Evolution biological facts vs bad philosophy

[egk]

Hi,

I recently finished a college-level biology course on Evolution. The professor, a Berkely Ph.D. in biology with undergraduate work in philosophy made several interesting observations:

Part of the problem between faith and evoluion stems from bad philosphical conclusions from the biological facts. For example, random mutation is the basis for the variations in population. Biological fact. "Therefore" we are the result of random chance and there is no purpose or meaning in our lives. Bad philosophy.


He recommended two books written by evolutionists to read. "Life's Solutions: the inevitable humans in a lonely universe" by C. Morris. Morris is an evolutionary paleontologist who argues that convergent evolution seems to indicate that humans were not an accident, but the natural outcome of the way the world we live in is. He is NOT an IDer or Creationist. He points to the fact that the same structures have evolved independently over and over again. For example "camera eyes" (like human eyes) have evolved in 8 different lines.

I'm about a 1/4 through it and find it very interesting, although I don't like his style of writing.

The second book is "Darwin's God" by Miller.

As an asside, I just finished "Rare Earth" by Ward and Bownlee. It argues that although life is probably common in the universe, intelligent life is probably very rare. The authors argue that the factors that made animal life possible on earth (the large moon, jupiter, plate tectonics, our position in the galaxy) are believed to be fairly rare.

I've seen that several people have suggested that the authors are possibly "closet IDer," yet Ward has publically debated against ID with a member of the Discovery Institute.

Should the rare earth hypothesis be correct, it would contradict the philosophical conclusion of many evolutionists that humans aren't special, but one of millions of intelligent beings.

EGK

[trainedobserver]

If there is an Intelligent Designer then how do you go about IDing the designer?

Is there any practical expectation that it could be done to within acceptable error margins?

What are the expected practical outcomes of attempting to or eventually IDing the designer?

What are the risks?

[egk]

TO,

Please reread my post. Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. My professor, Morris, and Ward are NOT supporters of ID.

My professor feels that ID should NOT be taught in schools as a biological alternative to Darwinism because it is philosophy, not biology. (He has no qualms with a philosophy course teaching it.) Yet likewise, many evolutionists who are atheists make similar philosophic "jumps" by saying that evolution "demonstrates" that there is no God, meaning to life, etc. These Atheistic Evolutionists and IDer are two sides of the same philosophic coin, passing off their philosophies as biology.

Morris publically debated Gould concerning the Cambrian Explosion (the appearance of all the animal phyla during the Cambrian period.) Gould believes that if you could rewined the "tape of life" and replay the outcome would be different than what we have now. Morris, argues that based on convergence evolution, the replay would result in very similar life forms.


EGK

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). Egk:

Would you please invite your philosphic biologist teacher to factnet? I have several questions I would like to ask him.

[egk]

TO,

I used the term IDer to refer to those who believe in or support intelligent design. I did not use it to refer to the "designer" of ID. Just to clarify, if my use of 'IDer' was causing confusion.

TATM,

If I run into him before the forum closes, I'll give the invitation.

(Mr.) EGK

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. EGK:

I will be happy to give him the url to my own forum. That forum will be open for the conceivable future. cultministry@jesusanswers.com

[trainedobserver]

egk,

I see what you're getting at. Those are just questions that come to my mind when people talk about I.D., I wasn't expecting you or anyone in particular to try to answer them.

I mean, there are other questions too. Like, "If 'humans' were designed by someone or some thing, isn't it another really large assumption to think that that same designer is responsible for designing the universe? Wouldn't that be like thinking the guy that designed the Golden Gate Bridge designed McDonald's restaurants? Also, did the manufacturing team execute the design as presented or did they have to 'make adjustments'? Were those properly signed off? Some of you may laugh. "Ha. What silly concerns." and I'd have to agree.

[ihavesinned]

Hey, that jesusanswers.com has tons of ads for cleaning porn from your computer.



This is from the jesusanswers forum. It sounds like there is a pesky atheist hanging around there...

http://www.contentpurity.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1752

A self proclaimed christian on the forum gave him this answer about evolution:

" hey atheist i am a strong christian and gentile. I do belive in evolution! Any one who doesnt is beiing close minded. Why can't God make evolution? he can do anything. For you christians who belive the world is only six thousand years old or so your wrong. We have dirt and ice proven to be millions & millions old. We cant look to the Bible as a history book of the world. Just because it isnt in the bible doesnt mean it didnt happen. The bible should be looked at as a spiritual guide. We dont even know when Adam & Eve were even created, there is no date!"

I wonder what all those porn remover ads on the jesusanswers site is about...

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). ihavesinned:

Ever hear of the . . . "almighty buck?" For some reason, unexplained as yet, service providers expect to get paid. On the other hand, perhaps you could enlighten us with your wisdom.

[bluewater2]

I think that all of the porn remover ads are likely placed there as a result of some marketing research that shows that the people that the site was primarily designed to attract are all closet porno junkies which likely makes them the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). bluewater2:

As I recall the discussion several years ago, the ad space was sold to an agency. That agency is free to post whatever ads it wants with a few exceptions (porno, abortion, etc.). As I recall from high school Economics studies, all ad space goes to the highest bidder.

On the other hand, you might be right! considering that most people who come to Christian internet sites are like you.

[bluewater2]

Actually, I don't have a problem with porn other than the fact that, having been allowed access to it if I wanted it, I have come to the natural conclusion that it is boring and I find the real thing much more satisfying.

I rarely go to the xtian oriented sites unless I am looking for the xtian point of view on something or am researching the difference between passages in the Jewish Bible and the twisted and edited xtian version of it which xtians call the old testament.

Generally speaking, the xtian sites make me feel like I am being dumbed down whenever I have had the occasion to go there.

Kind of the way George Bush makes me feel everytime he opens his mouth, or vetos stem cell legislation.

[ihavesinned]

"M(r)(s). ihavesinned:

Ever hear of the . . . "almighty buck?""

Yes, and that is why we have christianity in the first place.

[saygoodnightgracie]

Let's examine "Biological Stains" versus "Bad Podiatry" and see if the dialogue gets a bit more animated.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Quoting: "Yes, and that is why we have christianity in the first place."
End quote.

Quoting""Bad Podiatry"
End quote.


Darn I thought it was childish sarcasm!

[marta]

Let's examine "Biological Stains" versus "Bad Podiatry" and see if the dialogue gets a bit more animated.

... or "Childish Sarcasm" vs "Bad Poetry"?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Now come on, give a chance to get one right anyway!

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). bluewater2:

Quoting: "Generally speaking, the xtian sites make me feel like I am being dumbed down whenever I have had the occasion to go there."
End quote.

That is illogical. Why would an intellect asked a fool anything?

[ihavesinned]

"That is illogical. Why would an intellect asked a fool anything?"

Are you the "intellect", or were you trying to say "intellectual"?

[trainedobserver]

Personally, I think it would have flowed better with "axed" substituted for asked. Nyyyayyyahh!

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). ihavesinned:

Intellect: Noun

1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed
2 : a person with great intellectual powers
Merriam-Webster's 11 Collegiate Dictionary

Perhaps in addition to your vast scientific studies, you should add grammer!

[ihavesinned]

You mean grammar?

[trainedobserver]

"Perhaps in addition to your vast scientific studies, you should add grammer!"

Exactly! Who wouldn't be enriched by a detailed study of the life of Kelsey Grammer? Bravo!

You mean grammar?

Oh don't be silly. Are you trying to imply that
"the_apostolic_truth_ministries" tends toward intellectual laziness? I know what you're thinking, "could this fault in their communication indicate a possible trend that may carry over into other areas of the "apostolic_truth_ministry"? It's a preposterous thought I tell you.

[gatordave]

<font color="0077aa">What a bunch of children. Now, have you all contributed to Factnet so your "playground" in this "religious" section, which eats up most of the Factnet forum, can be saved.

dave

www.crimebustersnow.com (http://www.crimebustersnow.com) 905-963-3389 - fighting crime including rip-off ministries 24/7.</font>

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). ihavesinned &amp; trainedobserver:

It is called 'gottu'!

[pilgrim]

To Everyone,

Please look at the following video,
Evolution or Creation:What do the Rocks Reveal?

Walter J. Veith Ph.D. lectures on archeological evidence of a worldwide Flood.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5521410965822202656

These videos show more evidence of a worldwide flood and God's Creation,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1390113153082691642

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3015057674550490925

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2742098470377340245

You may also look at the following websites,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1002volcano.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4305news5-17-2000.asp


I am sorry local flood's funs/supporters but the flood was not local. It was global worldwide catastrophic.

Blessings,
Pilgrim

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). pilgrim:

What does one or ten-thousand floods prove?

[dodge]

It's so good to be on God's side. Is it not, my dear True Christian friends? We all know who God disapproves of, don't we! EVOLUTIONISTS! LIBERALS! And HOMOSEXUALS! It is up to us to ensure that the Holy Bible is the only book that anyone needs in schools. We don't need any heathen teachers professing that ridiculous myth called "evolution." Data, evidence, consensus and other tools of Lucifer be damned along with so-called "facts" or "reality" that disobedient, dangerously open-minded professors like to use to cloud the minds of our young people.

I'll tell you how you can spot a liberal homosexual evolutionist! First of all, they are chock full of secular knowledge. They toss the Bible aside in favor of so-called "research" and "theories." They spend their days studying and trying to gather facts and data to support their ridiculous scientific theories, such as evolution and gravity. Don't be fooled! All the secular knowledge in the world can't disprove that the reason we are all here today was because Eve got some bad advice from a talking snake! Atheists are too full of their silly "logic."

(from your friends at Landover Baptist Church)

[bluewater2]

You are a hoot, Dodge. I love it.

[dodge]

Bluewater, will you join me in a prayer? A prayer to have God watch over our Godly President, George W. Bush, a prayer that God will bless those Godly folks who helped make sure Bush got into the White House as well as our Godly True Christian Senators and Godly educators who teach folks how to be True Christians. And let's not forget those who protect us from the Communists and satanic evolutionists! We know that the End Times are upon us when feminazis, democrats and homosexuals are running around loose everywhere. True Christians are ordained by God to lead this nation, and instead we are being persecuted! This nation will fail without Jesus leading the way! Things are always good when True Christians are in charge! Oh for the good old days, when everyone was a Christian; and if there was anybody who wasn't they knew better than to open their yap about it.

(from your True Christian friends at Landover Baptist Church...Unsaved Unwelcome!)

[egk]

Bluewater,

<font color="0000ff">
I rarely go to the xtian oriented sites unless I am looking for the xtian point of view on something or am researching the difference between passages in the Jewish Bible and the twisted and edited xtian version of it which xtians call the old testament. </font>

May I suggest you go to the library and read the last two issues of the Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR). They contain sections on the Dead Sea Scroll. (It is the 60th anniversery of their discovery.) One of the results of studying the scroll is finding the Hebrew texts that support the Septuagint translations. The "twisted and edited xtian version" is for the most part an accurate translation of a Hebrew text that predates Christianity. I'll get the link to BAR's website and post it.

EGK

[egk]

BW,

www.bib-arch.org (http://www.bib-arch.org)

EGK

[egk]

TO,

Since you seem to be the only poster here to take this thread seriously, I'll add these other things.

Many evolutionists believe that evolution is without "progress" there is no goal. Morris's book argues that convergence evolution demonstrates just the opposite and that there are goals to evolution, one of which is a human like creature. As far as I can tell C. Morris argues that the way the world works puts great limits on what is possible, which results in the convergence and the goals.

If you'd be interested in continuing this discussion after the forum closes, I'd be willing to give you my email address.

EGK

[egk]

TO,

Since you seem to be the only poster here to take this thread seriously, I'll add these other things.

Many evolutionists believe that evolution is without "progress" there is no goal. Morris's book argues that convergence evolution demonstrates just the opposite and that there are goals to evolution, one of which is a human like creature. As far as I can tell C. Morris argues that the way the world works puts great limits on what is possible, which results in the convergence and the goals.

If you'd be interested in continuing this discussion after the forum closes, I'd be willing to give you my email address.

EGK

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). egk:

I take your column seriously. Well just as serious as a really bad joke can be taken. I also asked you to have your "RIGHT" minded professor address the subject on an intelligent level. Something I might add, you can not do.

I can quiet easily blow holes in his theory. In fact, anyone who can not disprove his rantings, has never studied either the Bible or evolution. May I suggest you study two books?

1. The Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin.
2. Institutes of Christian Religion by John Calvin.


ps I will even bet you can not guess which is considered a "classic."

[egk]

TATM,

I am a former creationist who abandoned that position after studying the Bible. I seldom discuss this with Creationists because I find it counterproductive (more 'heat' than 'light' is produced.)

I started this thread with the intent to address the evolutionists who use evolution as "proof" that God does not exist.

May I suggest that you read "Finding Darwin's God" by K. Miller. He is a theist who demonstrates that evolution does not negate the existence of God. He also argues against creationism. (I have this book on my list of books to read, so I have only skimmed parts of it. I believe you'd get more out of it than C. Morris' book.)

If I offended you, I apologize. I did not intend to do that. I do intend to tell my professor about you and give him your invitation.

(Mr.) EGK

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). EGK:

Quoting: ""Finding Darwin's God" by K. Miller."
End quote.

I would put it in the trash! I know who Darwin's God was. Infact, I will add a few questions to my original two.

1. Which author (Darwin; Calvin) has an impeccable character?

2. Which author was a drunken womanizer?

3. Which author was a lettered theologian?

4. Which author was a trained scientist?

a. 1. Calvin

a. 2. Darwin.

a. 3. Both.

a. 4. Neither.


Darwin, by the by, was an educated Church of England preacher. He was first and foremost, a creationist. It is also apparent, C. Morris has never Darwin's "Theory of Evolution." I would rid my library of his book also.

[egk]

TATM,

<font color="0000ff">Darwin, by the by, was an educated Church of England preacher. He was first and foremost, a creationist. It is also apparent, C. Morris has never Darwin's "Theory of Evolution." I would rid my library of his book also.</font>

You are correct, C. Morris probably never read Darwin's "Theory of Evolution." As far as I can tell Darwin NEVER wrote a book by that name.

If I wish to learn about Calvinism, I would read his "Institutes." If I wish to read about Darwinism as Darwin understood it, I'd read his "Origins of the Species." I desire to do neither.

At present I'm seeking to combat the misuse of modern science by atheists, so I need to understand modern science. Reading Morris and Miller will aid me in this.

If this is not a goal of yours fine. If it is a goal of yours, I do not think you'll get far using Calvin to combat the misuse of modern science.

EGK

[ihavesinned]

"I can quiet easily blow holes in his theory. In fact, anyone who can not disprove his rantings, has never studied either the Bible or evolution. May I suggest you study two books?

1. The Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin. "

I think the one you're looking for is called The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Somehow I doubt you've read it.

So when does your speaking tour come to Seattle? I'd like to see you "quiet easily blow" something...

[trainedobserver]

erg,

I would have to agree with those that say that evolution doesn't have a plan nor does it have actual progress. It just is. Progress is a human concept that doesn't apply to it. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Question: Would you agree that when viewed as a "whole", the universe is unintentional?

[ihavesinned]

"I would have to agree with those that say that evolution doesn't have a plan nor does it have actual progress. It just is."

TO,
I think you've hit it on the head, that is the main bone of contention creationists have with evolution. There is seemingly no plan, and no compassion - only cold hard efficiency.

It is a statistical process, with no beautiful or individual snowflakes. That might not be the way we like it, but it just is that way.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). egk:

Actually, I could have called Darwin’s book “A Recipe for Two Cow Patty Pie” and you would not have known anything about it. Nor would your good professor or C. Morris. Had either of you bothered to read Darwin’s resume and his several writings, you would have known he was a creationist. Darwin was a theologian, not an evolutionist. Darwin saw the end of the species quiet clearly (we call it the almighty buck).

John Calvin’s “Institutes of Christian Religion” is on the required reading list of virtually every religious school in the world. That is why it is called a classic. Had your professor a desire to understand philosophy, he would go where the philosophers go, to Calvin’s Institutes. That, my dear friend, is a good place for you to start.

Quoting: “At present I'm seeking to combat the misuse of modern science by atheists, so I need to understand modern science. Reading Morris and Miller will aid me in this.”
End quote.

You came seeking an argument. You failed. Now you are pouting. Praying that someone will offer you sympathy. Well, guess what?

Quoting: “I do not think you'll get far using Calvin to combat the misuse of modern science.”
End quote.

Modern science has made a laughing stock of itself. Calvin’s Institutes wery successfully refutes “bad philosophy.” Darwin refutes modern science. Get over it.

Shall we end this gratuitously?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). trainedobserver:

Quoting: ""I would have to agree with those that say that evolution doesn't have a plan nor does it have actual progress. It just is."
End quote.

The humble cockroach blows your theory.

[trainedobserver]

The humble cockroach blows your theory.

You'll have to elaborate on that for me.

What I'm talking about isn't theory or mumbo-jumbo. Evolution a process where natural law is being enacted without purpose or forethought just as it is with all other natural processes. Example: When leaves fall from the trees in autumn they create a unpremeditated pattern on the ground. This pattern has no plan or progress. It is never begun nor is it ever finished. The same with the process of evolution. It is. That is all. Trying to place it within the human concepts of design, manufacture, maintenance, and obsolescence prevent us from seeing it as it truly is, devoid of any of our contrived fictional accounts of it.

[egk]

TO,

<font color="0000ff">I would have to agree with those that say that evolution doesn't have a plan nor does it have actual progress. It just is. Progress is a human concept that doesn't apply to it. Wouldn't you agree with that? </font>

It depends how you view progress. When a seed sprouts and grows it progresses through different stages until the plant reaches maturity then dies. This is the type of progress Morris is speaking of. Neither the seed nor evolution "know" they are progressing, they just do (assuming Morris is correct.) As the ancestors of the octopus devolped the camera eye, this was progress.

Gould and others assume that if "the evolutionary tape" could be replayed, the results would be vastly different each time. Morris argues that the possible forms are so limited that basically the same organisms would emerge each time. Thus we are not "accidents" but the natural results of what is and is not possible.

Just an aside, the professor I took considered Gould an excellent writer and biologist when he confined himself to the facts. When he theorized the professor felt Gould was in left field. An area that Gould's "commitment" to everything is an accident came out in his belief that much evolution was driven exaption not adaption. (Exaption is when something arises as an accident, such as the hole in the center of many snails' shells. This whole is the result of the spiral shell and was not directly selected for. Another type of exaption is when a structure is used for a new purpose. All the "parts" of our vocal organs arose for other things and were later used to produce human speech.)

Morris and Gould had a public debate on their interpretations of Cambrian Explosion. (This period is Morris' special interest.)

EGK

[egk]

TO,

<font color="0000ff">Question: Would you agree that when viewed as a "whole", the universe is unintentional?</font>

Again, it depends on how you mean this. Are there occurrences that to our point of view are random and without purpose? Yes. Are mutations in biology random? Yes. Is the universe as a whole unintentional? Well, I do not believe that the universe has any conscious intentions. Theologically and philosophically I believe that what God intends for the universe will be, so in that sense it is not unintentional. I don't know enough physical, astronomy, etc to answer this question as a physicist, astronomer, etc. I do know that there are physicists who have argued that the universe is so structured that human life is possible. Whether they as physicists argue that human life is the intent of the universe, I do not know.


Did I answer your question?

EGK

[egk]

TO,

As one other aside, the book we used argues that although many animals can communicate with each other, humans are the only ones that have language. When chimps communicate with each other they use different parts of the brian than humans do using language. I'm assuming that they were only speaking of when two chimps communicate in their natural way. I do not recall the book mentioning the signing chimps/apes.

The professor mentioned that there is "alot of pressure" to "prove" animals do indeed have language.


EGK

[egk]

TATM,

<font color="0000ff">Shall we end this gratuitously?</font>

Yes,

Mr. EGK

[egk]

TO,

Our posts "crossed" each other so I typed the above without seeing your post to TATM. I believe I can use your post to demonstrate (as I understand it) Morris's concepts.

<font color="0000ff">Evolution a process where natural law is being enacted without purpose or forethought just as it is with all other natural processes. Example: When leaves fall from the trees in autumn they create a unpremeditated pattern on the ground. This pattern has no plan or progress. It is never begun nor is it ever finished. The same with the process of evolution. It is. That is all. Trying to place it within the human concepts of design, manufacture, maintenance, and obsolescence prevent us from seeing it as it truly is, devoid of any of our contrived fictional accounts of it.</font>

Suppose a tree has a very crooked truck so that most of the tree hangs over a pond. When the leaves fall, most will fall into the pond, not on the land.

Gould would argue that it is accidental that most fall into the water. Morris would argue that it is the result of the way the tree is positioned that most fall into the water.

Does this help?

EGK

[trainedobserver]

Logically, what the universe is, what it is experientially at the moment, quite naturally, transcends any human concept of god or the supernatural the mind could possibly construct or hold. Attempting to shoe-horn human concepts like "God" (Jehovah/Jesus/Allah/etc.,etc)into it seems absurd once this realization is made.

[egk]

TO.

Perhaps I'm thick headed. I do not see how this relates to this thread.


EGK

[trainedobserver]

"...Perhaps I'm thick headed. I do not see how this relates to this thread."


That was in response to the idea ...
"...Theologically and philosophically I believe that what God intends for the universe will be, so in that sense it is not unintentional."

My point being that you can 'see' the lack of intention and must conceptualize a god to give it whatever you assume the unperceived intention happens to be. An invisible, imperceivable, god and its intentions are fabrications of the human mind and are not backed up by simple observation of the universe around us sans our suppositions about it.

Evolution (natural selection) creates the pattern of life just like the leaves falling from a tree create a pattern on the ground. That is all. There is nothing beyond it. No intention. No progress. No digression. Progress, intention, and digression are human concepts (square pegs) that cannot fit reality's (round hole) true nature. Reality's true nature can only be experienced not conceptionalized.

These things, by their very nature, are for all practical purposes impossible to covey to another. They must be seen by the individual.



(Message edited by trainedobserver on June 28, 2007)

[egk]

TO

<font color="0000ff">My point being that you can 'see' the lack of intention and must conceptualize a god to give it whatever you assume the unperceived intention happens to be. An invisible, imperceivable, god and its intentions are fabrications of the human mind and are not backed up by simple observation of the universe around us sans our suppositions about it.
</font>

I was listening to NPR and caught the tail end of an interview with a physicist. He was speaking about the universe just after the big bang when the strength of gravity was determined. He commented that had gravity been a little weaker, suns and planets would not form; had it been a little stronger, the expanding universe would have collapse back onto itself. There were other things like this and this made he open to the idea of a god existing.

I believe these ideas are pursued by the physicist Stephen Barr in the book, "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith." I believe he became a theist while working on his phd in physics and it was inspired by the facts he was studying.

This link is a review of his work: www.bede.org.uk/barr.htm (http://www.bede.org.uk/barr.htm)

<font color="0000ff">Evolution (natural selection) creates the pattern of life just like the leaves falling from a tree create a pattern on the ground. That is all. There is nothing beyond it. No intention. No progress. No digression. Progress, intention, and digression are human concepts (square pegs) that cannot fit reality's (round hole) true nature. Reality's true nature can only be experienced not conceptionalized.

These things, by their very nature, are for all practical purposes impossible to covey to another. They must be seen by the individual.</font>

You look around, see the patterns and conclude there is no intention behind them. I look around, see the patterns and conclude there must be an intention behind them. Neither of our positions is provable by science.

EGK

[trainedobserver]

He commented that had gravity been a little weaker, suns and planets would not form; had it been a little stronger, the expanding universe would have collapse back onto itself. There were other things like this and this made he open to the idea of a god existing.

That is just another fallacious argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't carry any weight logically.

"You look around, see the patterns and conclude there is no intention behind them. I look around, see the patterns and conclude there must be an intention behind them. Neither of our positions is provable by science."

I apologize. I could have been clearer. When I used the word 'pattern' to describe the way leaves fall to the ground I intended the emphasis to be on the 'random' manner in which they do so and not a real 'pattern'.

When a leaf falls to the ground there is no pattern 'intended' by the tree, the leaves, or the ground. It simply 'occurs'. That can be seen.

When natural selection chooses one trait over another it is done according to the same principles. That being natural law without intention.

When a leaf falls it to the ground does it fall to the left of leaf before it because of intention or because of interactions of gravity and fluid dynamics on its mass? Evolution favors one trait over another for the same reasons.

[egk]

TO,

<font color="0000ff">
That is just another fallacious argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't carry any weight logically.</font>

With all due respect, what's not logical about it?

<font color="0000ff">When a leaf falls it to the ground does it fall to the left of leaf before it because of intention or because of interactions of gravity and fluid dynamics on its mass? Evolution favors one trait over another for the same reasons</font>

The question is why do the interactions of gravity and fluid dynamics on its mass act like this? Ultimately science cannot answer this (although many claim it can.) If you believe the world is as it is because this is the way it is, you stand on good philosophical ground. If I believe that the world is the way it is because it was intended to be inhabitated by humans, I'm also on good philosophical ground. We would be in trouble, as the ID supporters and many atheists are, in we insisted that the facts of sceince prove our position.

EGK

[ihavesinned]

EGK,
Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle?

This is the wikipedia entry for it. You might be interested, but maybe not, anyway here it is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[egk]

IHS,

Thanks, I have heard of it, but have not read much on it.

EGK

[trainedobserver]

"...what's not logical about it? ...had it been a little stronger, the expanding universe would have collapse back onto itself. There were other things like this and this made he open to the idea of a god existing. ..."

Believing that there must be a god responsible because you cannot explain something or find something so 'incredible' that 'only a god' could explain it to your mind, is making an argument for something based on your inability to believe otherwise and has no logic in it.

A does not follow B because I can't believe C doesn't.

[trainedobserver]

I'd say one of the basic problems with the whole business is that it assumes that the only expression of life is the one we are familiar with. Other circumstances, hostile to life as we know it, may cause other forms yet unknown to us to trive.

[egk]

TO,

<font color="0000ff">I'd say one of the basic problems with the whole business is that it assumes that the only expression of life is the one we are familiar with. Other circumstances, hostile to life as we know it, may cause other forms yet unknown to us to trive.</font>

Other forms of life were considered in some of the books I've been reading. Anywhere life appears needs to be relatively stable for a long time. (The earth is very unique in that there are several factors that have kept the temperature relatively consistent over the past several billion years. Mars and Venus have become colder and hotter, respectively, during this same period.)

Then for selection to work, the organisms have to be farly stable in terms of mutations. Computer models of evolution have demonstarted that if an organism varies too rapidly, the result is not evolution, but death. If the organism is too stable, it doesn't evolve.

Any other circumstances that produce life would need to have the stability of the environment for long periods of time and produce creatures that are basically stable.

Getting back to "Life's Solutions," Morris' analysis of the biological facts are fanscinating. We are taught that evolution is the results of 'accidents' yet these 'accidents' keep happening over and over again. I'm assuming that different life forms in different circumstances would probably similarly constrained and convergence evolution would occur there.

BTW Morris, in passing, dismisses ID as being unscientific. Also, his writing style could be better, but the data Morris conveys makes reading the book worth it.

TO, assuming this is the end of the forum, I want to thank you for the debates and I wish you well!

EGK

[ihavesinned]

"The earth is very unique in that there are several factors that have kept the temperature relatively consistent over the past several billion years. Mars and Venus have become colder and hotter, respectively, during this same period"

This is not necessarily so. There have been several hundred planets found outside the solar system in the last ten years. It is likely that we will find the earth is not that unique. One out of nine is one thing. One out of millions, well, who knows...

Historically, mankind has discovered that he has greatly over-estimated his own importance.

[egk]

IHS,

I didn't state that as clearly as I should have. There are a number of factors that appear to make earth very unusual. The processes that has kept our temps relatively constant is the interaction of the increasing energy from the sun combined with the decreasing CO2 in the atomsphere. The decreasing CO2 has been the results of weathering of the mountains. The mountain creation has been the result of the plate teutonics (sp). Can this process occur on other plants? Sure, but there are other factors.

For example our moon appears to have been formed when the earth was still molten and it was hit in the right way by a Mars' sized planet. In our current understanding of planet and moon formation, the earth should not have a moon like we have. Our moon stabilizes our tilt. Without it, the tilt of the earth would cause the artic and tropical temperatures to switch positions every 10,000 years or so.

Then there's Jupiter which has "cleared out" much of the debrie that used to collide with the earth 3.4 billion years ago.

These are just some things from memory that came out of "Rare Earth." There are other things such as the type of galaxy the earth is in, our location in the galaxy, etc. I suggest that you read "Rare Earth."

Gook luck in the future IHS.

EGK

[ihavesinned]

I got it. I'm only pointing out that we have not looked long enough to determine if this is an unusual condition for a planet or not. I suspect, give the trillions of galaxies in the universe, that this planet has sisters out there somewhere.

Adios Amigos.

[egk]

IHS,

True, though one surprising fact is that many galaxies have already been eliminated from the search because they do not contain enough metal to create earth like planets.

EGK

[ba2]

The only chance we have of finding life on another planet is through radio transmission. We will never, in the foreseeable future, be able to travel to another solar system. So, proof could only come from an intelligent source which happened to start sending out radio waves millions of years ago. And the frequencies would have to be of the nature that we could receive them. And we would have to be listening to those frequencies. And our antennae would have to be pointed precisely in the right direction. Not much chance of all these things coming together in my lifetime.

My church absolutely does not believe there is life anywhere out there. Personally, I don’t have a clue but if it were found to be true, it would not change my faith. My guess is that most in my church would not believe the information or they would suggest that it was satanic. Once again, Satan trying to confuse us with confusing scientific information. This time he might be a radio broadcaster from space.

[still_small_voice]

"Satan trying to confuse us with confusing scientific information"

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

sad, but true.

[ihavesinned]

BA2,
While we might not find intelligent life in our lifetimes, we most likely will find other earth like planets. NASA will be working this problem in the near future.

http://www.terrestrial-planet-finder.com/

The rate of planet discovery is accelerating, with imaging and processing technology getting better all the time.

I read a book once called "Probability 1", forget the author, but it makes the case for the likelihood of other intelligent life. The conclusion was there is a 100% chance that it is out there.

[ba2]

ihs
no disagreement here. But there is no probability factor. It is a conclusion based on a belief. Until we actually find like elsewhere, it is nothing more. I believe there is life elsewhere, but it is a belief. Also, I don't believe it is possible for visitors from these places to appear.

[ihavesinned]

You may be right.

I find it highly unlikely we will ever contact them if they're out there. The universe is so big, and our methods of observation and communication are constrained by the speed of light.

On the other hand, there is a lot about physics that we don't yet know. You may be able to bend the rules somehow.

Maybe they can contact us, but if they could, why would they want to? Most of us are very much wrapped up in the comings and goings of Paris HIlton and Brittney Spears. Not much for them to learn from us it would seem.

[ba2]

HIS you said, <font color="0000ff">“Maybe they can contact us, but if they could, why would they want to?"</font> I think that is an excellent point. But, I don't think the contact would be on purpose and I don’t think it is even possible. The closest star with even the slightest possibility for life is well over 20 light years away. It is pretty much beyond my paradigm to think it is possible to travel trillions of miles safely through space, and why? To meet with us – too much “Star Trek” or “Dr Who” thinking. If they were that advanced, they wouldn’t give us a second thought. On the other hand, they might view us as a violent threat and just blow us out of the universe.

More likely they would have transmitted something like our commercial radio or TV. We might pick up the radio waves they sent out years ago. We would not really contact each other but might be able to determine that they are out there. The SETI institute is doing just that – searching for life outside of earth. What would the fundamentalists do if absolute proof is found? Some would lose faith, others would re-interpret their scripture. If there is intelligent life in the nearest possible solar system, we might possibly communicate in a very limited way within our lifetime (not likely). I wonder, would they have similar stories of Genesis?

[still_small_voice]

"I don't think the contact would be on purpose and I don’t think it is even possible."

If people from thousands of years ago were told what our technology would become, they would have said IMPOSSIBLE! people flying in ships in the air and talking to people on the other side of the world (which they did not know existed) with a hand box?

Our military is developing, and working prototypes are in existence, of a camo suit that bends light. So a soldier's uniform simply looks like the wall, or the tree... I think I recall it is based partly on nano technology.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=911

Invisibility cloaking technology. Now that is Star Wars, and it is us. It is here now.

Now imagine a species or intellgent life that is thousands or more years advanced beyond us. Impossible? No more impossible than the orignal proposition of there being other life out there.

Also, if they were as ethically developed as their technology, they might see interference as unethical.

All hypotheticals.

Conclusive? No.

Possible? Why not?

[ihavesinned]

"HIS you said, “Maybe they can contact us, but if they could, why would they want to?" I think that is an excellent point. But, I don't think the contact would be on purpose and I don’t think it is even possible. The closest star with even the slightest possibility for life is well over 20 light years away."

You are right - transportation of matter of any kind faster than the speed of light would require something completely beyond our current understanding of physics. Einstein specifically stated that a massive object can never accelerate to the speed of light.

On the other hand, our understanding of how relativity and quantum mechanics fit together to make a complete picture of reality is almost nonexistent. There are theories, but none that have been quantified, or experimentally verified. There may be a fundamental aspect of the universe that we are not yet aware of yet.

When the large hadron collider comes on line in a few years, it is hoped that some evidence of hypothetical missing dimensions might be found. Several unified theories suggest multiple dimensions beyond our perception. Some even suggest an infinite number of interconnected universes known as the multiverse. Look into supersymmetry, it's a pretty cool notion.

One of the greatest mistakes mankind continually repeats is a failure of imagination. We get comfortable thinking we know how things are, and usually end up being wrong. There may be a way to traverse time and space in a way we can't yet imagine.

[ba2]

These are all excellent points. But none of the ideas being worked on go beyond the limitations of physics. I don’t know of any scientist who suggests that a living organism could travel at these great speeds. The atoms of any object traveling at that speed would probably blend or smash into each other.

I suppose it would be possible for giant spaceships to move entire civilizations through space. With atomic energy to sustain electrical needs for the lighting needed to grow food. But then again, maybe these extraterrestrials wouldn’t have needs even remotely similar to ours. Hopefully, they wouldn’t be traveling to find a new home or even worse, view us as a food source.

[ihavesinned]

Check it out, another brick in the wall. Does it strike anyone that you never hear of a fossil being found that refutes evolution completely, only ones that fit right in?

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

Ethiopian archaeologist Yohannes Haile Selassie said the find included several complete jaws and one partial skeleton and were unearthed in the Afar desert at Woranso-Mille, near where the famous fossil skeleton known as Lucy was found in 1974.

"This is a major finding that could fill a gap in human evolution," he told a news conference in Addis Ababa.

"The fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille area sample a time period that is poorly known in human evolutionary study."

Researchers say the area, about 140 miles northeast of Addis, boasts the most continuous record of human evolution.

Last year, an international team of scientists unveiled the discovery of 4.1 million-year-old fossils in the region.

Lucy, the most famous find, lived between 3.3 million and 3.6 million years ago. But Yohannes said Afar had yielded early hominid fossil remains spanning the last 6 million years.

"This has placed Ethiopia in the forefront of paleoanthropology," he told reporters.

"Ethiopia is known to the world as the cradle of humankind.

[searchlight86]

Hi bear,

I used to believe the day-age and/or gap models were credible, until I realized they had a number of linguistic and logical problems, and that my view was not based on the Bible’s language or historical views thereof, but simply to accommodate long age concepts. The day-age theory is a recent phenomenon, constructed in the nineteenth century in an attempt to harmonize evolutionary dogma with the Biblical text. Long ages were touted as ‘proven’ by science, as you have alluded to, and therefore it seemed necessary to force the Bible’s language to conform to this supposed scientific fact even if this created linguistic, logical and historical inconsistencies.

No naturalistic evolutionists (at least none I’ve read about or encountered) accept this theory and its supposed harmony with evolutionary astronomy, geology, or paleontology. If imaginable, it has been treated with even more intense scorn that young earth creationism, because evolutionary atheists well recognize its inconsistency with Scripture, even if many Christians will not.

The Creation account is very specific. As you seem to be aware, Heb. bara is used only of God, never of men, and refers to His unique ability to create ex nihilo, out of nothing. In the creation account, bara is used only three times, for unique creation of physical and plant life with body (Gen. 1:1), for unique creation of animals with body and soul (Gen. 1:21), and unique creation of man with body, soul, and spirit (Gen. 1:27, I Thess. 5:23).

There is no basis for selectively using the term asah for making of the sun, moon and stars to mean “appear”. In the creation account, asah consistently refers to making things out of pre-existing materials, like man does, but does not refer simply to the appearance of already made objects, and God used the term ra’ah (to see) when this was His purpose (Gen. 1:9). Note that God refers to both ‘creating’ (out of nothing) and ‘making’ (of pre-existing materials) in the creation account: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Gen. 2:3). If one were consistently uses asah in the creation account to mean “made to appear”, with everything fully made in advance but just revealed at a certain time, the entire account would cease to make sense.

The belief that the world would last 7,000 years appears to have been almost universally accepted by the early church. The early church writers based their teaching on the days of Genesis 1, Psalm 90:4, II Peter 3:8 and the biblical genealogies. They reasoned that as God created in six days and a day is as a thousand years, therefore the earth would last for 6,000 years. After this would come a thousand years of rest, equivalent to the seventh day. The same idea is found in Jewish literature. The Babylonian Talmud refers to a chronological scheme by which history is divided into three ages of 2,000 years each: an age of chaos; the age of the Law, and the age of the Messiah. A thousand years of rest would follow. Because the origin of this teaching cannot be dated accurately, we cannot say with certainty if the belief was widespread within Judaism or at what time it originated. The early church fathers did not believe that the creation had taken place over six thousand years, but that the totality of human history would occupy six thousand years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation. The widespread acceptance of the creation week pattern for earth history implies the acceptance by many of the church fathers of two important points:

1) The earth is young (less than 6,000 years old).
2) The Biblical genealogies provide an accurate chronology.

The following early church ‘fathers’ wrote specifically about this same topic. Would you say to all of these respected saints that they were mistaken, or that God failed to communicate to them? “Day” means “day”, and it takes substantial convoluted linguistic contortionism to twist the Scriptures to attempt to make it mean anything else. Those who want to make “day” mean something other than an Earth day in the creation account indirectly accuse God of misleading us from the obvious meaning of the text, which is consistently used throughout Scripture.

Church Fathers Who Believed that This World Would Last 6,000 years:

Pseudo Barnabas - Epistle of Barnabas 15:1-4, 70-135 AD
Irenaeus - Against Heresies 5.28.3, c.115-202 AD
Gaudentius of Brescia - Tractatus 10.15, d. after 410 AD
Hippolytus - Commentary on Daniel 4.23, d.235 AD
Hilary of Poitiers - In Matthew 17:1; 20:6; Tract Myst. 1.41; 2.10, c.315-367 AD
Lactantius - Divine Institutes 7.14-27, d. after 317 AD
Firmicus Maternus - The Error of the Pagan Religions 25.3, c.346 AD
Sulpicius Severus - History, 1.2.1, c.363-c.420 AD
Tyconius - Book of Rules, 5, c. 400 AD

Church Fathers Who Stated Belief in 24 hour Creation Days:

Theophilus of Antioch - Autolycus 2:11-12, c.180 AD
Methodius - Chastity 5.7, d.311 AD
Lactantius - Institutes 7.14, 240-320 AD
Victorinus of Pettau - Creation, d. c.304 AD
Ephrem the Syrian - Commentary on Genesis 1.1, 306-373 AD
Epiphanius of Salamis - Panarion, 1.1.1, 315-403 AD
Basil of Caesarea - Hexameron, 2.8, 329-379 AD
Cyril of Jerusalem - Catechetical Lectures 12.5, d. 387 AD
Ambrose of Milan - Hexameron, 1.10.3-7, 339-397 AD

Even those who rejected literal 24-hour days still believed in a young earth as the following list demonstrates. Origen believed that the world was less than 10,000 years old and Clement thought it was still younger. The early church fathers did not believe that the creation had taken place over six thousand years, but that the totality of human history would occupy six thousand years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation.

Specific Statements Made by Early Church Writers Concerning the Age of the Earth:

Clement of Alexandria – 5,592 BC, Miscellanies 1.21, c.150- c.215 AD
Julius Africanus – 5,500 BC, Chronology, Fragment 1, c.160-240 AD
Hippolytus of Rome – 5,500 BC, Daniel, 4, 170-236 AD
Origen - < 10,000 BC, Celsus, 1.20, 185-253 AD
Eusebius of Caesarea – 5,228 BC, Chronicle, 263-339 AD

I am unable to find any credible reference to a theologian prior to the 19th century who specifically suggested that the Genesis day was longer than 24 hours, or that the creation week was longer than seven days. It wasn’t until Darwinism started to take hold that this phenomenon occurred.

I agree that disagreements in this area are unfortunate, but believe it is of foundational importance and not a sideshow (otherwise I wouldn’t be discussing this with you eh?). What is providing the biggest and most dangerous target is the ability to spiritualize away the Word of God to mean anything we wish. If this can be done for the first chapter of Genesis, it can logically be done anywhere, about any issue. It is healthy to attempt to reconcile the Bible with man’s understanding of science to glorify God (since God is the author of science!), but never to practically supplant even the slightest jot or tittle of God’s Word.

For most, evolution is a pseudoscientific justification for not believing in the Creator (God) at all, and when Bible-believing Christians capitulate to evolutionary philosophy, it reinforces and strengthens the atheist/naturalist position that there is no God whatsoever. If we cannot trust his God’s Word at the first creation, how can we trust it anywhere else? How can we trust what it says about Christ in the new creation, if we can’t trust what it says about the original creation? The whole Bible stands or falls together as one. The most important issue to Christians should not be curiosity about origins, but glorifying God and His Word (Biblical authority).

I am sure that some of the religious leaders of the day accused Christ of being divisive. The point is that the truth is divisive! Because Christ is the truth, His ministry was divisive. Those who insist on the literal truth of Genesis (God's Word) are also called divisive by those who have compromised with evolutionary ideas. Many people think that people like me are biased and thus divisive, but that others are just neutral. However, it is important to understand that God's Word tells us there is no such thing as neutrality.

We are told that we either walk in light or in darkness – there is no middle ground. In
Matthew 12:30, we read, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Those who do not take God's Word literally are just as divisive, as their own bias dogmatically disallows for a literal view to be seriously considered. Indeed, it is a sad situation when "a man's enemies are the men of his own house" (Micah 7:6).

Christians are even commanded to guard that which we have been entrusted with, and turn aside from oppositions (Gr. antithesis) of science *falsely so called* (I Tim. 6:20). YECs do not say that OEC advocates, as persons, are necessarily anti-Bible infidels and scoffers. However, OEC interpretations of Genesis 1–11 are not exegetically defensible and OEC hermeneutics in Genesis 1–11 cannot be consistently applied to the rest of Scripture without seriously damaging or destroying the Bible's teaching. The YEC interpretation is the overwhelmingly dominant view in the history of Christendom.

Truth is truth, and relativism is nonsense. If there appears to be a contradiction between Scripture and science, then we are either misunderstanding Scripture or drawing false conclusions from scientific interpretations of data, or both. Many errors have historically been made in interpreting Scripture, and many errors have historically been made in interpreting science. But the Scripture itself is perfectly accurate, and the perfection of its truth is not limited to man’s lack of understanding of it or of science. Again, God created the Scriptures, as well as the very foundation and working of genuine science, so there it is impossible for there to be even the minutest discrepancy from His (the real) perspective.

As Pascal stated "Human knowledge must be understood to be loved, but divine knowledge must be loved to be understood". More information simply doesn't help if one isn't open in advance to go wherever it leads, including turning from the supremacy of man's ideas to the perfection of God's Word, as the Bible unequivocally states throughout. I hope this view will be seriously and logically considered in light of our service to God and honoring of His Word, not just lightly brushed aside due to current popular suppositions caused originally by capitulation to evolutionary atheists. I know very well from experience what it's like to be strongly opposed to this view, but am also aware most have not been exposed to information and perspective on the side of precise, word-by-word Bible accuracy for this important issue, due to the dominance of macroevolution in today's world.

[turtle]

Forgive me if i break it down this way. Fact is I am more in line with microevolution then macroevoluion, unless a species is able to mate with another. For example a fish can not mate with a bird. But many dog species can mate within its own species, but horses can not. For example a donkey mixing horse you get a mule who is sterile. Now I know this is not as indepth of the post above but I figure this is more my language.

[searchlight86]

Hi turtle,

Yes, you're right. Microevolution, or the 'special theory of evolution' is abundantly demonstrable and scientific (it is subject to the scientific method), and allows for genetic variety and preservation of a given kind of creature. Macroevolution, or the 'general theory of evolution' (so called, it's a conjecture not a theory), is not subject to the scientific method, and has never been observed despite decades of desperate efforts by atheist evolutionists. No working mechanism has ever been demonstrated to support macroevolution, whether in living or non-living forms.

[turtle]

Hi turtle,

Yes, you're right. Microevolution, or the 'special theory of evolution' is abundantly demonstrable and scientific (it is subject to the scientific method), and allows for genetic variety and preservation of a given kind of creature. Macroevolution, or the 'general theory of evolution' (so called, it's a conjecture not a theory), is not subject to the scientific method, and has never been observed despite decades of desperate efforts by atheist evolutionists. No working mechanism has ever been demonstrated to support macroevolution, whether in living or non-living forms.

And this is the reason that Christians want to know why is evolution taught in school without creationism being taught as well. That is the major complaint I here in lower ranks of the world. I do not think Christians have problems with microevolution being taught it is man coming from ape they have trouble with. Atheist bottomline want to teach the lie and leave the truth out.

[turtle]

BW,

www.bib-arch.org (http://www.bib-arch.org)

EGK

That article was cool.