Intelligent Design Vs Evolution

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 16 2005, 10:29 PM

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...

←

Hey I found it on line... the stage of development of a human embryo is called gastrulation as a blastocyst when it is the size of a poppy seed.... it is in chapter five... it looked like what I had seen on Nova about black holes...

Here is the linkThe Miracle of Life-Nova

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 16 2005, 09:16 PM

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."

←

If we are going to discuss topics intelligently we must come to agreement on one point at a time or there is no reason to go on to the next point. The point we are discussing is if G-d always creates from nothing or if he ever uses pre-existing matter in creating. In the case of man I showed by scripture that man was clearly not created from nothing but from pre-existing matter. Before I can allow you to change the subject I must know if you agree with the point concerning the creation of man. We are not discussing the creation of something else because we do not have before us for discussion the same clear information of creation concerning other things as we do of man. Let us therefor settle this issue. I am not attempting to set a logical trap - I only hope to show that in the creation of man G-d used pre-existing stuff.

My point should not be difficult and I am somewhat disappointed that you have dodged a most important point of doctrine clearly defined in scripture. That is that G-d does use the method in his manner of creation where-by he uses to create one thing from stuff that already exist. This method of creation is not without president in scripture. I will be glad and even excited to discuss other points once we solve this issue. I would dearly love to respond to you story you used where the scientist was challenged to make his own dirt. But let us not leave this important point of doctrine concerning G-d using something that exist to create something new.

You have also referenced a point of doctrine concerning man becoming G-dly in the same manner that G-d has mastered godliness. (As man is G-d once was and as G-d is man may become). But we must clearly define man and his creation before we move on to other points. Do you agree or not that G-d can and does by example in scripture create using pre-existing stuff - at least in the specific case of man?

The Traveler

[Snow]

Sheeze Traveler,

Can't you talk to the guy rather than around the guy.

PrisonChaplain,

We believe that man, or the essence of man, is co-eternal along with God, that both have always existed.

[prisonchaplain]

Before I can allow you to change the subject I must know if you agree with the point concerning the creation of man.  We are not discussing the creation of something else because we do not have before us for discussion the same clear information of creation concerning other things as we do of man. Let us therefor settle this issue.  I am not attempting to set a logical trap - I only hope to show that in the creation of man G-d used pre-existing stuff.

Perhaps we've been having two different conversations. I will quickly concede that God made man using pre-existent material. If I suggested that God made humanity "out of nothing," then I mispoke. My whole point up to now has simply been that the ultimate origin of the universe, of creation at large, could have been an intelligent designer.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 17 2005, 08:37 PM

Sheeze Traveler,

Can't you talk to the guy rather than around the guy.

PrisonChaplain,

We believe that man, or the essence of man, is co-eternal along with God, that both have always existed.

←

SNOW, just for a moment, I'll talk to you rather than around you. I seriously thought the clip of the youngster chugging some liquid was you! Somebody in the chat room explained that it was Napolean Dynamite

In one sentence you have laid out a HUGE different in our theologies. At this point I'll simply say, this difference clarifies for me why it is so much easier for LDS-adherents to be comfortable with most aspects of the evolutionary model than for evangelicals (who believe that the one true God has existed unchanged for all eternity, and that he created the world, with humanity first coming into existence with the creation of Adam & Eve).

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 17 2005, 09:44 PM

Perhaps we've been having two different conversations.  I will quickly concede that God made man using pre-existent material.  If I suggested that God made humanity "out of nothing," then I mispoke.  My whole point up to now has simply been that the ultimate origin of the universe, of creation at large, could have been an intelligent designer.

←

I am pleased to see that we agree. My point of this thread is that there is no need for any notion that G-d is the creator as an alternative to evolution. Thinking that only by teaching against evolution can the truth of G-d as a creator be understood is as out of step as when Galileo was condemned for teaching the earth revolved around the sun.

Rather than teach or fight against the truth of evolution (science) good Christians should embrace truth as examples to the world of the value and joy of embracing truth. Identifying truth should be more easy for a Christian than anyone else.

As a general rule one should study and know of a doctrine or teaching before they publicly oppose it – They should understand the principles of it as well or better than those that foster it. This saves time conversing over principles where there is agreement and arguments based in ignorance.

Is there something more concerning evolution you wish to discuss in regards to creation? Are there other points of LDS doctrines that you wish to discuss in detail? Perhaps we can start another thread.

The Traveler

P.S. It is paramount to understanding G-d and creation, especially as it relates to evolution to know, understand and agree that G-d as a natural course of creation (especially in regards to man) utilized pre-existing stuff. This is in essence evolution – and I would point out the fact that the scriptures taught this truth thousands of years before man figured this out on his own.

[Traveler]

I would share a thought concerning “Intelligent Design” and the opposition that its opponents have to Evolution. Previously I have implied that the basic constructs or notions in “Intelligent Design” are not needed. The scientific principles and notions that comprise evolution are quite compatible with the scripture teaching of the origin and creation of all things. In fact the concept of Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution even hurts most Christian concepts in the scientific arena.

Paramount to understanding Biblical creation is the very essence of evolution. That is; that all things outlined in scripture informing us of G-d’s creation is not a single event but a process by which something that already exist is altered, changed or if you will “organized” but in the final analysis “created”. I would that a reader understand that there is a link that brings together all things involved in the works of G-d. Words and concepts such as “salvation”, “redemption” and “saved” all have roots of unity in understanding which are evolutionary as established through the great creation. Creation is its self evolution and evolution is the essence of creation.

Let us consider carefully the beginning of scripture where we as man are introduced to the wonders and mysteries of G-d’s power of creation. Genesis 1: 1-4:

1: In the Beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.

2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the waters.

3: And G-d said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4: And G-d saw the light, that it was good: and G-d divided the light from the darkness.”

In these 4 short verses not only does G-d explain his creation but there is both purpose and destiny revealed. With this basic beginning stuff all the work and purpose of G-d has a basis and can be understood as the secretes of spiritual and physical evolution unfold. The astonishing thing to me as a scientist is not only do these verses envelop great spiritual enlightenment but there is basis for understanding really neat scientific stuff related to the cosmic “Big Bang” and particle physics as well as quantim mechanics.

One of the most basic principles of creation that pervades nearly every religious construct is the idea of the creative cycle or circle. But where do we begin in explaining the cycle of creation? If we try to understand the contents of a black hole there are several scientific principles of physics that begin to unfold in rather interesting ways. The black hole stuff is all called “a singularity”. The best scientific description is that all this stuff is indistinguishable. There is no big verses small, matter verses energy, complex verses simple, there is no dimension (this concept of no dimension is hard to imagine because we think of everything in spacial context) and most important concept there is that the black hole stuff is not lightness and darkness. Everything that is in the black hole exist in singularity. How interesting that both the scriptures and science start out creation with singularity stuff that is void and without form. And what is the first thing to be done with this singularity stuff? Separate it. The light stuff from the dark stuff.

A side note here for the mathematically advanced mind. Water is interesting stuff and can be shown to be a common denominator mass that has ratio to all other elements and compounds. I know of no other mass that has the same characteristic. If anyone is interested in this mathematical construct and I will try to get you a copy. But without an advance understanding of mathematics this will be quite difficult to comprehend.

Back to the subject of light and the need to separate light from darkness. Note in verse 4 that G-d identifies light as good. This is paramount in the need to separate it. The Book of Mormon tells us that there is opposition in all things and in the case of light its opposite is darkness. The separation of light from darkness is the reason of creation. But it is also not a one step process. Indeed it is a chiasm. It is the mark of both the beginning and the end of the cycle of creation. As we move forward to the end of time right down to the final judgement we find the separation of light from darkness still taking place and coming to a conclusion, for even salvation is the continuation of the separation of light from darkness.

Now back to the beginning of the cycle we find two interesting characters involved that play a critical and important role. The first I will mention is a character known in heaven as Lucifer. Interesting name and title for this individual for it means “one of light” or “Bringer of Light”. In a lie Lucifer claims to be responsible for light. On the other hand is a character that we now know as The Son of G-d or Jesus the Christ. He also claims to be responsible for light. He tells us he is the “way” the “truth” and the “light”. The separation of these two started at the very beginning of creation as pointed out in Genesis and finishes in Revelation. Interesting that these two books are the beginning and end of Biblical scriptures. Creation is intended to separate all that belong to Christ as the source of light and those that belong to Satan that is the source of darkness. This separation is a evolutionary process.

Now the problem of traditional Christian thinking and Intelligent Design. In the beginning of creation man was created and was innocent with need of redemption. If this was the purpose of man’s creation and since man has fallen so that the purpose of redemptions is nothing more than to return man to a innocent state without sin and no more need of redemption - How intelligent is that design? As a scientist if I has engineered such a design I would as any one that paid for or bought my design would consider such a failure and hardly intelligent. That is, it takes something you already have - ruins it and then restores it. All at great risk and cost which in any sense of the definition is not intelligent.

The Traveler

[sonofpaul]

Hello,

First off let me provide a explanation of Intelligent Design

 

Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial assertion which argues that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."[1] Proponents claim that Intelligent Design stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[2] 

 

The scientific community largely views Intelligent Design not as valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.[3] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[4] 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design 

And here is the explanation of Creationism

 

Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from pre-existing chaos. 

 

Most who hold "creation" beliefs consider such belief to be a part of religious faith, and compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by scientific views, while others maintain the scientific data supports creationism. Proponents of theistic evolution may claim that understood scientific mechanisms are simply aspects of supreme creation. Otherwise, science-oriented believers may consider the scriptural account of creation as simply a metaphor. 

 

Those who hold literal creation views often reject popular views of science and certain scientific theories in particular. Most notable is the rejection of evolution and its implications for current evolutionary biology. While the general idea of natural selection may fit into various particular views, the evolutionary concept of common descent —that humans are "descended from lesser creatures" — is a point of great issue with most creation believers. Most creationists also dispute evolutionary theories about the origin of life, origin of the human species, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the physical universe. 

 

The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book of Genesis or the Qur'an, for Jews and Christians, and for Muslims, respectively. Although the Hebrew Bible may be translated to implicitly deny "creation out of nothing" (creatio ex nihilo) and, according to some scholars, may even suggest differing accounts of creation, some Jews and Christians use Genesis exclusively as a support of their beliefs about origins. Refer to creation according to Genesis. 

 

The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs conflicting with the theory of evolution by natural selection. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained creation-evolution controversy in the public arena. On the other hand, many faiths, including Abrahamic denominations, which believe in divine creation accept evolution by natural selection, as well as, to a greater or lesser extent, scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life – such beliefs have been given the name "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creationism". 

 

In a Christian context, many creationists adopt a literal interpretation of creation narratives, and say that the Bible provides a factual account, given from the perspective of the only one who was there at the time to witness it: God. They seek to harmonize science with what they take to be an eye-witness account of the origin of things (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). However, scientific evidence as an empirical source for information on natural history is usually understood as contradictory to the Bible, if the Bible is understood as these creationists interpret it. 

 

Almost all churches teach that God created the cosmos, but many now reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on what the events of creation were, which they now conclude are best understood in a naturalistic way. Liberal theology assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that human understanding of God increases gradually over time; and just as understanding of God grows, human understanding of God's will and of the world also grows, and has grown since Biblical times. 

 

However, many believers in a literal interpretation argue that once a poetic view of the creation account in Genesis has been adopted, it leads one to question the historicity of other central topics of that book. Furthermore, the liberal approach suggests, sometimes outright, that Jesus as seen in the New Testament, or the writers of the Bible, had a mistaken understanding of the reliability of the Bible, and erroneously believed the book of Genesis to be literal history; a proposition that, if adopted, has radical implications for Christian faith and the reliability of the Bible. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism 

And final Evolution.

 

In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species. The terms organic evolution or biological evolution are often used to distinguish this meaning from other usages. 

 

The development of the modern theory of evolution began with the introduction of the concept of natural selection in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. This theory achieved a wider readership in Darwin's 1859 book, The Origin of Species. Darwin and Wallace proposed that evolution occurs because a heritable trait that increases an individual's chance of successfully reproducing will become more common, by inheritance, from one generation to the next, and likewise a heritable trait that decreases an individual's chance of reproducing will become rarer. This work was groundbreaking, and overturned other evolutionary theories, such as that advanced by Jean Baptiste Lamarck. 

 

In the 1930s, scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the re-discovered theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern synthesis, now one of the fundamental scientific theories of biology. In the modern synthesis, "evolution" is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. This change may be caused by different mechanisms, including natural selection, genetic drift, or changes in population structure (gene flow). 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution 

Both Creationism and ID argue that life is too complex to have developed by mutations that were passed on from one generation to the next.

1) I agree that (micro) evolution exists. I agree with TRAVELER that this well documented and science has proven it, over and over again. I agree that organisms can adjust to their surrounding, allowing them to survive.

2) I disagree with (macro) evolution and I do not believe it exists. This is were a fish over millions or even billions of years, through various mutations, grows legs and has the ability survive on land.

Life is too complex and there had to be someone that provided a structure for it.

Question: How can one explain the differences between plant and animal life without some form of a structure? Did they evolve separately?

Son of Paul

[Traveler]

Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 1 2005, 07:51 AM

Both Creationism and ID argue that life is too complex to have developed by mutations that were passed on from one generation to the next. 

 

1) I agree that (micro) evolution exists.  I agree with TRAVELER that this well documented and science has proven it, over and over again.  I agree that organisms can adjust to their surrounding, allowing them to survive. 

 

2) I disagree with (macro) evolution and I do not believe it exists.  This is were a fish over millions or even billions of years, through various mutations, grows legs and has the ability survive on land. 

 

Life is too complex and there had to be someone that provided a structure for it. 

Question:  How can one explain the differences between plant and animal life without some form of a structure?  Did they evolve separately?

Son of Paul

←

Is a mule an example of micro evolution or a beginning of macro evolution?

As for your question. Evolution has more detail in how plants and animals are different than either traditional Creationism (coming out of the Dark Ages) or ID - the modern equilivent of Creationism that adds not a single detail to understanding the process.

[Guest bizabra]

Sonofpaul said: Life is too complex and there had to be someone that provided a structure for it.

BIZ: Um, if LIFE is "too complex" to have evolved on it's own, then where did the "someone" come from who you think designed it? How complex a "lifeform" would THAT being be? Did he or it just arise on it's own?

Seems to me that the arguement for complexity is null if you consider the complexity of a creator!

[sonofpaul]

Is a mule an example of micro evolution or a beginning of macro evolution?

Neither! In your own posts you stated that the mutation must be pasted along from one generation to the next. This is impossible because mules are sterile and can not produce offspring. Natural Section states that the strongest will survive. If an animal can not produce offspring, then that species is not very strong and thus will not survive.

Male mules and hinnies are both sterile, as are almost all female mules and hinnies. The sterility is attributed to the different number of chromosomes the two species have. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, while horses have 64.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

Evolution has more detail in how plants and animals are different than either traditional Creationism (coming out of the Dark Ages) or ID - the modern equilivent of Creationism that adds not a single detail to understanding the process.

This was not the question I asked. I did not ask you to compare traditional Creationism or ID to Evolution.

I asked you to explain the differences between plants and animals?

For Example: Block Cells vs. Spherical Cells

An animal cell is a form of eukaryotic cell which make up many tissues in animals. The animal cell is distinct from other eukaryotes, most notably plant cells, as they lack cell walls and chloroplasts, and they have smaller vacuoles. Due to the lack of a rigid cell wall, animal cells appear to be circular (though are often deformed by surrounding cells) under microscopes - in three dimensions the cells are normally spherical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cell

The cells of plants are quite different from the cells of the other eukaryotic kingdom's organisms. Their distinctive features are:

• A large central vacuole (enclosed by a membrane, the tonoplast), which maintains the cell's turgor and controls movement of molecules between the cytosol and sap.

• A cell wall made up of cellulose and protein, and in many cases lignin, and deposited by the protoplast on the outside of the cell membrane. This contrasts with the cell walls of fungi, which are made of chitin, and prokaryotes, which are made of peptidoglycan.

• The plasmodesmata, linking pores in the cell wall that allow each plant cell to communicate with other adjacent cells. This is different from the network of hyphae used by fungi.

• Plastids, especially chloroplasts that contain chlorophyll, the pigment that gives plants their green color and allows them to perform photosynthesis.

• Plants lack centrioles that are present in animal cells.

• Plant cells have the ability to go through photosynthesis as well as respiration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cells

I also asked you if, plants and animals evolved separate from each other or if they evolved within the co-dependant relationship that they current have?

Son of Paul

[sonofpaul]

Originally posted by bizabra@Dec 1 2005, 11:34 PM

Sonofpaul said: Life is too complex and there had to be someone that provided a structure for it.

BIZ:  Um, if LIFE is "too complex" to have evolved on it's own, then where did the "someone" come from who you think designed it?  How complex a "lifeform" would THAT being be?  Did he or it just arise on it's own? 

Seems to me that the arguement for complexity is null if you consider the complexity of a creator!

←

Christian Creationism agues that an all-powerful (Can create things out of nothing or with something), all-knowing (Has the wisdom to balance life and the entire details link to it), and eternal (Has no beginning or end) God created the earth. This takes FAITH.

ID agues that someone or something had to provide some structure to life on earth. It does not state who. This requires that people admit to the possibility that there is someone or something out there that is greater than our understanding.

If you look at nature and all the complexity of it, there is too much that happens in the correct order for something or someone not to behind it. The Bible explains this:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...

Romans 1:20

I give you this challenge: Answer my questions from a scienific view point and try to explain them without admitting the need for something or someone that is greater than our understanding.

Son of Paul

[Traveler]

Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 1 2005, 10:35 PM

I give you this challenge:  Answer my questions from a scienific view point and try to explain them without admitting the need for something or someone that is greater than our understanding.

Son of Paul

←

SonofPaul: Perhaps if I clarified a few things it might help in our little discussion. I do believe in G-d as the creator. I am an engineer and scientist in the automation and robotics industry somewhat involved with artificial intelligence. I have attempted to have discussions with proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design to determine what scientific or religious principles I might learn. As you can see with yourself and others on this thread there is a logic “gap”. To be honest you bring nothing to the scientific table that appears of any value, yet you seem adamant that there is an important point concerning ID that can be scientifically demonstrated but I have yet to realize anything from what you have provided. Your failure to deliver concerning scientific constructs related to your ideas in such manners creates doubt concerning your religious opinions.

I (along with all scientist I have personal interface with) do not know all the details concerning the creation or how all things came about. However, I do find evolution as the best explanation so far. You are concerned with missing peaces but so far anything you offer in place of evolution appears to have less detail and a lot more missing peaces. Let me illustrate:

Complexity: I believe your argument is that because G-d is the creator (intelligent designer) there is unexplainable complexity. I do not see this is to be a good argument. As a general rule the more intelligence a design the simpler the implementation and more the result can be comprehended, categorized, demonstrated and redone by duplicating the parameters. The less intelligent the design the more complex and less understandable the result and the more unlikely it can ever be done again. In other words the more difficult to understand and explain something the more likely intelligence was not factored into the design. Random chaos is a lot harder to accurately explain than order and impossible to duplicate.

Why must we as Christians start with the premise that we prove G-d only when there is no other explanation. I call this the worship of the G-d of the gaps. This means as soon as something can be explained we must admit G-d really had nothing to do with it. Holes or gaps in evolution do not prove that G-d is the creator. This would imply the more we understand the less we have any use for G-d. Why should I want to “learn” from a religion that fosters such a doctrine? I believe the opposite is true. Why not consider this as a possibility. “The more we understand of any truth the better we are able to comprehend G-d”? This implies when we are able to understand all truth we will comprehend G-d – isn’t this sort of what Jesus said? (is this not the point of the scripture in Romans you quoted?)

Why believe in micro evolution and think macro evolution impossible? There are LDS that believe this as well so don’t take this personal. I asked you specifically about a mule. Did G-d create every living thing (including the mule) and tell them to reproduce after their own kind? Does this mean that G-d did not really create mules? Does this gap prove G-d is not the creator or least the creator of mules - since such gaps in evolution prove evolution false?

Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity but there were holes and gaps in the theory. Einstein filled some of those gaps with the theory of special relativity but there are holes and gaps in that theory until quantum mechanics filled more gaps but there are still gaps and holes in that theory. So we do not teach gravity, special relativity and quantum mechanics as truth – we teach that such things should not be believed? The reason we use these theories is so that we can explain what we observe. We can do so and the principles hold true and any can demonstrate the truth of these theories despite the holes.

What is it about creation that is being missed (hole, gape or whatever) in evolution that you are trying to explain and how can the missing details in the gaps be better demonstrated or measured with details that you have to offer? – not pie in the sky theoretical idea stuff but actual physical stuff that by making the measurement will demonstrate your point?

The Traveler

[sonofpaul]

Traveler:

Let me see if I can address your concerns.

First, I believe that God is eternal, all powerful and all knowing. I believe that God created the earth and all living things in it and told them to reproduce after their own kind. I believe that God has created man and has given man the ability to understand parts of His vast knowledge.

We have to options of what to do with that knowledge:

1. Give God the glory for our new found understanding OR

2. Say that I can God/There is no God.

If you think about that, it is the same thing that Satan did; the same thing that Adam did; the same sin that we all do as humans. But that is for a different topic.

I believe in science. I see it as a God given ability, so that we can understand God faithfulness more and thus give Him the glory. Science and Religion can go hand in hand, if you follow this understanding. (Thus my reason for believe in micro evolution).

 

As you can see with yourself and others on this thread there is a logic “gap”

What is this gap that you are talking about? I do not see it.

 

To be honest you bring nothing to the scientific table that appears of any value, yet you seem adamant that there is an important point concerning ID that can be scientifically demonstrated but I have yet to realize anything from what you have provided. 

I am asking you, as the macro evolutionist, to explain the differences and the co-dependant relationships that is observed in nature. If you look at it from my belief structure, there is an “infinite” gap that macro evolution can not explain.

If all life came from the same place, why is there a need for life to have a co-dependant relationship?

Complexity

When I am talking about complexity, I am using a “wide-angle lens.” I am looking at all the co-dependant relationships that I know of and I see everything working together very well. But, if you look at just one cell (with the technology that we have today) you see a orderly system at work. Cells build on each other to create life. Life is sustained by a co-depending relationship with other cells of a different type.

If you look at the atom (again with the technology that we have today) you see a very simple and orderly system. If you look at the universe, you see a complex system that follow the same order as the atom. And this just happened by chance?

 

Random chaos is a lot harder to accurately explain than order and impossible to duplicate. 

Yes, your statement is true, but you will need to provide it from your end.

Marco Evolution is based on the idea of mutations, which benefited the organism(s) and happened over millions of years, caused life as we know it today.

Explain why there is so much variety in life? How can the variety of life happened through macro evolution? One leads to two, two leads to four, four leads to eight…

How do macro evolutionists explain the fact that there are still apes on the earth, if they are a less evolved than man?

How do macro evolutionists explain the different instincts display in nature?

My belief does not have a problem explaining this: Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 1:20-25. God spoke the variety into existence! The animals of the sea, air, and land.

Things that can not be observed are areas of faith and religion, not science.

Why must we as Christians start with the premise that we prove G-d only when there is no other explanation. I call this the worship of the G-d of the gaps. This means as soon as something can be explained we must admit G-d really had nothing to do with it. 

As I stated, I start with the belief of God and I worship the God, who created everything. When science explains something that was not known before; I say “Thanks be to God, the God of all wisdom and knowledge.”

 

This would imply the more we understand the less we have any use for G-d. 

This is a statement of human nature, which is sinful. But again that is a different topic.

“The more we understand of any truth the better we are able to comprehend G-d”? This implies when we are able to understand all truth we will comprehend G-d – isn’t this sort of what Jesus said? 

Let me give you an example that does not follow that logic:

Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the most prominent architects of the first half of the 20th century. His designs are admired and even studied by other architects. But, no matter how long a person looks at all the design that Wright produced, they will never understand the thoughts and the creative process that Wright had or followed while he was designing.

The same is true with God. We can look at everything he created, but we will not be able to understand why something is the way it is. Isaiah 55:8-9

Let me explain the context of Romans 1:18-25.

1. God created life to testify that he exists.

2. So, created man is without excuse. They have a choice to admit that God is real and that he created the world. Or do what they did.

3. Man (who was told about God, most likely from their parents) did not give glory to God. Man claimed to be wise and “they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Romans 1:23

4. God turn them over to their sinful desires…

Man exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised   

   

Romans 1:25 

Did G-d create every living thing (including the mule) and tell them to reproduce after their own kind? 

No, God did not create the mule. God created the donkeys with 62 chromosomes. He also created horses with 64 chromosomes. He told them to reproduce after their own kind. Donkeys with Donkeys; Horses with Horses. When this is done, there is no problem. Now the mating practices of Horses and Donkeys are very similar. God created life with the desire to reproduce. There is nothing stopping a donkey from mating with a horse or vice versa. But, their offspring was not the intended plan of God and that is why the mule is sterile. (The same is true with humans. Male with Female. Not Male with Male or Female with Female. But yet again that topic is for another time.)

Which makes more since? God created a system that reproduces after it's own kind or God creates every living cell at every moment in life. Science and my faith believe life is a system that can reproduce after it's own kind.

 

The reason we use these theories is so that we can explain what we observe. We can do so and the principles hold true and any can demonstrate the truth of these theories despite the holes. 

As you stated, theories of gravity and quantum mechanics explain events that can be observed. Evolution on the micro level is also observable. It is when you take a group of theories and link them together, with the premise that it will take millions of year to see the out come.

Macro Evolution has never been observed by a living human, because it take millions of years to see the out come. Then a theory can not be observed, it moves from the arena of science to the arena of religion.

 

I am an engineer and scientist in the automation and robotics industry somewhat involved with artificial intelligence. 

Let me ask you this. Has your company build a robot that has the ability to see a football flying through the air and just by looking at football, can that robot calculate the most likely landing position of it? And then move at least 40 different motors, so that it can intercept the football before it hits the ground? And that is one simple thing that our brains can do.

Scientists have never succeeded in creating life from non-living things, such as compounds or machines (and in my opinion, they never will. Life only comes from one place: GOD). Scientists have improved man’s understand of life, but they can not explain how it came to be.

My belief is that God gave us (man) the ability to understand parts of life, so that He could be glorified though our understanding. My perspective shows me that God is big than I am and I will never be God or know everything about God. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

So, I leave the burden of proof to you. Show me the proof that plants and animals evolved from the same substance OR explain how the co-dependant relationships developed using science.

Son of Paul

[Traveler]

It would seem that you do not understand the difference between prof and evidence. For example you talked about atoms as though you believe in them but can you give me any prof they exist (not evidence but prof). As a scientist I can tell you that although there is a lot of evidence but the prof is not complete - conflict in the evidence.

You and I differ somewhat and I do not know if there is agreement on some points. I believe that if something exist G-d created it - but not from nothing but from what was before. In science we know that matter and energy are interchangable. G-d has access to a lot of energy (power) which he used and modified to produce matter.

I believe the creation was a covenant and sacrifice of G-d - it required time to a timeless being and was only done because of his great love.

We see creation still going on today - for G-d is the same and he creates man and all other things now just like he always has.

The Traveler

[sonofpaul]

I do agree with you, that evidence is not proof.

So let me restated my question then. Where is your evidence that supports your beliefs?

Son of Paul

[Guest bizabra]

sonofpaul says: ID agues that someone or something had to provide some structure to life on earth. It does not state who. This requires that people admit to the possibility that there is someone or something out there that is greater than our understanding.

Just imagine how "complex" the "someone or something" would have to be to purposefully design the Universe. Wouldn't THAT "someone or something" ALSO HAVE TO HAVE BEEN INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED for it or him TO THEN BE ABLE TO INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN the Universe? Do you see how circular the reasoning is when you claim an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER is at work?

So, your argument that the complexity of life and the universe as we know it is PROOF in and of itself that there was an intelligence at work would also leave open the idea that the intelligence that did the designing is so complex that IT also would have to have been designed by an intelligent designer and so on and so forth on and on. . . . . . .

Your theory is based on FAITH alone, and it is NOT based on good science.

Science is interesting because it teaches us about the KNOWN WORLD and what our senses can tell us about it. Religion is in the realm of ART and PHILOSOPHY, and is highly subjective. It should remain apart from the objective world of SCIENCE and not intermixed with it. I don't think you can derive an artist's motivations or thoughts by using mathematical equations. Math has numerical rules and patterns that humans have been able to discern by testing their ideas out. A painting may use rules of perspective to portray realism, but the emotion and feelings a painting evokes in all the individual viewers cannot be explained with an equation.

We do not and likely cannot know how the whole Universe and life itself exists or how it all works. I think of it as the BIG MYSTERY and am content to know I AM, and find it fun to speculate on the HOW's and WHY's, don't you?

I do not care how YOU choose to speculate on "how it all works and why", but I do not want your philosophical/religious ideas taught in the science classroom. I have no objection to Creation theories being taught in a Social Studies or Humanities class. Understanding the various ways different cultures view themselves and their relationship with the world around them is extremely valuable and very interesting.

How would you like to have THIS http://www.rael.org/rael_content/index.php?elan=English be taught as SCIENCE? Do you think it IS good science? Or do you just think they are crackpots?

[sonofpaul]

Originally posted by bizabra@Dec 3 2005, 12:47 PM

sonofpaul says: ID agues that someone or something had to provide some structure to life on earth. It does not state who. This requires that people admit to the possibility that there is someone or something out there that is greater than our understanding.

Just imagine how "complex" the "someone or something" would have to be to purposefully design the Universe.  Wouldn't THAT "someone or something" ALSO HAVE TO HAVE BEEN INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED for it or him TO THEN BE ABLE TO INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN the Universe? Do you see how circular the reasoning is when you claim an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER  is at work?

So, your argument that the complexity of life and the universe as we know it is PROOF in and of itself that there was an intelligence at work would also leave open the idea that the intelligence that did the designing is so complex that IT also would have to have been designed by an intelligent designer and so on and so forth on and on. . . . . . .

Your theory is based on FAITH alone, and it is NOT based on good science.

Science is interesting because it teaches us about the KNOWN WORLD and what our senses can tell us about it.  Religion is in the realm of ART and PHILOSOPHY, and is highly subjective.  It should remain apart from the objective world of SCIENCE and not intermixed with it.  I don't think you can derive an artist's motivations or thoughts by using mathematical equations.  Math has numerical rules and patterns that humans have been able to discern by testing their ideas out. A painting may use rules of perspective to portray realism, but the emotion and feelings a painting evokes in all the individual viewers cannot be explained with an equation.

We do not and likely cannot know how the whole Universe and life itself exists or how it all works.  I think of it as the BIG MYSTERY and am content to know I AM, and find it fun to speculate on the HOW's and WHY's, don't you?

I do not care how YOU choose to speculate on "how it all works and why", but I do not want your philosophical/religious ideas taught in the science classroom.  I have no objection to Creation theories being taught in a Social Studies or Humanities class.  Understanding the various ways different cultures view themselves and their relationship with the world around them is extremely valuable and very interesting. 

How would you like to have THIS http://www.rael.org/rael_content/index.php?elan=English be taught as SCIENCE?  Do you think it IS good science?  Or do you just think they are crackpots?

←

bizabra:

Do you know what the Science Method is?

The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Until you can provide observations of and experiments that test the hypotheses of Macro Evolution (Apes turn into Man). It does not belong in the science class room either. Yet that is where it is. Are you even willing to admit that Macro Evolution (Apes turn into Man) could be false?

Is there something wrong with this picture?

Items that can not be observed are matters of religion, not science!!!!!!!!!

Son of Paul

[Traveler]

Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 3 2005, 08:43 AM

I do agree with you, that evidence is not proof.

So let me restated my question then.  Where is your evidence that supports your beliefs?

Son of Paul

←

Let us begin with some simple facts. As we look at the marvelous variety of life that you have been so happy to point out to be rather complex in how vast it truly is. If we look at the amazing variety of worms and begin to make calculations we come to the startling reality that even in the most liberal definitions of Noah’s ark we realize that the ark, as stated in scripture, is way too small. Even if all the ark had on board to preserve live of just worms it just is not large enough. And that is just worms. We have the same problem with insects. And there are some doubts about birds. That is just the known species today. If you also take into account that 90% of all species discovered by man are no longer living we have a problem.

Oh, but you say it is okay for worms to evolve into other worms that fine and nothing but micro evolution. Except this is beginning to look more and more that you have never really and seriously consider this problem. You see my friend the varieties of worms are as genetically diverse from each other as you are from apes and pigs. This then leaves us with only 3 possibilities as I see it:

1. Macro evolution and the Bible is accurate and correct concerning the flood.

2. The Biblical account of Noah’s Flood is mostly myth and not factual at all.

3. Something else is going on that either science nor scripture reveals.

There may be another possibility that suits your personal beliefs and if so I would consider it.

The Traveler

[Guest bizabra]

I once read a quotation from a biologist (can't remember who it was) who, when asked what his study of that natural world had taught him about the nature of the CREATOR, answered that he "must have loved beetles". Since there are so many varieties of beetles, ya know?

p.s. I found the reference:

There is a story, possibly apocryphal, that an English cleric asked the noted evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane what could be inferred about the Creator from the works of nature. Haldane is reported to have replied, "An inordinate fondness for beetles."

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I quoted this from this website:

http://www.human-evolution.org/history_macro_vs_micro.php

Human Origins

Micro-Evolution vs. Macro-Evolution and the Cretinism or Evilution Debate:

"If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future"

~ Winston Churchill

Cretenists vs Evilutionists is an amusing yet poignant headlining error turned into an industry by Talk Origins that accurately captures the polarized nature of the debate between these two entrenched camps.

We believe that in the interest of open dialog, free exchange, and tolerance, it is necessary to address a couple of basic concepts dealt with on the site. Namely, creationist vs. evolutionist ideals. Germane to this debate are the concepts of Micro vs. Macro Evolution.

Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in the Laboratory, such as the evolutionary changes in bacteria to resist antibiotics. Micro-evolution demonstrates the ability of organisms to adapt to their environment. Are we correct to extrapolate from micro to macro-evolution? In other words are there limits to how far an organism can change?

We must distinguish between micro-evolution (which is repeatable) and the macro-evolution process that has potentially only occurred once in history (and may not be repeatable). We are dealing with history in the case of both macro-evolution and Creation, and each must explain the origin of the living cells and all subsequent species. While micro-evolution occurs relatively quickly and is observable, macro-evolution occurs over many millions of years, according to its proponents, and is not directly observable but must be inferred from the remaining evidence. Creation occured in a much shorter time frame according to its proponents, but still must be inferred from the remaining evidence to be scientifically valid. Just as forensic science has to establish a firm link between the crime and the criminal, we should expect that our study of origins should be able to prove that macro-evolution and/or Creation is true. We cannot. Yet.

Conclusion

We can conclude therefore, that while micro evolution has been proven to exist, there is no way currently to prove either Macro-Evolution or Creation. And here is the key point: We are not interested in doing so. We present educational material on both of these topics, but make no stand as an organization either way. Individually, our beliefs vary, as does nearly every one of our visitor's beliefs. Our site exists to educate and research the possibilities for the future, which are arguably not tied to our past due to the imminent application of technologies that will create a living laboratory of human micro-evolution going forward. A living laboratory that may have far reaching and lasting affects. So while we cannot say for certain that micro-evolution in the past developed through stages into macro-evolution and is therefore responsible for the origins of the human species, we can anticipate with some certainty that technological forces will soon have the ability to profoundly impact us in the future.

Can Future Micro and/or Macro-Evolution Be Stopped? Should it?

Activists groups are continually trying to halt the progress of technology and its application in the human arena. This is arguably the worst of all possible actions society or factions thereof can take. Why? As stated elsewhere on this site, the net effect of restrictive legislation in one area (or even a broad coalition of countries) will likely only drive the scientists, medical professionals, wealthy financiers and others desiring to employ the technologoes for personal betterment 'underground'. In this probable scenario the technology will continue to be developed but as a result of the (ineffective) ban, it will only be made available to the very wealthy and privileged who will be essentially free from any societal oversight or legal safeguards.

In the scenario in which human enhancement technologies are banned in one or even a coalition of countries, the activists responsible for swinging public opinion toward this future my sleep better at night having served their short term consciences, but at the cost of creating an increasingly elitist minority further widening the gulf between the haves and have nots at the genetic level. These activists will very likely accelerate the very future they are trying to avoid.

The answer, in part, is the active education and participation of everyone in evaluating and applying the technologies toward the shaping of a deliberate, positive future for all. That is the mission of this site.

This might be a bit off-topic, but interesting...

The website I quoted from is one that deals with the FUTURE of human evolution, which I find fascinating. The ideas they describe don't seem to be dependent on the truth of macro-evolution, and I believe that they are probably compatible with Creationism.

I found these two pages especially interesting.

http://www.human-evolution.org/futurevision.php

http://www.human-evolution.org/futurevision2.php

Yes...they have a very "Science Fiction" style to them, but they are just theories and seem to be plausible scenarios for the future of evolution (based on my very limited knowledge of Genetics, AI, and Cybernetics.

Maybe Traveller can let me know if these scenarios are really within the realm of possibility or if they are just the dreams of science fiction authors?

In any case...fact or fiction...it is interesting reading. I wonder how well these ideas are compatible with Christian doctrines?

[LionHeart]

So Traveler, basically you're saying that your belief is kind of a mix between intelligent design and evolution; in the respect that all things evolved, however there was an intelligence behind it, and that it was not a chance happening. I would have to say that I agree with this. I read in a discourse given by joseph Smith that the word "created" as we read it in the bible was actually a mis-translation from the original hebrew text. He said that the german KJV bible was the most accurate translation in which the word was actually supposed to be "organized". (Joseph Smith studied a few different languages among which were german and hebrew) Here is a thought to consider: The human body is so complex that modern science still does not understand it fully. Every single cell in the body having a specific task, every cell and organ working together for one common purpose: to keep the body alive. When you think about, it would have been much easier for a germ to evolve into an automobile than a human life. This being said, where is the evidence of these naturally occuring automobiles?

When a man invents something, he must first have an end purpose in mind. He then goes through the trial and error process until finally, after many hours and much work, he finally understands all of the concepts he is dealing with and knows how the device works. Only then can he make it function in the desired manner. After all of this, he can rightfully say "look what I have created." And if for some reason his device malfunctions, he knows what needs to be done to get it working properly again.

When a man claims he knows how to create life, he is at fault on the grounds that if that life ceases to function, he does not know how to bring it back.

One of the reasons many scientists don't beleive in God is the fact that many of them will not acknowledge things that they can't measure or weigh. Since there is no known way of measuring spirit, or the power of God, many scientists denounce their existence.

However, I have always believed that there is a science behind the power of God, I mean, it's not just some phenomena that is there for no reason, we just don't have the means to measure it or understand it. But perhaps one day it will be understood by mankind.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by sonofpaul+Dec 1 2005, 10:35 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-bizabra@Dec 1 2005, 11:34 PM

Sonofpaul said: Life is too complex and there had to be someone that provided a structure for it.

BIZ:  Um, if LIFE is "too complex" to have evolved on it's own, then where did the "someone" come from who you think designed it?  How complex a "lifeform" would THAT being be?  Did he or it just arise on it's own? 

Seems to me that the arguement for complexity is null if you consider the complexity of a creator!

←

Christian Creationism agues that an all-powerful (Can create things out of nothing or with something), all-knowing (Has the wisdom to balance life and the entire details link to it), and eternal (Has no beginning or end) God created the earth. This takes FAITH.

ID agues that someone or something had to provide some structure to life on earth. It does not state who. This requires that people admit to the possibility that there is someone or something out there that is greater than our understanding.

If you look at nature and all the complexity of it, there is too much that happens in the correct order for something or someone not to behind it. The Bible explains this:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...

Romans 1:20

I give you this challenge: Answer my questions from a scienific view point and try to explain them without admitting the need for something or someone that is greater than our understanding.

Son of Paul

←

BIZ: Basically, you are admitting that ID is NOT scientific, but RELIGIOUS in nature, thus, it does NOT qualify as a proper concept to be taught in a science class. Everything you write points to the need for FAITH in a god inorder to support the claims that ID makes.

I still say that ID can be taught in schools, in a CULTURAL AWARENESS HUMANITIES type class. Just keep it out of the realm of science!

[Traveler]

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 9 2005, 09:37 PM

So Traveler, basically you're saying that your belief is kind of a mix between intelligent design and evolution; in the respect that all things evolved, however there was an intelligence behind it, and that it was not a chance happening. I would have to say that I agree with this.

←

I would say a light is shining here. There are several things to keep in mind with this concept of ours.

1. Creation - evolution is going on all around us in the same manner that has happened for billions of years. It is neither new or something that happened once long ago.

2. G-d is the same to day as in time past. You and everyone else are created by G-d in the same manner he has created everything else and everybody else.

3. Creation - evolution is a process and continues - that which was is used to bring about what now is and what now exist is evolving to what will be tomorrow.

Science is a study of the details. Religion is the knowledge of covenants with G-d. Understanding the past is key to preparing for the future. For much of history science has done a much better job than religion. So much better that some have attempted to eliminate religion and their moving into the future has been more reasonable, as a result I think many religions feel left out and a need to abandon their strength to compete with science.

It is my opinion that society needs religion more than science but knowledge of truth is always the hallmark of an advancing society. Ignoring truth is always the hallmark of a society in decline.

The Traveler

[LionHeart]

Traveler, I have another question about black holes. You said that a black hole is a singularity where all matter exists in on one form, including light and dark. So what about time? Is it existent or non-existent in a black hole?