Why creation?

Originally posted by irongunner
I do not think there is enough evidence to prove undeniably that evolution and other natural processes are entirely responsible for Man and intelligence.

I tell you what. You need to recognise that evolution is completely solid and has been for over a century. Evolution demonstrates how man came about biologically.

But intelligence is a evolutionary oddity, it's what separates us from the rest of the biosphere. I'm happy to think that that is a product of God's intention to produce us specifically (I'm athiest), but you don't need to throw stinker at science to support that. Science will actually agree with you that our intelligence is unusual, but it's up to the individual to decide on the cause.

reply to post by Good Wolf


This is a bit off topic admittedly, and a conceptual type question.

How can you say a scientific theory is solid when

a. they continue to make new discoveries
and
b. it gets altered to include new discoveries

You have brought up both of these points.

It seems that if there is still more information being gathered you cannot have a conclusion, only a predictive estimate.
And- If your theory changes and adapts that would make it rather fluid (or gaseous I guess) but not "solid." Solid insinuates that the theory stands because all the evidence found supports the original theory, not change it. A solid theory that ignores evidence that disagrees with it is exactly what some people claim creationism is right?

Now, I am purely speaking in conceptual terms and merely used our arguments as an illustration.

And i do think we have to agree that we are truly living in an evolved society where no one was threatened or banned from posting in this entire discussion.

reply to post by irongunner


The new discoveries and changes in the theory are not changes that will turn it on it's ear. It's always refinement. It's like a sculptor working out of a solid block of marble. The sculptor makes significant headway to the finished products and people like Darwin come in and makes a hypothesis on what it will be. He then makes predictions of what will be seen with subsequent discoveries over time. He was right, but he wasn't 100% accurate.

In Darwin's time, genetics were completely undiscovered and there was no fossil evidence to suggest that man was anything but man, but he predicted that fossils would be discovered that shed light on man's family tree. The first Neanderthal remains were found before he died so it was looking good for him.

But many discoveries, especially genetics, have changed the theory of evolution since Darwin's time.

reply to post by irongunner


Is 'one million is greater than 5' correct?

Is 'one million is greater than 5 by more than 300' correct?

Is 'one million is greater than 5 by more than 500,000' correct?

They are all progressions of a theme. They are all correct, only some are more correct than others. Discovering the last one doesn't mean the first two are incorrect, as you can see. It's narrowing down what the truth is, and we know it is squarely under the theory of evolution. Exactly where is what science is continually refining. Each new discovery that lies within the existing bounds of evolution only goes to show just how correct the theory is.

Good Wolf and Dave Thanks for those excelent answers to my question "STARS"

Now I think I need to ask the same type question a little more clearly. This to me is more like a murder mystery than the analogy of the numbers from Dave.

As a jurist I see that the evidence is clearly pointing in one direction, but given the severity of the case I think the assumptions should be kept to a minimum.

So we could say that:

From Earth we see two stars that are next to each other.
They appear equally as bright
As we look at them through better telescopes we find that star A is brighter than star B. and this is how it is taught for years and years, even as better telescope and astronomical equipment becomes available. Until we are able to move away from earth at an oblique angle to stars a and b that we notice that star b is actually brighter just further away (or obscured some how).

now, all of the research that was done showed rather convincing evidence that A was brighter than B, but it was not until we got a different perspective that we fully understood that A's light was more intense at earth do to the great difference in distance between star a and b.

Maybe this example better illustrates my thoughts on ID and evolution.

reply to post by irongunner


No, it's still not a good analogy because we can tell how far away stars are, then considering their relative luminosity, we can know which is brighter and you will find that any space probe will conform to that.

It's math.


But I'm curious. What assumptions do you think we are making?

[edit on 10/1/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Good Wolf


Not to mention the difference in the magnatude of stars. The dimmer one could be closer, but seem dimmer because it's smaller.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


This is eactly what I mean. So if the close star "A" seemed brighter then your theory would be that A was brighter than B.

But, after you get more information you "adjust" your theory to be the opposite? How do you consider changing your answer adaptive?

If tomorrow we found irrevocable proof that God created life would you adapt your evolution theory to fit that as well?

there is only a limit to adapting a theory and the theory being wrong.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Well her are some form yours and Jaxons posts

“Well, I'll give you that one, the evolutionary path of man is fairly undefined. But that is no where near saying that thee is no evidence for it happening at all “

“Since Erectus walk on two feet and used tools and looked almost exactly like us, a strong case can be made that we evolved from them. “

“A theory is the logical conclusion drawn from the available facts. Evolution has passed this test. “

“Intelligent Design is rubbish scientifically because we've seen how evolving organisms can be more functional and seemingly more designed than anything that could in fact be designed.”

Jaxon Wolf
“They cannot tell you what was before the Big Bang” -vs- “But you don't even need a creator since current astrophysics holds that the universe did not have a beginning. “

So here are examples of using an assumption to bridge gaps in evidence and out right contradiction of theories.

Originally posted by irongunner
If tomorrow we found irrevocable proof that God created life would you adapt your evolution theory to fit that as well?

Yes, and if irrevocable proof was found that God did it using evolution and the theories leading up to it (cosmology, abiogenesis), would you change your 'theory'?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by irongunner
If tomorrow we found irrevocable proof that God created life would you adapt your evolution theory to fit that as well?

Yes, and if irrevocable proof was found that God did it using evolution and the theories leading up to it (cosmology, abiogenesis), would you change your 'theory'?

I am a huge fan of the concept of divinely inspired evolution.

reply to post by irongunner


Well, then remember that the theory of evolution does not discount Divine inspiration, Aethiesm does. Try not to confuse the two. As I said before, Science is not out to prove or disprove the Divine. Aethiests on the other hand...

That has been my point all along. back when I was talking about God's ability to do anything, even things that man cannot comprehend or imagine. That is the only point I have been trying to make.


if we accept that God may have set evolution in motion why is it such a huge leap to say that God took the old world ape and gave him a boost into intelligence and into man... I understand that this would assume that fossil records for apes to man are not only incomplete but separate. Which I understand is an not normal, but a being that has the power and intelligence to design a system of environmental stimuli and adaptation could also have the power to create entire species.

That is the extent of my argument. Not that God created everything and six days and on the seventh took a break, but that God can do anything He wants and that man has a bad habit of restraining him.

reply to post by irongunner


Well, if you go back and review your posts, it seems like you are trying to defend creationism, which is the whole 6 days story.

reply to post by irongunner


It's odd that you have a problem with assumptions when to be a creationist you have to make the ultimate assumption; that God exists and is all-powerful.

Such a being could do anything he wants and on the assumption that this being made the universe, the only way to know what he has done is by studying the universe, ie. Science.

And what does science dictate? That we evolved from ancient apes. This theory has changed since Darwin, but not significantly.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by irongunner

 

It's odd that you have a problem with assumptions when to be a creationist you have to make the ultimate assumption; that God exists and is all-powerful.

Such a being could do anything he wants and on the assumption that this being made the universe, the only way to know what he has done is by studying the universe, ie. Science.

And what does science dictate? That we evolved from ancient apes. This theory has changed since Darwin, but not significantly.

I agree. I am not saying that I am not making assumptions...I am, I am merely pointing out that so are scientists.

I agree that science is our formal process of studying "stuff" from the stars to fungi.
I would also like to add that as often as not science has been wrong.
I am simply trying to point out that in this case science could also be wrong.

Not that it IS or IS NOT only that it COULD be.

err. doesn't really cut it I'm afraid. It's true that science has just about always wrong, but its a case of degree. Science is a self correcting process becoming ever more accurate. Absolute truth is unattainable by us. We don't know everything about everything. We don't know everything about anything. everything we know is not complete or it is not accurate on all points.

So you can't just say that evolution is wrong, because it is somewhere on some point. There are pieces missing too.

So we can debate the historic evidence and the fossil record till the cows come home, so scientists set out to make it happen in the lab and they did. So you can say that is wrong and this is wrong but the principles and the fundamentals are solid and research on the less fundamental aspects go on.

reply to post by Good Wolf


If we could get rid of the "double logic" structure out of our DNA program, then humankind may be able to reason a little more accurately.

I wonder how we can get rid of this through evolution.

If we have been around a few thousand years or so, you would think we would have done it by now?

It is also amusing, why us humans didn't develop wings, as we obviously had a need for flight so badly, someone invented the aeroplane as he could not bring about a change in his body structure, for some reason.

I wonder why?

But science is only a modern day religion.

It is the Religion of Science.

In another 1,000 years the understanding we have today will be seen as barbaric.

If Science was at all accurate, then humankind would not have the major problems he has today.

Don't get me wrong, as I have been involved in rescue work, but I have never seen a life saved yet, by any medical worker, as we all die in the end.

Most of the medical treatments have side affects!

I wonder why this is?

Perhaps something is Not understood...

Our cars are only about 22% thermally efficient today, so when you buy $100 worth of fuel 78% or more of that energy is dumped into your atmosphere!

I wonder why?

Do people just enjoy paying for fuel, they just want to dump?

Most high performance competition vehicles are as low as 12% thermally efficient and in F1 is lower still, it is just that more weight in air passes through the engine on each engine cycle so the volumetric efficiency increases, but thermal efficiency deteriorates.

Cars today are meant to be highly advanced.

I don't think so....

(Having been an engine designer, involving so called high performance competition vehicles in the past.)

I really think humankind is at a stage, where he is trying to look outside his cave for the first time... LOL..

Perhaps he may venture outside some time in the future if he can find the courage?

But really the world is more of a joke, so why is every one struggling so much, for goodness sake every one, have a little faith in Life and realise the world is Not a test, or about human development, or about some religious struggle, as if something has to be proved or justified by human thinking, but rather is about something, humankind either don't wish to understand, or just plain can't understand.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Science is a methodology for learning. That is it. It is not a religion. It has a few simple rules that anyone can follow, to any end. It has not made up its mind before hand - it simply is a way for anyone to learn. Conflating it with religion is simply disgusting, and shows you are grasping at straws to try to make some kind of argument, regardless of how laughably inaccurate it is.

reply to post by dave420


Hi dave420,

You haven't answered the questions and have only complained and criticised. Not a good advertisement for intelligence is it?

I believe you do have a little more intelligence hidden away in you, that is perhaps sleeping at present. I know it will awaken in you in the future and then you may become astounded at what you may find....LOL..

BUT i say this in the most light hearted way, with No malaise intended so please do Not take offence.

I would love to know your answers, if you have any.

Perhaps I just see things as they are, and Not as we would want them to be.

The Human Primate is a little lost don't you think? Or you and I would Not be discussing these things.

At the end of the day all religions including science, shall change in their theories and opinions, while the populations of the world arel still facing serious problems.

I don't believe we will be stuck on the year 2008 for long do you?

Time shall past and the year 3,001 will come and go.

No one will even know who you were shortly after you and I die and by the Year 2,500 comes around, others will look back at these days and have a little giggle about Human Primates and their so called scientific Philosophy in 2008... LOL...

I am Not against Religions including Science but just merely understand a little about Humankind and see them for what they are and Not what they pretend to be....

Hell, you can't even reach the nearest planet and walk on its surface, let alone cross your Galaxy or reach other Galaxy?

Hmmmmm not very advanced are we.

Humankind is still arguing over whether they are the only ones in this universe? For goodness sake.... Primates in a Zoo called Earth????

No wonder other civilisations aren't interested in the Earth or even want to visit, because of the behaviour of human primates.

All you have to offer them, is the hospitality of illness, greed, pain, suffering, war, death, the plastic card that is only used on Earth, Ignorance and arrogance...

Sad isn't it??????