Science: Evolution, life on Mars etc.

[timor]

Eon,

That's fine that you don't know every single answer. We Christians don't, either. And yet when challengers present a little problem that we don't have a definite and defined answer for, a big commotion is raised towards the fallacy of the Christian faith. Also, I daresay the obstacles presented to Christianity are much weaker and of less importance than those imposed upon science. Double standard...?

 

[Saxamaphone]

Quote[/b] (SirNukes @ July 11 2003,4:52)]Well, going by the Big Bang theory, when the gravitational force separated out and released energy, that energy had to, you know, be energy, of course.  

 

I am confused, where did the big bang come from? What caused it? Can we really have gravitational forces without matter? And if there had to have been matter in the big bang, where did it come from?

 

[Mr_Eon]

Timor, what do you mean you don't have every answer? You have God's big book of Creation to call upon - apparently that's infalliable and contains everything! The big problem with the Christian faith is this belief that EVERYTHING in the bible is 100% accurate, and that God is omniscient and omnipotent. That leaves no wiggle room for error. It's easy for me to admit mistakes, because the people whose work I'm drawing on were human and falliable.

 

[SirNukes]

Just repeating what I've learned.

I'm not sure how true it is, but that is what really smart people have come up with.

As for where the Big Bang came from, it is beyond the scope of the theory to explain that. The initial matter would have been due to a fluctuation in the energy of the vacuum causing particles to pop into existence temporarily. That only needed to last a short while for the gravitational force to separate out. Basically, the Big Bang theory is physicists and astronomers extrapolating as far back as they are able to with current knowledge.

 

[Guest]

Eon-

Who said that God’s big book of creation contains everything, in terms of a complete description of events? The Bible is not a science book, (although, scientists don’t necessarily have complete descriptions of many events: particularly those surrounding life’s origins/the creation of the universe) and it doesn’t follow that because there isn’t an in-depth/more in-depth description of creation (of man/the universe) that it did not happen. Because something is mysterious, or not fully explained, it doesn’t follow that it is irrational.

Onto the next part of your comment: Either God exists or he does not. If he exists, he is either omniscient/omnipotent or he is not. It’s no less easy for a Christian to admit he is wrong if he holds that his belief might be wrong. It’s like saying: I believe God (if he exists) is omniscient/omnipotent, but I could be wrong. Or, I believe what God says about creation/God is right, but I could be wrong. What’s unreasonable or closed-minded about that? If he is proven to not exist (in which case the omniscience issue would be a moot point) then the Christian should admit his mistaken belief(s). The big problem with your ‘big problem’ comment is that the Christian can have the exact same ability to admit his mistaken belief, if he/she is intellectually honest as you can, or anyone else can. I’m a firm believer in the quote: The honest man alters his ideas to fit the truth; the dishonest man alters the truth to fit his ideas. Ultimately, I don’t see how an intellectually honest Christian has any less ability to admit mistakes; either way the intellectually honest man should be able to realize that he could be wrong and reform his ideas if such is shown to be the case.

 

[Mr_Eon]

1. The Bible describes Creation
2. The Bible is the word of God. It has survived translation.
3. God himself is Omniscient and cannot lie.

If you add all the above up then you have a situation where proving the bible to be innaccurate even once, even in a tiny detail, derails the entire Christian faith. UNLESS one of the above is not true - in which case the Christian is reduced to the same level as the rest of us, having to prove each individual step in his beliefs factually, rather than just pointing at a bible quotation and saying "God can, if he wants to".


Eon

 

[Guest]

I don't see how that is relevant to my response to your comments, but I concur that once one says that the Bible is completely true, if part of it is shown to be invalid (inconsistant, inaccurate, etc.), then the entire system collapses.

 

[Grand Master]

Bringer, you are exactly right. A Christian who is honest with himself should be able to admit his mistakes just the same as any other man, but many Evangelical/Conservative Christians will stop at nothing to defend the Bible and every word that is written within it. They will not alter their belief system for anything because they fear that they will have to admit to themselves that they may not know any more than any other person.

As for Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the claim of some here that it's main purpose is to be used as a way of distancing ourselves from God or denying His existence, I would say that is absurd considering that Darwin himself was a Christian who had a problem reconciling his theory with his own previous beliefs about creation.

Sealcomm, you don't appear to understand what a theory is, so quickly, I will break it down for you. Evolution is a Theory BECAUSE it has not been proven. If a theory is proven to hold true under a particular set of conditions, then it becomes a LAW.

 

[timor]

Eon, the Bible is not here to explain everything to us. As bringer said, its not a science book. Rather, it instructs us and gives us the necessary information for leading our lives - it does NOT explain EVERYTHING about the universe, as God is not under any pressure to explain the entirety of his Creation to us.

And also, your post is correct, though has nothig to do what Bringer said. Besides, please PROVE to us that one part of the Bible is fallacious.

This discussion is getting off course, as you're avoiding our main challenges and branchign off onto your own side agendas. I'm finished with this thread.

 

[Mr_Eon]

Please prove that one part of the Bible is incorrect?

Pick up a book on Geology. Pick up a book on Paleontology. Pick up a book that talks about the early history of the Middle East, because "God's chosen people" were kicked from pillar to post by the Hittites, Babylonians and Egyptians.

The Bible may NOT be a Science book, but it makes a variety of sweeping claims that contradict a fair few books that ARE science books. And if you give me a choice between Abraham and Stephen Hawking then I'm going to have to take my man Steve's word on things involving Physics. I'm going to have to take my man Mendel's word on Biology.

You're telling me the Bible teaches me everything I need in order to live my life? Well if life is all about freewill, and freewill is about choice, then how can we make a choice without all the information? Or is this another way in which the concept of freewill is contradictory to the bible - God decides what information we get to make our choice from too?

And if I didn't answer the "main point" of your post, please could you tell me what that point was, because I missed it. I was trying to liken the Christian faith to a pyramid stood on its tip - a huge structure on a precarious base, that base being the infalliability of God and the veracity of the bible. Destroy even one of these pillars and the whole thing goes tip over apex. You said I was being hypocritical, that I didn't judge science as rigorously as I did Christianty. I agreed that was true, and said it was because science can absorb conflicting ideas into its belief structure - whereas Christianity simply cannot survive epiphany that is directly contradictory to the established precepts I mentioned.

Eon

 

[Grand Master]

Well, Timor, I don't suppose that all those parts about Jesus driving the demons out of the sick, blind, and invalids were untrue. It has been well proven that they are indeed possessed by evil demons and that is why they are the way they are. This is probably also the explanation for why people are born with tails or why there exists that Mexican family with all the fur covering their bodies. That could not possibly have anything to do with evolution, since evolution is a total lie.

 

[timor]

Ugh, people, when I say I'm finished with a thread, don't keep challenging me..

Eon, the argument "go read some books" doesn't prove anything, and those books are constantly being revised - all except the Bible.

You also beg the question of why you put your faith where you do, saying you trust Mendel and Hawking over others, giving no reason why. I really don't think the point is relevant, as Abraham never claimed to be a biologist or a physisist (wow sp).

Then you go off about how the Bible is supposed to be a little manual to life. Where do you get the idea that you can't make decisions without all "necessary" information? People do it all the time, and whether the Bible is a complete and authoritative encyclopedia is irrelevant to the issue of freewill and living your life.

Now, Grandmaster, the one who provoked me into responding again.. First of all, such a condescending and mocking tone is not needed. Eon never tries to make himself look smarter than anyone else, or make anyone else look stupid, which is obviously what you were trying to do. Too bad, because your post really made no sense and completely backfired. You take this stupid sarcastic tone about demons and possessions. Honestly, do you think it has been PROVEN they were not possessed? That's impossible to prove. People born with tails and hair? How does that prove/support evolution? It proves genetic mutations, which are pretty well-documented fact. However, how would it show evolution? First of all, the loss of hair all over our bodies in the first place seems to me to be devolution, as it takes away warmth from us, but whatever, lets say evolution did that. Why would our bodies suddenly revert back? "Oh, woops, we evolved in the wrong direction, lets try again." Honestly, ugh, I'm so frustrated with this thread and with arguing with people here that I'm just going to stop, because my thoughts aren't coming together well anymore. I think I'm done with this forum for a while. A wise man once told me that arguing on the internet is like sticking your hand into a blender..that's more or less correct, especially on these boards. gg.

 

[CCGR]

Timor,

Sorry this board is frustraing you. Granted there are many threads that keep popping up (homosexuality, evolution, bashing CCGR, etc) Granted many of the arguments are repeated but you know what, we still learn alot and as long everyone is respectful we all may learn something from other perspectives. If not, we can always agree to disagree.

Hope to see you around again, hope there are no hard feelings.
God bless!

 

[Grand Master]

Well, Timor, you may not respond to what I am going to write here but I will still say what is on my mind anyway because I'm sure you will still read it. Maybe someone else who shares your views will choose to respond.

So then what is it that you believe regarding people who are sick or disabled? Do you believe that these people are possessed by evil or are they just affected by a physical limitation or disease? Or perhaps you just choose which one it is based on convenience. You want me to prove that these people weren't possessed 2000 years ago? You have no way of verifying that they were, but you choose to believe it anyway. These days, we don't see that sick people are being possessed by demons, but you think that 2000 years ago they may have been?

You put your trust in science to build you a car, a computer, and many technologies that you use every day, but you cannot rely on it when it tells you something you don't like to hear? To me, that makes no sense. The weight of the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts many things that you believe to be true, but that makes no difference to you.

As far as the hair and tail example goes, you are right, they are not proof of evolution. But they do suggest it. Perhaps the mutations you mentioned might have affected genes that prevented the tail from developing in a normal baby, and the fur-covered family may also be affected by a mutation in a set of genes that regulates hair development in humans. These types of mutations could cause a reversion of sorts. Embryos of all types of species look very similar to each other, implying a relationship between species. What do you think about that?

You make a point about how arguing on the internet is pointless and foolish (especially here), but I guess I just like arguing.

 

[Guest]

Your last statement that you 'just like arguing' reveals that you're not really here because you are seeking the truth, in which case, you are wasting your time and the time of others who attend this board.

 

[timor]

Ugh. I suppose it is pride that keeps bringing me back here. I don't like to back down. But this is gonna have to stop soon...

Regarding the demons. In the Bible, there are numerous incidents in which people are sick and are not claimed to be possessed. People did not cry DEMON at every ailment, as you seem to be suggesting. THerefore, to say that these people were simply sick is foolish. Multiple times, Jesus heals sick people (and I'm not even takling about lame/mute/blind people), and multiple times he casts out demons. I have no reason to doubt either scenario.

Regarding how we trust so much other science, you are absolutely correct, and I was just talking to my freind about that the other day. However, this science is easily proven and tested in everyday life. Gravity, for example, is as plain as the nose on your face. Physics can be tested in any billiard, or with a $.25 bouncy ball. Yet evolution, which attempts to explain our origins, or at least our development, cannot be so simply repeated, and threatens our beliefs. Gravity does not do this. There is a huge difference between trusting the light switch on the wall to give me light and trusting that I evolved from microorganisms.

And you say that there is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, but this is simple NOT TRUE. If there was such overwhelming evidence, we Christians would have to acknowledge its truth and either seriously reconsider our faith or simply have a death blow dealt to Christianity. However, the evidence is NOT overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. As I've stated before, irreducibly complex systems which occur in both complex and "simple" organisms pose not only a stumbling block, but a tripwire to Darwinian evolution and common ancestry.

Genetic mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest are all basically fact. These things cannot be argued. However, common ancestry is ridiculous and, imo, requires much more faith than creation. Plus, as I gave you the link before, there are just as many brilliant minds who support Creationism as there are those who support evolution.

About embryos all looking alike...why shouldn't they, and what do you expect them to look like? Heck, they were made by the same creator! Besides, I really don't think that is relevant. Regardless of how alike these embryos look, when my embryo is grown and a fish embryo is grown, we will not be able to mate - we are not the same species.

That's enough for today, my freind is waiting for me to move in chess..

EDIT---> touche, bringer =D

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ July 15 2003,5:30)]Well, Timor, you may not respond to what I am going to write here but I will still say what is on my mind anyway because I'm sure you will still read it. Maybe someone else who shares your views will choose to respond.

sure.

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ July 15 2003,5:30)]
So then what is it that you believe regarding people who are sick or disabled? Do you believe that these people are possessed by evil or are they just affected by a physical limitation or disease? Or perhaps you just choose which one it is based on convenience.

being possessed by "demons" doesn't allways mean ending up in convulsions. Too bad there are no Jews on this board, they have a much better concept, grasp and understanding of what it means to be possessed by "demons" and the varying degrees thereof.

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ July 15 2003,5:30)]
You put your trust in science to build you a car, a computer, and many technologies that you use every day, but you cannot rely on it when it tells you something you don't like to hear? To me, that makes no sense.

The theory of evolution does not meet the definition of science. Neither does creation. The definition of science involve the following steps:

1. The observation of phenomena. Neither creation nor evolution have been observed.
2. The identification of the phenomena. Both identify the phenomena
3. Description of the phenomena. Both can describe it.
4. Experimental investigation of the phenomena. Neither evolution nor creation can be replicated to be experimentally investigated.
5. Theoretical description of the phenomena. Well both attempt to describe it.

Needless to say, two points failed, its not science. Yes, you need all five. Calling evolution a science is a mere trap. Its not. And just because somebody calls it science, it doesn't make it science. Neither is Creation science because it too fails the definition of science.

In conclusion, to bring up how we trust other sciences but not evolution is a bogus and unfounded arguement.

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ July 15 2003,5:30)]
The weight of the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts many things that you believe to be true, but that makes no difference to you.

This too is a biased, not based in fact arguement. It is purely subjective to what you think is overwhelming. Thus, it is not an arguement, rather a feeling. And I won't deny your feelings. Go ahead and have them.

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ July 15 2003,5:30)]
As far as the hair and tail example goes, you are right, they are not proof of evolution. But they do suggest it. Perhaps the mutations you mentioned might have affected genes that prevented the tail from developing in a normal baby, and the fur-covered family may also be affected by a mutation in a set of genes that regulates hair development in humans. These types of mutations could cause a reversion of sorts.

Women are completely capable of growing beards and mustaches under the right conditions. All they need is an imbalance between estrogen and testosterone. Whether that imbalance is natural or not makes no difference because somebody somewhere will fall for it and call it an example of evolution. Isolated anomolies hardly lend credence to evolution or de-evolution. Even if a single change on one chromosone turns out to actually be beneficial for a species, it is unlikely to make it into the next generation. First, the anomoly has to be dominant. And the one with the anomoly must find a mate with the same anomoly being dominant. And then there is a good chance that the offsring will have the anomoly. Then the offsring must also find a mate with the same dominant anomoly to make it into the next generation. This is highly unlikely unless a large portion of the population all of a sudden acquired this anomoly.

These same anomolies can occour but with a negative affect on a species. Downs syndrom, MS and CF are anomolies involving a single change on a single chromosone. People (including the most staunch defenders of evolution) do not point to these anomolies as evidence that evolution is valid.

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ July 15 2003,5:30)]
Embryos of all types of species look very similar to each other, implying a relationship between species. What do you think about that?

Why are you even using this arguement? The only evidence that embryos are similiar is provided by Earnst Haeckel in 1874. The evidence he provided where hand drawn embryos of a fish, a salamander, a turtle, a chicken, a rabbit and a human. His drawings depicted them all looking pretty much the same. There are two issues to his drawings. First, he actually never did see what the actual embryos looked like. Second, his drawings have been PROVEN fraudulent over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over (you get the point).

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ July 15 2003,5:30)]
You make a point about how arguing on the internet is pointless and foolish (especially here), but I guess I just like arguing.

I enjoy a good, over the internet arguement or debate.

 

[Avesther]

afterthoughts to my post:

Embryos:  Embryo's of different species have been photographed many times over now and never has:

1.  A fish embryo been similiar to an human embryo
2.  A mammalian embryo ever have gills.  Which debunks the theory that our embrionic stages follow our evolutionary path.

Similiarities in species (such as gender, procreation and microbiologicial/cellular makeup) are actually better support for an intellegent designer over evolution.  The similiarities could very well be the most effeceint manner of dealy with the issues they solve.  Under the theory of evolution, random mutations are highly unlikey to produce similiarity across a wide variety of species.

Evolution fails to adress why over 99.9999% of all the species in the world, there is a male (who carries the x / y chromosone) and a female (who only carries the x /x chromosone).  The only difference are a few organism and one or two species capable of being both sexes.  Why is it in every (quite litterally) species, copulation requires the male to deposit his "seed" into the female, [edit] with the only major variance is where the female first lays the egg before the egg is feralized [end edit]?  Why is it that with every (quite litterally) species, the male determines the sex of the offspring?  Why is it that in every species, it is the female that must bear the offspring until it is born[edit] again, the only major variation on the theme is where the female lays eggs first, alas, the female still must carry the egg to term [end edit]?  Intellegent creator is simply the best fit answer.

Even the bible describes this right in Genesis.  That God made Eve out of Adam.  hmm, Adam, a male, contained the chromosones to create a female.  So, even the bible is very much scientifically on the nose.

 

[Mr_Eon]

Actually there are a bunch of hermaphroditic species and even some that reproduce asexually.

As for your point about copulation - the fact is that we consider the seed depositer to be male and the recipient to be female. How else do you judge which is which? In some species the female is the large one, who hunts. In others the male watches the eggs after fertilisation until incubation is complete.

In point of fact, we could call the female spider the male - because it's the larger and more aggressive, and then what you say wouldn't be true, would it?

And don't forget the selection part of evolution. The most efficient design becomes the baseline for the next generation - hence the similarity. Unless everything came from one source, why else would that similarity be there?

You're right about Gills though - they DON'T exist in Mamallian Embryo's. But then why would they? Humans haven't breathed fluid in Millenia...

Eon

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ July 17 2003,1:57)]Actually there are a bunch of hermaphroditic species and even some that reproduce asexually.

Hardly enough species posses that traight to mute any points I made.

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ July 17 2003,1:57)]
As for your point about copulation - the fact is that we consider the seed depositer to be male and the recipient to be female. How else do you judge which is which?

Point well made, and by the why, thank you for backing up my arguement.  Under evolution, it is reasonable to expect a much larger interpretation of what defines male and female.  With many eon's of time passing and the exclusivity of species (ie...they don't interbrede) where each species is allowed to evolve in accordance to their own needs, you would expect a much larger variation in the sexual theme.  The vast majority of species still require male and female partners to pro-create.  

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ July 17 2003,1:57)] In some species the female is the large one, who hunts. In others the male watches the eggs after fertilisation until incubation is complete.

Does that mean if a man decides to give up his career so that he can raise the families children and his wife persue a career, that he is all of a sudden become a female?

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ July 17 2003,1:57)]In point of fact, we could call the female spider the male - because it's the larger and more aggressive, and then what you say wouldn't be true, would it?

I know many women who are larger and more agressive then their men partners.  It does not change their "gender" role in sexuality.  It does not make my arguement untrue, no matter how hard you try and twist it.

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ July 17 2003,1:57)]And don't forget the selection part of evolution. The most efficient design becomes the baseline for the next generation - hence the similarity. Unless everything came from one source, why else would that similarity be there?

The natural selection compenant of evolution would only explain similiarity within a species, not across various species unless there was intervention or an intellegent creator.

Quote[/b] (Mr_Eon @ July 17 2003,1:57)]You're right about Gills though - they DON'T exist in Mamallian Embryo's. But then why would they? Humans haven't breathed fluid in Millenia...

Eon

Millennia = a span of a thousand years.  I don't think you mean to argue that only a mere thousand years ago humans breathed fluid.