Ok, I have now seen one post too many agreeing that Darwinism is just another religion, and dismissing it altogether in this, the enlightened, age.

Tell you what, people. This is it. As Lori puts it, the shit is going down. Right here, right now. Let's have at it, shall we?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

So ok. I guess too many of us have read Sunday School textbooks detailing all the flaws of Natural Selection, and how it could never have happened. I've seen quite a few books like that myself, which amazes me because we are practically surrounded by evidence to the contrary: that Evolution is for real, and it's happening even as we speak!

Want some examples? Here we go:

1) viruses and bacteria constantly adapting to antibiotics.
2) your own immune system constantly adapting to new pathogens.
3) pests evolving resistance to pesticides.
4) hybrid plants appearing through cross-pollination.
5) mutant animals being born in all species, all over the globe. Ever met a person with 6 fingers on each hand? I have! Plus, what do you think is the cause of the majority of miscarreages?
6) genetic diseases/disorders/deletions/misconfigurations passed on from generation to generation along family lines.
7) increase in dominant genetic aberrations as a result of inbreeding.
8) artificial evolution, in the form of breeding. Ever considered where all the different kinds of dogs came from? Cows? Horses? Cats? Now, how could a Chihuahua and a German Shepherd possibly have a common ancestor? Any suggestions?!
9) An isolated village in Mediterranean consists of people incapable of getting high levels of blood cholesterol. They are so isolated, they can all practically trace their origins back to a single family. They have 'evolved' resistance to high-fat diet, and suffer no increased risk of heart attack even if they feed solely on 100% lard. Currently, active research is being done on them to see how their bodies solved the problem, and whether the solution is applicable to other less fortunate ones.
10) Genetic diversity is everywhere. Humans, being among some of the least genetically diverse species, are nevertheless staggeringly different from one another.
11) Thousands of American Indians were wiped out by chickenpox -- a disease Europeans were highly resistant to. Why do you think that was?

Ok, enough with examples; I'm never going to list all of them, though I'm sure others will add to the list. On to the next issue:

The entropy arguments. I've heard way too many people reason that the universe should progress toward chaos, not order -- and therefore the growing complexity of biological systems due to evolution is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. Wrong!!! Such arguments arise because of lack of understanding of the very physical laws people call to their support.

Let me assure you, that even as the biological systems get more complex, the amount of disorder in the universe grows. Complexity always grows at the price of increased disorder overall. For example, liquid water vapor can form intricate ice patterns on windows in winter, but only at the cost of radiating its heat away -- thus adding to the entropy of the universe. The various biological molecules only can combine and recombine given net energy input; the Sun is the main provider of this energy. And ultimately, the complexity is destroyed anyway and radiated away as heat. Yes, we are complex -- but only at the cost of profusely increasing the universe's entropy.

You know why complex biological systems don't degrade toward simpler ones? The answer is surprisingly simple, if only you actually paid attention to your biology teacher -- survival of the fittest!!! The whole point of the growing biological complexity lies in abilities to withstand environmental shocks, successfully obtain food (energy), successfully reproduce, escape predators, and adapt to changes in the environment. Guess how intelligence evolved? It's eat, and try not to be eaten.

It astonishes me to hear people question dating techniques, and the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Hey geniuses, have you ever bothered to check into the actual physics involved? It's really not all that complicated! Do you realize that carbon dating is not the only technique used, and that multiple, varied approaches all converge on the same result? Or maybe we should just ignore the work of scientists over the past few centuries, and prefer to take on faith what the Holy Bible teaches us about the natural world?! Can you say, "denial"?

The 'missing link' arguments. Lamest excuses for an argument out there. Just because something hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean it never existed! May I remind you that fossilization is not a deliberate process, that we are lucky to even have what we do have? But even given the currently 'spotty' record of how species changed over time, I think the dots simply beg to be connected! Grab a popular paleobiology book, and take a look at just the skeletal morphology similarities -- you'll be amazed!

But evidence for evolution is not just in the fossils. All life on earth uses the same fundamental molecule: DNA. Sound strange to anybody? Or how about the fact that all life on earth possesses mitochondria in its cells? Ever pondered the question of why human DNA is 98% the same as that of chimps? Ever wondered why we look and function so much like chimps? Ever wondered why the sensors in your ears and eyes are bathed in liquid? Ever taken a look at the amazing structural similarity between the brain of a rat and a human? Why all plants and all animals use sugar-based energy storage, and operate with ATP and ADP as energy containers?

Ever considered the vastness of the evolutionary 'laboratory'? I've heard complaints that such a marvelous thing as a human being couldn't possibly evolve so quickly. Billions. As in thousands, of thousands, of thousands of years! Over the entire surface of planet Earth! A mile into the sky, and several miles underground! These are the dimensions of the evolutionary experiment. And it's not random; by all means no. It's a *directed* random search, where bad variants are discarded immediately, and only the best and most viable are kept for the next generation. Countless generations. Countless individuals. Spread out over vast territories. And every single one, born and unborn alike, a separate toss of the dies. As agents of evolution, we have random mutations, cross-breeding, infections, and selective breeding. Yes, selective breeding -- as in when females prefer only a certain kind of male and vice versa. Nobody to supervise -- just a species pruning its own genetic tree.

How did it all begin? How could such complex biomolecules arise out of nothing? This, in my opinion, is the only worthwhile challenge to evolution. Anything else is basically ignorance of the theory and its underpinnings. But even if we don't know how exactly it got started, the picture of how it progressed is crystal clear.

So, how did it all start? That's the cutting edge of biochemical research. We already have evidence of amino acids forming spontaneously in all sorts of situations. We also have experiments showing how primitive 'cell walls' form in suspensions of lipids. I'm not a biochemist, so I don't keep up with all the latest and most exciting breakthroughs. But I'm sure someone here with more biology/chemistry background will be able to supply a better view of this issue.

--------------------------------------------

Now, let me ask you all another question. Given the abundant, multidisciplinary, ever-growing evidence for evolution, what do you have to say for creationism? How can you possibly find it more convincing than evolution? Or has there been recent evidence for the fact that women are indeed created out of a man's rib? Or maybe you could explain to me the lack of intelligence when it comes to the design of biological systems? Wherefore genetic diseases? Why does a developing human embryo first look like a fish, then like a lizard? Why do humans have vestiges of a tail at the end of our spinal column? Why do we not all have dark black skin, since it's obviously advantageous against the sun? Why do we still have hair over our bodies, when it definitely no longer serves any useful purpose? Why are our brains wired up in such a haphazard and disorganized manner? Why are women's pelvises so narrow, causing such great pain and risk during birth? What's the appendix for? Why are we forced to consume other lifeforms for energy, rather than just generating energy from light like the plants do? What's the point of sleep? And so on, and so forth.

May I also remind the local zealots, that their highest authority when it comes to interpreting the bible -- the Pope himself -- has conceeded that evolution is for real. Though I realize that a lot of you don't succumb to authority (except when it comes to Bible) -- and spin your own interpretations. Just thought I'd mention the fact though.

Now, since you're all so convinced that evolution has failed, let's hear some replies. I just can't wait...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited May 30, 1999).]

Wow, Boris...You impress me. You're brain is definately in overdrive. You ask really good and valuable questions, but let me ask you this...Why is it that creation has to be -vs- evolution? You are thinking "in the box" like many Christians have for ages? Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There was creation (you know, the part that we can't seem to explain), and then the resulting evolution here on earth. The Bible tells us that we were created, but does not tell us HOW, from a scientific stand-point anyway. And you know, that's OK with me. I don't necessarily have to understand all of the scientific details in order to make a judgement call in a generalistic manner. You say that apes are 98% our genetic equivalent. I have also heard that dolphins are too. How about this...(and this is purely "out of my ass", but none the less) maybe God, or creationism IS the missing link. Many people out here say that they believe that aliens were the creators; genetically messing with life forms until they created us. Could be that it was not the aliens, but God, or with the help of angels that this abrupt transition occurred. Also, as far as the age of the earth is concerned. I see no reason, as others have, to argue that this is not true based upon what is written in the Bible. Interpretation, remember is faulty most times. Did you read the post on the pre-Adam civilization? What do you think of that "out of the box" interpretation? Who knows how many times this earth has gone through these spiritual evolutions? My question to you is this...do we really NEED to know? How is this important in the day to day lives that we lead? Anyway, for the sake of arguement, I believe that it is not evolution vs. creation, but creation, followed by evolution.

Lori:

I think we all know that you are not one of those Bible literalists. Although you still have your moments of relapse. For example, I've read in your very own posts statements to the effect that "we've all agreed that evolution is out", or something like that. So don't try to dodge the issue.

And, the Bible does tell us exactly how we were created. Out of mud, I think. And you'd really have to stretch your imagination to see that 6,000 years in anscient Jewish calendar really meant 4.5 billion years. Besides, even that's way off, since the universe as a whole has been around for at least 12 billion years. On the cosmic scene, we are mere newborns! By the way, that's *my* argument for extraterrestrials -- some planetary systems have been in existence when the Earth was still a cloud of gas. There are probably civilizations out there not just thousands, but billions of years ahead of us.

As for apes and dolphins. It's only the chimps that are so close to us. The other apes have bigger differences from us. And dolphins are even more different. And I'd hope you don't even need to know the actual match percentages; you can guess the similarity by just taking a look at the animal!

Given evolution, creationism simply has no niche left to inhabit. Yes, you can claim that maybe some outside intelligence tinkered with the evolutionary process. But the thing is, there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis. In fact, that would be another example of what I'd call "reaching". And in fact, as I have mentioned before, there is actual evidence for *lack* of intelligent design.

On the "need to know". Maybe you don't need to know, but I certainly do! I think the origins of life and the universe are among the most important questions we could ever ponder. So I'd certainly suggest that we NEED to know!!!

Oh, and one more thing I forgot to mention in my original post. There's lots of talk about how the Bible has been translated, and re-edited, and corrupted in the process. Well, the particular portion of the Bible we are concerned with -- the Old Testament -- comes straight from the Torah (the Jewish holy book). As far as I am aware, the Torah has never been re-edited or translated; it has allways been passed down in its original language and form. So, any arguments concerning the metaphorical nature of creationism are bogus. At the very least, the exact story conveyed is of no less fidelity than the 10 commandments. If you believe the commandments could have been passed down faithfully, then you must admit that the story of creation is also here in equally pure form. So when the Bible says the Universe and everything in it was created 6,000 years ago, that's exactly what is meant -- no way out of that.

As for the pre-Adam civilizations. LOL Do you even know how funny that sounds? Pre-Adam?!!! And silly me, I thought the Bible didn't tell you how everything was created. Come on already!

According to fossil record, Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been around for at least a few hundred thousand years. (150,000 years by even modest estimates). So you bet your behind there were civilizations before the Jews, and before the Egyptians, and before the Sumerians.

This, however, seems to be the first time our species has reached the levels of dominance and sophistication we witness today. Why do I think that? Well, we don't seem to be finding fossilized freeways and railroad tracks, or leftover space junk, or artificially terraced mountain sides, or evidence of anscient underground nuclear detonations. And, fossils seem to suggest that there has never before been so many humans on this planet (or we'd have many more remains and prehistoric burial sites all over the place). Finally, all evidence (including cave drawings, camp sites, tools, burial sites) seems to point to the fact that throughout early history until relatively recent times, humans were mired in the stone age.

So, these times are truly unique, and you all (not just Lori) should be grateful and excited to be alive. Humanity is taking steps on a road that no lifeform from Earth had ever trodden. The first baby steps toward the next great leap.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited May 30, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited May 30, 1999).]

Let's take this discussion even a step further and look at it's own historical roots.
First of all I would like to point out that here in Europe the discussion has kind of ended in favor of the evolutionist. Since the pope agreed on the question that creation kind of took place in the big bang and science took over from there, almost all discussion has stopped, this because the Catholics are in majority here. During the nineteenth century all hard line Protestants kind of took off to the New World, taking their ideas with them. That is why this is mainly an American discussion. To tell you the truth, I was surprised this (ancient) discussion still stirred up so many emotions on the web.

Anyway modern bible critique tells us a lot about the origin of the bible texts themselves.
Take for example the creation story in the book of genesis. These are in fact two different stories intertwined. One, the oldest, is dated at around the time of the kings of Israel, 10th century BC. It was made as a kind of propaganda because the priests of Jaweh at the time saw a lot of their followers turning toward other gods of the Kanaïtes. For example the snake was a holy animal for the ancient peoples of Kana. This was because the snake sheds off his skin each year and therefore became a symbol for new life. By depicting the snake as the very animal who made Eve and Adam bite the apple, they tried to put the other religions in a bad position. It seemed they had success because archeological findings show that a lot of temples of the ancient gods where destroyed at that time.
The second story was made during the Babylonian exile, 6th century BC. Again a propaganda stunt for the one true god. At that time Judaism was developing in a true monotheistic religion. Up until that time Jaweh had been more like a tribal god who protected the tribe of Israel. The Babylonians had a very popular creation story at the time and in order to pose a counter balance the priests of Jaweh (I think it was Jeremiah at the time) put their own genesis story forward to give the Jews in exile some spiritual support. For example the Babylonians firmly believed that the stars where in fact gods and that in reading them one could predict the future. This is where our Zodiac signs come from and their astrological explanations. To proof that is wasn't so the Jewish priests stated explicitly that God MADE the stars and that they were merly lamps in the sky, no symbols for the future what so ever !
This last thing they weren’t able to wipe out because this believe has managed to live on till today if you look at the popular magazines but they did managed to unite the Jews again and when Nebucadnezar died and the Jews returned to their land they had streamlined their religion and began a theocracy up until the Alexander conquered them again and the Greeks showed them their was a bit more to life then living according to the thousand and one rules of their priests.
This of course triggered a new response of the zealots and messianism was born. At about the second century BC the Jews where beginning to believe someone, send by god was going to liberate them from the Greeks and their foul believes. This idea evolved and now and then a messiah arose (this is what the Dead Sea scrolls lead us to believe) after a century the Jews weren’t just awaiting an other prophet, send by god (like it had always been in the old testament) but the Son of God himself ! Meanwhile the Greeks had been changed by the Romans and these proved to be even worse leaders. Because August wanted to make his coup on the old republic legitimate, he traced back his lineage to Venus (the Aeneas) and made the emperor a kind of half-God. So everywhere in the vast Roman empire people had to recognize the emperor as a god. This posed no problem in almost all the occupied territories because one god more or less wasn't worth a discussion. For the Jews this was a whole other matter ! Suddenly they had to worship an other god than their Jaweh while he explicitly forbade them to do that, it was a mortal sin ! You can imagine the times were ripe for an other messiah to come. He came and preached his thing but because he kind of was making trouble against the Romans they put a stop to his preaching. That should have been the end of it but it wasn't, Paul, a guy who used to prosecute people who where against the rules of the emperor, became a follower of the new sect. He saw things really big and wanted to break out of the Jewish community with it. After some quarrels with the original apostles who wanted to hold the thing a Jewish only club, he sat of to distant cities in the Roman Empire to spread the word.
Still a lot of resistance was against this line of handling in the early Christian community and as a result of this originated the book of revelations. Here the Jewish fraction of the Christians depicted the Roman emperors as de beasts who rose from the sea to torment the people of god. The only true people who were saved were Jews, the 144000 came only from the 12 tribes of Israel, 12000 of each, everybody else was cast in to the flames of doom. The end was real near because the book talks about emperor Nero as being the last and must foul of the beast and the last battle directly after him. So according to the book of revelations the end of time would have come in the seventies of the first century AD. This kind of became a self forfilling prophecy because it was around that time that there was a final outburst of messianism in Israel and the Romans had to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. The Jews fled all over the Roman empire and this ended a very violent time in their history.
Messianism became a dormant form in as that the Jews settled with the idea that He would come at the end of times when everyone was going to be judged but the End of Time was way up in the Future. The non-Jew Christians however kept on spreading their believes until the empirial court itself became infested with it. This lead first to the freedom of religion for the Christians under Constantine in the beginning of the fourth century and later in that century to making it the official religion of the empire, abolishing all older forms of religion.
When this came about christianism needed some streamlining itself, structures where developed to guide and preserve the true faith. This was needed because as the new religion was gaining momentum, new interpretations of the Holy writings lead to new sects. Constantine wanted to use the new religion to unite his by that time already crumbling empire so he couldn't have deviations of that kind. So the concilies that followed put the right and only believe in indisputable dogma's that preserved the faith for the centuries to come.
A very effective way indeed because while the Roman empire itself collapsed, the religion withstood this new ordeal of God. The barbarian conquerors saw quite fast that in order to hold their kingdom together, it was best to cooperate with the bishops and priests of the Christians so they gave up their old believes and embraced the new faith, forcing their people to do the same.

I could go on but I think I'm kind of losing the track here. My point is that when one puts the stories of the bible in their historical context a whole new image emerges. The creation theories had their use but that is more then 2500 years ago. God didn't came down to earth to inspire the writers of the bible, they were products of their times as much as Marx was a product of the industrial revolution of the 19th century. There is no more point in clinging to them like there is in clinging to the old mechanics of Aristotle that objects tend to fall down if there is no force working on them.


------------------
greetings,
Plato

"So when the Bible says the Universe and everything in it was created 6,000 years ago, that's exactly what is meant -- no way out of that."

Boris, could you give me the exact location in the Bible (Chapter and Verse) where the age of the Earth is given. Because I' ll make a sizable bet that it isn' t in there.

Oops :) I think you caught me there.

Actually I don't think I got it out of the Bible, somebody on the board must've quoted that number some time back. Sorry, brain-fart's on me.

But the point still stands though. So ok, substitute the "... was created 6,000 years ago" with "... was created over 7 days" and you'll see what I intended to say.

Again, sorry for that bit of misinformation. (Hmm, actually I may have gotten it from the Jews; it's the year 6000 something in their calendar, which presumably starts at the point when the world was created.) Anyway, you get the point, I hope...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Brandon,

The 6000 years actually come from a calculation if one adds up all the lifetimes of the archfathers who have lived from Adam through Noah all the way up to Jesus. The bible if full of lists of these guys with how long they lived. The early one realy had long lifespans, the proverb 'old as Methusalem' finds his origan there, I think that guy in perticular walked around for 1000 years ! I don't know the precise calculation but I'm sure you will find it on other sites if you take your browser and search on 'Genesis Date' or something in that line.

------------------
greetings,
Plato

What is to say there are no other concepts to our being or is it delusion?
Just because ideas do not fit into science they are ignored or laughed at, even so with religion. I believe, here, we are allowed free speech, so my opinion should not offend even though you may laugh, HO! HO!
We think therefore we should not be ignorant.
The evolution chain makes sense in so far as-where's the missing link? Bones have been dug up for years and everything has been found apart from the missing link. How unusual. Maybe it is because it does not exist. Then there is religion. Look at the first chapter. Adam and Eve, where they black, white, asian. Thewy surely could not have been all.
Erik Von Daniken gave forth ideas of alien intervention in the good book. Reports today would atleast give thoughts to this possibility. It is like the pyramids and how they were built- just makes you wonder.
In the beginning earth was created from dust and out of the dust came life. Millions of years later, alien intervention. The hybridisation of a race of people that could live upon this planet. Maybe we are ninety-eight percent ape, ever thought of it that way. We always compare ourselves with other things not the other way round. Then there is the question of genisis, influenced by one single creator or by an alien race?
Man asked the question of whence we came. Science was probably a bit tricky in those days and human perception a bit vague. Telling man he is an excellent work of biological experimentation would be a bit difficult to comprehend, so give him a simple story of creation, it is easier and the aliens remain in the shadows. No-one knows the true answer after all. No-one can prove or disprove any ones idea.
People believe in god, but where is he? I can not see him or here him.
Maybe the DNA string is the master and we but the host. When it has reached its final evolutionary stage it will discard the unwanted carcass.
Evolution and creation will still be argued even when we are long gone. Solid proof! There is non- not until the missing link is found or god shows his face. Why argue the toss now. Destiny is our judge and it will reveal the answers when it is good and ready. Just live out your life in peace and harmony and leave the dilemmas to another generation. All we need to remember is that we are all equal and should be treated equally.
Well I'm off back to the nuthouse so see ya later.
Your never alone with schizophrenia.

Both Evolution and Creation go hand in hand. It is really quite simple, something is created and from then on experiences evolution. Why is there so much debate over this issue?

If when you say creation you imply that all we see was simpily created by god and never changing, i'm sorry but you must have came down with a case of stupidness. Everyone can see the validness of evolution (and infact it should be fact not a theory!). But there does come a point when something has to be created (duh, when something is born..)

To me that is as far as we have to go when discussing this silly issue...



------------------
We live, we die, WHO CARES!
-Double Overdrive



[This message has been edited by Double Overdrive (edited June 02, 1999).]

Mr. Overdrive,
What in the hell is your problem, man???
It seems that all you want to do is
come out fighting... if they choose to
discuss it futher..than they can. Who died
and made you boss of a topic being dead or
not... lighten up man.. life is too short.

Flash,
Maybe, in a sense, Overdrive is right and so are you.
Life is too short to worry about the dilemmas of mankind, even though, I must admit, I DO enjoy these debates.
There are people out there today who are looking for the answers-digging up fossils and scrutinizing the bible. Be patient, in time the answers will be revealed.
"Oh and don't forget the hybridisation theory," I said, shouting aloud.
BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


[This message has been edited by generalhurrss (edited June 03, 1999).]

generalhurrs, clue me in on this hybridisation theory.

Bev :)

Howdy Bev,
Ever thought of the evolutionary changes.
Ape to apeman is a serious leap. Where's all the minute genetic changes along the way. And the big question is if it is evolution why are apes here today.
Apeman was the first hybrid placed upon the earth after aliens dicovered they could create an intelligent species from the ape.
That is why apes are still with us. They did not phase out through evolution because there was no evolution for their species. Apeman phased out because he did not come up to alien interventions expectations, so they tried again with the next hybrid race and so forth, phasing each species out until we became.
Prove/disprove.

Anyone here have the genetic code for an alien?

Aliens=Angels. Divine intervention, right? General, who created the aliens? By the way, is this another "quiz"? Do you have the alien genetic code by chance?

Boris, I did not mean that evolution doesn't exist, just that Darwin's theory is not valid in it's entirety. There's something "missing".

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

It is nice to know that someone loves us.
The genetic code, hmmmmmm, let me see, nope I ain't got it.
Next dilemma, who created the aliens. This will never end.
Okay god, time to show yourself.
Maybe evolution created aliens, but it took a billion years for their change to be as they are now and here, on earth, they toyed and sped up the process of evolution for future colonization of other worlds.
Time will reveal all, whether it is revealed from the earth, from the scriptures or from the stars.
Patience is a virtue, not learnt in schools.

For hybridization, missing link, and impossibility of change arguments, see my original post; I think I already covered all that.

As for incompleteness of evolution: I for one am totally sure it is incomplete. But not in the sense that it's missing something major; the devil is always in details. So, we have various variants, such as punctuated equilibrium and alien intervention. Some of these variants are more speculative than others, and as usual with the scientific process, most if not all of the variants will not make it.

As for why the apeman is nowhere to be found -- there many more (reasonable) possibilities other than alien meddling. For one, the 'missing link' might have been bred out by the modern humans -- so if you're looking for a living specimen, you've got over 5 billion right in front of you. Another possibility is that the apeman was exterminated by the modern humans -- similar to what happened to mammoths. You know, 'the evil demons of the woods' or some such thing.

The whole point is, evolution does make sense on its own. And the only reason to add things like aliens or God to it would be if it didn't make sense.

As for Lori:

Well, I'm glad you see the light :) However, in light of your admission you must also concede that the Old Testament is pure bs. Given that, the Bible no longer gives you any foundation for discussion of aliens and their nature. (See, there's always an angle in these debates... ;))

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris, duh!!! The Old Testament is not BS!!! Everything you don't understand is not bs. And you know, the most rational arguement for not being able to find a missing link, is that THERE IS NONE! How about that? We didn't evolve from an ape! What, don't tell me that you "believe" the religion of Darwin, do you? Do you guys have a church and everything? Oh, no, just a science lab and extremely limited vision.

Lori:

I would agree that your explanation for the 'missing' status of the missing link is the most reasonable one, if not for just this one thing:

It is only a tiny piece of a huge puzzle that is evolution. Although the puzzle is missing pieces, the overall pattern shows through quite clearly. Your suggestion is that because of the few missing pieces we ignore the obvious pattern staring at us and adopt a whole other interpretation. Based on what? That those pieces are missing?! If you saw a war veteran without a leg, would you assume he never had one? Or, would it not be more reasonable to assume that he did have one, but lost it somewhere along the line?

It's not a matter of 'belief' or 'religion'. It's a matter of analyzing noisy data (duh!!!) and coming to the most statistically justified conclusion.

So far, the evidence for our evolutionary origins has been increasingly overwhelming, and the absense of a fossilized apeman is not nearly such a serious breach as you make it out to be. It is only a geological accident, which, by the way, could be rectified any day by a surprise find!

As for the Old Testament and BS: the story of creation is BS. It just is, Lori. It contradicts with everything we know. Accept that fact and move on.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Just wanted to comment on the "who created the aliens" part of this.

Maybe they also dont know how they came about... just a thought..


------------------
I doubt, then i might be

This is my opinion:

If you are a Christian you must believe every word the Bible says. You cannot pick and choose what you think is truth, that defies the entire purpose of Christianity. The Bible says that man was made in God's image in one day. It does not say, "God created earth and some form of life that eventually evolved into man."
On that basis we have two options. The first one: God created the earth and everything in it, including man, as they are. ( There was naturally some adaptation by these organisms, but no evolution. The two are very different, and one does not neccessarily lead to the other.)
Our second option is this: There is no God. The universe and any life in it was an accident.(so to speak) That we are the result of the luck, and have managed to beat the terrible odds against us.
Now lets do away with all the evidence for either side for just a moment.
Say there is a God. Then God is everywhere in everything because he made it all.
If you were a Darwinist trying to prove through experimentation that there wasn't a God you couldn't, because God would be everywhere and it would be impossible to find a world without God to use as a control.
Likewise, it would be impossible to prove there was a God in a world entirely without God.
We are all very familiar with the scientific method, but let's do a little review. For a theory, such as evolution or creation, to become a law (an accepted truth) it must be tested through experimentation over and over. Since we have determined that we cannot prove or disprove God or evolution, they must remain theories.
So now Boris we all must take a leap of faith.(whether or not we are religous) Neither creation or evolution can be scientifically regarded as a truth, but either might become a personal truth. ----------------------------
On that note I will place a logical basis for faith in God.
Let us say once again that there is a God. Now if this God says you must believe in him and his son or spend enternity in hell(and he has never been known to lie) what would your choice be? Would you risk eternity in hell to believe that man is a self made race? I don't know that seems a little too risky for me.
Though this is not the only reason for my faith or the only evidence for creation and God, it certainly does make you think.
---------------------------
Also, Boris could you explain to me how we are all capable of viewing right and wrong. I've never heard anyone explain how right and wrong were formed. As a matter of fact where did any of the following come from, if not from God?
-good and evil ( let me say if there is a devil, there is a God)
-emotions
-thought

Why are we not more like animals? We have instincts, but we are able to control these with our ethics and morals.
If we all evolved from animals, why did we ever develop a curiosity to find our origin, discover ways to catch our prey more easily, or find ways to help those with more serious injuries? Why did we try to prolong our life spans with medicine and reduce the risk in work? Animals certainly not in too big of a hurry to help the seriously wounded. They care more for their young or their next meal than to ponder how the miracle of birth was created or who the ancestors of their meal where.
Please do explain. I always had an insane curiosity to know anything and everything. And I am very openminded, and I am not blind to the logic and evidence for the theory of evolution.
However it does not explain how something was brought forth from nothing. This seems to be the one piece in your puzzle of evolution that screws the whole theory.
There is a theory that when to options remain and neither can be proved or disproved than the simplest explaination is usually the right one.
Which is simpler?:
- An all powerful God created everything, including time and space, the beginning and the end.
or
-Somehow from a vast space of nothingness we got a giant ball of gasses that exploded outward creating, eventually the wonderful complexity of the universe.
-------------------------------------------
Therefore; this is were I stand
-CMPHONEIX --------------------------------------------

I enjoyed that post from "CMPHONEIX"

about your last question which is the simplest.

The simplest one i would believe is that God created everything. Because I do not believe that man is capable of looking at the Universe as something thats just there. There is got to be a reason for it to be, and how it came to be, is the question that man now is looking for.

But then again. .What, or who is God? We have the bible, and lots of other scriptures of religion, but have man determined what or who God is? No. We havent. or?

------------------
Using BeOS R4 with Netpositve 3.03d

Something happened with my post there..

My last thing is that. lets say there are lots of alien civilizations out there, I have many times thought if man could be the only rase believing in a God.. Maybe its just me.. he he

------------------
Using BeOS R4 with Netpositve 3.03d

I agree H-Kon, God is the simplest answer.

Here's a little analogy:
Have you ever drawn a picture or written a poem? That picture or poem may reflect some feeling or part of your life, but it doesn't describe ever detail about you.
Likewise when God created science to bring order to chaos; it reflected a part of him.
However, science can't tell you everything about God, because God is more than just laws and logic.
Even if science did tell us about God, I doubt that we could understand it all. I mean we understand such a small portion of the complexities of the universe; how could we begin to understand the complexity of God.

Boris, sorry for that explanation about God. I know you think this is all, 'bs' so I'll try to keep to the "what if's" from now on since we can't prove, 100%, God exsists.
---------------------------------------------

>CMPHONEIX------------------------------------

Good, an 'honest-to-God' challenger! :) :) Finally!

You are very right on our 'two' options. Well, actually there's way more than two -- since Christianity is not the only, or even the most anscient, of the multitude of various religions. But let's take away all that rubbish and simply talk about Creator (present in all religions) vs. Nature.

You are correct in stating that it is impossible to prove the existence or inexistence of God. In fact, you statement is only a 'lemma' of a much larger 'theorem': it's impossible to prove any theory whatsoever. One can only hope to disprove, or falsify, a theory -- but only in case that theory makes some solid predictions concerning verifiable facts.

Given that, let's examine evolution vs. creation. You stated that "Neither creation or evolution can be scientifically regarded as a truth, but either might become a personal truth." This is where we differ mightily. A scientific truth is one that concerns itself with natural phenomena, possesses predictive power, and has been verified through physical evidence (and never falsified by physical evidence). In that sense, evolution is a scientific truth. Creation, in contrast, is not -- it makes no specific statements concerning natural phenomena. But even aside from scientific validity, there is the question of explanatory power. Creation states that things simply are. Evolution explains why they are the way they are. It illuminates the various commonalities among lifeforms. It explains the fossil record. It in fact traces life's evolution all the way back to the blue-green algae 2.5 billion years ago. Not only that, but evolution ties in nicely with finds from other disciplines -- from biochemistry, to ecology, to geology, to astrophysics. It is now an integrated part of the whole of modern scientific knowledge. It is more than just a hypothesis -- it indeed now possesses the status of a theory that has been verified through natural evidence again and again across multiple fields of inquiry and by many independent researchers. Creation, on the other hand, always posits some kind of a story regardless of religion. And regardless of religion, the story is never consistent with physical record. And how could it possibly be? For example, there was no way for the anscients to know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or that all lifeforms on this planet share identical biochemistry.

Concerning your heaven vs. hell, 'logical' argument. If I claimed that God came down to me last night, and told me that we must all sacrifice our first-borns or else we go to hell -- would you do it? Would it not be safer than potentially defying God's will? In my book, the hell and heaven, as well as God's will -- are empty claims. Only particular claims out of infinite numbers of potential claims -- and with no greater probability of being correct than any other.

Concerning your claim about simplicity. You are misconstruing Occam's razor. That philosophical idea was concerned with natural sciences -- not with groundless claims. To see the fallacy of your assumption, look at humanity 3,000 years ago. Back then, they all had the 'simplest' answers to everything in nature. What's lightning? God's anger. What's the sun? God's golden carriage. What's right and wrong? God's will. Did these 'simplest' theories get humanity anywhere? Absolutely not. If it wasn't for the scientific method, we'd all still sport 40 year lifespans, toil the fields and hunt the forests, and sacrifice our children on mountaintops. Two key ideas in the scientific method are prediction through cause and effect, and testability/reproducibility of such predictions. It is when we come to formulation of such cause-and-effect relationships that the simplest explanation tends to be the right one (although it not always is). I hope in this light, evolution and creation no longer even look like something you can put side by side for comparison.

---------------------------------------------

Well, now that we've dispatched the ideological issues, on to the exciting stuff.
For readability, I'm splitting my posts into these two logical chunks.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

You argue that our concepts of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, our emotions and capability for thought all point toward a Creator. First of all, I'll question the logical transition from one to another. I'd understand if you at least tried to derive the concept of a soul from those phenomena -- but Creator???

But regardless, these cognitive phenomena indeed form a basis for fascinating discussion. And tell you what: by the time we're through you will see how easily all these phenomena arise from evolution -- and that they are all manifestations of the physical, animal brain that we have, contrary to the claims of some that thought, morals and emotions all point toward an immortal soul.

First, let's dispatch with emotions since they are the easiest of the bunch. Human emotions arise from a physiological complex in the brain termed the "limbic system". If you want to know, the limbic system consists of such formations as the cingulate cortex, thalamus, hippocampus, amygdala, mamillary bodies and the septum. The limbic system is located in the tectum -- the dorsal (upper) portion of the midbrain -- that portion of our brain that lies underneath the cerebral cortex and is therefore far more anscient. The limbic system is present in its entirety in the brains of all vertebrates, all the way down to fish. Direct evidence abounds for the role of the limbic system in emotional response. Lesion and corresponding psychophysical studies have firmly established the facts. When people claim that 'emotions' are an integral part of the soul, they are committing a fallacy. People are alive in great numbers whose emotional brain centers have been damaged -- through accidents, strokes, genetic deformities or diseases, cancer or surgery. Such people can completely lose their emotions. They would never again get angry, or sad, or excited, or happy. They never experience love, arousal, fear, hatred. They speak in monotone (without prosody) -- like robots in cheap sci-fi movies. They are no longer able to judge emotions of others intuitively -- though they can learn to correlate facial expressions with verbal descriptions of emotion, and they can even learn to fake their own emotions when they sense it's appropriate (though sometimes they misjudge the appropriateness of vivid emotional response). So there you go -- emotions are directly generated by the brain -- a physical entity; they are by far not immortal or indestructible, nor are they an integral part of what it means to be human. Presense of brain emotional centers in all vertebrates directly clashes with your supposition that somehow humans are unique in their emotional response. To the contrary, even neurophysiological evidence alone suggests that even the lowliest of vertebrates possess emotions. But apart from that, in higher animals the emotions are actually very easy to see -- because their emotional response is so much like our own. (And why do you think that is?)

What is the evolutionary benefit of emotion? Why do animal brains go to such great lengths, creating sophisticated systems that govern the overall behavior of the entire animal? Precisely because the emotional response helps to govern behavior. Anger can be a huge survival benefit when it comes down to a fight. Fear is equally beneficial, especially for prey. Love is absolutely necessary to foster procreation, form 'family' and raise the young. Arousal, wonder, curiosity -- those are all necessary for adaptability, and migration to unknown territories. Hunger and satiety -- well, I hope it's clear what those are for. I hope it is patently obvious that emotional response is of enormous benefit to survival -- which is what the game of life is all about.

Which brings us to good vs. evil, and right vs. wrong. I don't know how such concepts could possibly benefit a solitary animal. But, as soon as we come to herd animals, the advantages of morals become clear. In fact, for any animal that survives by bunching into a tribe, morals are not just an advantage -- but sheer necessity! What you call 'morals' I call rules of social behavior. They are universal for all social animals, not just humans. And they do require an underlying emotional apparatus. Things like empathy, reciprocity, respect for the more powerful, dominion over less powerful, eagerness to participate in social activities like games, hunting, guarding -- they are all necessary to stimulate any animal into congregation with others of its kind. Without built-in social psychological response, animals would have no interest in maintaining social ties, and herds or tribes would not exist. You might ask, what is the evolutionary advantage of a herd? Well, for now I'll just tell you to use your imagination, since the answers ought to be self-inviting. However, if you can't figure it out, I'll explain in more detail.

Note that not all of our modern moral laws make sense evolutionarily. For example, such things as 'thou shalt not steal', or 'thou shalt not lie', or monogamy -- are not advantageous for survival. Perhaps it's little wonder then, that we have such trouble following some of those rules! These latter 'morals' have nothing to do with what we innately, or intuitively, consider right; rather they are social constructs of an evolved tribe designed to protect the less powerful from abuse by the more powerful. This is beneficial purely in the sense that a civilization that posits such protective measures tends to last longer as its constituents are more satisfied with their lives (are more secure). Why do lower animals not have something similar? Well, this brings us to the topic of abstract knowledge and thought.

Animal brains are the most sophisticated piece of biological machinery on our planet (discounting, for a moment, visiting extraterrestrials :)) However, they are also extraordinarily expensive to maintain. Did you know that 40% of all your energy is consumed by your brain? Do you realize how much birth is complicated by our disproportionately large heads? Large brains mature much more slowly -- thus greatly prolonging human childhood and therefore exacerbating early vulnerability and dependence upon others for survival. Growing brain size (in proportion to the rest of the body, that is) could only be evolutionarily justified through extremely efficient usage of the new real estate -- that would behaviorally compensate for the extra expense and ultimatelly maintain or increase fitness.

The great innovation in primate brains is the cerebral cortex. No other animal kind (except the caetacians) sports the feature. Thus, it is fair to say that except the two groups mentioned, no other species on the planet are capable of higher thought. Among primates specifically, the relative proportion of the neocortex to the 'old brain' varies. Monkies have very small, and very smooth neocortex. Apes have a much more pronounced neocortex with noticeable 'wrinkles' on its surface (called gyri and sulci). These wrinkles greatly increase the corex surface area within the same volume. This is related to computational power, since in the brain the computation seems to happen on a cell-by-cell basis, and for efficient interconnection the cells bodies are all pushed to the outside (gray matter), while the central regions of the brain are dominated by interconnection fibers (white matter). Because cell bodies tend to crowd the brain's outer surface, increasing the surface area enables the brain to obtain a greater variety of 'computational units' it can support. This is what happens as the neocortex gets more and more crumpled, until we get to Pan Troglodytis.

Next to humans, the chimpanzees are the second most intelligent species on the planet. In fact, they are capable of maintaining a vocabulary of abstract concepts (!) spanning around 200 words. They are capable of complex social interactions, basic problem solving, abstract thought on a limited basis. Cognitively, an adult chimp is equivalent to a 2-year-old human child (when we discount world experience and motor coordination skills).

So now, when we finally arrive at humans, perhaps it no longer seems as if we are so unique in our capabilities. What is unique about us among other primates, is the degree to which we are endowed.

Like emotions, thought is maintained by a very complex and expensive system in the brain. Aside from other newer things, thought engages coordination centers, memory, sensory systems and emotional centers. But aside from this 'legacy hardware', thought also requires several new or highly enhanced faculties: the ability to maintain a vocabulary of words, a greatly expanded working memory and long-term memory, and more highly-evolved communication centers. A breakdown in any of those subsystems directly leads to breakdowns in various thought capabilities. Again, this has been profusely illustrated by a myriad of lesion and psychophysical studies over the span of this century. Therefore, thought is *not* a supernatural capability; it stems directly from the physical, animal brain of ours, and gives absolutely no evidence for a Creator.

As for the evolutionary benefits of thought, I think you yourself illustrated them rather well. To quote you:

"why did we ever develop a curiosity to find our origin, discover ways to catch our prey more easily, or find ways to help those with more serious injuries? Why did we try to prolong our life spans with medicine and reduce the risk in work?"

All those things you mention (except perhaps curiocity of origin) are obviously beneficial to survival and procreation of both individuals and the species as a whole. And contrary to your claim that we alone engage in the behaviors you mention, other social animals also care for their sick and injured, actively search for ways of getting their dinner more easily, and try to prolong their own lifespan (which also includes 'medicine' in the form of medicinal foods).

--------------------------------------------
You state:

"I am not blind to the logic and evidence for the theory of evolution. However it does not explain how something was brought forth from nothing. This seems to be the one piece in your puzzle of evolution that screws the whole theory."

Un contraire. Evolution explains precisely how life arose from what you'd call nothing -- mere elements, to its present sophistication. Evolution, however, stakes no claim as to how the elements themselves (and the universe per se) came to be. That question is entirely out of evolution's domain.

The question of what ultimately gave rise to the universe will forever go unanswered. However, science *can* and *will* answer all questions pertaining to the events _following_ the universe's birth. This is the domain where evolution comes in -- and the domain within which creation no longer has a place.

And by the way: the mere fact that apart from the Universe's ultimate origin, so far we have been able to explain *every* reproducible or readily observable phenomenon through mere physical cause and effect -- argues strongly against any divine intervention in the workings of the Cosmos. Granted, we do not, and never will, possess complete knowledge of all phenomena that had occurred or could possibly occur. However, any reasonable conclusion or prediction must be based on current knowledge and past events. To this effect, the chances of divine intervention in the unfolding of the universe seem to get more and more slender every day. And, on the other hand, there is no tangible evidence to buttress the claim that divine interfention has ever occurred or is occurring now. Thus, I feel that a likely conclusion is this: that even if there was a deliberate creator of the universe -- it seems to have left us on our own, and doesn't meddle in our affairs.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 12, 1999).]

Boris,
glad to be thought of as a "real challenger."
I should repay the compliment. You have obviously done your research, I am, I think like you, too used to finding people who blindly follow the crowd.(whichever crowd it may be) You certainly have done your bookwork, but I have done mine too. I don't blindly follow my religion, there is evidence for it. You have countered a few of my arguments. I will look at yours. Unfotunately it is 12:30 and I have to leave for a trip in the morning. But I couldn't resist seeing whether or not you'd responded to my posts yet. And I'm rather competitive when it comes to academics, and didn't want you to think because I was gone for a week, it ment I'd given up on my arguments.
If I had access to the web I'd be here debating, but it's a Christian mission trip, and we have to sleep in tents.
--------------------------------------------- I am rather competitive and I like to know my opponent. I told you I have an insane curiosity, I am curious what sort of person is looking at the computer screen. You obviously are very skeptical, but you most definately cover your bases. In fact it seems you are familiar with a broad range of subjects.
Usually when I run into an "unbeliever"(please exscuse the phrase I can't think of a better own at this time)
There is some emotional basis behind it. Example: man's parent is killed in accident, man can't believe a God would let him/her die. Refuses to believe in God.
See my point?
I'm not accusing you of the same thing, but I would like to know if your motives are purely based on logic and science.
If you tell me I'll answer any questions you have about me. this sounds so incredibly strange doesn't it? Oh well I'm a little too tired to care. Anyway I am not some insane wakko just in case it sounds that way. I just don't like walking into a dark room without knowing what type of obsticles might be inside. I have to get to sleep I'll see if I have time to debate before I leave.
---------------------------------------------
CMPHONEIX------------------------------------

CMPHONEIX:

I will gladly reveal my background. In fact, I've done that in the past, before the new message board format went up. There is nothing mysterious, sinister, deeply emotional or pathological in my stance. And it is indeed the stance of a skeptic.

I was born and grew up (all the way to fourteen years old) in the Soviet Union. I considered myself Russian; however my lineage is Jewish (it said so in my USSR documents). But, I was a Jew only in name, as none of my family follows the religion -- even down to my grandparents. My parents are what you'd call agnostics. They do not adhere to any religion, but are nevertheless curious about the paranormal. At a certain point, I was similarly curious, and explored the issues quite a bit -- before finally abandoning my active investigations because I was disappointed by lack of any good evidence. So, I am a bit of a hardliner against my family backdrop.

Anyway, we emigrated to United States, and now I am a U.S. citizen. I am in the process of acquiring education in Computational Neuroscience, with an eye to an academic career (with heavy emphasis on research).

My critical stance arises for several reasons (at least so I believe). One is that I grew up without being exposed to institutionalized religion. Furthermore, I was exposed to a starkly materialistic philosophical viewpoint that was promoted by the Communist Party. I grew to question their claims, however, because a lot of their other claims were clearly bull. This is perhaps why I was thenceforth suspicious of any idealistic or ideological claims made by anybody -- including individuals and religious institutions.

I have spent considerable time trying to hash things out on my own. I was reasonably well-read, did extremely well in school, and in general eventually was amassing enough knowledge to start forming some conclusions. Eventually, I ended up, perhaps ironically, siding with the materialistic viewpoint of Communism. The views I expressed, am expressing, and will express are all derivatives of this on-going process on my behalf to figure out the world.

Why do I bother? Well, I guess it's a hobby. A passtime. Curiosity, futurism, yearning for knowledge. You know... It's just basically something I enjoy pondering -- call me weird.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 13, 1999).]

Boris:
thanks for the info.
I seem to have had an entirely opposite childhood from you.
I was born and raised into a very strong Christian family (My dad was a preacher)
However, I can never believe anything blindly, I need at least a small foundation of evidence to believe on . I did some research and found that there were errors in other theories and evidence for creationism.
I am not extremely well-read, I consider myself as possesing a good deal of knowledge, because our family travels, I read anything I can get my hands on, and my dad is also a bussiness man, so I have the opportunity of being exsposed to many different types of people, and also a good deal of common sense. (please don't make some remark about my lack of usage of my common sense, due to your beliefs)
---------------------------------------------
Now back to the good stuff.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but as far as I'm concerned, Christians do not deny the fact that Natural Selection exsists, well, atleast not the ones who are clear on the subject. we simply explain it differently. we think DNA is too complex to be advanced by ACCIDENT or chance.


flies. okay, you use some chemical to rid your house of them. According to you, there would eventually become a few houseflies that were born with a resistance to the chemical. Okay I can believe that, but the problem is that those houseflies do not have as many offspring as the few of the original strain of houseflies that survive. So the mutant fly has less viability than the original strain. So eventually, the strain of mutants is dead, and the original strain is restored.
no progress is made.

Also, the problem with a genetic mutations is this:
if one creature did survive a mutation and produced offspring with that survived and had that same helpful mutation, then the whole eco-system would be effected. You already know how complex the eco-system is, and how human tampering has caused incredible problems in the balance of the enviroment. So if such a genetic mutaion occured, it would cause a general uproar in the balance of nature.

This suggests that the entire eco-system would have to evolve together as unit. Gather what you will from that statement, I find it rather unlikely.

Also on a final note on this subject, not one mutation in a thousand is benificial, and is a downward process, opposite from the theory of evolutionists.
---------------------------------------------

Really quick, on the subject of the missing link. Ok for a change we will say there isn't a God. Ok, so evolution did occur, and algae eventually evolved into a complex species. Evolution is in fact occuring right now. (are you liking this yet Boris?)

so then Evolution has been occuring for billions of years. We're are not just talking about one missing link ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about billions! where are the apeman indeed?! But also, where is the half vertebrate/invertebrate? there are so many transitional stages in the agoniznizinhgly slow process of evolution. Literally, where on earth are all our missing links? You might say well over time many might be too deeply buried in the surface to discover, or were destroyed from geological reasons. okay, but if Evolution is occuring today, where are those inbetween creatures? Shouldn't there be some more recent remains from the mutations that reproduced and died?
---------------------------------------------

Okay done with the "if there was no God" discussion for right now. As to your question:
why are our eyes and inner ears are bathed in liquid? well the answer is supringly simple. Why put padding around fragile objects? If you look at this from a creationist view, it also explains why. God made us so that the fragile parts of our body would be protected. Also according to the creationist view, God knew that man would sin and be imperfect because satan would tempt him, he gave us the freedom of choice so he couldn't justly prevent us from sinning, but he could prepare a back up plan. which is Jesus. so you're asking what's this got to do with anything? well He knew that man would be more vunerable to sickness once sinned, he might of created the rat with a similar brain for use in experimentation for medicine. Or maybe since created man in his own image he also gave the rat a brain somewhat similar to his own. I mean "write what you know about" right?
---------------------------------------------
Ok. here's a question for you.
are you familiar with the Laws of Biogenisis? (boy is that a stupid question or what?) Anyway, Louis Pastuer proved there was no such thing as spontaneous generation, life from life you know?. So has it been raining worms or something over at your house? I mean You guys kinda screw that whole Laws of Biogenisis thing. That's what evolution is based on life from non-living things. we can't create life. we can synthesize it, which has never been done entirely, but we can't create it. You probably familiar with Oparin, a Russian scientist. Anyway his theory is that the old earth atmosphere consisted of four gases:
Methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. His theory is that lighting struck, cused the gases to break up and from amino acids. These acids occuring in the ocean, formed protein that eventually became living matter. Ok this was somewhat shown by a few experiments, but unfortunately, one thing the experiment did not exclude was the ozone. You see the ozone is what protects us from the terrible dammaging radiation of the sun's UV rays. These rays would have destroyed any life, there extent reaching ten meters into the ocean in extremely lethal amounts. so the $64,000 question is:
How do you guys get living from nonliving? Right now nature cannot create new energy for life and neither can we? Why?
---------------------------------------------
That's all for me right now. Just out of curiosity, Boris, what would be considered a victory fo you? Is just an impasse enough? Or would you rather have me admit Evolution is more likely, or would it be better if i was converted into a darwinist?
---------------------------------------------
*ENLIGHTEN ME*
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------

Boris:
PS> I don't think you're weird. If so, then I might as well join you under the label. The world is an awesome and wonderfully complex place, however it got here.

PPS> Just a tip. To me it seems like many of the questions your asking about creation, are explained by the Bible. So I think if you want to impress us all and prove a little something to us you should, look through a Bible to see where we're coming from. Then if you could show us a better theory or a loop hole, we might be more willing to agree with you. It's always best to meet people half way before you take them one way or another. Get my drift?

Give it a Shot though, If I can sit through all my biology classes, get an "A+" in the class, and not stand up preaching against evolution, surely you can read Genisis, or maybe even a little more.

OKAY you guys are probably sick of hearing from me, but this one's for PLATO.

My mom is really into geneaology, and as it turns out, we are descended from the Huegnots. Now according to my mom, you may not know sbout them. The huegnots were protestants fleeing from the Catholics. You most definately have heard about that aweful conflict in Ireland. well It was kinda the same except the church was in charge, the Catholic church, that is, and the protestants had three choices:
-Become a Catholic
-have all your stuff taken, be beaten, maybe even killed.
-or run away

The huegnots ran away. So it seems the Catholic Church turned a blind eye in history, and made no record of that event ever happening. But several others did.

Just a thought, to ,duh, make you think.

CMPHONEIX,

Now, that is interesting !
You do know, I hope that the Hugenots were the French protestants (the French version of the Calvinist if I recall correctly) in the sixteenth century. They were persecuted but not that much untill the famous Bartolomeus day where their leader, Colligny and almost every Hugenot of Paris was killed. This was under queen Catherina de Medici in 1572 I believe.

Of course they fled France after that and since America wasn't an option in those days they kind of had their own diaspora in Europe. I didn't know that a group went also to Ireland, but it sounds logical if you think that in those days Ireland was still a tranquil island. But it didn't stayed that way I see...

Do you have any more information about the fate of the hugenots when they arrived in the New World ?

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Plato:
think I accidently missinformed you. I didn't mean that huegnots went to Ireland, all though that is a possibility. What I ment is the conflict between the protestants and the catholics in Ireland is similar, though the French huegnots didn't have the rest of the world and government policy stepping in to keep as much peace as possible.
I believe many of the French Huegnots fled to Holland and areas like that, and then eventually down to the southern tip of Africa. (you know about the Afrikaners, right? They were the Dutch people who moved to Africa. Some of the Huegnots fled down there with the Dutch when the Catholic Church even tried to influence the people of it's surrounding countries.
I'll try and get back to you with some more info about the Huegnots.
---------------------------------------------
*ENLIGHTEN ME*
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------

CMPHONEIX:

The victory for me is hardly achievable. It would be the end of doctrine and independent knowledgeable thought universally.

But I'm not looking for victory. I am trying to show people who I am conviced are wrong, the reasons for their being wrong.

<hr>

The many questions I have asked, and you answered through a Creator, are described far more reasonably by evolution. If you are truly open-minded, pick up an evolutionary biology book and see for yourself. But as an example, I'll take up eyes and ears here. The water in eyes and ears is a left-over from our watery origins. The most primitive eyes are found on seaworms. They don't have eyeballs or retinas -- only simple photoreceptors on their outer skin. Their eyes are indeed vulnerable, and their eyesight poor. A 'modern' eye with a prism and a controlled inner environment hasn't evolved until fairly recently. But in structure it still bows to its evolutionary origins. Same with ears. Fish have along the midlines on both sides of their bodies a series of pressure receptors. A human cochlea is simply those receptors rolled up, compactified and extended with auditory hairs - and still bathed in liquid. Morphology traces all human organs and endoskeletal structures (*including* the backbone) all the way back to sea creatures.

The reason you don't see the transition from vertebrates to invertebrates in the fossil record is because vertebrates evolved from chordates. Chordates have a cartilaginous tube instead of a bony spine. And cartilage does not get fossilized. In general, any creatures that rely primarily on cartilage rather than bone for skeletal support are lost to the fossil record (not to mention those that do not have a skeleton at all).

<hr>

You may have been misled by my reference to rat brains. It's not just rats -- *all* vertebrates, including all mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish -- all have amazingly similar brain structures. All use essentially the same neurotransmitters (chemical messengers in the brain). Heck, let's get down to basics -- all use *neurons* in their nervous systems!

<hr>

DNA is complex only to you (well, me too -- I mean to humans in general). That's because our cognitive architecture is not tailored very well to process things like that. For one, it might well be that a truly advanced intelligence would find DNA trivial. But more importantly, nothing is too complex to be improved by random chance. Not when enough time and parallelism is present in the random search.

<hr>

What was that about flies? Pests adapt to pesticides quite successfully, I assure you. And they survive and procreate just fine. If they didn't they wouldn't be such a pain in agriculture's behind.

Also, in nature unlike artificial settings, any environmental change is usually permanent on relatively long scales. So even if an organism survives the change through mutation but is less fit as a result -- it still gets to survive because all those who did not adapt are simply extinct. And the environmental change usually persists, so there is no chance of a backward relapse. Besides, evolution doesn't stop there -- the hapless mutant will have mutant offspring of its own, some of which will be more fit than others, and they will have their own offspring, and so forth. For example, the dinosaurs were amazingly refined. They featured predators the likes of which make any modern predator look like prey. They featured prey that would easily evade or deter any modern predator. They filled all niches of the environment. They had much more time to be refined -- unlike us mammals, who were born just yesterday on geological scale.

<hr>

And, of course, changing species have an impact on the ecology. As do the various other things like falling asteroids or glacial cycles. The key here is that the ecology adapts as well. Usually after some big disaster, the place is devastated. But then, give it a few million years and it will be blooming again. Of course, a change in only one species will not do all that much to the ecosystem anyway. Species die out and are created continuously -- even without our help, though at a slower rate. The ecological systems simply readjust themselves and go on. If that sounds miraculous to you, think of the following: the ecosystems consist of living things. Living things do everything they can to survive. Additionally, biological and meteorological cycles, as well as predator-prey relationships, tend to provide auto-restoring forces to ecosystems.

But no, ecosystems don't evolve as a unit. They merely adapt to changing circumstances ( with loss or gain as it may be). And don't compare the drastic changes induced by us to the much smaller (typically) changes that would be induced by an alteration in just a couple of species. As a rule, evolution doesn't introduce megatonns of ultratoxic chemicals into the environment, or mow down entire forests across a whole continent.

<hr>

Mutations are indeed a downward process for the great majority. You're right, a beneficiary mutation probably has a chance of much less than 1/1000. However, consider the numbers of animals in any species alive at any moment, and the turnover rate of generations. Even we humans are about to hit 6 billion. Now, if the chances of a beneficial mutation are on the order of 1/10,000,000,000 then we already have one individual born into every second generation who is not entirely human (and *beneficially* so). But for us evolution is slower, because it takes us so long to reproduce. Most other animals, on the other hand, tend to a) produce far more progeny and far more frequently, and b) have generational lifespans on the order of 20 years or less. So although a beneficial mutation is indeed unlikely, they do happen all the time. All one needs is a selective pressure to reinforce a particular mutation over all others, and you've got evolution -- based purely on random chance, mind you.

Also, not all mutations are necessarily good or bad. In fact, the great many of them just make an individual different -- biochemically -- but not as applies to survivability. Until, of course, some selective force comes along (like a disease maybe) that actually prunes all the mutations that can't handle it. For example, we humans tend to have several blood types among us. In themselves, the blood types don't seem detrimental. However, if some deadly virus popped up that only attacked people with type AB, then you can guess what would happen to our genetic heritage as a species.

Non-harmful mutations can accumulate silently among populations for a long time. But then, yet another mutation, a disease, or a drastic natural change can create a response from those dormant 'features' and induce great change in the organism's function. This goes a long way toward explaining punctuated equilibrium that is so often observed in the fossil record.

<hr>

The missing link. (again!!) Seems to be a popular one these days.

Well, let me remind you of a couple of things. First of all, you don't see a lot of mutants because you are not a pathologist. If you go and visit any museum of pathology, or a 'gallery of freaks' in a more trivial tongue, you will quickly see that we've got in-between creatures up the wazoo. And let me remind you that most of those creatures aren't even seen because they either die quickly or disappear through natural predation. Lastly, we've only been keeping record over any extended territory and time for only the last couple of centuries. This is laughably short on evolutionary scales. In fact, we aren't likely to see any real change in most species over the entire duration of our civilization! So if you want to see elephants growing wings -- good luck to you, because you are in for a wait of a few million years!

However, amidst organisms that reproduce fast and live short lives, we can observe rapid biochemical change in response to selective pressure even over our lifetimes. This goes for bacteria, viruses, and various pests.

So basically, the main issue here is of time scales. We are simply too ephemeral both as a species and as individuals to notice the ponderous march of evolution. That's why we have to rely on the fossil record. That's why you don't see any 'in-between' creatures. Well actually, *every single creature* you see is in-between! (including yourself!)

As for missing links -- yes, there will indeed be billions of them. Because there are thousands upon thousands of species inhabiting Earth at any time, all of them evolving in parallel. If only 500 out of a thousand living species are eventually preserved as fossils, we lose 50% of the information -- thousands of missing links for every evolutionary 'step'! So don't be surprised at missing links. Especially among species that didn't have that many individuals alive anyway.

The fossil record is a valuable tool for evolutionary biologists, and a great empirical verification of the theory. However it's incomplete (woefully so!), and is not even the cornerstone of evolutionary theories. I don't know why people get fixated on it so much. My advice: look at the big picture, and look at the real roots of evolutionary theories -- *the species that are currently alive*!

It is the living things that gave Darwin his ideas. The widespread, thorough, pervasive morphological similarities within Kingdoms. The existence of sub-speciation. The obvious variation even within genuses forced by geological barriers or territorial separation. Heck, look at us humans! We are a very young species, but already we have evolved different appearances, body factors, biochemistry -- only because populations were separated from each other by great natural divides of desert, mountains, oceans and wilderness. And, we are the least likely to evolve so quickly, due to our slow reproductive maturation and social structures aiding survival of the disadvantaged!

<hr>

In general, evolution can be construed statistically as a Brownian process. Think of an air particle bouncing around. After enough time elapses, the gas particle is equally likely to be anywhere in the room; its chances of being where it started are essentially 0! The DNA can be viewed as a vector within a many-dimensional space, where each sub-dimension consists of four axes: A, G, T, C. The vector undergoes a semi-random drift within that space. First, it fluctuates like a Brownian gas particle, but then it is restored somewhat by cellular repair, natural selection for fitness, and interbreeding. So, it's a 'dampened' brownian motion, but in the long run it will lead to similar results! Given enough time, the DNA 'vector' could end up practically anywhere in the AGTCx1000,000,000-dimensional space! And with evolution, you are even less likely to end up where you started, because a continuous ramp of fitness is applied, so barring great natural disasters a regression toward inefficient design is impossible!

<hr>

Concerning ozone and the ultraviolet rays: ultraviolet doesn't go through water (not to mention the mineral soup that an ocean is); neither do the even more lethal cosmic rays. That is among many reasons life developed in water to begin with. The oxygen atmosphere was generated by anaerobic algae in the planet's oceans -- only then did we acquire ozone in sufficient amounts to block the ultraviolet, and oxygen in sufficient amounts for life to evolve into the animals and plants we witness today.

Where did you get the idea that ultraviolet can penetrate through 10 meters of water?! I am not an expert in optics, but that sounds a bit hard to believe. However, regardless, life could just as easily have started up elsewhere in the ocean strata. Don't forget that the early Earth was in a constant geological turmoil, because of the thinness of its core, greater abundance of radioactive materials, and because it was pummeled by rocks from space. The volcanic ocean vents and hot springs that are so rare today were the rule of thumb back then. So energy was widely available anywhere you went -- from the Earth itself even more so than from the Sun!

<hr>

Finally, let me touch on that 'look to the Bible for answers' theme. The question is not whether you have answers. The question is: are your answers any good? As in: are the answers really answering the question, or just brushing it under the carpet of Creation together with the millions of other questions?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 23, 1999).]

I would also like to comment on the bible having all the answers.
You see even the bible wasn't created in a single sweep, it evolved during more then a millinium of jewish history. There you see that even the Book itself is a product of evolution ! Scary thought, huh ?
Now, or you are saying : ok so god just helped the guys who wrote the bible and made shure they worte the write 'answers' or you say the bible is a product of a people trying to explain the world and their existence in it to the best of their abilities. If you take the first answer then why not let god do the same thing with biological evolution ? (that is what the catholics did for your information) If you take the second answer then evolution itself is responsible for our very beliefs of this moment.

Besides, why do you think evolution would stand against religion ? Don't you see the religious possibilities here ? Evolution shows us the connection between all living things, it even shows the connection between life and 'non-life', how one came from the other, suppose you would leave the old notion of a supervising god like that and unify him with the universe itself. A supervising god is to much related to Plato's (not me but the old Greek) idealism and absolute truth. A very viable tought at the time but a little outdated today.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Boris:

I know that fossil records are not the corner stone of evolution. In fact, I talked to an expert who I met and he said that fossil records do not support evolution, merely adaptation. And I know very well that evolution is an incredibly slow process. I know that life can recover on it's own, Look at Mt. St. Helen's (it's a volcanoe that practically destroyed itself and the forests around it) The scientists were all amazed at how QUICKLY it recovered, by the way. My point is that there should me remains of each creature who made the transition between charnoloid to vertabrate. Shouldn't there be a couple charnoloid's with the start of a backbone?

And what I'm trying to get you to see is this:
If evolution is still an ongoing process, what crawled out of the water today? Shouldn't there be living creatures in there transitional stages? I mean right now as we speak algae is working it's way up the evolutionary chain. Slowly of course, but still, shouldn't we be able to see these, changes? Someone's bound to notice. Even if they all died before the too many people could notice, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!! They couldn't evolve because their mutation was bad before it got to be good, but they didn't survive long enough to even pass that on.
---------------------------------------------

Okay. could you clear something up for me? which part of the eye, the brain, the reproductive system evolved first? Why would the fish crawl out of the water? he had his food, and he was adapted to the enviroment. Why would he even bother? I've heard something like he was forced to crawl around so reeds, and this managed to get him out of the water.

Don't you wish you could do that? "Gee these reeds are in my way, and there's a predator behind me, I had better grow some lungs so I can get away from him." Or the bird. " Boy I like that food up there, I'm starving down here, I had better grow some wings so i can get it." or " O no a preadator's chasing me I had better grow wings so i can fly!" Or " Ahhh I'm falling off a cliff, I had better fly quick!"

they couldn't see how something like wings, legs, or lungs could benefit them. the fish who flopped his way out of the water would die. They bird without wings would die also.

Can you see the bird who started to evolve wings? that would disable them while running from a predator through brush. thus they would eventually be killed, and any offspring they had with the same mutation, would more than likely share their fate. The problem with evolution through chance happening, is that the eniviroment would not be ready for them, The bird growing wings, would be less desirable as a mate. more than likely they would never have offspring.

The point I'm trying to make is though, the eventual outcome of a mutation may be beneficial, getting there is fatal.
---------------------------------------------

You completely dodged my question about emotions. Yes i can see how they would be beneficial. But how did they form? Certainly to the less intelligent creature the benefits of emotions would not be obvious.
---------------------------------------------

It still doesn't matter wether or not the uv rays penetrated the ocean. (Though UV rays are A LOT smaller than visible light, that's why they can be so deadly, they get right into your cells.) When the organisms surfaced or went on land, they would be exposed to them and die.
---------------------------------------------
I'm going to break this up into two parts.
CMPHONEIX------------------------------------


[This message has been edited by CMPHONEIX (edited June 24, 1999).]

Boris:
here's a logical thought:

If one being created all life, is it not likely that they would all be similar in some way or another? variations of the same idea.
---------------------------------------------

I'm not sure why you think God has left us alone. Let me just say this, though it may be out of context:
God created man with the freedom of choice, he can't step in when he knows someone is going to do something bad, and stop them from thinking bad thoughts, that makes that person a robot, and is unfair to them.
---------------------------------------------

Lori had a point. You can't just examine God under a microscope, He's so much more. Trying to explain God in purely scientific regard, is like trying to explain our pesonality.

You're thinking," well what about genes and hemicals," and so on and so forth. Well no matter what our genetic tendencies may be, we can always harness our emotions and feelings.
how is the survival of the fittest, anything like that? If anger helps an organism fight, than why bother controlling it? we could get everything we need and everything we want, through sheer force. What is it in us that makes us want to put the weak first? Suvival of the fittest means you let the weak die so the new generation will be strong. Where does equality come in? Rights? I know this sounds familair, but you still didn't explain it, atleast not enough for me.
---------------------------------------------

Believe it or not Boris, I have picked up a biology book, I told you, I read it, anylyzed it openly, and aced the class.

There are just some things that don't connect for me in the thoery of evolution. T

The reason I have trouble finding the truth in evolution, is because, the Bible explained things before science could explain them. (and I'm not just saying that whole, "the sun is god's chariot" crap, I don't know where you get these connections)

Did you know the Bible talked about the importance of cleanliness, especially when repearing wounds. The English society didn't firgure that out till Loius Pasteur. By the way you dodged Spotaneous Generation.

PLATO:

Can you tell me anything about some of the earlier civilazations and medicine?
You seem to know a lot about history, can you help me please? I don't often have a lot of time to look these things up.
THANKS
---------------------------------------------
*ENLIGHTEN ME*
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------

[This message has been edited by CMPHONEIX (edited June 24, 1999).]

I see your point about 'in-between' creatures now (sorry I was so dense earlier). And here's the simple answer:

We don't see them because they are indeed at a disadvantage compared to the creatures that had already conquered the domain in question. The modern fish are unlikely to crawl out on land, because they would have to compete with the much more highly-evolved lifeforms already there! Not only that, they would tend to fall prey to land- and air-dwelling predators. They would simply not be able to survive. However, when it first happened the lands were empty. And actually, it's not the fish that made it first; the plants came onto land way before the animals. And by the time the plants 'crawled' out of the water, the Earth already had a thick protective oxygen atmosphere, generated by the cyanobacteria and the blue-green algae.

Why would plants crawl out of an ocean? Well, the sunlight is surely easier to catch when you're above water than when you are underwater. Plus, the land was not colonized -- so the disadvantaged mutants that first made it ashore had no competition. They essentially found a new safe niche where they can survive *very* comfortably with nobody there to bother them! The first animals crawled onto land for the very same reasons.

If some enormous disaster would wipe the landmasses clean of life, this colonization of land would proceed anew, and indeed you would see first plants, then animals slowly making it ashore once again.

<hr>

Now, your talk about growing wings when you need them is just plain childish. Of course, no creature or species (except us, perhaps) can ever make any decision as to how they want to change their genetics. Evolution is not a conscious process. And it's not a sudden one either. When we talk about growing wings, we talk about the necessary structures forming very gradually, so there is no problem with selecting mates -- because all members of the species look the same at any moment! And wings would not have put birds at a disadvantage. Even flightless birds of today, like the ostriches for example, are quite fit and hardy -- if you don't believe me, try to catch and eat one. Most likely, wings evolved from very long, clawed arms used either to catch prey or to climb through trees.

Nothing in evolution is sudden; nothing just appears. All the structures can be traced to more and more rudimentary beginnings. And that includes brains, reproductive organs, and the whole gamut of features present in modern or anscient animals or plants. None of these features really 'evolved first'. They all started from some precursors, that evolved in parallel and in concert with each other. So there never was a time when creatures had a modern brain but no modern heart.

<hr>

Emotions... What do you mean "to the less intelligent creature the benefits of emotions would not be obvious"? -- 'Obvious'???

First of all, you seem to be under some kind of an illusion that emotional response requires intelligence. Quite to the contrary -- emotions came first; intelligence arrived much much later.

And I thought the benefits of emotion I outlined were quite clear. They don't have to be obvious to the creature (the creature doesn't decide its own evolutionary path!) All emotions have to do is make the creature more fit in comparison to its peers. This can come about through better survival of the creature's young, better response to appearance of predators, better motivation to fight for that scarce piece of food with your peers, motivation to explore new territories, and so on and so forth. It's amazing to me you don't see these very obvious benefits of emotional response.

And btw lest you be under some kind of an illusion that lower animals don't have emotions, I'd like to counter that right away. Even the most 'primitive' animals have emotions -- like fear, anger, hunger, excitement, love. They of course cannot consciously evaluate their own emotional state, but that is not necessary for what they do.

As to how the emotions formed -- get back to me when neuroscience has unravelled the brain enough to describe precisely how emotions function. Then, it will likely be obvious from the connective structures and neurotransmitters used, what primitive pathway was modified, and how, to eventually support emotional response.

<hr>

Now for the second part of your post...

<hr>

If one being created all life, and that being was truly intelligent -- wouldn't you think that he would have more than one idea about how life can work? Why would an omnipotent god generate countless variations on the same idea, when it would be that much more fun to explore countless other ideas and variations on all of them? Finally, why would it take God 3 billion years of gradual tweaking to come up with the modern lifeforms, when he could have done it all in a second? And, your position would seem to imply that either God is now done tweaking (in which case the evolution of pests and microorganisms we observe is an autonomous process after all), or God is *still* tweaking his creations for some odd reason! Both of these alternatives are ridiculous enough that I hope evolution plain and simple without divine intervention appears as the only plausible choice.

<hr>

My dear believer, the microscope is the *only* way we can examine god!!! Science is only a tool, comprised from methods of observation and theories that arise from those observations. If we are not to use science, then we are not to use any of our senses -- not our eyes, ears, touch, smell, or taste! If you were to deprive yourself of all your senses (which are a form of scientific instruments by the way!) you would know absolutely *nothing* about the world, you would know absolutely *nothing* about God, you would not be able to speak, feel, or reason logically or illogically -- in any fashion, shape or form!!! (And you would have no idea of shape or form, to boot.)

Our entire cognitive apparatus is driven by senses and real-world experience. These are the *only* tools we could *possibly* use to examine *anything*. If you don't believe me, please start out a separate thread called "Epistemology" and we shall discuss it there in detail.

<hr>

By the way, our personality is completely explainable by science. Just because we haven't managed to do it yet, doesn't mean it can't be done!!

It has been clearly demonstrated that every single cognitive function is tied to the brain and its *physical* computations. Because of the physical nature of the brain, it is entirely susceptible to scientific reduction, and given a little time we will know absolutely everything about ourselves as well as other animals.

The only reason we have not unravelled the brain completely yet is because we didn't have the tools to do it just a couple of decades ago. Now, we are armed with advanced biochemistry, sophisticated microscopy, exponentially improving nonintrusive imaging (like MRI, fMRI, CAT, PET, etc.), and massive computational power. The field of cognitive science is really beginning to take off. So while this is perhaps the golden time of biochemistry and astronomy, expect the early-to-mid 21st century to be the golden time for the study of the brain. And I am not messing around; I am an insider and I see what's going on firsthand.

Finally, lest you allude that evolution makes claims about connections between DNA and personality -- let me put an end to that right away. Personality is the domain of psychology, not evolution. Emotional response is considered within the evolutional framework purely as a substructure of the brain and the endocrine system. There is nothing postulated about the cognitive capacities of the higher animals to exert control over themselves -- that is still the unknown land, and is full of psychological speculation but no real rigorous data or theory.

However, to answer your question concerning the benefits of control. Perhaps sometimes, if you are smart enough, you are better off avoiding a fight. For example, if you are a wolf faced with an angry bear, you should probably put your tail between your legs and run for your life. In this case, the emotional response of fear does the trick. However, sometimes one is faced with unknown danger that is not easily recognized by the emotional apparatus -- and the higher cognitive machinery (if present) could play a crucial role in saving your hide.

Additionally, for a social animal control of emotions is crucial. For example, even if you are pissed off at the leader of the pack -- you better not show it, lest you be torn to pieces by him and his cohorts.

<hr>

Concerning survival of the fittest and social dynamics. First of all, you realize of course that animals who are not social do precisely what you mentioned -- i.e. let the weak die so the species can remain strong. For social animals, the choice is a bit more complicated, because their tendency toward fellowship or tribehood contradicts the egotistic tendencies. Additionally, sometimes the tribe is better off keeping its weaker members alive than letting them all die off, and withering away because of insufficient replenishment.

<hr>

If we could get everything we want through sheer force, we would no longer be social animals. We would wonder the woods alone, and maintain our distinct territorial domains. The key to social cohesion is cooperation -- not brute force. It is an evolved trait. My previous discussion of herds and their benefits ought to prevent any further questioning on your part concerning the evolutionary benefits of social behavior.

As for equality and civil rights -- those are not evolved. Un contraire, those are quite unnatural and are a product of our higher thought centers and the resultant of anthropological evolution. In fact, if you were an antrhopologist, you would see easily that those ideals are never upheld in practice, and we still tend to organize ourselves around 'pack leaders', with all the associated social hierarchy structures.

<hr>

Finally, your last paragraphs...

The Bible explained nothing. It shoved everything under the carpet. It used the anscient trick of invoking all-powerful and all-knowing entities for *explaining away* everything that is not presently understood. It never bothered to examine cause-and-effect relationships, as would be required in a *real* explanation. It simply went back to the good old worn-out idea of divine will, and 'mysterious ways'.

And by the way, before the Bible explained things, the Romans had it all figured out. And before the Romans, it was the Greeks. And before the Greeks, it was the Egyptians (that's where the God's chariot 'crap' came from, by the way), Mesopotamians, etc, etc, etc, etc. So whatever point you were trying to make with prior explanations, I believe it's moot.

Knowledge advances by theory-making and theory-testing. Science superceded the Bible and the countless other sources of 'divine truth' because it finally figured out to start making theories and testing them. And it ended up (at last) with a coherent, solid story that doesn't involve fantasy beings or arbitrary mythological constructs.

<hr>

The Bible may have talked about importance of cleanliness, and a great many other wonderful useful things. They were all known well before the Bible (I assure you), all over the world. They were simply common sense, and the Jews happened to possess some.

<hr>

Spontaneous generation...
Well, if you consider my explanation simply a dodging, I can't help you. Maybe you should point out specific parts of my explanation that sound like 'dodging' to you, so that I can respond to the specific criticism. However, I do believe I have described in a few of my previous posts on this board, both where, why and how life arose. So please go over my previous posts and see if my position seems any clearer.

But there is one thing I believe I never explicitly mentioned. It is that whereas life exists for 3 billion years (perhaps even more than that), complex life exists for less than 1 billion years. This is because the sophisticated cellular machinery found even in the modern unicellular organisms took literally over a billion years to evolve.

*Of course* life did not start out with the DNA forming spontaneously. *Of course* the first living organisms did not possess cell nuclei, ribosomes, Golgi apparati, RNA, or endoplasmic reticulum. The very first living organisms were most likely as primitive as a self-reproducing protein. Even now, there is an active effort in the research community to produce some artificial self-reproducing proteins to make the point. And I believe, there has even already been some limited success (despite the fact that this research only took off a few years ago).

So you see, there really are no leaps of faith in evolution. All you have is the amazing complexity of matter, the vast abundance of energy in all sorts of forms, the mind-boggling size of the evolutionary 'test-tube' (not even just the Earth's surface, but the entire universe!), and the unimaginable lengths of time over which evolution took place. Once you consider the scales involved, neither the spontaneous emergence of life, nor the evolution that consequently ensued should sound so miraculous after all.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 24, 1999).]

Speaking of dinosaurs,how did they fit all of the different types on Noahs ark? And how many races of humans(his family)were there?

I have been reviewing the arguments pro and con for evolution vs. creation as posted here over the last month. Much of the debating has centered around Bible, Theology, God, Science. I would like to take the discussion into a different direction - "Logic." For example, if someone were to take their TV apart very, very carefully, piece by piece, and then place each piece in a large revolving cauldron, how many years of turning would it take until the TV put itself back together again? 100? 1000? 1,000,000? Maybe a billion? Logic tells us it would be impossible for that TV ever to magically reassemble itself no matter how much cauldron revolving time is factored in, because the missing ingredient of reassembly is not "time" but "intelligence". And bear in mind that all of the original parts of the TV were carefully placed in the cauldron. Evolution would have us believe that an undirected, purposeless force working upon a chemical soup sea, put together not only one version of a television set but hundreds of thousands. And while I'm on the subject of television, let's employ some more logic. Why have no inanimate objects such as TV's, radios, automobiles, airplanes, etc. ever evolved. Our logic tells us that this is completely impossible yet we are willing to accept that living organisms were indeed able to do it. Let's continue with our TV analogy for a minute. Once black and white television was "appeared" back in the late 30's and 40's, how long would it then take for evolution to stumble up the evolutionary ladder on its own to evolve into color TV? You laugh!! You know this is impossible, yet you want to believe that early incipient lower life forms did this over and over again. Living things are different than inanimate objects? If it defies logic in inanimate objects, how much more so in organic, living entities? Shall we add some time? How much? 100 years? 1000 years? A billion years? Once again, time is not the missing factor - intelligence is. If the so-called "Laws" of evolution hold true, how long would evolution take then, to get us from the first Wright Brothers plane to the space shuttle? 100 years? 1000 years? Maybe 10,000 years? Maybe NEVER!!! It's logically impossible. And again I remind you, we are talking about inanimate objects? How about Model T Fords to Corvettes? How long? Typewrites to computers - how long?
Wood burning stoves to microwaves - how long? Telegraph lines to cell phones - how long? Logic would tell anyone pondering these examples that evolutionary improvement is impossible without the addition of some sort of intelligence.
Some more logic to ponder. Human beings as well as many other life forms reproduce through bi-sexual (male and female) reproduction. Evolution would teach us that while the sexual reproductive organs of the male were evolving, there was simultaneous evolutionary development going on for the female - not just for one species, but for all species. While evolution was hard at work over millions of years in the process of developing the highly complex and sophisticated matching male and female organs for sexual reproduction, how in the name of logic did anything replicate? Bi-sexual, male-female reproduction for all species must
work correctly from day one or there is no species.
Want more? One concluding example of the illogical position of evolution. We human beings have a very integrated and complex digestive system. Let's see if evolution could have put this together. Evolution's first round of trying to establish a digestive system, gave us a man with teeth, salivary glands and an esophagus. So far so good. But every time this poor guy would swallow his food, it just went into a big hole inside his chest cavity. No problem. A hundred thousand of these early working models blew up from decaying food inside their bodies. But then one day, almost by magic, a mutation came along and it had a stomach and a small intestine. At last!! Now our evolving species could get that delicious food a little farther down in the body. But evolution had not evolved hydrochloric acid or digestive enzymes, or a large intestine for that matter so a hundred thousand more of this evolving proto-human species just blew up and died from rotting food. But not to fear. Another mutation came along after - say 500 years - and introduced all of the chemicals needed for digestion and a completely developed large intestine and colon. Wow!! Just in the nick of time. At last our evolutionary species could finally enjoy a delicious meal without dying. Wait a minute!! We forgot the asshole! People continued to blow up all over the place. In fact, it was getting to be a pretty messy world. But not to fear, at last an asshole appeared and digestion was complete. And the first thing this asshole said was: "I got here by evolution."

David:

If you *really* reviewed the posts on this board, you would have found the answers to all of your questions -- answers I recited weeks ago!

But here's a brief retort (see previous postings for details).

<hr>

TVs don't reproduce. A key aspect to evolution is reproduction, and mutation in the process thereof. TVs don't mutate.

<hr>

Chance was not the only thing driving emergence of life. Chemical laws played a *big* role in determining the early Earth environment, as well as the particular chemicals swimming in its 'soup'. In fact, through physical and chemical laws, you could say that the universe itself is predisposed to generating life.

<hr>

The reproductive systems of males and females indeed evolved in parallel. But the changes to each were morphologically small. Only stretched out over millions of years did the organs change *significantly* -- in other words, the change is incremental and gradual. And it happens not by a conscious choice on the part of nature, but by survival of individuals which reproduce more and better, in this case.

The same is true of human digestive system, and in fact any other organ at all. Our organs have not emerged abruptly (that would indeed indicate creation). On the contrary, our organ systems can be traced toward more and more simple forms from humans, to great apes, to monkeys, to whatever came before. In noting the discontinuity between humanoids and other animals that exists today, keep in mind that long ago they did branch off a common source -- but since then they followed their own evolutionary path. That is why right now there is no direct evolutionary link between, say, monkeys and cows. But nevertheless we do share the same systems with all mammals, and to lesser degree with all vertebrates, and to even lesser degree with all cordates, and so on all the way down to archaea.

<hr>

So there you go. But even if you have managed to read this far, I would strongly encourage you to read all the previous posts on this topic (including mine :)) -- from the beginning. Then we'll see who is the real asshole.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

David,

I'm sorry to say this but you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. First of all chance is but a small part of evolution, in fact most of the life that has evolved on this planet pretty much couldn't have done this any other place. The environment is a major factor in the evolution of species and forces them into adaptation or extinction.

Why is it so hard to see that complex forms sponteneously (without chance) form out of simpler ones ? Besides what kind of a controll freak does it make of a god who assembles every single one of the existing creatures ? From the smallest bacteria to the largest whale ?

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

On7/216/99, Matto posted this on the "Is God benevolent?" thread:


Darwin Under the Microscope
By Michael J. Behe

I found an interesting article that states (from a scientist), that cells are too complex to have just "evolved."

He is author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

Boris, your thoughts?

MaTTo


This is my criticism of Dr. Behe' arguments in support of intelligent design (which are not uncommon in general amidst scientists who hold his position).

<hr>

First of all, I would point out that Dr. Behe's purported supporting evidence for intelligent design is a bit half-baked. To support his position, he claims that the modern cells we observe are far too complex, and in fact irreducible, due to the many interconnected and interdependent subsystems consisting of multiple highly-tuned parts. However, he does not seem to realize that the very same arguement applies to larger structures -- for example the human circulatory system, or the human brain. In truth, if one logically follows Dr. Behe's claim to its conclusion, then we are back to the good old claim that no new feature, not previously present, could possibly evolve in any other way than through design.

Yet, with respect to larger subsystems, Dr. Behe admits that evolution best explains the morphological similarities present between 'related' species. What I do not see Dr. Behe explicitly admit is that the fossil record also gives us snapshots in time, which support the hypothesis that the various large-scale structures found in modern life have changed gradually and incrementally, as life got more and more complex and highly organized at the large scale. However, I hardly think he would dispute me on this point, so let's assume that so far he nods in agreement for the time being.


Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action. But these
examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated.


This is quite right. We have now observed minor and incremental evolutionary change in many cases that cannot reasonably be explained in any other way than classical Darwinian natural selection. It is also true that we have not observed any truly radical changes in any species.

However, it is deceiving to stop here. What ought to have been noted by Dr. Behe, is that the minor and incremental evolutionary change we have observed so far in the various species of the planet, has occurred only over the span of a few decades! Given how little time has passed, and how relatively few generations have changed in that time, it is not surprising that no large change has been observed yet. Statistically, it is far more likely that a single survivable mutation occurs in a generation, than a host of such mutations that are so extreme as to dramatically alter the function of a living organism. To observe more drastic change in the wild, like emergence of entirely new species or capabilities, we would have to stick around for at least a few thousand years.

Additionally, I would caution about extrapolating the events of the past to the present. When life was more primitive, mutations would have been more tolerable. However, as life (including microscopic life) continues to evolve and gain in sophistication, new mutations would become less and less survivable as the complexity and interconnectedness of cellular automata grows. Additionally, the increasing competitiveness of the various lifeforms means that even minor genetic setbacks can result in extinction. Thus, as time goes by I would imagine that the pace of evolutionary change would grow ever slower, and that only a cosmic extinction-level event like the one that killed the dinosaurs would be able to restore some freedom of motion to the system and temporarily accelerate change once more. However, I digress. The upshot of all this is, that we would have to be patient indeed to observe significant natural evolutionary change. But, just the fact that we have had no opportunity to do so up till now, is no reason at all to debunk the theory altogether!


Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell -- the very basis of life -- is staggeringly complex. But doesn't science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, wrote, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."


It is true that even the simplest microorganisms of today are staggeringly complex. However, one should not ignore the fact that they have had at least 3 billion years (according to fossil record) -- and probably more, to evolve to the present degree of complexity. In comparison, the entire vertebrate tree of the animal kingdom evolved in less than 500 million years -- we are talking from sea worms all the way to the modern human! Now, if so much complexity can evolve in just half a billion years, why is it so surprising that microorganisms and other cells are so sophisticated now, after so much more time? Not to mention their far greater rates of reprodution (well, for most of them) -- enabling far more genetic change in the same span of time.

If one is to avoid the undesirable premise of intelligent design, one must assume that the first life was far simpler both in features and function, than even the most primitive modern organism. It is inevitable that the first living cells were highly wasteful and inefficient, and required vast supplies of readily available food which is easy to break down. They probably did not possess any self-repair abilities, and it's possible that their waste expulsion was achieved by mere diffusion. They probably had only one strand of DNA -- and perhaps not even anything as sophisticated as DNA, and it probably was not efficiently folded. They were not able to fend off pathogens, or to prey on other lifeforms. In fact, some speculate that the very first life was little more than a self-reproducing protein -- a single molecule! To point at the sophistication of the modern life as proof that it was designed, means failure to consider how this complexity can arise out of <u>much</u> simpler forms, given enough time.

Now, it is absolutely true that currently we have no flowcharts to clearly show how the various cellular proteins and automata evolved from simpler molecular constructs. However, absense of such theory merely betrays the relative infancy of molecular biochemistry and modern genetics. The situation is similar to that of, for example, the discovery of genetic trait inheritance by Mendel -- he knew it worked, he just didn't yet know precisely how (indeed, such knowledge was a few centuries ahead of his time).

The reason I earlier referred to the postulate of intelligent design as undesirable, is because such a postulate would signify futility of search for these very molecular evolutionary pathways which we are missing today. The fallback on the assumption of intelligent design is reminiscent of the fallback on the almighty power of God to explain everything from disease, to weather, to cosmological phenomena. It is simply an epistemological dead end -- and contrary to Dr. Behe's opinion, I do not believe such an assumption is scientifically satisfactory, simply because it leads to no new empirical predictions to speak of.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,
I read the whole thread, Excellent! And thanks for the time.

Boris,

Excellent explanations! And thank you!

MaTTo

Boris,

For the people on this web page, aithiests or believers alike, that are really seeking the solid facts about the universe around them, what references would you give to them? Are there any good scientific books that you would recommend or web sites to visit?

MaTTo

I've got the bulk of my knowledge out of textbooks in the course of my High School and college studies. I doubt anybody would want to read one of those for pleasure.

I also subscribe to Scientific American, a monthly magazine, which I find to be an excellent, and even somewhat entertaining, source of news concerning the latest theories and discoveries -- it's sort of a down-to-earth version of the Science magazine (which is even more excellent, but far too technical for a non-scientist). This is just about the only concrete source I can recommend (<u>highly</u> recommend).

The rest of my knowledge base comes from collecting odd tidbits here and there -- from TV programs, from lectures and talks, from various scientific papers scattered all over the web, and even from places like this one.

Does anybody else have any recommendations for popular paleobiology/evolution books? This thread is as good as any other to post those...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 23, 1999).]

I'm tired of explaining the
4th dimension and 5th dimension and
how everyone really thinks in the
3rd dimension.
Someone back me up.
Dumarurer, where are you?
I'm tired of writing the same things
over and over again.

-Dan

Did you know that all planets in our universe are on the exact same plane with the exception of Pluto? If one single planet's orbit were to across another planet's orbit, the entire planetary system would collapse due to the collisions. How by chance did all the planets end up on the same plane and rotating in their own orbit without crossing another planet's orbit? Pluto is the only exception. Pluto is at a 14 degree angle from the plane. Why? Because Pluto crosses 2 other orbits. If it had been on the same plane it would be on a collision course. Pluto is the signature of the Creator to prove the impossibility of chance.

Did you know that the sun is 11000 degrees? Scientist say that if the sun were to be 50 degrees hotter or colder, life on earth would cease to exist? If the earth were on a different orbit, life would not exist? Did you know that if the earth were rotating 10% slower, life would not exist? If the earth's crust were 10% shallower, life would not exist due to the molten lava below the earth's surface?

What do you really know about animal evolution? Our entire evolutionary theory is based on Darwin's theory. Evolution is many times presented as fact, but it is not widely known that these facts are built on a theory. If the theory is wrong, the facts too must be wrong. There is not one transitional fossil in a phenomenal fossil record of millions of fossils. We have fossils for every known species. The fossil record does not show any evidence for evolution, but rather it shows evidence of extinction. We have plenty of fossils pointing to animals that no longer exist, but we have nothing that links two species together. Even evolutionary scientist are abandoning the transitional theory. Schools teach what evolutionists have abandoned long ago.

Lets look at Darwin's theory. Darwin based his entire theory on one basic principle. The human cell is as simple as a glob of carbon jelly. He lived and died before the electron microscope was invented. All he could see was a nucleus, cell wall and gel. We now know that a single cell is more complex than a chemical factory. There are literally thousands of parts working together to make a cell function. It is now known that if even one of the parts of a cell was missing, the entire cell will functionally fail and thus collapse and die. This leaves evolution by chance a mathematical impossibility. Darwin could not see these functions. If he did, he would never have proposed such a theory based on simplicity. Evolutional chance is much easier to believe based on the simplicity of a ping pong ball, but chance is impossible when having the complexity of a chemical factory all work together at the exact same moment in time. Inside that cell is DNA. DNA is the code that makes life possible. It is genetic code that tells a cell how to function, how to grow, divide, repair, interact with other cells, and many other functions. Scientist say they only have very limited knowledge about the complexity of DNA. If you take all the DNA from a single cell and stretch out and lay it end to end, one cell has enough DNA to reach 7 feet. If you take all the DNA in your body and stretch it out, it would go to the moon and back 500,000 times. That is one million one-way trips to the moon. If Darwin had known this alone, would he believe in chance?

Some of the most compelling evidence debunking Darwin's theory is amino acids. The simplest known living organism has over 500 amino acids. When amino acids form, they are less than one-millionth the size of a human hair. When they form, they form with side groups of atoms. Scientist have found that all non-living amino acids form with 50% of side atoms on the right side of the acid and 50% on the left. This is true on all non-living amino acids. Living cells can ONLY contain amino acids on the left side. ALL amino acids found in every single living cell contains only left-sided amino acids. In the most favorable environment of scientific labs, this has never been duplicated. No scientist has ever created the left-handed amino acid that is critical to the formation of life. All amino acids always form with left and right sided atoms. If scientist in perfect conditions can't duplicate one single left-sided amino acid, how could the 500 necessary for life form by chance? The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 Compare this to the ridiculous odds of winning the big prize in a lottery which is 1 chance in a million or two (depending on the lottery). And evolutionists say Christians have blind faith. But those are not the odds of life forming. It gets worse. That is only one of the 500 aminos necessary for the simplest life form. 20 specific aminos are needed for the simplest cell, but 500 in order for life to sustain in itself. The odds get worse. Those 500 different types of amino acids have to 'evolve' within a fraction of a millimeter of each other just to give them the chance of uniting. It gets worse. They also have to 'by chance' evolve at the exact same moment in time in a process that scientist say takes hundreds of millions of years. Elements break down the amino acids, so timing is critical. The chances of all these resources falling into place at the exact same time with the exact needed elements at the exact same place on earth within a few millionths of a millimeter of each other are 1 to the ERROR. Calculation overflow. Sorry, my computer doesn't have enough memory to even write the number.

(At one time I heard that IBM was in the process of developing a 100 million dollar super computer called Blue Gene. The purpose of this massive project is to try to calculate the mathematically incomprehensible evolutionary model. This effort to prove random chance without intelligence is the very reason that evolutionists have limited contributions to scientific advancement. What could these scientists accomplish if they didn't spin their wheels trying to create a box that keeps God out of the equation?)

I have also heard many evolutionists (and atheists) who resort to name-calling and belittling of those who do not accept the faulty theory of evolution, claiming that creationists are non-thinkers, unable to reason, don't understand the scientific method, cannot think rationally, etc.

What types of people founded our current sciences? Let's take a quick look at some creationist and Christian scientists:

Louis Agassiz - father of glacial science. He is also counted as a credible zoologist, geologist and a pioneer of paleontology. He believed in a divine Creator.
William Foxwell Albright - a leading archeologist of this century. He began his career as a skeptic but his many archeological finds convinced him of the Bible's accuracy.
Charles Babbage - credited for creating the computer. He invented the speedometer, the principles for the analytic engine.
Francis Bacon - founder of the scientific method.
Roger Bacon - the first to recognize the laws of nature. He lived in the thirteenth century and his writings claimed the earth was a sphere (the scientific world believed it was flat during this time) and he believed in the future man would travel through the air.
John Bartram - he was the first American botanist.
Sir Charles Bell - one of the greatest anatomists. He greatly advanced our understanding by mapping the brain and nervous system.
Robert Boyle - one of the founders of modern chemistry. He discovered how air passes sound; originated Boyle's law which explains how volume of gas is inversely proportional to the pressure. He also transformed alchemy into chemistry and distinguishing mixtures from compounds.
George Cuvier - founder of paleontology and comparative anatomy. He separated the animal kingdom into 4 categories including vertebrate, mollusk, articulate and radiate.
There are dozens more, but you get the point.

Following is a more completed list. If you take time to read you will see that these creation scientists have done more to promote science than evolution will ever accomplish. When the mind is free to explore God's creation there are no boxes to limit thinking:

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)





[This message has been edited by Cisco (edited February 27, 2000).]

Cisco--

I really don't get your point anymore. Are you actually trying to score the race to show that God's ahead? What Would Jesus Think? ;)

But seriously ... throw as BIG a number out as you like. The Universe is infinite, and thus has infinite probability. Now, from that I personally conclude that any Plan by any Creator must necessarily be larger than humanity itself, but that's just subjective when compared to creation theory and the apparent positioning of humanity as the apple of various gods' eyes.

But, the universe being infinitely probable, if it hadn't been us, it would have been the Vogons or perhaps the Praxtibel of Betelgeuse 7 who would have found the optimum life-giving conditions, and they, too, would be wrestling with such questions at some point in their progress.

Evolution theory and creationism are only mutually exclusive if one decides that they should be. A curious thing about Ultimate Questions ... I have no idea what the state of things was "before" the Big Bang as such; nor can anyone explain the "before" of the relationship between any God and this Universe. Even if science is able to track the advent of the universe to a single impulse ... well, then, have we discovered God? or is it Not God because it doesn't look like what we expected God to look like?

One of the things that I can guarantee you everyone on your list of creationary scientists understood is simply this: that the universe itself is bigger than we can imagine, and that all of our discoveries will never begin to constitute a full knowledge of it ... and that's just an incalculably small fraction of What God Is.

Among the difficulties I have with contemporary creationist theory is the notion that somehow humanity is elevated above the rest of the universe. It's so darn huge! There's a whole lot goin' on out there and we're missing it. It's absurd.

Human diversity itself presents a problem in how we teach Creationist theory as fact.

I personally think it's a great idea to teach Creationist theory, but my regard for how it should be taught differs from many if not most. I would teach it as a part of junior high school or high school world history; a comparative study of several anthropological creation myths. My high school biology teacher, among the most formally devout men I've ever known, had no problem incorporating evolution into God's plan.

On the other hand, I would advise that, of that list, you might want to cross off the people who would have been murdered by the Christian church had they not been Christian and creationist. I mean, come on ... it's not like you could be killed for saying God created the world ... oh, that's right, you could be killed for saying God created the world, but only by other people who believed that God created the world, but believed a different thing or two about how God created the world .... It's not as if the list doesn't contain vitally important names, but I'm wondering what's so important about it? The smarter one is, the less they know about God. That's the beauty of the riddle.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Elsewhere, a guy who goes by the callsign of Cisco has endeavored, with respect to evolution, "to demonstrate the lack of logic in that theory, thereby refuting the elitist claim of intellectual superiority."

Well, first of all intellectual superiority does not equal acceptance or rejection of some theory. I would still say that Euclid or Ptolemy were intellectually superior, in the same way that Copernicus, Newton, or Einstein were intellectually superior. Their theories might not have been correct in an absolute sense -- but at least they chose to put their wits to good and proper use. That is "intellectual superiority" -- it's about methodology and fundamental operational principles, not about any intermediate results.

But regardless, the particular objections to evolution cited by Cisco don't hold up:


The entire purpose of the evolutionary theory was to answer the question of origins without acknowledging a creator.


No, the entire purpose of the evolutionary theiory was to explain speciation. And yes, without acknowledging a creator. Evolution doesn't address origins in an absolute sense; it only concerns itself with the story of life once it had a chance to form. More recent attempts to explain the very origins of first life can also be construed as pertinent to evolution in that beneficial features are still chemically selected; however Darwin's original thesis never dared look that far. The Origin of Species was focused on inheritance and change in traits. And actually, wasn't Darwin a Christian? Anyway...


Sagan once said that each cell contains enough data to fill up one million volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Much research has proven that if one function of the cell is removed, the interdependent processes will cease to function and the cell will die. Logic drives us to conclude that if one million volumes of data must be present to sustain life, then everything had to be present at the formation of the cell and had to be added at the exact same instant.


This is the argument from "irreducible complexity". I believe I've addressed it quite thoroughly already in my criticism of Dr. Behe, above in this thread. Let me summarize: the argument is bogus and doesn't hold up. See above for details.


Christian scientists founded almost every major science.


True. Also kinda conflicts with the first quote in this post. But:


Now the argument is that Christians can't reason but only think in terms of faith.


Oh, in the case of evolution we aren't talking about <u>all</u> Christians -- only about those who are still in denial.


When you dig into the grass roots of creation, they have no explanations. Every atheist will immediately jump to intimidation and name calling when questioned on the logical level.


I've got one counterexample for you: try me and see what you get. I can't promise to keep from name calling (I'm only human) -- but I do promise that such a weapon will not be the only one in my arsenal. Expect reasoned arguments, and feel free to ridicule me if you don't get what I just promised.


Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response.


I just felt it had to be quoted for completeness. No problems here.


There are two plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions.


Ok, this is where you begin to misfire. First of all, a trait doesn't alter because of a stimulus (though you may just be using bad language here.) Organisms either die or reproduce; traits change only across generations, not within them. But my real beef is with your point 2. The trait will return to "norm" only if the original conditions (under which the trait was norm) are restored. If you do not restore the original condition, then in fact the trait will never return to "norm"; in fact the new trait will become the norm. And given enough (geological) time -- like at least a few thousand years -- the very capacity to return to the original trait may be completely lost. Then, if you restore the original condition the species may once again adapt, but in a different way. Of course, I'm forced to say "may" because such experiments are not very plausible (nobody's going to write a grant for a study that lasts over multiple millennia.) But I am coming from a genetic viewpoint here, so I'm not just guessing in the dark. Call it an educated guess instead.


here are no examples in nature that even remotely indicate a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders that have been dated to pre-historic times and are identical to modern day spiders.


First of all, I've already said plenty of times that the fossil record, while very valuable, is not the only source of verification for evolutionary change. DNA variability analysis shows genetic change over time and correlates very well with other dating techniques. Additionally, a powerful indication toward a common origin of all life consists of the biochemical, skeletal, cellular, organ systems, and other trends. As far as these indicators are concerned, all life currently in existence is a fossil base, and a very convincing one at that.

Note that not all species change. Spiders are not the only anscient species around that hasn't undergone much change. Sharks, coelocanths, blue-gree algae, horseshoe crabs, and many other lifeforms hadn't changed for millions of years. This is not a weakness of evolution theory. In fact, the theory does not <u>mandate</u> change. If a species in its old form is fit enough, there is no reason for it to become extinct. However, nothing still keeps it from spawning off newer species. For example, take a look at the vast variety of different sharks and spiders out there.

As for evidence of change, you don't see any dragonflies around with a wingspan of one foot, do you? Be thankful, for they used to exist. Caetacians are clearly transitional creatures representing a mammalian colonization of the aquatic environment. Dogs evolved from wolves, and elephants from mammoths. There is a well-developed fossil tree for horses. And even now we've got fish that crawl out onto the shore and slither in the mud using their fins, in a manner eerily reminiscent of reptile gait, and these fish even go so far as to climb trees! Snakes have vestiges of reptilian limbs. Heck, even we humans have residual hair, useless articulated toes but nevertheless an inborn grasping reflex, water in our eyes and cochleas, a vestige of a tail, > 98% of chimp DNA, and of course that stunning overall similarity to apes, gill slits and tail in our fetal stage (actually, in early development we are indistinguishable even from fish embryos!), and the list goes on... Birds show an awesome morphological similarity to dinosaurs. We can group species according to shared traits -- for example, we've got warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded, marsupials vs. mammals, canines vs. felines, etc. All of these groupings point to common ancestry, and the fossil record as well as morphology and DNA analysis support that hypothesis. I don't specialize in paleontology, but even I can come up with all of the above and lots more if necessary. So you tell me who's intellectually superior here, since I assume you are aware of the preponderance of evidence <u>supporting</u> evolution.


There are two critical flaws in the theory that change is gradual: Dysfunctional change and the DNA code barrier.


First, in other posts on this thread I've already pointed out that, and in what ways, gradual change is not a good theory, so debunking it does nothing to disprove evolution. In fact, punctuated equilibrium is much closer to the truth.

Dysfunctional change is just another description for irreducible complexity, and I had already addressed it in previous posts on this thread. As for the other argument:


The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling.


Ok, let's see why:


There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals, therefore there are a limited number of traits variations.


The number of variations possible in a strand of DNA is grotesquely greater than the total number of lifeforms that ever lived. Take even fruit fly DNA: 12,000 genes. Assuming an average gene length of 1000 base pairs (generously low), we've got well over 12 million digits of a base-four number. That's 4^(12,000,000) combinations, many more than there are atoms in the universe! Granted, not all of those combinations will be viable, but even if only one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion works, you've got 4^(11,999,800) possible distinct viable organisms. And that's only with a fruit fly's DNA. Now think of human DNA, with 100,000 genes that code for proteins alone.


No new genetic material can be added.


Now you are just flat wrong. First of all, clearly not all organisms on Earth have the same amount of genetic material, therefore new material clearly can be added and in fact was added in the course of evolution. You can have reproductive abnormalities where chromosomes are duplicated in whole or in part. You can have retroviruses inserting their DNA into gametes. Plants can cross-pollinate. Bacteria just outright exchange plasmids within and across species. DNA synthesis or recombination can misfire. In fact, it is because cellular mechanics are so complex that so many things can and do go wrong. And in very few cases, the accident is not a catastrophy. For evolution, all you need is a scant few cases.


Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries.


This is what happens over the short term. But you are extrapolating here what humanity has observed for a measly couple of millennia to billions of years. Not exactly a sane extrapolation by any scientific measure. But let me point you to a very simple example -- dog breeds. Does it not seem incredible that a German Shepherd and a Chihuahua had a common ancestor? Heck, they probably can't even interbrede any longer. Yet, they had both been artificially "evolved" over a very short timespan. Over the very long timespans, the same thing tends to happen, only not artificially.


there are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects.


<u>almost always</u> -- you are skimming an important issue here. <u>Sometimes</u>, rarely, mutations actually do not cause diseases or defects. And then they simply proliferate and spread. Human skin, eye, and hair color, blood chemistry, body plan, facial features -- all serve to illustrate this process in action. You may not get very far if you tried to breed only fair-skinned people in an effort to produce dark skin -- but that's because 1) you would have operated only on very few generations, 2) your sample would have been extremely inbred and thus lacking proper genetic variability. In nature, it happened over at least hundreds of thousands of years within large and genetically diverse populations -- to the point that it's not even clear whether the original human precursors had a dark or fair skin under their fur. And although I've confined this example to humans, it is representative of what happens in general across all species.


However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes.


That's right, but only if you look at short snippets of the process. However, over longer time eyes evolve from simple patches of photoreceptors, skin develops from simple epithelial layers, bones develop from cartilage, etc.


Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory.


First of all, Darwin's theory was a proto-theory, in the same way that Newtonian mechanics preceded GR. The theory of evolution is not a fixed target, it keeps moving as new evidence surfaces. This is normal for all theories, so if you were to make a special scandal of it you ought to be similarly intolerant of, say, the Standard Model of elementary particles. It is a strength of the scientific enterprise that it never makes a religion out of its theories, even if it tries very hard. Eventually, old paradigms crumble, even if only with a great struggle. But notice that theories (especially ones that had agreed with empirical evidence for a long time) progress in an incremental manner, where superceding theories do not completely invalidate, but merely extend the previous ones. So don't look for evolution to be trashed; instead, expect evolved forms of it. Pun intended.

Secondly, Darwin's main point was heretability of traits. And if he seriously expected his methods to be capable of producing entirely new species, then he was simply wrong (but I doubt even Darwin would have expected that.) Why? As follows:


1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally


Well, actually compared to the next one, this is a pretty weak criticism. Natural selection as postulated by Darwin involved live-or-die dynamics in responce to environmental change. So artificial selection would simulate survival and death as far as reproduction is concerned. But even given that, Darwinian selection is not the only mechanism known today. All that is really needed is geographical separation, so that sub-populations do not have a chance to intermix.


2. When left to themselves, his pigeons returned back to the plain looking rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent.


Cessation of selection is equivalent to removal of natural pressures. Since pigeons are presumably already optimized for the currently normal conditions, re-instituting these conditions will unsurprisingly tend to pull the pigeons back toward the optimized state. In nature, geological change almost never reverts, and long-term climatic trends (such as glacial for example) are far too long-term to allow for such complete relapse. Additionally, I am skeptical of these results -- perhaps the pigeons were allowed to interbreed with other artificial "genera". For example, you don't see this sort of thing with dogs -- if you just keep breeding a bunch of Chihuahuas with no genetic pressures, they will hardly return to something that looks like a wolf or a dingo "within a few generations".


3. Darwin never saw was that there was a natural barrier that slowed change after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.


This is where we hit a problem with inbreeding. Genetic variability is crucial to evolution; by extensive inbreeding the variability is reduced and further change becomes increasingly difficult. Natural populations exhibit much more genetic diversity, and evolve over much longer time scales than in a lab setup (threrefore having ample chance to maintain that diversity), and hence overcome this problem.


Another conflict with evolution the DNA ceiling poses is disease. The farther from the ‘norm’ the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes.


Once again, this is a problem with inbreeding. It has nothing to do with departing from the 'norm', and everything to do with genetic variability.


Nature is filled with species that are completely dependent on other species. If one species cannot survive without another, evolution becomes an illogical deduction.


You forgot to factor in extinctions. Yes, species do indeed go extinct. Evolution is no magic bullet where survival is concerned.


There are also interdependencies between plants and animals. If a plant is dependent on an animal and an animal is dependent on that specific plant, the two would have to emerge from the evolutionary change at the exact same time and place. One generation later is too late.


Actually, symbiosis has always been one of the darlings of evolution. It shows yet another mechanism through which change can occur even regardless of other natural pressures. And actually, partners of symbiosis do not have to emerge at the same time; it is just as practical for one to emerge first, and then adapt to emergence of another. Symbiosis also produces entire new life forms. For example, the mitochondria in most living organisms are a symbiont.


There is a problem when evolutionist refer to Christians as non-thinkers because they are questioning an illogical theory. Critical analysis is not un-intellectual, but refusing to reason is.


Strong rhetoric, but little umph. Evolution is quite logical. In fact, it is logical enough for the majority of the scientific community to accept it and maintain it for centuries. It is, in fact, the most logical, cross-disciplinary, and consistent thing currently available. As for critical analysis -- why don't you critically analyze the very Bible you swallow whole, no questions asked? Or would that be too un-intellectual for you? I live you with a snippet from one of my older posts on the "Contradictions" forum:


For example, the Bible clearly states that Man was created in God's image. That is in direct contradiction to science, because according to science a) man was not created but is merely an evolved ape, b) man's "image" is by all means not the final form or function (evolution has not stopped yet and will not stop as long as any life exists). As other examples, we have the stories about the "garden of Eden", "tree of knowledge", "original sin", primordial earth being covered with water before it was "covered" with land, the "seven days" chronology of what was created before what and in what order. How is any of that (insert your favorite cuss word here) compatible with modern science? How is the postulate of "soul" or "afterlife" compatible with modern neuroscience? Is the Bible more compatible with the Big Bang, or with the infinitely old self-reproducing multiverse theory? What does the Bible have to say about the mechanisms of inheritance? How does the Bible address the (possible) existence of other intelligent life in the universe? (including, likelier than not, intelligent life far more highly evolved than us?) How is "judgement day" compatible with the currently-predicted thermodynamic death of the universe? And, I am sorry to ask, how is the resurrection of Christ compatible with modern science? Or parting of the Red Sea? Or simultaneous death of all first-born in Egypt? Or turning water into wine, or instantly curing disease by touch, or (insert your favorite "miracle here")? Or the "Tower of Babel" theory of diversity? Or the story of Jonah and the whale? Or the claim of originating morality, or defining right vs. wrong? How is any of that "compatible" with modern science?


P.S. When I was typing this up, I didn't see your new post to this thread. However, I'll post this up anyway, and address the stuff you just wrote presently.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 27, 2000).]

Cisco,

You're a handful. You have all these factual examples of why the universe was created. Yet, you don't have any of the theories that explain how these examples arose with no need for a creator! What are you doing, re-posting stuff off of creationist websites? Did you actually do the research yourself? If so, how on earth did you manage to only get the facts, and not the explanations?


How by chance did all the planets end up on the same plane and rotating in their own orbit without crossing another planet's orbit?


Simplicity itself. The planets formed out of a spinning accretion disk. Therefore, they are all in a plane and orbiting in the same direction. Therefore, they don't tend to intersect their orbits. (This is not advanced science, this is basic Newtonian mechanics! Where have you been for the last 4 centuries???)


Pluto is the only exception. Pluto is at a 14 degree angle from the plane. Why? Because Pluto crosses 2 other orbits. If it had been on the same plane it would be on a collision course. Pluto is the signature of the Creator to prove the impossibility of chance.


You are kidding, right? Pluto is a classic example of orbital resonance, it is not unique and it is perfectly explainable! And in fact, the many protoplanets that weren't in resonance or possessing nice orbits, crashed into other protoplanets or got expelled out of the solar system. This bears out in basic computer simulations. So... you are going to tell me you didn't know that?


Did you know that the sun is 11000 degrees? Scientist say that if the sun were to be 50 degrees hotter or colder, life on earth would cease to exist? If the earth were on a different orbit, life would not exist? Did you know that if the earth were rotating 10% slower, life would not exist? If the earth's crust were 10% shallower, life would not exist due to the molten lava below the earth's surface?


No, you aren't kidding. You've got problems, man. The Sun's temperature fluctuates by far more than 50 degrees, even on scales shorter than the 11-year solar cycle! And where do you get off assuming that if this were so or that were so, life wouldn't exist? What life we have now, exists everywhere from superheated volcanic vents, to many miles deep in the crust, to polar ice caps! And it is merely adapted to conditions on Earth. Why couldn't life adapt to different conditions? Did you know that the Earth used to rotate much faster than it does now; in fact the Earth is constantly slowing down? Do you realize that the crust indeed was much thinner in the beginning; in fact there was a moment when the entire Earth was a ball of molten rock? How many other planets are there in the universe whose orbital or chemical or stellar components are not favorable to earth-like life? Why is it so surprising that Earth should by sheer chance get the "right" ingredients as far as life-as-we-know-it is concerned?


Evolution is many times presented as fact, but it is not widely known that these facts are built on a theory. If the theory is wrong, the facts too must be wrong.


No, really? And what about meteorology -- that is also just a theory. After all, what if it is God who controls the weather, and all the forecasting aspirations are simply futile? Or perhaps we should teach our school children that Newtonian mechanics is just a theory, and that after all maybe conservation of energy is not a real truth? WTF? Why do you have such a big hard-on for evolution, and not for any of the other many <u>theories</u>?


There is not one transitional fossil in a phenomenal fossil record of millions of fossils. We have fossils for every known species. The fossil record does not show any evidence for evolution, but rather it shows evidence of extinction. We have plenty of fossils pointing to animals that no longer exist, but we have nothing that links two species together.


There you go again, quoting some creationist web site or book or journal or something. "We have fossils for every known species."?!! "we have nothing that links two species together."?!! No, seriously, how exactly do you expect me to respond to this? Not any differently than to claims of flying purple people eaters, I should hope! You are wrong, wrong, wrong!! In fact, if you aren't just misinformed, you are lying through your teeth!

The fossil record is woefully incomplete. And there is plenty of evidence for morphological change across species! Pick up any paleontology book out there, and see for yourself! The facts really are not all that inaccessible, nor all that esoteric. Shit, I better move on to the next point before I begin screaming obscenities...

<hr>

Your next point, again, harps on the complexity of life. May I ask if you actually read my retort to Dr. Behe? Hello, knock-knock, the cellular machinery had at least 3 billion years to evolve even before multicellular life emerged!! Why are you so blithering surprised that it's so complex, after so much time and so uncountably many generations? The parts evolve together, so of course removing something will make the thing break! But that doesn't mean that the complex parts didn't evolve from simpler parts, and that the simpler parts at some point didn't need all the other parts to function! What is this "logical impossibility" you keep mentioning? Are you having problems with language, perhaps you really mean to say "lack of imagination"?


Evolutional chance is much easier to believe based on the simplicity of a ping pong ball, but chance is impossible when having the complexity of a chemical factory all work together at the exact same moment in time. Inside that cell is DNA. DNA is the code that makes life possible. It is genetic code that tells a cell how to function, how to grow, divide, repair, interact with other cells, and many other functions. Scientist say they only have very limited knowledge about the complexity of DNA. If you take all the DNA from a single cell and stretch out and lay it end to end, one cell has enough DNA to reach 7 feet. If you take all the DNA in your body and stretch it out, it would go to the moon and back 500,000 times. That is one million one-way trips to the moon. If Darwin had known this alone, would he believe in chance?


Hello, knock-knock, did you read those parts where I mentioned that no scientist in their right mind is about to claim that the chemical factory emerged spontaneously in all of its complexity out of nothing?! Life did not start with DNA! In fact, life probably started with self-reproducing proteins molecules. Man, it's like you looking at a modern car and concluding that there is no way it could have had simpler versions, when in fact its heritage goes all the way back to the horse carriage!

It's good that you have a grasp of the complexity of life. Now get a grasp of the immensity of the test tube in which life emerged and blossomed. Take a look at the sheer volume of Earth's biosphere, and then try to figure out that if a trillions of bacteria reproducing every couple of hours can fit inside your bowel, how many bacteria can live and reproduce over the entire volume of Earth's biosphere in a span of 3 billion years! You wanted complexity and huge numbers? You've got it!

<hr>

The right-handedness of organic chemistry... A good challenge, but a hollow one. There are already theories that the right-handedness is caused by circular polarization of ionizing radiation from space, which cooked the organic material into amino acids long before they were merged with the forming Earth. In fact, right-handed amino acids are being found in meteorites. There could be other explanations as well. Your impossible chance arguments are based on simply tossing the die without any bias. Well, obviously since organic chemistry exhibits a sheer handedness bias, it then must have been biased somehow! Hence, the odds are not astronomical, they are indeed reduced to unity, due to a bias which has not yet been ascertained with 100% certainty. Duh! So what if the current explanation is not final? What do you expect, The Complete Universal Truth on a golden platter? Heck, if it weren't for twentieth-century biochemistry, you wouldn't even be able to make this argument in the first place! Science discovers, science explains -- that's how it goes. It's an <u>incremental</u> process. So yes, at any particular point in time there will be known phenomena that don't yet have an explanation. Should be of little surprise. Shouldn't it?!? If there's still no 99% certain and accepted explanation 100 years from now, then I'll be worried.


I have also heard many evolutionists (and atheists) who resort to name-calling and belittling of those who do not accept the faulty theory of evolution, claiming that creationists are non-thinkers, unable to reason, don't understand the scientific method, cannot think rationally, etc.


My goodness man, just look at your own claims above and my responses to them! What do you want me to call you after that? An erudite? A genius? I'm not going to repeat what you wrote, but consider it said!


Following is a more completed list. If you take time to read you will see that these creation scientists have done more to promote science than evolution will ever accomplish.


And as for the long list of creationist scientists, I can make a list 50 times that long of famous and productive scientists who find creationism degrading, to say the least. Evolution stifles scientific progress?!! Jeepers creepers, that's got to be one of the biggest non-sequiturs you've recited so far!

And here's an excerpt from my Behe post above: "The reason I earlier referred to the postulate of intelligent design as undesirable, is because such a postulate would signify futility of search for these very molecular evolutionary pathways which we are missing today. The fallback on the assumption of intelligent design is reminiscent of the fallback on the almighty power of God to explain everything from disease, to weather, to cosmological phenomena. It is simply an epistemological dead end -- and contrary to Dr. Behe's opinion, I do not believe such an assumption is scientifically satisfactory, simply because it leads to no new empirical predictions to speak of." So, I'd argue just about the opposite: it's creationism that's stifling scientific progress!

Man, I need a drink. You've depressed the willies out of me.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 27, 2000).]

tiassa,

You don't know what my point is "anymore"? Have you actually gotten any of my points so far??? I thought you were busy dealing with a herd of rhinoceroses? ;)

I don't know exactly what your point is but I'm participating in a debate entitled "Evolution vs Creation". How about you? :)

My main points in this debate are:

1. Darwin's theory of evolution, which many accept as fact, is not a fact but a theory - an incomplete and faulty one at that. (BTW - In case you have not seen it yet, I differentiated micro-evolution as a fact from macro-evolution as a theory in the Nth Round thread.) If you read my differentiation, you know that I do not dismiss evolution in its entirety. I dismiss it as the cause of origin - for very valid reasons. I reason creation as the cause of our origin.

2. Those who subscribe to (what I consider to be) Darwin's faulty theory (and I have stated some of those faults) are committing an injustice - not when they disagree but - when they belittle creationists and claim to be intellectually superior to those who don't subscribe. There are many valid reasons why a person would reason to conclude creation as the origin instead of evolution. (By saying this, I am by no means saying that evolutionists are intellectually inferior.)

You wrote:

"One of the things that I can guarantee you everyone on your list of creationary scientists understood is simply this: that the universe itself is bigger than we can imagine, and that all of our discoveries will never begin to constitute a full knowledge of it ... and that's just an incalculably small fraction of What God Is."

With this, I must agree. May I ask - Do you believe in God?

You brought up the subject of teaching creationism. Now, due to the needed separation of church and state, I don't necessarily believe that creation should be taught as fact - but, then again, neither should evolution. As a matter of fact, evolution is currently being taught by some who know that certain information is erroneous. I find that to be a great modern injustice.

The importance of the list was to point out that creationists are not intellectually inferior to evolutionists/atheists as many claim.

As for who might have been crossed off the list throughtout history:

The inquisition and the crusades are often used as proof that the Bible teaches men brutality. There are two important notes that are left out of these claims, though. First, during the inquisition period (crusades fall within this period), the Bible was purposefully kept out of the hands of the common people. It was punishable by death if you were caught with the Bible. The only Bible accepted during this period was the Latin Bible, which was not understood by the people of this era. There was a concentrated effort to keep the average person from having personal knowledge about the Bible. The Bible wasn’t used as God’s word, but as a tool for manipulation and maintaining power for a handful of religious leaders. The trials of the inquisitions and the punishments did not come from scriptures.

The second note I feel which is often omitted is that there is a much greater example of atrocities than that which is found in the inquisition. In this century, it is the atheistic governments of the world that have been found to commit far greater violations against humanity. The Soviet block countries were founded upon atheism. Stalin killed millions of people each year during his reign of terror, as did those who followed him. The most oppressed society in history was built upon atheism. The claims of the communist officials was that if God was banished from society that utopia would result. (Reminds me of Boris). The claims Stalin and his followers made are still being proclaimed by atheist today. They claim that God and religion is the root of all evil and if God is removed, society will benefit. Did society benefit? Half of Europe prospered; half of Europe spiraled into unprecedented widespread poverty. Atheism was the impoverished half. So where is the utopia? It does not and cannot exist on this earth and a society void of God suffers beyond all others. If you don’t think that is a true statement, look at all the communist countries. Is there one that has not suffered? Compare communist failures to America where Christianity and freedom of religion has thrived for the most part and so has prosperity.

The Freedom "From" Religion Foundation wrote an article about why women should be freed from religion. They made the claim that the western culture oppresses women and that the Christian religion has done more to harm women’s rights than anything else in history. Is that true? Maybe the Freedom "from" Religion foundation should study the women of modern-day China. They are barely considered human. China has a worldwide reputation for forced girl and women trafficking for the purpose of prostitution. Human rights groups continually protest the Chinese government for turning a blind eye and refusing to enforce even the most straightforward laws prohibiting these practices that are on the books today. Consider this comment taken from the official Human Rights Report of the U.S. State Department, "Women in China who survive termination as fetuses, starvation, and neglect as an infant face very real prospects of abduction, enslavement, coercive abortion, coercive sterilization and coercive unemployment." The absence of Christian values does not seem to have helped these women.

Many African cultures perform genital mutilation on women to prevent them from gaining pleasure from their marital relationships. Look at the Middle Eastern cultures. Do these women have the status that western women do? Asian cultures consider the woman to be property and require them to follow a few paces behind men. Compare this to Christian culture that offers a seat to a woman in a crowded room, opening doors for women and promoting chivalry. The women’s rights movements in the West have squelched much of these ideas that hold women as special, but its largely Christian culture does not promote this abandonment of cherishing women.

The claims of atheist do not hold up under examination. Many atheist sites like to quote Mikhail Bakunin who said, "I revise the statement of Voltaire. If there was a God, it would be necessary that we abolish Him." This is the heart of atheism. It is not a disbelief in God, but a revolt against God and anything that represents God. George H. Smith who gave a speech entitled ‘Why I am not a Christian’ (which was renamed from ‘Atheism: a case against God’) says that the significance of freethought is that no one can make you believe anything you do not wish to believe. The significance of the ‘free’ in ‘freethought’ is that you are morally free. These two heavily quoted atheists give us insight into atheism. I believe the desire is to choose your own morality. God gives us moral direction that opposes the atheists desire to do what he or she wants without any constraints. Abolishing God is necessary because if God exists then we know that we will one day be accountable to Him. When someone is in the wrong, they despise anyone that reminds them that they are in the wrong. Christians are a constant reminder of God and this is why they are opposed by atheists in the modern world.

Atheists ‘disprove’ God by setting up rules that He must fit within. If God does not fit within their conceived rules, that is proof that God does not exist. For example, D’Holbach said that in order for God to be a reality we must be able to comprehend His divine nature and that if God is incomprehensible, it is rational to think that He doesn’t exist at all. This is an irrational argument. The same could be argued about the universe. Scientist now tell us that they believe that we have not even scratched the surface of the universe around us and we may never know how many stars are out there. Under D’Holbach’s argument, if we can’t comprehend the universe, maybe it doesn’t exist at all. That is no argument at all. Just because I am not able to comprehend the magnitude of something does not discredit anything except my limited ability to comprehend. D’Holbach obviously did not realize that he was not infinite in his understanding. That is the arrogance of his atheism.

Another hero of atheism is Bertrand Russell. In the book also entitled ‘Why I am not a Christian’, he ‘disproves’ God by attacking the idea of intelligent design by revealing our misguided thinking. He illustrates this misguided thinking with this analogy:

A great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.

That might be true if the laws of physics were as simplistic as his analogy of throwing double sixes. There is no comparison of the formation of an atom to throwing double sixes. Bertrand believes that the laws of chance eliminate the need for intelligent design. Do you? Before you answer, consider the scientific data concerning amino acids presented above and compare it to his double sixes analogy.

As for your statement:

"The smarter one is, the less they know about God."

That just seems to support the elitist intellectual superiority misperception being propagated by evolutionists/atheists. Personally, I don't find any beauty in that. In my opinion, to the contrary, it supports modern ugliness and injustice.



[This message has been edited by Cisco (edited February 27, 2000).]

Cisco,

When it comes to atheists, I would prefer to speak for myself. Stop putting words into my mouth, even if I'm not the one you are replying to.

P.S. Does it fit into your framework that I hadn't read a <u>single one</u> of the "famous atheists" you have mentioned so far? While I can't claim all of my views to be original, I can't cite any specific sources either. My views are a result of many years of consideration. I speak on my own authority, not Bertrand Russel's et. al.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 27, 2000).]

I didn't have time to read any posts
so I have no clue what's going on here.

If I am right, evolution means to
adapt, to change, to grow, and to learn.
In body and mind, both change in order
to adapt to their current situation
so that they can continue to survive.

In retrospect, you evolve right from
the start of birth. From a smally
baby, you eventually (slowly)
grow and change. Even after puberty,
your body still continues to change
right up to the point of death.
You mind is in constant evolution.
It continues to develope, and grow,
and change as you learn new things,
ideas, and concepts.

If there was no evolution, life could
not exist. If we could not evolve,
we could not learn thus there would be
no point in life, or even in existence
at all.

Not much time today but here goes:

"When it comes to atheists, I would prefer to speak for myself. Stop putting words into my mouth, even if I'm not the one you are replying to."

Boris - Sorry old man. I don't know and can't find where I ever put words into your mouth. (I did say that something reminded me of you because it did. You might want to ask yourself, why?) As far as your desire to stand apart from your comrades in atheism - fine - but you might want to be careful then, not to put yourself out as a mouthpiece for the cause by using terms such as "we".

Your request has certainly peaked my curiosity - Does this mean that you disagree with certain statements made by Russel et.al.? If so, I'd like to hear how your atheistic doctrine differs.

I see that you spent some time responding to my posts. Wish I had as much time to spare (BTW - none of my posts here were directed at you personally. I did read most of your previous responses in the thread but please understand that your theories are still just that, theories. So, when I present a fact about something that you might have touched on previously, try not to take it personally).

Theories versus facts, theories versus facts. Now, that reminds me of a quote which I came across again, just yesterday:

"The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by a fact." -- Thomas Huxley

Briefly, with regard to many of your responses which were based on the theory that unobservable events ocurred over long periods of time - thereby filling in the gaps of evolution. What would happen to your theory if you were to learn that current methods of "dating" the universe is not as accurate as you thought?

For example, I watched a secular science program on volcanoes. A seasoned geologist was talking about the excitement of Mt Saint Helens eruption in 1980. This scientist
said that she is accustomed to viewing the sediment of the earth and thinking in billions of years, but Mt Saint Helens was thought to be unique. This eruption accomplished in "one day" what previously was thought to take "billions of years" to
accomplish.

Well, maybe this volcano is not entirely unique? Perhaps Mt Saint Helens gives us a major clue that maybe some data is not calculated accurately in the aging of the earth formula. Without any eye-witness accounts we can't possibly say that we know how everything formed. Based on what was "observed" at Mt Saint Helens, it must be classified as unique in order to hold onto current dating theories, don't you agree?




[This message has been edited by Cisco (edited February 28, 2000).]

P.S.

"And actually, wasn't Darwin a Christian?"

No, Boris. Darwin was not a Christian, that is, not until shortly before his death. Here is an account of a visit during what was considered his death-bed days:

"He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: 'I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.'

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on 'the holiness of God' and the 'grandeur of this book,' looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: 'I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there,' pointing through the open window. 'I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?'

'What shall I speak about?' I asked.

'Christ Jesus!' he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, 'and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?' The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: 'If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing.' "

You wonder what would happen if you discovered a dating method was not as accurate as you thought? I ask you the same question, what if the bible is not as acurate as you thought?

Cisco,


"When it comes to atheists, I would prefer to speak for myself. Stop putting words into my mouth, even if I'm not the one you are replying to."
Boris - Sorry old man. I don't know and can't find where I ever put words into your mouth.


Whenever you say things like "Atheists ‘disprove’ God by setting up rules that He must fit within", or "Another hero of atheism is Bertrand Russell", or "This is the heart of atheism. It is not a disbelief in God, but a revolt against God and anything that represents God", or "These two heavily quoted atheists give us insight into atheism. I believe the desire is to choose your own morality", or " -- you are putting words in my mouth. So quit with it already, will you? Practically none of the above applies to me, yet I'm an atheist. Surprise, surprise.

I personally stopped long ago saying things about Christians, or about Communists, or about the Chinese. This is bigoted rhetoric, even if you don't intend it to be. You can't divine people's motivations, aspirations, or reasoning based on a generic classification and a selection of known individuals fitting that classification.


Your request has certainly peaked my curiosity - Does this mean that you disagree with certain statements made by Russel et.al.? If so, I'd like to hear how your atheistic doctrine differs.


Well, for one (with respect to your Russell quote) I despise attempts to bill statistics and chance as the foundation of reality. I am a determinist and a computationalist. I believe that an ultimate reduction exists to the smallest unit obeying fundamental <u>laws</u> -- and that statistical averages arise only out of aggregate behavior of many such units. (similar to how air pressure waves form out of aggregate behavior of individual air molecules, each of which obeys some very well-defined laws.) In order for statistics to have a good definition, they must be statistics of some underlying object or signal. They just can't be construed as self-sufficient and fundamental -- not in my book! I'm all against the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and I'm all for such endeavors as the M-theory.


Theories versus facts, theories versus facts. Now, that reminds me of a quote which I came across again, just yesterday:
"The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by a fact." -- Thomas Huxley


Actually, it is my firm and educated position that <u>absolutely all knowledge consists of theories</u>. No exceptions. If you want to discuss that, I invite you to start a separate thread, since there will be much to say and none of it concerned with evolution or creationism.

In view of that position, it bothers me not in the least that evolution is "just a theory". Everything is just a theory. Some are just more complete, reliable, and form better approximations to reality.


Briefly, with regard to many of your responses which were based on the theory that unobservable events ocurred over long periods of time - thereby filling in the gaps of evolution. What would happen to your theory if you were to learn that current methods of "dating" the universe is not as accurate as you thought?


I would be very surprised indeed. Because there are <u>many</u>, <u>diverse</u>, <u>cross-disciplinary</u> methods of dating the universe, Earth, and its geological strata, all of which, based on <u>varied evidence</u>, converge on the same results. There is no one, single "aging of the Earth formula" -- there is an entire zoo of them, and all of them produce the same outcomes. I assure you, as far as dating is concerned the ground on which I stand is firmer than Terra Firma itself. (if you want to find out for yourself, search the web for "geological dating". I didn't try very hard, but <A HREF="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html">here's the first reasonable web site I found</A>. Interesting coincidence, since talkorigins.org also happens to be an excellent site for discussion of evolution vs. creationism, with some very lucid expositions of creationist myths and mistakes. I love that site!)

P.S. With respect to Mt. St. Helens, I believe the scientist meant to say that an entire mountain was destroyed in seconds, whereas erosion would have taken millions of years. This has nothing to do with dating techniques.

P.P.S. What's the source of the Darwin quote you made in your latest post?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Cisco ....

Your response is more than its weight in words: "I don't know exactly what your point is but I'm participating in a debate entitled "Evolution vs Creation". How about you?"

Well ... okay. You start out railing against evolutionists in a manner unseen since the Missouri Synod walked out of the Lutheran Convention over the Scopes trial. And then the posts move over to this forum and you've given us a list of scientists who believed in God or believed that "God" created the world.

I'm wondering what your point is inasmuch as you've posted the list at all. What does it demonstrate? If there's some inherent point to its presence, I've utterly missed it.

I mean, if all of that work went toward demonstrating the validity of Creationist theory, that would be something. But all it demonstrates is the validity of the systems, theories, and classifications developed by those people. Sum total: I fail to understand the significance of the fact that, until recent years (historically speaking), most of the world believed in creation requiring an intentional act of God.

Furthermore, you seem to be hung up in the way "atheists" and "evolutionists" like to "belittle" those who believe in godly Creation.

This sounds like a version of AWM Syndrome. Angry White Male Syndrome is a social condition (not medical) describing a sense of frustration known by statistical majorities. The Promise Keepers were a great example (Angry Christian Syndrome?), as well as the 1995 push for prayer in public schools. (On a social level, various anti-affirmative action initiatives were directly inspired by notions that the majority was somehow being "cheated".)

And, frankly, that's how I see evolution and creation. As independent concepts, without political or faith considerations, they're neutral ideas which bear philosophical and scientific insight. But their significance has been moved to the forefront of defining the public spirituality, as has Free Speech, abortion, homosexuality, drugs, taxes, and guns. Strangely, we all need to be celibate, drug-free heterosexuals who like to use our tax money to shoot people who say things we disagree with in order to achieve our national spiritual potential--this, at least, is the manifestation of that philosophy.

In the context of evolution and creation ... yes, there are people who saw evolution as the "Death of the Bible" ... but that's what you expect when you polarize cultures to dual opposites. When an alternative arises that is condemned by the majority, it finds a place among the canon of the minority, right or wrong. Frankly, I would have no problem agreeing with you if the Scopes trial had been about a man being fired for teaching Creationism. But from the word "Go", evolution has been condemned (much as the idea of a heliocentric solar system was) by undereducated religious conservatives who never tried to work the idea into their notion of God.

In that sense, I admit a political prejudice. Much like revolutionary situations around the world (N. Ireland, E. Timor, &c) I have a hard time sympathizing with a majority that never tried to avert the crisis. As such:

* (For illustrative purposes only) It's hard for me to sympathize with the British in Northern Ireland. Four-hundred years of heritage--forced at the point of a sword--inspires little sympathy in me when I hear modern complaints of terrorism and chaos. After all, we could have avoided this situation if the people complaining of chaos hadn't invoked it in the first place.

* Likewise, it's a hard thing for me to sympathize with a cultural majority (say, a church) whose complaints about the way society regards them all have to do with fights the cultural majority chose to have.

Furthermore, evolution works well within almost any notion of God. (Once again ... Only you can prevent evolution from working in harmony with God. Creationist theory makes some definite points about God's workings in the Universe. To that notion, I submit:

* A book you haven't had the misfortune of my bombarding you with is Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages, by Jeffrey Russell Burton. (I've littered other posts with it.) One of the things about which the author is very careful is the idea that when you attribute certain powers to the Devil, you might accidentally proscribe God's authority in the Universe, making the idea of an Immutable Divine Will or Knowledge, and the idea of an all-encompassing God impossible. The Cathars, as such, were wiped out for the simple heresy of believing in a Kingdom of Light and a Kingdom of Dark. Specifically, the heresy came in the notion that the Cathar notion of dualism (for Catholic response, see the Fourth Lateran Council) created a situation in which either A) God did not create all of creation; or B) portions of creation exist outside God's dominion. Both these possibilities were unacceptable if God was logically to be what It is.

All I want to convey from that is: what happens to evil in a "created" Universe? What happens to the rest of the Godly formula, as such? When you assign an attribute to God, how does that affect the whole of how one perceives God? Creation, I think, limits God; but that's part of a grander idea I have that God is anything but the interactive cheerleader with a spanking fetish we've come to know and love/revile (circle one, as necessary).

I also wanted to comment on a notion of yours: Hitler and Stalin killed for political reasons. They did not kill "for atheism" or "for evolution" (well, Hitler arguably could fall under a eugenic paradigm). However, atheism and evolution were not the motivating causes of the terrors these men wrought.

The Crusades, however (including the 20,000 Muslim women and children slaughtered in the desert outside Accre after the Christians had guaranteed them safe passage as a settlement to hostilities), as well as the Inquisitions (including the Bishopric of Trier, where two neighboring villages were left with a single childbearing female apiece) ... hey, these murders, rapes, tortures and other atrocities, were most definitely committed in the name of God ... and, as the Cathar heresy indicates, Creationism by proxy. (Their theory affected the "method" by which God would have created the Universe.)

So I might advise against your condemnation of atheist countries. Sure, they get it wrong. Infuriatingly so. But the one thing for sure is that when it's over, because it's not "God", the system will undergo some sense of change. But if you've got God, you can write off those tragedies, 'cause hey, we're all sinners, right?

Have you ever read Facing Mount Kenya by Jomo Kenyatta? You mentioned African clitoridectomy; yes, it's a bad tradition, in my view. But when you consider the basic "Creationist" story that goes into it, hey, it works. Essentially, the story goes that, after the creation of the world, societal guardianship was entrusted to the women, for they held the power of life. But, in time, the women grew lazy and the society declined, until the men held a revolt to stave off future agonies. Sexual promiscuity being blamed as one of the primary causes of the women's indifference to the state of the society, clitoridectomy emerged from that as both a punative measure and as a safeguard against future disaster. Now, it's not so much that I agree with it, but the myth itself is no different in principle from the belief that Eve is the cause of womens' suffering in childbirth.

You know, I recall seeing Bakunin's name around anarchist circles. One might recall Emma Goldman, in her essay "Anarchism": "Religion, the dominion of man's soul ... creating a tyranny such that naught but blood and gloom and tears have ruled the earth since gods began." In the libertarian, social sense, such a statement as Bakunin's abolishing of God makes sense.

By the way, the "Double-sixes" probability calculations only work in a consistent environment. If the environment is not pure, as such, variations will appear in the results. Rolling dice is a cool analogy, but the universe is such that I'm inclined to ask what happens if you weight the dice for cheating. Throws off the 1:36 ratio, doesn't it? Were the universe a single density, were life capable of happening under any conditions (we cannot rule out that such is the case, but for now ....) we might see a standard diversity pattern resembling the "Double-sixes" example ... of course, I can almost guarantee that we wouldn't be here at this point in time and space to argue the point, were those the conditions. Let me reiterate that the Universe seems to be infinite. Thus, infinite diversity is possible. You can call it a game of chance, but the odds-game changes when infinity is a factor. Suddenly, we are not so much a statistical chance as a statistical inevitability.

* Quick potshot: Atheists only disprove God by setting up rules within which He must fit because that's the way the faithful have done it for millennia. The only thing that motivates the D'Holbach quote that God "must be comprehensible ..." is weakness. On the one hand, it's true, except it will be a million generations at least before humanity has the tools of comprehension; in this case, why do Creationists work to hamstring the effort? On the other hand, it's an idiocy if the statement applies to anything short of the duration of the human presence in the Universe. For if we comprehend God, the rest of the Universe ceases to make any sense, even in the idea that God created it.

When humanity kills itself off (rather, If ...), what does God do? Does It move on to the next planet that gives life and run the experiment again? Does it go home and leave this Universe to decay? Or is it a triumph of God's will that we've all come home, and the Universe ends when we do? (Other answers are appropriate; it's not like it's multiple-choice, or anything.)

You told me I seem to be supporting elitist notions when I wrote "The smarter one is, the less they know about God."

Tell me ... have you ever found out a fact, about anything, and discovered that it only begged more questions? Only a fool is secure that he knows enough about God. The secret is that the more we know, the more questions arise, and we can know those answers, and work through the next set of questions. But God cannot be known in a set period, else we see the fact that nobody--Christ included--has figured God out yet; there's no point to going on with the charade otherwise.

And I'm sorry you don't find challenging logical problems beautiful. I think that anything humans do that, say, deer or raccoons, don't ... well, it's quite unique when we reach the pinnacle of that act. If logical thinking is something that raccoons don't have, then there is a certain beauty in the ultimate logical paradox.

Answers are like art ... the good ones take time. Anything short and prefab is bound to look just that--prefab and cheap as hell.

But the Universe is infinite. Its potential for diversity is infinite. Creationism denies this by its traditional rhetoric. In that sense, show me a Creation story that accounts properly for the Universal mysteries we call God, and I'll show you the most brilliant anthropological manifestation of the human conscience ever.

The first clue is found in the fact that every Creation story sets the culture that invented it foremost in God's eyes. You never heard the Cherokee say, "Well, God liked the Jews better, so He put us out here until it's time for Him to like someone else, who will destroy the Jews, and then will destroy us." With a motivation like that, I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

Is "soda pop" Coca-Cola, or is Coca-Cola "soda-pop"?

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. All the Coca-Cola fans have attempted to declare a monopoly on the definition of soda-pop, and they're upset because Pepsi is trying to steal their definition. (Or could it be that Pepsi's just trying to sell some soda-pop?)

The schism between evolution and creationism is purely left to the creationists to reconcile. After all, the creationists dug it. Maybe if it hadn't been for all the condemnations, excommunications, rebukings, ad nauseum that went with believing God created the heavens and the earth, people wouldn't have been so quick to see evolution as an "alternative"--as such--to God.

But it's all in the past now. Can you reconcile the two? Or will you peel slivers from the cross and stab them through the shell of theological credibility?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

***This message has been removed from the post The Nth Round and placed here, where it is more appropriate and where it was intended to be in the first place. Apologies to all. Some typographical errors have been fixed. Take a note kids: stay away from mind-altering substances while computing. Thank you, The Brain of the Tiassa***

:o

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Hey, this topic came back to life while I wasn't looking!

Okay, I've reviewed the more recent posts, very interesting.

Can I point out a couple of little things?

Pluto is not the only planet with an "abnormal" orbit. I think it's Saturn and Uranus (?) that have interlinked orbits - they cross eachother, so sometimes one planet is the closer one, sometimes it's the other. Damn, I can't remember which two planets it is, but there is a pair in our solar system that does this.

Evolution vs. Creationism...well, I'm not Christian, but even I think I can see a way for these two to co-exist. I think most Christians agree it's not a literal week God took to create everything, right? So who is to say that evolution isn't the tool God used to make us? If evolution doesn't exist at all, how do you explain black skin, white, red and yellow skin? This isn't some temporary thing, like the moth's wings - blacks breed more blacks even if they're in the arctic circle. It's something they evolved because they lived in a harsher climate (sun-wise) than the fair-skinned folk. I suppose, eventually, if a group of blacks lived in a climate with less sun, they might over the centuries loose some of the melanin in their skin, but that's just evolution at work again. And it's not like we are seperate species or anything, humans are humans and can interbreed easily regardless of skin color, so to me, that indicates we all started from the same basic source.

MoonCat,

If the seven days is not literally how it happened, then why assume that "creation" is literal? If the Tower of Babel, Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, etc. are not true, why should <u>anything</u> metaphysical in the Bible be true? If the Bible gets one thing (well, actually very many things) wrong (all the while claiming the ultimate Truth), why assume it gets anything right? What if there is no God, and no "Creation"? Why should those claims be any more trustworthy than the 7-day analogy? Why should they be any more probable than their direct negations? And why try to reconcile them with a theory which doesn't need them at all to explain everything it concerns itself with?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

Something that is not literal is not necessarily "wrong". The Bible is written so that certain prophecy within it is sealed. Different societies within different ages have been able to discover new truths in the Bible that had not been seen before. For example, I think that anyone out there that is dumb enough to believe that a snake gave Eve an apple and she ate it and gave it to Adam and he took a bite, and THAT constitutes the fall of man, should have their head examined. Some things in the Bible are meant to be metaphorical, but truth lies within. It's also imperative to look at the Bible from a "global" perspective, instead of trying to analyze little slices of it out of context. You think that I'm nuts for thinking that the fall was actually a voluntary genetic manipulation, but offer up another realistic theory that makes sense. We didn't get "this way" from eating an apple, and I fail to see how Eve would be so stupid as to trust a snake with her destiny. What does the snake stand for in that medical insignia? Why can't you reconcile that God created us to be who we are by creating our DNA the way it was? I think that Satan screwed around with it, and opened us up to a bunch of "natural inclinations" or "tempations" that we didn't used to have. You know as well as I do, that in the "beginning" one day was not necessarily the same period of time that one day is now. It's all relative to the earth's rotation around the sun, which was all being put together at the time. For being such a smart guy, why don't you delve into the Bible with a little more thought and effort? You just blow it off, and unless you've just been locked up in a library somewhere your whole life, you definately have the IQ to "get this". If you would only try.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Boris~

I agree, it's difficult to take anything the Bible says at face value. At the same time, I think anyone would have to admit that there are certain things in there that have worth. I don't believe in the God that the Bible speaks of, but I can find several moral stories in there and within Jesus's teachings that bear lessons worth learning. I don't think Aesop's fables are "true" either, but I do think the morals of the fables ARE "true". I am awfully fond of using analogies and metaphors in my writing, so it's easy for me to see how quite a bit of the bible is just that - an analogy or metaphor for something that is beyond words most of the time.

Having said that, I was pointing out that possibility only as just that...a possibility. A single possible explanation. Since I don't really believe in this God, the "Christian" god, I don't think that possibility is the "truth", I just thought I'd throw it out there for debate, mostly for the Christian crowd to chew over - I think it fits more into their frame of beliefs than it does into my own.

Personally, I believe that we, along with the earth itself, the universe at large, and the dieties themselves all evolved together. That if this universe was formed differently, everything would be different, but since the universe DID form the way it did, so did everything contained within...I think I'm explaining it badly...basically once the universe was formed, the universal forces "forced" us and everything else to evolve a certain way, based on the phyisics and such that developed in this universe. I also believe the universe was created several times in the past (series of big bangs after big bangs), but was unstable and subsequently collapesd upon itself. Finally, happily, chance brought about the current, stable universe we are a part of, which is still expanding with no real end to that in sight (at least last I heard there's no end to the expansion in sight yet, I may be out of date).

I don't have any proof for that, but that's my belief just the same. One of these more recent posts states something along the lines that a cell couldn't live without some of it's parts, so it's foolishness to say it may have in the past...well, what if the rules were different in the past? Maybe the laws of physics evolved along with the physical world too - wouldn't that make sense? Maybe that doesn't explain evolution on this particular planet, but it's worth thinking about, I think.

tiassa,

Well ... okay. You start out railing against evolutionists in a manner unseen since the Missouri Synod walked out of the Lutheran Convention over the Scopes trial. And then the posts move over to this forum and you've given us a list of scientists who believed in God or believed that "God" created the world.

Here is the actual sequence of events:

First - After venturing onto this site a couple of days ago, I first refuted an atheist's sweeping statement that inferred that those of "faith" had diminished mental capacity and the inability to think logically. I pointed to flaws in the theory of evolution because that is what many atheists use in an attempt to rationalize that there is no God. Just as there are "faults" or "gaps" in the theory of creation, so are there faults and gaps in the theory of evolution. Because one accepts one theory or the other or both or none does not make them mentally inferior or superior.

Second - In Boris' response, he posted links to this particular thread. I checked it out and decided to add to the discussion. Simple.

I'm wondering what your point is inasmuch as you've posted the list at all. What does it demonstrate? If there's some inherent point to its presence, I've utterly missed it.

Third - The list was posted to show that there are many scientists of "faith" - and many "notable" scientists of faith who were (are) brilliant and logical thinkers - thereby further refuting the diminished mental capacity and illogical thinking argument.

Furthermore, you seem to be hung up in the way "atheists" and "evolutionists" like to "belittle" those who believe in godly Creation.

Hung up? That's one way to look at it. I can assure you that I won't refute such elitist statements if they cease to be uttered and I won't mention it to you again once you decide to stop quizzing me about it.

Strangely, we all need to be celibate, drug-free heterosexuals who like to use our tax money to shoot people who say things we disagree with in order to achieve our national spiritual potential--this, at least, is the manifestation of that philosophy.

We do? That's news to me. Where do you live?

When an alternative arises that is condemned by the majority, it finds a place among the canon of the minority, right or wrong. Frankly, I would have no problem agreeing with you if the Scopes trial had been about a man being fired for teaching Creationism. But from the word "Go", evolution has been condemned (much as the idea of a heliocentric solar system was) by undereducated religious conservatives who never tried to work the idea into their notion of God.

True. People usually fear change, rightfully or wrongfully. However, as you stated, once the evolutionary theory was more understood, many can reconcile the two and reason that they are not mutually exclusive. Given that, do you believe that only one should be allowed to be taught in schools? That the other should be "excluded"?

In that sense, I admit a political prejudice. Much like revolutionary situations around the world (N. Ireland, E. Timor, &c) I have a hard time sympathizing with a majority that never tried to avert the crisis. As such:

* (For illustrative purposes only) It's hard for me to sympathize with the British in Northern Ireland. Four-hundred years of heritage--forced at the point of a sword--inspires little sympathy in me when I hear modern complaints of terrorism and chaos. After all, we could have avoided this situation if the people complaining of chaos hadn't invoked it in the first place.

* Likewise, it's a hard thing for me to sympathize with a cultural majority (say, a church) whose complaints about the way society regards them all have to do with fights the cultural majority chose to have.

Being seccond-generation American, the descendent of a high-ranking English-Protestant Navy officer, the descendent of a high-ranking Irish-Catholic IRA officer and the descendent of Atheistic-Germans (among others), I won't even start to address this right now (I could write/re-write volumes) other than to say, as in all world atrocities as I see it, the motivating factors are such things as elitistism, human greed and human abuse of/lust for power.

Furthermore, evolution works well within almost any notion of God. (Once again ... Only you can prevent evolution from working in harmony with God.

You have read my position concerning evolution? Although I find the big theory to be lacking, it certainly has some merit, particularly in the area of micro-evolution. It looks like your beef would be more appropriate if addressed to someone like, say, Boris for example.

All I want to convey from that is: what happens to evil in a "created" Universe?

You ask what "happens" to evil in a created universe? From what I can see, it exists. There are many factors which contribute to the extent of its proliferation. Look around, watch, listen and act on it if you choose.

What happens to the rest of the Godly formula, as such?

Same.

When you assign an attribute to God, how does that affect the whole of how one perceives God?

That would depend on the individual. If one assigns an attribute to a human being, how does that affect the whole of how one perceives that person? I think that varying attributes (even opposing attributes) are sometimes difficult to understand at first but in most cases, we have the reasoning ability to logically reconcile and understand the differences. This same process can be applied to our understanding of God.

Creation, I think, limits God; but that's part of a grander idea I have that God is anything but the interactive cheerleader with a spanking fetish we've come to know and love/revile (circle one, as necessary).

Creation limits God, huh? Well, there you go. A case of one individual's inability to reconcile.

I also wanted to comment on a notion of yours: Hitler and Stalin killed for political reasons. They did not kill "for atheism" or "for evolution" (well, Hitler arguably could fall under a eugenic paradigm). However, atheism and evolution were not the motivating causes of the terrors these men wrought.

The Crusades, however (including the 20,000 Muslim women and children slaughtered in the desert outside Accre after the Christians had guaranteed them safe passage as a settlement to hostilities), as well as the Inquisitions (including the Bishopric of Trier, where two neighboring villages were left with a single childbearing female apiece) ... hey, these murders, rapes, tortures and other atrocities, were most definitely committed in the name of God ... and, as the Cathar heresy indicates, Creationism by proxy. (Their theory affected the "method" by which God would have created the Universe.)

Your statements lend much credibility to what Zacharia has written (posted under Nth Round, I believe). If the faith of those in political power is considered to be the cause of the actions of the faithful, then in the same way, so must the lack of faith of those in political power be considered as the cause of the actions of the non-faithful. (Personally, I don't see either as the motivating causes).

So I might advise against your condemnation of atheist countries.

Sorry if you took my offer of history to be condemnation. That was not my intent. I condemn noone. Another poster asked for historical examples and I gave them to him.

You know, I recall seeing Bakunin's name around anarchist circles. One might recall Emma Goldman, in her essay "Anarchism": "Religion, the dominion of man's soul ... creating a tyranny such that naught but blood and gloom and tears have ruled the earth since gods began." In the libertarian, social sense, such a statement as Bakunin's abolishing of God makes sense.

And if one reasons that, "blood and gloom and tears have ruled the earth since man began" - in that sense, does abolishing man make sense to you?

* Quick potshot: Atheists only disprove God by setting up rules within which He must fit because that's the way the faithful have done it for millennia. The only thing that motivates the D'Holbach quote that God "must be comprehensible ..." is weakness. On the one hand, it's true, except it will be a million generations at least before humanity has the tools of comprehension; in this case, why do Creationists work to hamstring the effort?

You see Creationists hamstringing the effort? That's interesting. As far as I know, many Creationist scientists are very active in research which it is hoped will serve in the long-run to help us better understand a creator. Sometimes, various scientific discoveries contradict each other and are put forth to support various theories. Yes, scientific discoveries and data which are interpreted and put forth to support one theory or another might frustrate those in the other theory's camp (creationists vs evolutionists and vice-versa). I wouldn't call that hamstringing.

On the other hand, it's an idiocy if the statement applies to anything short of the duration of the human presence in the Universe. For if we comprehend God, the rest of the Universe ceases to make any sense, even in the idea that God created it.

On what do you base such a conclusion?

When humanity kills itself off (rather, If ...), what does God do? Does It move on to the next planet that gives life and run the experiment again? Does it go home and leave this Universe to decay? Or is it a triumph of God's will that we've all come home, and the Universe ends when we do?

Personally, after many years of careful study and critical analysis, using my above average intelligence :), I base my understanding on what is going to happen based on the plan for salvation that was revealed through Jesus Christ/the Word of God. How familiar are you with God's plan? What do you think will happen?

You told me I seem to be supporting elitist notions when I wrote "The smarter one is, the less they know about God."

Tell me ... have you ever found out a fact, about anything, and discovered that it only begged more questions? Only a fool is secure that he knows enough about God. The secret is that the more we know, the more questions arise, and we can know those answers, and work through the next set of questions.

Given your explanation, I would more readily agree with a statement such as, "The more knowledge one gains (about God or anything else), the more knowledge one seeks." Your original statement tended to indicate that the more intelligent one was, the further they are removed from the knowledge of God. Given that indication, at the extreme ends of such an intelligence spectrum, the most intelligent would not perceive God at all, and the least intelligent (those with diminished mental capacity) would know the most about God. As such, your original statement tended to support Boris' elitist statement which I originally refuted. Your explanation of what you meant to say paints a somewhat different picture.

And I'm sorry you don't find challenging logical problems beautiful.

Now, that's an irrational and illogical conclusion!

But the Universe is infinite. Its potential for diversity is infinite. Creationism denies this by its traditional rhetoric.

Specifically, what is the rhetoric which you believe denies the infinite potential for diversity?

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I believe this has been covered quite nicely, thank you. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

The schism between evolution and creationism is purely left to the creationists to reconcile.

Is that so? I see quite the opposite. What I generally see is that many creationists are able to reconcile evolution and God/creation. What I do not see is such a reconciliation on the part of evolutionists. Do you?



[This message has been edited by Cisco (edited February 29, 2000).]

Cisco--

Where do I start? Hmmm ....

First, I think I see part of what's going on here.

First, you dislike the notion that faith limits intellect. Secondly, you feel resentful about the hostility aimed at faith, and have picked evolution as your battleground.

If any of that is remotely close, then the following remarks apply. If not, then I'm sorry, I'm not grasping what your problem actually is.

So I'll answer some of your shortliners with my own short answers, if I might:

* I live in the United States of America, where the 1990's asked me to vote on a number of ridiculous ideas purported by people of faith.
--1992, Oregon: Measure 9 (asked the state to fire homosexuals, censor libraries, and openly condemn homosexuality in schools and public functions) Consider also 1992 Colorado Amendment 2 (killed by courts, thankfully)
--People of faith regard drugs as a corruption of our spirtual whole; I might invoke here the suppression of peyote, marijuana, psilocybin, and others. Furthermore, a Colorado Republican once proposed to the US Congress to make drug-legalization advocacy illegal on the internet, and to ban American citizens from internet use upon conviction ... that's about 1994. More on that is somewhere in the massive archives at http://www.drcnet.org . The Colorado Republican was moved by spiritual values. (Have you ever heard the religious institutions in this country lying about drugs?)
--I will leave it to you to untangle the strange web that binds conservative faith to gun use in the United States; I personally don't understand how the two go together, but we could ask our Republican presidential candidates, who have argued both their faith and their allegiance to the Second Amendment.
--The 700 Club and other national ministries have criticized fiscal policy in the past and the present. Lower taxes, apparently, allow our American families to reach their full spiritual potential.
--Faith and free speech transcend political boundaries. The rally cry of the faithful often seems to be: "I demand my First Amendment right to tell you to shut up!" (Usually: "I'm all for free speech, but there has to be some limits." Why do those limits so rarely transcend the idiot making that statement?)

Thus, taxes, guns, drugs, speech, sexuality ... it's the focus of the spiritual America.

How about you? Where do you live?

(Okay, I'll give up the idea of being "short" in my answers. It never really works anyway, but we hope ....)

I agree with your assessment that all atrocities come form elitism, greed, and powerlust. To that notion, I would recommend Max Weber's Protestantism and the Rise of Capitalism, which provides insights to certain elitist, greedy, principles which still shake the foundations of modern faith.

To be clear on my regard for the schools (I see the zones of vagary in my statements): I think there is definitely a place for creationism in public schools. However, I would continue to teach evolution as science while including creationism within the social studies framework.

And I am unsure why I would have a beef with Boris. I'm just happy he's here to do the numbers. (Unfortunately for quantitative arguments, I'm a conceptual historian, metaphysical scientist, and tangential philosopher.) Part of it is convention. Even if my definition of Boris' words aren't exact, we have enough of a contextual convention for me to understand what he's getting after. I might disagree with a word-for-word sentence he writes, but, as with certain parts of the current exchanges, I believe I understand enough of the reference behind the words to extract their intended meaning. I'm sure that when I get it wrong, Boris will let me know. (Hi, Boris! :D )

The reason I asked what happens to evil in a created universe is that I am of the opinion that one must be careful when describing God that one does not reduce God. Certain perceptions of the Devil have gone by the wayside for the specific reason that their construction implied a Mutable Divine Will, or an imperfect Divine Knowledge, as well as regions of creation which the Lord does not rule. In a similar context, what happens when the description of God's creationary act nullifies part of God? (It will happen; most of American faith proscribes God.)

And you're dead on when you state that "Creation limits God" implies a failure of reconciliation. The failure is on the part of the faithful, and they are failing to reconcile the idea that God is bigger than petty human concerns, that the Universe is infinite, and just because we don't know enough about God doesn't mean that what we do know is right.

Try this, it's an old question by now in this forum: "When you say that God is something, what happens to those things which God is not?" I mention this because you may have missed a point about what happens when one assigns attributes to God.

When you mention Zecharia ... well, here's the problem ... Christians believe in God, in Jesus ... it's a single idea. The "non-faithful" you mention, however, do not center around a single idea. Some are feminists. Some are libertarians. Some are ______ (write in a philosophy). You would be better off comparing what social faults caused Muslim atrocities and how those compare to the motivating faults of Christian atrocities. The problem is that in order for your argument to be valid, we must accept the assumption that all atheists center their lives around disproving God, which makes them religious, anyway.

And yes, Creationists do hamstring the effort. The problem with looking back to Creationist scientists is that, once again, I need you to demonstrate that their work went toward a cohesive Creationist theory. Otherwise, they're just scientists who happen to believe in Creation. (Parallel: Gangs? They're not "black criminals". They're criminals who happen to be black.) How many of the scientists on your list made evolution and creationism exclusive?

Now, I'm inclined to ask what the relationship between a person and God is. If we discover our true nature in the Universe and fulfill it, then God's plan for the Universe has come to fruition. It will take millions of generations before we can understand enough of a fraction of the universe to guess better about its nature. Anytime we in the modern age say, "Eureka!" about God's plan, it had better well be about some mere facet discovered, because elsewise there's an entire Universe God never got around to using. (This idea also requires the assumption that humans are the center of God's focus; a common idea to human religion.) I just don't think that in a Universe holding more miracles than there will ever be human lives, we can possibly reach the answer fourteen-hundred years after the last Abramic messenger. If the Universe is forever, then all of human existence doesn't equal a heartbeat in the time scale; likewise, if Universal knowledge is ... say, the sun ... well, our knowledge barely constitutes a quantum particle; in other words, we don't know how big the particle is compared to the whole, and we have only a theoretic proof that the particle exists at all. That's what I mean when I say idiocy. That we would be dumb enough to think we've found the answer at this point ... I can see that. That we're dumb enough to believe it for long ... I feel justified in saying, "God help us."

I love this quote: "Given that indication, at the extreme ends of such an intelligence spectrum, the most intelligent would not perceive God at all, and the least intelligent (those with diminished mental capacity) would know the most about God."

I have to ask ... your point being?

I would say that Creationism denies the Universal diversity in the fact that the Universe has a beginning, according to God, and a forseeable end, according to God, which makes it anything but infinite. A finite system has a finite amount of matter and energy, and therefore a finite diversity in the ratios of the two. Creationism denies the potential diversity of the Universe.

Also ... as to the schism between evolution and creationism ... read the first page of Clive Barker's Weaveworld. It's a great philosophical bit, that "Nothing ever begins". In both the literary and the philosophical, its as airtight as one can get in an objective Universe. Just the first page. The remaining several-hundred are fun, but not so vital to the argument at hand. Are we declaring Evolution and Creation as the beginning of the schism? Are the concepts themselves the actual beginning of the schism, the purpose of the schism itself? Or are the concepts mere players in a grander scheme, a long-running battle between the former oppressed and the wretches they now oppress?

Oh ... and I would have continued asserting that you don't find logical challenges beautiful. But I went back and reread your words. But it doesn't change one fact: if you can't see beauty in the Universal mystery, then I can't help you with that. You have to peel away the blinders yourself. You have to be able to evolve philosophically. Or do ideas just "create" themselves according to the pre-set design?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 29, 2000).]

Boris,

According to my notes, the quote about Darwin's deathbed days came from "The Life and Death of Charles Darwin" the author was Croft, I believe. I have also seen it in another book, I believe the title went something like "The Darwin Legend" but sorry, I can't remember the author.

I'll discuss some of your other comments with you shortly.

For anyone who is interested:

It was only twenty years ago when this statement was made:

"Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

David M. Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago; "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology" Field Museum of Natural History, vol.50, no. 1, Jan 1979, p.25

As a correspondent also wrote in an email:

G. A. Kerkut is also an evolutionist who recognizes that the theory has some faults. His main problem with the horse series is that the original fossils are not available -- everything on display is a reproduction, and there's no way of knowing which bones were really found and which were added from imagination. He wrote: G.A. Kerkut, "The Implications of Evolution," (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), pp. 141-149:

"At present, however, it is a matter of faith that the textbook pictures are true or even that they are the best representations of the truth that are available to us at the present time. ... It makes quite a difference whether a name on a diagram represents a whole skeleton or just a tooth, ... "

Kerkut refers to the common practice of 'reconstructions' in textbooks and museum displays, where a full image of a presumed ancient creature is based on just a few actual fossil bones.

Nevertheless:

Approved North Carolina biology textbooks [and many others] hold up the so-called "horse series" as proof of evolution. Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, has said: ". . . the most famous example . . . still on exhibit downstairs is the exhibit on horse evolution. . . That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. . . [T]he people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem."

The magazine "Creation ex Nihilo", Vol 14, no.1, (Dec. 1991-Feb 1992) has a short article on page 50 making the following points and more:

1. The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to 'prove' evolution!

2. The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19 and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

3. Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other (National Geographic, January 1981, p. 74)

[all emphases in the original]

Perhaps the best known demonstration of an evolutionary scenario is that of the horse series displayed in school and college textbooks and in museums. These charts and displays make the theory of horse evolution very neat, seemingly historical, all cut-and-dried. Actually there are important problems with the theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists. [Simpson, G.G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1944), p. 167; Cousins, Frank W., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 8, Sept. 1971, pp. 99-108; Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbuildung, (Verlag C.W.K. Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953: reprint of English summary published by Evolution Protest Movement of North America, Victoria, B.S., 1953), pp. 1193-1194; Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution (Pergamon Press, New York, 1960), pp. 144-149; Wentworth Baroness, Thoroughbred Racing Stock (Charles Scribners, Sons, New York, 1938), p. 379.]

a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth.

b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed.

c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved. [Simpson, G.G., Horses (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116.]

d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all not larger than a fox. [Ibid., pp. 116-117; Simpson, G.G., ref. 3, p. 135]

e. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap. [Simpson, G.G., ref. 30, p. 124. Other fossil horse data cited below can be found in the same work] The size increases about 50 percent and the number of toes on the front feet decreases from four to three. The series of genera, Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus, sometimes called the (small) "new horses," were three-toed animals much more similar in appearance to modern horses than the previous group discussed.

f. Merychippus, the next genus in the supposed horse evolution series, and the first of the (large) "new horses," was about 50 percent larger than the group of genera just discussed. It was three-toed, but the two side toes on each foot were quite small and unimportant, and the animals looked very horselike. Pliohippus, the next genus in the series was a one-toed horse.

g. According to the theory, in Europe and North America three-toed horses evolved into single-toed horses. It is interesting that fossil horse-like ungulates of South America would seem to tell the opposite story. If one kind of ungulate evolved into another in South America, it would appear from the location of the fossils in the rock strata that the following succession of evolutionary stages occurred: first, the one-toed Thoatherium gave rise to Diadiaphorus having two small extra toes, which then evolved into the three-toed Macrauchenia. [Gish, Duane, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (Master Books Pub., San Diego, 1985) pp. 83-84; Romer, Alfred S., Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd Edition (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 260-261]. Perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved.

h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus. [Nevins, Stuart E., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 10, March 1974, p. 196.]

i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution. It arises from the fact that the brain of little Hyracotherium was simple and smooth, as indicated by the smooth inner surface of the fossil skulls. The brain of true horse, Equus, has on its outer surface a complex pattern of folds and fissures. [Simpson, G.G., ref. 30, pp. 177-179; Davidheiser, Bolton, Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 12, Sept. 1975, pp. 88-89]. Cattle brains are quite similar and equally complex and have an almost identical pattern of fissures. Cattle and Hyracotherium supposedly evolved from a common ancestor which had a simpler pattern of fissures. Therefore, it must be assumed that parallel evolution by chance processes produced the same complex brain pattern possessed by both modern cattle and horses. Such a tale is difficult to swallow.

Intelligent, purposeful creation provides a more believable explanation.

j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.[ Bethel, Tom, "The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin," Harper Magazine, Feb. 1985, pp. 49-61. Niles Eldredge is quoted on page 60.]

To summarize, the alleged horse evolution series actually appears to be three groups of genera. The first in the series has no connection by fossil intermediates to the supposed ancestors. The three groups may well have no connection one with the other, and the overall fossil horse data can be fitted into the framework of the biblical creation model. The three groups of genera may represent three created kinds which should be fitted into the classification system as three separate "families" of ungulates. There is no need to assume that horses were evolved rather than created. The faith of atheistic materialism leads one to evolved horses. The faith of biblical theism leads to created horses...


Helen Fryman

Mooncat,


At the same time, I think anyone would have to admit that there are certain things in there that have worth. I don't believe in the God that the Bible speaks of, but I can find several moral stories in there and within Jesus's teachings that bear lessons worth learning. I don't think Aesop's fables are "true" either, but I do think the morals of the fables ARE "true". I am awfully fond of using analogies and metaphors in my writing, so it's easy for me to see how quite a bit of the bible is just that - an analogy or metaphor for something that is beyond words most of the time.


No question about it! This is what I've been insisting upon ever since...I can't even remember! The Bible is full of fables and moralistic fairy tales, and their entire cumulative reason for existence is to variously promote and elaborate the ten commandments. That's it. There is <u>nothing</u> factual in the Bible when it comes to metaphysics. The Bible is a book of fables (thank you for bringing that word to my mind, I've been searching for it.) The only additional value of the Bible is that it echoes some of the historical cultures, people, and events that coexisted with its various writers as it was being created through the ages. In this respect, the Bible does indeed possess historical value -- but only as a literary document reflecting its times, not as an accurate account of the universe, for J.C.Penney's sake! (sorry, this ire is not directed personally at you, I'm being somewhat rhetorical here.)


One of these more recent posts states something along the lines that a cell couldn't live without some of it's parts, so it's foolishness to say it may have in the past...well, what if the rules were different in the past? Maybe the laws of physics evolved along with the physical world too - wouldn't that make sense?


Did you read my answers to this claim? Nothing so extraordinary as changing physical laws is necessary here. If you haven't read my answers above, please do. If (or when) you have read them, I should be interested in knowing whether you find them reasonable (or indeed comprehensible). If not, let me know what you think and we'll work on it from there.

P.S. I'm editing this post because upon re-reading the last paragraph I realized it sounds as if I'm presenting the "answers" as "mine". Well, that's not true; a lot of the answers I provide are not homebrewed by Boris, but rather are products of modern science of which Boris is aware and understands well enough to argue about.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 01, 2000).]

Lori,


You think that I'm nuts for thinking that the fall was actually a voluntary genetic manipulation, but offer up another realistic theory that makes sense. We didn't get "this way" from eating an apple, and I fail to see how Eve would be so stupid as to trust a snake with her destiny.


Here's another realistic theory: we evolved! (Given the topic of the thread, I thought it would be obvious!)


What does the snake stand for in that medical insignia?


Viper venom has long been known for its medicinal properties. Snakes entwined around the stem of a grail, with their heads positioned over the grail so as to donate venom, is the basis for the venerable medical insignia. (It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.)


Why can't you reconcile that God created us to be who we are by creating our DNA the way it was?


Why can't I reconcile that humans can't breathe oxygen? Hmmm, could it be that there's too much evidence to the contrary? Lori, evolution makes so much more sense than creationism, that it's almost improper to even compare the two! I know you are busy, but do try to read this thread thoroughly from the start to see what I mean.


I think that Satan screwed around with it, and opened us up to a bunch of "natural inclinations" or "tempations" that we didn't used to have.


No, the "natural inclinations" you speak of are also readily observed in other higher animals. Did Satan tinker with their DNA too? Whose universe is this, God's or Satan's, in your opinion? I offer another theory: our natural inclinations are evolved behavioral traits. Simple, isn't it? And yet so wonderfully complete, wouldn't you agree?


For being such a smart guy, why don't you delve into the Bible with a little more thought and effort? You just blow it off, and unless you've just been locked up in a library somewhere your whole life, you definately have the IQ to "get this".


Lori, while you are at it, why don't you ask me to delve with an equal tenacity into the latest re-print of Mao's red book? I don't "just blow it off" -- believe it or not, what I post does make sense beyond being a mere "blow off". Strange and sad you can't see it.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Cisco, Cisco, Cisco...


Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.


And what help does the above quote offer creationists? Accounts based on fossil record are being discarded and revised based on new evidence and fresh reviews. Yawn. A big huge yawn. It's so typical of the scientific method, I don't even think it deserves another sentence.

<hr>

You've quoted some people arguing for creationism. I will not discuss their claims in detail, since I'm not a specialist in paleontology (and some of them appear to be.) However, I would note the following:

First,


Actually there are important problems with the theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists. [Simpson, G.G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1944), p. 167; Cousins, Frank W., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 8, Sept. 1971, pp. 99-108; Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbuildung, (Verlag C.W.K. Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953: reprint of English summary published by Evolution Protest Movement of North America, Victoria, B.S., 1953), pp. 1193-1194; Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution (Pergamon Press, New York, 1960), pp. 144-149; Wentworth Baroness, Thoroughbred Racing Stock (Charles Scribners, Sons, New York, 1938), p. 379.]


Note the dates on above papers. Most are a half-century old. That long ago, there was an equal disagreement among scientists on everything from how genes are inherited to whether the Big Bang ever happened. Why don't your sources go even further back a few centuries, for relevance's sake?

Secondly, your other citations, up to and including the final conclusion...


To summarize, the alleged horse evolution series actually appears to be three groups of genera. The first in the series has no connection by fossil intermediates to the supposed ancestors. The three groups may well have no connection one with the other, and the overall fossil horse data can be fitted into the framework of the biblical creation model. The three groups of genera may represent three created kinds which should be fitted into the classification system as three separate "families" of ungulates. There is no need to assume that horses were evolved rather than created. The faith of atheistic materialism leads one to evolved horses. The faith of biblical theism leads to created horses...


...are irrelevant. The horse tree is now known to be both nonlinear and multi-branched, so all the objections are duds. Here's an excerpt from a paper on talkorigins.org to address this issue:


For many people, the horse family remains the classic example of evolution. As more and more horse fossils have been found, some ideas about horse evolution have changed, but the horse family remains a good example of evolution. In fact, we now have enough fossils of enough species in enough genera to examine subtle details of evolutionary change, such as modes of speciation.

In addition to showing that evolution has occurred, the fossil Equidae also show the following characteristics of evolution:

1. Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predetermined goal.
Horse species were constantly branching off the "evolutionary tree" and evolving along various unrelated routes. There's no discernable "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush".

The view of equine evolution as a complex bush with many contemporary species has been around for several decades, and is commonly recounted in modern biology and evolution textbooks.

2. There are no truly consistent "trends".
Tracing a line of descent from Hyracotherium to Equus reveals several apparant trends: reduction of toe number, increase in size of cheek teeth, lengthening of the face, increase in body size. But these trends are not seen in all of the horse lines. On the whole, horses got larger, but some horses (Archeohippus, Calippus) then got smaller again. Many recent horses evolved complex facial pits, and then some of their descendants lost them again. Most of the recent (5-10 My) horses were three-toed, not one-toed, and we see a "trend" to one toe only because all the three-toed lines have recently become extinct.
Additionally, these traits do not necessarily evolve together, or at a steady rate. The various morphological characters each evolved in fits and starts, and did not evolve as a suite of characters. For example, throughout the Eocene, the feet changed little, and only the teeth evolved. Throughout the Miocene, both feet and teeth evolved rapidly. Rates of evolution depend on the ecological pressures facing the species.
The "direction" of evolution depends on the ecological challenges facing the individuals of a species and on the variation in that species, not on an inherent "evolutionary trend".

3. New species can arise through several different evolutionary mechanisms.
Sometimes, new species split off suddenly from their ancestors (e.g., Miohippus from Mesohippus) and then co-existed with those ancestors. Other species came into being through anagenetic transformation of the ancestor, until the ancestor had changed appearance enough to be given a new name (e.g. Equus from Dinohippus). Sometimes only one or a few species arose; sometimes there were long periods of stasis (e.g. Hyracotherium throughout the early Eocene); and sometimes there were enormous bursts of evolution, when new ecological opportunities arose (the merychippine radiation). Again, evolution proceeds according to the ecological pressures facing the individuals of a species and on the variation present within that species. Evolution takes place in the real world, with diverse rates and modes, and cannot be reduced to a single, simple process.

A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.

And I'm not even mentioning all the other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record -- developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.


Here's the <A HREF="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html">link to that paper</A>, which contains a good summary of the latest analyses of the horse fossil record (note the data is current as of 1980's and 1990's.)

Also, this guy is saying something very similar to what I've been saying, and it is a very important point that keeps getting ignored in this discussion. So, I repost it once again to emphasize:


And I'm not even mentioning all the other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record -- developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.


Btw... Where are those replies of yours to my arguments that you keep promising?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

Whenever you say things like "Atheists ‘disprove’ God by setting up rules that He must fit within", or "Another hero of atheism is Bertrand Russell", or "This is the heart of atheism. It is not a disbelief in God, but a revolt against God and anything that represents God", or "These two heavily quoted atheists give us insight into atheism. I believe the desire is to choose your own morality", or " -- you are putting words in my mouth. So quit with it already, will you? Practically none of the above applies to me, yet I'm an atheist. Surprise, surprise.

I personally stopped long ago saying things about Christians, or about Communists, or about the Chinese. This is bigoted rhetoric, even if you don't intend it to be. You can't divine people's motivations, aspirations, or reasoning based on a generic classification and a selection of known individuals fitting that classification.

O.K., Boris, you might want to sit down for this one. Oh! You are sitting down. O.K., then. I agree with your assessment concerning generalizations. Personally, I do not like them either. As a matter of fact, it was a generalization of yours which I read which prompted me to post a rebuttle on this board in the first place. Surprise, surprise!

Unfortunately, it seems that generalizing is becoming a way of debate on bulletin boards these days. So, seeming that we are on the same page concerning such tactics, how about we make a pact, hmmm? I promise try my best not to generalize when communicating with you (with the exception of quotes of others which I might use to support my position - but I promise to scrutinize them first in an attempt to filter out such generalizations or at least qualify that it is not my personal generalization) if you promise to do the same when communicating with me. A meeting of the minds with respect to how we communicate with each other would probably serve the debate well. I will not, personally, make such sweeping statements if you also refrain.

Are you in agreement?

Boris~

Sweetie, you sound grumpy. Have some peach tea: C(_) :)

I did read your previous post, and I did follow it fairly well. I wasn't intending to disagree with you, I was just trying to throw out yet one more possibility. You made perfect sense, and I would have to say I agree with you on most points.

I also feel strongly that we only know maybe 20% of the whole evolutionary story. Protein strands forming, linking together, single cell critters floating about in a pool of water (or in a volcanic area, as I hear the new theory)...but what made those strands stick together in the first place? What's the motivation for them to do so - why would an unthinking bit of gook care if it "survives" better or not? There are a lot of questions we have yet to answer.

My theory does relate to the divine. I know you are an atheist and don't believe in such things, so I don't really expect you and I to agree 100% on this, but I think we probably agree for the most part, despite our differing "religious" theories.

CMPHONEIX:

Of all the nonsense u bible pounding retards spit out this "right and wrong sense" is the most.

Did u ever here, "we have to teach them right from wrong"? Isn't that the point of all this bible pounding? We have to act as if we believe as u do. We have to be carefully taught?

And doesn't every culture define right and wrong a little differently? This right and wrong stuff is relative and CULTURAL and has to be taught, carefully taught, to each individual. Or sometimes not taught at all. In which case u guys howl about the lack of "moral teaching".

If it came from god as part of our god image, why does it have to be taught and why do different cultures define it differently?

Do ANY of u guys have ANY learning beyond grade school!!???

------------------
The Sailor says, remember Omar was right.

Boris,

Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained?

Amazing! There is now an unmistakable sequence? Both of our previous posts support the fact that there is no such obvious sequence.

Horse fossils can be explained by creation, micro-evolution and extinction.

Cisco,

I find it amusing that you chose not to include the remainder of that paragraph in your quote. Though I guess that would have rendered your objection moot, wouldn't it?

A sequence doesn't have to be 100% complete to be unmistakable. How about this: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 -- can you guess the next number? Or, could you give me a general characterization of the following: 1, 11, 23, 83, 157, 13, 119, 3, 1001, 37, 43, 2, 59... Those numbers may not be in order, and not all of them are present between the largest and the smallest, but there is something definitely very special about them -- can you guess? This is what we talk about when we say "unmistakable". The pattern may be noisy and incomplete, but nevertheless enough of it is there to hint at a non-coincidental structure. In science, we call it "statistical significance". And the fossil record, even though it is patchy and noisy, is nevertheless far above the threshold of statistical insignificance. (Have you ever heard of that arcane skill called "connect the dots"?)

But let me stick another blade into your rib cage while I'm at it. Practically all creationist arguments try to demonstrate (in all of their sad futility) that evidence utilized by anti-creationist theories is somehow faulty. However, I have yet to see any creationist evidence that specifically points toward creation, independently of research in the secular sciences. Consider the following:

Genuine theories do not arise out of nothingness; they are always attempts to explain empirical observations. If the Bible did not exist today, do you honestly think that Creationism as you espouse it (complete with Biblical descriptions and chronologies) could be formulated and supported based purely upon the available empirical data, as a viable hypothesis?? I sincerely hope you don't, else you better prepare yourself...

But since that is not so, you cannot claim Creationism to be a valid scientific theory. It is not a hypothesis that puts out predictions and expects to be tested. It is a fable that has come to the point of spilling blood (allegorically speaking) over the last shreds of credibility it has left in the face of new evidence, in a valiant effort to languish through another day.

In view of that (and for the moment forgetting all the other snags), how can you honestly argue that Creationism and Evolution be put side-by-side as equals in the course of teaching <u>science</u>?

<hr>

About that proposed agreement of yours, my answer is: of course. Thanks for at least proposing to be reasonable. (Though it is a rare moment when we agree, ain't it? :D)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 01, 2000).]

MoonCat,

Thanks for the tea! :D

Oh good, I was beginning to wonder whether I'm not making any sense to you (or anyone else). Good to know you follow my arguments. As to your question:


but what made those strands stick together in the first place? What's the motivation for them to do so - why would an unthinking bit of gook care if it "survives" better or not?


Well, the simple (and idiotically so) answer would be: quantum mechanics. It's what ultimately governs the rules according to which atoms form, aggregate, and chemicals react. Of course, molecules can't care about anything. And those that can't survive simply disintegrate. The point is that some don't disintegrate (at least not right away) due to their peculiar structural properties. Some even act as catalysts to make copies of themselves. That's how life starts out.

Now, is that really what you were asking, or are you questioning the odds of the right molecule forming by chance?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 01, 2000).]

SailorMike,

I usually don't argue with people who support my positions, but I do make exceptions when their claims or methods beg for it. Now, I suspect that you may be trying to say something other than what actually comes out of your mouth (you do sound like a teen, forgive me if I'm wrong.) So, I'll just point out the questionable parts and see what you think:


(concerning morality:) If it came from god as part of our god image, why does it have to be taught and why do different cultures define it differently?


But is basic morality (like good vs. evil) across different cultures really all that different? Do you not see common trends when it comes to love vs. hate, fighting vs. civility, crime vs. law, family vs. promiscuity, social hierarchy vs. anarchism, fairness vs. unfairness, reciprocity vs. selfishness, etc.? Do these really have to be "taught"? Consider a hypothetical situation: if a group of children were abandoned on an island and allowed to spontaneously form their own society and tradition, and the resulting society was allowed to persist for several generations -- do you think the basic moral structures that emerge will not follow the general global trends?


And doesn't every culture define right and wrong a little differently? This right and wrong stuff is relative and CULTURAL and has to be taught, carefully taught, to each individual. Or sometimes not taught at all.


It is the last sentence of this quote that makes me wonder if you really mean to say what you seem to be saying. Indeed, if morality does not need to be taught to exist, then just how relative, or "CULTURAL", is it really? Sure, there are "little" differences, as you put it, across cultures -- especially when it comes to less fundamental (to a tribe's survival) things like codes of dress, racism, sexism, rituals, etc. But would you not agree that there exists an innate, fundamentally primate, core of emotions and attitudes that serves as the ultimate foundation for all human moral structures in existence?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris ...

I was going to simplify your quantum mechanics answer; then I realized the answer I was going to give was succinct, but dependent on the quantum. But it got me to thinking ... though it's mostly irrelevant, it does show a possible tie between astronomical and theological cosmologies.

* I was going to say that the simpler answer was density. Irregularities in density of the universe repeat through the progression of time. Thus the slightest irregularity in density at the time of the Big Bang would have massive implications for the diversity of that vague notion of matter and energy. But I dropped density because the BB is, at least partially, a quantum event.

* Which leads me to wonder what would cause the irregularity in quantum density. Which brought me to this story here at Exosci: http://www.exosci.com/main/news/shownews/?id=836 . The key element for me was when I saw the story elsewhere (Reuters, I think); one of the scientists asserted that the quantum state lasted about ten microseconds.

* I point again to Jeffrey Russell Burton, whom I must apologize for bludgeoning this forum senseless with. At various points Dr Burton considers the notion of whether Lucifer fell immediately upon creation, immediately after creation, or at the dawn of man. Limitations on free will cancel the notion of immediate evil upon Creation: the Devil cannot choose if he is made that way. Among the arguments against the fall at the time of human creation is that there already existed a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; the power of evil predates humanity. However, if the Devil fell immediately after his creation, it means that the angel, born with perfect knowledge (essentially no "learning capacity") instantly chose to turn away from God. This, of course, the philosophical aspect.

* Does ten microseconds constitute "immediately after"? I now invoke Douglas Adams (seriously!) with the idea of the Magrathean Earth. The idea that the destroyed Earth having been a computer; and Arthur Dent, of the two surviving earthlings, having been on the planet nearest its destruction, might possibly bear an organic signature of the last functions of the computer program the Earth ran. Now ....

* .... Philosophically, I would assert that the story of the fall of the Devil might be partially an "organic signature" of the Big Bang. That the fall, an instant after the angel was created, represents the transition from the quantum state of the universe into the atomic.

It's a crude assembly, I admit, but I think time and study might refine it. I can even envisioning the idea dead-ending in a few weeks because I've simply missed a critical flaw.

However, if the Big Bang was the single creationary act .... (Anything on thermodynamics within a quantum system? I feel no guilt for applying a simple kind of thermodynamics, since this whole thing's tacked together like a Frankenstein prop for the third-grade revue.) But, when the Bang went bang, and everything moved out and started cooling, could the cooling process, during those ten milliseconds, throw off quantum density so that its variations repeat in the atomic manifestation? And then, if we casually observe e=mc^2 (casually, not strictly; I apologize, it was such a temptation to get silly-high before astronomy classes back then), will not the necessity of maintaining an appropriate balance of matter and energy cause variation in the manner in which the two interact? If the universe is infinite, then it must get around to the elements, forces, and factors of life, in all its marvelous diversity, including humanity. Infinite space to attempt infinite diversity. :D ...

... :o

Now that I'm looking at it, it's a little longer than I wanted. M'apologies.

If there's enough of a cohesive idea there to connect the sparse dots, then I'll be happy to try to fill in some of the holes. But I'm realistic about the possibility of not making any sense at all. If that's the case, then the whole thing becomes irrelevant, and you will once again have my apologies.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited March 01, 2000).]

Tiassa,

Well, I wasn't going to go as far as the actual origins of matter, since that didn't seem to be the point of MoonCat's question.

However, let me respond to you as follows: yes, and no, and what??

The inhomogeneity of the universe has indeed been a problem for the classical Big Bang. However, it's been quite a few years since that particular controversy was settled with the theory of inflation. According to that theory, at the start the universe underwent a period of hyper-fast inflation where there actually were parts of the universe between which the distance growth rate exceeded lightspeed. Because the universe expanded so rapidly from Planck-scale (~1x10^-33m, at which spacetime is a roiling foam of chaos) to macro-scales, the spacetime distortions of the 'foam' got near-instantly stretched into huge structures which are subsequently "frozen" onto the fabric of the cosmos (they were formed at superluminal rates, and thus, following inflation, never had a chance to collapse back to their natural size.) Because the immense curvatures that exist at Planck scale got stretched out into gigantic structures, their local curvature is pretty gentle (akin to the local curvature of a large sphere, such as a tennis ball enlarged to the size of the Earth for example, being nearly unnoticeable compared to the curvature of a normal tennis ball.) These "dimples" in spacetime served as gravitational wells and mounds that corralled the rapidly cooling energy and matter into basins, which subsequently gave rise to the galactic clusters and superclusters (and maybe even to the first galactic nuclei.) Hence, the present intergalactic-scale picture of "walls" of matter separated by great "voids", as if all matter of the universe is deposited on the surfaces of horrendously gigantic "bubbles" -- is neatly explained away by inflation. Inflationary theory got a major verification when the cosmic microwave background radiation (the 'fossilized' afterglow of the Big Bang) was mapped for the first time at high sensitivity, and turned out to be blotchy just at the scales, power spectra, and magnitudes predicted by inflation. But, none of this really has anything to do with evolution or creationism.

I suspect, but am not sure, that you are trying to hint at a certain consequence of determinism (to which I personally adhere, but much of modern physics doesn't). That is, if all energy and matter interacts in strictly predictable and mechanistic ways, then one can trace the present state of the universe back some 12-15 billion years to the very first, "arch-state". This initial state possessed a particular configuration, which subsequently unraveled itself in time into the very particular universe we observe. Were the initial state even a tinsiest bit different, that small change would have cascaded and echoed through time to result in a substantially differently-looking universe (in particular, you and I probably would no longer exist at this point in time; we might simply be different as persons, or we might not be human, or Earth might be lifeless, or the solar system might not even exist, etc. -- you get the idea.) This might appear like an opportunity for creationists to claim that God's plan does, after all, have an actual manifestation -- in the shape of that initial configuration of the universe from which everything we know emerged. However, the picture doesn't agree with much of the remainder of creationist ideas about the universe. In this picture, the universe is like a deterministic computer program, or like a vinyl record, just playing itself out. There is no free will, no choice, no alternatives -- fate is absolute, and predestination all-encompassing. Of course, we will never be able to predict the future, since in the grotesquely multivariate function that computes the next state of the universe based on the current state, there are at least on the order of 10^100 individual variables (number of atoms in the universe) -- and thus to predict the next time-step we would have to accumulate an impossible amount of data (not to mention that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents us from knowing precise parameters even of a single atom, and not to mention that as inhabitants of the universe we can't completely encode all of the universe's structure (the omniscience paradox I addressed in the Contradictions thread).) So, while this scenario states that the future is absolutely predetermined by the past, it gives us no hope of ever knowing the future until we get to directly experience it as the present. This, at least, is how I perceive the state of things.

A great many modern physicists (but not all of them) would dispute my opinion, stating that the universe is fundamentally nondeterministic, and at its most basic level governed by randomness and chance. Thus, no function exists to deterministically map the state of the universe at one moment onto the state of the universe in the next moment. However, I have many philosophical (not physical, mind you) reasons to disagree with such a position (reasons I've discussed on other treads over a half-year ago, and also having nothing to do with evolution.) To my delight, there seems to be a developing resurgence of determinism at the avantgarde of physics, so at least I no longer feel so lonely. :)

To that end, I'll share with you an intuition I successfully used in one of my Senior philosophy essays. Given my description in the last paragraph, imagine that the universe itself (including all space, matter, energy, and us) is indeed a computer simulation. (actually, a nice fit given my model: quantized fundamental entities that collectively constitute the universe, changing state from time-step to time-step according to the states of all the other entities and using deterministic (computable) laws...) Then whoever built the computer, programmed it, and started the program can be construed as "God". However, this "God" and its computer exist in yet another universe (call it "God's realm"), and observing the emergence of life and intelligence on one of the simulated planets, "God" begins to wonder: what if God's realm is also but a computer simulation? And so on, and so forth indefinitely. Actually, I used that particular allegory to demonstrate the theoretical nature of all knowledge, since, for example, imagine what would happen to the universe if the simulation got invaded by a computer virus. The very laws of nature could change, 2+2 could become 10, the Sun might start absorbing light and orbiting the Earth, broken glasses spontaneously re-assemble themselves, etc. Just goes to show you that there is indeed a possibility of an arbitrarily deep hierarchy of forever unknowable and inaccessible realities beyond our reality, which nevertheless precisely determine what we are and how we work. And the hidden processes of those hidden realities may turn the entirety of our perceived universe on its head at any moment. This is but an illustration to the unprovable nature of the mother of all hypotheses -- The Fundamental Principle of Induction -- upon which all knowledge (and indeed all life!) is built -- that reality is regular and continuous both in space and time. But I digress...

As to your metaphors linking the story of the Devil to the Big Bang -- I'm just plain not getting it. (Sorry!)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 01, 2000).]

Boris, Tiassa,

AAAHHHH!!! Okay, now I'm lost. I'm sorry, I'm not dumb, really! I am relatively uneducated in the realm of physics, so please forgive me for falling behind the both of you two. (shaking head) I need to get my husband on this board. He's the physicist in the family. :) (visions of strange shapes flying around in my head...what does a quantum particle look like?...oh, it must be that turquoise triangle twinkling away at me over there on the left...) LOL.

Okay, no more silly-ness.

Boris, let me ask this, though. You say it's quantum mechanics, roughly, that makes these proteins and such begin to attach together...well, "quantum mechanics" is a label that us humans have placed on the phenomenon, but do we really understand it? Obviously, you understand it better than I do, but as I hear it, it's still a largely "new" frontier in science. The question then turns to..well, we've got a name for the phenomenon, but what makes that happen? Mind you, I don't have an answer to that one, either.

I think my (clumsy as always) point is that none of us can give an explanation that is definitely THE answer. The Christians have their creation theory, the scientific community has variations of the evolutionary theory, I have my own personal cobbled together theory...I just don't think we've found the real answer yet, 100%. Creationism is big on the "why" and the "who", but shakey on the "how" and "what" (IMHO). Evolutionism is big on the "what" and the "how", but has nothing for the "why" and "who" (partially because most probably don't think there's a "who" at all, which means there probably isn't much of a "why" either).

For the record, I DO believe in evolution, I have no doubts that it is the case. But I have a theory that walks hand in hand with my version of the evolutionary idea - I keep coming back to a life force being present in the universe. Now, I'm not talking about a "god" per se, I'm talking about another galactic force, like gravity or inertia - a non-thinking, non-aware energy. Just like matter tends to stick together (quantum mechanics at work?), I think it also tends to form life. In the right environments, of course.

In my concept, the "diety" comes to play later on, after this life has begun. But that's fodder for another thread, so I'll drop that for now. :)

MoonCat,

Quantum mechanics, while being *relatively* new, is very well established and has been around in a more or less current form for half a century. It is not merely a label for a bunch of phenomena. Like Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics is a theory that consists of various laws (described by formulae) that govern entities at the quantum scale. Quantum mechanics enables us to explain everything from nuclear bombs to transistors to photosynthesis to electricity to chemistry to the properties of fundamental particles, etc. Indeed, the Big Bang gets a lot of its supporting evidence from the agreement of empirical measurements with predictions formed by a quantum mechanical analysis given the assumption of Big Bang cosmology (for example, abundances of different elements in the universe, properties of the cosmic microwave background, the way matter is clustered in space, etc. -- all derive from the inflationary Big Bang with the use of quantum mechanics.) As another example, using the laws of quantum mechanics scientists are currently able to computationally simulate how chemicals form and react -- and the data generated by computer simulations agrees precisely with data obtained from empirical measurements. So when I say that quantum mechanics governs the way chemicals react, I'm saying exactly what it sounds like I'm saying. There is no need for some additional "force" to affect behavior of matter -- matter's behavior (minus gravity) is completely explained by the laws of quantum mechanics.

Now, if you are asking where the very laws described by the formulae come from, that's a question I can't answer (nor indeed can anyone else.) As is all matter and energy, the laws that govern them just "are". At present, we don't have enough of an insight to figure out where the <u>fundamental</u> laws come from. However, we've been able to reduce other, more complex, "laws" to a description in terms of more fundamental ones. For example, the laws that govern how a resistor affects current and voltage in an electrical circuit are completely derivable from quantum mechanics. And, the latest efforts such as the M-theory are promising to reduce even the many laws of quantum mechanics to a yet smaller and "simpler" set of yet more fundamental laws -- from which not only quantum mechanics, but the entirety of behaviors of matter and energy in the universe, can be mathematically derived. This process of reduction has been ongoing for centuries, and there is no telling where it will stop...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 02, 2000).]

(bowing to Boris' greater knowledge)

Okay, Boris, I catch your drift.

We are in agreement on that we can't say WHY these 'laws' are the way they are, right?

Why do you think they are the way they are?

What do you think of the theory that this is only one of many "big bangs" the universe has gone through? Do you think it's feasable that the universe was "created" several times, but was unstable and eventually collapsed, and "banged" back into existance again and again until finally the random combinations finally came up with a stable "viable" universe? (this isn't my theory by the way, I stole it from NOVA) :)

That theory makes a whole lot of sense to me personally. It goes a long way towards explaining why our universe is the way it is...basically there IS no reason other than it happens to be a configuration that is "stable" enough not to collapse back upon itself.

What do you think of my "life force" theory? I don't think it's contradictory to the quantum mechanics laws...well, as far as my feeble brain can see anyway. :)

It's good talking to you Boris, I like the way you think. Hope you're having a good Friday. :)

I just came across this little fact and is aimed at the creationists who say there are no missing links.

Found in 1966 and encased in resin. The Sphecomyrma freyi worker ant, was the first known ant specimen from the cretaceous period. It proved to be a missing link between today's ant species and their wasp ancestors.

------------------
I used to think I was weird...till I discovered Excoscience messageboards!

Boris--

I've given it some thought and it'll be a while before the grander part of that scheme is cohesive enough to of much value. However ...

Thank you for the fill-in. It's important for me to establish a mechanism to explain the need for diversity in the universe, thus the wonderings about quantum thermodynamics.

The bit about the devil is just a tremendously convenient coincidence to a period of quantum existence in the universe: What if the tales of the fall of the devil are stories all life knows in some sense, an organic signature, as such, of the creation of the universe. As I tend to believe that humanity crafts its gods in its own image, and as gods originally explained the unexplained ... some gods might have explained the history of the universe. Crudely, as such.

But that's about all it's worth. I had wanted to throw at least some idea out there for the notion that evolution, Big Bang, or other now-fundmental theories need not contradict God.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

MoonCat,


We are in agreement on that we can't say WHY these 'laws' are the way they are, right?
Why do you think they are the way they are?


Well, that is the question, isn't it? :)
Of course, since we "can't say WHY these 'laws' are the way they are", I wouldn't be able to tell you what I think about it. It's not because I've got some grand theory but am too squeamish or scheming to share it with the world. I just plain don't have a slightest idea. I've thought about it a lot, and I still don't have a clue.

In fact, I don't even know if it is ever mathematically possible for us to divine the reasons for why the laws are the way they are. After all, any fundamental reason 'why' would have to be put in language, and therefore would have to rely on a set of concepts even more fundamental than itself -- and we are led down an infinite regress of trying to define those more fundamental concepts in terms of yet more fundamental concepts, ad nauseum. Perhaps, this is the wrong approach to the problem? What if the paradigm of the "circularity of being" is more than a merely cute idea, what if it's the statement of reality? Maybe there is no beginning and no end. Maybe the universe is not really infinite in a flat sense, but is curled up upon itself, so that it is pointless trying to define where it begins or where it ends, or what is outside vs. inside. Maybe such attempts are just as futile as the anscient search for the edge of the Earth. Then again, maybe our conceptual frameworks haven't yet evolved to the state enabling complete understanding -- similar, for example, to how the anscient Greeks with their Euclidean geometry and no concepts of calculus would have been unable to conjecture a Riemannian warped spacetime of Einstein.


That theory makes a whole lot of sense to me personally. It goes a long way towards explaining why our universe is the way it is...basically there IS no reason other than it happens to be a configuration that is "stable" enough not to collapse back upon itself.


Well, for one this "theory" has an actual name; it's called "the Anthropic Principle". Basically, the more complete statement of the Principle would go something like this: the only reason things are exactly the way they are, is because we exist and are able to observe them. If things were different even in the slightest degree, we either wouldn't exist to observe them, or we will still exist but not be aware of any "difference" -- since we have nothing concrete to compare our particular reality to.

This has been used to dismiss quibbles about the many empirically-determined, yet seemingly fundamental, constants of quantum mechanics and general relativity. For example, such things as the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the vacuum permittivity constant, the Planck length, etc, etc, etc. simply are the way they are, with no current explanation for their exact values. The creationist argument went, that if any of these various constants was even a little bit different, the universe as we know it would not exist (which is true.) Therefore, creationists argued, all these constants have been precisely set by the Creator. The Anthropic Princple counteracts that claim, conjecturing that our particular spacetime is but one of a potential infinity (whether these realities are sequential or parallel is irrelevant at this point), that the majority of other spacetimes would either not be conducive to life, or would not start out with the initial conditions to evolve a Human race, and that ours just happens to have had the configuration that leads to the personal existence, thoughts, and even writings (the present post included), of every one of us.

But note that many constants currently considered fundamental may end up being derived from a yet more fundamental "Theory Of Everything". So in that sense, the miraculous confluence of the many factors that makes our existence possible may eventually be reduced to just one or two constants, if even that. In the end, it may turn out, for example, that all the constants and laws of the universe derive from some single fundamental geometrical property of some kind of ultimate "bricks" from which the universe is built.


What do you think of my "life force" theory? I don't think it's contradictory to the quantum mechanics laws...well, as far as my feeble brain can see anyway.


Well, it's not really contradictory to anything. That's the good news. But it's also the bad news. Your lifeforce "theory" is not a true theory -- because it cannot in principle be disproved. It does not offer any concrete predictions based on experimental factors. In that sense, your "theory" is totally useless as far as attempts to <u>understand</u> (i.e. explain in terms of cause-and-effect, numerically replicate the current empirical measurements, and enable to predict future outcomes) are concerned. As such, your "theory" has no more value than any other from an infinite set of such potential "theories" that co-exist with physical reality without ever coming into conflict with it. Since your theory cannot be disproven, the only way we can hope to ascertain its truth is through a direct observation of the life-force (whatever it may be). However, as such a verification potentially will never come, and we cannot wait indefinitely, all of these verification-dependent theories must be treated as equally probable at this point. And, because there are infinitely many such potential theories, the probability of any random one of them (including your particular one) being the truth is mathematically 1/(infinity) = 0. Due to these deficiencies, your "theory" is hereby consigned to come under the Occam's razor.

At least that's what I think. You, of course, are free to entertain your particular faith all you want -- just don't expect to gain any insight from it that you couldn't have gained through other means.

And by the way, I enjoy talking to you too, even though we don't agree on certain theological issues. :)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 05, 2000).]

Tiassa,


It's important for me to establish a mechanism to explain the need for diversity in the universe, thus the wonderings about quantum thermodynamics.


So... Does that mean that you are satisfied with the posts I've made, meaning: do you think I've adequately explained the presence of diversity in the universe? Or maybe, you want to discuss that issue a bit more?

Heck, regardless, I feel like adding a little bit on that topic. Complexity tends to arise within unstable systems that encompass many constituents interacting in nontrivial ways. (By "unstable" I mean that a perfectly symmetrical arrangement is easily destroyed by even a slightest perturbation.) As matter is very complex in its behavior, and presents on the order of 10^100 units to the system of the universe, it shouldn't be too surprising that complex patterns evolve within such a system over time. (The inflationary Big Bang I mentioned in my previous reply to you merely accounts for the formation of very-large-scale structures in the universe, which are not determinable merely by the more fine-grained interactions between bits of matter. Essentially, it helps explain why the universe isn't just a very low-density gas cloud.)


What if the tales of the fall of the devil are stories all life knows in some sense, an organic signature, as such, of the creation of the universe.
...
I had wanted to throw at least some idea out there for the notion that evolution, Big Bang, or other now-fundmental theories need not contradict God.


Well... Read the last section of my reply to MoonCat above, concerning the Occam's razor. I think it applies equally well to your particular suggestion.

But beyond utility, in order for life to contain an "organic signature" of the universe's creation, such a signature must have been imprinted onto us through evolution. Yet, there is nothing apparent about the environment that would drive such a process. Perhaps, you see it otherwise? Or, if you are merely throwing out a possibility with no actual implications, again see the Occam's razor bit...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Hi guys,

The question of "why do these laws exist" was asked....here is my opinion of why:

as Boris has said before humans are excellent at identifying patterns, I explain physics/mathematics as humans doing just that, i.e. making our reality fit a pattern (maybe its a human need to control --if we understand how it works we can exploit it make it work for our benefit) and that drives us to reduce everything to a fundamental model (a pattern we can extrapulate from). However IMO our understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe is what our human brain can comprehend, i.e. the edge of the universe is the limit of human comprehension we can't visualise a 5 dimensional space so we understand the universe to be made up of 3 spactial dimensions etc.

So IMO the reason why the "fundamental" laws exist is because we invent them to be able to extrapolate from them and satisfy our need to understand our universe...lets face it before quantumn mechanics the universe (as we new it) was based in newtonian mechanics.....so as our perception / comprehension of the universe changes so does the universe as we know it.....and when we finally find a "fundamental" alternative to the theory of relativity we will be in a universe that allows for travel faster then the speed of light...WOW I hope you guys follow what I'm trying to say (it was so much clearer in my own head).

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

my above post got posted twice ... sorry (this was the second)

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited March 05, 2000).]

Just thought I'd toss my two cents in...

I still wonder why people argue over a thing like this. I personally believe in evolution, and I also believe in God. I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. Many people look at the Bible as the literal truth, and it's giving them false illusions, I think. The important parts of the Bible are the lessons taught within it. Many people, many in this forum, often quote mistakes or contradictions in the Bible. I agree there are some, but I also hold the opinion that they don't matter in the slightest. The lessons and morals which are taught are still the same.

Genesis tells the story of God creating the earth, and every living being. Many people assume that this is exactly the way it happened, and that God actually created the earth in seven days. I think that doing this would be well within his power, but I doubt an eternal being would be in such a rush. Instead, I would propose that this story is there to teach us that we would not be here unless God put us into existence, and that we could do nothing without his consent, because, after all, he created everything that we know.

This issue really comes back to the existence of God. Why do we believe, or why do we not? I think it's different in almost every case. Many people are raised as Christians, Jews, or followers of other religions. Some find religion by themselves. This was the case for me, as I only became a Christian very recently. Until then, I suppose I considered myself an agnostic. Why do I believe in God? It is something I feel. No amount of research or proof could have proved it to me, and none can convince me otherwise. Some use the Bible as their ultimate proof of God's existence. To those, I hope that you find belief within yourself, and do not rely simply on a book. If you do, I have found some pretty interesting gods in fantasy books that you might want to try out if all it takes for you is a good story. I know many people try to use other proof as well, from wherever they find it, to prove that God exists. I would hope that if you believe in an all powerful being, you would also be able to accept that he'll let himself be proven to exist whenever he feels like it, and not before, and that he'll be damn sure everyone realizes it when he does.

Many people try to convert others to Christianity using whatever "proof" they can scrounge up. If you are attempting this method, I don't think you're really helping. Instead, share what God has done for you in your life with others. That is what brought me to Christianity, and many others who I have talked to told me that it was the same for them. Trying to convince people with proof just won't work. It has to be something that you feel inside you. There are things that I believe in that I have been convinced of through proof, but I don't think that God is something that can be proven through conventional means. If he could be, what kind of test would it be to believe in him? God wouldn't have promised eternal salvation to those who believed in him if it was obvious to everyone that he existed. That is why faith is important. To have faith would not be too hard if God came and appeared to everyone on the evening news, although I think that might still not be enough for some people.

I guess I'll end this with a plea for tolerance among people. I hope that those who constantly ask for proof of God's existence can realize that it is something that cannot be proven. I also hope that those Christians out there, and those of other faiths as well, would not judge those who disagree with you, and would instead try to show others why you believe as you do. Many take it upon themselves to hold judgment over others when it is not their place. The Bible and other such books are there to guide us with lessons, and they are not tools of persecution as some would have them be. I personally think God would get pretty pissed off if he found people judging others in his place. That's just my belief, though. I'm not saying we should go without courts and police and all that. I just am opposed to people being labelled as evil or not being allowed to do certain things because of who they are or what they believe.

I guess that's the end of my rant. Let me know what ya think =)

I don't think that anyone is looking for proof of any kind. I like to think that this is a discussion on peoples convictions. We make points and see if anyone can bring a point of view that you may not have considered.....its all (as far as I can tell) a test of our own ideas about religion.

your point is a good one and for those that it may apply to I hope they take it to heart, however if we don't question it we will never be able to have a firm understanding of what religion means to ourselves.....thats my 2 cents.

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Well, some may not be looking for proof, but in many other posts that I've read on these boards in various topics, it seems that those arguing for Christianity have always been asked to provide proof of their beliefs, and thus my comments on proof.

I do agree that these things should be questioned, and that is why I wrote my post in the first place, but I think I see too many questioning on the basis of proof on a topic which, to me, seems outside the realm of that which can be proved.

Rambler,

You bring up an interesting point:


However IMO our understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe is what our human brain can comprehend, i.e. the edge of the universe is the limit of human comprehension we can't visualise a 5 dimensional space so we understand the universe to be made up of 3 spactial dimensions etc.


I would agree with you, except that we can still reason about things we can't visualize. For example, our mathematics enables us to explore 11-dimensional membranes, despite the fact that we can't visualize anything beyond 3 dimensions very well. Similarly, we could in principle design ways to detect other dimensions through their effects on the 3 spatial and (perhaps) the "time" dimensions that we can explicitly perceive. If the universe is thoroughly logical and causally connected, such a process could in principle let us discover everything there is to know about how the universe works (though it still won't help us with the possible hidden realities I've mentioned before.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Vanden,


Well, some may not be looking for proof, but in many other posts that I've read on these boards in various topics, it seems that those arguing for Christianity have always been asked to provide proof of their beliefs, and thus my comments on proof.


This is true indeed; however many feel compelled to attack certain theories or empirical findings because they run contrary to treasured intuitions gained through 'faith'. This is where people start challenging the logic or the evidence for such things as evolution, or the Big Bang, for example. And that's when people start arguing about whether such scientific theories should even be taught to the general populace, or whether certain creationist "alternatives" should be considered as at least equiprobable. Hence, this particular thread.

Usually, people are only asked for the justification of their beliefs when they attack certain other beliefs, theories, or findings. Such challenges are typically made in an attempt to illustrate that the attacks are unfounded, and that the attackers actually have no solid ground under their feet, whereas the target of their attacks has the entire physical universe to stand upon. These are examples where intuition clashes with reality -- perfect illustrations of why objectivity is vastly superior to faith.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris--

Were I to teach Creationism, or any other religious-based faith-as-fact curriculum in a public school, I would feel compelled to walk a fine line, trying to demonstrate a balance between the theological image and the probable historical/anthropological reality of the concept.

I believe that it was you who, on multiple occasions, phrased it such that "man creates God in his own image." (Please don't quote my quoting you in that I would hate to put words in your mouth; it's the concept that's important, not its origin within this forum.)

I am a strong believer that humankind creates and created its own gods. (The only way I can accept the other is if we count God as synonymous with Universe, and vice-versa, so that both concepts bleed all over each other; and even then, two or three vital assumptions are necessary--e.g. faith, which leaves us where we started.) I'm also inclined to ask what it is that we reflect when we create gods, and why we, as the collective human race, choose those criteria to reflect. This, I'm convinced, is the key to determining the value of religion (as opposed to the pure concept of faith, to which I assert nothing at the moment).

I would offer prior debates at this forum and throughout Christian society regarding the story of Noah and the Flood; determining the nature of the "flood" is difficult, as we can either take single, localized geological/meteorological events and declare one of them to be "the Flood", or we could perhaps look back to the primal Earth, when all was shrouded in ocean. I generally look back to the primal Earth for this one, since the story of the Flood exists millennia prior to the Hebrews. Thus, while I do not agree that the Biblical version of the Flood, I do think it fair to say that the story probably refers to a "flood" that actually existed. (A Cherokee version of creation and flood has a Great Buzzard flying over the wet, marshy land until He becomes tired, and settles in the land that became the Cherokee homeland; doves and olive branches?)

That's the kind of connection I'm after, one which reflects how we arrived at the particular stories of God that we did.

But a couple of cool stories here at Exosci clicked into place, and then the evolution-debate reopened ... I was hoping to put a groundwork out there to demonstrate that there is a practical manner of fitting creationism into any "opposing" ( :p ) scientific discipline.

You've given me a great deal on diversity and density ... thank you. It was extremely necessary to know why the Universe isn't a uniform gas cloud; your points are of inestimable value; quantum thermodynamics and stuff like that is just me grasping at straws when I know there's a real explanation that I haven't figured out. (I'd rather be sci-fi than Dark Age when I get mythical.)

The only point I wanted to expand on directly was the "organic signature". It's a borrowed term, so I'm not entirely happy with it. But it does contain essentially the parts I'm after. I would assert that such a signature is imprinted on us in a very subtle way: "Hear that sound? Of course not, it's the sound of the Big Bang." Something like that. Essentially, the echo of the Bang permeates the entire media of the Universe (matter interactions take place in a volume that is subject to the echo). It is inherent in some way to human composition in a manner that would not be present were there no echo taking place. Think of the local things humans miss perceiving: the spinning of the earth, the plummeting of the solar system through space, the drifting of the continents. But it seems to me that, as all the Universe is interconnected, and theoretically dependent on a single event, certain things are inherent, the repeating of processes throughout the system. Those inherent characteristics, a resonance from the Big Bang that might be extropolated in a demonstrable manner, are the devices of imprint I think are needed.

The biggest problem with such ideas is that their final form is dependent on the subjective assumptions of myth. But those assumptions might change in accord with the contemporary conditions. The key is if, after all the factors have been worked through, the value doesn't change that much. Of course, I have to learn a couple of other theologies at least as well as I have learned the Judeo-Christian before I can extend this to encompass greater portions of the human riddle. But why do that before I've mucked out the details of the prototype?

Thank you for the commentary, though. I hope you understand that this is offered in opposition to nothing specific, and certainly is not aimed at your theories, per se. If you'll allow me to grease your ego for a moment, though, I directed the initial tangent at you in hopes that your vast informational resource could be of help. In that respect, I appreciate your patience in this. For the record, you've given me exactly what I had hoped to hear; now I have to decide if that's a good thing or a preconceived conclusion I was working toward.

As I am indebted, I can only offer my gratitude ...

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited March 06, 2000).]

I simply DO NOT get this debate! Why, oh why are you guys so insistent that the two have to be mutually exclusive?????? THEY DON'T!!!! Listen closely....science explains the HOW, and the Bible explains the WHY. Isn't that obvious????????? Boris, the day you answer the question WHY is the day YOU get religion. So far your best guess is "just cause it grew here; just cause it exploded; just cause". Now really answer the question....WHY? And then you will know the meaning of life.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

First Boris,
I knew someone would point out mathematics in more then 3 dimensions....I've had this discussion before, my reply to that is yes we can imagine, calculate and have an idea of a universe that is different to our own, however when that concept becomes a part of our understanding and we can qunatify it or reduce it to fundamental patterns (eqn's) it also becomes part of our universe, i.e. our universe -- as we know it -- has grown.


Lori,
Do you know the meaning of life?
------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited March 06, 2000).]

Boris as a side question (I know this isn't the thread for it),

Your sig' is "I am therefore I think", have you ever looked at that from a slightly different perspective like: I think therefore I am ?



------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Lori--

So the Bible explains why ... which makes humanity the centerpiece of God's universe.

At what point in history did who stumble across this? In this respect, Jesus probably isn't the best answer, despite the wide belief that his name is a cure-all. I mean, before you can say the Bible explains the why of anything, we have to agree on the question. After all, some might ask, "Why did God make the Universe?" to which some will laugh at the assumption that the Universe requires God to authorize it. Others might say, "Why does the Universe exist?" To which some will say, "To fulfill God's will," and then others will laugh because it begs the question "What is God's will?" And so on. We might find the answer, but it was 42 the last time I looked, and nobody knew the question.

But ... if the Bible explains "Why" ... when did this explanation occur? When was it realized conceptually and offered to humanity as an answer? After all, for all the years it's been around, humans cannot agree on what it says.

Incidentally, Lori ... what happens when one person's answer begs a thousand pardons and an infinite number of questions of another?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Boris,

Originally posted by Boris:
These are examples where intuition clashes with reality -- perfect illustrations of why objectivity is vastly superior to faith.
[/B]

I would not agree with you that objectivity is "superior" to faith. They exist, at least for me, as completely different and incomparable things. I tend to agree with whatever science has discovered over the years through objective means, but that does not mean that I have any less faith. If people do not believe what has been objectively shown to be true, they are drawing their opinions from the wrong places, probably misinterpretting something that they were told or that they heard. To those who would say that God has been proven to be non-existent, I can only say that I believe God to be all powerful and all knowing, and this is the one area where I don't think the controversy can be resolved through objective means. You'll understand why I say that if you read my first post in this thread.

Yea, the meaning of life is to know WHO we are. Who are you? You need the right perspective to know. Who are you to God? To KNOW Jesus is the meaning of life. To understand that EVERYTHING is done for God's will, whether you or I "cooperate" or not. To KNOW Jesus PERSONALLY and to find God's will in your life. Tiassa, you can KNOW Jesus too. You just have to realize that you can, and want to. You would then understand what I mean. He's real, He's there, right in front of your face. You just WON'T look AT Him. "NO, I'll look ANYWHERE but there, cause I just don't want to know." God is a scary concept until you get to know Him. He's totally cool. Totally loving. A straight shooter with the truth, but isn't that what we want? Yeeeeeeeeees, it is. You can't get this out of a book. I mean the Bible can tell you "You can have a personal relationship with Christ". But you can't have it unless you ALLOW it. It's TOTALLY up to you; you have to make the effort to let Him in. Like I said, He's always there, you just have to realize it, and look at Him, and talk to Him, and then LISTEN. And He will tell you the truth. The meaning of life.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Boris and others,

Please read these articles, and let me know what you think.....
http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm

Thanks.

I particularly like the one called "Could life just happen", BORIS?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited March 07, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited March 07, 2000).]

Lori,


Boris, the day you answer the question WHY is the day YOU get religion. So far your best guess is "just cause it grew here; just cause it exploded; just cause". Now really answer the question....WHY? And then you will know the meaning of life.


When it comes to my view of the universe, "just cause" doesn't come in until we consider the very beginning of the Big Bang. Everything that followed since, as far as I perceive it, did not occur "just 'cause", but as a direct consequence of two things: the original configuration of the universe, and the physical laws that govern it. In my picture, <u>there is indeed a reason WHY for everything</u> except the very existence of the universe.

Your religion provides you no answer as to that ultimate riddle. It simply says 'just cause God did it'. When asked, "wherefore God?", your answer is 'just cause'. So you tell me how come you claim to know the answer to the question "WHY?"

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Rambler,


Your sig' is "I am therefore I think", have you ever looked at that from a slightly different perspective like: I think therefore I am ?


Of course I looked at that perspective. And I made a point of intentionally reversing it in my sig. Sure, your very own stream of consciousness is proof enough to you that you, at least in some form, exist. However, if you didn't exist your stream of consciousness wouldn't be there either. Really, the proposition is of the "if and only if" variety, and for some reason everyone else seems to focus their attention on only one direction of the implication.

(Another reason I reversed it, is because I wanted to make fun of Descartes, whose feeble attempts at rationalizing God and souls, given his genius in other respects, turn my stomach to this day.)

(Yet another reason my sig is such that it is, is because it helps convey a major point as to my view of the purpose of life: if you "are", and you are able to think, but you neglect that gift -- then you are wasting your life.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Lori,
I believe I tried what you are suggesting. I spoke to god, I got answers...as a consequence of my comms with the almighty I felt evil, inadequete, flawed......so you see not everyone has a positive experience. I haven't given up on the notion of a god in my life but I don't believe that what works for you will work for everyone. Christianity (in all honesty) is an utter let down for me, I can't put it any other way....I wonder if I'll ever find a comfort zone in my beliefs????

P.S. I am expecting your reply to say that I didn't really find god....but Lori if I didn't find him he didn't want to be found because believe me I looked for a long time....


------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Lori--

I already know Jesus. We've got a pretty good understanding: I don't embarrass him with all that kowtowing and hallowed-be-His-naming, and I don't have to argue with the Big Guy. You see, back at the time when I had more hallucinations-cum-religious-visions, just about everybody in the supernatural universe wanted to get hold of me. Those powers that didn't simply knew that the correct aspects of their system would eventually become clear, and that campaigning directly or indirectly--through human beings--reduced faith to a political contest.

That said, I'm wondering if your post is one of those answers you allege I miss whenever I say you've failed to answer a question. Unfortunately, two-bit grandstanding and sound-biting doesn't cut it as an answer.

You're sounding just a bit like Langland, as such ... that people shouldn't wonder about God. After all, any legitimate question, and the only answer seems to be an impassioned, sweating, "You, too can know the power of Jee-zuhs!" It reminds me of televangelism, which I think we've agreed is more a hypocritical show of faith than the character of faith itself.

So punch and preaching aside ... you're sounding just a bit like a snake-oil salesman, or even something darker. "Come inside," you say. Why? "Come inside and find out."

Wanna cookie, little girl?

The Jesus reflected by the conditions of your 3/7, 7:07 post (Yea, the meaning of life ....) reminds me more of a guy wearing a dark, hooded sweatshirt, mirrored sunglasses and ratty jeans, driving around the block in a primer-gray Ford van, just waiting for innocence to spill from the schoolyards.

And that ain't Jesus, insofar as I remember.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Tiassa,


But it seems to me that, as all the Universe is interconnected, and theoretically dependent on a single event, certain things are inherent, the repeating of processes throughout the system. Those inherent characteristics, a resonance from the Big Bang that might be extropolated in a demonstrable manner, are the devices of imprint I think are needed.


Well, for one the universe and everything in it (including us), <u>is</u> the echo of the Big Bang.

However, this lends no credence to a suggestion that folk wisdom should contain any information about that proto-event. For example, orbital dynamics of the Solar system you mention affect life on Earth much more directly; yet no folklore ever even began to get them right (beyond mere calendrical tabulation, that is.)

In general, all knowledge arises either inductively from the environment, or deductively from bits of knowledge obtained inductively. Hence, in a certain sense every sinle culture that ever existed would incorporate references to real phenomena and entities in their folklore -- but such references can only be made to objects that could have been directly observed during that culture's inception, or constructed from such objects. Obviously, no large-scale cosmic phenomenon (especially not one that occurs over geological time or did not leave any readily observable evidence behind) can enter pre-scientific folklore.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Vanden,

When I say that objectivity is superior to faith, I speak of all claims that propose to explain anything about the actual reality you and I inhabit. The statement "God created the universe" really does not have any empirical teeth, and as such does not enter the picture. But what does enter the picture are any statements that claim empirical relevance. Unfortunately, faith never isolates itself to just the stipulaton that God exists; it also inevitably attempts tagging attributes onto God. Such attempts often lead to deeply internalized, yet deeply inconsistent beliefs. See the <A HREF="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000175.html">Contradictions</A> thread for a discussion of that particular downside of faith. Additionally, faith systems inevitably attempt to provide metaphysical explanations for various phenomena <u>within</u> the universe -- be it the human mind, formation of life, or evolution of knowledge and culture, etc. Such explanations are repugnant to objectivism for two reasons: 1) they never deal with cause-and-effect, and therefore are a) untestable, and b) always inferior to actual causal (scientific) explanations; 2) they, at least for the faithful, are the end of the road -- once you know the answer, you no longer seek to find it (and in fact you actively resist alternatives); as such they are an epistemological dead end and a direct nemesis to science.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 07, 2000).]

Lori,


Please read these articles, and let me know what you think..... http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm
Thanks.

I particularly like the one called "Could life just happen", BORIS?


If you actually read through my posts on this thread (including replies to other people), you would realize that I had already countered with considerable force every single objection raised in that article. Ah, if only you read my posts with the same enthusiasm you wade through that creationist mental diarrhea... Hey, I can dream, can't I?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Hey folks,

Don't realy have anything to add to the discussion at the moment. I just thought I'd stop by and say 'hi' after a prolonged hiatus that finds me again on the other side of the ocean (this time, the American side). It's nice to see that some of the same hearty debates are taking place.

------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain



[This message has been edited by Pookums (edited March 07, 2000).]

I apologize for the off-topic post.

Boris -
Your sig. recently came up in this thread, and it sparked my curiosity.. did you read/absorb ideas from the book 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand?

"Whoever you are - you who are alone with my words in this moment, with nothing but your honesty to help you understand - the choice is still open to be a human being, but the price is to start from scratch, to stand naked in the face of reality and, reversing a costly historical error, to declare: 'I am, therefore I'll think.'"
- John Galt, in his Speech - Part III, Chapter VII (page 973 in my copy)

Inquisitively,
FyreStar

Fyrestar,

Actually, I've never read that book (too much hype...) I happen to have arrived at that particular sig all on my own. Though it's always fascinating to discover someone else who happens to think along exactly the same lines. (Thanks for that bit of info. :))

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Rambler,

Fooled ya, that WAS Jesus you were talking to. But I think that it's easy to dwell, especially in the beginning, on how "flawed" you feel in His presence. You're forgetting about half of the faith itself in doing that. He knows all about you, every thought, every intent, every dream, every thing. AND HE LOVES YOU MORE THAN ANYTHING. Still. You know, every time I talk to Him I discover another thing about myself that I'm not doing right or thinking straight about, or not really being honest about. Sometimes there are things that I avoid addressing with Him on purpose?????? Does that sound familiar? Why would I do that? Cause deep down you KNOW that no matter how hard it may be to swallow the truth, the truth is what it is. And I'm soooooooooo thankful for that. In a lot of ways, getting saved is difficult. It's hard doing the "right" thing in this world, hard to live for God. People think you're a weirdo! But it's those people that you see Jesus in, and those stories of faith that just bring you to your knees, those are the weirdos you know? That one good, heart-warming story on the news or whatever, in the midst of 6 year old shootings and corrupt politicians and sex and greed, that is weird. All you're really doing is realizing that you're a sinner, which is exactly why Jesus ever even came. It's an ego-thumper, but that's a good thing. It's also a real sense of security and peace to know that given all of that, you are saved by His grace and love alone, and that He walks with you, and that no matter what happens in this life, you have Him to lean on, to have faith in, so you won't "cave", cop-out, so you can fight the good fight. If you can get past your ego, He is an inspiration in the highest capacity ever even imaginable, and He is the greatest and most loving being in the universe. It's trippy!!!!! I do not understand how you can know Him, and then turn your back on Him. I mean, it's not about the religion, it's about HIM.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Tiassa,

You are totally BENT, man. Don't throw your subjectivity on me. If what you described was the extent of your relationship with Jesus, then I would say that you copped out big time. What's the matter did Satan scare you? Well, I'm surprised you're not scared all the time then. And yea, I'm saying that until you have a relationship with Him, there is no way I could possibly describe it to you to where you would either understand it or believe it. So, what's stopping you from finding out then? Some guy in a van? Are you saying that you're some innocent little victimous child that He will "ensnare"? What? Don't make me call you a wimp. ;)

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori--

Awwww.... whatsamatta?

Are you incapable of perceiving a relationship with Jesus that doesn't imply the narrow liberties and broad submissions which only reflect our human desires, lacks, and machinations?

Don't throw my subjectivity .... Get off it. If your interpretations of Jesus are not subjective, which is a normal state for that relationship, then you're simply arbitrary. In that case, watch where you sling it, or else don't wonder why people get fussy when you spatter them arbitrarily.

It could be that you're just jealous, Lori. Thanks, though, for the assertion that Jesus and I copped out on our potential. I'm sure he just loves that sentiment.

I can't believe you would insult Jesus just because you don't like how I relate to him.

Especially you.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Tiassa!

My relationship with Jesus is NOT subjective. What is subjective is that I can either CHOSE to be closer to Him, or CHOSE not to be. HE is always there. Just like He is for you. Why don't you educate me a little about said relationship. What specifically did this consist of? What do you mean when you said that you got a lot of resistance? Not that I'm surprised, but I'd like to know the details of circumstance. Jesus is THE ONLY THING in the universe that is not subjective. He is the ONE truth, the ONE way, and the ONE light. He is the ONE Saviour, and the fact that you may "disagree" with GOD about some things (irreconcilable differences?) only means that He is a lot smarter than you, and you don't understand everything, nor do I think you really want to. Not from His perspective anyway. Actually, if I were to read between the lines of your post, you are the one who seems "jealous" of Him. Jesus didn't cop out, YOU DID. And you know it. Don't make excuses, this is the meaning of your life we're talking about. Don't you owe it to yourself to try a little harder?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Originally posted by Boris:
Such explanations are repugnant to objectivism for two reasons: 1) they never deal with cause-and-effect, and therefore are a) untestable, and b) always inferior to actual causal (scientific) explanations; 2) they, at least for the faithful, are the end of the road -- once you know the answer, you no longer seek to find it (and in fact you actively resist alternatives); as such they are an epistemological dead end and a direct nemesis to science.

[/B]

I would tend to agree with your argument, exept that you are still holding that creationist views are to be held in the same realm as scientific inquiries. I personally look at the two as entirely different realms. You mention that creationist claims do not deal with cause and effect, but why should they? I don't feel any need to test my faith in God. It is not something that I arrived at through logic, nor do I claim that my faith is logically sound. It is something that I feel within me, not a hypothesis to be tested.

Oh ya, and the "no longer seek to find it part" is just plain wrong, at least in my case. I think that God created the universe, etc., but that does not mean that I no longer want to try to find out how things work. I do agree that those who do act in the manner you described are nemeses to science, though :)



[This message has been edited by Vanden (edited March 08, 2000).]

Lori--

Your narrowmindedness calls a new test of faith: It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven than it is for a new idea to enter Lori's skull.

Your insistence that you know the answers is borderline heretical. Some of your alleged answers cross that line entirely.

Stop insisting that the Jesus you subject yourself to is the same everyone else experiences. Such limited thinking only insults the sheer magnitude and detail of the Plan.

I mean, you seem to think that your opinions are not subjective.

That's part of what subjective means; it's subject to certain inconsistent considerations.

So unless you know the answer for every single creature in the Universe, I would advise that you rethink the arrogant assumptions by which you limit your own interactions with the mysteries of the Universe. (A mystery, given a name, is still a mystery. You find a puppy, and name it "Gonzo." Okay, do you know Gonzo? Does it even matter to you what starved him, bruised him, or damaged that ear? Or is he just a mean, bad puppy when he cowers in front of your hand? Bottom line is, you might think you know Gonzo because you can predict his behavior patterns; but you have no idea why he behaves that way. His past, despite his name, is still a mystery.)

So, you find a God, and call it Jesus ... do you know Jesus? Do you even care how the conditions governing your relationship with Jesus even came to be? Or are you just a mean, bad person when you wonder if that hand is there to hold you close or to crucify you?

I've said it before: The smarter one is, the less they know about God. See ... that's the fun part; the more you learn, the bigger the mystery gets. Don't be afraid of big questions ... they can only compel you to seek large answers.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Creation and the Candidates!

Discover where the U.S. presidential candidates stand on Creation/Evolution

Late last month (27 February), Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes spoke at the University of Virginia and declared his support for teaching creation in public schools. On the same day, at a Northern Virginia high school, he also stated that evolution "masquerades as science," and is taught in a "dogmatic fashion" (from a C-SPAN audio clip).

Although AiG is not necessarily in favor of mandating that teachers must teach both creation and evolution (we believe they already have the academic freedom to do so), other presidential candidates have been speaking out on creation/evolution in public schools. (By the way, Dr. Gary Parker of Answers in Genesis was interviewed by Mr. Keyes on his national talk-show program more than a year ago, where Mr. Keyes revealed his creationist beliefs.)

George W. Bush on November 3 (according to Reuters news) said that he thinks schools should teach "different forms of how the world was formed," with evolution taught alongside creation. This echoes the same sentiments he expressed in late August after the state school board of Kansas came under fire for mildly de-emphasizing the teaching of evolution in its state schools. Bush said then: "I believe children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." A Bush spokeswoman, Mendy Tucker, was quoted by Reuters as saying Bush "believes both creationism and evolution ought to be taught. He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide, but he believes both ought to be taught."

We are attempting to research any firm opinion that may have been expressed by the other major Republican candidate, Senator John McCain. Back in August (according to Reuters), he took no particular position on creation versus evolution, but said that the decision of what to teach in schools should be left to local authorities.

On the Democratic side of the presidential race, Vice-president Al Gore -- who has actually written in favor of evolutionary ideas (see his book "Earth in the Balance") -- at one time said that local authorities have the right to teach creation, according to spokesman Alejandro Cabrera (Reuters, August 26). Cabrera continued: "Localities should be free to decide to teach creationism as well." Mr. Gore later in the week shifted his position to say that creationism could be taught in the context of religion classes, not science classes (according to "Education Week," September 8, 1999). Then a spokesperson said that Mr. Gore believed that the Kansas decision was "a mistake, and he opposes it" (according to a humanist Web site).

We are still researching the views of Senator Bill Bradley, the other major Democratic contender, but it appears that he is a very strong supporter of teaching evolution in schools.

On the Reform ticket, Pat Buchanan is reported to support the idea that children should be taught that the universe was created by God, but he left the door open to "theistic evolution" when he told Reuters in a telephone interview: "What I do object to is to teach Darwin's theory of evolution of human beings from animals without divine intervention." Apparently, Mr. Buchanan believes that students should be taught a third view of origins: that God could have used evolution to bring about the higher forms of life (i.e., the so-called "compromise view" of theistic evolution).

---


Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence — the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars — the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present

We all exist in the present — and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/key.jpg


On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/evolu.jpg

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/bible.jpg

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses — which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses — unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is — a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions — i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Debate terms

If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:


‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see box below.


Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10); The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters (Matthew 12:30); And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

Ultimately, God’s Word convicts

1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4-5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Also, Isaiah 55:11: So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.

Practical application

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’


One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.


Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1


Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).


Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).


Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

Naturalism, Logic and Reality

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

1) A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the "big bang", and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

2) On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Ed. Note: for more information on formal logic and the Christian faith, see Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation.

Notes


In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this. It required biblical presuppositions such as a real, objective universe, created by one Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive — and who also created the mind of man in a way that was in principle capable of understanding the universe. [Ed. note: Refuting Evolution, Ch. 1, discusses this in more detail] Return to text.


This assumption is even defended, as a ‘practical necessity’ in discussing scientific things including origins, by some professing Christians who are evolutionists. Return to text.




[This message has been edited by Unicron (edited March 08, 2000).]

Vanden,


I don't feel any need to test my faith in God. It is not something that I arrived at through logic, nor do I claim that my faith is logically sound. It is something that I feel within me, not a hypothesis to be tested.


Feelings can be misplaced. Intuitions are often deceiving. Inconsistency (or, in other words, "unsoundness", or self-contradiction) is always a hint toward incorrectness. That's why we have logic. That's why we test things. That's (among other reasons) why objectivism is always superior to faith.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Unicron,


Then why do most scientists beleive in God?
Oh and Darwin was a fraud, a book was wrote about it. He stole all those ideas from someone else.


You might as well ask why the majority of humans on Earth <u>don't</u> believe in God. Or, you might ask why the majority of scientists to date came from countries, cultures, and family backgrounds dominated by Christianic faith. And it doesn't matter where evolution gets its ideas (though it's the first time I heard that particular allegation against Darwin). Theories stand or fall on empirical testing and consistency with other theories. Most scientists do not study evolution, and therefore have no idea of its scientific foundations beyond the shallow introductions of grade school. Most scientists who study evolution do not believe in a Creator. Most scientists are not true scientists, in that they do not grasp the actual philosophy and logic underlying the scientific method; they simply go through the motions because someone else had already established the routine for them. Most scientists do not concern themselves with philosophy, and therefore do not pay attention to the utter inconsistency of their religious faith and their enterprise of choice as epistemological frameworks. Are most scientists to be commended for their religious faith? On the contrary! They are to be berated for it, as any hypocrite should be.

<hr>

As to your other extremely long post, I have this sneaking suspicion that you are not its author. Did you re-post material from some web page? In that case, it would be better if in the future you simply provide the url, rather than littering the discussion with material not of your own making. Otherwise, this could quickly degenerate into everyone re-posting stuff from the web and never actually providing any original commentary, at which point there is no longer a reason for the thread to exist. Additionally, it would be appropriate for you to credit the original author(s), since otherwise you are committing plagiarism (and undermining your own credibility). Now, if all of that really is of your own making, then I apologize and retract these criticisms; yet I'd say that in any case for posts of that length it would make sense to split them up into logical chunks.

Concerning the "what do the candidates think" bit: why should the opinion of the candidates carry any weight in this discussion? Are they experts in either creationism or evolution? Are they philosophers, logicians, naturalists, biologists, biochemists, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, computer scientists, meteorologists, cosmologists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists, anatomists, physicists? Because evolution draws from and unites all of those disciplines and more! So just what authority do the candidates hold in this discussion?


The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.


Not quite right! The "axyoms" are <u>not</u> true without proof just because. This is the wording of mathematics, which still suffers from its original idealist roots. In truth, every single concept in mathematics itself is merely an empirical induction. How do we know that 1+1=2? Not <u>because</u> it's assumed to be true without proof, although such an assumption is indeed made, and that's where mathematics likes to anchor it. We need to look deeper at <u>why</u> we even bother to make such an assumption in the first place. (The "assumption" part of it is due to the fact that past empirical observations are not a guarantee of the future; knowledge and existence itself are subject to the Fundamental Principle of Induction (FPI), which is the mother of all axyoms.) It is only true because we <u>observe</u> it to be true. Mathematics arose out of empirical observation coupled to induction -- including both its axyoms <u>and</u> its methods. The same is true of any branch of science. In fact, the same is true of any branch of knowledge. The difference between scientific and other forms of knowledge is that science actively tests, structures and organizes its knowledge, and invests a great deal of effort to ensure that none of its statements come into contradiction with one another. In contrast, other forms of knowledge never go that additional distance, and hence are prone to fallacy, inconsistency, overgeneralization, misinterpretation, etc. It is only because science constantly tests itself that its knowledge base is able to grow; no such natural growth factor (beyond serendipitous discovery) is available to grow and advance knowledge in absense of the scientific methodology.


Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.


This is very true. And it is yet another way to see how creationism cannot even be compared in its veracity, utility, or explanatory power to evolution. The interpretation is key, and evolution makes no assumptions which do not derive from empirical observations. Creationism, on the other hand, bases its assumptions on mythology. Right away, a vast difference is visible between the two: one is anchored in objective reality and well-integrated with many other disciplines, the other is based on an inconsistent cultural artifact that itself comes into direct conflict with many observations to date (and hence would have been long since discredited as a theory, were it not for the usual fanaticism and general scientific illiteracy associated with religion.)

Then, of course, there is the question of testability. If I can test my theory and show that it passes test after test, while all you have is "claims" -- then it should be clear which one of us is being reasonable, and which is builiding castles in the air. Remember, the Bible is not the only account of creation in existence; other religions have other accounts. In fact, as with any theories, the total set of all possible theories to explain life is infinite; only empirical testing can winnow down the possibilities and allow us to approach the truth. Any theory that is not testable, then, does not even deserve consideration -- since its probability of being correct is 1/(infinity) = 0.

Also something amusing I find in that picture you posted up: "100% infallible" in reference to the Bible. No scientific theory can ever claim to be 100% infallible; such a statement would in fact come into direct contradiction with the inductive nature of knowledge. Just the fact alone that a creationist is willing to claim the Bible to be 100% infallible, exposes that creationist's view as pseudoscientific. Besides that, the Bible is clearly not 100% infallible, by any reasonable account.


However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.


Clearly, the biology teacher in question was not knowledgeable about the underpinnings of the scientific method enough to demonstrate to her students the superiority of her set of assumptions to the creationist set. All sets of assumptions are not equally well-founded, nor equally well-justified, nor in equal agreement with reality, nor are testable. It is a fact that none of the fundamental creationist assumptions is testable, whereas every single one of the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method are being tested every single time a scientific experiment is conducted -- and indeed with every breath we take.


‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted.


I don't think so! The so called 'brute facts' are of the variety that denotes straightforward empirical observation. Here's a brute fact: if on Earth you pick up a stone, raise it above a supporting surface, and then release it -- the stone will fall. Here's another brute fact: the stone will fall every single time you try that particular experiment. Where's "interpretation" in these observations (other than FPI)?


However, the Bible states: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10); The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).


Just one comment here: "if the Bible says so, then it must be so". Now, where's wisdom in that? Is that how you "teach the children to think"?!!


I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science.


That does not demonstrate the validity of the Bible. Indeed, people have reconciled every other religion in existence with science. They've also reconciled the Bible with everything from racism to geocentrism. Of course, none of these reconciliations lend validity to creationism. But what would give creationism validity, is if it actually predicted genetic drift, or if it actually predicted the fossil record, or if it actually predicted morphological similarities across species within phyla, or that some phyla or kingdoms are geologically older than others, or if it actually predicted biochemical commonalities in all life, or if it actually predicted the geological time scales on which various kingdoms emerged and evolved. However, creationism predicts none of those things. Genetics, biochemistry, and mathematics in the context of evolution, on the other hand, do. As another example: does creationism predict that life had evolved elsewhere in the universe? Well, does it? Evolution certainly does! But where in your 100% accurate Bible is there even a single mention of other solar systems or other planets or other intelligent species? But I have no doubt that when life is discovered elsewhere in the cosmos, creationists will find a way to reconcile the Bible with that finding as well. Though I do believe there is one final blow in coming from which creationists will never recover: complete scientific unraveling of the human mind in terms of purely biochemical processes, obviating the postulate of souls and etching a final epitaph onto the gravestone of afterlife. This will certainly come into direct conflict with the Bible by any degree of reinterpretation, and I'd love to see what excuses creationists will come up with when they have to deal with the reality of artificial human (and even superhuman) intelligence, human-machine hybrids, etc.


A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the "big bang", and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’


It is nonsensical to talk of something as "evolved the right way." Of course we "evolved the right way" -- otherwise we would be extinct. The universe is not entirely random (at least not on the large scale; there's some debate about the sub-quantum realm); it is indeed governed by laws, as profusely demonstrated by any branch of science. What is <u>assumed to be</u> random, however, is the starting configuration and distribution of matter/energy in the protouniverse. It shows a thorough misunderstanding of materialism to say that atheism precludes one from judging correctness or appropriateness of anything. These aspects are determined by both biological structure of the human cognitive machine, and the knowledge of the world that machine begins to amass even prior to birth.


On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’


This is not atheism. It's called solipsism, and is a very lame philosophy (surely you'd agree on that.) Learn the difference between the two.


If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?


How about this: "cogito ergo sum." (I think therefore I am, for those who don't speak Latin.)


How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?


How about this: I am, therefore logic is justified as long as I am, therefore I can talk about things that are true vs. false as long as I am, therefore I can measure and sample my environment, and build theories about it, and let it allow me to decide what is true and what isn't -- as long as I am, that is.


In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this.


I'm confused. How can these philosophers be secular and at the same time find the Christian framework indispensable? Do you know what "secular" means?

<hr>

Now come on, stop regurgitating what other people have stuffed you with, and try to think on your own every now and then. You just might find it stimulating.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 08, 2000).]

Alright...im a fraud, FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!


You said- "I have this sneaking suspicion that you are not its author."

"plagiarism"- their is nothing illegal in what im doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, how old are you, just curious?


Now come on, stop regurgitating what other people have stuffed you with, and try to think on your own every now and then. You just might find it stimulating.

[/B]

Boris, what do you mean by that? I don't understand.


'On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’

I never said he was an Atheis, he did!

ok, ill give you the url....it'l cost ya.....50 dollars!!!!

Quote originally posted by Boris-

"Concerning the "what do the candidates think" bit: why should the opinion of the candidates carry any weight in this discussion? Are they experts in either creationism or evolution? Are they philosophers, logicians, naturalists, biologists, biochemists, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, computer scientists, meteorologists, cosmologists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists, anatomists, physicists? Because evolution draws from and unites all of those disciplines and more! So just what authority do the candidates hold in this discussion?"


Yeah, but neither are you any of those. You don't have to be stupid to beleive in God.

Unicron,

I may not be an expert, but I'll whip any presidential candidate into a pulp on any of those topics. So I'd say I'm a little bit more qualified as an "authority" on these issues.

And if some slob doesn't know the difference between atheism and solipsism, it still gives you no excuse to repeat what he said as if it was spoken on behalf of atheism. (Btw, all this time I'm talking both to you, as well as to whoever wrote the original text.)

Though I must say that so far, your response has been on the feeble side.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

Originally posted by Boris:

Feelings can be misplaced. Intuitions are often deceiving. Inconsistency (or, in other words, "unsoundness", or self-contradiction) is always a hint toward incorrectness. That's why we have logic. That's why we test things. That's (among other reasons) why objectivism is always superior to faith.


If that's how you feel, then you must have no conception of religion, and you probably shouldn't even be arguing these points with people. If you think that everything needs to have empirical evidence to be believed, you have no hope of ever understanding religion or becoming religious youself, although I doubt that disturbs you too much. Are you simply trying to prove to us that your way is right and ours is wrong? I know that my faith is not founded in logic, and you tell me that because of this it is not a reasonable thing to believe. Maybe it isn't, but I do still believe it, and you are not going to change my, nor anyone else's mind about it. You can look back to my previous post for my answer to your "objectivism is always superior to faith" argument. Can't you see that the two are entirely different, and should not be judged in the same ways, or used for the same purposes?

Actually, I suppose you can't, or you wouldn't be saying such things.



[This message has been edited by Vanden (edited March 09, 2000).]

Vanden,
the whole point, is that faith rests on intangible concepts. Subjective to the individual and their psyche.
This is why you find so many people who all swear by their faith in their partircular God, religion or metaphysical philosophy.
Even within one major religion, let's take Christianity as an example. You will find different doctrines, beliefs and traditions.
On an individualistic level, the fragmentation of beliefs/interpretations becomes even finer, to the point in fact where you can put ten 'Christians' into a room to debate their individual beliefs and you wouldn't be too surprised if a fight broke out amongst them, because of disagreement.
Maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but red faces shouting "heresy" and fists banging tables are not hard to imagine in this context.

If I can make an analogy between faith in a religion/God/concept, what you will. And faith or at least acceptance of science and logic, it would be like;
I see the ocean, blue, wet and inviting. I wade in, but only up to my waist. I know that it's an unpredictable and potentially hazardous place. I know that scientists have and are studying the oceans and have discovered a lot of important information and I also know that there are still many, many things to be found out.
I wave to you and I say, "come on in the waters lovely".
You shout back, "don't be silly, come and swim in the river with me. Oh, and don't worry about the crocodile, you've just got to keep on swimming".
And I say, "but I don't see a river or crocodile, you are standing on hard ground".
You say, "ofcourse I'm swimming in a river, why do you need to see it? you gotta have faith man, come jump in"
At that point, one of your friends sitting up a tree, shouts to me, " If you don't want to swim in the river, come and wade in my lake instead! but don't stop wading unless you want the piranhas to bite your ass"

Now given the choice, I would choose the ocean any time. I can see it, feel it, taste it, am truly in awe of it and I know that it's real.
You and your friend though... well as if it's not enough that you both think that you're in something wet and deep (no pun int) when in actual fact you are on and even off the hard dry ground. And as if it's not enough that the wet spaces you describe do not correspond with each other. You have also mentioned animals, which again only you seem to see and they don't correspond either.

This is the difference, as I see it anyway.

------------------
I used to think I was weird...till I discovered Excoscience messageboards!

Boris,

Explain to me how it is that you think that the Christian faith is NOT objective? I don't get it.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Boris,

Explain to me how it is that you think that my faith in Jesus isn't objective exactly?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Vanden -

I believe that the point Boris is laboring to push across is that relying on your feelings may work, but may not. Emotions can become confused, can believe things that aren't true, and can be decieved. Ever been sitting alone in the dark and had the feeling that you were being watched? Children have this problem all the time because they lack the logical skills to know that a monster is not under their bed. Actually, even if you're an adult and think that there is a monster under your bed, you realize that its no bother to simply poke your head under there and check.

Logic and emotion are different, yes. Both have capabilities that the other doesn't, and so in general, we can't compare them. However, this is a rather specific case, and we can indeed compare the benefits and hazards inherent to each.

FyreStar

First I'd like to answer Lori's question to Boris. The Christian faith is not objective because we have no physical proof that God exists that can be objectively tested in controlled conditions.

Next, I fully realize that religion cannot be tested, and I know that may make me appear to be an idiot to some of you for believeing in God. But if you think about it, God has no reason to give us objectively testable proof that he exists. If he did, the test of faith that he has put before us would be invalid, as we would no longer have to rely on what we feel to determine whether or not there is a God. It has been put before us that we can either believe in God and go to heaven, or we can reject him and go somewhere else. It's not much of a test if he can be proven to exist, is it?

Tablariddim, your analogy is interesting, but invalid. I am not trying to give proof that there is a God. That is your own choice to make based on your feelings, not what evidence is put before you. I agree that 10 different Christians will probably have different views on their faith, but there's nothing wrong with that. It would be against the Christian faith to start physically fighting over, and I think most Christians would agree with me on that. Those who judge others' views on religion to be evil are stepping out of their place as Christians and playing God. It is not our place to judge others.

FyreStar,
You speak of benefits and hazards in your response to my post. I can think of quite a few benefits to believing in God, and I'm sure you can name quite a few benefits to remaining completely objective. I cannot, however, think of a single hazard inherent in being a Christian. I can name quite a few hazards to remaining completely objective. Can you name some hazards to being a Christian that I haven't thought of?

-Vanden

Originally posted by Boris:

Though I must say that so far, your response has been on the feeble side.

[/B]


Feeble side? OK, point well taken, point well taken. OK, I'm going to give you a statment and you give me your response...bring it on!!!!!


--------------------


The Bible proves it
"In the Bible it says that..."

"Most atheists feel that the Bible is of questionable accuracy, as it was written thousands of years ago by many authors who were recording oral tradition that existed many years before. Thus, any claimed 'truth' in it is of questionable legitimacy. This isn't to say that The Bible has no truth in it; simply that any truth must be examined before being accepted.

Many atheists also feel that because any passage is subject to "interpretation", any claim that a passage 'means' one thing and one thing only is not legitimate.

Note that this feeling tends to extend to other books.

It is also remarkable to many atheists that theists tend to ignore other equally plausible religious books in favor of those of their own religion."

----------

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

-----------


Einstein and "God does not play dice"
"Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're cleverer than him?"

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness.

So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence suggests that it never will be.

A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...

Einstein has also said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

--------------------

Many people beleive in God and say he exists because of their own personal experiences. What do you think about them?

Boris, if Jesus came once what makes you think he wont come again? He raised the dead, and had all these other powers. Do you think he was just a crack head?

Do you beleive in Souls, or life after death?
Are you 100% sure God dosnt exist?
How can you be so sure?

What do you think about this quote, Boris?


"Sylvia is truly on a mission for God. Simply put, she is determined to show the world that the soul survives death. In addition she wants to emphasize that God, both Father and Mother God, are infinitely loving Beings, not full of wrath and hate as represented by many of today's religions. Sylvia feels that all people can reach God by knowledge and reason, rather than relying upon faith alone. For any question your mind can raise, God will provide an answer; the trick is being able to understand that answer - which Sylvia does on a daily basis, and it gets stronger and stronger with each person she counsels.

To help Sylvia on this mission, God gave her a psychic ability that is unmatched by anyone, which is evident to all who have seen her work on television shows. Many times she has appeared on the Montel Williams Show, Leeza, Unsolved Mysteries, etc; where her astonishing insights and communications with the dead are nothing short of miraculous"
www.sylvia.org (http://www.sylvia.org)


This is the God i beleive in, not the Christian God. So what do you think?

Who usually wins in an argument, Boris or Lori?


also read this, see what this guy thinks- http://www.georgeanderson.com/askga2.html

Vanden -

First of all, particular belief in god is a subsection of what I was talking about before, but I'll adress it nonetheless. Do you really expect me to think that you can't see any hazards in being a christian? I can name a few. closemindedness; once you think you have not only *an* answer, but *the* answer, you close yourself to all the other possibilities. Fooling yourself; without logical support, there is always the chance that you're chasing wisps. People have been deceived since before the beginning of civilization.. what makes you any different? Loss of individuality; when people start to speak out about their faith, they tend to blur into each other. I could go on.
Lets examine the benefits; it seems that in almost all cases, the benefits are themselves generated by the philosophy. Don't want to go to hell? Well, without religious beliefs, we wouldn't have to worry about that anyway. When inventing god in our minds (since of course, like you said, there is no way we can prove him, and therefore his presence *must* come from our minds), he comes batteries included while dangling heaven on a string for us to grab at. And the 'covering your ass' theory just doesn't make sense.

Unicron -

When any of these arguements can be said to have been won, Boris does, without exception.


Emphatically,
FyreStar

Vanden,


If that's how you feel, then you must have no conception of religion, and you probably shouldn't even be arguing these points with people. If you think that everything needs to have empirical evidence to be believed, you have no hope of ever understanding religion or becoming religious youself, although I doubt that disturbs you too much.


Well, for one Fyrestar has already provided part of my answer for me (thanks Fyrestar.)

Secondly, no I don't claim that you need empirical evidence to believe in something. What I do claim, however, is that such beliefs are phony. The only beliefs worth entertaining are those that can at least in principle be verified.

Do you introspect? Have you ever wondered, what causes you to hold your religious beliefs? Have you ever questioned the origin of emotions you connect to your faith? A big part of the reason that I will never be religious is because I never take anything for granted, especially concerning my own thoughts and feelings. I will never willingly engage in the autosuggestion of prayer precisely because I realize that autosuggestion is all there is to it.

Additionally, it is my claim that religions derive purely from overgeneralizations over empirical evidence. In essense, religions are merely bad theories that fail in logic but cling to life via popular illiteracy and emotion. There are people still alive today who believe that properly worshipping their volcano god will prevent eruptions. As someone who does not share their faith, I should hope it's obvious to you just how wrong their particular theory is. As someone who doesn't share any faith, it is equally obvious to me how wrong any and all faiths are.


But if you think about it, God has no reason to give us objectively testable proof that he exists. If he did, the test of faith that he has put before us would be invalid, as we would no longer have to rely on what we feel to determine whether or not there is a God. It has been put before us that we can either believe in God and go to heaven, or we can reject him and go somewhere else. It's not much of a test if he can be proven to exist, is it?


I don't see why not. After all, Satan allegedly had all the proof in the world of God's existence, and yet he chose to reject God anyway. Would that not be the true test -- given the <u>undeniable reality</u> of God, would you still accept him as your Lord, or will you choose to challenge his authority? The alleged test is much muddled by the fact that faith is required to even have a chance at passing it. It's not a clean separation of experimental conditions, and scientifically I'd call it a poor setup.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 09, 2000).]

Unicron,

You are making no sense. Once again, you've reposted a snippet from some debate, but this time it does not even hold any relevance to the topic at hand. First of all, it is irrelevant what Einstein thought about religion; authority of any type doesn't qualify as a reason to accept anything in my book. Secondly, the snippet you posted actually defeats most claims a creationist would want to draw from the fact that Einstein was religious. Hint: stop posting what other people said, and start making your own arguments.


Many people beleive in God and say he exists because of their own personal experiences. What do you think about them?


Given my views, it shouldn't be too hard to imagine what I think. I think these people are sloppy thinkers who make a habit out of falling into fallacies head first, leaping to conclusions, letting someone else do their homework for them, and actually believing that the human emotional apparatus is well suited to making judgements of truth. That's what I think.


Boris, if Jesus came once what makes you think he wont come again? He raised the dead, and had all these other powers. Do you think he was just a crack head?


I do believe Jesus existed. I do not believe he was anything but human. What does that have to do with evolution vs. creation? What does that have to do with the fact that your set of premises is inferior to mine in all respects?


Do you beleive in Souls, or life after death?


No. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.


Are you 100% sure God dosnt exist? How can you be so sure?


No. Neither am I sure that the Goddess doesn't exist. Neither am I sure that somewhere out there, Luke Skywalker doesn't exist. But I give the idea that God exists about a 1/(infinity) chance of being correct. I certainly give it no more validity than the idea that God does not exist. But what I do believe with 100% conviction, is that everything <u>within</u> this universe is purely physical and mechanistic, has always been, and always will be.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 09, 2000).]

Wow, I'm truely amazed that this thread still exists ! Even though it may have deviated a bit from its original topic since its now more a debate between atheists and believers in some form of god. I notice to my pleasure that Boris is still holding his ground and that Lori still hasn't figured out that believing in a certain system wich is based on a revelation simply can't be objective.

Maybe to bring the thread back to its roots I would encourage everyone who can receive BBC to follow the documentary every tuesday evening. Its about the human evolution and what the mechanisms where that triggered the different steps if this evolution.
One of the most interesting episode was the first one where they showed that the cavepaintings that were found in the European caves were very much similar to those found in the mountains of Namibia. The latter ones were made by bushmen and they depicted what their shamens saw in their trance. This points toward a shamanic origan of the cavepaintings. An other issue that they raised was that under hypnosis people at a certain point experience the same kind of waves and patterns before their minds' eye. These patterns were also very similar to what was found in the paintings of the bushmen and of our ancestors. This would mean that at a basic level the human mind generates the same kind of responses. This is the reason why the shamanic believes and customs are very similar all over the world and also back in time as it seems.
One more thing, it seems that religion was one of the first things that evolved once we became conscious and could communicate our feelings to each other. This might explain why we have such a hard time getting rid of those old ideas, they have been with us since the dawn of time and growing up is so difficult and frightning...

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Fyrestar,

I beg to differ. I've been out here for over a year, and I always know when I've won. No one responds and I end the string. For example, I totally blew away the homo debate. I won. I even have a hermaphrodite to back me up. I didn't even finish posting the site that would have put the nail in the coffin, and I STILL won. Believe me, the day that Boris can answer WHY, is the day He wins. And paradoxically, the day He answers the question why, is the day that I win too. Actually, none of us win or lose, we debate. The only one who really wins or loses in this debate is God.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Tee hee hee hee hee!!!! :D

------------------
I used to think I was weird...till I discovered Excoscience messageboards!

Lori -

Riiiiiiiight.

So winning is a 'last word' sort of thing?

Amusedly,
FyreStar

Why Fyrestar, what did you think winning was? Whoever YOU agree with more? People used to think that world was flat.

Also, for whomever answered my question about objectivity....I DO have evidence, I just don't exactly have some measured, and controlled, and sterile environment to document it. Getting to know Jesus isn't an "experiment". But I tell you what, nothing, and I mean nothing, can change a person's heart and life like He can. Being "born again" is not just a saying, and it's not an "effort" that is made by a professing Christian. It's an actual change. My family and close friends can see Him in me. I can hear his voice talking to me. THAT IS OBJECTIVE, it's just not "shareable". So, you just have to believe me. When I say that it is objective, what I mean is that if they too were to pray to God, and hear Him talking to them, then THEY would have their "measurable and observable" answer. I hope that clarifies. Anyway, if it's not in a textbook somewhere, Boris doesn't think it's objective. And apparently everything that is published in a textbook, he does. His education is his faith and his textbooks are his Bible. Whatever. *shrug*

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori,


His education is his faith and his textbooks are his Bible. Whatever. *shrug*


How many times do I have to tell you that <u>I don't have any kind of faith</u>? And no, I don't have a Bible either. I don't worship knowledge, I use it. Which is more than can be said of you.

Whatever indeed.


Anyway, if it's not in a textbook somewhere, Boris doesn't think it's objective. And apparently everything that is published in a textbook, he does.


Lori, here is what we mean by "objective" (excerpts from a dictionary definition):
<UL>
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare to SUBJECTIVE
involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
[/list]
Now, whether you like it or not, your "personal relationship with Jesus" does not fit under any of the above meanings.

Also note that nowhere in the above definition is the concept of a textbook mentioned even once.


Why Fyrestar, what did you think winning was? Whoever YOU agree with more?


Yes indeed Lori, that's the proper definition of victory in the modern world. Among theories, the one that wins is not the one that is absolutely correct, but the one that is the most correct of the bunch. Similarly, in debates the issues rarely if ever resolve into black and white. This is a gray world, and absolutist thinking is passe, besides being yesterday's news. If you investigated as seriously as you claim to have had, then you should have delved into epistemology (a branch of philosophy dealing with the origins, nature, and mechanisms of knowledge.) Your absolutist ideas are way beyond defeated and obsolete, and had been long since buried under many and weighty a philosophical argument.


People used to think that world was flat.


Yeah. Those were the same people who used to think that God made it all.


Being "born again" is not just a saying, and it's not an "effort" that is made by a professing Christian. It's an actual change. My family and close friends can see Him in me. I can hear his voice talking to me. THAT IS OBJECTIVE, it's just not "shareable".


A psychological change in you does not testify to existence of God. It simply says that you decided to change, put some effort into it, and changed. There's nothing supernatural about it.


I beg to differ. I've been out here for over a year, and I always know when I've won. No one responds and I end the string. For example, I totally blew away the homo debate. I won. I even have a hermaphrodite to back me up. I didn't even finish posting the site that would have put the nail in the coffin, and I STILL won.


Amusing. Seeing as to how that particular thread actually ended on a post by me!

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Lori -

Quote from Lori:
"I DO have evidence, I just don't exactly have some measured, and controlled, and sterile environment to document it."

So in other words, your objective evidence is entirely subjective.

By the way, your references to textbooks are both childish and incorrect. A textbook will tell you 'This is what we think is true. Here is why. .......' and will proceed to support its claims. The bible, and other such works, on the other hand will tend to tell you, 'This is absolute truth. Believe it, or spend the rest of eternity painfully suffering in the seventh circle of Dante's Easy-Bake.' Perhaps you should tell us what your fear of textbooks is based in..??

Another word about the winning thing..
So basically you think that the degeneration into an 'is not', 'is too' style of debate is actually relevent. What grade are you in?

Dissonantly,
FyreStar

Unfortunately, there's nothing easy about getting baked with Dante. The man can suck hashish like it's going out of style.

:D
Tiassa

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Are we still arguing about winning and losing? Or did someone win that one? ;)

The question gave me heebie-jeebies, but here's the only commentary I could put together:

If we start from tabula rasa and proceed with disparate ideas, the one that usually "wins" is the one that provides the best (quantitatively, and according to quality of support) evidence and ties said evidence into a grander picture (being the context of the question).

Regardless of who's arguing ... it's hard to "prove" something like the Christian sentiment for God, since that something, according to the conditions of its proof, should not be proven. Now, maybe this is just people afraid to suspend dogma for a second, but it advances any idea none to have nothing to share and everything to gain.

At this forum, though, when I pick a "winner" to a certain debate, it usually has something to do with the fact that at least one of the participants is standing on their original thesis with only that thesis as evidence of itself.

But victory comes with harmony, and I'll stop here before I get too goody-goody.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Originally posted by Boris:
Once again, you've reposted a snippet from some debate, but this time it does not even hold any relevance to the topic at hand. Hint: stop posting what other people said, and start making your own arguments.


Prove it.


But I give the idea that God exists about a 1/(infinity) chance of being correct.

IN other words, ZERO!

I do believe Jesus existed. I do not believe he was anything but human. What does that have to do with evolution vs. creation? What does that have to do with the fact that your set of premises is inferior to mine in all respects?


Yes he was human. But what about all the things he did and said? He said their was a God. This dosn't have to do with Evolution, but it has to do with God, something you say dosn't exist. Any human could do what he did, the only reason why he was so powerful was because he remembered his life when he was just a Soul. God created souls, Souls(we) created the Dinosaurs, then destroyed them, and came to earth into human form. The first humans lived on Atlantis. When you die you go back to your Soul form where you
can either decide to stay in your Soul form, or come back as a human form.
The people on Atlantis remembered their life as the soul form, and knew how to use their power. You think im on crack?!

Unicron,

Glad you can do the math.

<hr>

With respect to your second message...

There ain't such a thing as a soul. As for Atlantis and the dinosaurs... Crack? I don't know, but you definitely do sound like you are on something or other. (Hint-hint, recall the title of this thread.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 10, 2000).]

Looks like you got a lot of typing on your hands, eh?

Ok i'll start a new topic.

Boris hon, the whole point about that debate is this...until you can find "evidence" of a "sexuality" gene, you CAN'T win that debate. Not in the way you are trying to anyway. There is no proof for your arguement, and there is a BEVY of proof for mine. I absolutely REFUSE to believe, as I would have to have blind faith to believe, that there is said gene that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a person to have a fulfilling sexual relationship with EITHER gender. It's absolute hogwash. God gave us our sex, God gave us love, and God gave us each other. But God did NOT give us "sexuality". The very DEFINITION of said sexuality is based upon physical attraction which is nothing but lust, which would NOT EXIST in my ideology, not in REALITY, but in ideology. In reality, we are ALL lustful, because we are ALL sinners. See, I don't have a problem with a girl being attracted to a girl or a man to a man. I have a problem with a man or a woman saying that they CAN NOT be attracted to a person of either sex. That is nothing but a mental paradigm, and nothing but discrimination. There is more of a variation WITHIN a gender than there is BETWEEN the genders. I also know that the GREATEST influence upon WHO it is that we choose to be attracted to is physical proximity and convenience. Listen, you offer up SOME evidence, and I may just change my mind????? Until then, I won. :)

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori,

Although this sexuality tidbit is totally out of place on this thread, I will point out that 1) it is not necessary for there to be a "sexuality gene" in order for sexuality to exist, and 2) I've already offered "some" evidence. But if you disagree maybe we should return back to that thread to discuss it.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Originally posted by FyreStar:
Vanden -

First of all, particular belief in god is a subsection of what I was talking about before, but I'll adress it nonetheless. Do you really expect me to think that you can't see any hazards in being a christian? I can name a few. closemindedness; once you think you have not only *an* answer, but *the* answer, you close yourself to all the other possibilities. Fooling yourself; without logical support, there is always the chance that you're chasing wisps. People have been deceived since before the beginning of civilization.. what makes you any different? Loss of individuality; when people start to speak out about their faith, they tend to blur into each other. I could go on.
Lets examine the benefits; it seems that in almost all cases, the benefits are themselves generated by the philosophy. Don't want to go to hell? Well, without religious beliefs, we wouldn't have to worry about that anyway. When inventing god in our minds (since of course, like you said, there is no way we can prove him, and therefore his presence *must* come from our minds), he comes batteries included while dangling heaven on a string for us to grab at. And the 'covering your ass' theory just doesn't make sense.

Sigh,
I'm only responding to this because you're the only person here who I actually know and care about. I'm not going to argue with anyone else anymore. You've made up your minds and you're not going to change them no matter what.

FyreStar,
You know me personally. Do you really see all of this happening to me since I became a Christian? Am I now that close minded? Being close-minded is not a symptom of religion, but of an insecure person. My belief in God does not mean that anything else I think about has changed. Besides, if I am close-minded, it's only on this one religious topic, and I don't see you puting in a religious argument contrary to what mine is, other than that there should be no religion. If I'm going to appear close minded on this point to anyone it will be people of different religious faiths from mine, and you should care about that because you think the whole lot of us are imbeciles. I'd also like to remind you that there are many people outside of the Christian or other religious faiths that are extremely close-minded.

I don't know why you're all of a sudden claiming that all Christians are close-minded and delusional. Personally, I've noticed that as a group Christians tend to welcome and help anyone they meet immediately. Those who don't haven't understood the message of the Bible. I can't think of any other group which is so welcoming and helpful to anyone they meet. I would tend to say that is open-minded, wouldn't you? I know that some of your closest friends and favorite teachers and acquaintances are Christians. Do you always choose to associate yourself with those you find to be inane?

You also talk about the possibility of my chasing whisps. If I am, what do you care? It doesn't affect you, and it's my choice to make.

Loss of individuality: Do I seem like such a drone to you now? I believe the same things as a lot of people, but we still have our differences, and are by no means the same people. Those who believe the same things about any topic would be at the same risk as you are applying to those of religious faith.

From my point of view, there are many benefits to being Christian. You obviously will not understand these since you are not Christian. Besides the heaven/hell thing, there are many other personal benefits which even those who are not Christians can see. Out of all of the people I've met in my life, the majority of those who behave morally and have good ethics have been Christian. This is not to exempt you and some of my other non-Christian friends from this group. I've heard so many stories of people who have been criminals, drug addicts, etc. who completely changed and started trying to live good lives, helping people, and trying make themselves better people. Even if you think Christianity is a joke, can't you see the benefit in this? I even met one man who was once a drug addict and whose children brought him to Christianity. He is now a pastor in Philadelphia. Things like this, even negating spiritual aspects, help people to make there lives better. I doubt you see too many people coming out of the slums and reforming themselves after someone told them they were acting against logic.

Ok, I'm done with this forum. Nobody here is actually interested in hearing other peoples' opinions, so there is no point in sharing them. Jeff, if you want to respond to me, do it in person so you can tell me personally that I'm deluding myself.

I hope to see you all in heaven someday,
Vanden

Sorry, duplicate post.



[This message has been edited by Vanden (edited March 12, 2000).]

Vanden,

Stop being such a cry-baby. Oh, they won't agree with me, waa-waa-waa. Oh, they don't share my beliefs, waa-waa-waa.

Any one on this forum has no more made up their mind than did you. Heck, if all of us were 100% ambivalent, there would be no point in discussing anything. Speaker1: blah-blah. Everyone: oh yes, sure, definitely could be, why not. Speaker2: but blah-blah-blah. Everyone: oh sure, why not, everything's possible. Speaker3: or, what if blah-blah-blah? Everyone: hey, there's an idea, wow, and what if? Do you see a point in an "exchage" like that? I sure don't! All I see is a lot of time and breath wasted on nothing.

We all come here with opinions. As far as I can judge, the point of meeting and discussing our ideas is to weigh them against each other, and determine which have more merit. That indeed entails comparisons of my-theory-vs.-your-theory, and eventually leads to claims such as my-theory-rules-over-your-theory. And if your belief framework does not enable you to adequately defend it aganst such attacks, then such weakness only speaks to the lack of veracity in your framework, and is a hint toward the conclusion that your framework might not be correct. Whether you will arrive upon such a conclusion, or choose to deny it -- is up to you. But at least you can't say that you didn't have a choice.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

God: A product of evolution and the Human Frontal Lobe.

Lori has based her argument for creationism on the question of why. I have my own explanation of why and I would be very interested in some feed back on it.

OK here I go, The human brain is capable of pondering future events, this is facilitated in the Frontal Lobe of our brain. It is my belief that all religion is based in a fear of mortality. As far as I can tell all religion holds on to a concept of continuing after death. Therefore with evolution came our Frontal lobe, we became aware of mortality in a different light. We had conscience ideas about our own death....all life shares the need to continue, every animal will fight to survive. I believe that it is this instinct (selected directly via evolution) coupled with our awarness of our mortality has bred a need for afterlife, and hence evolved into idea's about god/s. Now the question of creationism and why, well what are the fundamental laws that govern the universe....it comes down to basic natural forces i.e. Gravity, EMF, Nuclear forces. Anyway those forces are responsible for the evolution of our universe entirley, it is their interaction that manipulates matter, creates if you like....evolution took care of the rest including our dreams of afterlife and God. So on a purley scientific platform god or the creator of the universe is the 3 forces of nature....why? because its the most stable product of the 3 forces interaction with matter. I guess I will be asked who designed the 3 forces of nature....well they're fundamental enough to say nothing did, chance did, a random turn of events....It certainly does not need a devine plan or design. So I guess if you reduce it down to fundamentals its not as incredible as it seems. Now with all that said, I still can't shake the need to believe in a god....just not a god that cares to be a part of my life.

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited March 13, 2000).]

I would even broaden the concept and claim that god or religion in general is our way of getting grips with the unknown...
You see there is a parallel between the evolution of the brain and the ideas within it. If I dare to use the cursed computer comparisan again it would be the parallel between the hardware evolution and the software evolution.
However the evolution of our ideas is far more faster then the biological evolution of our brain, does this mean there will be a time that we won't be able to understand our own ideas anymore ? Yes, that time has begone several thousand years ago from the moment we first wrote something down. We began to use a different medium to record our thoughts. The computer is simply an other step in this process. I think it is a natural step that man and machine will merge and become something more. All the Frankenstein fears of machines turning against their creators are based on nothing. Cyberman is simply the next step in our evolution and yes humankind will become one because of the web connecting them.

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

One assumption that is mistaken.....I can only speak for myself, but MY faith in Christ is not drawn from a fear of death. It's due to true belief in the fact that He really exists, and He really is who He says He is. If I didn't have the personal "proof" in my life and my heart, there is no way that I could believe what I do. Know what I know. You guys are leaving out a HUGE part of the faith when making out your assumptions. Jesus Christ is REAL. He really speaks to people. The Holy Spirit is REAL. Just as real as the aliens that many have seen, as real as Eric's "friends" that visit him. It is REAL, and inside ME it IS tangible. I mean, I can't pick it up and hold it, but anything that has such an affect, certainly has a cause.

Also, is this where we're talking about brains? Schizphrenia? Boris and many believe that chemical reactions or physical manifestations in the brain would CAUSE a person to be delusional, hear voices, whatever. I think that it's the other way around. Spirits don't "magically" affect us, they affect us through our bodies. I would venture to say that if someone were to hook me up to electrodes and monitor my brain activity during prayer, that you would see the activity and physical response from it. Once when I was praying, I got so hot that I had to go and open the window. It wasn't hot in my house or in my room. I wasn't hot before, and I'm too young to be gettin' hot flashes. Did you know that God can heal people? If the scenario isn't like I said, then how could God possible heal people? Your body reacts to it's spiritual influence. That's what the soul is for; it connects the two.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori,

1) The Native American tribes virtually all believed that all objects in the world were inhabited by spirits. As a result, many of them would argue just as fervently that their respective animal guide really does speak to them. And quite a few of them will swear up and down that the crow (or something) spoke to them the other day on that hilltop (or somewhere) in human voice, and imparted the wisdom of the elders. Go figure.

2) Delusions are not caused by abnormal brain activity. They <u>are</u> abnormal brain activity. The brain doesn't separate the hardware from the software, it is simultaneously both.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Lori, perhaps I should clarify the fear of death thing, I meant that as the origins of religion...Religious belief is also subject to evolution therefore what your belief is based on would obviously be different to the basis for forming a religion.

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Lori--

Let's see if I can do this without offense.

I would venture to say that if someone were to hook me up to electrodes and monitor my brain activity during prayer, that you would see the activity and physical response from it. Once when I was praying, I got so hot that I had to go and open the window. It wasn't hot in my house or in my room. I wasn't hot before, and I'm too young to be gettin' hot flashes.

This is at least a version of an idea I once held. I have not rejected it outright. However, I've hit a wall, and if you've got a way around it, I'd like to know. Simply--If we assume that "soul activity" is manifest in natural processes, what is the device? What is the communicative media between the body and the soul? There is no way to detect it, no way to quantify it, and no way to track it. If the signal of the soul has that direct of interaction, what is its interface? One might rule that every cell is the interface, so that we don't need an LPT1 or an RCA connector to interact with spirit and soul, but that's not only speculative, but I found it to be desperately so, constructing theoretic devices in order to make a logjammed hypothesis carry through.

I once had a massive hot-flash while riding the Psilocybin Express, which unfortunately hit me while upon the porcelain throne. I fell off and hit the bathroom floor. I would have written it up as drug-related, except that I found out that one of my friends was found unconscious and feverish in her apartment fifteen minutes later (across town), and yet another friend of mine was hospitalized after passing out in a bar (having just arrived, waiting for that first beer) dead-smack in the middle of that fifteen-minute envelope.

Drugs? Maybe. I was on 'em. One friend may have been, and the other was still sober for the evening. Mystical connection? I don't know. But while trying to figure it out, I reinforced some notions I have about the subtleties of my body, to say the least, and perhaps the human body in general. All of this to ask:

* Drugs? Maybe. Probable cause for me, since I was coming down from a fine trip to the end of the universe. But it's not consistent throughout the experience.

* Common illness? Perhaps, but unlikely. While my friend who went down at home might have shared a cold or something with me, that still doesn't explain the third member of the troika.

* Psych conditions? I'm of the opinion that if we compare the state of people's minds today to the standards used to describe psychological deviance merely fifteen years ago, we'd find that the majority of the population is deviant. Even more-so by today's standards (Shy? Get a shrink to prescribe you drugs!)

So I started looking at other things:

* Physical exertion? Unlikely, for as crude as such declarations might be, I've endured greater efforts.

* Posture? Ah ... now here comes my likely candidate for subtlety. I'm not a chiropracter, and don't have one in retainer, but it seems there's something to that spinal stuff. I had a friend who was fearing bad drugs in his past because he was mildly hallucinating for four days when he hadn't taken any acid. The noise his back made when it popped vertically was tremendous, and the hallucinatory symptoms abated immediately. I have broken fevers by loosening up pinched nerves and inflamed joints in my back, neck, and shoulders.

And from that comes a certain question, this at the center of your heat: Do you have a preferred posture during prayer? What subtle habits of your daily life might cause neck, back, or shoulder stress? Had you been sick (virally) in the previous two weeks?

And so on, and so forth.

It's never that I actually want to say that these things aren't divine experiences. But I think people rush to those conclusions and raise their hopes unnecessarily.

Recently, I've heard of several miraculous, divine visions. I will say, in advance, that the following are just examples ... there's a point to how ludicrous they seem. But, for the record, in recent times, I have heard of Jesus and/or Mary appearing:

* In a corn tortilla
* In the bark of a tree (in the news this week)
* In the iridescent coating on the back of a highway sign near Yakima, Washington.
* In the grain of wood veneer on a church door.
* In a mirage inside a church office (the pastor was able to determine, shortly after the media frenzy, that the mirage was sunlight through a stained glass window, reflecting off two perfectly positioned glass or porcelain lampshades).
* In the scorch-pattern on a piece of toast.

Now then ... all I'm after is that these people, too trusted on faith that what they were seeing is real; hundreds of them, who turned out and could be describing any of these events with the same passion and vitriol you display.

Hopefully, I can convey to you that it isn't that anyone truly wants to disbelieve your experiences. But since we all tend to rush to conclusions from time to time, I just thought I'd throw out a few ideas.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

(Edits to fix punctuation and tags)
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)



[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited March 15, 2000).]

hi boris do you remember me?
its funny you are still here with all this theme again go roung circles. You already yet found the answer its so weird you still cant see it Why??? i still wonder.

Boris:
You missed the point of my cultural moral values post, as well as my age. I was probably around, young man when your father was a gleam in his father's eye. But I do admit it was a hurried post, not well edited, and perhaps you are to be forgiven for failing to see the point. So I will try again. (BTW have you read "Lord of the Flies" about a band of children left alone on an island? I rather suspect not. I see you missed Ayn Rand. Figures. You really should widen your reading habits. There is much to be said for a liberal education. But I digress.)

There are no moral absolutes, Boris. In fact science is beginning to suggest there are no absolutes at all. Oh, I just remembered, another young man challenged me on this with the famous 2+2=4 example. I must remember to answer him. But I digress again. (See, I told you I was an old man, can't stay on subject.)

Because there are no moral absolutes and because unlike the law of gravity, morals are not obvious, they have to be taught. And if not taught to children those children often grow up to be quite unpleasant persons. Which is, of course, the major rallying cry of groups like the Christian Coalition. And the justification for their forcing the rest of us to act as we believed the same fairy takes they do. A position as opposed to human freedom as anything Stalin ever thought up.

Still, as you suggest, some values do seem to recur often across both time and space. Now why is that?

Let me digress once more, but this really is on point, I promise.

I remember when I was sophomore, lo these many years ago, and went to my first class in political theory. A world-renowned expert taught it and I can still hear him saying, almost the first words of class, "All societies and all politics arise from this fact. In any sufficiently large group of human beings the number who are strong is much smaller than the number who are weak. All politics is about this power difference. You will never understand how societies work, how politics works, why some political systems succeed and others don't, until you understand and appreciate this simple fact."

As I say, I was a sophomore then, full of myself, sure of every thought, (perhaps you know the feeling) and didn't get out of Hans Morgenthau's class all I should have. But the years have taught me what I failed to learn from old Hans. Societies compete with each other and those that are well organized, orderly, able to hold together over a long period, able to deal with the power differences in the population, succeed. They conquer or absorb others less successful at these crucial tasks.

To take your cheating example, a society that lets its members prey on each other, lets the stronger, either physically or mentally, exploit the weaker, ultimately fails. And it fails because there are many more weak members. And eventually the weaker ones will unite and over power the fewer, even if those few are stronger. ("Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!") Or the weaker may simply leave and join other groups, or start one of their own. (Sound familiar?) But the original society will either change or fail.

But all of this has nothing to do with absolute moral values. It has to do with, you ready for this, "survival of the fittest."

That's right, we are back with Darwin, only now we are talking about societies instead of organisms. There is no more "moral value" in fair play than there is in the opposed thumb. Both are effective adaptations to the world around them, no more no less.

So we are taught not to cheat not because it is "morally right" but because it works!

Oxygen has it right in his recent post. Religion was invented, (will maybe not invented just followed by) people with weak minds who need "Threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise to come" to keep them from doing things that hurt the society at large.

Moses banned pork because he noticed that many who eat it got sick, a bad thing. He wrote down those 10 commandments not because god told him to but because he realized that following those rules made his band of wanderers a stronger group. He told them that story about the hand of god and the burning bush because he wanted them to follow his rules and felt, rightly, that if he convinced them he was speaking on behalf of some all-powerful being they would be more inclined to follow his teachings.

Survival, young man, that is the guiding principal, controls both biology and societies.

And, if you think about it, it has to be that way. That is the only principal that insures that both the individual organism and the society in which it lives, prospers.


------------------
The Sailor says, remember Omar was right.

SailorMike,

Sorry about the age bit, all I meant to say is that your post sounded incoherent (and I've seen plenty of that in typical school essays -- thus the association with teenagers.) And yes, I did read "Lord of the Flies". In fact I used to be quite a bookworm -- until I got myself into this whole science/research thing, and found it even more addictive... :D

I would argue that there indeed are moral absolutes, but they are not absolute in a universal sense of the word -- they are only absolute when it comes to the human species. They are determined by our built-in emotional apparatus. They may not be anything so clear-cut as "thou shalt not kill" -- but they are ultimately what enables us to define right vs. wrong. After all, such moral values are, at least initially, based on what "feels" right or wrong. This is not to say that the emotional apparatus is a very good moral guide, or never malfunctions, or cannot be overridden by higher cognition -- but it does provide those all-important behavioral biases, thus encouraging social interactions and instigating the formation of civilization to begin with.

So, I would say that if we are looking for the ultimate origin of morality within human civilizations, then the human emotional response is definitely it. If we are looking at origins beyond (or should I say before) the human species, then survival of the fittest has a certain relevance.

What you are focusing on, is the operation of moral structures after they had already developed into socially-enforced doctrines. And even there I happen to not entirely agree with your Social Darwinist statements. While it is true that social stability owes much to religious and moral structure, you cannot say that what we moderns would term "good" morality ensures survival of civilizations any more than "bad" morality. For example, look at what happened to the Holy Roman Empire -- it got destroyed by barbarians. The Tibetans are living under the Chinese boot. Then there are the Nazis -- if they won the war, most "benign" civilizations we know today would be heading for extinction.

This is not to say that the Nazis (or any other "bad" civilization -- pick your favorite) did not possess morality -- it's just that some of their precepts would not be what you (hopefully) or I would find acceptable.

But ultimately, morality is a direct consequence of biological behavioral biases that make us into social animals. Notice that morality <u>only</u> makes sense in a social context. Hence, to find the ultimate foundations of morality you have to look at what collects humans into tribes, lionesses into prides, sheep into herds, wolves into packs, chimps into (hmmm... what's the word for a group of chimps? is it still "tribe"?), etc.

So, with respect to the survival of the fittest, I agree -- but only partially. In essense, I'm saying that morality predates civilization as a biological mechanism -- while you are saying that morality is a purely social phenomenon that emerges in the context of civilization as a property of fitness. Naturally, I agree with my position :D

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 27, 2000).]

A terribly unfortunate twist for evolution is the absence of any constructive mechanism by which evolution occurs. The only two mechanisms are natural selection, which kills and does nothing to actively promote change; and its only changing mechanism, random mutation, which is almost never ever helpful. One also has to take under consideration that almost all species have different numbers of chromosomes, making such diversity impossible. You see, we as humans have 46 chromosomes, or two pairs of 23. The LEAST harmful change in that number is in the case of people who have Down’s Syndrome. They are missing a 21st chromosome. This, as I said is the LEAST harmful change, and as you have no doubt noticed has devastating effects on people who suffer from Down’s Syndrome. You cannot better the population of organisms of the planet by means of chabging the number of chromasomes in a species or group of species, most especially if they all come from a common ancestor. Ironically, about the closest relative we have as far as the number of chromosomes in our cells go is the onion! Kinda gets you thinking, huh?
Another argument against a working process of macro-evolution is that it did not have 4 billion years to come about, but more like 250 million years. About that long ago there is evidence that a global catastrophe occurred that wiped out all life on earth with the POSSIBLE exception of MAYBE some bacteria in the extreme deep sea or in some oil-field somewhere. By the extremely slow and clumsily random process of natural selection and random mutation there is no way that evolution could be responsible for the diversity we see in modern species on Earth.
Yet another argument against macro-evolution as a working natural procees is the origin of biochemicals, or the chemicals required to establish life, on Earth. Biochemicals arose on Earth much in the same way that any other chemicals arose on this planet. Biochemicals are simply the more advanced chemicals required for life. Biochemicals themselves are not indicators of life, but rather the necessary predecessors of it. They began at the moment of the big bang. From the big bang, stars known as “first generation stars” formed. These stars and the surrounding gas clouds were made up of only hydrogen and helium. Obviously no life can form out of these two elements. Second generation stars contain about 1 or 2% heavy elements, which are residual elements from first generation supernovas. Third generation stars are the only stars which contain enough heavy elements (made from the fusing of hydrogen atoms, which are the most basic atoms, with other simple atoms) to form rocky planets. I must add that less than 20% of the stars in the Milky Way are third generation stars, and furthermore only spiral galaxies like the Milky Way are capable of producing a significant number of third generation stars.
ust because a star is a third generation star is not enough to form a planet capable of bearing life. The galaxy must be spiral also for the reason that any other galaxy would bombard the delicate chemicals of life with enough radiation to make life impossible, and only 5% of the galaxies in the universe are spiral.
Also other stellar qualities must be taken under consideration. The star must be exactly the right size and age, must be burning only so strongly, and any planets must be only so close or far away in order to be candidates for effective biochemical reactions. There are countless requirements that must be fulfilled in order for a planet to house such fragile life-building elements such as carbon, oxygen, phosphorous, and the like, which brings me to the chemicals themselves.
The chemicals of life, in the most basic of forms, are carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorous, and nitrogen (sorry if I missed anything, I haven’t taken a biology class for a whole semester!). By themselves these elements mean very little, they must be mixed and from into just the right molecules in order to even get close to forming the building blocks of life. This is where the requirements placed upon a planet come into play.
A planet must be only so big, have just the right atmosphere, be of just the right meteorological state, be comprised of just the proper strata, have just the right orbit, and countless others. In all, the probability of a planet being habitable is 10 to the -33, or a 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of finding such a planet. The maximum number of planets in the universe is only 10 to the 22, so that puts the chances of a proper planet (proper sun, galaxy, place in the universe, etc aside!) at about one in one-billion. If these requirements aren’t exactly right, there is little chance that these chemicals can even begin to take the shape of life-bearing compounds, and there is no chance that life can ever form. In end, the chances of finding just one planet of just the right kind in the ENTIRE universe is about 6X10 to the -10 pretty slim chances. These findings are actually very generous, as there are dozens upon dozens of other parameters that are still being tested, and even more that are overlooked based on their subtlety.
Upon finding a planet which contains precisely the right conditions, and the proper mixture of chemicals with which to work, the chemicals have to arrange themselves in just the proper manner. Amino acids have to form out of codons made from simple sugars, and from amino acids must form things such as DNA strands, proteins, and the like. Just to form the chemicals needed to make a protein are astronomically low, and the odds of actually forming even half a protein are approximately 7.4X10 to the -165. Where does all this data lead? It leads to one inescapable conclusion: the origin of life on Earth by any natural process is statistically impossible. As noble Prize winner Francis Crick stated “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” In something as small as the building of half a protein, I have proven by all statistical means such a process happening at random is impossible. Only a God who knew precisely what He was doing could have created such a finely tuned universe. These astronomical figures apply to almost every aspect of science, from (as you have seen here) molecular biology to cosmology, where leading expert John Gribbon (major contributor to several theories of big bang expansion) said “It appears as though as super-intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics.” I would suggest that the answer here is fairly clear. God does exist, and the evidences for His design in the universe are blatant. “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” Psalm 19:1
For these reasons and for myriad others I put my faith in the God of the Bible, and believe that its creation account (though ludicrous when read in the English language-one must go back to the original Hebrew text in order to get a more literal translation, one where “day” is replaced by “period of time”) describes a chain of events that line up remarkably well with observed, recorded, measured, and recreated science. If you look at the Genesis account of creation more figuratively, you can still believe in a universe that is roughly 14 or so billion years old, started via the big bang, and exists under total compliance with the physical laws we have tested and tested so many times over. You can believe in God and still respect what you can see and deduce. My e-mail address is muffindawg@hotmail.com if you have any questions, anything, or I guess you could just post things on this page eh? If anyone else has any questions feel free to e-mail me, challenge me on my beliefs, it can only do me good, and it can only do you good too.

Boris is so much better at the technical stuff than I in this particular arena, but I'm wondering if at least part of this hasn't been established for the debate.

But I wanted to make an observation, and also ask a question:

A terribly unfortunate twist for evolution is the absence of any constructive mechanism by which evolution occurs.

Observation: This is true, except in a context juxtaposed to Creationism, especially Biblical Ceationism, one might assert that Evolution is not as arbitrary as the mythic Creationary Force (God). After all, Evolution does not make one blind, and then punish the individual for the heinous crime of being blind.
A planet must be only so big, have just the right atmosphere, be of just the right meteorological state, be comprised of just the proper strata, have just the right orbit, and countless others. In all, the probability of a planet being habitable is 10 to the -33, or a 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of finding such a planet.

or

The maximum number of planets in the universe is only 10 to the 22, so that puts the chances of a proper planet (proper sun, galaxy, place in the universe, etc aside!) at about one in one-billion.

and

Just to form the chemicals needed to make a protein are astronomically low, and the odds of actually forming even half a protein are approximately 7.4X10 to the -165. Where does all this data lead?

I take issue with your number of planets in the Universe. That is irrelevent, though to the question at hand.

Question: What do the magnitude of any numbers mean in relation to a theoretically infinite Universe? I mean, what does it mean that the chance of anything is one over a billion, if that chance has infinite opportunity to actualize itself.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Hi dumb college kid,

Say can we just call you "the kid" or "kid" for short?

Welcome to the hot seat buddy, just hang around and Big Bad Boris will be with you in a minute. But rest assured I'm right behind you (pushing) :D

OK OK praying :)

Hey Boris, BOORRRISSS where are you man! There a new guy/gal on the block called the "KID".


Allcare

Tony H2o

a common misconception is that the universe is infinite, when in fact it is very much finite in both age and size. This is an undebatable scientific principal. There is no model in cosmology which can realistically provide for a universe that is infinite, or even much older than about 15 billion years. Big bang cosmology is gospel in science, and no one debates it anymore. According to the big bang, the universe MUST have a traceable beginning, making it only so big and only so old. There are numerous physical laws that corroborate this, including one interesting one I just recently learned about called the "singularity principal" or the "singularity theorem". This law states thata universe that is expanding (as ours can be proven to be doing), filled with matter and energy, and obeying any physically acceptable equation of state, must have been singular (or of zero size and zero age) in the past regardless of any lack of symmetry today. IT IS NOT AN INFINITE PLAYING FIELD, evolution in the universe is limited to about 13 billion years, and on earth it is limited to about 4. Actually it is limited even further by the fact that all but a very very few creatures survived a gobal impact a mere 250 million years ago. All the modern evolution we see today is limited to 250 million years and to this tiny planet we live on, there is no infinite playing field.

dumb,

You have made a long series of assertions without adequate or any evidential support. If you wish to be believed then provide appropriate evidence otherwise you have effectively said nothing.

Please note that while the big bang is a dominant theory, it is still a theory and has not been proved. As for no debate; please see both my topics in the Astronomy Forum that introduce two alternatives to the big bang theory, both imply an infinite model. While these may not be dominant or widely accepted they do indicate a debate still exists.

cris, I can't find thatforum, could you put the address on this meesage board, I would be glad to look over the proposed models. You are right when you say that I make assertions without specific examples. There are so many points I could make that would corroberate my claims but I chose not to list them because it would take a very long time. However, since you brought it up and I have nothing better to do, here we go, tell me that these are not viable parameters:

1. Strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

2. Weak nuclear force constant

if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made
by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star
burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

3. Gravitational force constant

if larger: stars too hot; they would burn up quickly and unevenly
if smaller: stars too cool; nuclear fusion would not ignite; no heavy element production

4. Electromagnetic force constant

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for
fusion
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses. hence no heavy element production

6. Ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

8. Expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

9. Entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

10. Mass density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming

11. Velocity of light

if larger: stars would be too luminous
if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough

12. Age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

13. Initial uniformity of radiation

if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14. Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

15. Average distance between galaxies

if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time
span
if smaller: the sun's orbit would be too radically disturbed

16. Galaxy cluster type

if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time

17. Average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized

18. Decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon

20. Ground state energy level for 4He

if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen

21. Decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium, hence no life chemistry possible

22. Mass excess of the neutron over the proton

if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes

23. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form

24. Polarity of the water molecule

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior a
solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

25. Supernovae eruptions

if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

26.White dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production
if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet

27. Ratio of the mass of exotic matter to ordinary matter

if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars can form



Not just the universe bears evidence for design. The sun and the earth also reveal a number
of parameters necessary to support of life. A sample is listed below.

Evidence for the fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system for life support

1. Galaxy type

if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry
would not be available
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions
if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation

2. Supernovae eruptions

if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

3. White dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient fluorine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would he made for efficient fluorine production
if too late: fluorine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet

4. Parent star distance from center of galaxy

if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets
if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits

5. Number of stars in the planetary system

if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life

6. Parent star birth date

if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; stellar system would contain too many
heavy elements
if less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements

7. Parent star age

if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly

8. Parent star mass

if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly
if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet's
rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen

9. Parent star color

if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient

10. Parent star luminosity relative to speciation

if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop

11. Surface gravity (escape velocity)

if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water

12. Distance from parent star

if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle

13. Inclination of orbit

if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.

14. Orbital eccentricity

if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme

15. Axial tilt

if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great

16. Rotation period

if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great

17. Rate of change in rotation period

if longer: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained
if shorter: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained

18. Age

if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly

19. Magnetic field

if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation

20. Thickness of crust

if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great

21. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)

if greater: runaway glaciation would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop

22. Asteroidal and cometary collision rate

if greater: too many species would become extinct
if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life

23. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly

24. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis

25. Water vapor level in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land

26. Atmospheric electric discharge rate

if greater: too much fire destruction would occur
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere

27. Ozone level in atmosphere

if greater: surface temperatures would be too low
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; too much uv radiation would be at the surface

28. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere

if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe

29. Seismic activity

if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics.

30. Oceans-to-continents ratio

if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited

31. Global distribution of continents (for Earth)

if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences too severe for advanced life

32. Soil mineralization

if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited

33. Gravitational interaction with a moon

if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the
oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak

34. Jupiter distance

if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
if less: Earth's orbit would become unstable

35. Jupiter mass

if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable
if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth

DCK -

Just a couple quick points -

First, almost all of your comparisons are extensions of the first few;

Second, most others seem tailored to humanity.. I submit that given different conditions, largely different forms of life will develop.

I'll leave the rest to Boris :)

FyreStar

Dumb!

A terribly unfortunate twist for evolution is the absence of any constructive mechanism by which evolution occurs. The only two mechanisms are natural selection, which kills and does nothing to actively promote change; and its only changing mechanism, random mutation, which is almost never ever helpful.

It seems like you just described, rather than refuted, the mechanism for evolution. Obviously natural selection and mutation work in tandem to induce constructive changes a species' genome.

You cannot better the population of organisms of the planet by means of chabging the number of chromasomes in a species or group of species

Tell that to any plant biologist, and they will be quite amused. Most 'traditional' plant breeding (ie. prior to transgenetic modifications) involves either the hybridization of different plants or the chromosome mutation of a single plant. Hybrid plants are incredibly important (most, if not all, wheat is a hybrid). The latter method of chromosome mutation involves increasing the # of chromosome copies per cell (ie. rather than having 2 sets, the resultant plant will have 4 or 6, or even 8). This is an effective method to increase plant productivity.

... but more like 250 million years. About that long ago there is evidence that a global catastrophe occurred that wiped out all life on earth with the POSSIBLE exception of MAYBE some bacteria in the extreme deep sea or in some oil-field somewhere.

Did all the fish die? What about the reptiles? Mammals? What are they teaching you at your college??

In all, the probability of a planet being habitable is 10 to the -33, or a 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of finding such a planet

Well, sir. You should be publishing your evidence for the benefit of the scientific community, because absolutely no one else has any evidence to make assertions about how probable planetary formation is in this universe!!

Just to form the chemicals needed to make a protein are astronomically low, and the odds of actually forming even half a protein are approximately 7.4X10 to the -165.

Are you making up numbers?
It has been demonstrated that using nothing more than basic organic precursor chemicals found throughout the universe and very simple energetic conditions, one can create amino acids. This is in a lab, with very small volumes of chemicals used, and over a short time frame. Any braindead monkey with a protocol could do it.


Look. If you're actually at college, I strongly urge you to take a course in something scientific (genetics, perhaps). Don't just pretend to think you understand what is going on, because you clearly don't. If nothing else, you'll at least be able to eliminate some of your more worthless arguments (if only to replace them with other not-as-worthless ones).

[This message has been edited by DaveW (edited April 06, 2000).]

Dave W, here are some references for the statements I have made, including the numbers which I did not make up.

REFERENCES:

1.Roche, George, A World Without Heroes. (Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale college Press, 1987), p.120.
2.Kant, Immanuel, "Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens," in Theories of the Universe. edited
by Milton K. Munitz. (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957), p.240.
3.Harrison, E. R., "The dark night-sky riddle: a 'paradox' that resisted solution," in Science, 226. (1984),
pp.941-945
4.Jaki, Stanley L., The Paradox of Olbers' Paradox. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), pp.72-143.
5.North, J. D., The Measure of the Universe: A History of Modern Cosmology. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1965), pp. 16-18.
6.Eisberg, Robert M., Fundamentals of Modern Physics. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961), pp.7-9.
7.Einstein, Albert, "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," in Annalen der Physik, 17. (1905), pp.891-921. The
English translation is in The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H.
Weyl with notes by A. Sommerfeld and translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffrey (London: Methuen and
Co., 1923), pp.35-65.
8.Einstein, Albert, "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" in Annalen der Physik,
18. (1905), pp. 639-644. The English translation is in The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorenta, A.
Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl with notes by A. Sommerfeld and translated by W. Penett and G.
Jeffrey (London: Methuen and Co., 1923), pp. 67-71.
9.Eisberg, Robert Martin, Modern Physics. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1991), pp.30-35.
10.Ibid., pp.37-38, 75-76, 580-592
11.Jackson, John D., Classical Electrodynamics. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962), pp. 352-369.
12.Lamoreaux, S. K., Jacobs, J. P., Heckel, B. R., Raab, F. J., and Forston, E. N., "New Limits on Spatial
Anisotropy from Optically Pumped 201Hg and 199Hg," in Physical Review Letters, 57, (1986),
pp.3125-3128.
13.Einstein, Albert, "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation," in Sitzungsherichte der Königlich Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschafen. (1915), Nov.25, pp. 844-847. (The following reference includes this
reference.)
14.Einstein, Albert, "Die Grundlage der ailgemeinen Relativititätheon.e," in Annalen der Physik, 49. (1916),
pp.769-822. The English translation is in The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorenta, A. Einstein, H.
Minkowski, and H. Weyl with notes by A. Sommerfeld and translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffrey
(London: Methuen and Co., 1923), pp.109-164.
15.Hubble, Edwin, "A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebulae," in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15. (1929), pp.168-173.
16.Douglas, A. Vibert, "Forty Minutes With Einstein," in Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada,
50. (1956), p.100.
17.Barnett, Lincoln, The Universe and Dr. Einstein. (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1948), p. 106.
18.Eddington, Arthur S., "On the Instability of Einstein's Spherical World," in Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 90. (1930), p. 672.
19.Eddington, Arthur S., "The End of the World: from the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics," in Nature, 127.
(1931), p. 450.
20.Eddington, Arthur S., "On the Instability of Einstein's Spherical World," in Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 90. (1930), p.668678.
21.Petrosian, Vahé, "confrontation of Lemaître Models and the cosmological Constant with Observations," in
Proceedings of the I. A. U. Symposium No.63: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational
Data. edited by M. S. Longair. (Dordrecht-Holland, Boston-U.S. A. :D. Reidel Publishing, 1974), pp. 31-46.
22.McCcarthy, P. J., Dickinson, M., Filippenko, A. V., Spinrad, H., and van Breugel, W. J. M., "Serendipitous
Discovery of a Redshift 4.4 QSO," in Astrophysical Journal Letters, 328. (1988), pp. L29-L33.
23.Warren, S. J., Hewett, P. C., Osmer, P.S., Irwin, M. J., "Quasars of Redshift a = 4.43 and a = 4.07 in the South
Galactic Pole Field," in Nature, 330. (1987), pp. 453-455.
24.Schneider, Donald P., Schmidt, Maarten, and Gunn, James E., "PC 1158+4635: An Optically Selected Quasar
with a Redshift of 4.73," in Astronomical Journal, 98. (1989), pp.1951-1958.
25.Dunlop, J. S., Downes, A. J. B., Peacock, J. A., Savage, A., Lilly, S. J., Watson, F. G., and Longair, M. G.,
"Quasar with a = 3.71 and Limits on the Number of More Distant Objects," in Nature, 319. (1986), pp.
564-567.
26.Peterson, B. A., Savage, A., Jauncey, D. L., and Wright, A. E., "PKS 2000-330: A Quasi-Stellar Radio Source
with a Redshift of 3.78," in Astrophysical Journal Letters, 260. (1982), pp. L27-L29.
27.Brecher, Kenneth and Silk, Joseph, "Lemaître Universe, Galaxy Formation and Observations," in
Astrophysical Journal, 158. (1969), pp. 91-102.
28.Bondi, H. and Gold, T., "The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe," in Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 108. (1948), pp.252-270.
29.Hoyle, Fred, "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 108. (1948), pp. 372-382.
30.Bondi, Herman, Cosmology, second edition. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press,
1960), p. 140.
31.Hoyle, Fred, "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 108. (1948), p.372.
32.Hoyle, Fred, The Nature of the Universe, second edition. (Oxford, U. K.: Basil Blackwell, 1952), p.111.
33.Hoyle, Fred, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and
Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.3.
34.Jeans, Sir James H., Astronomy and Cosmogony, second edition. (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge at the
University Press, 1929), pp. 421-422.
35.Hamilton, Donald, "The Spectral Evolution of Galaxies. I. An Observational Approach," in Astrophysical
Journal 297.(1985), pp. 371-389.
36.Gribbin, John, "Oscillating Universe Bounces Back," in Nature, 259. (1976), pp.15-16.
37.Dicke, R. H. Peebles, P. J. E., Roll, P. G., and Wilkinson, D. T., "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation," in
Astrophysical Journal Letters, 142. (1965),pp.415.
38.Gott III, Richard J., Gunn, James E., Schramm, David N., and Tinsley, Beatrice M., "An Unbound Universe?"
in Astrophysical Journal 194. (1974), pp.543-553.
39.Spinrad, Hyron and Djorgovski, S., "The Status of the Hubble Diagram in 1986," in Observational
Cosmology, Proceedings of the 124th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union, held in Bejing,
China, Aug. 25-30, 1986 (ed.: Hewitt, A., Burbidge, G., and Pang, L. Z.), (Dordrecht-Boston: D. Reidel,
1987), pp.129-141.
40.Steinhardt, Paul J., "Inflation and the W -Problem," in Nature, 345. (1990), pp.47-49.
41.Peebles, P. J. E., "The Mean Mass Density of the Universe," in Nature, 321. (1986), pp.27-32.
42.Hamilton, Donald, "The Spectral Evolution of Galaxies. I. An Observational Approach," in Astrophysical
Journal 297. (1985), pp.371-389.
43.Sandage, Allan and Tammann, G A.,. "The Dynamical Parameters of the Universe: H0, q0, W 0, L , and K," in
Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Cosmology, and Fundamental Physics, Proceedings of the First
ESO-CERN Symposium, CERN, Geneva, 21-25 Nov., 1983, edited by G. Setti and L. van Hove. (Geneva:
CERN, 1984), pp. 127-149.
44.Yang, J., Turner, M. S., Steigman, C., Schramm, D. N., and Olive, K. A., "Primordial Nucleosynthesis: a critical
comparison of theory and observation," in Astrophysical Journal 281. (1984), pp.493-511.
45.Uson, Juan M. and Wilkinson, David T., "Improved Limits on Small-Scale Anistropy in Cosmic Microwave
Background," in Nature, 312. (1984), pp.427-429.
46.Ellis, C. F. R., "Does Inflation Necessarily Imply W = 1?" in Classical and Quantum Gravity, 5. (1988),
pp.891-901.
47.Guth, Alan H. and Sher, Marc, "The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe, in Nature, 302. (1983),
pp.505-507.
48.Bludman, Sidney A., "Thermodynamics and the End of a Closed Universe," in Nature, 308. (1984),
pp.319-322.
49.Novikov, I. D. and Zel'dovich, Ya. B., "Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities," in Annual
Review Of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11. (1973), pp.401.
50.Sikkema, Arnold E. and Israel, Werner, "Black-hole Mergers and Mass Inflation in a Bouncing Universe," in
Nature, 349. (1991), pp. 45A7.
51.Linde, Andre, "Self-Reproducing Universe," lecture given at the Centennial Symposium on Large Scale
Structure, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California (September 27,1991).
52.Hawking. Stephen W. and Ellis, George F. R., "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of
Singularities in our Universe," in Astrophysical Journal 152. (1968), pp. 25-36.
53.Hawking, Stephen and Penyose, Roger, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," in
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314. (1970), pp.529-548.
54.Vessot, R. F. C., Levine, M. W., Mattison, B. M., Blomberg, E. L., Hoffman, T. B., Nystrom, G. U., and Farrel,
B. F., "Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser," in Physical Review Letters, 45.
(1980), pp. 2081-2084.
55.Wein