any ONE meaning, or any several meanings, can be applied to a word based on context.  The definitions do not ALL have to apply.  If you do not feel that definitions 4 and 5 are correct for the word "cult" when applied to Mormonism, fine, however, the first 3 definitions DO apply, and thus, Mormonism can be considered to be a CULT, just as Catholicism can, since the first 2 definitions fit for THAT religion.

Just because YOU do not consider that ALL the deifintions do not apply does not make Mormonism any LESS of a cult!

Sheesh, people. 

←

So could Catholism.... they seem to worship the pope and mary... and then you have the Lutherens... who follow Luther....

You know when I think of the religious world in general... when they are really devoted.... they are cults...

So throwing out the 'cult' card is just to slap the church... not really add to any intelligent discussion...

[Josie]

LOL, guess what, I agree with you. Using that definition, every religion on the face of the earth can be a cult according to definitions 1,2, and 3. No matter what it is called, it is true and it is the word of God and I am proud to be LDS. No matter what it is called, it is still the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is true. So if calling it a cult makes someone feel better, then so be it. It does not change anything....

[Guest bizabra]

CULT is not a bad word. ALL religions are rightfully considered to be "cults". The negative connotation comes from it's application to such things as Jim Jones and his followers, as well as other somewhat unsavory groups that exist.

I don't consider it to be a "slap" or an insult or pejorative in any way. THAT definition exists ONLY in YOUR mind.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by bizabra@Nov 12 2005, 12:01 PM

CULT is not a bad word.  ALL religions are rightfully considered to be "cults".  The negative connotation comes from it's application to such things as Jim Jones and his followers, as well as other somewhat unsavory groups that exist.

I don't consider it to be a "slap" or an insult or pejorative in any way.  THAT definition exists ONLY in YOUR mind.

←

It does NOT exist only in my mind Biz... get real..

It was on Larry KING LIVE for heck sake...

[Guest Ari 2]

Originally posted by bizabra@Nov 12 2005, 08:38 AM

Mormonism is a cult.  See Merriam-Webster definition below:

 

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

cult

2 entries found for cult.

Main Entry: cult

Pronunciation: 'k&lt

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Creationism is a BELIEF about how the gods or god created the universe/world.  There are many different variations of creationism, you prefer the christian one be taught.  I say we need to teach ALL versions of creationism, EACH AND EVERY ONE, THEN let the students make up their minds.  I want them the learn the Hindu versions, all the various Native American versions, all the ideas of the Dogons, the Australian Aboriginies, ALL! 

Just keep it in the SOCIAL STUDIES portion of the curriculum and leave it the HECK out of the SCIENCE CLASSES!

←

___________________________

You have described satanists, moonies, white supremists, the KKK, etc...but Mormonism doesn't fit the bill. Fitting 11 million people in a compound would be difficult, indeed! I will give ya credit for being an excellent copy/paster, however.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 11 2005, 10:19 PM

Currently we are hearing a lot about the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.  I think it is important to understand the two concepts being presented and the differences between the two.

First off allow me to summerize evolution.  ... Evolution is observable in every life form that exist.  It is extremely well documented.  There is not a real scientist today that does not believe evolution is a fact of life.  Evolution is a proven and tested process.  The theory of evolution is that all life is linked by this creative process, therefore all life is related to all other life through an ancient common source.

I'm not going to pretend to know much about evolution.  However, like most scientific theories, the grand scheme idea with its attempt to explain the origins of the universe and of life on earth, is a theory--not a fact.

A couple of areas of controversy:  Macroevolution.  It's one thing to say that species change--adapting to their environment.  That's microevolution, and, it's true, no credible scientist questions that this happens.  However, can these mutations result in a species becoming a different species?  Can ape really become human, for example?  Keep in mind, that mutations usually cause declines, not advances.  The other controversy is the age of the earth and the universe.  In order for random, non-causal evolution to hold true the world must be extremely old.  Is it?  Most scientists says yes.  Some, mostly "young earth creationists" argue that it could actually be tens of thousands of years old, instead of billions.

Bottom-line:  Roughly 90% of scientists do buy into the theory of Evolution, excepting that some would argue that God is the author of evolution.  This is known as Theistic Evolution.

Intelligent design is a theory put forth by religionist that oppose the concept of evolution.  In reality it is exactly the concept coming out of the Dark Ages that asserts that G-d created every creature as a new life form from dead matter or from nothing at all.  That all creation took place about 6,000 years ago and outside of G-d’s initial creation there is no new “kinds” or variations of living types.  This supposition is based on interpretations of biblical scripture. ... The proponents of intelligent design will not accept the possibility that G-d altered DNA and genome as a possibility of creation.  They do not believe G-d could or would make one thing from another.  In every way intelligent design appears to be the static concepts of life that science rejects.  But they also want this theory taught to every other religion as the only alternative to evolution as a complete result of random G-dless chance.  Personally I don’t buy it and I see no reason to advance the concept.  Nor do I believe that any scientific advancement has resulted from such backward thinking.

The poster is flat-out wrong here.  He confuses Creationism--more specifically Young Earth Creationism--with Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is a much more humble approach to the controversy over orgins.  It suggests that Darwin's Evolution--including the notion that the universe developed purely by random selection, has some serious gaps that current science cannot account for.  ID then opines that the existence of an Intelligent Designer, First Cause, or yes, God, could rationally explain those gaps.

ID does not insist upon a young earth, does not require membership in the Christian Coalition, does not denounce or denigrate scientific inquiry, and certainly does not posit a theological statement of faith.

I'm not competent to debate what is really an Intelligent Designer vs. Random Selection dichotomy, but it seems interesting to me that most people find their reflections on eternity and the existence of God multiply exponentionally when they are camping or otherwise immersed in nature.

The Traveler

←

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by lisajo@Nov 11 2005, 10:34 PM

I find it hard that they can teach evolution in school but not the christian view....But yet my son came home and told me about the chapter in his history book about mormons and how we are a cult.....I checked it out and it was true....the princaple at the school just said it was history...........ah no it wasn't mormon history i knew!

←

Looks like your post took over the "evolution vs. I.D debate."

The word "cult" can simply mean group. Context determines whether the term is pejorative or not. Examples:

1. Evangelical Christians usually use "cult" to mean heterodox--not confirming to historic Christian teachings. As a simple example, those who believe the canon of Scripture was closed with the book of Revelation, would obviously consider the LDS faith to be outside the parameters of accepted doctrine, and therefore a cult.

2. Sociologists use the term "cult" to indicate a group that has excessive control over an individual. Such a label can be very subjective, with a government branch in France even highlighting mainstream Pentecostal groups as guilty of "mind control" techniques.

In either of these two cases, it is beyond surprising that a public school textbook or other assigned reading would label any legal religious organization as a cult. If, by cult, it simply met "group," then the term is too vague to be meaningful. I once had an English teacher hope to get a rise out of us Christians by speaking of the "creation myth." Fortunately, we knew that in literature myth means non-historic story. She was very disappointed that none of us reacted.

[Snow]

The poster is flat-out wrong here.  He confuses Creationism--more specifically Young Earth Creationism--with Intelligent Design.

While Youth Earth Creation is just one type of belief in the larger context of creation theorys, it's fair to say that most people understand Intelligent Design to amount to little more than repackaged creationism, and little more than a ploy to oppose the theory of evolution and naturalistic explantions to life.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 13 2005, 10:41 PM

The poster is flat-out wrong here.  He confuses Creationism--more specifically Young Earth Creationism--with Intelligent Design.

While Youth Earth Creation is just one type of belief in the larger context of creation theorys, it's fair to say that most people understand Intelligent Design to amount to little more than repackaged creationism, and little more than a ploy to oppose the theory of evolution and naturalistic explanations to life.

←

Actually, that is what opponents of Intelligent Design argue in their vehement propaganda. Science vs. religion. Don't let the evangelicals turn our schools back over to the dark ages! I'm surprised you've bought into a view that is perpetrated by anti-religious bigots so quickly.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Nov 13 2005, 11:47 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 13 2005, 10:41 PM

The poster is flat-out wrong here.  He confuses Creationism--more specifically Young Earth Creationism--with Intelligent Design.

While Youth Earth Creation is just one type of belief in the larger context of creation theorys, it's fair to say that most people understand Intelligent Design to amount to little more than repackaged creationism, and little more than a ploy to oppose the theory of evolution and naturalistic explanations to life.

←

Actually, that is what opponents of Intelligent Design argue in their vehement propaganda. Science vs. religion. Don't let the evangelicals turn our schools back over to the dark ages! I'm surprised you've bought into a view that is perpetrated by anti-religious bigots so quickly.

←

The question is not propaganda. Are the proponents of Intelligent Design also the proponents of Young Earth Creationism? For example - Do you believe the age of the earth is closer to 3 billion years old or 10,000 years old? Was the creation static - meaning that all creatures are today as G-d created them or has there be vast evolutionary changes in species? Are the organizations pushing Intelligent Design the same organizations that insist on young Earth Creationism?

There has been a strong movement in recent scientific thought toward G-d as a force of evolution and initialization of the universe but no one in this scientific consideration is a believer in a young earth based on scientific evidence that I am aware of.

One important consideration of ideas is someone's point of view - So I as straight forward as I can - if you are a proponent of Intelligent Design are you also a proponent of young earth creationism?

The Traveler

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Nov 13 2005, 10:47 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 13 2005, 10:41 PM

The poster is flat-out wrong here.  He confuses Creationism--more specifically Young Earth Creationism--with Intelligent Design.

While Youth Earth Creation is just one type of belief in the larger context of creation theorys, it's fair to say that most people understand Intelligent Design to amount to little more than repackaged creationism, and little more than a ploy to oppose the theory of evolution and naturalistic explanations to life.

←

Actually, that is what opponents of Intelligent Design argue in their vehement propaganda. Science vs. religion. Don't let the evangelicals turn our schools back over to the dark ages! I'm surprised you've bought into a view that is perpetrated by anti-religious bigots so quickly.

←

Now, now prisonchaplain, there's no need to sound condescending. I myself belief in a Creator, though certainly not a young earth. My opinion is not based on what my critics tell me I believe, but rather my own observations.

I wonder if there is a single creationist or ID proponent who came to that position by the scholarly method first before becoming a religionist. I doubt it. I imagine that all came from a context of religion first.

[prisonchaplain]

The question is not propaganda. Are the proponents of Intelligent Design also the proponents of Young Earth Creationism?

NO. Intelligent Design is not Young Earth Creationism. Frankly, I am not an expert on this. The Discovery Institute, in Seattle, WA is the main think tank behind this system. My understanding is that the I.D. curriculum primarily argues that there are gaps in the theory of Evolution--particularly if random selection is insisted upon as the only possible explanation for how things do evolve. These gaps, it is suggested, can be explained if an intelligent designer is behind it all. Of course, classic evolutionists immediately see GOD as that designer and cry out that this is theology, not science. However, the theory of Intelligent Design basically argues that Evolution by random selection has too many difficulties, and that a designer solves them. The curriculum does not identify who the designer is, what his/her/its nature is, or dwell upon the age of the earth or the universe, to my knowledge.

For example - Do you believe the age of the earth is closer to 3 billion years old or 10,000 years old? Was the creation static - meaning that all creatures are today as G-d created them or has there be vast evolutionary changes in species?

Once again, the curriculum does not focus on these issues, to my knowledge. It concentrates on the gaps in Evolution by random selection, and posits an intelligent designer, as a plausible solution.

Are the organizations pushing Intelligent Design the same organizations that insist on young Earth Creationism?

There may be some cross-over, but the short answer is NO. Some of the staunchest creation-science advocates have argued that Intelligent Design is a sell-out, that it gives up too much, that it does not drive home the truth that the Bible is scientifically sound. There have been passionate debates between creationists and I.D. proponents.

There has been a strong movement in recent scientific thought toward G-d as a force of evolution and initialization of the universe but no one in this scientific consideration is a believer in a young earth based on scientific evidence that I am aware of.

Even Young Earth Creationists admit that only about 5% of scientists support their theories. Of course, in science, popularity does not mean correctness.

IMHO God created the world. Unlike LDS teaching, I do believe he created it out of nothing. It would not burst my theological bubble if He used the evolutionary process to make it happen. My concern with this threat is: A. Intelligent Design has been intentionally misrepresented in a "nip it in the bud" campaign, sponsored mainly by public school science teachers. B. Part of the nastiness in tone of opponents of I.D. is indirectly aimed towards conservative people of faith. This is part of the Red/Blue divide. In the process, I.D. is not getting a fair hearing. Ultimately, the theory may prove unworthy of integration into school curricula. However, to date, a reasoned analysis and debate has not taken place.

One important consideration of ideas is someone's point of view - So I as straight forward as I can - if you are a proponent of Intelligent Design are you also a proponent of young earth creationism?

Straightforward answer: I'm not a scientist. I believe God created the world. Young Earth Creationism is attractive, because it most closely tracks with a literal reading of Genesis. However, I'm not a proponent. Frankly, I like I.D. because it tries to do a few, more reasonable things, and do them convincingly. Rather than sell students and teachers on an unpopular and weakly supported theory that parallels the Book of Genesis, I.D. says: Maybe, just maybe something intelligent is behind all this. Such an idea would sure explain a lot of the difficulties Evolution by random selection leaves us. Simple, plausible, intelligent, reasonable notions.

[Traveler]

Perhaps I can help. I am a scientist trained in math and physics. I worked for about 10 years as a consultant for the Defense Department and for the last 20 years I have worked in the automation and robotics industry with a speciality of artificial intelligence (rules management).

As I attempted to point out before there is nothing random in science and this includes evolution. If a thing cannot be repeated and tested it is not considered scientific. Randomness by definition cannot be repeated or duplicated and in fact does not in nature. In a previous post I high lighted some of the engines of evolution. Environmental parameters have always been a primary contributor from the very first suggestions by Darwin that evolution could be used to analyze changes and variety in life forms. The more science has studied and learned about DNA the more evolution has been validated, predicated and proven to be far less random than what religionists believed during the Dark Ages. Today if someone suggest that good health can be achieved more surely by prayer than by proper diet and exercise they would be exposed as a religious fake. I would point out that diet and exercise is a known factor in evolution. Despite differences in religious belief, I personally (for the sake of children and mothers) would consider someone that fostered sectarian belief in G-d as more important than taking care of pregnant mother’s health as both religious fakes and social abusers. I would say that your insistence that random evolution be considered scientific demonstrates someone from a religious stand point being more uninformed than a scientist that believes evolution could occur without some kind of intelligent direction.

Anyone that wants to teach Intelligent Design over evolution has to be uninformed in both intelligent design and evolution. You say you cannot accept evolution because of “holes” in the theory. I find this amazing because of the undefendable gaps that are greater that what is filled in when considering “Young Earth” theories. Yet you do not seem to be concerned about certain religious groups that historically wanted to teach such nonsense not just in their churches but by force of law to everyone in public schools.

Before I end this post I would say something about the failed principles of evangelical creationism. First off; creation does not mean make something from nothing. Even the scriptures tell us that such a thought is a false interpretation of creation. Man was created man (Genesis1:27). In creating man G-d used materials that already existed (Genesis 2:7). In addition there are many scientific principles concerning this planet earth that indicated that it is made up on things that already existed and that are not common to this solar system. For example, we have a 2nd generation star that burns hydrogen. The sun is at the center of our solar system which represents the center of gravity of the solar system. Yet there are on earth heavy medals that are generated in 5th generation stars of which there are non in our solar system. This indicates that the earth (as well as other objects in our solar system) had birth for their elements elsewhere else. Now, you may think this proves that G-d created the earth as it is, but the problem is that the heavy medal elements are quite older than the earth which would then indicate that G-d is a deceiver in the manner he performs his works.

Some thoughts

The Traveler

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Before I end this post I would say something about the failed principles of evangelical creationism. First off; creation does not mean make something from nothing. Even the scriptures tell us that such a thought is a false interpretation of creation. Man was created man (Genesis1:27). In creating man G-d used materials that already existed (Genesis 2:7). In addition there are many scientific principles concerning this planet earth that indicated that it is made up on things that already existed and that are not common to this solar system. For example, we have a 2nd generation star that burns hydrogen. The sun is at the center of our solar system which represents the center of gravity of the solar system. Yet there are on earth heavy medals that are generated in 5th generation stars of which there are non in our solar system. This indicates that the earth (as well as other objects in our solar system) had birth for their elements elsewhere else. Now, you may think this proves that G-d created the earth as it is, but the problem is that the heavy medal elements are quite older than the earth which would then indicate that G-d is a deceiver in the manner he performs his works.

Some thoughts

The Traveler

Matter unorganized? Interesting Traveler. I really appreciate this insight. I have always thought about how we were not created, but organized... as a baby is created in the womb... from matter already in existence...which is organized into the full term infant...

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Traveler, this post of yours brings me to something..

I watched a NOVA where it was showing a very detailed thing about how the baby develops and that there is, early on, a time when the group of cells turn into a thing similar to a black hole...

I also heard on another NOVA that a black hole is the beginnings of a new galaxy... is that right?

If so, it is intriquing to think of each child being a form of a 'new' system... in the big picture of existence... and worlds...

[Traveler]

Please: I did not see the NOVA program so I am not sure exactly what they meant but I will guess that up to a certain point all the cells in a fetus are clones. That they have a singularity about them and can become any cell in the developing human. Black holes have a singularity in that all energy and matter inside the hole form such a singularity without dimension or differentiation between matter and energy. But this also brings up an interesting point. I realize that science is not a favorite topic on this board and my attempts to explain shifts in time and dimension on a different thread was not understood. Never-the-less a quick history on Black Holes for background.

Scientist studying the evolution of matter based on the “Big Bang” model discovered that mathematically it was possible that a star could collapse on its self and create a region in which the gravitational forces are so great not even a massless photon could escape. This was all fine in theory but no evidence could be found. A hole in the black hole theory in that the needed evidence was missing. About 15 years ago that changed. The Hubble telescope was turned towards two stars close to each other in a famous constatation (which I forget). One star was bright but the other so dim it could hardly be seen by the human eye. When the telescope focused in on the dimmer star science would never be the same. The faint speck was not a star, it was bigger than a star. It was not a galaxy but a giant collection of galaxies that became known as a super cluster. The faint light that we see in the sky is older than our planet or solar system - perhaps older than our galaxy. This super cluster was bigger than what the entire universe was believed to be just 100 years ago.

I do not have time to explain space as a 4 dimensional sphere that is expanding or how this effects dimensions or how outside of our universe there are no dimensions so that our universe is expanding into the same kind of singularity that exist in a black hole. But the concept of expansion is important and already proven. But this new giant super cluster was moving as a unit in the wrong direction at a speed faster than escape velocity for a particle here on earth which is about 27,000 miles per hour. What could have such power to pull so great a mass in the wrong direction at that speed. Even the model of black holes previously theorized could not pull this off. Just a side bar here - the mass of such a black hole is sufficient to ignite another Big Bang all by itself. Even today no one has conceived what such a dark force could be. It is called the Great Actuator. Not only do we know black holes exist but new we know there are even greater wonders.

Currently there is a new theory concerning black holes. There are more that something gobbling up dimension, matter and energy but great recycle machines of cosmic stuff. We are finding evidence that G-d recycles and recreates anew in a remarkable endless chain. Kind of what the scriptures have been trying to tell us all along.

But I want to reference an interesting scripture that has been rejected by post Dark Age Christians. This scripture is referenced in the Biblical book of Jude and is call the Book of Enoch. In the Book of Enoch G-d explains to him that the creations of G-d are never ending and Enoch ask a interesting question. What happens to the old used up creation stuff? G-d answers by telling Enoch that all matter over time in our universe becomes “corrupted” and must be purified before it can be reused. G-d explains to Enoch that this process is a burning process that takes place in stars. Light is a interesting and important constant to our universe and there is a process called evaporation (or tunneling) in which light leaks from black holes to points without traveling through the dimensions of space that separate them. Anyway it is a thought, that light is the pure form of matter.

I am grateful for a religious background that allows me or anyone with a desire to learn scientific truth to walk towards the light of knowledge without the fear of losing my spiritual moorings.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 15 2005, 09:45 PM

Traveler, this post of yours brings me to something..

I watched a NOVA where it was showing a very detailed thing about how the baby develops and that there is, early on, a time when the group of cells turn into a thing similar to a black hole...

←

Yes, that's right because, like a black hole, a fetus is such a dense region of spacetime that that nothing, including light can escape its pull. Likewise, although we can theorize that a fetus exists, we cannot prove it; but we do know that when a large star has burnt all its fuel it explodes into a supernova. The stuff that is left collapses down to an extremely dense object known as an embryo.

That was a good episode huh Please.

Say, did you see the episode where Nova explained that medieval agrarian feudalism is the exact same thing as rythmic gymnastics and cholera?

[prisonchaplain]

Anyone that wants to teach Intelligent Design over evolution has to be uninformed in both intelligent design and evolution.  You say you cannot accept evolution because of “holes” in the theory.  I find this amazing because of the undefendable gaps that are greater that what is filled in when considering “Young Earth” theories.

As I said before, Intelligent Design is not Young Earth Creationism. I.D. only concerns itself with gaps in traditional evolutionary teaching that an intelligent designer might fill. I'm not defending Young Earth Creationism, here. And, frankly, I'm not even attempting to defend Intelligent Design--other than to say it has not been given a fair hearing.

Yet you do not seem to be concerned about certain religious groups that historically wanted to teach such nonsense not just in their churches but by force of law to everyone in public schools.

When you mention historic efforts, I am guessing that you are once again refering to Young Earth Creationism. The theory's proponents were too few to gain the "critical mass" necessary to garner a signficant hearing. Those "certain religious groups" jumped the gun by trying to force public school curriculum changes that were pretty dramatic, despite have very little backing. It remains to be seen whether I.D. will suffer the same fate.

Before I end this post I would say something about the failed principles of evangelical creationism.  First off; creation does not mean make something from nothing.  Even the scriptures tell us that such a thought is a false interpretation of creation.  Man was created man (Genesis1:27).  In creating man G-d used materials that already existed (Genesis 2:7).

The simple question here is, but where did the material come from? Perhaps you are suggesting that material has always been? At some point, in this speculation about if or when material began does indeed become faith. Evangelicals, and indeed most branches of historic Christianity have consistently argued that only God is eternal. My sketchy understanding of LDS theology is that it teaches that God was once a man. I'm truly speculating now, but I take that to mean that this evolving God is not himself eternal, but has an eternal lineage (correct me if I'm wrong here, please!). This difference in understanding about the nature of God is helpful in explaining why Mormons may be more open to the idea of God creating the world with stuff that already existed.

I'll illustrate this point with an evangelical joke. One day a scientist decided to pray to God. "Lord, if you're even out there, thanks for all you've done. You can go now. Since we've mapped DNA, and figured out the structure of life, we can create our own life forms now. So, we don't need you anymore." Suddenly, the scientist is in a bare room, with only a pile of dirt in the center. God responds, "Really? You can create life. Okay, let me see how you do it." So, the scientist heads over to the pile of dirt. God stops him and says, "No, no! Make your own dirt."

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Traveler,

Thank you for your post. I love Science. I really enjoy seeing how science confirms what I read in the scriptures. I am going to order the Nova that I saw... and watch it again.. to see if I saw what I thought I saw...

When I do... I will get back to you...

I love that you told me about the Great Actuator... that is so cool... thank you gain...