Evolution

[Brain Candy]

For specific religions, though I think they are fascinating and important to us now and to the history of the world, you have to be critical when reading holy books. You have to understand that its important that they relate to the truth as we see it, and not that it governs it. When evangelicals try to disprove evolution by proclaiming that we dont know everything about it, I am a bit concerned. I am also concerned when atheists proclaim they know total objective truth.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Brain Candy

[AngusThermopyle]

Thinking is limited. Knowing only comes from the limitation of thinking. So at the end of the day what is known is minor. What is unknown is God.

I tend to disagree with your statement. My experience has been that we are limited in our thoughts by the limits we impose ourselves. Even just in recent times we've witnessed an explosion in our capacity to formulate new concepts and ideas.

[guyser]

You know, guyser, the previous estimate of "4 billion" has nothing to do with age, rather is the age of the oldest known rock...

So the rock can be old, but not the earth.

Whatever the case, regardless of how many billions of years old (LOL) people think the Earth is, it still doesn't disprove the existence of God or his creation of the Earth.

13 billion yrs is a long time. I didnt state it disproves anything. However on the basis of probabilities.....

Personally, I don't concern myself with the issue because it has no relevance to the fact that God does exist. Try to remember that for the next time you falsely ascribe to me opinions that I don't hold.

So....you can say with certainty that god exists....

[guyser]

LOL. Yeah, yeah--whatever...

Tsk tsk....

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03...lion-years-old/

snip....

WMAP Results

A lot of this information was determined a while back, just a couple of years after WMAP launched. But now they have released the Five Year Data, a comprehensive analysis of what all that data means. Here’s a quick rundown:

1) The age of the Universe is 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 120 million years. Some people might say it doesn’t look a day over 6000 years. They’re wrong.

[Oleg Bach]

Tsk tsk....

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03...lion-years-old/

God or goodness or the creative conscious power that generated this huge miracle - really has no time to measure time as us temporal pitiful humans do...it is of no consequence if the universe is one second old or a trillion billion years as we know it ...if you are cool and understand how to translate what is left of scripture - what is not totally tainted you will realize that "a second is a thousand years and a thousand years is but a second" - Evolution and creation are the same thing - this spliting of hairs and the contention that exists between evolutionist and creationists is pitiful...traditional creationists are idots and traditional evolutionists are not far behind...no one will ever know the mystery of God or eterntiy in it's fullness - so it is a useless and silly debate..the universe is exactly three seconds old...God told me - about 4 seconds ago.

..or was it three? - oh well as if it makes a difference ...some will hate the fact that their is a universal infinite consiousness...and some will hate the fact that we are not 6000 years old - I have a rock in my back yard older than that...point being...this is a mystery and it is meant by design to stay that way - give it up and live...by the way - I have asked evolutionist to provide me with a Darwin quote that states "there is no God" - I have yet to hear from anyone in these regards...oh by the way Michealangelo and Leonardo DeVinci were gay - so was Jesus - funny how we lable the dead like Darwin and attribute negative qualities to those long dead and unable to defend their reputations...Darwin liked God..and so did that Albert with the fussy hair - you know that E=Mc 2..Guy....I could never spell eyenstein.

[charter.rights]

I tend to disagree with your statement. My experience has been that we are limited in our thoughts by the limits we impose ourselves. Even just in recent times we've witnessed an explosion in our capacity to formulate new concepts and ideas.

Thinking and knowing are still limitations even in the most creative sense. Our thought is based on a reality that we believe exists, when in fact it does not. Everything else is derived from a belief that we exist apart from everything else. Yet we are bigger than the molecules that make our bodies, and no more separated from each other than the sand is separate from the water atthe bottom of the ocean.

A schizophrenic has less limitations than most thinking men - not because we define them as insane, but because their thinking knows no boundaries.

[noahbody]

it has no relevance to the fact that God does exist.

Which god is that, Hephaestus?

[charter.rights]

Which god is that, Hephaestus?

In terms of this discussion, what does it matter?

We could say that God is our Higher Power, Our Great Mystery, The Experience of All. God could also be the Connecting Link, The Binding Force or The Idea. Or God could be anything or nothing. Outside of our limited ability to think and understand God is both outside of us and within.

[eyeball]

Ah yes, the disscussion...

In fact, the fight over Darwinism and its implications is very far from over. And in the next few years, social liberals will have as much or more to fear than the creationists. That's because the new fields of evolutionary biology and psychology and DNA mapping are yielding some uncomfortable truths about human nature.

I don't have time to look for it but I saw another story along vaguely similar lines in the Globe & Mail the other day - apparently researchers have stood conventional thinking on its head and found that people tend to become more liberal in their views as they get older instead of conservative as once believed.

Is this devolution or dementia? I get a warm fuzzy feeling at the thought of folks like bush cheney 2004 and MontyBurns sliding helplessly into a deep socialist dementia.

[noahbody]

Outside of our limited ability to think and understand God is both outside of us and within.

The first step in understanding God is to understand human behavior. As for evolution, it's a constant part of life. You can look back millions of years for evidence or 100 years. If you don't believe in it, it's because of denial, which takes us back to human behavior and the reason for continued belief in God(s).

[WIP]

In terms of this discussion, what does it matter?

We could say that God is our Higher Power, Our Great Mystery, The Experience of All. God could also be the Connecting Link, The Binding Force or The Idea. Or God could be anything or nothing. Outside of our limited ability to think and understand God is both outside of us and within.

To be blunt, God is just a place-holder for unsolved mysteries. How did the Universe begin? God made it. Where did life come from? God made it. Why does the universe seem to be finely tuned for forming stars, planets and organic molecules? God did that too!

There is no scientific method to understand God, aside from personal belief and conviction. So God has no place in a serious examination that tries to find real answers to where our universe came from, or whether there are many other universes outside of ours'. There are many things left to be discovered and questions to be answered. Answering them with God does not provide a useful answer to the questions. Since a God answer can't be examined further, it just closes off further inquiry. If there is an intelligent design force powered by God and filling in gaps in the evolutionary process, how would that increase knowledge and understanding of the forces that cause evolutionary change?

Does our universe have a purpose that we can understand and that gives us an important role? I don't know, but personally I'm skeptical about this big, empty universe being put here for our benefit.

[charter.rights]

To be blunt, God is just a place-holder for unsolved mysteries. How did the Universe begin? God made it. Where did life come from? God made it. Why does the universe seem to be finely tuned for forming stars, planets and organic molecules? God did that too!

There is no scientific method to understand God, aside from personal belief and conviction. So God has no place in a serious examination that tries to find real answers to where our universe came from, or whether there are many other universes outside of ours'. There are many things left to be discovered and questions to be answered. Answering them with God does not provide a useful answer to the questions. Since a God answer can't be examined further, it just closes off further inquiry. If there is an intelligent design force powered by God and filling in gaps in the evolutionary process, how would that increase knowledge and understanding of the forces that cause evolutionary change?

Does our universe have a purpose that we can understand and that gives us an important role? I don't know, but personally I'm skeptical about this big, empty universe being put here for our benefit.

If one could understand God as more than just the absence of an scientific explanation, they they might see where all things come from...and certainly things do not come from science. Science is nothing more than a collection of prejudices about the world and history has proven that scientific examination is often just as ethereal as religious dogma.

[AngusThermopyle]

Science is nothing more than a collection of prejudices about the world and history has proven that scientific examination is often just as ethereal as religious dogma.

Ridiculous statement, based on nothing but personal opinion. Probably couldn't be more wrong if they tried.

[charter.rights]

Ridiculous statement, based on nothing but personal opinion. Probably couldn't be more wrong if they tried.

I would expect that from someone who is a dogmatic supporter of science.

Science is built on the prejudice of scientists before them. It is an evolving process but no less trying to explain the "unexplained". For the most part theories are made and then there is an attempt to prove the theories. Yet the theory and the conclusion can only be as broad as the limited thinking of the scientists.

Which came first? The chicken or the explanation of how a chicken comes to be? Either one is a limited view.

Edited March 22, 2008 by charter.rights

[DogOnPorch]

Considering the earth is now about 13 billion years old +/- 120 million years , I will stick with evolution.

(new study=13 B yrs old not 4 as previously stated)

That's impossible as our star, the Sun, isn't half that old. The Universe however is thought to be over 13.73 billion years old. Our star is what's known as a Population I star which was formed out of an explosion of a near-by Population II star(s). Population II stars are those formed earlier and are poor in all 'metalic' elements. Heavy elements beyond hydrogen and helium are formed in the cores of stars and are spread through the galaxy when they go nova or supernova depending on their size and type.

Stars are easily catagorized according to luminosity and temperature according to the Hertzsprung-Russell graph.

GostHacked: Much of science starts out as a notion or a kind of belief. They are refered to as 'theories'.

Close...but it's actually known as a hypothesis. Theories in science are the result of experimentation. Here's a short YouTube vid on the termanology of science vs that of the public at large.

-----------------------------------------------------------

My scientific studies have afforded me great gratification; and I am convinced that it will not be long before the whole world acknowledges the results of my work.

---Gregor Mendel

[DogOnPorch]

I would expect that from someone who is a dogmatic supporter of science.

Science is built on the prejudice of scientists before them. It is an evolving process but no less trying to explain the "unexplained". For the most part theories are made and then there is an attempt to prove the theories. Yet the theory and the conclusion can only be as broad as the limited thinking of the scientists.

Which came first? The chicken or the explanation of how a chicken comes to be? Either one is a limited view.

False: Science IS the scientific method. It is not the sum of the scientists that use it.

---------------------------------------

We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.

---Stephen Hawking

[HisSelf]

Lastly, I am always amazed how Leftists deny the existence of God as a creator of the universe but readily imagine an All-Powerful State or Social Planner capable of organizing human affairs for the good of us all. I once started a thread on that very question.

When was the last time you got to vote for God?

[HisSelf]

Charter.rights, I get a kick out of that Buckley quote. Funny how nobody ever seems to want to face us down at election time.

[HisSelf]

You have scientists who constantly work to build evidence based on repeatable and verifiable observation and who are perfectly willing to change their theories in light of new evidence. And you have religion based on ancient unverifiable reports of things that often happened when there were no witnesses, which are unverifiable and unrepeatable, and which rely heavily on faith generated by the words of other members of a species with a somewhat naughty reputation for telling whoppers.

Tough call.

[charter.rights]

Charter.rights, I get a kick out of that Buckley quote. Funny how nobody ever seems to want to face us down at election time.

Funny isn't it that even when you think you have power, you still can't invoke your pathetic agendas. The reality is that the minorities were needed to give you guys a minority government...and still you can't offend them without losing their votes the next time around.....

[charter.rights]

You have scientists who constantly work to build evidence based on repeatable and verifiable observation and who are perfectly willing to change their theories in light of new evidence. And you have religion based on ancient unverifiable reports of things that often happened when there were no witnesses, which are unverifiable and unrepeatable, and which rely heavily on faith generated by the words of other members of a species with a somewhat naughty reputation for telling whoppers.

Tough call.

Most of what is quoted as science is nothing more than a best guess. Carbon dating for instance is nothing more than someone's idea that carbon isotopes can be estimated. Yet it has its opposition that says that carbon dating accuracy is off by 10s of thousands of years. DNA falls into that same category in that they have repeated some tests and can identify similar samples, but they have mapped so little of it that they have no idea where it comes from and what it actually all says. For the most part those experiments in many cases are only repeatable with a margin of error, and it is that error that leaves doubt as to the origins.

Religion on the other hand uses anecdotal evidence. Maybe it is not scientifically controlled or necessarily repeatable, but none the less has been formulated over thousands of years of observation. One does not need to know the basis of wind and sun to see a butterfly move swiftly going with the wind and despite their being light enough to be affected by the strongest of windstorms they can still move against it with some determination. The strength of religious evidence isn't that we can repeat an event but that the event repeats itself under consistent circumstances. When one has witnessed miracles then it is safe to believe that miracles are possible, even if they defy the laws of science and of nature.

The real task then, is to find ways that religion is like science and explain the reason. And just like a scientist must believe in his or her hypothesis, a person of faith must believe in the laws of miracles until they are proven not to have merit. The argument always seems to be that science opposes religion and vice versa. I would suggest to you that both are similar and that the scientific explanation is not valid until it also proves the religious one.

As for evolution. Who ever said that a day is what we think of it now, or man came erect out of the sea? If DNA tells our story then it is possible that our sentience existed back at the time that we were single cell animals and that the existence of Adam and Eve in the Bible could have been the birth of Atom and Evolution in science.

Edited March 22, 2008 by charter.rights

[HisSelf]

Funny isn't it that even when you think you have power, you still can't invoke your pathetic agendas. The reality is that the minorities were needed to give you guys a minority government...and still you can't offend them without losing their votes the next time around.....

You discount minorities and you call yourself charter.rights. Hmmm...

[HisSelf]

Most of what is quoted as science is nothing more than a best guess. Carbon dating for instance is nothing more than someone's idea that carbon isotopes can be estimated. Yet it has its opposition that says that carbon dating accuracy is off by 10s of thousands of years. DNA falls into that same category in that they have repeated some tests and can identify similar samples, but they have mapped so little of it that they have no idea where it comes from and what it actually all says. For the most part those experiments in many cases are only repeatable with a margin of error, and it is that error that leaves doubt as to the origins.

Religion on the other hand uses anecdotal evidence. Maybe it is not scientifically controlled or necessarily repeatable, but none the less has been formulated over thousands of years of observation. One does not need to know the basis of wind and sun to see a butterfly move swiftly going with the wind and despite their being light enough to be affected by the strongest of windstorms they can still move against it with some determination. The strength of religious evidence isn't that we can repeat an event but that the event repeats itself under consistent circumstances. When one has witnessed miracles then it is safe to believe that miracles are possible, even if they defy the laws of science and of nature.

The real task then, is to find ways that religion is like science and explain the reason. And just like a scientist must believe in his or her hypothesis, a person of faith must believe in the laws of miracles until they are proven not to have merit. The argument always seems to be that science opposes religion and vice versa. I would suggest to you that both are similar and that the scientific explanation is not valid until it also proves the religious one.

As for evolution. Who ever said that a day is what we think of it now, or man came erect out of the sea? If DNA tells our story then it is possible that our sentience existed back at the time that we were single cell animals and that the existence of Adam and Eve in the Bible could have been the birth of Atom and Evolution in science.

Thousand of years of observation? Are you joking? Observation by whom? A single guy who went up the mount and came down shaking his jowels? A guy who said his wife turned into a pillar of salt? The monkey god? Kali? The Sun God? Jim Jones?

Sentience existed when we were single celled? Well sure if you call simple chemical response sentience. Take a block of pure sodium and drop it into pure water, is that sentience?

[charter.rights]

You discount minorities and you call yourself charter.rights. Hmmm...

I don't discount minorities at all. In fact I empower minorities over and above the xenophobic stodge's that populate the Conservative Party of Canada.

[charter.rights]

Thousand of years of observation? Are you joking? Observation by whom? A single guy who went up the mount and came down shaking his jowels? A guy who said his wife turned into a pillar of salt? The monkey god? Kali? The Sun God? Jim Jones?

Sentience existed when we were single celled? Well sure if you call simple chemical response sentience. Take a block of pure sodium and drop it into pure water, is that sentience?

Perhaps before we get into a debate about the validity of religious observation, you should do some research. You obviously can't even make an opening statement on it.

As fro sentience, the medical field has begun to understand that individual cells sense and respond to injury independent of the brain. This simple response could be thought of as a form of independent cellular sentience.

A reaction doesn't mean that something is sentient. However, drop your sodium into heavy water (D2O) and explain what the reaction might be.......Before you can eliminate the the margin of error you must first find what is "pure water". The deuterium in deuterium oxide is radio isotope of hydrogen, making D2O and H2O virtually the same thing yet different....

Edited March 22, 2008 by charter.rights