You and Moses are practically in agreement, and you still were trying to disagree and nitpick.

No, you are simply misunderstanding my response...Read it again.

Your primary error is that you have decided to reject something that you know very little about based solely on what other people have told you to believe.

Mike

and
Ok, faith requires believing in something you cannot see. If you have no faith in things that cannot be seen, then explain how the air we breathe (which we cannot see) enables us to live.

Yes, it is evidence, observations, and experimentation, as well as verifiable and repeatable evidence that leads to conclusions. But there is always room for change, or evolution, for lack of a better term! Often, scientific theories are accepted until someone proves them wrong with a different or new set of evidence. (Ref: Newton to Einstein) Thus, the scientific world will accept (ie believe, or have faith in) a given theory until it is proven wrong.

I believe there are passages in the Bible that cannot be taken literally. One of these passages is the Genesis account. I have studies many theories on how the different days are linked together, and what the concept of a 'yom' (day) is. BTW: I have studied classical Greek in college and have done some exegesis on various New Teastament passages. Though I have no Hebrew background, I have used credible sources in my studies of creation that describe the original language of the text. But just because certain parts of the Bible aren't taken literally, that doesn't mean it has to be discounted and described as a book of fairy tales and lies.
I certainly don't have a problem dealing with both. Hope you don't feel that I do. I just believe that the way the ball got started rolling involved a Master Creator, vs. random 'growth' coming out of the great big cosmic goop.
Thank you for pointing this out, Moses. I should have been more clear - by evolution, I was referring to the theory of the origin of man, the starting point of all things.

And to that point - 'micro evolution' as Mull defines evolution cannot be used to prove 'macro evolution,' ie the origins of the universe. In micro evolution, a scientist starts with SOMETHING that becomes something else. Macro evolution, or the origins of the universe, starts with NOTHING and becomes EVERYTHING. Two very different evolutions.

-Z-man.

It would seem a greater error to sift through mountains of BS in order to come to the conclusion that it is wrong...It would require me to ignore what is obvious and waste immense amounts of time.

Evolutionary theory violates the 2nd law of themodynamics...no matter.

Wow - that statement can apply to both sides equally. :)

-Z-man.

PS: Half-man = republican. http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/128.gif Hehehe..... That's soooo funny.... good thing I'm not a republ...um...oh ho...wait a second...

:rolleyes:

do you realize how ignorant that comment is?

well, probably not because you made it...

To Shaun: I say that because that is what the Bible says and what I believe. If you choose to believe something different that's ok, but I don't see how I am doing God a disservice by reading from the Bible.

To SoCal911SC: I do not base my belief in God as our creator solely on the complexity of the human body. I agree that there are millions of things about our world and universe that are just as, if not more amazing, than the things of the body, and certainly many more amazing things that we have yet to discover. It just happens that the body is my personal area of study so that's why I mentioned it, instead of the unvierse or quarks or whatever. I also don't limit my belief in God to our world only. I am sure that God could (and possibly has already) made other habitable worlds and maybe even other intelligent beings.

All I am saying is that if you follow the tenets of evolution you must invariably come to the big question which is "Where did it all start?" How did things go from molecules which are not alive to a living thing? I have heard many many theories on this, none of which have been even remotely shown to be plausible in the lab. You just can't take a "primordial soup" and get life out of it, at least not with our current technology. So getting my mind around that great big empty question takes a lot more "faith" (to me at least) than thinking that God just said "Let there be life".

I have seen the air in LA. It's not pretty. :>) You can't "see" atoms, either, but do you doubt they exist? I think you're argument is very simplistic. We can "detect" things using other senses besides human sight.

Mike

By "no matter" (I wasn't clear in context) I meant "it doesn't matter" facetiously.

do you believe that evolution is a violation of the 2nd law?

proof of reverse evolution - making a monkey out of man!

I think even the AiG website is telling creationists not to use this argument any longer...

Mike

Order does not come from chaos...Unless you are an evolutionist of course.

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." -- Duane Gish (Berkely PHD)

"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted." -- Emmett L. Williams, Jr.

I intentionally did not use the word "see" for a reason.

Not so. I have "faith" in the system to produce verifiable and repeatable evidence because it has done so many times in the past. I don't have faith in any particular theory. Idealy, I'll accept the ones that work well, and be skeptical of ideas that don't check out. While it's true that individual scientists have blindly had faith in particular ideas (the history if science is riddled with them), the scientific community agrees that such faith is a Bad Thing whereas blind faith is the MO of most organized religions. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

This is true -taken alone, the fossil record of man's alleged ancestors has enough holes and inconsistencies to cast doubt on evolution as the explanation of our current form. However, we have fossil records from many other species and they all show similar types of changing, adaptation, and diversification that the homonid record has. There is no reason to believe that Man is special in how we got this way. The burden of proof is on the opponents of evolution.

Further, evolution as it stands today does not try to explain how self-replicating molecules emerged from muck. So evolutionary biologists do start with something.

or a structural molecular biochemist.

phd in what? religion?

This is a classic misunderstanding that high school and college freshmen suffer from. The 2nd law refers to the overall entropy. A local system can decrease in entropy. It happens all the time in your body. It can happen on broader scales.

So what do they start with? Do they just choose to ignore that massive question because it doesn't fit?

Yes. Just like you have to ignore the massive question of gravity (haha, pun honestly not intended) when you're studying quantum physics. There are lots of big questions ignored by lots of very successful theories. The process is about bringing more and more theories together so that they explain more phenomenon. Just because a particular theory does not address the question you want answered, it doesn't invalidate that theory.

And therein lies the difference: The answer to the question! (42!) Some answer the question with God and creation, while others answer it with scientific theory and evolution.

-Z-man.

Ok, then lets call it for what it is. Evolution is simply a way for a species to evolve over time. This we have seen in nature. It is NOT in any way a theory on how life began or that one species evolves from another. If you are going to just ignore the entire "How did life begin" question then you can't extrapolate your theory to say that all life evolved from the first little bacteria who somehow just magically appeared. Spaceship? Asteroid?

And if you accept that evolution is NOT about how life began, then Intelligent Design and Evolution are dealing with two TOTALLY different subjects and should not even be considered in the same breath, since ID specifically DOES deal with how life began and Evolution specifically DOES NOT.

Different topic off topic, but the Bible is about man, not about God. All except Jesus condemning the fig tree to die, then it's about gardening. ;)

No matter what the Bible says, anthropomorphizing God to fit within the human brain's confines makes God more man than deity, like God could really care less whether you believe in "him" or not and would take action only AFTER your death, not before when it would actually matter.

Just as Jacob didn't really wrestle with God, so much of the Bible is less literal and more illustrative on how to live. It's a great teaching tool, not absolute, at least according to Jesus.

I disagree. Once you have life, it's not unreasonable to conclude that it will change. And since we have fossil records and of different forms emerging and becoming extinct, we have evidence of that as well. Unless you're going to start arguing that Somebody seeded the fossil record to mislead us. That's where I get off this train.

I won't disagree that the "how did life start" question is a toughie. It might be a big white guy in the sky, or aliens, or lightening. I don't pretend to know.

That's exactly what I've been arguing. They deal with totally different things. One is science and one is philosophy/religion. They shouldn't be considered in the same breath - one breath the in the biology classroom and one breath in the philosophy classroom.

Who designed God? Honestly, what's the explanation?

I like that word, anthromorphizing...had to google that one. Great word.

Anyhow, I agree that these metaphysical debates often are difficult to discuss because they involve a lot of faith and what you personally believe. I struggled for a long time with the notion of predestination. The thought that God knows everything and knows what will happen and God cannot be wrong, therefore you really have no choice as a human...everything is set before you even are born. If you believe in this, then you start to wonder why God would allow some people to believe in him while KNOWINGLY allowing others to be born who would never know him. Basically I came to the conclusion that I do believe in free will, I don't believe that God predestines you to anything and I believe that getting those two things to reconcile will probably short circuit my puny brain. Again, it's faith that God is a whole lot smarter than me.

Ok, then we actually agree on this. The difference is that the schools DO teach the primordial soup thing. Check the science books that the kids get. They talk about evolution and how man evolved from apes who evolved from lizards who evolved from birds who evolved from little slimy things in the dirt. (I know that evolutionary tree isn't correct but humor me here):D

If schools want to talk about a type of bird becoming extinct or evolving into a different bird then fantastic. But that isn't what Joe Science teacher is teaching.

I think we need to do some bong hits and contemplate that one for a while.......:D

Oh darn. And here I thought I won. :(

Primary and Secondary schools teach a lot of things that are wrong. Not wrong intentionally, but wrong because there isn't time to delve into the subtlety of the issue. The way to fix this (in science at least) is to be more clear in what we don't know. But, this is not to say that the alternative is to offer a supernatural explanation the way ID does. Standard biology textbooks paint a picture that implies we know (and agree upon) more than we do. We shouldn't cast doubt on a firmly established theory (and essentially cast doubt on science itself). Rather we should clearly state where there are real controversies. And ID vs Evolution is not one of them.

Of course, then we get back into the problem of not having enough time to fully explore all avenues. Ideally, people - not just kids - would seek out that information for themselves.

The following is a quote from a Biology teacher that I think sums up my position pretty well.

So how do you reconcile these two halves of your personality, the scientific and religious sides?

I think part of my faith got reborn when I discovered science. What I feel now is that God is revealing new aspects of himself all the time. He didn't just create the universe all at once. He's still creating it. New species are being created. New stars are being born. Galaxies are colliding into each other and performing new galaxies. That's exciting. That's a divine revelation to me.

At the same time, I believe you have to be willing to bring the symbolic, the metaphorical into scientific discoveries. Even Einstein said he was motivated by the desire to understand how God thinks.


Some of the best scientists out there are driven by a sort of religious zeal. They might not necessarily talk about it at a cocktail party. But there's a deep desire to understand the mysteries of life. To me, that's the religious impulse.

So I would encourage fundamentalist folks to be curious about the world, to investigate for themselves, to look at the data, and to keep an open mind.


To the scientific establishment who are afraid of speaking in religious terms and overstepping the boundaries of science, I would say that celebrating scientific discoveries as divine revelations is completely valid and makes them more accessible for people who look at the world from a religious perspective.


Link:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/10/03/findrelig.DTL

Personally I think that there is nothing wrong with pointing out that there are holes in the Theory of Evolution as stated by Darwin. That's not to say that the teacher should then say "And those holes mean Evolution is crap!" As a scientist, you have to look at the whole picture without bias and decide what you think fits best. I think a perfectly reasonable approach would be to teach the theory of evolution and the ways that we can see it at work in our world but then say that there are some problems with the theory and people resolve those problems in different ways. Some choose to believe that God created everything and some think that we just haven't discovered the links yet. You decide.

I am going to make a statement of faith, and I wonder if others can identify with this:

I do not believe in Intelligent Design. I do not attend church. I would never profess to be of a particular faith. To claim to 'know' anything about god is arrogance of the highest order. And yet I can view the morning sun reflecting off the dew in a spiders web, and be humbled by gods expressions of love for us.

Perhaps god evolves.

The Christian one is quite different between the old and new testament.
The Hindu ones sure do have lots of drama.
The Greek and Roman ones perished along with the Egyptian ones.
The Pagan ones are sort of making a come back after getting squashed by the Christians.
The Islamic one is getting all sorts of bad rep in the west.
The Buddhist never really had a god just a bunch of ideas and experiments with truth.

At the end of the day we as Humans should just try to do good, if you could not do that then try to not cause any harm.

alf

edited bad grammar and spelling...

that's just crazy talk. How can we control others with that type of thinking?

I welcome the opportunity to cut their silly notions to ribbons!

You mean that we would have to be personally responsible for our actions and deeds? That means we would have to look at our situation and give thought to how we affect those around us and our surroundings.

Clearly, thoughts of a madman.

there's always torture.

Why yes i am a little odd :D My friends and family tell me that all the time.

Jesus and Ghandi changed their worlds with little or no violence. But i know you are kidding :)

Now back to this ID vs Evolution thingy.

My hypothesis: God, or the idea of god as expressed through religion, evolves, just like roaches and man.

BTW, is the world still flat?

OK, my input here.

I beleive that in Science/Bioledgy class, they should only even lightly touch on both ID and EV. The fact is, that the in depth stuff they are forced to learn on Evolution, is going to be rediculously out of date by the time they are grown up. Look at what evolution was jsut 20 years ago, 40? very different. Things keep coming up that overthrow current theory. Bit useless to teach them something that is soo flexible enless they want to. make it extra, not standard.

Accroding to current knowledge, the universe cannot exist, soo...

Obviously those, historically, who have been enamored with secular humanism have had a much greater tendency towards control of others. Time and again...The very freedoms you enjoy have a foundation in Christianity...This is a Christian nation, founded by Christians and for Christians (as a Founding Father once opined)...with the freedom to either choose to believe or not, without government intrusion...This is unique to America, this is why we are the greatest country on Earth.

Show me where the false god of Evolution has ever led to a better society...We saw how Hitler used Darwinian theory in constructing his "master race."

Not everyone agrees with you:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm