Page 29 of 34 FirstFirst ... 192425262728293031323334 LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 675
  1. #561  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    So, in an atheist's viewpoint time is 'god'? It seems that most explanations boil down to "after billions of years this impossible thing is possible".
    No, but after a long time the improbable happens anyway.

    If your chance of winning the lottery is 1 in a million, you have a fair chance if you play a million times. In nature there are trillions of individuums for billions of years. The problem is that we do not have a feeling for millions and billions of years, and small changes accumulating over such long periods of time.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #562  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    How can something more complex occur from an "error"? Most "errors" in human DNA have a detrimental effect on the person with them.
    Most, but not all, as mentioned earlier.

    Think of post-it notes. Someone at 3M tried to invent a new strong glue. One trial led to a very weak glue - an "error" that made 3M rich.
    P.S. - Please imagine my statements coming across inquisitive, not belligerent or angry. I really want to know these things.
    You don't come across as belligerent, you come across as somebody who says evolution never happended and earth is only a few thousand years old, without knowing the slightest thing about evolution (except maybe for biased misrepresentations by creationists).

    What would you say if called the bible crap without knowing anything about Genesis or what it says about Jesus?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #563  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    So, in an atheist's viewpoint time is 'god'? It seems that most explanations boil down to "after billions of years this impossible thing is possible".
    No. However, many atheists argue that after billions of years, the emergence of life and intelligence are not only possible but likely. Consider this timeline:
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.../art0274.html?
  4. #564  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    How can something more complex occur from an "error"? Most "errors" in human DNA have a detrimental effect on the person with them.
    Most mutations that have an obvious phenotypic effect are detrimental - not all. (Actually, many mutations and other types of changes in the genome may have no effect whatsoever). A few have an immediate positive effect, and some are basically, for all intents and purposes, neutral.

    Chris
  5. #565  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    But these are just mutations dealing with antibodies, are they not? Are these the kind of mutations that can cause a species to change dramatically as proposed by evolutionists?
    Generally no mutation with a positive effect would cause a dramatic change in species in one generation. Remember, we are talking about gradual change over time. Thus, a wing didn't evolve overnight, nor did a flagella.

    Chris
  6. #566  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    So, in an atheist's viewpoint time is 'god'? It seems that most explanations boil down to "after billions of years this impossible thing is possible".
    More accurate would be the statement that given enough time, even the most improbably things become possible and even likely.

    The truly impossible will never become possible.

    Chris
  7. #567  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    More accurate would be the statement that given enough time, even the most improbably things become possible and even likely.

    Chris
    This principle is useful to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

    Surur
  8. #568  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    ...given enough time improbable things become likely to happen....
    This is the type of statement that seems (in my opinion of course) to line up better with the data.
  9. #569  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    This is the type of statement that seems (in my opinion of course) to line up better with the data.
    Glad you acknowledge that, specially since there is no credible data which lines up with Genesis taken literally.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10.    #570  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Glad you acknowledge that, specially since there is no credible data which lines up with Genesis taken literally.
    So, there were no pharaohs in Egypt?
  11.    #571  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    No. However, many atheists argue that after billions of years, the emergence of life and intelligence are not only possible but likely. Consider this timeline:
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.../art0274.html?
    It would be intresting to see what this timeline looked like 15 or 20 years ago. Back then people thought that by the year 2000 we'd have flying cars. I guess we just didn't have enough time for that improbability to come to pass.
  12.    #572  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    As we discussed earlier in the thread, these small mutations can add up, especially when populations are separated.

    Re the mutations only being tiny and insignificant antibody changes, how do you think all the variety of dogs we have were created, if not from random mutations which were artificially selected.

    Using that concrete example, do you accept random mutations can lead to big changed in a creature, such as the difference between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua?

    Remember, until genetic engineering came along, all the vast majority (some were adopted from the wild) of the domesticated species we have adopted have their variations created from random mutations which the farmer found beneficial.

    Surur

    If changes occur slowly and over vast amounts of time, wouldn't we see many more species in the fossil records than we have found?

    I wonder how you would respond to this quote:

    Niles Eldredge (b. 1943) Chief Curator at The American Museum Of Natural History

    Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. The Myths of Human Evolution (1982) p.45-46
  13. #573  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    If changes occur slowly and over vast amounts of time, wouldn't we see many more species in the fossil records than we have found?
    No. Fossils are rarely conserved and even more rarely discovered.

    I wonder how you would respond to this quote
    By saying that the person you quoted is totally convinced of evolution, actively works on educating the public about the baselessness of creationism and only discusses minor modifications of the theory (punctuated equilibrium)
    .
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #574  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Glad you acknowledge that, specially since there is no credible data which lines up with Genesis taken literally.
    I know that we have covered this exact topic 2 years ago in 2005 and recognized that my perception was plausible....but I wanted to share my point of view since many in this thread were not members then or not active OT participants.

    WARNING.....This will be long, feel free to skip it..............


    This lays out my general thoughts that are helpful knowing before the next post......HobbesIsReal Wrote ( http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=222 ):

    I wanted to post my view (and I know this will be long so please feel free to skip it if it does not interest you). I am a Christian (and not a Catholic). I do believe in science. I am not one to push my views on someone else to accept. I have several friends and close co-workers who are either atheists, who are from different faiths (from other Christian sects to Muslims) and/or have jobs that are driven deep within science, i.e. biology professor, medical research, etc... We have had many discussions on various science & religion topics and often times how the two meet and co-exist.

    I do not pretend that my views represent anyone else in the Christian community and have no intention of persuading anyone to my way of thinking. I am simply sharing my point of view from a single person. If nothing else, it might prove useful for those who do not believe a divine creator to get a glimpse of my mind that does believe in Him AND in the world of science. I have not problem if you don’t agree, but maybe it might help you to be able to relate why I believe the way I do.......again even if you don’t agree with it. Truthfully I am not likely to be drug into a long debate about every detail. This is simply my opinion, my personal point of view, a single frame of reference on a complex topic with volumes written and published on all sides. Take it or leave it for what it is worth.

    I started writing my point of view when I remembered a box I had in college it has a lot of references from text books, published works, magazine articles, etc....a lot them are photo copied without references but explained how I think better that I was able to explain it. So below, I will reference when possible. It will be a mix of a lot of my own personal words and those of others mixed in.

    First of all I believe that Science and religion can and do co-exist. Discrepancies are not to demean one or the other, but can actually give us guidance in new ways to look and discover the truth of the reality. There are several examples of highly acclaimed scientists that have both a firm Christian belief that works and fits in well with their successful careers, whether they are chemist, biologists, geologists, etc.....

    Conceptions of scientific knowledge have changed many times since Greek antiquity. For example, modern understanding of the nature of the cosmos has changed radically from Aristotle in early Greece; to Galileo, Descartes, and Newton in the seventeenth century; to Lyell and Darwin in the nineteenth century; and in the twentieth century to Einstein, Hubble, and Hawking. Science itself continues in a state of constant flux, so that the total collection of scientific ideas at any point in time could never be considered final truth. Consequently, scientific theories are forever tentative and are not likely to be fully compatible with revealed religion at any particular time.

    The scientific spirit is a spirit of inquiry, a spirit of teaching out for truth. In the final analysis, this spirit is the essence of religion. The Savior said, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” (Matthew 7:7.) The scientist has, in effect, reaffirmed this great fundamental laid down by the Master, and in doing so has given a new impetus to religion.

    I also believe that so many questions simply have not been answered by God. I believe he has told us many truths in a way that could be related to the understanding of the man or people the knowledge was originally intended for, but often times without the details of those truths (i.e. that he created the world, but did not tell us how, by what means, miraculous or methods of nature). There was a time when many people thought that the pure understanding of the scriptures required the acceptance of a flat earth. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth and of the stars in the firmament, conjuring up the image of lights on the inside of a giant dome covering the earth. In the time of Columbus, many people thought a flat earth was a religious necessity. When it turned out to be round, Christ’s teachings were found to be just as consistent with the new view as with the old.

    I posted this earlier, but still think it is a perfect example of how I believe as well. I had a biology teacher in college say something pretty interesting. He had a strong faith in God and in creation, and a very strong and solid grounding in science. He once said something like this:
    "By law I have to teach the theories of Darwin. By faith I believe without a doubt there was a creation by God. I have no doubt that aspects of Darwin's theory are true, i.e. adapting to one's environment for survival. But there are several huge wholes in the theory and many still unanswered questions with it. All I can say is that when I die I cannot wait to see how it all fits together!"

    Can the evolution of species (or their apparent gradual development over millions of years) jive with the existence of a supreme Creator?

    Obviously I do believe that the there is a Divine guidance in the development of our world. I also believe that God does often use the laws of nature to achieve his goals. So, yes I believe that God created the earth, and I also believe that it is virtually undeniable that many principles of evolution and natural selection played an important role in that creation, though I may disagree on some small and vital points of the theory. Just how much is truth and how much is still developing scientific knowledge is just as an important of a question in my answer.

    The cumulative thickness of rocks laid down as sediment is about four hundred fifty thousand feet [128 000 m] or about 80 miles [130 km]. The rate of deposition varies enormously with the time and the place, but a not unreasonable average rate is one foot [30 cm] every 250 years. This leads to a very rough estimate of 112 million years for the time required to deposit all the known sediments.

    The scriptures record God's dealing with his children back to a "beginning" some six thousand years ago, but dismiss the long prologue in a few short paragraphs. The scriptures tell us of six creative periods followed by a period of rest. During these periods the earth was organized and took essentially its present form. In the King James Version of the Bible, the phrase "creative periods" is rendered as "days." The use of this term has led to at least three interpretations. In the first, the "days" are construed to mean the usual day of twenty-four hours. In the second, the days of creation are interpreted as thousand-year periods following such statements as occur in 2 Peter 3:8: "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The third interpretation accepts "creative periods" as times of unspecified length and looks to a study of the earth itself to give added meaning to the exceedingly brief scriptural accounts.

    In earlier times some variation of the first two interpretations was all but universally held by the Christian world. I personally hold the third view. Meaning, there distinct periods of the earths development without a specified period of time for each time frame of development.

    The sequence in the occurrence of fossils repeats itself in sedimentary rocks throughout the world. Whether, they were in Australia, Africa, the Americas, or elsewhere, the various forms of life on earth appeared and disappeared at the same time. To the faithful student of the scriptures, this precision reflects the ordered processes of God, the divine Creator. The sequence of the creation of life on earth as recorded in Genesis--first plants (Gen. 1:11-12), then animals (Gen. 1:20-23)--is duplicated in the fossil record: plant fossils precede the appearance of animal fossils.

    This agreement shouldn't be surprising because the God who created this earth is the same God who inspired the prophets. A conflict arises only when we assume that God has revealed all he did do or knew on the subject or forget that scientific theories change as new discoveries are made. We also need to remember both the purposes for which the scriptures were given and the objectives of the scientific method.

    Also remember, the scriptures testify of Jesus Christ and how we may receive the blessings of salvation and exaltation through his atonement. They reveal why (not necessarily how) the earth was created, and what laws and principles a person must follow to obtain eternal life. The goal of science, on the other hand, is to learn how (not why) the world was made and to understand the laws and principles governing the physical world. . . .

    The relationship between scripture and what is currently understood in science is ever changing. Science continually learns more about the history of life on earth, and we have every reason to believe that much more will be learned as research continues.

    The struggle to correlate a passage in scripture with a specific portion of scientific research has been a challenge for centuries. But experience has shown that what a person understands today will be modified by tomorrow's discoveries. Patience and humility on all sides may eventually resolve a lot of these questions.

    The Lord made the world in some wonderful way that I can at best only dimly comprehend. It seems to me sacrilegious to presume that I can really understand him and know just how he did it. He can only tell me in figurative speech that I dimly understand, but that I expect to more completely comprehend in the eternities to come. He created the world, and my faith does not hinge on the detailed procedures he used.

    Finally, perhaps a believer never does more disservice to religion than to support the truth with bad arguments, as obviously hopefully I have not done today. The listener spots the obvious errors, becomes impatient, often "throws out the baby with the bath," and turns away, even from true religion. I do not pretend to have the answer to all the questions. If I take everything I know from the scriptures and my religion, and everything I know from science, and reconcile them, I still have as many unanswered questions as I have ones with answers. No intellectual approach nails down everything. In this life, there will always be unanswered questions. In fact, often times in religion, each answer seems to raise more questions. That's the way it is in science, too, and I don't apostatize from science for that reason either. Actually, that's what makes science, and religion, fun. Faith is feeling good about myself, feeling good about God, and muddling along after truth as best I can.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/23/2007 at 01:27 PM.
  15. #575  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I guess I still would not tell him that plants came first and then the sun and the moon, given I wanted to tell how earth started and how life on earth developed.

    I don't think the Genesis works as an account about the development of earth and life on earth. I guess also most Christians would agree that the sun was already shining for quite a while when the first plants started growing.
    Okay, I will bite........He didn't say it that way. Let me explain how it is written with comments of my personal point of view.

    Again, you know how I view things. That for the most part, God does use natural means to accomplish his goals. That each day is an unknown time frame. I do not see any major issues with the account of genius given my points above (with the intent in mind and remembering who and when it was given) with the theory of evolution. Again this is only one man's, mine, opinions and insights:

    Quote Originally Posted by Genius The First Book Of Moses KJV
    1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    What gives light? The sun is created at this time.

    6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    How would a cosmic cloud look to a 1500 BC audience? The earth takes it's shape.

    9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

    11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    Now we have life beginning to take a hold on the earth. It is also interesting that he said let the waters be gathered together in one place, given the hint that there was in the beginning only one land mass, which we know to be true.

    14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

    15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

    16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

    18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    This where a lot of confusion comes in for a lot of people. I find it very interesting that he mentions that the two sources of light, the Sun and The Moon are now all of a sudden working together, and that they are marking the seasons now....and that these events hint of being related within the same time period of this day. Have you ever heard of the theories of how we got our moon? Or how the earth become tilted on it's axis to give us our seasons? There are several in the scientific world.

    One is that the earth captured the moon as it flew by. When this happened, the earth was adjusted on it's axis and seasons either changed or were created....greatly changing the development of life.

    Another is that another smaller planet, collided with the earth and the debris from that massive event formed rings around the earth and the eventually formed our moon. Again changing or creating seasons from the impact and the growing gravity of the moon.

    On a side note is the theory of what would have happened if the earth was not tilted on it's axis and did not have a moon. It is amazing how many life forms are totally dependent on the tides and the seasons that never would have survived or even developed without them.

    The point is something happened in our history to tilt the earth and give us our moon. There are probably half a million different theories. But almost all agree that something did happen to give us our moon and tilt the earth. And that both of these factors have a HUGE impact on the development of life on our planet to make the world we know today.

    This is again when I feel that God can control the environment to further the plan of the creation of the earth to the next step.

    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

    23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    Now animals are coming about. It is interesting that it does stress life in the sea before the land.

    24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    More complex life develops. Now the stage is set for man to arrive.


    Again given what we have and what we don't have on BOTH sides of the issue, I can see that we are still on our way to learning how they all work together.

    Now did Moses see every step in the evolution? I doubt it, it was not relevant to why he was being shown it and I think God didn't want to blow Moses' mind with too much. Are there gaps in this account? Sure. For the same reasons. But I also don't disregard the Theory of Evolution because it doesn't explain how everything happened and that it has gaps in it too.

    But, given the relative young field of evolution studies, God trying to explain such a complex process to, in essence, a scientific mind of a child that lived in 1500 BC in a totally different culture, understanding that we do not have the original scripts to verify exact wording after several translations had already taken place, could this possibly represent a 1500 BC representation of the evolutionary theory? Is there even the most remote possibility that it could have happened this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    HobbesIsReal.....interpretation has the advantage that it fits to reality as everybody actually studying these things finds it: Big Bang, matter, suns, planets, moon, early stages of life, eventually bacteria, animals, plants...
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=240
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/23/2007 at 01:32 PM.
  16. #576  
    I wonder if anyone here has seen Professor Keith Miller's home page. He is a Christian and a geologist at Kansas State University. There is a plethora of material on his page which I believe is germaine to this thread.
  17. #577  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    If changes occur slowly and over vast amounts of time, wouldn't we see many more species in the fossil records than we have found?

    I wonder how you would respond to this quote:

    Niles Eldredge (b. 1943) Chief Curator at The American Museum Of Natural History

    Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. The Myths of Human Evolution (1982) p.45-46
    Didn't we have this discussion about horses and whales already? My real question is: Do you accept random mutations can lead to big changed in a creature, such as the difference between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua?

    A clear yes or no please, with reasons.

    Surur
  18. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #578  
    Isn't it always curious that the Bible-apologists have to conjure up statements of faith [or proposals of fantasy] regarding their belief system? Without their creatively unfounded 'explanations', what is left?
  19. #579  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Okay, I will bite........He didn't say it that way. Let me explain how it is written with comments of my personal point of view.
    Nice try Hobbes, but the endevour fails in many places: there were no trees before animals, and certainly not plants before the sun. It is obvious for everybody that Genesis 1:16 means sun and moon. You refuse to accept what would be obvious to you, too, under other circumstances, just because you WANT it to fit.

    Some things in Genesis 1 indeed fit more or less to how it really happened according to all available data, but some are just plain wrong, there is no way around it.
    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, ... -

    Now animals are coming about. It is interesting that it does stress life in the sea before the land.
    Wrong again. Whales are obviously descendants of mammals living on land. Moses must have skipped biology class...

    Anyway, what you are trying to say seems that God told Moses more or less how it had happened, and Moses got some of it right, and some of it wrong. Fair enough, impossible to disprove, in contrast to the literal interpretation of Genesis.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #580  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Assuming this timeline is a reasonable approximation, what is a good source for the statistical probability analysis that demonstrates that such time-frames are sufficient for the occurence of the required series of random mutations?

Posting Permissions