[Nullifidian]

I think one problem people are having here though is they seem to think that there are only two possiblities:

either current evolutionary thoery is right or ID is right.

This is not the case and is an example of a false exclusionary tactic. It also seems to be coming from the ID camp almost exclusively. The reason being, ID has NO scientific evidence to SUPPORT it. The only evidence proponents of ID use are not evidence for ID but evidence against evolution. The other problem is that their supposed evidence against evolution is not evidence against it so much as evidence of gaps in development of the theory. Nothing anyone has said so far actually counters anything evolution says. All it does is bring up questions that evolution in its current state does not answer.


Evolution IS a theory. Yes. It has not been proven. Correct. However, it has evidence to support it, a great deal of evidence. NOT conclusive though which is why it is still a theory and not yet declared law.

ID however is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis. The reason being there is absolutely positively NO evidence backing it whatsoever.

[Whiskey Steve]

ID however is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis. The reason being there is absolutely positively NO evidence backing it whatsoever.

With the exception of everything around you.

(and there have been plenty of post that counter evolution.) How could we disprove it if we all blindly took it as fact? If we just trusted it as true we would not question it. What the ID people have been doing is the only option.

[DmitryWI]

ID however is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis. The reason being there is absolutely positively NO evidence backing it whatsoever.

You are soooooo wrong about this.

[Nullifidian]

You are soooooo wrong about this.

If it is so wrong then by all means, post evidence that supports ID specifically. Keep in mind that "feelings" are not evidence, and emotional statements like "watch a baby being born" have absolutely ZERO scientific merit whatsoever.


I do not hold evolution as a theory to be perfect. HECK no. That's why I still call it a theory, because it is incomplete. However one thing I DO recognize is that the limits on what we currently know are limited almost entirely on technology. We do not currently have the technological means to simulate millions of years of evolution in order to prove macroevolution takes place.

Furthermore, we do not have a thorough enough understanding of the mechanisms of DNA yet in order to even predict what kinds of mutations would yield which results. Thus not even MICRO evolution can be predicted. However because microevolution happens in a relatively quick time scale and with great abundance, we are capable of witnessing it in a lab firsthand rather easily.


So as I said, go and post some direct evidence that supports ID.

[Whiskey Steve]

However one thing I DO recognize is that the limits on what we currently know are limited almost entirely on technology. We do not currently have the technological means to simulate millions of years of evolution in order to prove macroevolution takes place.

well thats a nice loop hole for you.... (its like your saying "it cant be proven so we have to take it as fact".)


And ID is not under debate here. Evolutions validity is. Please, no one post ID stuff because Nullifidian told you to. That is not the point of this(and even if you make a good argument, it will still fall on deaf ears). Lets stay on topic okay.


.......where is Parzival when we need him.

[CDB]

So as I said, go and post some direct evidence that supports ID.

I would call ID a theory. A poor theory in my opinion, but still a theory. The basic thrust of it is that evolution of any kind from the simple to the complex on a scale necessary to explain the variety of life around us is impossible, therefore God must have created the world. There's at least an opportunity to falsify this, simply by showing the proving the theory of evolution. There's also an internal problem in that if evolution is impossible it's impossible for God, who is supposed to be all powerful, to design a system that would evolve along Darwinian lines.

So while being a bit shoddy it's still got the main characteristics of a theory. It's falsifiable, so testable to the needed extent, and it's based on observed evidence, or at least what certain people would qualify as evidence, rightly or wrongly.

So, proving the case for evolution would disprove ID as it stands now. I've yet to see a way to falsify evolution.

Nice to see you in the thead Null. A point where seem to agree. Make a habit out of that and I'm going to stop responding to you.

[Whiskey Steve]

There's also an internal problem in that if evolution is impossible it's impossible for God, who is supposed to be all powerful, to design a system that would evolve along Darwinian lines.

not sure what you are saying here?

Its not that we think God could not do it. Its that we believe we where created in his image.

[Nullifidian]

not sure what you are saying here?

Its not that we think God could not do it. Its that we believe we where created in his image.

Well it can be proven that not all beings that exist today existed as they were many years ago. Australia is the perfect example of this.

All species of mammals living on the continent of Australia, excluding migratory birds, at the time the very first European settlers arrived there are exclusive to Australia. No animals outside of Australia (excluding marine wildlife and migratory birds), are found in Australia.

If you try to use the flood as an excuse for the fossil record, then it is quite odd indeed that the ONLY fossils of creatures found in Australia are also only found in Australia.

In order for the flood story to be true, all of the creatures from Australia would have had to swim across the ocean to Turkey, so they could be loaded onto Noah's Ark. Then after the flood was over and Noah landed (once again, somewhere in Turkey), those same creatures went and swam all the way back to Australia. That scenario is in fact impossible. But of course, I'm sure ID people will just say "God did it". This is precisely the same as saying "it's magic" and one would hope that kind of primitive thinking left the civilized world at the very least in this past century if not hundreds of years ago.


In any case, the aforementioned scenario PROVES that whatever flood MAY have occurred, it could not have engulfed the entire planet. This means that the flood cannot explain fossil records. Since the flood was the manner in which ID explains fossil records, this disproves ID.

[CDB]

not sure what you are saying here?

Its not that we think God could not do it. Its that we believe we where created in his image.

This wouldn't be relative to that aspect of your personal belief, but a criticism of a specific claim of ID. ID claims evolution is impossible. But, that would deny the possibility that God could design an evolutionary system. There's nothing about evolution that per se denies the existence of God or that we're created in his image.

[Knowbull]

This is an age old discussion, science has posited concrete evidence regarding evolutionary matters, on the other hand, since God is beyond time and space a person could say, in a relative sense, yes God commanded it to be and it was. Time is completely out of the equation because time did not exist "in the beggining"

[Whiskey Steve]

I dont even care to keep argueing with you guys.
I knew this thread would go no where. I'm out.
-peace, Whiskey

[Knowbull]

Sorry Whiskeysteve I thought this was a discussion not an arguement. I respect your ideas. Getting others points of view helps us gain knowledge. Actually this thread did go somewhere!

[David Dunn]

Yes it did for quite some time. Discussing and understanding anothers beliefs, ideas and concepts will not shake the foundation of yours if you are well rooted in them and it is bearing fruit.

"Love one another"

[TheCrownedOne]

"Love one another"

Philippians
2:14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

[Whiskey Steve]

You didn't shake me at all.... made me stonger if anything

[Whiskey Steve]

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

[DmitryWI]

If it is so wrong then by all means, post evidence

No, but thanks, I've posted it before and got insulted by other members here. All I can say is I'm a person who won't believe anything untill I feel, see or experience it myself. And untill year ago I was atheist and believed in evolution as well, but I was proved wrong.
I'm not gonna change your mind any way and you won't change mine. So lets leave it at that.
I'm going to be more carefull about posting this kind of stuff. Nothing against you, Null, I hope you understand.

P.S. One day we all find out THE TRUTH

[Nullifidian]

P.S. One day we all find out THE TRUTH

Ironically if my beliefs are correct then no one will ever find out "the truth."

[anabolicrhino]

Ironically if my beliefs are correct then no one will ever find out "the truth."

I think that would be more "coincidentally" or perhaps "conversely". It would not be ironic because If your beliefs are correct, then they would be true. So at the point your beliefs are determined to be correct someone (you) would learn the truth(that your beliefs are correct). when two events take place at the same time( but can occur mutually exclusive of eachother ) they are coincidental.

Conversely, the fact that your beliefs both prove to be correct( true ) and disprove their antithesis ( that the truth cannot be found ) they ( your beliefs) are in fact illogical.(and thereby not true )

The fact that it is the contradictorial nature of your beliefs that make them true is ironic....so aaah yeah, I guess you were right. wow I can't believe that I typed all this trying to find the truth about your irony, though the fact that I found the truth to be you were being ironic is actually ironic....woah!

[DmitryWI]

I didn't understand one word you just said, but I totally agree with you, I think. LOL

[Whiskey Steve]

I hate to bring this thread back up, but.....

some Christians say that evolution does necessarily go against Christianity.
well in this path of thought i just had, yes it does.

Adam was the first man.
If Adam had evolved from or with some ape like creatures then there would be numerous "first men".
Adam could not be the only man.

A monkey or ape like creature cannot give birth to a man. So a whole population of ape like creatures would have to evolve into men at the same time Adam would. So because the Bible specifically states that Adam was the first man, evolution is not in congruence with Christianity.
(and of course i will label this post "in my opinion" so people don't have a fit)

[Aeternitatis]

Evolution makes more sense to me than believing words from a book that stories are only a few thousand years old.

"I asked him to explain how a giraffe's neck evolved, he said it used to be more like a horse but had to keep stretching its neck to get food, and over time this lead to it having a long neck." This kind of nonsense is what the general population believes.

Your quote is a bad example of your point. That quote is actually part of the explanation for the idea of "Acquired Characteristics" and was created by one of the forefathers of evolution: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Also, the general pop. did not believe Lamarcks theories. Hell, at the time you could be be-headed for raising "evolutionary propaganda".

But we all know that acquired characteristics cannot be passed on. However, if there existed an environmental pressure that favored giraffes with slightly longer necks... over a long period of time, the necks would lengthen and lengthen since it will be those with the longest necks that are the most fit for reproduction. This is also known as Natural Selection.

Remember folks, there were many evolutionists before Darwin and many were Christian or Catholic (Darwin included).

[Aeternitatis]

I hate to bring this thread back up, but.....

some Christians say that evolution does necessarily go against Christianity.
well in this path of thought i just had, yes it does.

Adam was the first man.
If Adam had evolved from or with some ape like creatures then there would be numerous "first men".
Adam could not be the only man.

A monkey or ape like creature cannot give birth to a man. So a whole population of ape like creatures would have to evolve into men at the same time Adam would. So because the Bible specifically states that Adam was the first man, evolution is not in congruence with Christianity.
(and of course i will label this post "in my opinion" so people don't have a fit)

Yes, but when it comes to the Bible, there is the literalist school of thought and the methaphorical school of thought.

In any case, you can ask just about any Bible scholar and he will tell you that the Bible comprises just one "age" of the Earth. Exactly how long an age is, I don't know. But it is logical to assume that the age the Bible takes into account is the age of man.

I personally think that two main purposes of the Bible are of teaching a literal historical record as well as ways to lead a more satisfying life. Much of the Bible is a parable thus must be read like a parable. For example, in Genesis, it speaks of God separating the waters from the waters. But you gotta ask: just what does that mean in context to the rest of what is happening? Well, it could refer to oceans of water... but I doubt it. I think it refers to people and ancient migrations. In fact, if you have the original Hebrew version and you look up the Hebrew words as well as the English words in a good dictionary, you can verify this idea of "the waters" representing people.

[Aeternitatis]

No, but thanks, I've posted it before and got insulted by other members here. All I can say is I'm a person who won't believe anything untill I feel, see or experience it myself. And untill year ago I was atheist and believed in evolution as well, but I was proved wrong.
I'm not gonna change your mind any way and you won't change mine. So lets leave it at that.
I'm going to be more carefull about posting this kind of stuff. Nothing against you, Null, I hope you understand.

P.S. One day we all find out THE TRUTH

You know what's funny? Until about 6 months ago, I did not believe in evolution. But then I started studying microbiology and genetics within an anthropological context. And you know what? The proof for evolution is easily observed when you know how to do it. Just as God is easily observed when you know how to do it.

[Aeternitatis]

My overall opinion on this sensitive matter:

I could not ever believe God (whatever it is) to be so cruel as to not give us the ability to evolve. In my experience and in my studies, God is real. So too for evolution. Religion is the middle-man that ruins it all whether that religion be Catholic, Buddhist, or Science. The main reason the Church denied evolution in the beginning was because it meant people were all equal, no longer could a caste system maintain itself if anyone had the people to "move up". When people align themselves in full trust to a doctrine of belief that was interpeted by another individual, they cut themselves short. I also think they fall short of God's expectations. We were given the power to think and REALIZE for ourselves. Religion is a creation of man; more specifically, of man's greed.

I think Jesus was a person who was inspired by God (on a metaphysical level) to be more "evolved". But the misguided look at him in some singularity. Let me tell you: there was never meant to be only one. Jesus, and what he represented, is like an example of the highest aspiration a human could ever strive to attain. Jesus was a bodhisattva, he was in touch with Void, he was enlightened. We could all hope to be so evolved someday.

I was raised in a Christian way by my father. I was raised in a spiritualist (non-religion oriented) way by my mother. My brother and sister, both 10 years older than myself and who had a heavy hand in raising me, were very attune to matters of science and art. Lucky for me to be set in such a thought provoking environment, I inherited the freedom of thought. My ideas have developed and changed through years of study, first-hand experience, as well as callaboration with those who came before me. That is what I call the path to truth.

*Stepping down from podium*

Now I'm gonna go say hello to a packet of yeast knowing that we share certain identical gene sequences and if his coding for reproduction should go awry, mine can be inserted in place and the yeast will replicate perfectly.

[Aeternitatis]

IHave you had geometry before, I know you have. For something to become NOT a theory; it must become a LAW. A LAW is a empirically and mathematically proven event or particular in nature or physics or whatever. Law of Gravity, Laws of Thermodynamics, Newtonian Laws, etc. Evolution is FACT.

Sorry to say this, but evolution is still "just" a theory.

But for anyone who understands the scientific method, to become a theory is actually quite tough.

[CDB]

I hate to bring this thread back up, but.....

some Christians say that evolution does necessarily go against Christianity.
well in this path of thought i just had, yes it does.

Evolution goes against the Bible, which is not necessarily the same as going against all forms of Christianity.

[Grunt76]

It has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that matter is a 12-dimensional phenomenon. There is still argument among quantum physicists as to wether it's 11-dimensional or 12-dimensional, but let's leave that aside as a detail for now.

We as humans see only 3 dimensions. Height, Width and Depth. That's it. Changes in these 3 dimensions is represented as a false 4 th axis, which we call "time". It is also proven by physics that time doesn't exist. So basically, matter and all of reality as we see them is an outright illusion. The Masters of long ago said it often: this world is illusion.

What this means is that any observation of anything from a 3-dimensional point of view is in error. When you see only a part of reality, you can interact with it, make theories about it and even have some sort of "science" derived from the consistent observation of a part of reality. But then again, this science is bound to be limited and undergo a perpetual combat against new questions that are simply the effect of the multidimensionality of the phenomenon being observed.

As such, the point of view with which we observe the universe is somewhat inverted in that human reasoning tries to encompass 12-dimensional phenomena by observing only a 3-dimensional subset of the phenomena. What is life? What is thought? Consciousness? Emotion? Is there a god? The answer to these questions will all be easily attainable by a mind that can encompass the whole 12-dimensional phenomena that is matter/energy/the universe. Until humanity evolves to such consciousness, the current state of affairs whereby a solution creates more problems will continue. As such, this is the unavoidable evolutionary future of mankind.

And because time doesn't exist, evolution isn't really evolution. Because time doesn't exist, evolution simply CANNOT be a process of random mutation, trial and error, etc. There is much more order to it than that. There are organizational forces at work along the axis of what we call "time" that we simply cannot understand but are nonetheless absolutely real, as proven by pure science. This means that there is a balance between "now" and "then" that we cannot understand but is ruled by laws every bit as real as the currently recognized laws of physics.

[Whiskey Steve]

I personally think that two main purposes of the Bible are of teaching a literal historical record as well as ways to lead a more satisfying life. Much of the Bible is a parable thus must be read like a parable. For example, in Genesis, it speaks of God separating the waters from the waters. But you gotta ask: just what does that mean in context to the rest of what is happening? Well, it could refer to oceans of water... but I doubt it. I think it refers to people and ancient migrations. In fact, if you have the original Hebrew version and you look up the Hebrew words as well as the English words in a good dictionary, you can verify this idea of "the waters" representing people.

Good post.

I have been looking up a lot of words as I read the Bible and often enough they will mean something you didn't expect...
(though im not sure im with you on the waters thing)

[CDB]

It has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that matter is a 12-dimensional phenomenon. There is still argument among quantum physicists as to wether it's 11-dimensional or 12-dimensional, but let's leave that aside as a detail for now.

It hasn't been proven. That's one of the predictions of string/M theory, but it's been untestable so far because of the energy levels we'd need to probe to see if it's true. Loop Quantum Gravity is another contender for assimilation of gravity into quantumn theory and doesn't require the extra dimensions, just discrete space-time as opposed to continuous. It'll also likely be testable by 2007-2008. Holographic theory also says, well I'm not quite sure, but it seems to be saying observed 4 dimensional universe may be an illusion, similar to the way a holograph appears to be three dimensional but is actually two dimensional, and so there may be inumerable multidimensional physics systems. This doesn't mean observed phenomena don't exist, just that they are possibly perceived aspects of some other phenomena.

We as humans see only 3 dimensions. Height, Width and Depth. That's it. Changes in these 3 dimensions is represented as a false 4 th axis, which we call "time". It is also proven by physics that time doesn't exist. So basically, matter and all of reality as we see them is an outright illusion. The Masters of long ago said it often: this world is illusion.

Time doesn't exist is a new one on me. It may pass more quickly or slowly under certain circumstances, perhaps even reverse sometimes, but it does exist.

What this means is that any observation of anything from a 3-dimensional point of view is in error. When you see only a part of reality, you can interact with it, make theories about it and even have some sort of "science" derived from the consistent observation of a part of reality. But then again, this science is bound to be limited and undergo a perpetual combat against new questions that are simply the effect of the multidimensionality of the phenomenon being observed.

True to the extent that I understand what you're saying. However, lack of knowledge leads to no conclusion in and of itself. That some things are not perceivable currently because of limitations on human senses and limitations on our ability to make instruments that can detect things beyond our sense is a given.

What is life? What is thought? Consciousness? Emotion? Is there a god? The answer to these questions will all be easily attainable by a mind that can encompass the whole 12-dimensional phenomena that is matter/energy/the universe.

Not correct. Those are epistemological/philosophical arguments. The ability to perceive the entire physical universe wouldn't make a reductionist point of view impossible or answer the questions surrounding thought, consiousness and the existence of God unless the additional information had a direct bearing on those issues. You're assuming that because certain things are unanswerable now that they will be answerable in the future, that the answer lies where we can't observe yet. It's perfectly possible to reach the absolute limits of our ability to know things about this universe and still not know everything about it, and so still have unanswered questions.