evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by shmick25
If you read the account of the Jews and mosses you will that God did not tolerate any of the 'pagan' influences at all. As a mater of fact, he gave the Israelites a mandate to 'wipe out' other pagan tribes. When mosses came down from the mountain with the 10 commandments and found them worshiping a bull (a belief from their Egyptian exile) he went wild. I would agree with you that they had a lot of influences from the surrounding cultures, however, God made it clear that they were to have nothing to do with these beliefs and were therefore discarded.

Agreed. But the influence was there, nevertheless. We can see this even in almost polytheistic references in Genesis, where the Deity proclaims "Let us make man in our own image." Furthermore, the actual Hebrew word used here for God is "Elohim", which is plural. The Christian usually interprets this plurality as a reference to the Trinity, which I suppose is a fair argument. But it can nevertheless not be denied that the Hebrews had no conception of a Trinity in their religion, and thus the argument is invalid.

There are other biblical references that point out that there was at least some error in the logic of the authors. For example, in Psalms, David says to God, "Thou hast made the earth fixed and immovable", a verse which was used by the Church to condemn Copernicus. No less than Martin Luther himself called Copernicus a "fool", because he had placed "his own authority above that of the Holy Spirit." Luther failed to consider that David and the Holy Spirit are two entirely different things, and it was only the former who wrote the Psalms.

Well, there have been something like 25,000 ancient scrolls found of the new testament. Better still, 4 different eye witness accounts of Christ were recorded. The authenticity of the Bible has been proven time and time again.

It is unlikely that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. It is generally acknowledged that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four, and is dated circa 120 A.D., at least one generation after that of Christ had passed on to their rewards.

Non-human ancestors? The missing link? Beliefs in what? Classic case assumptions

These are not assumptions at all. Museums of Natural History are full of the remains of our pre-human ancestors, even those which predate Cro Magnon and Homo Erectus.

Even cows understand the notion of death, not to mention your domestic cat or dog. This does not prove anything about from the fact that animals have feelings. Just like they have feelings to nurture the young or protect each other.

It's still up in the air if those animals can conceive of death. We know that dogs appear to mourn a lost canine companion, but it is unclear if they understand that their companion is dead, or if they simply miss their playmate (without actually comprehending death). Nurture and protection could be provided by instinct; this is exactly what Descartes thought, and why he believed that non-human animals were "machines" instead of self-aware beings...i.e., according to Cartesians, they have no souls.

But research beginning in the 20th century has turned Cartesianism on its head, at least in respect to non-human primates and other mammals with large brains and expanded central nervous systems. Personally, just from my own limited research and observation of non-human animals, I believe that dogs comprehend death in a limited manner, but no so much as an orangutan; and that the orangutan comprehends death to a fuller degree, but not so much as a human. I would consider it unlikely that a grasshopper or oyster could comprehend death at all, since they appear to biologically unable to formulate any abstract thought due to their limited nervous systems.

By the way, if we kept going down this path and assume that chimps 'do' worship a God, wouldn�t that give more evidence to propose that there is a God or Gods? Bizarre Planet of the apes!

I've never denied the existence of God. I've never even denied that the Bible or Qu'ran or any other book was divinely inspired. But I have to state that there is no empirical reason, at least as of yet, for me to consider any religious book as being better than another, at least from metaphysics or theology. If God really did speak to Moses, or Muhammed, or Vanjara, or Zoroaster, or Joseph Smith, or whoever, in order to make His revelations known, then it seems likely He would speak to others in more modern times to point out our errors.

But, at least for the moment, it appears that He has chosen not do so, and has instead endowed us with reason, logic, curiousity, and a sense of searching in order that we may discover things for ourselves. If He has indeed given us these tools, it seems that it becomes our duty to apply them, letting them lead us wherever they may in our search for Truth.


[edit on 15-12-2004 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by TKainZero
I feel sorry for the people that depend on religion, from the time was in 2nd grade i had no reason to belive that GOd existed, i threw all of those thoughs out along with Santa Cluas and the easter bunny. After that i moved to venezulea and went to an international school, and religion was never brought up, we talked about darwin alot and read bits of the orgin of species. It just made perfect sense. There was no other way(by best friend there now goes to MIT). THey i returned back to the US for the 8th grade. I did not know what religion realy was, it was never pushed upon me like it is to so many other people. My girlfriend said she wanted me to go to church with her, i realu didnt know what is was so i went. Words cant describe how i felt in there. It was pathetic, people were saying horrible things and thanking god for looking out after them. I made a comment that they are suposed to die, that is how our species will continue, we weed out the weak, if we carry along the bad we will all fall, survial of the fittest.

Goes without saying that they did not like people to think logicaly in church, so they kicked me out. I have alwas made decitions on my own, about all kind of things, i had always htought the storey of jeasus was just that, same as all other lititure from that time period, not supose to be taken serisoly. From the time i can remember to that day, i did not know that people belived in this, it wasnt logical.

To this day i hace to go to church once a year with my family on christmas or easter, and everytime i go i feel so sad, i feel sad for all the people there. Are these people brain-dead? Have they been brain washed? Is this a form of goverment control to keep order? Mabye it is true that i will vever understand how the mind of a religious fanatic works, but i think it is a perminent system, they have been trained to belive, trained to except a way of life, a way of thought, and discuraged to think on their own.

I belive it is like Platos alagory of the cave, heres a link faculty.washington.edu...

I feel sorry for YOU. Although, your bleak outlook on life is understandable, after all you are in Bakersfeild[sic]. Although, it must be nice to have all the answers, eh? Maybe in the future, I can bypass examining information for myself and simply consult your infinite wisdom.

Your post might have more of an impact if every third word was not misspelled, including the name of city in which you live.... sort of hinders your credibility, IMO.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by mattison0922]

[edit on 15-12-2004 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
We can see this even in almost polytheistic references in Genesis, where the Deity proclaims "Let us make man in our own image." Furthermore, the actual Hebrew word used here for God is "Elohim", which is plural. The Christian usually interprets this plurality as a reference to the Trinity, which I suppose is a fair argument. But it can nevertheless not be denied that the Hebrews had no conception of a Trinity in their religion, and thus the argument is invalid.

The Hebrews believed in angels, yes? Could not God and the angels be "we"?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
There are other biblical references that point out that there was at least some error in the logic of the authors. For example, in Psalms, David says to God, "Thou hast made the earth fixed and immovable", a verse which was used by the Church to condemn Copernicus.

Isn't this a matter of perspective? You can re-draw the earth as the center and immovable, but it's a really hard model for us to understand since the movement of everything else becomes much more prominent. The Sun moves even though there is a stationary sun in the Helio-centric model, therefore any point in the universe can be made as the center and immovable. Just a thought.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
No less than Martin Luther himself called Copernicus a "fool", because he had placed "his own authority above that of the Holy Spirit." Luther failed to consider that David and the Holy Spirit are two entirely different things, and it was only the former who wrote the Psalms.

Luther does not equal God. He is not omniscient, therefore he cannot be correct all the time. Can you? I can't.

Originally posted by shmick25
Ok Ok. Me against the rest.

Against the rest for what? This isn't the debate forum, this is one of the discussion forums. Its doubtfull that anyone is going to be able to convince anyone else to change their opinion on something here.

he thought they were a bunch of stories then why quote from them?

What does it matter? These are reasons for having faith in somethign like creationism, not evindenec for or against evolution.

But I know you are putting the other pov across so that is my reply.

Nygdan
Ah, then yes evolution, biology, geology, physics, history, yes, all of that is contradictory to your god.

Can you generalize some more?
I am not trying to mislead by generalization or anything liek that. If the bible forces you to reject evolution, then there must be other branches of science that are supportive of evolution that you must reject, and, indeed, you'd have to reject almost all of science since evolution uses the same methodology of investigation and support as the rest of science.

The Bible is one of the greatest sources of history you will find.

It most certainly is not. The history presented in the bible is paltry, and only concerns some of the episodes of a tribe of goat herders in the levant. Its not an historical text either, a historical text is somethign like what Herodotus wrote, where he explains the research that he did and the sources for the tales. True, myths and outright fiction can give us historical information, but the bible is hardly a great tool for even that.

Physics. I don't believe the Bible attempts to address this at all. Besides, I have no real issue with it. Biology and geology? What about them? How are they contrary to god if he created them?

Then how is evolution contrary to god if he created it too? You had said you reject evolution, or that its unacceptable because its contrary to the bible. Well, physics and geology are contrary to the bible.

And scientists still cant agree on the theories of evolution.

How so?

No one alive today witnessed anything that happened in the Bible. As far as I'm concerned it's just a book of myths.

I don�t think too many humans watched the Big Bang either. Must be a myth as well.
Ok so now you are saying that you reject phyiscs. How many electrons or quarks have to seen? How many events in the bible did you witness for that matter?

Show me[evolution].

Evolution is the change in animal populations over time. Are you saying that this does not occur or not?

Someday we may prove this wrong and find a better explanation, but until then, this is the best answer we have.

So your saying that evolution may be wrong but we will call it the truth because we are ignorant and need something to believe in for the time being.Hmmm nice one.[
Well, this is preceisely how all scienec works. All scientific theories are provisionally accepted and understood to not be the truth itself. At best, one theory can be found to be a better approximation of the truth than the other, or have more 'versimilitude' than another. Evolution isn't special in this respect. If its certainty you'd like then do not look to science. Its uncertain.

It is better than what a book tells us without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

I wouldnt say that. Historically speaking it has been found to be very accurate.
Since when? There's no evidence for the Exodus, or for its explanation of the hebrews as a people living in egypt. Many of the cities and places in it don't exist outside of it. Now, I'm not saying it gets everything wrong. It listed the hittites as people a group of people, and it was thought to be wrong about that but later on it was found out that these ;hittites' actually did exist. But whats so accurate about it?

Genesis was written before the Jews were led into captivity by the Babylonians.

I don't think that the original poster was saying that they picked it up at that time. There was extensive cultural contact between those areas and apparently a shared mythology. Amoung the hebrews this lead to a monotheistic religion, amoung the sumerians it stayed polytheistic.

The Bible being considered the inspired word of God is a cultural phenomenon, not an absolute truth.

Fact. The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God.
But this hardly means that it was.

The difference between chimps and us is MASSIVE even if the DNA is similar.

The differences aren't so great. Chimps have a much smaller brain, they tend to live in trees and aren't very well adapted to bipedal walking, their teeth are larger and stronger, yes, there are differenes, but they aren't massive, not as massive as say that between lizards and birds, or even so great as some of the differences within groups of birds.

Show me how they demonstrate they primitive 'beliefs' with little idols and temples that they worship.

Do you mean examples of culture in primates? Chimpanzees are known to make and use very primitive tools. Chimps, or perhaps its gorillas, are known to do a strange rain dance when it starts raining. Chimps are also known to devlop an attachment to seemingly random objects and carry them around with them for long periods of time. Also, chimps have been observed to participate in a ritual dance, one that involves groups of them moving in large circles, often around a 'pole' or tree, with special emphaisis on one foot for the dance. And of course socialization and heirarchy are famously common throughout the primate groups.

If we are so close, and they are so intelligent (as you would insinuate) why don�t they begin to Worship man or trees or anything else? Observation.

WHo said that they had a brain that was this advanced? They obviously have a very advanced brain and culture, but why should it matter that they don't act exactly like people?

the Bible says he did it in 7 days. I believe that.

Thats nice. But what do your beleifs have to do with it? If frogs gave birth to lizzards, are you saying that then you would change your beleifs? Your beleifs are based on faith, they have nothing to do with evidence. Is your faith in god weakened when something that bible claims to have happened is shown to not have? Does it require material support in order to be strong?

Exactly. Just like your belief in evolution is contrary to what I believe.

Evolution does not require faith in order to be beleived. Its only 'beleived' in so far as the evidence allows, that is provisionally and based upon experiments and natural evidence. Its not a beleif system.

Well, there have been something like 25,000 ancient scrolls found of the new testament. Better still, 4 different eye witness accounts of Christ were recorded. The authenticity of the Bible has been proven time and time again.

What does that matter? The gospels that talk about christ, the originals aren't had. IOW, there aren't any eyewitness accounts. There are some pages that claim to be eyewitness accounts. THe Gospels of St. Thomas are another set of pages that claim to be eyewitness accounts fo jesus, they're ancient, but they're not part of the cannonical bible. The early church had to sort through all the different stories that were circulating amoung the early christians and decide what to make 'cannon' and what to reject. Do you think that they got everything right? Do you think that they missed any? DO you think a council of bishops back then with their own interpretations of christianity, when it didn't have a cannon, could rightfully decide what was cannon and what wasn't?

I guess this is as good a position as any to stop to keep the post relatively short.

Originally posted by Xephyr
Proof? Have you ever taken a look at viruses? Viruses literally "evolve" right before our eyes. Did you think the flu shot you had to get every year was some kind of coincidence? And while every day science is making breakthroughs that support the theory of evolution, I see little in the way of support for the stories of the bible.

I mean, put evolution next to Jonah and the big fish....well, I'm going to say that evolution is just a tiny bit more credible.

Perfect example. I do believe that mutation is often confused with evolution. Things don't "evolve". They "mutate". What happens when you have a bad mutation? You die off (become extinct). What happens when you have a good mutation? You live on to see another day. Imagine what happened to these funny upright creatures when their hands became deformed due to an unfortunate mutation. A nasty mutation that cased one of their digits to become someone detached from the rest of the hand? Thats right. We call it a thumb. You think evolution because all the bad stuff dies off.

Originally posted by shmick25
Can you generalize some more? The Bible is one of the greatest sources of history you will find. Care to argue against it?

The Bible, especially the early parts, is no substitute for a legitimate history book. There are several contradicting stories in Genesis that many creationists try to cram into one, but it doesn't work. For instance, there are two creation myths in the first few chapters. One has God creating animals, then man, and another has God creating man then animals then woman. A lot of people take the latter and try to fit it into the former, but in the end it doesn't make sense. You can't combine the seven days myth with the Eden myth, they are two very different stories.

The story of Noah for instance, was a common Middle Eastern myth (see the Epic of Gilgamesh, from which it is derived) and is in fact a point in many pagan religions. It is also heavily influenced by Egyptians and Babylonians, and has two conflicting stories combined into one to seem to be more of a historical account than a moral story.

The tale is one story (derived from two separate sources, the Yahwist source, and the Priestly Source) that still contradicts itself several times. In one point, God directs Noah to assemble a pair of all living creatures onto the Ark and food for all of them. But God said elsewhere in the story to take seven pairs of "clean" animals and one pair of "unclean" animals.

Noah and his family actually get into the Ark twice, which is evidence enough that these are more than one story.

It is said that the flood lasted "forty days and forty nights"...it is said that the flood lasted "one hundred fifty days." Noah begins a convenant with God by sacrificing one of every edible animal he has, after which God promises not to destroy all of life on Earth again. Yet it says that God initiates the covenant later by giving the survivors instructions not to succumb to evil ways and then he gives them a rainbow.

Tell me that the creation stories in the Bible are historically accurate. Go ahead.

And scientists still cant agree on the theories of evolution. Must be solid proof.

You misunderstand scientific debate. You perceive this self-correcting nature of science to prove that science is flawed. Biologists argue about a lot of things, but one thing they are certain of and all agree upon is that evolution has occurred. Exactly how it happened is what they argue, there is very little to no debate on IF it occured at all.

Umm, last time I checked, I don�t think too many humans watched the Big Bang either. Must be a myth as well.

I believe Hubble was brought up earlier in this thread. Evidence does point to the Big Bang, while I see ZERO evidence whatsoever supporting the creation stories of Genesis.

Show me.

You know that viruses evolve. That is something you cannot deny, we see it constantly. What evidence is there that this is exclusive to microorganisms? It is still the result of genetic change and natural selection. It operates the same way in higher forms of life. Genetic abberations that can lead to advantages will form and eventually that advantage will be widespread as those with it are more likely to survive to reproduce.

So your saying that evolution may be wrong but we will call it the truth because we are ignorant and need something to believe in for the time being. Hmmm nice one.

Not at all. I mentioned before, science is a self-correcting field. What do you think about gravity? After all, it's "just a theory." It could be proven wrong any day. Does that mean it's ignorant to accept it as truth?

We see how something works, we observe it under different conditions, and conclude that nothing we know of disproves it. Doesn't mean it's fact, but it is very likely to be true. It isn't blindly accepting something that is the result of thousands of years of human ignorance, it is carefully studied and critisized until we reach a theory that works. It is VERY different from religion and faith.

I wouldnt say that. Historically speaking it has been found to be very accurate. Why suddenly start lying about the start of time. Seems a bit strange to me.

Because early man did not know about evolution and could not comprehend it. I want you to read the speech given by Douglas Adams called "Is There an Artificial God?" Google it and read it. It explains where the idea of God comes from and why man came up with creation myths.

Yes. He could have created it anyway he wished but the Bible says he did it in 7 days. I believe that.

Despite all evidence otherwise. There is no evidence at all to suggest the Earth was created in seven days, and there is definitely no way the Earth is less than 10k years old.

One thing the thread creator continues to say is that the chances of evolution occurring and continuing are "scientifically impossible." But natural selection does not work by random chance, it weeds out the bad and preserves the gains. That's how evolution works. It is not "scientifically impossible".

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Ikku]

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Ikku]

I swear, using the bible as facts, I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale......

Anyways, there is proof of evolution. Why do we need a new flu shot every year? Because the flu shot evolves so the new strand is no longer affected by the old flu shot. Also, the bible is about as useful for facts and history as a roll of toilet paper, well, maybe more, those pages can be good tp. All mighty powerful invisable people raping women, killing people for not being stupid, wiping out all life but 2 of every animal, also something that can't happen, and the whole adam and eve..... sorry, didn't happen, or flood, or 7 days, or Jesus, none of it happened. If something like Jesus did happen, he was a con, sorry, magic isn't real, well, hell, a light bulb is "magic" to them, so medicine would be to. Wow, I got a headache? WHat? This little pill will fix it? MAGIC!

Evolution has proof, science, facts. Creation has "YOU GO TO HELL! Now give me money before I rape your 8 year old."

Exactly. Religion appeals to guilt and fear. Science appeals to the desire for knowledge. You decide.

my question is.are you speaking of evolution or the theory that modern man evolved from lower primate? there is plenty of evidence that evolution does exist...in the plant and animal kindoms. check out where the modern house cat came from or do a little research on bacteria and viruses(constanly evolving) i think it's hard for some people to grasp evolution when it comes to discussing if we evolved from "lesser" creatures.

In your attempt to argue against creation, members of this thread seem to loose the reason.

And scientists still cant agree on the theories of evolution.

Nygdan: How so?
Ikku: You misunderstand scientific debate. You perceive this self-correcting nature of science to prove that science is flawed. Biologists argue about a lot of things, but one thing they are certain of and all agree upon is that evolution has occurred. Exactly how it happened is what they argue, there is very little to no debate on IF it occurred at all.

As a Christian, I am not ignorant of people within and out of the church that argue against my beliefs. I would have thought that you would have been aware of this within the Evolution field as well. Obviously I was wrong. Maybe I will provide some quote from scientists that do not agree with the evolution.

"Karl Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.'
This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist. British Museum of Natural History, London

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history.
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.
Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological �clock.'
The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists." W.D. Stansfield,

Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University

"Evolution (as theory) is indeed 'a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses', and I and my colleagues teach it as such." Stephen Jay Gould,

Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped...

To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." Pierre-Paul Grasse,

Former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and president of the French Academie des Sciences

I can keep going on and on and on. I am sure these quotes from more than qualified chaps will substantiante my origional claim "And scientists still cant agree on the theories of evolution."

and, indeed, you'd have to reject almost all of science since evolution uses the same methodology of investigation and support as the rest of science.

Umm no. Because evolution tries to apply scientific methodology and investigation doesn�t mean that it does it effectively or correctly. I am sure you agree assumptions are made to fill in the banks. Even educated guesses are guesses. i.e. I assume there are weapons in Iraq. Lets blow the crap out of the country. Am educated guess (along with seemingly apparent evidence to support that claim) that was wrong.

Then how is evolution contrary to god if he created it too? You had said you reject evolution, or that its unacceptable because its contrary to the bible. Well, physics and geology are contrary to the bible.

Did God create evolution or is man floundering to understand our origins.

Ok so now you are saying that you reject physics. How many electrons or quarks have to seen? How many events in the bible did you witness for that matter?

We can keep going down this path. Did you see Darwin write his book? maybe he never existed. I personally have not seen any electrons or quarks. How many have you seen? I believe they are there because scientific evidence can proves that. Seeing I can not see them, it still requires a belief in the science. You cant see or feel your brain, but you still believe you have one, right?

Well, this is preceisely how all scienec works. All scientific theories are provisionally accepted and understood to not be the truth itself. At best, one theory can be found to be a better approximation of the truth than the other, or have more 'versimilitude' than another. Evolution isn't special in this respect. If its certainty you'd like then do not look to science. Its uncertain.

That�s ok then. I thought an argument was in place that evolution is indeed fact.

Do you mean examples of culture in primates? Chimpanzees are known to make and use very primitive tools. Chimps, or perhaps its gorillas, are known to do a strange rain dance when it starts raining. Chimps are also known to develop an attachment to seemingly random objects and carry them around with them for long periods of time. Also, chimps have been observed to participate in a ritual dance, one that involves groups of them moving in large circles, often around a 'pole' or tree, with special emphaisis on one foot for the dance. And of course socialization and hierarchy are famously common throughout the primate groups.

Many animals do amazing dances including birds. My cat is attached to a toy mouse. It comes back to the same spot to play with it every night.

If you could supply some evidence in support of the dancing around a pole I would be very interested in reading it.

WHo said that they had a brain that was this advanced? They obviously have a very advanced brain and culture, but why should it matter that they don't act exactly like people?

The point being made is that they are supposedly our closest ancestor with similar characteristics. (hmm) My Argument remains that we are uniquely different.

If frogs gave birth to lizzards, are you saying that then you would change your beleifs?

Of course. But they don�t.

Your beleifs are based on faith, they have nothing to do with evidence. Is your faith in god weakened when something that bible claims to have happened is shown to not have? Does it require material support in order to be strong?

Not at all. I have faith that it is correct. Evolution has not disproved it as it can not be relied upon. It just means to me there is still unknown information that is not addressed in the Bible and that science can not explain.

For the rest of your posts Nygdan & Ikku, I will get back to you with some facts when I have a bit more time. I would hope that you could do the same to support your claims.

Cheers.

As a Christian, I am not ignorant of people within and out of the church that argue against my beliefs. I would have thought that you would have been aware of this within the Evolution field as well. Obviously I was wrong. Maybe I will provide some quote from scientists that do not agree with the evolution.

That's because belief has nothing to do with science. Scientists that have complaints about evolution let their personal beliefs get in the way of their research. If you take the Bible as a literalist, you are going too far. Personally I don't agree with anything in the Bible regarding God and our origin literally. While parts of the Bible fit in to history, it is by no means a historical account, especially the bits about creation, which were created so ancient men had something to believe in and some kind of answer to questions they didn't even understand. I still want you to read the speech given by Douglas Adams, "Is There an Artificial God?" and tell me your thoughts.

Yes, simple life-forms appeared by chance. The odds are quite unlikely. But in an infinite universe with a virtually unlimited amount of time, it was going to happen. And happen it did.

From there it wasn't nearly as improbable as everyone makes it out to be. An multi-cellular organism is just as likely to survive as a single-celled one, and they became increasingly more complex over a period of millions of years.. And today we're here. Evolution is not unlikely given the amount of time it's had.

So yes, many scientists disagree, but that does not invalidate evolution. If it did, then your point would be just as invalid considering many theists agree with evolution. It really isn't an issue.

We can keep going down this path. Did you see Darwin write his book? maybe he never existed. I personally have not seen any electrons or quarks. How many have you seen? I believe they are there because scientific evidence can proves that. Seeing I can not see them, it still requires a belief in the science. You cant see or feel your brain, but you still believe you have one, right?

Again, here is where belief simply has nothing to do with the subject. I know I have a brain. Simple as that. Belief has nothing to do with the existence of electrons either, because scientists have no reason to lie. They don't get extra money, they don't gain control of people. They simply inform people.

Personally, I don't believe in God. But evolution does not contradict the possibility at all. It says in the footnotes of the Bible that there are two conflicting creation stories, two conflicting flood stories. That should be proof enough that they shouldn't be taken literally. Catholic doctrine (I'm assuming you're Catholic or your religion shares this belief) says that early Biblical stories are not meant to be historically accurate and that evolution can go hand in hand with religion.

Don't forget my previous post.

I'm at work so can only give quick replies.

Scientists that have complaints about evolution let their personal beliefs get in the way of their research.

I would love to hear Mattison's view on this You see it like this. Preconceived ideas hinder scientific research.

What about the scientists that are not religious and then are foced to explor other possibilities because science does not have the answer? How was their judgement clouded? Obviously it wasnt. As mattison would argue, if you can not be open minded, how can you explore new possibilities?

Yes, simple life-forms appeared by chance. The odds are quite unlikely.

No, realistically impossible. Possible only with a belief in that theory.

I will get to read the Doublas Adams story when I get a chance. Sounds interesting.

I am not remotely catholic and they have created their own authority to ammend the Bible. (Blah)

I will remember your previous post dont worry.

I actually find the religious to be less open-minded than evolutionists. The religious seem to say "It says it in this book, there is no other evidence, but despite anything anyone has to say, this must be fact." Most evolutionists say "This is what we can conclude from our given data. If there is ever any contradicting instances we can amend our theories accordingly."

Realistically impossible? If it's impossible that single-celled lifeforms could form on their own, then it is equally impossible that a god just came into being, or always existed. It's no more of a stretch. In fact life forming on its own is actually more likely than a god existing. How exactly this life formed is still unknown, but there are many theories and experiments to create RNA and amino acids. No one has created life yet, but they have created the building blocks, which are signs that living organisms can come from non-living molecules.

Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No. There are so many conditions that have to be right that makes it very rare, but in the perfect environment, one such as Earth, it is entirely possible. The chances of aliens coming from nearby planets? Slim to none. I personally think we're alone for lightyears and lightyears.

Now, maybe you can even use this to justify your god. Maybe this life formed by some divine intervention. I personally do not think so, but there are many who do.

Scientists that have complaints about evolution let their personal beliefs get in the way of their research.

This statement is a joke. How many scientists do you know that have complaints about evolution? My research has NOTHING to do with evolution, how does my personal doubt about much of evolutionary theory impede my research?

From there it wasn't nearly as improbable as everyone makes it out to be. An multi-cellular organism is just as likely to survive as a single-celled one, and they became increasingly more complex over a period of millions of years.

This is typical. People who don't truly understand the complexity of the situation gloss over these huge details like it's nothing. Oh yeah, no big deal... spontaneous generation of a cell...happens all the time, everyday in fact. From there, no sweat, add a couple of biochemical pathways, throw in an organ system, tissue systems, etc. No big deal at all. Mix it all up and let it brew for a couple of million years.

Let me throw this question out: Why is it that I can an experiment like gently lyse some cells, causing them to release their contents with minimal disruption, recombine said cell lysate with the components (phospholipids) and appropriate conditions to reform cell membranes, and ultimately plate out this mixture on complete medium and not get cells back. All of the components for life are there. Everything, proteins, DNA, ribosomes, raw materials, etc. Why if you recombine all the necessary components of life and place them behind a membrane, why do you not get life back? You can search the literature, and you will NOT find a single scientist whose been able to complete this seemingly simple experiment. Given that under ideal conditions, with all the appropriate biomolecules present, one is still not able to re-generate life, how can one be expected to believe it appeared via a series of fortuitous occurances, that NEVER are observed, such as formation of a stereospecific biologically relevant polymer, or spontaneous generation of lipid bilayers for example?

I actually find the religious to be less open-minded than evolutionists. The religious seem to say "It says it in this book, there is no other evidence, but despite anything anyone has to say, this must be fact."

Not all religions. Some have left what the Bible says and is willing to accept evolutions stance. I am not one of these people. I have looked at both sides of the story (much like yourself) and have decided that if it comes down to a matter of belief (which you have insinuated in your last post) then I am better off believing in an all powerful God.

Most evolutionists say "This is what we can conclude from our given data. If there is ever any contradicting instances we can amend our theories accordingly."

I do not agree with this. Mattison has introduced many observed scientific evidence that goes against popular evolutional thought. This, however, is dismissed as it doesn�t fit the mould of their argument. This is selective science (I guess they are applying the principles of evolution in their own science discipline )

If it's impossible that single-celled life forms could form on their own, then it is equally impossible that a god just came into being, or always existed. It's no more of a stretch. In fact life forming on its own is actually more likely than a god existing.

Unfortunately we can not fully understand the concept of God, as we are created beings. It says in the Bible that God is the beginning and the end. How can you comprehend that. Earth has a beginning, even if you argue billions of years. God does not.

There are so many conditions that have to be right that makes it very rare, but in the perfect environment, one such as Earth, it is entirely possible. The chances of aliens coming from nearby planets? Slim to none. I personally think we're alone for lightyears and lightyears.

So in the end, when you remove all the frills a personal thought is nothing more than a personal belief, which is ok, as we are all entitled to them!

Does make for an interesting conversation though.

I have been perusing a number of your posts regarding evolution and feel it is time to elucidate all of you to the truth. The fact is, millions of years of human fossils have in fact been reconciled in Genesis! I know there are a number of you that hold true to your beliefs in our Creator and many of you have fundamental roadblocks to those beliefs. I too felt this way for most of my life. I don�t any more and you won�t either after you read this. Go to the following link and begin your journey on a rollercoaster ride to the truth about your beginning and soon to be your ending�.at least in this world!


(EDited to remove link)

[edit on 17-12-2004 by asala]

My statement was being a bit too general I realize. I'm speaking of biologists who refuse to accept even the possibility of evolution because it goes against their beliefs. People who encounter evolution as part of their work yet won't even look into it.

Evolution is not meant to explain how life began or what caused it, it is simply the theory of what happened to it once it got here. I even mentioned that the actual beginning of life is highly improbable and open to debate. But I do not doubt what happened to that life and what it became.

I fetched this link for you on that speech I mentioned earlier. Read it, it's very interesting and insightful.

Cheers.

LOL

why didn't someone just reply with

religion, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

They did. Several times.

Before you get too excited about religion just remember at one time it was believed that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of everything and everything revolved around us. A religious significance was attached to everything man didn't understand. It was ignorance. I don't mean it in a nasty way but they were ignorant of how things really worked. It was people with this kind of mental capacity that wrote much of what people put all their faith in today. They simply made stuff up because they couldnt' figure it out and because they attached a religious meaning to it everyone was affraid to question it. Sounds like the war on terror today. lol