Shalom

[Dan Ben Noah]

Shalom

[Rubystars]

Accepting evolution doesn't make someone an atheist.

[Wayne Jude]

Evolution is contrary to commen sense!

[Rubystars]

Evolution is contrary to commen sense!

How is that?

[Rubystars]

Intelligent Design is actually a very specific movement and rejecting that movement doesn't mean that you reject the intelligent design of the universe by God. I know it can be confusing.

Their arguments center around things like irreducible complexity (which has been debunked), specific adaptations (which can be explained quite well through conventional science), unique suitability of the earth for life, and other such things. ID is more about saying what God couldn't have done rather than saying what God did or didn't do. Michael Behe, one of the most prominent ID advocates, is actually an evolutionist.

I believe God created everything, but I believe that he did show in the way the evidence shows that He did.

[Wayne Jude]

On vaction will get back to you later ruby.

[Rubystars]

I don't oppose "intelligent design" per se, as I believe that G-d did design and create the universe, but I do oppose the ID movement, as perpetuated by those who seek to have it included in school curricula.

I'm an evolutionist and a Christian. I believe that G-d created the laws of the universe and then guided them to form the stars, planets, and life. I've spoken to others who believe the same way.

You must remember however that science is based on methodological naturalism. It doesn't preclude you from having spiritual beliefs, but if you're a true scientist then you look to nature for explanations to natural phenomena.

You've gotten that confused with philosophical naturalism.

[Rubystars]

Scientists that believe in intelligent design aren't necessarily part of this "movement" that you speak of, and they do use only natural means to arrive at their conclusions.  If DNA and other evidence shows that the evolutionary theory has too many gaps and that there is no way all life could have evolved from bacteria on its own, then it is not far fetched to say that there could have been an intelligent designer.  It is simply where the facts lead. 

The facts don't lead to an outside designer. It is compatible to hold a belief in a designer or creator, but the facts do not necessarily lead to that.

It actually takes more faith to believe in random chance resulting in the universe as we know it.

None of the natural processes work by "random chance".

So if it's a tossup between the two, it's actually Intelligent Design that would be the most reasonable to teach in schools because it doesn't require as much faith as doctrines of the Darwiniacs. 

Science never requires faith. Faith is something people partake of outside of science.

Science can be easily manipulated as we have seen with the global warming controversy, and I would beware of believing something just because it's what the establishment believes. 

Well I believe that the global warming issue has been used in a bad way

1. To distract us from the plots of globalists
2. To cause a general sense of fear and helplessness which can be manipulated
3. To place more regulations and drive up the costs of home-produced products while giving China (the biggest polluter) a pass.

However, global warming is a real phenomena, and it can have very real consquences. Inuit can no longer follow their traditional knowledge because of the changing Northern climate. Glaciers measured year to year have noticeably shrunk. Some animal species that need warmer temperatures have changed their home ranges northward a bit where they couldn't survive before.

While I disagree with the agenda in the way that global warming is being used as a political tool, it'd be silly to dismiss global warming itself.

Years ago, all scientists were in agreement that the universe had always existed, and now they think it had a beginning.

Steady state wasn't the only model at any time, but there may have been a time when it seemed to best explain the available evidence. As more evidence came in from more observations, the theories were revised to accommodate that evidence. If there were never anything new to discover, then we could stop doing experiments right now. The fact that theories change is NOT a count against science. It's a count in its favor.

Astrology used to be a science too.  So I'm not personally going to jump on the bandwagon of the latest scientific trend in history, and I'm sorry to see that scientists who feel the same way are persecuted, but glad that this movie is exposing it.

Well Evolution's been around for quite a while now with mountains of converging evidence in its favor. To me rejecting the basic ideas of evolution is like being a geocentrist or a flat earther who says they don't wan't to accept the new fangled heliocentric idea of the solar system.

[Rubystars]

That's like saying if I see an ice sculpture of Hitler near the mosque at the North Pole, there is no proof that it was made by a human.  The idea of humans carving the sculpture is compatible with that assumption, but hey, it could have automatically appeared on its own.  The facts lie closer to the idea that there is a designer than the idea that there's not one.

There's a mosque at the North Pole? Santa's a Muslim? Do the elves have prayer rugs? How does he reconcile celebrating Christmas with his Muslim faith?

Seriously though, what in the natural world are you saying is obviously "designed"? I can't think of one thing that couldn't have arisen through natural processes (whether guided or not).

The facts lie closer to the idea that there is a designer than the idea that there's not one.

Be more specific please.

Which is why evolution is not plausible.  If you have a bunch of formless matter to begin with and eventually you have thriving ecosystems and intelligent life, throwing in billions of years doesn't take away the chance factor.

As I said before, most of the natural processes that formed the earth and life etc. don't work by "random chance".

No "natural process" can account for the change.

Be more specific. What specific natural process could not account for what specific thing we can observe in nature?

And without randomness, life couldn't have begun according to the evolutionary model. 

Are you talking about evolution (the origin of species) or abiogenesis (the origin of life)? They're two completely separate topics in science.

The conditions had to be just perfect.  Otherwise, life would be spontaneously created all the time, yet all life comes from other life.

Well, if another form of life did come about (another abiogenesis event) it would probably be destroyed by the life that's already here. That, and conditions just aren't what they were in the Archean era when life first appeared.

Evolutionists are the exact same as any religion, complete with their priests and loyal followers who will hear nothing of another idea.

Science has nothing to do with religion, and that's what bothers the very religious who fail to understand the need for methodological naturalism.

If I go up to a random atheist evolutionist (you can usually tell who they are by the body piercings) and tell them to scientifically prove radiocarbon dating to me, they won't be able to do it.  They'll just reassure me that someone smarter than them, whom they have put their faith in, can explain it.

If I go up to the random religious Christian or Jewish creationist, do you think they'd be able to tell you how carbon dating worked or even what it is good for?

And even evolution scientists, as the movie shows, refer to their beliefs as a "doctrine".  Science may not require faith, but Darwinism sure does.

The beauty of the scientific method it's based on observations and measurements and evidence. That's it. You can, of course, have faith on your own. Science is simply neutral on that matter.

That's just what opponents of the global warming "movement" say.  So now you are personally able to defy the establishment and decide that there's an "agenda" involved?  But it is impossible for evolutionists to have an agenda too?  Who are you to pick and choose which establishment science to believe, and which "movement" is not questionable and which is?  Why not just take all theories with a grain of salt?

Actually I was agreeing with the established science, simply disagreeing with the ways it's been used as a political tool. Evolution is factual. That fact can be used for good things and for bad things, but nevertheless it's a fact.

As for taking things with a grain of salt, that's how theories are set up. If you come up with the right evidence you can falsify any theory.

For example, let's say you found a fossil of a kangaroo in precambrian strata, and it was found to be a legitimate fossil and not a forgery. That would be strong evidence against evolution. Another piece of evidence that would completely invalidate evolution would be if a bird were to lay an egg and a kitten were to hatch out. Evolution predicts that Kangaroos will be found in a much later era, and it predicts that creatures will have similar genetics to their parents each generation.

Long before steady-state theory, in the ancient world, the scientists of the day believed in an infinite universe.  This eventually changed to the big bang theory in modern times, and then the steady state theory came about, then it was rejected, and so on. 

The Big Bang theory actually is a very good theory when it comes to theology because it allows the universe to have a beginning. Most modern theories are revisions of that one. Refinements will always be made in science as new evidence comes in.

Science attempts to approach the truth as closely as possible, not find absolutes. Absolutes are for religion. Science has to leave the door open for future evidence.

And what we are dealing with now is more observations coming in that cast doubt on evolution.  The discovery of DNA, something Darwin didn't know about, makes the random combination of amino acids to form even the simplest life forms very unlikely.

There are other nucleotides beside DNA and beside RNA that are much simpler, that could have come first. Genetic material could have evolved first and cells later, from simple precursors which could have included a lot of different things. Abiogenesis research is a rich field of discovery right now. Cells are survival machines for the nuclear material inside of them.

So this is a true example of evidence coming in from new observations, and the only ones willing to revise the prevailing theories to accommodate the evidence are the intelligent design crowd.  So these are the people who are in favor of science, not the blind Darwiniac sheep.

What new evidence has come along that invalidates evolution? Be specific please.

What's "quite awhile" within the context of history?  It's really only been around for the last century or 2, when people weren't familiar with the implausibility of many of its claims.

Other theories that few people dispute have been around for a similar period of time:

Heliocentric theory
The Theory of Gravitation
The Cell Theory
Nuclear Theory

Why are you not taking these on?

Also there have been evolutionists that have staged hoaxes in order to make it look like humans came from apes, etc.  This shows that there's an element on a different level than science involved, and a scientist shouldn't have to appeal to these tactics to get their point across.  At some point in time I'm confident that there will be more independence and honesty within the scientific community, and it will be the evolutionists who will be filed into the dust bin of history in the same category as geocentrists and flat earthers, and then people will have to find some other reason not to believe in G-d and intimidate people into blindly accepting their assertions under pain of ridicule.

The "hoaxes" had to do with competition between them rather than a real attempt to swindle the public, and furthermore, these "hoaxes" were exposed by fellow scientists, not creationists.

Also, you might want to see how many hoaxes fellows like Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind have perpetrated over the years.

[Rubystars]

Good grief, is Richard Dawkins trolling on our forum?  That's funny, I can't think of one thing that could have arisen from nothing.  And it's pretty despicable that a so-called believer in G-d could indicate that the universe could possibly form itself on its own.  I think you're an atheist in drag.

I have a personal belief in God and that God used natural processes (that he created) to form the universe and life. What I don't claim is that science can demonstrate God's presence. It's my opinion that science can't do that. It's a matter of faith, not science, to believe in God.

Also, evolution does not claim that everything "Came from nothing". Why do you think it claims that? Where did you learn about evolution? I could show you some links that might help you know what it is you're actually fighting against and then maybe you can decide whether you still want to.

Since God is supernatural, and not measurable, the burden of proof is on believers. The one making an exceptional claim is the one who has the burden of proof.

What if I came up to you and said "I saw a green unicorn! It's in a barn just outside of town! I saw it eating hay!" Would you expect the burden of proof to be on me, or on you? How would you feel if you said "I don't believe you, prove it" and I said "Nuh uh, you can't prove I didn't see it, prove I didn't see it or I win!"

In my opinion God can't be proven any more than the green unicorn can, but of course as believers we know that He is very real. It's a matter of faith.

How much more specific could I be?  I said NO natural process can account for the change from nothing into something, let alone something complex

Evolution doesn't claim that anything changed "from nothing into something". I was wondering what specific claim of evolution (that it actually makes) that you don't agree with.

Most people who are unhappy with evolution and evolutionists feel that way because they don't understand what evolution actually says and believe it says all kinds of horrible things instead.

Those ideas are 2 sides of the same coin.  How life evolved is directly tied to how it began.  And like I said, they both involve randomness.

It can be confusing because in creationism, both happened at the same time. In science however, they're separate subjects.

If you want to talk about it from a scientific perspective then you need to understand the difference between abiogenesis and biological evolution. Abiogenesis is the origin of life from chemical precursors, and biological evolution is basically how different types of life came about after the first life was here.

Nice try, but that just proves 2 of my points.  One, that the conditions had to be just perfect for life to spontaneously occur, and two that evolutionists (which are delusioned enough to believe in abiogenesis) depend on random chance.

There's an analogy that pretty much blows away that "perfect conditions" stuff.

Imagine if a puddle of water were to become sentient. It might wonder why the hole it's in fits its shape just perfectly. "Wow" it thinks to itself, "This hole fits me just right! It's the exact shape that I am!" The point of this is that life could have formed in another way, under other conditions. Life like us may need very specific conditions to form or to survive, but who is to say we're the only possible form of life? If life does form, then the conditions were obviously "just right" for it to form, no matter what kind of life it was.

Natural processes such as abiogenesis and evolution are actually selective processes, not "random chance". Where did you read that they were based on random chance? That's not true at all.

If you put rocks and flour into a sieve, is it "random chance" that the flour goes through and the rocks stay in the sieve? No, and natural selection works the same way, as a filter; the complete opposite of "random chance".

I didn't say science was a religion, I said evolutionists practice a religion.  Evolution is only a pseudo-science.  And another thing that religious people fail to understand is how these supposedly fact-based thinkers will continuously deny the facts when it doesn't support their agenda.

Evolution doesn't require any faith, so how can it be a religion? Secondly, what "agenda" do evolutionists supposedly have?

My point was that atheist evolutionists are following a religion and are no different from other religious practitioners, who often rely on those who know more than them to be the ones to explain what they have faith in.

The best way to overcome that is to learn as much as you can about the subject that you're interested in, especially if you want to argue against it.

It's not "neutral" when scientists using simple observation and evidence who believe that there is an intelligent designer are octracized.

Many evolutionists believe in an "intelligent designer". That doesn't make them "Intelligent Design" advocates. ID is a very specific movement within the creationist community that is more about forcing creationism under camoflauge into public schools than it is about talking about the compatibility of theism with science. If it were just the latter, I'd feel differently about the ID movement.

The establishment science on global warming says that climate change is due to human involvement, but the truth is that climate has changed many times in the earth's history and this is just another cycle.

I don't think they know what percentage of it is due to human activity, but it would be rather silly not to say some of it is due to that. What irritates me is how the liberals will use that to try to put all kinds of restrictions on Americans when China is the big global warming culprit.

The scientists who agree with the latter are ostracized by the establishment. 

If they are right then they should do more studies and publish them in respected journals to back up their claims. Peer review is a necessary part of the modern scientific method. If they can't convince other scientists there's probably a good reason for it.

This is the same scenario as evolution.  The establishment says that life came about by chance under perfect conditions that they can't reproduce, and by random mutations it gradually developed into what it is today,

Do you really think that's what it says?

but the truth is that there was a designer (G-d) who made all things.  Scientists who believe in the latter are ostracized.

God-believing scientists are not ostracized simply for being theists. Theism and Atheism are philosophical choices, based on personal beliefs or persuasions. Science does not confirm or condemn either philosophy.

Someone going around screaming that the earth is 6000 years old probably won't be given the time of day though.

They are both used as political tools, because the evolutionist establishment tries to keep intelligent design proponents from being heard, and also keep it out of the classrooms.

It doesn't belong in science classrooms because it's not science.

Shouldn't kids be able to hear what intelligent design scientists have to say too?

So you're going to let every hare-brained idea into every class without any real evidence? What's next? The Norse mythological creation story in science class? Holocaust-deniers in history class? There's something called a standard of evidence, and peer review, and the "ID" movement has failed on both counts.

So therefore, you oppose the global warming politics, but you support the evolutionist politics.  I'm just saying, why pick and choose?

I accept both as scientifically valid theories, and I expect both to be taught about in science class.

I don't always like the way evolution has been used politically either though. It just seems like global warming is being used more by liberals right now to try to take rights away from American companies.

Scientists who believe in abiogenesis have tried and failed to produce RNA and cells from scratch.

There are other nucleotides that are more simple than RNA.

The reason is because abiogenesis didn't happen--they were created by an Intelligent Designer.

Is there any reason that God couldn't have guided a chemical process to create the first life?

"Abiogenesis is a rich field of discovery" basically just means it's a crock that can't be proven.  It's about as much of a rich field of discovery as alchemy.

Alchemy isolated several elements and actually came up with a lot of the basis of modern chemistry. Newton, one of the greatest scientists in history, was an alchemist.

Some of the things that alchemists tried to do weren't scientifically valid but the only way they could find out was to try, and test their methods. Over time, of course, knowledge progressed and modern chemistry emerged.

Also, why do you think I care about those other 2 people you mentioned?

They're big names within the creationist community and bring up many of the "points" that you bring up, so I thought maybe you had listened to them before.

[Muck DeFuslims]

I have a personal belief in G-d and that G-d used natural processes (that he created) to form the universe and life. What I don't claim is that science can demonstrate G-d's presence. It's my opinion that science can't do that. It's a matter of faith, not science, to believe in G-d.


While science hasn't definitively proven or disproven the existence of G-d (and probably never will), I think it's erroneous to believe that scientific evidence pointing to the existence of G-d or an intelligent creator doesn't exist.

Physicists almost universally agree that complex order can not arise from total chaos.

Yet this is a pre-condition for the formation of the universe and life, without an intelligent designer's hand.

A good analogy would be a tornado striking the parts used to build an airplane and somehow assembling an airliner.

Could a billion chimpanzees banging away at typewriters eventually type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets by chance ?  Perhaps. But the chances are so infinitesimal as to almost not exist. Yet the absolute denial of intelligent design requires us to believe that something akin to this happened.

This is why many preeminent scientists readily accept intelligent design and why some renown atheists such as Anthony Fluge have reversed their position.

[Rubystars]

While science hasn't definitively proven or disproven the existence of G-d (and probably never will), I think it's erroneous to believe that scientific evidence pointing to the existence of G-d or an intelligent creator doesn't exist.

If there were some kind of strong evidence of God's existence, then there would be no need for faith.

Physicists almost universally agree that complex order can not arise from total chaos.

I never heard of any scientific claims of that nature.

Yet this is a pre-condition for the formation of the universe and life, without an intelligent designer's hand.

Not really. Natural processes are just that--processes.

A good analogy would be a tornado striking the parts used to build an airplane and somehow assembling an airliner.

Eh, no. How do you believe that corresponds to anything science has claimed?

Could a billion chimpanzees banging away at typewriters eventually type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets by chance ?  Perhaps. But the chances are so infinitesimal as to almost not exist. Yet the absolute denial of intelligent design requires us to believe that something akin to this happened.

That analogy doesn't even pertain to anything either. Processes  are the opposite of "random chance".

This is why many preeminent scientists readily accept intelligent design and why some renown atheists such as Anthony Fluge have reversed their position.

It's good if he decides not to be an atheist anymore, but he really can't credit science for that. I think perhaps he just wanted to find some justification for himself so that he still felt logical.

[Rubystars]

You have been giving apologetics for abiogenesis.  Abiogenesis and creation are mutually exclusive.  It's ridiculous to say that G-d "created the process" which allowed life to form on its own.  That's not really creating anything, so what's the point?  That is just a way of riding the fence so as not to be ridiculed by the secular establishment, and COUNTS as atheism.

I actually believe G-d had a direct hand in guiding the process. I believe G-d was directly involved in these processes as they were going forward and that he created the processes to begin with. Now can science demonstrate any of that direct involvement? No.

Evolution assumes that all current life forms come from previous life, but that has to have a beginning, doesn't it?  And what is that beginning that the evolutionists believe in?  Abiogenesis--life coming from nothing. 

No, not from nothing. Nucleotide formation requires the right chemical precursors to be there. Evolution deals with the time after life already came around. Abiogenesis deals with the formation of life itself.

That's not really how it works.  First of all, belief in G-d is not an exceptional idea, it is common sense.  Secondly, Jews have been believing in G-d long before atheists came along and invented evolution.  Did Jews at the time of the revelation at Sinai have to prove G-d's existence?  It's the challenger that has to prove himself.

They don't have to prove it because it's unprovable, but if you make a claim and want others to believe it, then you're the one who has the burden of proof. Even if it's something that can't be proven, the one making the claim is the one who should defend that claim if it needs defending.

The burden of proof would be on you in that case because historically green unicorns hadn't been a known existence to humans.  If you challenge this by saying there is one then you are the one that must prove it.

And yet you can't understand how that applies to G-d belief?

What if a Muslim told you that he was going to blow himself up because he believed he'd go straight to Jenna with the dark-eyed virgins and little boys, and rivers of wine. He was very excited to leave and go kill some Jews. Would you have to prove that he was wrong, or would he be the one making the extraordinary claim? You can't say that people don't actually believe in this stuff, because they do, unfortunately.
 

Same thing with evolution.  And it's pretty sad that you're comparing G-d to a green unicorn.  Either you have the theology of Christopher Hitchens or you drink as much as he does.

I use that reference because the essence of the problem is about who needs to defend the claim, the claimant, or the one who hears it.

already dealt with this above, there's no way you can separate evolution from abiogenesis (nothing into something) unless you depart from establishment science, even if evolution in itself doesn't concern itself with the actual beginning of life.

Accepting evolution doesn't require someone to accept abiogenesis. I've spoken with people who accept one but not the other. Darwin himself said that evolution could have begun by G-d breathing life into a few forms or into one. There was no abiogenesis research in his day. I accept abiogenesis, because I believe it's more soundly scientific. I do believe that G-d worked through abiogenesis to create life, so G-d did create life.

The fact that science separates them into 2 categories doesn't effect the question of how we get from nothing to where we are now.  There's no confusion, these are just 2 subjects that go together.  What you are telling me is like saying: "You can't ask which came first, the chicken or the egg, because the process of the chicken laying the egg is different from the process of hatching."

Evolution says the egg came first, then chickens, while most creationists think that birds came first, then laid eggs.

The reason that abiogenesis is separated from evolution is that evolution is about how life became diversified. Abiogenesis is about the formation of the first form of life or the first forms of life.

For example, the human species was probably one race in the beginning. Later people moved around the world and became different races. How the different races of humankind developed has really nothing to do with how humans came about to begin with. They're two separate discussions.

Well if the puddle was sentient and had the ability to ponder things like that, then it could possibly notice that every time it rained, other puddles were formed.  It's a natural process that happens over and over again, and it doesn't take much more than a deer track and some rain to form a puddle.  The puddle might not know where the rain or deer came from but it could certainly tell that it wasn't unique.  Now when you're talking about life forming it's a different story altogether because no one has ever observed life forming or has been able to reproduce the process.

The point of that analogy was that the puddle was exactly the same shape as the hole it rested in, not because the hole was perfectly formed for it, but because the puddle took on the shape of the hole.

In the same way, life is adapted to the conditions that it finds itself in. The conditions are then deemed "perfect for life" by creationists. lol

Also, even the human eye is much more complex than a puddle of water.

Interesting thing about the eye, we actually have blind spots in our eyes, just like fish do. Not all eyes are like those though. Cephalopods actually have good vision that's completely unobstructed, no blind spots. How would intelligent design explain the blind spots in fish and human eyes?

Evolution doesn't claim that rocks and flour are put into a sieve and only the flour goes through.  Evolution claims that primordial soup is put into a sieve and through a series of random mutations--you never know what's going to develop--both rocks and flour are formed, and the flour goes through because its mutation allowed it to fit through the sieve.

I don't see how the added steps change my point. Filtering processes are not random. A cold climate will select for cold-adapted life, for example. It doesn't randomly select for just anything.

They are still ostracized even if they only believe in an intelligent designer and don't go any further than that.  It's Intelligent Design that is the broader category, and Creationism is a sub-set of this, and there is an "Intelligent Design" movement within the creationist movement.  But scientists that believe in the broader idea of intelligent design are the subject of the documentary.

There's nothing in science that says that one can't believe in G-d. You just can't start bringing beliefs into science as if they were demonstrable facts.

And you don't see how liberals could possibly use the science establishment's views on intelligent design to put any kind of restrictions on Americans?

Almost any scientific advancement can be misused, as you mentioned evolution was misused in the past.

Evolution forms the framework of all modern biological science, which includes a lot of medical science. That's why scientists need to have a strong sense of ethics. Unfortunately lately in the news we've been reading that not all of them do.

There is a good reason for it.  The reason is that any hint that you're an intelligent design advocate and you're automatically shunned, regardless of how you come to your conclusions.  It's like being a conservative professor or journalist.  The mainstream media and mainstream academics like to hire liberals that agree with their establishment viewpoint, so the conservatives have to find their own outlets.

I can see how that might be a problem socially, sometimes. In any case, when one is doing science, the only thing that matters as to the actual validity of their work, is that the scientist practice methodological naturalism. When that is happening it's irrelevant whether the scientist him/herself is atheist, buddhist, Jewish, or Christian. All four will approach the scientific method in the exact same way if they are doing good science.

I think the "ostracized scientists" in that video are probably trying to inject religion into science rather than simply being believers on their own time. When people try to do that, it will never be accepted as valid scientifically because it runs completely aganst the scientific method itself. That's why "the establishment" hasn't accepted it.

Also please don't accuse me of being an atheist. I've been clear from the beginning that I believe in G-d. I even believe in G-d as Creator. I just believe that G-d worked through these natural processes as His method of creation.

Also I thought this might be of interest to you:

[Rubystars]

I notice several parts of your post involve attacking my faith or attacking me personally. This is unfortunately something I've had to deal with almost every time I get into this debate. Most of the time it comes after I get into the details of the evidence and the creationist I'm debating with panics. I think it's kind of sad how we really haven't gotten into a lot of evidence (for or against) yet, and you've already taken this approach.

I'll attempt to answer the questions you've raised about me up front.

The major point I can see to disagree with a creationist would be the method of creation (I don't dispute the creation).  Now, when I read the Bible, in the early chapters, I see that it says "let the earth bring forth". What am I supposed to make of this? To me, it says G-d is commanding the earth to bring forth what He wills. G-d commands the earth to bring forth various forms of life, etc. Evolution (and abiogenesis) show how those things occurred in my opinion.

Can we prove G-d's involvement? I don't think we can, but that doesn't diminish His role or the fact that He is G-d.

As for being a fence sitter, I'm not on the fence, I'm simply right about two things, my belief in G-d and my acceptance of evolution. I'm firm in both although the second one could be altered were evidence to come in to invalidate it. If you want to convince me that evolution is wrong, then that's how you need to do it, by the evidence.

I'm sorry that you're offended by the analogies I used. They are actually pretty mild compared to some that were given to me. I thought perhaps you could see the points I was trying to make rather than bother over the details of the analogies themselves. I'll try to be more careful in which ones I use but one thing I think you should be able to do is when arguing a point you should have some detachment from the subject matter in order to be able to look at it objectively.

It doesn't matter how simple you make the chemical precursors, you cannot get life out of non-life because somewhere along the line you have to have something that reproduces on its own.  And even chemicals must have had a beginning point.  If the universe had a beginning, that means that there was nothing before it.  And separating abiogenesis from evolution does not deflect the problem under scrutiny, which is that complex life exists, but at one time there was no life.

Well there are very simple things (not quite life) that reproduce on their own or as parasites on living things today. Prions, viruses, etc. A lot of abiogenesis research involves exploring various self-replicators. Protobionts can make other protobionts, but they don't have genetic material.

I don't know as much about abiogenesis as I do about evolution but I know a little. I could probably help with some things. Basically the whole point of posting the (multi-step) process at the bottom of my last post was to point out that scientists never claim a giant leap from chemicals to life, but claim much more reasonable, small jumps in that direction which eventually led to life.

As for the "burden of proof" argument, you seem to think that the burden of proof is always on the claimant except when it comes to this one subject. I would say the burden of proof is always on the claimant, even if he or she can not really prove their claim. They may have other ways of persuading people to believe as they do though, and it's their job to do the persuading.

"Theory" in science is about as close as you can get to "fact" in science. It is the nature of science to approach the truth as closely as possible, but not to declare that it has reachd an absolute truth. That's why they're still called theories even if they're very well established. That's why I brought up cell theory (that living things are made of cells), the theory of gravitation, nuclear theory, etc. int he earlier post, for comparison. Now why would you think the idea that living things are made of cells is still a theory? Any child could take an onion skin and see its cells under a microscope. Doctors analyze patient's cells for cancer. The evidence is simply overwhelming and easily observable, even by a child. Why, then, is it called a theory? The answer is: that is simply the nature of science. To reach the level of "theory" something has to have a good amount of supporting evidence and needs to have passed peer review.

Theory in common language just means "a guess" but as I've tried to explain that's not what it means in science at all.

People can believe whatever they want, but the problem is that scientists who don't believe in abiogenesis are being ostracized, even if they do believe in evolution.  And abiogenesis and intelligent design are mutually exclusive.  If you accept both, you must have a half-hearted or phony belief in one or the other.  What do you mean G-d "worked through" abiogenesis?  How can G-d "work through" life forming itself?  If you're going to minimize G-d's role in creation this much, there's really no point in believing in G-d.

Let the earth bring forth

Now, the microevolution/macroevolution dichotomy is really false. It's like being "a little bit pregnant".

If someone moves one step at a time, that still means they'll eventually have moved a whole mile if they keep walking. To say you believe they can move one step but not one mile just doesn't make sense. Macroevolution doesn't work any differently than microevolution. It's just a matter of degree or how many small changes have added up.

http://If there aren't certain conditions for life to form on its own, why can't life form on its own now?  It's not creationists making this claim, because conditions don't matter according to creationism because G-d creates the conditions.  G-d can create anything at any time, no perfect condition has to be there.

Conditions might have to be what they were on the early earth for OUR type of life to form. If conditions had been different perhaps another type of life would have come about. Conditions are VERY different from what they were when the earth first formed, and life is still around because it evolved to the new conditions.

And I don't understand what there is to explain about a blind spot that is different from any other body part that is different between different species.

It's an imperfection. If someone wants to argue that "intelligent design" can be seen in nature, then they have to explain why this happens. Also, because fish and other animals that are on the same evolutionary line share the same defect, it indicates a common ancestry with them.

The question is, how did the eye evolve from organisms with no eyes?  Through a series of mutations, even when most mutations make animals less adapted to their environment? 

All it takes for an eye to form is for a nerve or some cells to become light sensitive. Such simple eyes can be seen in creatures like the flatworm Planarians.

Such a simple eye can detect light so that a creature can tell which direction the surface of the water is. The bright surface is up, the dark bottom is down. Also if a predator moves above and blocks the light, the creature with such an eye would have an advantage in knowing it was there.

This page has a great video on eye evolution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

If you have trouble viewing it I'll try to put it on youtube.

The difference is the random mutations.  In order to become adapted to a climate, the organism population must change through random mutations that make it more favorable.  Now just because an organism is in a cold climate doesn't mean that it's genetic structure is going to know this and develop a trait that is more favorable to the cold.

It doesn't have to know beforehand. The cold acts as a filter to kill off animals with the "Wrong" mutations. It's a passive process. If a person were suddenly placed in deep water next to a sea sponge, which do you think would survive? One is just better in that environment than the other, and the sponge will make more sponges.

This is not what is going on.  Intelligent design advocates in the documentary believe what they believe based on their interpretations of the evidence found in nature.

What they've done is to take a pre-existing belief and try to fit the evidence to it, rather than the other way around. That's bad science and that's why they're ridiculed.

Since the mutations are random, it could just as likely develop a trait that is more favorable to the heat.

Which would make sure that it had a lesser chance of survival in that environment and would not be as likely to leave offspring.

It's nothing more than a matter of faith to say that these random mutations, which are rare and more than likely aren't going to be favorable, are what account for the differences between a bacteria and a human.

Mutations aren't rare. Everyone has some. We don't have exactly half the genes from our mothers and half from our fathers. It's close, but we have mutations of our own as well. Most of them are neutral. How would you know if your tongue for example were 1 milimeter longer, or if your teeth's enamel was 2% thicker?

These kinds of mutations are extremely common and if they help an animal to survive better, then they can spread through a population.

That's just an assumption of an agenda, when the reality is that these people are similar to the scientists who don't follow the conventional wisdom within the global warming movement.  They are still scientists who just do not come to the same conclusion as other scientists.  And they cannot be heard because they are muzzled by the establishment for no reason.

They're similar all right, both ignore evidence and are often the same people! They don't come to the same conclusion as other scientists because they are the ones with the agenda.

[Muck DeFuslims]

This is why many preeminent scientists readily accept intelligent design and why some renown atheists such as Anthony Fluge have reversed their position.


It's good if he decides not to be an atheist anymore, but he really can't credit science for that. I think perhaps he just wanted to find some justification for himself so that he still felt logical.
======================================================
This is a preposterous response.

First of all, Fluge can and does credit scientific evidence for his abondoning his status as the world's most renown atheist and his newfound belief in the existence of G-d.

It's audacious to suggest that after decades of being the most outspoken advocate of atheism that Fluge haphazardly reversed his position and that his reasons for doing so were illogical. Exactly the opposite is true, but I guess if you want to psychoanalyze Fluge and come to the conclusion that he's merely trying to 'justify' himself, that's your right.

Secondly, you say that "It's good if he decides not to be an atheist anymore". Why is that ?  After all, you seem to believe his decision to no longer be an atheist isn't based on logic and can't be justified on a scientific basis. So why do you think it's 'good' he changed his mind ?

[Rubystars]

This is a preposterous response.

First of all, Fluge can and does credit scientific evidence for his abondoning his status as the world's most renown atheist and his newfound belief in the existence of G-d.

While you can certainly draw inferences from nature, there's no way to scientifically demonstrate God. That's why I think it's erroneous to credit science for a belief in God.

It's audacious to suggest that after decades of being the most outspoken advocate of atheism that Fluge haphazardly reversed his position and that his reasons for doing so were illogical. Exactly the opposite is true, but I guess if you want to psychoanalyze Fluge and come to the conclusion that he's merely trying to 'justify' himself, that's your right.

Secondly, you say that "It's good if he decides not to be an atheist anymore". Why is that ?  After all, you seem to believe his decision to no longer be an atheist isn't based on logic and can't be justified on a scientific basis. So why do you think it's 'good' he changed his mind ?

I think he should have changed his mind because he was wrong when it came to God. If he now believes in God then he's right. I have reasons for believing in God. Science is exclusively about the physical, natural world. God is supernatural, beyond nature. Science just isn't equipped to study something like that. To me it looks like you want to use a pair of pliers instead of a hammer to drive a nail.

[Wayne Jude]

Really deep stuff!

[Rubystars]

Really deep stuff!

Yeah I just hope everyone stays civil, because these types of debates have a tendency to get out of hand.

[Wayne Jude]

Very loving man here.I dont hate anyone!

[Muck DeFuslims]

"I think he should have changed his mind because he was wrong when it came to G-d. If he now believes in G-d then he's right. I have reasons for believing in G-d."

Would you care to share those reasons ?

I would agree that science has been unable to (and probably will never be able to) definitively prove or disprove the existence of G-d. However, this is not the same as saying that scientific evidence does not exist that points to the existence of a supreme being.

Whatever your reasons for believing in G-d might be, you're certainly entitled to them. I just don't understand why you would think that scientific evidence pointing to the existence of G-d can't or doesn't exist or why you would be disturbed by former atheists changing their minds based on scientific evidence rather than faith.

[Rubystars]

Would you care to share those reasons ?

One of the greatest evidences for God is the continued survival of the Jewish people. When many other cultures that surrounded them have died away, they've survived with their culture relatively intact for thousands and thousands of years. Add to that, the repeated pogroms, in which attacks were made against them to try to wipe them out deliberately over and over again. Yet, they survived! They not only survived, but went on to have their own nation again. To me, it would seem impossible to look at that and say that they didn't have divine help.

While I maintain that science itself can not prove or disprove God, I do believe that informal inferences can be made from nature. While evolution does not work by "Random Chance" there are certain events that occurred in history, without which humans never would have come around. One of the most interesting involves a large impact that happened near the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary of time. I believe God directed that impact to open more niches for mammals.

I've also seen people's lives changed through becoming closer to God and experienced some spiritual things myself.

I would agree that science has been unable to (and probably will never be able to) definitively prove or dispve the existence of G-d. However, this is not the same as saying that scientific evidence does not exist that points to the existence of a supreme being.

I think my problem with "ID" advocates is that they seem to be saying that such evidence is conclusive and they are demanding it be taught "as science" in the classroom. There can be inferences made from nature that may point to God, but such things are not scientific, they're philosophical. To me theology and philosophy are the realms of discussing topics like God. Science is all about what you can measure. How can you attempt to measure an omnipotent, eternal Being?

Whatever your reasons for believing in G-d might be, you're certainly entitled to them. I just don't understand why you would think that scientific evidence pointing to the existence of G-d can't or doesn't exist or why you would be disturbed by former atheists changing their minds based on scientific evidence rather than faith.

The scientific method requires something called methodological naturalism. It's unscientific to look outside of nature to explain something natural. Certainly as individuals we can believe that God had a hand in this or that, but we can't say that science says that.

[Wayne Jude]

Wow,wayne jude is bowing out gracefully...........

[Rubystars]

Wow,wayne jude is bowing out gracefully...........

LOL  These posts are gargantuan...

[Wayne Jude]

 

[Rubystars]

I apologize for using analogies that you found offensive. I'm not comparing G-d to some green unicorn, I was just trying to use an analogy to make the situation a little easier to analyze. In hindsight maybe I should have said it in a different way. I meant no disrespect to G-d. I stayed away from some of the analogies that drive certain points home in powerful ways because I was trying not to offend.

I love G-d and it is not my goal to diminish G-d's role in creation. I don't believe that G-d was a passive observer, but I believe that G-d was actively involved in guiding every step of the process. I believe that G-d commanded the world to bring forth all forms of life in the way that pleased Him.

I'll address the other points that you made later, but I hope that you won't continue to think of me as an atheist. Atheism is a hopeless philosophy in which a person truly is reduced to a mere object. Atheism is amoral, because whatever morals the person has don't have a basis in anything but the person's own personal set of ethics. Atheism is dehumanizing because it denies humanity's spiritual connection to G-d and the need for us to worship G-d as individuals. It's because we as human beings are created in G-d's image that we're able to have the capacity to even discuss such complex topics as science and theology.

I would like to keep on talking about it as long as you want to, but I want to do this with an attitude of mutual respect for one another.