WingCommander-Simulator ? ?

[AD]

I don't have a problem with people believing the theory of evolution, but I do have a problem with people stating that it is a fact.

Sure, there might be a chance that life on earth evolved from nothing. (which is contrary to one scientific principle that says that life only comes from life, i.e. flys don't just appear, there has to have been eggs laid and hatched) But no matter how long it took or how the mutations occured, it doesn't account or explain why man has so many traits that work contrary to evolutionary psychology.

As was stated Belief in a Creator doesnt mean disbelief in evolution. Rather Divine oversight makes evolution more probable. The Bible doesn't say how man was created, just that he did. It does say he was made from the dust, which is true in the sense that all our cells are made up of elements found in the dust. When we die we decompose back into dirt.

Another fact about the creation acount in the bible most often ignored is what it has to say about the time period. The very first verse of the bible is rarely reflected on properly. "in the begining god created the heavens and the earth". It doesn't say how or how long, just that he did. Then the 6 creative days follow in which man is created. Millions or Billions of years could have passed before the first creative day (the 6 creative days refer to the transformation of the earth from a lifeless mass to a planet full of life, the way we know it to be now) Even the creative days are vague in the elapsed time it took. When your grandfather says "in my day, I had to..." he is not refering to a specific day but rather an unspecified legnth of time in his past. Similarly the Creative days are unspecified legnths of time. Therefore the leght of time it took in the day of Mans creation could similarly have been tousands or millions of years. Also the day of animal creation was before mans, which also fits the evolutionary model...

 

[TC]

Wow... there's a scientific principle that says life only comes from life? How does that apply to semi-living things like viruses?

 

[Wedge009]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
The bible *specifically* says that God has made a number of creatures that creepeth and that, further, he has given *me* dominion over them.

Indeed. Man was made to rule over the all the plants and animals, with Man himself under God's authority. We have rejected God's authority, and now we no longer have full control over animals.

Originally posted by Frosty
[The Bible] is, after all, a holy book, and not intended to educate us in the finer scientific points of how we came to be.

Correct. Ultimately our origin should be irrelevant when relating to God.

Originally posted by Frosty
God and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts, and it confuses me that people are so eager to treat them as such.

My personal view is that evolution is the result of our tainting of the world. Animals were never meant to become predatory.

Originally posted by Knitewing
My wife is thankful I kept reading [the Bible]. I let her run the show unless I'm strongly opposed to something she wants to do. Amazingly when ever I have raised one of those objections she's gone my way.

Good show! I hope someday to be like that. Wives are to submit to their husbands, but husbands are to rule with love and compassion.

Originally posted by Knitewing
...Jesus because he freed us from the restraints of Jewish law...

We are still bound by Old Testament Law, Jesus only fulfilled it for us.

Originally posted by Knitewing
...the clergy... can marry and have sex...

Sex is a beautiful gift to be used in within the lawful bounds of marriage.

Originally posted by Marcml30
1. Every living person on earth is the result of the incestuous coupling of Adam/Eve's children.

No one knows, nor should we need to know, how we descended past their children. The Bible, being symbolic as it is, could have taken Adam and Eve to represent a group of men and women. Not that it matters in the overall picture.

I don't have time to reply to the rest, gotta go to a lecture.

 

[milo]

Originally posted by TC
Wow... there's a scientific principle that says life only comes from life? How does that apply to semi-living things like viruses?

Yes, there is. The principle is "biogenesis", which means that in general, life only comes from life, not from non-living matter. At one time, people thought that animals (particularly vermin and insects) could spontaneously arise if the environment was right. If I remember my elementary school bio textbook right, they thought that mice could spontaneously arise in old clothes and rags, for example. When people began to observe their environment more carefully, they discovered that this was not generally true, and named the principle "biogenesis."

However, most biologists currently believe that given the proper conditions and enough time, organic elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen) can form self-replicating polymers. These self-replicating molecules can then react with one another to form more and more complex organic chains. After twenty or so such steps, simple amino acids could be created, followed eventually by proteins and ultimately bacteria and single celled protozoa. The first few steps of this process have been observed in the laboratory, enough to suggest that the idea is not totally wacky, but not enough to confirm the hypotheis.

This hypothesis is called "abiogenesis," and while it is generally accepted, it is not strictly speaking part of evolutionary theory at all. Evolution deals with changes in the genetics of populations, and most of abiogenesis deals with non-living organic polymers that don't really have a genome or a population to speak of.

]Originally posted by AD
Also the day of animal creation was before mans, which also fits the evolutionary model...

On the other hand, Genesis 1:11 has God creating trees and plants on Day 3 before creating the sun and moon on Day 4. And then Genesis 1:20 sees the creation of fish and birds before the creation of land animals in Genesis 1:24.

Undeniably, the biblical account shows a progression of creation from "lower" life forms to "higher" life forms. However this seems to be more of a philosophical hierarchy with mankind at the apex, than a biological one with current species as the culmination of bloodlines. I believe that the creation story in the bible was intended more to describe the spiritual creation of man's soul, and his stewardship over the Earth and its creatures, than it was intended to recount the actual or literal appearance of living species. For what it's worth, I believe this is also the current teaching of the Pope and the Roman Catholic church. Other Christian churches may have other teachings, of course.

 

[AD]

Originally posted by TC
Wow... there's a scientific principle that says life only comes from life? How does that apply to semi-living things like viruses?

Yep in the sense that if you keep a clean steak in an airtight container you wont get flies but if its out in the open you get flies. The flies only come when eggs are laid on the steak. Now A virus, while not an an organism per se, still reproduces and attacks other cells and such, They trick cells into reproducing their genetic code rather than the orignal one of the healthy cell. (I think but I'm not a doctor) Hence viruses require living things to be perpetuated. They are most likely a result of cell mutation. Hence from a biblical point of view, the more imperfect we get (as our genetic stucture deviates further because of the of the fall from grace, we get more diseases and viruses.

Point being you dont have viruses without life.

 

[AD]

Originally posted by milo


However, most biologists currently believe that given the proper conditions and enough time, organic elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen) can form self-replicating polymers. These self-replicating molecules can then react with one another to form more and more complex organic chains. After twenty or so such steps, simple amino acids could be created, followed eventually by proteins and ultimately bacteria and single celled protozoa. The first few steps of this process have been observed in the laboratory, enough to suggest that the idea is not totally wacky, but not enough to confirm the hypotheis.

I know about those experiments. The problem is that making amino acids is easy (sort of) given that there were very very specific conditions. But to make a protein is much, much harder. Amino acids have two flavors: left and right handed. But only the left handed ones are in living things. This experiment made about 50/50 right and left. I think there are about 20 different amino acids in a protein.

Further to the point though We need to ask who are represented in this experiment by the scientists who carried it out?

 

[milo]

Originally posted by AD
Further to the point though We need to ask who are represented in this experiment by the scientists who carried it out?

Sorry, I've read your post about five times, and I still can't quite parse that last question. What are you asking? Could you restate it in another way?

 

[Knitewing]

The experiments were carried out by Stanley and Miller. They produced two protiens and alot of tar under very controled conditions that in no way resembled what evolutionist picture early earth as being.


Milo you might read Darwins black Box by Michael Behe
For my referances on probability read the Journal of theoretical biology article titled "A calculation of the probability of spontanious biogenisis by information theory" and Darwin on trial by Phillip Johnson. I've got tons of books that all refer to what I'm talking about on probability. As an apologetic for evolution I'm suprised you haven't heard of this before. It's pretty commonly accepted by modern day scientist.

 

[Knitewing]

I found this from Skymarshal Kris

<img src=http://www.crius.net/kris/arguing.jpg>

 

[WildWeasel]

HTML doesn't work here. You need to use vBulletin code.

 

[Wedge009]

Originally posted by Marcml30
...inane arguments about a passage in the Bible that refers to rabbits chewing their cud and such...

Originally posted by junior
...my take on theological arguments that involve rabbits chewing their cud...

I thought the passage was disallowing animals which chew the cud and had a cleaved hoof or somthing like that.

Originally posted by AD
...the 6 creative days refer to the transformation of the earth from a lifeless mass to a planet full of life, the way we know it to be now...

Might I point out that, IIRC, after each 'day's' work, there was darkness and then light, the xth day, or something similar. On the seventh day, God rested... but nothing more. So one can say that it is still the seventh 'day' now.

Originally posted by Wedge009
My personal view is that evolution is the result of our tainting of the world. Animals were never meant to become predatory.

Might I add to this that the theory of evolution is not necessarily a contradiction of the Bible unless God's role as initial Creator is ignored.

Originally posted by Knitewing
I found this from Skymarshal Kris
<img src=http://www.crius.net/kris/arguing.jpg>

Heh, heh. It's Space Marshal. And HTML tags don't work, try [xxx][/xxx] instead, where xxx=img. Or better yet, just read this.

 

[milo]

Originally posted by Knitewing
The experiments were carried out by Stanley and Miller. They produced two protiens and alot of tar under very controled conditions that in no way resembled what evolutionist picture early earth as being.

I think you are referring to Stanley Miller (who I believe is one person and not two). Miller was able to generate some amino acids from methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen, back in 1953. As important as his work was, I don't believe it represents the current state of understanding of abiogenesis.

I want to stress again that abiogenesis is generally accepted as a working hypothesis by most biologists, but there are a great many unknowns about how, or even if it happened on Earth. And that it is no more a part of evolutionary theory than the Big Bang is. The definition of evolution is still the one that I gave four pages ago, quoting from Curtis and Barnes.

Biologists do know that life exists now, and they feel confident that there was a time during which life as we know it did not exist on Earth. This leaves them with two possibilities: life arose spontaneously from pre-biotic matter; or life was supernaturally created. A third possibility, that life was delivered to Earth from some other planet, only changes the location of genesis, not the fact that it must have happened.

Biologists assume that life arose spontaneously simply because it gives them a nice juicy problem to work on: figuring out how it might have happened and whether it seems possible that it could happen again elsewhere. If they assume a supernatural origin, they have no further inquiry to make into determining the mechanism of that origin.

Milo you might read Darwins black Box by Michael Behe
For my referances on probability read the Journal of theoretical biology article titled "A calculation of the probability of spontanious biogenisis by information theory" and Darwin on trial by Phillip Johnson. I've got tons of books that all refer to what I'm talking about on probability. As an apologetic for evolution I'm suprised you haven't heard of this before. It's pretty commonly accepted by modern day scientist.

Well, I would hardly classify myself as an apologist for evolution, although I seem to have taken on that role in this thread. If you cited either Behe or Johnson earlier in this thread and I missed it, I apologize.

I have not read either of the works you mention, although I am somewhat familiar with Behe's many-times-refuted notion of "irreducible complexity," (which I thought was a lot of nonsense) and I am aware of Johnson's position on the religious aspects of Darwinism.

I am somewhat disappointed, though, that you did not rise to the challenge and at least attempt to explain what it is that you believe.

I've said my piece, and I will summarize it again here: The Theory of Evolution is a developing scientific model that currently provides the best available explanation for the "fact" or observation of evolution: the genetic makeup of a population changes over time, and these changes are inherited from one generation to the next. If you know of a better model, and would like to explain why it provides a better explanation of the evidence than does evolution, by all means do so.

 

[Nemesis]

Originally posted by Knitewing:
. . . I agree that god guided evolution is a possibility. I will maintain my belief in the bible version until someone can prove evolution.

I certainly respect your right to believe anything you want. But basic honesty about what you believe is another matter. You hold out the possibility that you might someday accept evolution provided there is enough proof. (This has become a common refrain among those who object to evolution.) But I am concerned that you are kidding yourself or us (or both).

Strictly in terms of “religious faith” versus “scientific reason”, the condition you impose for your accepting evolution can never be satisfied short of metaphysical certainty–something along the lines of God herself appearing to you (assuming you would accept such an occurrence without question) and telling you that evolution is “the way it is and has been”. In short, you will always, perforce, find fault with the word of scientists who conclude and argue the same thing.

However, to the extent you understand that science is a “going concern” and so relies, in part, on faith for its truth, your condition exposes an undeniable prejudice, since you would apparently demand a degree of proof (beyond that that already exists) for things scientific that you did not and do not require for things religious. In short, you’re playing a rigged game (which is only further underscored by your attempts to define the “contest” as really science versus science).

In either case then, I can only take your statement to be dishonest or deluded.

Now it may be that I’ve read too little into your statement, and if so I apologize. Perhaps you really have thought long and hard about the “boundaries” between religion and science (between “faith” and “reason”) and have conceived, however loosely, of some “formula” that defines a level of scientific proof that would be sufficient for you to overcome a religious belief. I must say I would be very interested in hearing it. But there is another way you can reassure me on that score. I would be curious to know if you can point to any religious belief you once held but no longer hold strictly due to your accepting a contrary scientific view. In short, has science ever persuaded you to change your religious beliefs about anything? (And yes, I will be impressed more by a change of mind over a “consequential” rather than a “trivial” aspect of life.)

 

[junior]

Originally posted by Wedge009
I thought the passage was disallowing animals which chew the cud and had a cleaved hoof or somthing like that.

The reference to rabbits came from the post I was responding to - but you're probably right. The comments probably originally came about because of the Hebrew dietary laws. The reputation that theologians have about focusing far too much on minutae while ignoring the overall picture doesn't help matters much. The other day, I heard a brief run down of the Pharisees rules regarding trips on the sabbath day (no more than 2000 steps, iirc), and the contortions they made to get around those laws.
*shudder*

Originally posted by Wedge009
Might I add to this that the theory of evolution is not necessarily a contradiction of the Bible unless God's role as initial Creator is ignored.
[/B]

Asimov had an interesting short story that I read once (and its the only time I've ever seen it). One guy sees the whole history of the world to date, and wants to dictate it all to the guy sitting next to him, so the latter can copy it all down. He starts off talking about things that happened billions of years ago, and the scribe, after explaining how difficult and expensive it would be to transcribe billions of years of history, gets him to condense the whole thing down to one week. At the end of the story, you learn that the name of the historian is Moses, and the scribe is Aaron.

 

[Lelapinmechant]

Originally posted by junior
What you believe is what you believe. Try to remember that some of us may not have experienced the same things you have, and may have experienced things that you have not.

A perfect way to put it. I have to say, I'm surprised at the lack of flaming on such a controversial topic. BTW, Lynn Margulis(famous naturalist and faith-oriented human being who believes in evolution), puts it this way:

"The chance for life happening the way it has on this planet is akin to all the parts of an airplane existing in a land fill and then, when a strong wind comes along, being blown in exactly the right manner to create a working airplane."

Personally, I think there's plenty of room for a God right there. Also, some very simple extrapolations of quantum theory(specifically the Copenhagen parts of quantum theory-- complementarity, uncertainty, etc.) suggest the existence of god. So science and religion are hardly oil and water.

 

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Lelapinmechant

I'm surprised at the lack of flaming on such a controversial topic.

Nah, we are not stupid people that don´t respect other beliefs

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Knitewing

Milo you might read Darwins black Box by Michael Behe
For my referances on probability read the Journal of theoretical biology article titled "A calculation of the probability of spontanious biogenisis by information theory"

Personally, I think the biogenesis theory taken from X- Files (season 6, ep. 22: season finale "Biogenesis") makes about as *much* sense as anything else out there, if one is determined to leave God outta the mix...

 

[Knitewing]

Originally posted by Nemesis


I certainly respect your right to believe anything you want. But basic honesty about what you believe is another matter. You hold out the possibility that you might someday accept evolution provided there is enough proof. (This has become a common refrain among those who object to evolution.) But I am concerned that you are kidding yourself or us (or both).

No I'm not. I honestly don't believe the proof is there. I believe things are as they are written in the bible. Too many other things in the bible turned out to be proven by archeology exactly as they were stated.

Strictly in terms of “religious faith” versus “scientific reason”, the condition you impose for your accepting evolution can never be satisfied short of metaphysical certainty–something along the lines of God herself appearing to you (assuming you would accept such an occurrence without question) and telling you that evolution is “the way it is and has been”. In short, you will always, perforce, find fault with the word of scientists who conclude and argue the same thing.

No I find fault with scientist who say they have the answer when they have something that fits the situation but is not proven and then stick by it after it has been proven wrong. Even evolutionary scientist call it the theory of evolution but they treat it as fact. Even in the face of evidance that it isn't. They just lable the opposition religous zelots.

However, to the extent you understand that science is a “going concern” and so relies, in part, on faith for its truth, your condition exposes an undeniable prejudice, since you would apparently demand a degree of proof (beyond that that already exists) for things scientific that you did not and do not require for things religious. In short, you’re playing a rigged game (which is only further underscored by your attempts to define the “contest” as really science versus science).

I disagree. I do not play a rigged game. I require proof period. Both of religion and of science. I would not put my faith in something such as religion unless I was sure it was right. I didn't becaome a Christian until I turned 24. Before that I was an agnostic. I researched the subject and found way to many holes in evolutionary theory and I found answers in Christ. In fact I think it is the evolutionist who are playing the loaded game. They have no impudis. No begining point. What caused the big bang? They do not answer the questions raised by dating from background radiation. They do not answer the impossibility of everything happening just so that something as fragile as life could form in the harsh environment they themselves draw of early earth. Religion has an answer. An all powerful creater.

In either case then, I can only take your statement to be dishonest or deluded.

Now it may be that I’ve read too little into your statement, and if so I apologize. Perhaps you really have thought long and hard about the “boundaries” between religion and science (between “faith” and “reason”) and have conceived, however loosely, of some “formula” that defines a level of scientific proof that would be sufficient for you to overcome a religious belief. I must say I would be very interested in hearing it. But there is another way you can reassure me on that score. I would be curious to know if you can point to any religious belief you once held but no longer hold strictly due to your accepting a contrary scientific view. In short, has science ever persuaded you to change your religious beliefs about anything? (And yes, I will be impressed more by a change of mind over a “consequential” rather than a “trivial” aspect of life.)

Now I am being called on to disavow protions of my position while you refuse to do so on yours. No my friend, I have never come across any part of scripture I find false due to science. Look up the real burning bushes of the mid east. They do exist. Look up the actual parting of the red sea. Believe it or not they have got such a real parting on film. Not a holywood view of it but it actually happening. For years archeologists called Christians nuts because the Bible was the only place the Hitites were mentioned until the mid 1970's when they found the actual civilization. All these things and many more had to be answered before I put my faith in Christ. Mine is not a blind faith that many Christians have. Are you willing to admit that science may in fact prove evolution wrong? That it may prove that God does exist? I challenge you to do your own search for the truth. Don't take my word for it. Demand answers of BOTH religion AND science. Any time you hear the phases "It may have been" "It could have happened this way" Then disreguard the statement because it is pure conjecture. You'll find evolution is shot full of those statements.

 

[milo]

Originally posted by Knitewing
No I find fault with scientist who say they have the answer when they have something that fits the situation but is not proven and then stick by it after it has been proven wrong. Even evolutionary scientist call it the theory of evolution but they treat it as fact. Even in the face of evidance that it isn't. They just lable the opposition religous zelots.

What we have here is either bad science, or a misunderstanding of terms. I suspect it is the latter. First of all, scientists use the terms "theory", "law", and "fact" in specific ways that are different from common usage, and very different from legal usage (i.e. lawyers and judges use these same terms in job-specific ways that are totally different from the way scientists use them).

To modern scientists, the term "law" refers to a descriptive generalization, especially one that can be written with mathematical precision. The term "theory" refers to an explanation of a phenomenon. Theories are more important than laws, because they are explanatory, rather than descriptive. Thus the Theory of Relativity is "more important" than the Laws of Thermodynamics. The "laws" of thermodynamics can be used to calculate, but they do not attempt to explain why the calculations make sense. The Theory of Relativity contains laws of motion that revise and improve upon Newton, but it also explains why the laws had to be revised.

In science, the weakest term of the three is "fact." Facts change all the time as better observations are made. For about a decade, everyone was sure that humans had 48 chromosomes. It was a "fact." Actually, the normal human genome contains 46. Why did they think we had 48? Because scientists can't count.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact part refers to what has been observed: variations in allele frequency for populations change over time and are inherited by subsequent generations. This is evolution (what you call "micro-evolution"), and it does happen. It has been observed. Could all of those observations be wrong? Sure, but it is unlikely. There is a lot of evidence, collected by many people in different fields.

The theory of evolution offers a model that tries to explain why the observations of evolution happen in nature the way they do. Practically all professional biologists accept the theory of evolution because it provides a useful explanation of the observations.

It is unreasonable to expect a scientist to abandon a theory simply because the theory does not explain every observation that has been made. For that to happen, someone must first offer a theory that does a better job of explaining all of the observed facts, including some that are problematic for the first theory. This is exactly what happened with Newton and Einstein. Relativity offered a better explanation of high-velocity motion and motion in high-gravity environments than Newton's model did. Relativity fit the facts better, so scientists adopted it. Quantum Mechanics explains some things even better than relativity, so scientists adopted that. This is how science works.

When someone proposes a new theory that explains all of the fossil record, all of the geographic distribution, all of the laboratory experiments better than evolution does, then that theory will be accepted by biologists. But not until then. That is why I was curious to understand what you believe to be a model that explains the evidence better than evolution.

Now I am being called on to disavow protions of my position while you refuse to do so on yours.... Are you willing to admit that science may in fact prove evolution wrong? That it may prove that God does exist?

Of course science may prove evolution wrong, that's the whole point of science. Science works by trying to prove that the theory is wrong. That is often how better theories are discovered. Modern evolutionary theory has already changed a lot since Darwin's day -- no one knew about genetics back then -- and it will continue to be refined as new and better observations are made.

I don't think that science can prove one way or another whether God exists. If He wanted that to be possible, I think He would have provided a means for that to happen by now. In the parable of Lazarus, God says that we have Moses and the Prophets. If that isn't enough to convince us, having Lazarus come back from the dead won't make any difference.

I challenge you to do your own search for the truth. Don't take my word for it. Demand answers of BOTH religion AND science. Any time you hear the phases "It may have been" "It could have happened this way" Then disreguard the statement because it is pure conjecture. You'll find evolution is shot full of those statements.

All science is filled with statements like that. That's exactly what distinguishes the scientific method from religion. Scientists are not Oracular. They will never able to discover and correctly interpret everything there is to know about the natural world. There will always be things that we don't know and can't understand. Any time we think we understand something we (humans) tend to stop asking questions like "why is this so?" or "how can this be?" At that point, science ends.

 

[AD]

Originally posted by milo

Sorry, I've read your post about five times, and I still can't quite parse that last question. What are you asking? Could you restate it in another way?

I was refering to the experiment where scientists created amino acids in a lab. Someone metioned later (I'm too lazy to look it up) more specificaly the gases and such that were put in the sealed container. After they passed an electric current through it they found the solution to contain a red goo (amino acids). Now Given that this experiment represents an accurate model of the origin of the first proteins and then the first cell, What do the scientists who set up the experiment represent? Its not entirely a question you see. They were controling exactly what was in the experiment, they caused the current to run through the gases which caused amino acids to form in the (was it water?) below. It just argues the case that if this model is to be found true you cannot ignore the oversight of a higher power.