Support NeoGAF

[SpoonyBard]

Didn't some guy beat God in a wrestling match in the Bible? Doesn't seem very omnipotent to me!

 

[Phoenix]

God's omnipotence is established through creation of absolutely everything and indirectly in comparison to other mythologies (in the Old Testament, God is competing with a variety of pagan gods) as he is one all powerful god as opposed to a pantheon of deities with different powers.

Then of course we have to take into account the many other religions that believe in 'creation' just not the same as the Bible's account. Are we saying that they are wrong?

 

[Saturnman]

But if God is omnipotent, why would he require man in order to do his will? Something about an all powerful being using a lesser being to make things happen just doesn't make any sense.


Note I could go along this line of reason for a while. If God is all-knowing, then he knew that his creation would betray him and that it would be banished from the garden of eden and incur sin. Then he would send prophets and his son (christianity) to bring us back on the way of righteousness? Sorry, don't buyt that. It just doesn't make any sense... unless we're just like a game of the Sims.

Look, I'm not a man of faith (ask Loki ), but you're trying to use logic to explain it all and it won't work. The Bible is a book that requires faith ultimately. It can make sense to some degree, but at some point, you have to accept it as is.

But know this, if God is all knowing and all powerful, your failure to understand some parts or actions of his is not proof of his limitations, but of yours as a simple human being. The term 'God works in mysterious ways' illustrates that point perfectly.

 

[Saturnman]

Then of course we have to take into account the many other religions that believe in 'creation' just not the same as the Bible's account. Are we saying that they are wrong?

From a fundamentalist Christian POV, you don't have to take them into account, they are wrong.

 

[Phoenix]

Look, I'm not a man of faith (ask Loki ), but you're trying to use logic to explain it all and it won't work. The Bible is a book that requires faith ultimately. It can make sense to some degree, but at some point, you have to accept it as is.

No - you don't. You have to question it. If God created us as reasoning beings, he knew that questioning our existence and his is one of those things that would come up. Giving us an book that we should follow that is infallable yet we can't comprehend and should just accept just wouldn't make any sense. I'm sure God doesn't want us to just have 'blind faith'. Even the Bible requires us to examine our faith lest we be swayed by false prophets.

But know this, if God is all knowing and all powerful, your failure to understand some parts or actions of his is not proof of his limitations, but of yours as a simple human being. The term 'God works in mysterious ways' illustrates that point perfectly.

That phrase does not illustrate anything actually - it is a universal cop-out just as is using 'an act of God' when things work out your way or using 'it was God's will' when it doesn't. In the end its rhetorical nonsense.

I've use this argument many times and while I do believe that it would be impossible for us to believe the intents of any being that could give birth to the universe, that is a poor argument to justify everything. It is just not compelling.

 

[Dilbert]

Never claimed I had one, although im working on a bachelors in science, and I've taken a number of courses that concern what we have been talking about. So what is your educational background? Include everything related to science and theology please.

You're missing the joke. You were using the ad hominem fallacy, which is funny in itself...but it's even FUNNIER because you were presenting yourself as an expert without stating your qualifications and assuming that I had none.

I make the statement because they are accurate. You want numbers? Here: The New Testament Greek text is about 99.5% accurate, i.e. based off of the 5,000 Greek manuscripts (and some 20,000 others), as well as the 37,000 New Testament quotations of the early church fathers. This is hard evidence. It cannot be denied. The .5% of the NT that we are unsure of is pretty much inconsequential in it's affects. It's mainly attributed to misspellings, bad grammer, copyists mistakes, etc. and none of it even affects or changes any doctrines or teachings in the New Testament. The same can be said about the Old testament, cept then the number goes down to about 98.5% accurate.

NOW I understand where you're coming from...thank you for finally explaining yourself. With that being said, you're still being disingenous about using the term "accurate." You are using that word to mean that the actual words are being read correctly...but everyone else is reacting to the CONTENT of the message.

If I send my friend an email asking, "Who won the Giants/Steelers game?" and he writes back, "The Giants won the game easily," but the final score was actually 38-10 Steelers (not that I'm making a prediction for tomorrow or anything), I would have read his statement with 100% "accuracy" -- but the statement itself would be 100% WRONG.

If you dont accept those numbers, then you have to reject all other ancient works, such as those of Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Ceaser, Tacitus, and even some of William Shakespear's plays!!

As already noted, there is a huge difference between the other works you mention, which all fall under the heading of "literature," and the Bible, which purports to contain "truth."

Think of biblical faith as trust. You trust someone because they have proved reliable in the past. At least, thats reasonable trust. Hence, thats biblical faith, a faith based on past events proving to be true.

You're right...I'm not particularly interested in this tangent. However, you DO realize that this "Biblical faith" is based on a circular argument, right? You trust something now because it has been "reliable" in the past. How do you know that it has been reliable in the past? It sounds like you are trusting in its reliability...which is circular.

Whos to say God did not reveal to Moses the creation "days"?

Oh, c'mon. How is that question any more compelling than, "How do we know Moses (or more accurately, whoever wrote the story down) was correct and/or telling the truth when he said that God spoke to him at all?" You don't really want to start relying on reasonable doubt as a defense.

 

[Phoenix]

From a fundamentalist Christian POV, you don't have to take them into account, they are wrong.

Fundamentalist foolishness. People do not choose the world they are born into and many people may never actually be exposed to Christianity in their entire lives but exposed to a great deal of other religions. It seems to be somewhat disengenious (sp) and even ignorant to say that they are wrong because they disagree with you. This is the problem I have with ALL of the established religions because they prescribe to this 'we are right and you are wrong/misled/heretic/satan/etc' philos. I see this level of ignorance a LOT with regard to many Christian relationships with Muslims.

I won't go much further on this because its time for WoW and this could spark off a lot of 'debate' so I'll just say - that POV is a load of crap entirely and would have to be predicated on the premise that God only created Christians.

 

[Saturnman]

No - you don't. You have to question it. If God created us as reasoning beings, he knew that questioning our existence and his is one of those things that would come up. Giving us an book that we should follow that is infallable yet we can't comprehend and should just accept just wouldn't make any sense. I'm sure God doesn't want us to just have 'blind faith'. Even the Bible requires us to examine our faith lest we be swayed by false prophets.




That phrase does not illustrate anything actually - it is a universal cop-out just as is using 'an act of God' when things work out your way or using 'it was God's will' when it doesn't. In the end its rhetorical nonsense.

I've use this argument many times and while I do believe that it would be impossible for us to believe the intents of any being that could give birth to the universe, that is a poor argument to justify everything. It is just not compelling.

lol, you're hijacking an evolution thread and turning it into a theology debate. Blame Phoenix, Mandark!

Again, you do that. But believe in God, accept Jesus as your savior and try not to sin to your best of your abilities and your path to heaven is pretty much assured. You can be sure of whatever you want as far as your faith is concerned but if (you're too dumb and) just rely on blind faith your whole life, you're not supposed to fall out of God's good graces. The important thing is to keep the faith, how you do it hardly matters.

If you find it a poor argument, it's not my problem. There's a leap of faith to be made at some point. If you can't make it or/and find something wrong with the whole doctrine then don't believe. Can we move on to the main topic?

 

[Phoenix]

None of those pretend to be the infallible word of God. That's the important difference.

But I'll allow you to retreat quietly from this line of debate.

 

[Saturnman]

lol

 

[Azih]

What the hey I'm bored.

Link was obviously pulling numbers out of thin air, so it's a good thing he's not posting anymore

To Phoenix: I'm from a pretty different faith tradition but one thing that always confused me about Christianity is the insistence on pinning down the motivations of God. It's fun to speculate 'why' God did one thing or the other and all, but dude, how the heck would you expect us humans to make any sort of reasonable guess as to what an all-knowing all-powerful diety is or is not thinking?

Edit: Maybe God did do everything out of 'love', Maybe we are a giant ant farm... an experiment, a highly elaborate game of The Sims , who knows? I don't. Niether do you.

 

[Xenon]

Sorry can I jump in

I'm from a pretty different faith tradition but one thing that always confused me about Christianity is the insistence on pinning down the motivations of God. It's fun to speculate 'why' God did one thing or the other and all, but dude, how the heck would you expect us humans to make any sort of reasonable guess as to what an all-knowing all-powerful diety is or is not thinking?

Because we have the need, intellect, and freedom to do so. But not all Christians do this its more of a personal trait. Some people are never satisfied and need to constantly search. While others are content with their current knowledge. I'd like to think god wants us to understand.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Egads - its in the dictionary. Next time try using it before making such a statement.

The point is: you were using it imprecisely. Your meaning does not conform to the commonly understood meaning.
Egads. At least make some attempt to interpret what is being said.

 

[Phoenix]

What the hey I'm bored.

Link was obviously pulling numbers out of thin air, so it's a good thing he's not posting anymore

To Phoenix: I'm from a pretty different faith tradition but one thing that always confused me about Christianity is the insistence on pinning down the motivations of God. It's fun to speculate 'why' God did one thing or the other and all, but dude, how the heck would you expect us humans to make any sort of reasonable guess as to what an all-knowing all-powerful diety is or is not thinking?

I'm not and never have claimed to make a reasonable guess. What I've been saying for several pages is that those that claim to have the 'answers' can at best only have guesses as well. What makes their guesses any more valid than anyone elses? Because they've convined more people to believe in them?

 

[Phoenix]

The point is: you were using it imprecisely. Your meaning does not conform to the commonly understood meaning.
Egads. At least make some attempt to interpret what is being said.

Next time you want attempt to say someone isn't using a word precisely (if that was indeed your intent, though from your assertions it seems more that you had never heard the term) say "I don't think you're using the term precisely" not:

What the fuck is an "evolutionist"? Someone who accepts scientific merit? A scientist who studies biological processes? Or rather, someone who "uses whatever they find as evidence to the debate"? If it's the latter, then holy shit, you're right. X does equal X.

The double quotes are pretty much a dead giveaway. Night.

 

[impirius]

Didn't some guy beat God in a wrestling match in the Bible? Doesn't seem very omnipotent to me!

Dude.. um...

Spoiler

wrestling's rigged.

 

[Illusion]

The fight against the theory of Evolution is this (and last) century's version of the suppression of the heliocentric view of the solar system. The theories that support the sun as the center of the solar system can be refuted, too. Granted, it's harder, but they can.

At least we all seem to be able to agree that the Earth is round, nowadays. Any Flat Earthers out there? The Bible does refer to the four corners of the world, after all.

The bible also talks of the world being a sphere.

 

[Do The Mario]

The bible also talks of the world being a sphere.

Fuck Pythagoras
Fuck Magellan
Fuck Columbus

The bible told us the earth was round,

Yeah right

Also how the fuck can something like Noah’s ark is true if can’t evolution not exist?

What did Noah collect animals from every continent then drop them back there after the flood?

How can two animals of every kind restore a population?

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Next time you want attempt to say someone isn't using a word precisely (if that was indeed your intent, though from your assertions it seems more that you had never heard the term) say "I don't think you're using the term precisely" not:

No.

What you want to believe of the "true" meaning is of no consequence. What you wrote vaguely alluded to some abstract notion of what an 'evolutionist' or at the very least, confused two different interpretations.

"evolutionist and creationist are simply using whatever they find as evidence to debate, that the debate is not rooted in finding answers - just debate"

^ Your quote that i responded to. ... "Evolutionists" are _simply_ using what they find as evidence to debate. Simply, as if to suggest _solely_. That's also confirmed by the fact that you say their intent is not in "finding answers".

What did you mean by an evolutionist? Here's what you meant.

This is the post you responded to, "Hold on there, Tex. Do you actually think that the study of evolution is based in trying to disprove creationism".

That is to say, you equivocated people who are part of "the study of evolution" with "evolutionists". That's perfectly fine in itself, as long as you stick with the established meaning. But when you consider the meaning behind your statement, given THAT meaning (which was YOUR meaning, unless you switched the meaning between the message you were responding to and your own response), it is unreasonable.

But how do i know that you weren't just simply parading against staunch, dogmatic promoters of evolution and not this newly determined meaning in the debate? Well, here is the post that mandark was responding to:

"In my eyes both evolution and creationism are flawed because they are rooted NOT in finding 'answers' but in trying to prove the other incorrect."

Your initial meaning behind "evolutionist" is clear.

The conclusion that you drew, if you are to accept that definition, no longer is.

The meaning behind your statement is then, people who study evolution are using whatever they find as evidence for debate (and debate ONLY).

That is inaccurate, unless you're suggesting something completely idiotic (which if are, ugh). Otherwise, the meaning behind the word that you used was imprecise, or if you prefer; unclear.

 

[DaMan121]

The bible also talks of the world being a sphere.

Evidence?

 

[soundwave05]

Fuck Pythagoras
Fuck Magellan
Fuck Columbus

The bible told us the earth was round,

Yeah right

Also how the fuck can something like Noah’s ark is true if can’t evolution not exist?

What did Noah collect animals from every continent then drop them back there after the flood?

How can two animals of every kind restore a population?

Because Noah picked the horniest of each two animal species.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

 

[Do The Mario]

Living in Australia I must say I never met a creationist before, my catholic school taught evolution I study evolution at university.

I am not out to disprove creationists, I know that evolution exists it’s the corner stone of my studies; I chose to study evolution because it’s vital in protecting biodiversity and it’s interesting to know where animals and ourselves came from.

 

[Do The Mario]

Because Noah picked the horniest of each two animal species.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

What did he feed them?

 

[soundwave05]

He fed them oysters and chocolate as was customary for the Hewbrews of the day. Thus they mated plentifully and repopulated the Earth.

I went to Catholic school too and we were taught evolution, DNA, Darwin's Theory, etc. in Science and Biology class.

I think it's more of the fundie Christians that are so hard on for a literal interpretation of the Bible. I mean half the stuff Paul says (who didn't even know Jesus) directly contradicts what Jesus said and that's in the New Testament alone :lol

 

[WordofGod]

Its easy to disprove evolution. How you ask?

What does a building prove? There was a architect.
What does a painting prove? There was a painter.
What does a house prove? There was a builder.
What does a game system prove? There were designers.
What does a game like Wanda prove? There were designers and programmers.
What does a car prove? There were designers and builders.
What does a airplane prove? There were designers and builders.
What does the human body prove? There was a designer.

None of the things mentioned above made themselves. So, why not the same for the human body? It is the most complex machinery in the world; to say that nothing made itself out of nothing and designed itself is the most idiotic thing a person could ever say. If I told you the PlayStation 4 just appeared in my room with 5 launch games, you would all say that is impossible. Someone had to design it and build it. The same with the games. Or if I told you that if you wait in the desert long enough, a BMW would appear from out of the sand, if you think that I was crazy. So why not the human body? It's as simple as that. Creation proves that there was a designer.

 

[Shogmaster]

Maybe we are a giant ant farm... an experiment, a highly elaborate game of The Sims , who knows? I don't. Niether do you.

Hey, a giant ant farm could be cool, although I don't remember reading about any ant farms in the bible.

You have to admit though, believing the Bible word for word, literally as most fundies do is rather rediculous, given it's contents. Didn't some creationist wack job conclude that the Earth was like 10,000 years old by adding up the age of every major character mentioned in the old testiment? This is the kind of silliness I'm talking about.

 

[Do The Mario]

Its easy to disprove evolution. How you ask?

What does a building prove? There was a architect.
What does a painting prove? There was a painter.
What does a house prove? There was a builder.
What does a game system prove? There were designers.
What does a game like Wanda prove? There were designers and programmers.
What does a car prove? There were designers and builders.
What does a airplane prove? There were designers and builders.
What does the human body prove? There was a designer.

None of the things mentioned above made themselves. So, why not the same for the human body? It is the most complex machinery in the world; to say that nothing made itself out of nothing is the most idiotic thing a person can say. If I told you the PlayStation 4 just appeared in my room with 5 launch games, you would all say that is impossible. Someone had to design it and build it. The same with the games. Or if I told you that if you wait in the desert long enough, a BMW would appear from out of the sand, if you think that I was crazy. So why not the human body? It's as simple as that. Creation proves that there was a designer.

This might be the worst post in the history of GAF

Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life

NOTHING!
ZIP!
ZERO!
NADDA!

How can you disprove evolution by saying how did it start life?

The very concept of evolution depends on preexisting life.

 

[WordofGod]

This might be the worst post in the history of GAF

Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life

NOTHING!
ZIP!
ZERO!
NADDA!

How can you disprove evolution by saying how did it start life?

The very concept of evolution depends on preexisting life.

There are only two basic concepts of the origin of the universe and its basic components and systems. Either they have all come about by strictly naturalistic processes that are (at least in principle) observable and repeatable, or they have not — one or the other.

Without argument, at least some have originated by strictly natural process, and have been observed to do so. But if they have not all originated by natural processes, then at least some have originated by supernatural processes that are no longer observable and are not repeatable. This is the basic difference between the evolutionary model of origins and the creationist model of origins. If the evolutionary model is correct, then no Creator is needed. Even human beings are merely the result of natural processes that somehow generated the elementary particles of matter and then organized them into stars, planets, animals, and people — “from particles to people” or “hydrogen to humans.”

If creation is true, on the other hand, then there is a Creator, and all reality must be related to that Creator and His purpose in creation. Men and women are not the products of capricious natural forces, but rather of purposeful action with specific goals, both for the universe as a whole and for each person individually.

Since the choice between evolution and creation ultimately affects every area of human life, it is extremely important that we make the right choice!

 

[Do The Mario]

There are only two basic concepts of the origin of the universe and its basic components and systems. Either they have all come about by strictly naturalistic processes that are (at least in principle) observable and repeatable, or they have not — one or the other.

Without argument, at least some have originated by strictly natural process, and have been observed to do so. But if they have not all originated by natural processes, then at least some have originated by supernatural processes that are no longer observable and are not repeatable. This is the basic difference between the evolutionary model of origins and the creationist model of origins. If the evolutionary model is correct, then no Creator is needed. Even human beings are merely the result of natural processes that somehow generated the elementary particles of matter and then organized them into stars, planets, animals, and people — “from particles to people” or “hydrogen to humans.”

If creation is true, on the other hand, then there is a Creator, and all reality must be related to that Creator and His purpose in creation. Men and women are not the products of capricious natural forces, but rather of purposeful action with specific goals, both for the universe as a whole and for each person individually.

Since the choice between evolution and creation ultimately affects every area of human life, it is extremely important that we make the right choice!

Do you have any biological credentials? If not I refuse to debate any further with you.

 

[Shogmaster]

If creation is true, on the other hand, then there is a Creator, and all reality must be related to that Creator and His purpose in creation. Men and women are not the products of capricious natural forces, but rather of purposeful action with specific goals, both for the universe as a whole and for each person individually.

Why is it a given that all creations derive from purpose? I create all the time, just for the hell of it. What if "God" was just fucking around?

Since the choice between evolution and creation ultimately affects every area of human life, it is extremely important that we make the right choice!

Wha? How the hell does such a choice effect me going to the bathroom? or picking my nose? Gee, I'm hope I made the right choice, because I have to fart really bad right now!

 

[Do The Mario]

BTW word of god there are many hypothesis about how biotic life started on earth, I just flicked open on of my reference books and read about 4 theories.

So no there is a lot more then 2 theories about the origins of life.

The Theory of evolution is a totally separate theory to that of how life started. Please acknowledge you understand this.

 

[WordofGod]

Do you have any biological credentials? If not I refuse to debate any further with you.

This is just from my own research on both views. I do not have a phd in biology but know enough about it to discuss it.

Why is it a given that all creations derive from purpose? I create all the time, just for the hell of it. What if "God" was just fucking around?

Wha? How the hell does such a choice effect me going to the bathroom? or picking my nose? Gee, I'm hope I made the right choice, because I have to fart really bad right now!

It should be obvious that it is impossible to prove which model is correct, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history and see what happened. Therefore, we must depend upon indirect, circumstantial evidence, and then make our decision. Ultimately, we will decide which model to believe, and then act in faith upon that belief. We will have faith in evolution, or faith in creation, then live our lives accordingly, whether that has been a conscious decision or not.

In view of the profound — even eternal — consequences involved, everyone ought to examine both models and then determine which model to believe. He or she should examine carefully the evidences pro and con in each case, and continually test these evidences, evaluating their validity and meaning.

It would seem that there are essentially just three lines of evidence that need to be considered. First, there are the factual data, the solid evidence supplied by the observed facts of science and the observed and reliably recorded facts of human history. We can call this the evidence from science.

But there is an important second line of evidence to consider. The Lord Jesus Christ put it this way: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. . . . Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:18, 20). Does the evolutionary faith generate good or evil results in human society, when it is followed logically and put into practice? What about faith in creation and a Creator — what fruits does it produce?

Evolutionism generates bad fruits; creationism generates good fruits. Thus, the creation model, on the basis of this test, is more likely to be true than the evolution model. Again, however, this does not prove creation, for we do not really know what happened in the prehistoric past. We were not there, nor can we travel back in time in some sort of time machine to see what happened. All we can really know is that the inhabitants of the earth seem designed to live and prosper under the guidelines spelled out by their designer, and seem to destroy both themselves and others when operating from an evolutionary basis.

However, there is still a third type of evidence that must be considered, for one of the two models involves a Creator, and that Creator did observe what happened, for He actually caused it to happen! Evolutionists may deny the validity of this evidence, for they tend to reject the very idea of God out of hand, not believing He even exists.

This, however, begs the question, for it is absolutely impossible to prove the non-existence of God the Creator. Even such a knowledgeable atheist as the scientist Isaac Asimov was honest enough to acknowledge this. In his later years, after authoring more books on more fields of science (reputedly finishing with over 500 books to his credit) than probably any other scientist who ever lived, he admitted:

"Emotionally, I am an atheist, I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time."

If anyone ever knew the whole field of science and its implications, that person was Dr. Asimov, yet he could not prove there is no God. Neither can anyone else. You may choose not to believe in God, for belief in Him may be uncomfortable to them, but wishing for His non-existence doesn’t make it so.

Therefore, to be perfectly honest, everyone should at least admit the possibility that there is a Creator, and that He may (in fact, almost certainly would) reveal the essential facts concerning the origin, meaning, and purpose of His creation to those of His creatures able to receive and understand such revelation.

Assuming that such a revelation has been given, it follows that it must now be in the book we call the Bible, for this is the only book coming down from antiquity that even attempts to give the origin of the entire universe of space, time, and matter, as well as the origin of life and man.

All other so-called sacred “scriptures” — the writings of Buddha and Confucius, the Hindu Vedas, all the cosmogonic myths of Greece and Rome, of Egypt and Babylon, and all the rest — all begin with the space/time/matter universe already in existence, and then attempt to speculate how it evolved into its present form.

Only the creation record in Genesis — which is accepted by orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians — deals with the origin of the universe itself. Therefore, if God does exist, and if He has revealed the essentials concerning His creation of all things to man, that revelation must be found in the Bible, especially in the creation account in the Book of Genesis.

And if these things are so — and there is at least a strong possibility that they are — then the biblical evidence concerning origins is the most important of all, more important than the evidence from either the data of science or the effects in society. This is because the biblical record — if it is what it claims to be and what it has been accepted to be by millions of people, people from every time and place and culture — is the inspired, infallible, and authoritative record of the Creator himself. He was there and knows how it was and what His purposes are.

 

[soundwave05]

If you judge every tree by the fruit it bears, then organized religion is bearing some of the most rotten fruit you'll ever taste :lol

The Genesis account (accepted of course by Muslims and Christians since their religions are based upon Judaism to begin with) is only one of several organized religions which has a "creation" story. Several religions which pre-date even Judaism have creation accounts as well.

We can't prove or disprove a "God" or a higher intelligence exists. I personally think there probably is something "out there" at work, but I can't define it either.

What we can prove though and what science is starting to build overwhelming evidence for is that there is no organized religious document (be it the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, whatever) that fully explains the nature of the universe in a way that holds up to what we've actually tested, observed, and know about the universe we live in.

In other words, "God" is telling us that the answers aren't all in some little book -- he/she/it maybe saying "I gave you common sense and a brain too ... use it for the love of all things sacred".

 

[Seth C]

Hm, ok, without either of us having conclusive evidence, I'll drop that argument, but what about living fossils or how it is possible to see generations of a species adapt and change over time to fit new surroundings? That is if you are and Old Earth creationist, I suppose if your Young Earth then we didn't have millions of years to adapt and evolve

You have to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. We can see examples (likes those you mentioned) of micro-evolution. Species do adapt to their environment. Changes do take place within a species. It would be very hard (impossible?) to reasonably argue that it doesn't happen. Macro-evolution is something else entirely.

 

[Do The Mario]

You have to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. We can see examples (likes those you mentioned) of micro-evolution. Species do adapt to their environment. Changes do take place within a species. It would be very hard (impossible?) to reasonably argue that it doesn't happen. Macro-evolution is something else entirely.

I made some posts about macro evolution from sea squirts to amphibians, I will go from amphibians to mammals tomorrow.

 

[soundwave05]

Regardless of evolutionary theory, the evidence that the Earth is much older than a few thousand years is overwhelming.

That alone punches a massive hole in the core philosophy of the Abhramic faiths (Judaism, Christainity, Islam).

What is cited by the creation account's in all three of those faith's does not scientifically hold up.

So we have to start thinking outside of the box, I mean that's simply the universe "God" created apparently it doesn't fit into a nice little book or a short 2 page passage. Go figure.

I don't feel science is the antithesis of wanting to understand the nature of the universe (or some might call that God) at all.

 

[Do The Mario]

Great book for those wanting to know more my 6th edition is 1200+ pages but, only around 300 might be on evolution

 

[Dilbert]

Why is it a given that all creations derive from purpose? I create all the time, just for the hell of it. What if "God" was just fucking around?

Wha? How the hell does such a choice effect me going to the bathroom? or picking my nose? Gee, I'm hope I made the right choice, because I have to fart really bad right now!

Dude, don't even BOTHER humoring his argument with a response. Let this thread die. When people start bringing out the tired old "of COURSE humans had to have a designer!" bullshit, it's time to leave.

I mean, his username is "WordOfGod." Do you really think he's going into this with any kind of open mind?

 

[geogaddi]

Some people are confused by what I mean when i refer to new/loss/reshuffling information. I probably did not make myself clear.

"A big obstacle for evolutionary belief is this: what mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people? Natural selection alone can’t do it—selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry enough of the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

For evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic information (the coded set of instructions on the DNA which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blue-print’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next. Naturally, such scrambling of information will tend to either be harmful (Thousands of hereditary diseases in people, for instance, are caused by just such inherited mutational defects), or at best neutral (that is, having no effect on the outcome, or the expressed meaning of the code. Using English as an (admittedly limited) analogy, assume a message were transmitted saying ‘the enemy is now attacking,’ which accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to ‘the enemy is not attacking.’ The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation. Whereas a change to ‘tha enemy is now attacking’ would be neutral; a change, but not affecting the end result).

However, evolutionists believe that occasionally, a ‘good’ mutation will occur which will be favored by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different.

Are there ‘good’ mutations? Evolutionists can point to a small handful of cases in which a mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. Actually, they need to take a closer look. Such ‘good’ mistakes are still the wrong types of changes to turn a fish into a philosopher—they are headed in precisely the wrong direction. Rather than adding information, they destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).

For example, beetles losing their wings. A particular winged beetle type lives on large continental areas; the same beetle type on a small windy island has no wings.

What happened is easy to imagine. Every now and then in beetle populations, there might be a mutational defect which prevents wings from forming. That is, the ‘wing-making’ information is lost or scrambled in some way.

The damaged gene (a gene is like a long ‘sentence’ carrying one part of the total instructions recorded on the DNA) will then be passed to all that beetle’s offspring, and to theirs, as it is copied over and over. All these descendant beetles will be wingless.

If a beetle with such a wingless defect is living on the Australian mainland, for example, it will have less chance to fly away from beetle-eaters, so it will be more likely to be eliminated by ‘survival of the fittest’ before it can leave offspring. Such so-called ‘natural selection’ can help to eliminate (or at least reduce the buildup of) such genetic mistakes.

However, on the windy island, the beetles which can fly tend to get blown into the sea, so not having wings is an advantage. In time, the elimination of all the winged ones will ensure that only those of this new ‘wingless’ variety survive, which have therefore been ‘naturally selected.’ ‘There!’ says the evolutionist. ‘A favorable mutation—evolution in action!’ However, it fails to make his case, because though beneficial to survival, it is still a defect—a loss or corruption of information. This is the very opposite of what evolutionists need to demonstrate real evolution.

To support belief in a process which has allegedly turned molecules into man would require mutations to add information. Showing that information-losing defects can give a survival advantage is irrelevant, as far as evidence for real evolution is concerned.

In short,

Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go ‘uphill’—to add information.

The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don’t change the information, or the ‘meaning’ in the code) or else they are informationally downhill—defects which lose/corrupt information.

The rare ‘beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling, all appear to be like this wingless beetle—downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.

All of our real-world experience, especially in the ‘information age,’ would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking by ‘true believers,’ not science." (Source)

Do The Mario,
It doesn't take anyone with biology credentials to make the claim that molecule-to-man evolution has everything to do with the origin of life. What you are doing is trying to prove something after the fact without proving the fact first. In other words, you have a pre-supposition that it is true that non-life gave rise to life and THEN you say "let's discuss how life evolved into more complex life forms via fish-to-philosopher evolution". If non-life cannot give rise to life, then, your whole reasoning thereafter falls apart, because it relied on the invalid pre-supposition. What you have to do is to prove that your pre-supposition is true before building upon it. If you don't and you think this is not necessary then you have to use probably several forms of Bayes's Theorem for inductive reasoning;

Symbols:
Probability. PE is a probability function.
Logical Consequence. If E entails H, then PE(H) = 1.
Preservation of Certainties. If P(H) = 1, then PE(H) = 1.
Mixing. P(H) = P(E)PE(H) + P(~E)P~E(H)

Theorem:
PE(H) = [P(H)/P(E)] PH(E)

"Philosophers interested in characterizing correct patterns of inductive reasoning and in providing "rational reconstructions" of scientific methodology have tended to focus on incremental evidence as crucial to their enterprise. When scientists (or ordinary folk) say that E supports or confirms H what they generally mean is that learning of E's truth will increase the total amount of evidence for H's truth. Since subjectivists characterize total evidence in terms of subjective probabilities or odds, they analyze incremental evidence in terms of changes in these quantities. On such views, the simplest way to characterize the strength of incremental evidence is by making ordinal comparisons of conditional and unconditional probabilities or odds." (Source)

Trust me, you have A LOT of variables to work. Perhaps your micro-biology book offers several theories that have gone through rigorous inductive calculations if they start from that premise that 'non-life has to give rise to life'. The fact that one has to work backwards in the system like this makes me cringe in agony on how much work it must take.

If I was a micro-biologist major/chemistry-minor I would have loved to take this challenge myself and perhaps come up with some neat stuff for a dissertation.

 

[Shogmaster]

It should be obvious that it is impossible to prove which model is correct, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history and see what happened. Therefore, we must depend upon indirect, circumstantial evidence, and then make our decision.

If that's your approach, why bother with trying to prove/understand anything since the very act of observation changes what you observe, even if you are witnessing it in real time (e.g. for us to "see" we must shine visible light upon the subject, which will change the way it reacts without light)? No win situation if you are trying to absolutely "prove" anything to your satisfaction. Sounds like your typical fundy copout reasoning.

The fact is, even without having been there, there are other scientific ways to prove reasonably how it all occured, and that's what evolutionary biology practices. But then again, that's not as easy as just looking at some magic book for all the answers.

Ultimately, we will decide which model to believe, and then act in faith upon that belief. We will have faith in evolution, or faith in creation, then live our lives accordingly, whether that has been a conscious decision or not.

Acting in faith is exactly what scientific process eliminates.

In view of the profound — even eternal — consequences involved, everyone ought to examine both models and then determine which model to believe. He or she should examine carefully the evidences pro and con in each case, and continually test these evidences, evaluating their validity and meaning.

This is the "accept Jesus or burn in eternal damnation" part of your shpiel?

It would seem that there are essentially just three lines of evidence that need to be considered. First, there are the factual data, the solid evidence supplied by the observed facts of science and the observed and reliably recorded facts of human history. We can call this the evidence from science.

But there is an important second line of evidence to consider. The Lord Jesus Christ put it this way: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. . . . Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:18, 20). Does the evolutionary faith generate good or evil results in human society, when it is followed logically and put into practice? What about faith in creation and a Creator — what fruits does it produce?

Good question. How bout this one: How many people died because of the Bible? You've got your Crusades, clinic bombings, oppression against women, etc... It bore some bad bad fruit and evil results in human society. I agree that we should get rid of the Bible and be free from it's evil!

Evolutionism generates bad fruits

Examples?

creationism generates good fruits.

Educational retardation is hardly a good fruit.

Thus, the creation model, on the basis of this test, is more likely to be true than the evolution model.

I love how you went to this conclusion without providing any proof or examples.

Again, however, this does not prove creation, for we do not really know what happened in the prehistoric past. We were not there, nor can we travel back in time in some sort of time machine to see what happened. All we can really know is that the inhabitants of the earth seem designed to live and prosper under the guidelines spelled out by their designer, and seem to destroy both themselves and others when operating from an evolutionary basis.

History seems to disagree with you.

However, there is still a third type of evidence that must be considered, for one of the two models involves a Creator, and that Creator did observe what happened, for He actually caused it to happen! Evolutionists may deny the validity of this evidence, for they tend to reject the very idea of God out of hand, not believing He even exists.

You type in english, yet I can't make head or tails of it. Did you even read what you just typed? Please, no more of this non-sensical, own tail chasing, self-serving filler babble for the sake making it look like you actually have something substantive to say.

This, however, begs the question,

It begged nothing.

for it is absolutely impossible to prove the non-existence of God the Creator.
Even such a knowledgeable atheist as the scientist Isaac Asimov was honest enough to acknowledge this. In his later years, after authoring more books on more fields of science (reputedly finishing with over 500 books to his credit) than probably any other scientist who ever lived, he admitted:

That's the beauty of what you practice. You can't disprove someone's "faith". Nice little logic loop of death.

"Emotionally, I am an atheist, I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time."

If anyone ever knew the whole field of science and its implications, that person was Dr. Asimov, yet he could not prove there is no God. Neither can anyone else. You may choose not to believe in God, for belief in Him may be uncomfortable to them, but wishing for His non-existence doesn’t make it so.

And the opposite is also true. You can't prove existance of "God" either, no matter how much you try. You can't prove or disprove something imaginary. Impossible. Using that as a debating tool is pretty damn rediculous.

Therefore, to be perfectly honest, everyone should at least admit the possibility that there is a Creator, and that He may (in fact, almost certainly would) reveal the essential facts concerning the origin, meaning, and purpose of His creation to those of His creatures able to receive and understand such revelation.

Anything is possible. But I only care about what's supported with evidence. So far, Evolution has mountain of fossil records, geological data, genetic data, and biological data, and observations from nature. Creationism has the Bible. Hmmm..........

Assuming that such a revelation has been given, it follows that it must now be in the book we call the Bible, for this is the only book coming down from antiquity that even attempts to give the origin of the entire universe of space, time, and matter, as well as the origin of life and man. All other so-called sacred “scriptures” — the writings of Buddha and Confucius, the Hindu Vedas, all the cosmogonic myths of Greece and Rome, of Egypt and Babylon, and all the rest — all begin with the space/time/matter universe already in existence, and then attempt to speculate how it evolved into its present form.

Only the creation record in Genesis — which is accepted by orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians — deals with the origin of the universe itself. Therefore, if God does exist, and if He has revealed the essentials concerning His creation of all things to man, that revelation must be found in the Bible, especially in the creation account in the Book of Genesis.

You've got to be fucking kidding me..... All those other mythologies, like Christian mythologies, have their own tales of origin of the universe, and they are just as rediculous as the Judeo-Christian mythos.

And if these things are so — and there is at least a strong possibility that they are — then the biblical evidence concerning origins is the most important of all, more important than the evidence from either the data of science or the effects in society. This is because the biblical record — if it is what it claims to be and what it has been accepted to be by millions of people, people from every time and place and culture — is the inspired, infallible, and authoritative record of the Creator himself. He was there and knows how it was and what His purposes are.

:lol Wow. All that crap you typed before was to arrive at this half baked conclusion? The trail of logic that got you here is both entertaining and horrific at the same time.

 

[Mumbles]

Some people are confused by what I mean when i refer to new/loss/reshuffling information. I probably did not make myself clear.

And I'd say that you still haven't. If you're going to talk about more or less information, I'm gonig to have to ask for a definition of "information" that is conductive to such talk. A nice formulaic definition would work - try Shannon theory, and see what you come up with.

One of the major problems with your argument is that it makes far too many assumptions about what is going on in any particular line of evolution. For example, you say that a population of beetles has "lost information" when they no longer grow wings. However, it's entirely possible that the population has the genetic code for wings, and additional code that suppresses the "wing code". Is this an increase or decrease in information? It seems to me that you would have to consider it an increase.

This, however, begs the question, for it is absolutely impossible to prove the non-existence of God the Creator.

Of course not, as the term "God the Creator" is worthlessly vague. It's impossible to prove much of anything about such a being, because you haven't said anything about what it is, only about it's relation to the universe.

And for reference, complexity does not imply design. Actually, designers tend to make things as simple as possible, since it reduces the chance of failure.

 

[Seth C]

Regardless of evolutionary theory, the evidence that the Earth is much older than a few thousand years is overwhelming.

That alone punches a massive hole in the core philosophy of the Abhramic faiths (Judaism, Christainity, Islam).

What is cited by the creation account's in all three of those faith's does not scientifically hold up.

So we have to start thinking outside of the box, I mean that's simply the universe "God" created apparently it doesn't fit into a nice little book or a short 2 page passage. Go figure.

I don't feel science is the antithesis of wanting to understand the nature of the universe (or some might call that God) at all.

Want to talk of flawed theories? Let's look at yours. You can give all the evidence in the world as to how "old" the earth is, and none of it matters. Why? Because God could just have easily created it old. Do you think He made Adam a newborn, or an adult? It only makes sense that He'd do the same with the planet. Or, maybe He put man on earth with all plants still being seeds in the earth? Just think about it. Man? He created already aged. Animals? Aged. Plants? Aged. But not the earth? Just silly. If you're dealing with an all-powerful, all-knowing being, He would know his creation (man) would need an aged earth to survive (fossil fuels, etc.).

Now, none of that proves or disproves evolution. None of it has anything to do with evolution. The only point is, given that you're trying to "disprove" a story involving an all-powerful being, well, your example just isn't anywhere close to enough.

 

[Maxwell House]

Seth, so this God then put dinosaur fossils in this old earth he created, millions of years older than us a species, as a joke? Why would be do that?

 

[Seth C]

Seth, so this God then put dinosaur fossils in this old earth he created, millions of years older than us a species, as a joke? Why would be do that?

Why wouldn't He do that? If you believe, then you believe man was God's most important creation. Why wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing being create a habitat that would provide His creation with all the things he would need throughout the entirety of mankind's time? Again, as an example, if the earth was only "aged" to 6000 years even now, where would our fossil fuels come from? Without them, what sort of lives would we have? If you believe, you simply see it as God looking out for you.

I guess I just can't figure out why that possibility is so hard to imagine.

 

[geogaddi]

And I'd say that you still haven't. If you're going to talk about more or less information, I'm gonig to have to ask for a definition of "information" that is conductive to such talk. A nice formulaic definition would work - try Shannon theory, and see what you come up with.

One of the major problems with your argument is that it makes far too many assumptions about what is going on in any particular line of evolution. For example, you say that a population of beetles has "lost information" when they no longer grow wings. However, it's entirely possible that the population has the genetic code for wings, and additional code that suppresses the "wing code". Is this an increase or decrease in information? It seems to me that you would have to consider it an increase.



Of course not, as the term "God the Creator" is worthlessly vague. It's impossible to prove much of anything about such a being, because you haven't said anything about what it is, only about it's relation to the universe.

And for reference, complexity does not imply design. Actually, designers tend to make things as simple as possible, since it reduces the chance of failure.

It flawed to think that genetic information found in DNA is not semantic in format, as meaningless symbols that comprise meaningfulness. Shannon's Theory of information was one of the first paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is quite old (1948) and cannot properly explain coding and encoding systems for (ATCG) DNA. For example, let's take the sequence C-A-T. "CAT" is only limited to the english language, therefore, we are required to use the english language to adequately encode what CAT means. "CAT" in German means nothing and serves no meaningful function. => Language needs to be necessarily meaningful because it adequately gives rise to meaningful code (meaninglessness cannot encode meaningfulness because it has no code to encode it to be meaningful). If language is also meaningful then another sort of code must be giving meaningfulness to the meaningfulness of language that gives meaningfulness to the word "CAT".


"Shannon's measure of information which is given in bits (binary digits), possessed the advantage of allowing quantitative statements to be made about relationships that had previously defied precise mathematical description. This method has an evident drawback, however: information according to Shannon does not relate to the qualitative nature of the data, but confines itself to one particular aspect that is of special significance for its technological transmission and storage. Shannon completely ignores whether a text is meaningful, comprehensible, correct, incorrect or meaningless. Equally excluded are the important questions as to where the information comes from (transmitter) and for whom it is intended (receiver). As far as Shannon’s concept of information is concerned, it is entirely irrelevant whether a series of letters represents an exceptionally significant and meaningful text or whether it has come about by throwing dice. Yes, paradoxical though it may sound, considered from the point of view of information theory, a random sequence of letters possesses the maximum information content, whereas a text of equal length, although linguistically meaningful, is assigned a lower value.

The definition of information according to Shannon is limited to just one aspect of information, namely its property of expressing something new: information content is defined in terms of newness. This does not mean a new idea, a new thought or a new item of information—that would involve a semantic aspect—but relates merely to the greater surprise effect that is caused by a less common symbol. Information thus becomes a measure of the improbability of an event. A very improbable symbol is therefore assigned correspondingly high information content.

Before a source of symbols (not a source of information!) generates a symbol, uncertainty exists as to which particular symbol will emerge from the available supply of symbols (for example, an alphabet). Only after the symbol has been generated is the uncertainty eliminated. According to Shannon, therefore, the following applies: information is the uncertainty that is eliminated by the appearance of the symbol in question. Since Shannon is interested only in the probability of occurrence of the symbols, he addresses himself merely to the statistical dimension of information. His concept of information is thus confined to a non-semantic aspect." (Source)

The supression of a gene and or activation of it is only further evidence that an original, full-featured set of genes exist that is only limited to deactivation/activation/damage/loss cannot, (if you actually read my last post in it's entirety) introduce any new parts to the set (set = gene pool). For example,

"A cattle breed called the Belgian Blue is very valuable to beef farmers because it has 20–30% more muscle than average cattle, and its meat is lower in fat and very tender. Normally, muscle growth is regulated by a number of proteins, such as myostatin. However, the Belgian Blues have a mutation that deactivates the myostatin gene, so the muscles grow uncontrolled and become very large.

A different mutation of this gene is also responsible for the very muscular Piedmontese cattle. Genetic engineers have bred muscular mice by the same principle.

Science News, November 22, 1997, p. 325.

This mutation may be beneficial to man (as are seedless fruit) but not the cattle. The mutation has side-effects, for example reduced fertility. But most important, once again a mutation causes information loss, even though it might be considered ‘beneficial’. Therefore it is in the opposite direction required for particles-to-people evolution, as this requires the generation of new information."

Specified complexity implies design, not merely complexity. Famous biologist Leslie Orgel made the follwoing comment;

"Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals...fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; random mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity"

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Why wouldn't He do that? If you believe, then you believe man was God's most important creation. Why wouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing being create a habitat that would provide His creation with all the things he would need throughout the entirety of mankind's time? Again, as an example, if the earth was only "aged" to 6000 years even now, where would our fossil fuels come from? Without them, what sort of lives would we have? If you believe, you simply see it as God looking out for you.

I guess I just can't figure out why that possibility is so hard to imagine.

???

Awesome thread!

 

[fart]

shannon measures of information deal with syntactic correctness only, true, but that's really the basis of the high level semantics you're talking about. consider lossy image compression for example. it's all based on building particular syntaxes for semantic approximations of data. the nature of the particular syntaxes are fully defined by their shannon measure relations

nevermind, we agree.

 

[Do The Mario]

geogdaddi

You are ingonrant, go read my post where describe around 3 or 4 others methods that new genetic information can be generated


I will say this only once again for the thick skulled people in this thread


The theory of evolution has

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

You don’t have a fuckin clue about biology; your posts are full of biological lies stop telling lies.

The thread is about EVOLUTION which is a crystal clear proven scientific theory, not one scientist claims they know how life began there has been limited success in the laboratory and many hypothesis about how and where and most basic forms of life evolved.

Once again know scientist has ever claimed they KNOW how life started it has nothing to do what so ever with the theory of evolution you have prove yourself to have biological education of a 12 year.

Well guess what I can’t account for molecular to biological But I can do one better then fish – philosopher and write about the evolution of

- prokaryotic cells to Humans

 

[Mumbles]

The definition of information according to Shannon is limited to just one aspect of information, namely its property of expressing something new: information content is defined in terms of newness. This does not mean a new idea, a new thought or a new item of information—that would involve a semantic aspect—but relates merely to the greater surprise effect that is caused by a less common symbol. Information thus becomes a measure of the improbability of an event. A very improbable symbol is therefore assigned correspondingly high information content.

But here's why I asked you to look into this - Shannon's theory contains an easy, quantified definition of the word "information", the type that is necessary to test your assertion that mutation cannot create "new information". You can attempt to work his definition into your idea, if you wish - I'd be interested in what you came up with, but at the moment, you have nothing coherent in the first place. For example...

This mutation may be beneficial to man (as are seedless fruit) but not the cattle. The mutation has side-effects, for example reduced fertility. But most important, once again a mutation causes information loss, even though it might be considered ‘beneficial’. Therefore it is in the opposite direction required for particles-to-people evolution, as this requires the generation of new information."

You have given no reason to see this new gene as a loss of information, and since the original gene that suppresses muscle growth is still present, I can't see how you could possibly justify it on a genetic level. And you haven't even defined information on any other level, or at least, not in a way that lends itself to any sort of analysis.

Specified complexity implies design, not merely complexity. Famous biologist Leslie Orgel made the follwoing comment;

"Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals...fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; random mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity"

Uh, Leslie doesn't seem to mention design at all here. It seems that you've simply substituted the word "design" for "life".

 

[iapetus]

This mutation may be beneficial to man (as are seedless fruit) but not the cattle.

Um. No.

It may not be beneficial to individual cattle (any mutation that get you killed and eaten may be seen as a bad thing by any but the most stoic of individuals) but in this case it actually ensures the survival of the breed, because as a result of this mutation humans are willing to put a lot of effort into making sure they survive.

Without humans to do this, of course, this breed dies out because they're in an environment where this mutation isn't favourable in any way.