BTW your grandson at age six can be forgiven for a lack of knowledge, but repeating his statements as though they mean anything regarding evolution is stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
BTW your grandson at age six can be forgiven for a lack of knowledge, but repeating his statements as though they mean anything regarding evolution is stupid.

Perhaps stupid on your part, not mine.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Is god a something or a nothing? If something, how did god come from nothing? Evolution, perhaps?

I reckon you can ask him that question when the day arrives that you get to meet him.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
That's the problem with the scientific community.

They proclaim that once upon a time there was nothing. Then, there was something. They KNOW this is true, but have no evidence or explaination.

Rich

It's called 'the big bang theory'
God spoke and BANG it happened!

Ironically, it is possible that science is following gods plan for man to become aware of and have a greater understanding of god while being in denial of his exsistance.

quote:

Originally posted by Swamp_Fox:
THe problem with scientists is that they don't understand that God was the original scientist. Of a much more advanced science than they will ever understand.

Yes, the universe did not just come about by chance ... by random chance ... out of nothingness .... as that would require too many (millions) assumptions. Order never came from chaos - there are just too many physical rules. The whole thing is just too wonderful for words to describe how this all happened. We just know too little to put this puzzle together. Accepting that all life on earth stems from a one cell bacterium and develop in trillion different live forms makes our brains stand still - plants, animals, fish, birds, snakes, spiders, apes and man, etc. And somehow apes are now staying apes, none is in transition anymore. And when different species evolved another miracle happened whereby MALE and FEMALE evolved by chance so the earth could be filled. Also just about every class of specie pray on some other specie - the fish, the snakes, the birds, the animals, even the wasp - a violent self sustaining system that happens in mass, even though at the beginning there were only 2 of each ... right? Think ... the first lamb and the first jackal ... the jackal had to have the lamb, right? Think all the predators ... and all their prey must be in close proximity to survive.

And so we can go on and on, and become dumber ... as we would not consider the thought of an all mighty creator who we call God for the sake of assigning a name to someone superior to us.

Warrior

.....or you can be indoctrinated into blind faith in a greater nothingness. All the same to me as long as you leave other people alone.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

One of the great things about science it that actually encourages challenging our current understanding of our world and universe.

I think most of the world has seen just how this encouragement works over the past 18 months…that would be the “human caused global warming” debacle. It appears that a few greedy individuals colluded with a few individuals in scientific authority positions to ram this down the world’s throats. It also appears that these few individuals did everything possible to stifle the efforts of every scientist who disagreed with them. And it also appears that this was done solely for money and power. Yep…one just has to love amount of encouragement for discourse going on during this debacle.

I knew that someone would make this mistake. First of all global warming is being pushed by politicians and celebrities that have no understanding of the science they are talking about. Science is a method of testing, understanding and explainging how and why things work. Science is NOT individuals who are capable of greed. Now before you puff up your chest and say "See that is why you can't trust science, becuase the scientists can't be trusted" As yourself this. Is religion completely without this same failing? Unless you can say that religious leaders have never lied for personal gain, greed or power then your argument against Science on these grounds is completley worthless. How many preacher have spoken of abstinence and fidelity and then run off and bang the secretary when no one is looking. How many preacher have said love all mean and then acted with hate and discrimination against those of different races. Both science and religion can suffer the failing of humans. However, scientific research can correct the errors. Relgious organizations will only change their postion if the fear they will lose their congregation if they do not.

As far as "I don't see monkeys evolving into men" that is exactly what I mean when I say your garden variety human is incapable of understanding anything beyond arms length. A six year old is forgiven. Evolution does not say that an individual of one species changes into and individual of another species. The changes that drive evolution are slow on a scale you are unable to comprehend. A human being does not live long enough to observe them. Human history is not long enough to observe them. Assuming that you should be able to observe evolution in action only shows that you are completley uneducated on the topic you are trying to discuss. Would you sit down and discuss brain surgery and tell a surgeon how he should do it? No, because you are ignorant of the facts. Humans are embarassingly ego-centric and conceited. To the extent many will say they are created in the image of a God. It does not get much more conceited than that. This conceit drives them to falsley assume that have everything figured out. "If I can't see it happen right in front of me then it must be false because after all I am created in the image of a God." Science at leat admits it does not have all the answers. Ask a scientist to completely explain the creation of the universe and he will say that we don't really know exactly what happened right at the beginning but we are trying to figure it out. Ask a religionist and they will tell you Duh, God made it.

Believing in a God does not bother me if that is what people choose. What is so bad it that religion (at leat the most popular flavor in this country) strives to completely close the minds of its followers to protect its own exisitance. If the church says IT IS SO it gives no room to allow that it might have made a mistake.

quote:

The changes that drive evolution are slow on a scale you are unable to comprehend. A human being does not live long enough to observe them. Human history is not long enough to observe them.

This becomes problematic to explain evolution from its simplest form to its most complex form. How did single-celled animals evolve?

For example ... How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc develop in the first animal by slow minute steps, and the animal survived while these changes took place? These various biological systems need to be ever present to function as an entity - a cohesive and integrated system where he body cannot function with one or more of organs are missing. Ask a medical doctor if it could happen in a piecemeal evolutionary fashion.

It begs the question .... How did the intermediate forms live?

In order to survive, man or beast must have a sensory system that is functioning in harmony, and so we then need to explain how did eyes and ears evolve. When did skin and hair evolve or feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc evolve? Which evolved first and how long did it work without the others that followed? Look at the complexities in just the human body. Consider your eye, and your brain, and how all your systems and your chemical makeup have to function cooperatively and flawlessly. Look microscopically. There are 3,000 proteins in one sequence in a single cell. How did thought evolve from our "pre-historic man" (whatever name or specie scientists want to asign to it.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago states that the “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup

Warrior

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis

http://www.allaboutscience.org...ory-of-evolution.htm

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Warrior

http://www.allaboutscience.org/dNA-double-helix.htm

DNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity
The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.
DNA Double Helix: The "Basics"
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.

The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.

Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.

Warrior

The irreducible complexity of the eye - another miracle.

A simple eye refers to a type of eye design or optical arrangement that contains a single lens. "Simple" in this case does not refer to the number of cells present in the eye or the visual acuity of the eye. Indeed, the optical properties and anatomy of simple eyes is often incredibly complex. Human eyes and camera lenses are classed as "simple", because in both cases a single lens collects and focuses light onto the retina (eye), film (analog cameras), or CCD (digital cameras). This is most easily contrasted with the compound eye of insects, where each eye consists of multiple lenses (up to tens of thousands), each focusing light onto a small number of retinula cells.

Compound eyes generally allow only a short range of vision. For example, flies and mosquitoes can see only a few millimeters in front of them with any degree of resolution, although within this short range they can see detail that we could see only with a microscope.

Dragonflies have one of the most elaborate eyes of any insect, capable of pinpointing the motion of a small prey insect several meters away, even his while the dragonfly is traveling fast. Butterflies have color vision that is more enhanced than our own, enabling them to locate food from flowers. Honey bees can see in ultraviolet, which allows them to perceive patterns on nectar-laden flowers that are invisible to us. Many insects, including bees, can also detect polarized light, which they use in navigation.

The compound eye of the fruit fly contains 800 ommatidia or individual units. Each ommatidium contains 8 photoreceptor cells, support cells, pigment cells, and a cornea. Some fruit flies (wild-type) have reddish pigment cells, which absorb excess blue light so the fly isn't blinded by ambient light. Charles Darwin was so enamored by the intricate complexity of the eye that he wondered how it could have evolved.

Spiders, which do not have compound eyes, have many pairs of simple eyes, with each pair adapted for a specific task or tasks. In hunting or jumping spiders for example, a forward facing pair possesses the best resolution (and even telescopic components) in order to see the (often small) prey at a large distance.
Jellyfish, sea stars, and flatworms bear the simplest eyes, pigment spot ocelli, which have pigment distributed randomly and which have no additional structures such as a cornea and lens. The apparent eye color in these animals is therefore red or black.[2]

Many snails and slugs (gastropod mollusks) also have ocelli, either at the tip of the tentacles or at the base of the tentacles. However some other gastropods, such as the Strombidae, have much more sophisticated eyes.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
The irreducible complexity of the eye - another miracle.......



Warrior

So how does that, or your previous two posts in any way make the FACT of evolution untrue?
For that matter; Genesis actually PROMOTES evolution - in a manner understandable to mankind at the time it was written.
I have no problem whatsoever reconciling my belief with scientific evidence of evolution.
God DID indeed make man from the basic elements of the earth - it just took slightly longer than the simplified explanation in Genesis.....

It is a distinct possibility that man can become extinct.
If that happens god will no longer exist since the existence of god only serves it's creator - man.
The universe will continue to hurtle on through the cosmos.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
It is a distinct possibility that man can become extinct.
If that happens god will no longer exist since the existence of god only serves it's creator - man.
The universe will continue to hurtle on through the cosmos.

Man, that would really stinct... but you know, if amphibians remain in existence, that means turtles will continue to hurtle.

That's pretty deep, but only when they're submerged.

wah- -HOOOOOO!!!!

I have a friend who was an athiest, christian hater, and prominant evolutionary biologist. He spent years trying to convince "simple minded" christians that thier faith was foolish.

He was in a helicopter over Mt St. Helens when it blew. Not only was he almost killed, but he watched a volcano do what evolution tells us takes millions of years to perform but the volcano did it in a few minutes. It took him many more years, but he is now an ordained minister and creationist scientist with a speaking and teaching organization that talks about the holes in the THEORY (NOT FACT) of evolution and offers a great deal of evidence to support creationism.

I don't care what anyoone wants to believe, but anyone who calls evolution a FACT is using as much faith in the unproven as any person choosing to believe in any God.

If anyone wishes to hear some of this evidence from a Ph.D. the website is confoundthewise.org

I'm sure he would love to hear from some educated evolutionists and have a civil debate on the matter.

I find it interesting that folks with only the vaguest idea of the hows and why of creation seem so confident that they know what the creator is or isn't.

I find it interesting that folks with only the vaguest idea of the hows and why of evolution seem so confident that they know that something came from nothing, and all by chance.

Warrior

quote:

I find it interesting that folks with only the vaguest idea of the hows and why of evolution seem so confident that they know that something came from nothing, and all by chance.

I repeat, is your concept of "god" something? If so, where did he/she/it come from if not from nothing?

Your argument for the "starter" god is based solely on speculation and zero facts, which is not the case with evolution. Indoctrination is a wonderful thing.

quote:

I repeat, is your concept of "god" something? If so, where did he/she/it come from if not from nothing?

My concept of "Creator" has little to do with God(s). It has to do with the depth and breadth of the organization of the universe. The complex orgainazation from the infinantly small of the quantum to the vast expanse of the universe speaks plainly of inteligence. Not an inteligence I understand but something vast and grand yet concise to a degree that we may never comprehend.

Gatogordo,

You are welcome to believe that you evolved from an ape man. Perhaps you can tell us hom many of the features you retained and/or how different you are today. I would venture to say that you have lost all that athletic ability and you have gained a thought process that was absent in the primitive apes.

What a process .... what a wonderful evolution ... from ape to man. But I am not sure if if was for the better, when we look around us and see how man rape, murder and kill each other .... and how we break the planet down and consume all its resources.

To deny that there is an all mighty creator (God) in the face of the wonderful universe is also specuation that there is no God. In fact, imho that is a bigger speculation than to believe there is a God. The greatness of modern man will be reduced to ashes when he lies on his death bed ... all his clever ideas of how things are supposed to work that culminates that it is impossible for a greater force to exist.

Warrior

First there was GOD. He evolved himself to humans then created His Son to help us evolve more. Simple

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Gatogordo,

You are welcome to believe that you evolved from an ape man. Perhaps you can tell us hom many of the features you retained and/or how different you are today. I would venture to say that you have lost all that athletic ability and you have gained a thought process that was absent in the primitive apes.

What a process .... what a wonderful evolution ... from ape to man. But I am not sure if if was for the better, when we look around us and see how man rape, murder and kill each other .... and how we break the planet down and consume all its resources.

To deny that there is an all mighty creator (God) in the face of the wonderful universe is also specuation that there is no God. In fact, imho that is a bigger speculation than to believe there is a God. The greatness of modern man will be reduced to ashes when he lies on his death bed ... all his clever ideas of how things are supposed to work that culminates that it is impossible for a greater force to exist.

Warrior

If you think that I'm supposed to be insulted by your questions about my (and our) ancestry, think again. Yes, I and all of us evolved from an ape like ancestor. We share approximately 96% of our DNA genomes with chimpanzees due to that common acestor.

AFA as denying a "moving force" or creator, or whatever you want to call it, I don't deny it. Why should I? It may be there or it may not, but that has nothing to do with us and is not subject to rational discussion. I do deny a caring anthromorphic Christian (and Jewish and Muslim and....) god. BUT as I've said many times before in here, if believing in something makes you feel better or makes you behave better, that's a good thing, just don't try to impose your beliefs or the fall out therefrom on me. And don't try to foist the stupid creationism agenda off on my kids in school. Indoctrinate yours all you want, but damn sure leave mine alone.

Gatogordo,

First off, nothing is imposed on you or your kids - at least not by me. We can all believe what we want to be. I do agree that a believe system be it Christian or otherwise can be a very good thing as it infuences how people conduct themselves and how they see life - good example to site would be the Dailai Lama.

Secondly, you are not supposed to be insulted - I am sure you are an upstanding individual, and as such may be proud of where you stem from, even if it was a dumb ape with no ability of thought. Based on your response, I must conclude that you are comfortable with the notion that you come from apes.

The fact that DNA is 96% (others claim up to 98%) the same does not cut the ice for me as far as similarity. There is a huge difference my friend. Perhaps you should explain to me when did the thought process evolve, let alone all the other features that changed -

Walking on all fours
Diminising of body hair
Facial form, complextion and expresion
Body posture
Hands and feet
Etc, the list is a long one

I am amazed that when people do not even know who their great-great grand mothers were, but that they know for a fact that they have an ape or apes in their pedigree.

If any human cannot demonstrate a resemblance of ape features or behaviour in man both in the fossil record and presently, then it is mere speculation and devoid of any logic.

Here is a proposition for you - I will give you 2 Chinese people, male and female, and I will give you a million years to breed a blond German looking individual with blue eyes for me - thereby breaking the genetic code within the same specie - homo sapiens.

Warrior

From Wikipedia .... very interesting how the story is told .... enjoy !!!

"Humans, known taxonomically as Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"),[3][4] are the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.[5]

Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living species on Earth. Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality and sapience,[6][7][8] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".[9][10]

Like most higher primates, humans are social animals. However, humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. With individuals widespread in every continent except Antarctica, humans are a cosmopolitan species. As of August 2010[update], the population of humans was estimated to be about 6.8 billion.[11]"

For the full story read further .... and also interesting and very innovatively they also portray a reconstruction of our human ancestor, and I guess some of will be happy to meat again with our family members of the distant past even though they were pretty much at the imbesillic level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human For the full story ....

Warrior

quote:

If any human cannot demonstrate a resemblance of ape features or behaviour in man both in the fossil record and presently, then it is mere speculation and devoid of any logic.

Funny, you aren't very internally consistent. First you want to believe based solely on faith, with absolutely nothing to prove your specific beliefs, but now you want a specific fossil to prove what you apparently deny DNA does.

Excuse me, I didn't realize you were the idiot who follows Gerald around until now. I'll pass on any further interactions with you.

Gatogordo,

You have not answered the question about your true origins in terms of the debate that you joined willingly, right? You made a big thing about 'speculation' and consequently I had to ask you where is your proof that man comes from apes, and you could not provide the proof - not a single thread of evidence. So now you jump on your high horse. You are welcome to quit taking about the subject, no sweat. You could not stay with the debate, you had to throw a personal insult.

It is just my basic belief that apes come from apes and humans comes from humans. If you believe differently then I must respect that and visa versa. I you believe you come from an ape then it is fine with me, but I really do not believe so - right or wrong. We just belong to two different schools of belief. You cannot provide the proof that man comes from an ape - so that is also speculation at best. So it is just a whole lot easier for me to believe that man comes from man.

I do have a theory though - if a dumb man marries a dumb woman, then I do not expect them to produce very intelligent offspring. Like wise how would intelligent man come from dumb apes. Now if you believe that, then you must be as dumb as the apes that you come from - statistically speaking. For clarity I repeat, you said yourself that you are coming off the apes. And the thing is these apes did not cross with human beings - it was only them at the time on earth. So my take is that they recreated themselves, and if you come from them, then you must be pure ape.

Thanks for your interesting views, and I defend your right to differ. No harm in sharing our different beliefs but I am sorry if your frail ego is hurt. You were bold enough to say "I do deny a caring anthromorphic Christian (and Jewish and Muslim and....) god." So, then you should be able to go with the flow and answer some tough questions in this debate without puffing some smoke.

Goodbye.
Warrior

Gatogordo,

I think the following will please you, as it is more in line with your thinking as tough as it may sound to the mainstream. I am sure the proposal hereunder will make you enjoy America better with all its liberties, even though they are being curbed in many other respects in the name of security and safety, but being on the fringe of the US society must be a grave irritation for you.

Come to think of it ... we should not be surprised if this outlandish proposal gets accepted in time to come - it is already happening in some courts already. Evolution is already taught at most schools and pictures are shown how the apes that were on all fours are coming up in stages to walk upright - told as the 'gospel' truth. Evolution is very great leap of faith. Ultimately, science has to answer the question of creation, but so far has fallen irrefutably flat on its face. Science, in all its suppose grandeur has been utterly unable to create any living thing from something non-living. Admitting the errors of evolutionary theory could lead to science's need to admit its inability to answer the most important of all questions - how did life begin?

Warrior

Here is an atheist's proposal as an amendment to the US Constitution.

"The new amendment to the Constitution now states the United States of America is now a Secular Nation. Any and all references to any religion or to the bible or the 10 commandments are to be removed from all government buildings. There will be no praying or religious services of any kind on any government property including the military. There will be no religion taught in any public or government schools and “intelligent design” will not be taught, only scientific facts. There will be no invocations at any government meetings at any level. No religious icons are allowed in any branch of the government. The national day of prayer will be abolished; “in god we trust” will be removed from all currency and “under god” will be removed from the pledge of allegiance. This amendment clarifies once and for all that there is 100% separation of State and Church. There are no exceptions. The United States government is not a Christian Nation and this amendment states the government is not in the business of religion and is and will remain 100% secular." .... Mark

Some of the best evidence against evolution are quotes from the evolutionists themselves that show how much they doubt their own theory:

Stephen J. Gould, Harvard:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

D.S. Woodroff, University of CA, San Diego:

"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716.


Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University:

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.95.

Warrior

quote:

I repeat, is your concept of "god" something? If so, where did he/she/it come from if not from nothing?

You asked the question .... who created God? This is an age-old question of agnostics and atheists. Christianity claims that God has always existed as he is eternal. You may ask how is this possible?

There are two possible interpretations.

One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point.

Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created. God must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. God could not have created the universe if He were only a part of it.

Read what Pofessor John Lennox has to say about God and the universe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb...in-universe-God.html

Warrior

It seems that YOU can create god out of nothing---- but cannot understand how the universe might come about in the same way.
That problem with most believers is they cannot tolerate the thought that when they die there is nothing else.

SR4759,

You are totally wrong to bestow upon me the ability to create God. You are putting the cart in front of the horse my friend. Since you sited the concept of nothingness, most evolutionists and atheist propagate the notion that there is absolutely no need for a God, as they maintain that in the beginning there was an unexplained puddle of goo. Suddenly, an electric arc shot out of nothingness, creating amino acids. These acids, through pure chance, developed into proteins and eventually the first single-cell organism came into being. Over the course of time, chance favored this cell, and eventually its offspring became every mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, microbe, and plant on earth today.

God is the great architect of the universe - that is my take on things, but you seem to support the notion that the universe came about from nothing, yes? .... and if so, I suppose this state of nothingness included the absence of gravity as well.

So without gravity how do you explain the formation of the universe. Where does gravity come from and who ordered gravity as a reality? Perhaps you can share with us your view about nothingness and gravity and I wish to refer you to the following few points to consider in your reply what we had right in the beginning before we had the expanse of the universe:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from? (gravity, inertia, etc)
4. Where did the energy come from to re-arrange the 2 balls of matter that was supposedly in equilibrium at one stage?
5. How did the matter get so perfectly organized after that chaotic big-bang prang?

Warrior

PS: In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing."

The answer to your questions are the following:

1. The universe is everything, there is no "space" outside it as there is "nothing" outside it. A function of this universe, for example man, can no more hope to transcend his creator, the universe, than a devout soul transcend his humanity and join the angels.

2. Matter and energy are the same thing, long explanation to this one and no time here if interested read physics 1900- present day primer availiable from all good bookshops. The proper question is where does energy come from and the correct answer, it is a function of the universe, is insufficient. The only other answer I can think of off the top of my head is "A place at least as likely to exist as God's home town in any event"

3. The laws came from a few clever men who came up with a theory to explain the properties of the observabal universe. They are coherent in their own logic and in their description of phenomena, moreover they are repeatable and testable. More fanciful theories, involving endless drama and more single mothers than one might possibly expect, have been put forward, but not by reliable witnesses.

4. Who's balls?

5. The laws at 3 above.

PS. nothing=zero=the difference between n and n where n=n.

Einstein’s Big Blunder

Where did the Universe come from?

100 years ago, Albert Einstein published three papers that rocked the world. These papers proved the existence of the atom, introduced the theory of relativity, and described quantum mechanics.

Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?

His equations for relativity indicated that the universe was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.

Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a ‘fudge factor’ that ensured a ’steady state’ universe, one that had no beginning or end.

But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘fudge factor’ to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.

As I’ll explain during the next couple of days, Einstein’s theories have been thoroughly proved and verified by experiments and measurements. But there’s an even more important implication of Einstein’s discovery. Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began with the Big Bang.

That’s right — time itself does not exist before then. The very line of time begins with that creation event. Matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant by an intelligence outside of space and time.

About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book “The World As I See It” that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”*

He went on to write, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”*

Pretty significant statement, wouldn’t you say?

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

We Evolutionalists belive that all answers will be made clear to us when we're dead.

Or put into perspective, at least.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
SR4759,

You are totally wrong to bestow upon me the ability to create God. You are putting the cart in front of the horse my friend. Since you sited the concept of nothingness, most evolutionists and atheist propagate the notion that there is absolutely no need for a God, as they maintain that in the beginning there was an unexplained puddle of goo. Suddenly, an electric arc shot out of nothingness, creating amino acids. These acids, through pure chance, developed into proteins and eventually the first single-cell organism came into being. Over the course of time, chance favored this cell, and eventually its offspring became every mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, microbe, and plant on earth today.

God is the great architect of the universe - that is my take on things, but you seem to support the notion that the universe came about from nothing, yes? .... and if so, I suppose this state of nothingness included the absence of gravity as well.

So without gravity how do you explain the formation of the universe. Where does gravity come from and who ordered gravity as a reality? Perhaps you can share with us your view about nothingness and gravity and I wish to refer you to the following few points to consider in your reply what we had right in the beginning before we had the expanse of the universe:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from? (gravity, inertia, etc)
4. Where did the energy come from to re-arrange the 2 balls of matter that was supposedly in equilibrium at one stage?
5. How did the matter get so perfectly organized after that chaotic big-bang prang?

Warrior

PS: In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing."

So where did your god come from?
And what importance is he in the absence of man?
An you never did answer the question about your own dead end with no hereafter for your immortal soul.

Obviously you have never heard of vacuum technology - the technology of absolutely nothing.
Sure there is nothing. Nothing is the space between particles of matter. The universe is mostly nothing.

Does God eat?

quote:

And what importance is he (God) in the absence of man?

I think this statment might be significant in understanding those who deny a creator.

entropy and murphy .. answers lots of questions

God lives outside of space and time. He created space. He created time. He is confined to neither of these things. It's somewhat of a stretch for most of us to imagine that, but a physicist or mathematician will attest that it's entirely reasonable. There is nothing absurd or illogical to speak of dimensions outside of space and time; in fact additional dimensions are necessary to rationally explain the universe. String theory in modern physics defines 11 dimensions, four of which we experience.

Human experience, without exception, is that all effects have causes. There are no uncaused causes. The inevitable conclusion is that the laws of physics explain how the universe operates but they don't explain how it got here. All explanations require an "eternal" ingredient. The existence of anything at all demands an uncaused cause. So we never escape the question 'where did it all come from.'

A purely physical explanation (i.e. materialism, or an atheistic belief that says that there is no such thing as a metaphysical world) relies on as-of-yet undiscovered principles of physics. It requires faith, if you will, that someday we'll discover a way for matter and energy to come from nothing.

Another problem faced by materialistic explanations is entropy. Entropy says that the universe is cooling down, that energy is being converted from usable forms to unusable forms, and that this process is irreversible. Processes with entropy happen, by definition, over a finite period of time. An infinitely old universe with entropy would now be cold and dead. Once again, the universe can't be infinitely old. It had to have a cause.

So science as we know it now cannot possibly explain this. The only logical explanation is a cause outside of space and time - which of course is consistent with the definition of God that theists have held for thousands of years.

Science does not refute this; in fact a truly scientific assessment of the facts is that all purely materialistic answers to the origins question blatantly violate the laws of physics.

Warrior
“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.” -Galileo Galile, 1623