God vs Science....
DTR's Self Appointed Beer Advisor
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
From: On my way to Hell... Need a lift?
That said, Andy's source is pretty accurate in "my" personal opinion.
Britt
Banned
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 1
From: Coeur d'Alene ID
Oh, I'm sure I can Google all kinds of stuff I just wanted to know where you got your data from and of course it was from a pro-evolution site. 
I also see that most of that was written in the 80's and 90's. I graduated from high school in 1987 so it must not have made the text books yet. So was science mistaken when I was younger?
I also see that most of that was written in the 80's and 90's. I graduated from high school in 1987 so it must not have made the text books yet. So was science mistaken when I was younger?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
From: Northern Utah
Now that is one of the nice things about science. What you were taught as a kid may not be relevant now. Science is ever changing (evolving you might say). As new discoveries are made they are compared with the accepted thoughts of that time and adjusted accordingly.
If science is based on facts then it should never change.
DTR's Self Appointed Beer Advisor
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
From: On my way to Hell... Need a lift?
Religion is not as accepting of change. That is not to say that it doesn’t. Galileo is a good example of that. But most religions are firm held belief structures. If that is what the Bible, Koran, or whatever other book out there says then that is the be all, end all, and it cannot be changed. That is one of the reasons that I subscribe to more of a scientific belief. As more information is gathered you get a better understanding of the world around you.
Britt
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
From: Northern Utah
I graduated in 77 and was told in school at that time that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Maybe the info just hasn't made it to Utah. As for Google I was looking for details to show you the age of the earth and how it is figured out. It was the first hit when I put in "age of earth" in the search function. Just telling you I learned it is school would not have added much validity.
I remember going to the planetarium as a kid and they were talking about the solar system in millions of years. Growing up as a Christian, in a Christian school, I was told that the earth's age was in the 5000-7000 year range. Incorrect or not, Evolution does not work if it is limited to that time frame.
If you Google the age of the earth there are lots of sites that dispute that the earth is billions of years old. Google is our friend.
DTR's Toad Wrangler
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
From: N 48 25.707 W123 21.887
Well there will be sites that dispute the age of the earth. Different agendas. But a site or body with no agenda at hand is a good place to get info. How can radio carbon dating be disputed?
DTR's Toad Wrangler
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
From: N 48 25.707 W123 21.887
It could. But the reality is that we have no proof of evolution at all. We've never found a "missing link", and despite all attempts to connects organisms to each other through common anatomy, vestigial organs or what have you.
Through all of Darwin's experimentation, he was not able to produce speciation, or the emergence of a new species. In his experiments in breeding pigeons, he never made a new species of pidgeon, just ones that were different in color, size, a features-- just like we have dogs in all kinds of different breeds, but they are still dogs.
No one in all of science has witnesses the emergence of a new species. Nor has anyone ever witnessed a beneficial mutation. Even then, mutations do not produce speciation. We've all seen the Internet pictures of 5-legged cows and two-headed pigs and such. Are these new species? No. Are these mutations beneficial? Hardly.
The sheer statistical odds alone make evolution one of the most difficult things to believe as actually possible, never mind real. We're talking exponents of exponents of exponents of statistical probablilities arguing against the mere possibility of it, never mind the actuality.
The odds against a mutation are high. Now add in the odds of it being a beneficial mutation. Now add in the odds of that mutuation being passed down to the next generation. I'd sooner bet on winning the lotto, being struck by lightning and eaten by a shark-- at the same time-- than bet this is a possibility.
The significance of Darwin is that he noted similarity between different animals. But he drew from that conclusions which simply cannot be supported by evidence or logic.
Nature has a habit of throwing a monkey wrench into things just when we think we have it figured out. I'm thinking of the 1938 catch of a fish long thought to be extinct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelecanth
The appeal of evolution is not to the mind, because it lacks both logic and evidence. No, the appeal of evolution is to the heart of man, who in his fallen nature seeks ways to justify himself apart from God the creator. So strong is this impulse that we would sooner claim monocellular lineage than being created beings. (Do i get bonus points for the first DTR usage of "monocellular"?)
I'll close this little novel by pointing out that adaptation is not speciation, and thus not evolution. If I put on a coat to adapt to the cold weather, I'm still the same human being I've always been-- just warmer.
Likewise, when furry animals shed their winter coats, they are still dogs or cats or whatever critter you're thinking of.
Finally, consider that the mapping of the human genome has served only to point out the impossibility of evolution. When DNA is unravelled, and we begin to look at specific genes, we only see a finite number of chemical possibilities of that genetic arrangement. You can only arrange nucleotide AUCG codons so many different ways.
Yet we see that human beings have nearly infinite variation within their extremes. How then can we account for this? that would be like saying you can take four single digit numbers and using mathematical operations arrive at every possible number using just the first four. It's simply baffling.
The human body is the most complex mechanism known to man, and there is STILL more about it that we DON'T know than what we do.
The idea that this machine is produced by random sequences of chance atomic and chemical encounters is beyond the stretch of imagination, imo.
justin
Through all of Darwin's experimentation, he was not able to produce speciation, or the emergence of a new species. In his experiments in breeding pigeons, he never made a new species of pidgeon, just ones that were different in color, size, a features-- just like we have dogs in all kinds of different breeds, but they are still dogs.
No one in all of science has witnesses the emergence of a new species. Nor has anyone ever witnessed a beneficial mutation. Even then, mutations do not produce speciation. We've all seen the Internet pictures of 5-legged cows and two-headed pigs and such. Are these new species? No. Are these mutations beneficial? Hardly.
The sheer statistical odds alone make evolution one of the most difficult things to believe as actually possible, never mind real. We're talking exponents of exponents of exponents of statistical probablilities arguing against the mere possibility of it, never mind the actuality.
The odds against a mutation are high. Now add in the odds of it being a beneficial mutation. Now add in the odds of that mutuation being passed down to the next generation. I'd sooner bet on winning the lotto, being struck by lightning and eaten by a shark-- at the same time-- than bet this is a possibility.
The significance of Darwin is that he noted similarity between different animals. But he drew from that conclusions which simply cannot be supported by evidence or logic.
Nature has a habit of throwing a monkey wrench into things just when we think we have it figured out. I'm thinking of the 1938 catch of a fish long thought to be extinct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelecanth
The appeal of evolution is not to the mind, because it lacks both logic and evidence. No, the appeal of evolution is to the heart of man, who in his fallen nature seeks ways to justify himself apart from God the creator. So strong is this impulse that we would sooner claim monocellular lineage than being created beings. (Do i get bonus points for the first DTR usage of "monocellular"?)
I'll close this little novel by pointing out that adaptation is not speciation, and thus not evolution. If I put on a coat to adapt to the cold weather, I'm still the same human being I've always been-- just warmer.
Likewise, when furry animals shed their winter coats, they are still dogs or cats or whatever critter you're thinking of.
Finally, consider that the mapping of the human genome has served only to point out the impossibility of evolution. When DNA is unravelled, and we begin to look at specific genes, we only see a finite number of chemical possibilities of that genetic arrangement. You can only arrange nucleotide AUCG codons so many different ways.
Yet we see that human beings have nearly infinite variation within their extremes. How then can we account for this? that would be like saying you can take four single digit numbers and using mathematical operations arrive at every possible number using just the first four. It's simply baffling.
The human body is the most complex mechanism known to man, and there is STILL more about it that we DON'T know than what we do.
The idea that this machine is produced by random sequences of chance atomic and chemical encounters is beyond the stretch of imagination, imo.
justin
The Coelacanth is an interesting story, but the info provided does say that it has changed from the fossils that have been found.
DTR's 'Wrench thrower...' And he aims for the gusto...
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 3
From: Smith Valley, NV (sometimes Redwood City, CA)
I just wish we could all find some common ground somewhere that could lead to more effective study and take advantage of curiosity without having to block what might not fit our beliefs. I know it's hard to accept new and significant ideas. It's also hard to understand the science that leads to conclusions. But somehow, sooner or later, scientific conclusions have to be accepted or we would still be living in caves. Science must be challenged in it's findings, but can't it be challenged in a better way than saying "I don't believe it because that's not what they told us in school when I was kid" or "That's not what the Bible says and I trust God". Those argument do nothing but polarize people. It's interesting how those that are not educated on a subject, always seem to have the ability to judge those that are.
Carbon dating is a good example. How many that have studied it and understand it, would throw it out as bunk because it doesn't fit creation? Is it only the ones that don't understand it that can so easily throw it out?
John
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 6
From: Cummins Technical Center, IN
HOHN - very well written and articulate. Yes you can have an extra 10 posts added to you post count for the use of 'monocellular". Like I said, I feel it very well written but and there always seems to be a but in these discussions.
The missing link in most of the faithfuls disregard of evolution is time. Since they seem to think that the earth is more or less 6000 years old. There is little chance for enough generations to have passed to form a branch. Since the earth is around 4 billion years old. There is enough time there for a lot of chance events to have occurred.
The missing link in most of the faithfuls disregard of evolution is time. Since they seem to think that the earth is more or less 6000 years old. There is little chance for enough generations to have passed to form a branch. Since the earth is around 4 billion years old. There is enough time there for a lot of chance events to have occurred.
That would be like saying that winning the Lotto is inevitable-- IF you play enough times. How many times is "enough"? Given current Lotto odds estimates, that's about 1:76M. That's pretty remote to most of us, but that's very good odds in the cosmic realm. Think about it this way: if every person alive on the planet played the Lotto at the same time, we'd have approximately 78 Lotto winners worldwide-- all at once. Yes, 78 people-- each with the winning numbers.
Unfortunately, the odds for evolution aren't nearly as favorable. I've read they are worse by about 90 orders of magnitude-- which is staggering. That's not 90 times worse; that's one followed by 90 zeros!
The world isn't that old. By ANYONE's estimation.
I'll have to elaborate on this later.
JH
DTR's Toad Wrangler
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
From: N 48 25.707 W123 21.887
So when you have inbreeding the chances are very high that there will be defects. In fact it is certain. So if we go back to the great flood with (correct me if I am wrong) 5 people left in the world. A mother, father, and 3 sons. I will pass on that connection. I would feel better if they threw an ape in there for new blood.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
From: Northern Utah
For what it's worth, I believe in science, but I think some of you have a mis-conception of what science is. Science has never proven that Creation or Evolution ever happened.
I believe in gravity, velocity, and Newton's laws. Why? Because they have been proven by science. Remember, evolution is a theory not a fact. There are scientists on both sides doing research. Out of that research will come good things.
One thing I have not done a lot of research on is Noah and the Ark. Sure, I know the story, but there is one question in my mind. I don't think the Ark could not have carried all of the different animals that are in the world today. Did it carry the early species of all of the animals we have today? For instance, goats are related to deer, chickens are related to pigeons, ferrets are related to cats. Did they come from the species that God created or did God create all the different animals we have today on day one?
I believe in gravity, velocity, and Newton's laws. Why? Because they have been proven by science. Remember, evolution is a theory not a fact. There are scientists on both sides doing research. Out of that research will come good things.
One thing I have not done a lot of research on is Noah and the Ark. Sure, I know the story, but there is one question in my mind. I don't think the Ark could not have carried all of the different animals that are in the world today. Did it carry the early species of all of the animals we have today? For instance, goats are related to deer, chickens are related to pigeons, ferrets are related to cats. Did they come from the species that God created or did God create all the different animals we have today on day one?
Last edited by KBennett; Nov 29, 2007 at 01:27 PM. Reason: used the term evolve incorrectly
DTR's Self Appointed Beer Advisor
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
From: On my way to Hell... Need a lift?
Britt
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 2
From: Skiatook OK currently Pecos TX
Agreed that is a true statement we all choose for our self heaven..... hell.....which is more probable?
DTR's Self Appointed Beer Advisor
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
From: On my way to Hell... Need a lift?