I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[funkcanna 0]

Quote

[

So, there we have it...It is not worth discussing anything. period

Its good you dropped by this discussion thread not to discuss it

To know requires proof
To believe requires evidence
To have faith requires neither.
If you stick with that, we'll never be confused again

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Steve (and all other christians sharing his understanding of Genisus) can I just ask one question..

Why arent you a creationist? What was it about Genisus that says to you "wait there! This didnt happen it must be just a message"?

EDITED TO ADD: Define "creationist" I believe God is the creator of the universe, however I don't agree with a young earth theory or a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why don't I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

To me it is quite simple. I don't believe everything in the Bible was meant to be taken as literal. The writers of the books & letters that made the bible used metaphors, allegories, stories, prose and other parts of literture.

It begins with what you believe is the purpose of the bible. I believe it is to point us to JC. To do that Genesis doesn't have to be understood literally any more than Revelation does.

steveOrino

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Its good you dropped by this discussion thread not to discuss it

Context...Context. It is very crucial to understanding.

In reply to Phil and Jakee

In light of your recent posts, I feel inclined to continue our discussion, but I need to get some editing done. I feel it would be beneficial if we all educated ourselves on eachothers beliefs and/or facts.

Best Regards,

Have a great day!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[maadmax 0]

Quote

What I wonder most about is, how christians explain that according to the bible the earth is just about 7000 years old. I mean we have carbon dating (yes I know the hat example but nobody can say it is always wrong) we can see stars from the earth which are billions of light years away (meaning the light was already on the way a billion years ago and reaches us now) and a lot of other things. How can you still belive in the bible when there are so many things which are just obviously wrong?

_____________________________________

Don't let a few confused Christians distract you from the true issue which is Spiritual Self Awareness and a relationship with God. We will have mistaken religious people with us always, they are not the issue. Genesis did get some amazing things right but there are some confusing passages as well.

• Quote

[nigel99 471]

Bill

Do you not agree that evolution is a theory and not a law of physics? If so should we not be looking to pick holes in the theory - look for evidence that supports/contradicts it?

It amazes me the zealousness that evolution is defended with and just how quickly any God or evolution thread degenerates into an evolution thread with 100's of posts.

My biggest problems in accepting evolution as fact/law is that it contradicts a number of scientific laws as opposed to theories (2nd law of thermodynamics is probably the biggest - where entropy and not order happen over time). Another aspect is "inbreeding" which is a central construct of evolution and yet we know that it causes terrible problems.

We don't fully know how gravity and electromagnetics work. Take the speed of light - is it really a constant?

Personally I do not think that Genesis 6 days is factual, however neither do I believe there is any more evidence that can reliably be called on to fully support evolution - as the origins of life & diversity as we see it today.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[maadmax 0]

No a= without , theism =belief in god. Atheism = without belief in god. Atheists individually may have beliefs, but atheism is not a belief system. One cannot prove something does not exist. One cant prove god does not exist, but one cant prove invisble unicorns do not exist. That doesnt mean their existene or non existence should be teated as equal propositions. As far as betting on god goes , I dont think throwing a way a large proprtion of my life on something with no evidence is a wise bet. Imagine there is a god and he punishes those that believe in the wrong god , rewards those that believe in him and is neutral on those that dont believe at all. In that scenario its wise to not believe in any god becuase the chances of you picking the correct god out of the myriad of gods that people believe in is small. of ocurse one can dream up a scenario where one imagines a high pay off and a high punishment for getting the bet wrong and so it might seem like the bet is wise. But if the scenario is not grounded in reality its a waste of time.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Do you not agree that evolution is a theory and not a law of physics?

No, it's biology. See my previous post for the lowdown on fact/ theory.

Quote

If so should we not be looking to pick holes in the theory - look for evidence that supports/contradicts it?

YES! This is how science works! There are thousands upon thousands of researchers in universities across the world who work on research into various areas of evolutionary theory. Our knowledge of evolution is not complete, and constantly hypotheses into various evolutionary mechnisms are being either upheld or discarded based on what the evidence tells us. Overall however, the literal mountain of evidence in support of evolution as a whole simply keeps on growing.

Quote

My biggest problems in accepting evolution as fact/law is that it contradicts a number of scientific laws as opposed to theories (2nd law of thermodynamics is probably the biggest - where entropy and not order happen over time).

Evolution does not contradict the second law of thermo. This is, to be blunt, a creationist lie.

Quote

Another aspect is "inbreeding" which is a central construct of evolution and yet we know that it causes terrible problems.

Explain?

Quote

We don't fully know how gravity and electromagnetics work.

No, we don't. But no one would be stupid enough to preach that gravity or EM did not exist because 'they are only theories'.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

of ocurse one can dream up a scenario where one imagines a high pay off and a high punishment for getting the bet wrong and so it might seem like the bet is wise. But if the scenario is not grounded in reality its a waste of time.

Good. I'm glad we agree that Pascale's wager is nothing more than a childish waste of time.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DropDgorgeous 0]

I do not know in which journal the following discoveries were documented, and I was unable to take in all the scientific evidence that was used to substanciate it, but it has basically been proven that humans did not evolve from anything (especially apes). It has to do with how our genetic material is transferred from one generation to the next. Basically, humans are the most intricate and complicated forms of life on earth. Less evolved forms of life could've evolved from humans but not the other way around. I'll try to get hold of the report and make sure what the precise mechanisms are.

[Hausse 0]

Quote

At this point, I'm more interested in living life than figuring out how or why it came about. It's not my mandate and I don't really care. God obviously doesn't think it to be important either. He wrote exactly what we needed to know in order to have a relationship with him and I'm content with the Bible. It has everything we need to know about how we should live life and is accurate in it's claims about human nature and how to deal with it. There are personal evidences once one believes and applies the bible. It is also accurate in it's historical, geological, and sociological prophecies that can be verified. It is also scientifically accurate in several areas including The 1st and 2nd Law of Thermo Dynamics, hydrology, Astronomy, Isostasy, Meterology (wind circulation & air pressure), Physiology (The Circulatory System & Psychosomatic Illness) and geodesy (The Bible tells us that the earth spins on it's axis. This was written around 600 BC)

As far as I know (yes I read the bibel) it wasn't exactly god who wrote the bible but more some friends of jesus who decided to write something down a few years later...

That's another point I don't understand. How can you belive in something written by a couple humans and follow it straight without even thinking...

[Remster 30]

Quote

I do not know in which journal the following discoveries were documented, and I was unable to take in all the scientific evidence that was used to substanciate it, but it has basically been proven that humans did not evolve from anything (especially apes). It has to do with how our genetic material is transferred from one generation to the next. Basically, humans are the most intricate and complicated forms of life on earth. Less evolved forms of life could've evolved from humans but not the other way around. I'll try to get hold of the report and make sure what the precise mechanisms are.

Make sure your referece is peer reviewed. I dont think any webpage from www.id.com would prove anything.

Remster

[nigel99 471]

Jakee - How do you say that evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Quote

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world.

- taken from Wikipedia

Quote

When a system's energy is defined as the sum of its "useful" energy, (e.g. that used to push a piston), and its "useless energy", i.e. that energy which cannot be used for external work, then entropy may be (most concretely) visualized as the "scrap" or "useless" energy whose energetic prevalence over the total energy of a system is directly proportional to the absolute temperature of the considered system. (Note the product "TS" in the Gibbs free energy or Helmholtz free energy relations).

- wiki explanation of entropy...

Therefore entropy = chaos/unstructured behaviour and a tendency towards decay and the most stable state.

A living form is not a "stable" entity - it is a highly complex and unstable organism. Evolution says that organisms increase their order, structure and complexity. In short you are easier to kill than a cockroach you are more complex than a cockroach and yet evolution says that you are a natural progression from a cockroach.

Nothing that I have said here is based in creationism/the bible just good old science and statistical theory.

without referring to religion you are welcome to explain why evolution does not contradict chaos/entropy.

In-breeding - thorough breds/pedigrees often have problems with health more than "mongrels". Many of our laws relating to incest/marring your brothers and sisters are because the narrow gene pool causes problems. to be honest I don't know much about this at a scientific level - I am much more at home in maths and physics due to my job.

Regarding EM/gravity we are constantly looking for refinements on EM theory. And as far as I know nobody really understands gravity and its causes. People research and look for the mathematical basis. Personally I see very little "mathematical" and scientific thought put into evolution - the ultimate objective of science (in my opinion) is to resolve everything to a mathematical form. Evolution is very far from this and so rather than being zealously followed I believe there should be more open "thought". I see parrallels in todays society attitude towards evolution as 200 years ago the "ether". I am not advocating that religion is right - just that evolution is to unfounded in science to be treated with the level of reveree that it is. Your point about people researching into evolution is true - but how many just like the religous zealots are thinking "inside the box". I see alot of information on people looking at Evolution through archialogical digs - on this basis I agree there are thousands of people. What I don't see is alot of analytical debate/questioning as to whether the theory itself is right. I believe that Darwin provided an initial theory that was accepted because science was growing rapidly at the time (Michael Faraday etc are from that error). As far as I know Darwin is the first "departure" from religous views and the first departure is not normally the right solution.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I do not know in which journal the following discoveries were documented, and I was unable to take in all the scientific evidence that was used to substanciate it, but it has basically been proven that humans did not evolve from anything (especially apes). It has to do with how our genetic material is transferred from one generation to the next. Basically, humans are the most intricate and complicated forms of life on earth. Less evolved forms of life could've evolved from humans but not the other way around. I'll try to get hold of the report and make sure what the precise mechanisms are.

I eagerly await the reference to the journal article. I doubt it is as you describe though. Creationist do produce these arguments from time to time but I've never yet seen one stand up to scrutiny.

[JackC 0]

Quote

without referring to religion you are welcome to explain why evolution does not contradict chaos/entropy.

The entropy of a closed system always increases. Evolution in itself isn't a closed system, it's part of a much larger system. There's nothing that says you can't have a decrease in entropy in one area at the expense of an increase in another area so long as the total entropy increases.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Jakee - How do you say that evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Very, very easily. In fact, I'll even use your own quote to demonstrate it to you.

Quote

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world.

The 2nd law of thermo is concerned with closed systems. Since the earth is not isolated from the rest of the universe, the entire universe is the system we are looking at.

Isolated increases in order/ decreases in entropy (not always the same thing by the way) in the natural world have absolutely zero effect whatsoever on the general trend towards increasing entropy across the entire universe. Hell, even the billions of stars being 'born' right now across the entire universe have no effect on the general trend towards increasing entropy. BTW, do you also not believe in photos of star formation because it involves isolated areas of decreasing entropy?

As I said before, evoluton violating the 2nd law of thermo is nothing more than a dirty creationist lie.

Quote

In-breeding - thorough breds/pedigrees often have problems with health more than "mongrels". Many of our laws relating to incest/marring your brothers and sisters are because the narrow gene pool causes problems.

Uhh, so what? Would you care to explain exactly why forced inbreeding in domesticated animals is a problem for the wider field of evolution?

Quote

I am much more at home in maths and physics due to my job.

Given your ignorance of thermodynamics I find that hard to believe.

Quote

Regarding EM/gravity we are constantly looking for refinements on EM theory. And as far as I know nobody really understands gravity and its causes. People research and look for the mathematical basis. Personally I see very little "mathematical" and scientific thought put into evolution - the ultimate objective of science (in my opinion) is to resolve everything to a mathematical form. Evolution is very far from this and so rather than being zealously followed I believe there should be more open "thought". I see parrallels in todays society attitude towards evolution as 200 years ago the "ether". I am not advocating that religion is right - just that evolution is to unfounded in science to be treated with the level of reveree that it is. Your point about people researching into evolution is true - but how many just like the religous zealots are thinking "inside the box". I see alot of information on people looking at Evolution through archialogical digs - on this basis I agree there are thousands of people. What I don't see is alot of analytical debate/questioning as to whether the theory itself is right. I believe that Darwin provided an initial theory that was accepted because science was growing rapidly at the time (Michael Faraday etc are from that error). As far as I know Darwin is the first "departure" from religous views and the first departure is not normally the right solution.

If that is truly what you see then you are being intentionally blind. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to be any more polite than that.

Over the past 200 years evolution has probably been the most intensely researched field in all of science. Contrary to what you wrote Darwin was not the first to suggest that creatures change over time, he was the first to propose a theory that really did stand up to the full force of scientific scrutiny. His basic principles survive because they work. Since then our understanding has moved on immeasurably, if Darwin was to read a modern testbook there are things in there that he could never have dreamed of.

His principles survived the discovery of the genome for christ's sake! If evolution had been fundamentally flawed then Watson and Crick's work would have utterly shattered it! But they didn't, and why? Do you think the entire field of biology at the time collaborated to dishonestly manipulate this new data to fit comfortable old theories, or do you think that evolution continued because it worked?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I understand what you are trying to say. I understand that you believe that the only difference between micro and macro is time and scale.

That is what every reasonable person understands. You do not have to believe in it.
When your kids are growing, there is only small difference between the kid now and 5 minutes later. And there is huge difference after all those 5 minute intervals are combined in two years.

Quote

However, some CHRISTIAN scientist also believe that their may be gaps in evolutionary processes that cannot be explained by gradual phenotypic change.

Corrected it for you.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Dude...sorry, I'm tired, but I think the probability is 100% since we exsist. However, I would say that the probability of a creation having a creator is higher than anything you can assert otherwise...

So who created your god?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[pirana 0]

Quote

Bill

Do you not agree that evolution is a theory and not a law of physics? If so should we not be looking to pick holes in the theory - look for evidence that supports/contradicts it?

It amazes me the zealousness that evolution is defended with and just how quickly any God or evolution thread degenerates into an evolution thread with 100's of posts.

My biggest problems in accepting evolution as fact/law is that it contradicts a number of scientific laws as opposed to theories (2nd law of thermodynamics is probably the biggest - where entropy and not order happen over time). Another aspect is "inbreeding" which is a central construct of evolution and yet we know that it causes terrible problems.

We don't fully know how gravity and electromagnetics work. Take the speed of light - is it really a constant?

Personally I do not think that Genesis 6 days is factual, however neither do I believe there is any more evidence that can reliably be called on to fully support evolution - as the origins of life & diversity as we see it today.

The theory of evolution is established upon the dedicated research of thousands of highly educated scientists over what now, . . . a couple hundred years. It has probably been picked at and examined more than any other field in biology, perhaps in all of science. Mostly because it rubs some people the wrong way - not because any research has provided any solid reasons for doubt. Scientists and those that follow their progress react strongly because it irks them that people grant credence to the largely psuedo-scientific nonsense that constitutes the resistance to their hard-gained knowledge.

Thermodynamics are not violated by evolution. In any system there can be local increases while the entire closed system experiences entropy. Think about it - there are local increases in order going on all around you all the time. Anyone citing violation of thermodynamics is obviously parroting some fundamentalist goofball who either hasn't got the slightest clue, or does know but is artful at mangling meanings and deceiving those that do not know.

Inbreeding is a matter of degree. Small populations can result in poor mixing of the pool. Humans do not have that problem - except maybe in a few hamlets tucked away in the hill country where everybody has been marrying first cousins for too many generations. Most other animal populations do not have the problem either. It does happen though. The shrinking lion populations in certain parts of Africa are one notable exception that has gotten some ink.

Electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force are very well understood; so it goes without saying that so is light - including it's speed. Gravity is a bit of an enigma, but is well enough understood that no one should doubt it to the point of say, skydiving without a prachute.

If you really think that there is as much evidence for Genesis as there is for evolution, you need to read up on the topic - a lot.

BTW, one long weekend away and five (?) pages added. Criminy, how do people keep up?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

As far as betting on god goes , . . .

I wonder if we could get the most respected of the betting books to post odds on the existence of God? Dutifully considering all the evidence, what would they give?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,990]

> I do not know in which journal the following discoveries were
>documented, and I was unable to take in all the scientific evidence that
>was used to substanciate it, but it has basically been proven that humans
>did not evolve from anything (especially apes).

I fear you missed a few details there! We share 99% of our genetic material with our closest primate relatives. As we go farther back on our evolutionary tree, we see less and less similarity. Comparing molecular clocks between humans and chimpanzees shows that we diverged about 6 million years ago.

>It has to do with how our genetic material is transferred from one
>generation to the next.

It is exactly the same process the apes use.

>Basically, humans are the most intricate and complicated forms of life on
>earth.

Well, that's a foolish statement! Do you think we have better circulatory systems than whales? Stronger bone structures than eagles? Better eyesight than owls? More intricate ears than bats? More complex eyes than a fly? Does our body repair itself for as long as a giant tortoise? Nope.

Heck, we only have 46 chromosomes. Pigeons have 80, carp have 104.

The one thing we _do_ have is a big brain, an evolved trait that has helped us tremendously. We also have quite accurate fossil records of how our brain size gradually increased since our ancestors first swung through the trees.

>Less evolved forms of life could've evolved from humans but not the
>other way around.

That sentence is self-contradictory. Something that evolves is more evolved, not less.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I do not know in which journal the following discoveries were documented, and I was unable to take in all the scientific evidence that was used to substanciate it, but it has basically been proven that humans did not evolve from anything (especially apes).

I suspect that journal was "Why should you believe in Jesus".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[pirana 0]

Quote

. . . it has basically been proven that humans did not evolve from anything (especially apes). It has to do with how our genetic material is transferred from one generation to the next. Basically, humans are the most intricate and complicated forms of life on earth. Less evolved forms of life could've evolved from humans but not the other way around. I'll try to get hold of the report and make sure what the precise mechanisms are.

Yeah, right.

You visiting The Discovery Institute's website? What you posted clearly indicates one or two things - either you haven't a clue, or your source is one of propoganda and not research (or both).

I can not wait to hear about the "precise mechanisms."

And why the phrase "especially apes." Anything but apes huh? That is very telling.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,990]

>Do you not agree that evolution is a theory and not a law of physics? If
>so should we not be looking to pick holes in the theory - look for evidence
>that supports/contradicts it?

Definitely. And scientists have been trying to pick holes in it for decades; that's how science works. And so far not one piece of research has "proven" evolution doesn't work, whereas tens of thousands of pieces of research have clarified our view of how more complex forms evolved from simpler ones.

>It amazes me the zealousness that evolution is defended . . .

I am sure you would defend gravity with the same zeal if you were talking to someone who lived in orbit somewhere.

>My biggest problems in accepting evolution as fact/law is that it contradicts
>a number of scientific laws as opposed to theories (2nd law of
>thermodynamics is probably the biggest - where entropy and not order
>happen over time).

Evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics any more than an air conditioner does. Indeed, life _relies_ on the second law to function at all!

>Another aspect is "inbreeding" which is a central construct of evolution
>and yet we know that it causes terrible problems.

?? Inbreeding is not a 'central construct' of evolution.

>We don't fully know how gravity and electromagnetics work.

So you don't believe in Maxwell's Laws either?

>Take the speed of light - is it really a constant?

In empty flat space - yes.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Steve (and all other christians sharing his understanding of Genisus) can I just ask one question..

Why arent you a creationist? What was it about Genisus that says to you "wait there! This didnt happen it must be just a message"?

EDITED TO ADD: Define "creationist" I believe God is the creator of the universe, however I don't agree with a young earth theory or a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why don't I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

To me it is quite simple. I don't believe everything in the Bible was meant to be taken as literal. The writers of the books & letters that made the bible used metaphors, allegories, stories, prose and other parts of literture.

It begins with what you believe is the purpose of the bible. I believe it is to point us to JC. To do that Genesis doesn't have to be understood literally any more than Revelation does.

So how do you know which parts are meant to be stories/metaphors, and which parts are "true"? If Genesis is a fable, how do you know that the life of Jesus isn't a fable?

[pirana 0]

Quote

If Genesis is a fable, how do you know that the life of Jesus isn't a fable?

When you go looking for trouble, you don't mess around heh?

Just a side note for Steveorino - You take this all in stride and appear to handle it with a lot of class and dignity and respect and all; very good on you.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley