Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

[Okami]

Majority, but not all. The fact that a person may accept it as fact does not always mean it is. Look at Sigmund Freud and all of his theories of personality. Yeah, there's a reason why some things remain as theories, because they can't be full backed up and proven.

Wish I could do that...thing is, I need it in my notebook anyways, so it's best just to get them finished in my penmanship!

Here's basically everything I was going to fish out for you guys in an article. Here. That's how I see things.

Anyways, back to my notes on Schizophrenia~

[Illithian]

In all honesty, that article is complete bullshit.

Theres so much crap in that article is ridiculous. It basically makes up facts about evolutionists that are NOT true and states that God cannot go with Evolution. Not only that but its saying that the bible is true, which is also complete crap because the bible is a guide to life.

NEVER rely on a website of your own belief to prove something.

First off, there is no such thing as Stellar Evolution. Thats crap. Darwin never said anything about Stellar Evolution. Darwin was ONLY talking about biological evolution.

Secondly, evolution says sun before earth? ... I'm insulted. And I'm serious, thats insulting. Evolution doesnt say anything about that. Evolution talks about SPECIES. BIOLOGICAL evolution. Sun obviously came before the earth; the earth couldn't exist without the sun. Or are you somehow suggesting that our planet (in the view of the oh so wise bible), for 10000 years, magically was floating around and suddenly a sun magically appeared infront of it and the earth started floating around it?

Sure. Yeah, thats realistic and all. /sarcasm

Dry land before sea: Evolution doesnt say that. Its true. Dry land did come before water. I don't feel like doing the research to back it up, but I'm sure Wraith could, and Okami so far you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of what evolution actually is and encompasses.

Atmosphere before sea: Complete crap. Water came before the atmosphere.

Sun before light on earth: Wait, what? How could the sun come BEFORE light on earth, if the sun IS light on earth? This website has no credibility at all.

There are so many mistaken assumptions on that website that I think I'll never get any of there magazines, and any info you cite from there I'll treat as assumptions crap that comes from a metaphorical guide to life.

Edit: That last statement was out of line. I was just a little angered at the one sidedness of the website.

[wraith89]

Please watch your language when posting Illithian. Saying stuff like that in real life like that slips so it can be excused, but on the Internet, you can fix it whenever possible.

That article did mention stellar evolution I guess, which is really in the astronomy fields. From what I recall, there are six types of evolution, five of which I am going to keep reading upon. I know for a fact microevolution is a fact.

The evolution you are thinking of is the biological type, which is Darwin's. I have yet to read that whole article, but you'd be surprised what people in the astronomy field believe in.

"The Bible is true"

Some people do believe in that, and that statement has not been refuted yet nor has it been completely proven. The Jewish Levites were known to be great recorders of the history, I wouldn't doubt their skills in preserving things. One mistake and they would have to toss their manuscript on fire.

"Water came before the atmosphere."

How do you know this? What evidence is there to show that?

[foibles]

Please watch your language when posting Illithian. Saying stuff like that in real life like that slips so it can be excused, but on the Internet, you can fix it whenever possible.

That article did mention stellar evolution I guess, which is really in the astronomy fields. From what I recall, there are six types of evolution, five of which I am going to keep reading upon. I know for a fact microevolution is a fact.

The evolution you are thinking of is the biological type, which is Darwin's. I have yet to read that whole article, but you'd be surprised what people in the astronomy field believe in.

"The Bible is true"

Some people do believe in that, and that statement has not been refuted yet nor has it been completely proven. The Jewish Levites were known to be great recorders of the history, I wouldn't doubt their skills in preserving things. One mistake and they would have to toss their manuscript on fire.

"Water came before the atmosphere."

How do you know this? What evidence is there to show that?

well, assuming that you are talking about earth's atmosphere as we know it today, the bacteria that produced the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere needed water to survive.

EDIT: "In all honesty, that article is complete bullshit."

[Illithian]

Please watch your language when posting Illithian. Saying stuff like that in real life like that slips so it can be excused, but on the Internet, you can fix it whenever possible.

That article did mention stellar evolution I guess, which is really in the astronomy fields. From what I recall, there are six types of evolution, five of which I am going to keep reading upon. I know for a fact microevolution is a fact.

The evolution you are thinking of is the biological type, which is Darwin's. I have yet to read that whole article, but you'd be surprised what people in the astronomy field believe in.

"The Bible is true"

Some people do believe in that, and that statement has not been refuted yet nor has it been completely proven. The Jewish Levites were known to be great recorders of the history, I wouldn't doubt their skills in preserving things. One mistake and they would have to toss their manuscript on fire.

"Water came before the atmosphere."

How do you know this? What evidence is there to show that?

There is plenty of solid evidence as to why the bible isnt true.

Actually, thats not quite correct. There is plenty of evidence as to why some parts of the bible aren't true. Its definitely possible that some parts of the bible are true, but the entire bible is a myth is it not?

A story, passed down over generations to the people that wrote it?

Regardless. Nothing the bible says supports evolution, and seemingly people that argue against evolution aren't willing to accept that the bible and the idea of evolution can coexist.

If you ignore all of this post, before you start flaming my ignorance, please answer me this:

I was under the impression that the bible is a story, intended to be a metaphorical guide to life. Am I wrong? If so, then what is the bible intended to be used for? Also, why do people treat some parts of the bible as fact whilst others as a guide?

It seems to me that many arguments for the bible actually twist the bible so some of it is fact, and other parts of it isnt. Seems even more confusing to me then evolution, which is widespread fairly agreed on, and biological textbooks don't edit it like you and Okami seem to believe.

P.S. Using "bad" language on the internet is not a slip up. It is a form of emphasis.

[Okami]

Call it bullshit all you want. See how much I care.

I know what Darwin said about evolution and the process of natural selection. That species have become what they are today due to gene mutations over millions to billions of years, from single-celled organisms to dual-celled organisms, so on and so forth until they became apes and the apes bacame man.

I'm not that good with science or mathematics, that's why thus far I haven't said much in the topic of 'intellect.' I'm not great with fancy big words and spicing up what there has to be said. I just say what I know and go from there, because I'm just not that good when it comes to these things. There, now that that's said.

Basically I know that natural selection is where an organism that is best adapted to an environment survives and the weaker dies off....'perfecting', if you will, the organism. Which in doing so, eventually changes the species and so forth. Yes, that exists, to an extent. I'm thinking dogs here. Dogs certainly adapt and change to fit their environments. Look at the Alaskan Husky, it would never be able to survive without that thick coat!

Yes. I know what evolution is. I know everything surrounding it. I've done countless hours of research on the topic, and yet, what that article says is what I believe in when it comes to the account of creation. I believe in Genesis, and that is that. Why?

One. As I've mentioned before. "Universe" = "Uni" + "Verse" = "One Spoken Word." Ancient language is a wonderful thing to know.

Two. So there was a big bang. There was all this dust and space matter in the beginning of time. One, when did time begin? Two, WHERE exactly, did this dust come from, if all the universe was was a massive, empty, potential space?

My only conclusion for it is that there was a Creator to make that dust, if there was indeed a form of big bang. Or, as I tend to infuriate those around me with: The Big Bang: God spoke and BANG! It happened.

Three. So there is no God, no gods, no nothing. What is the purpose of life? This is all pointless, meaningless, we're all going to die and that's it. We're doomed to a life of misery because we know this is all there is. Might as well whore ourselves out to every girl or man we see because this is all there is, we're meant for nothing more than our own personal selfish gratification and nothing less. Let's make today one hell of a party, gentlemen.

I would rather believe that life is meaningful. I would rather believe that I have hope, that I'm going to a place with no more of this earthly pain, no more depression, no more suffering. I struggle every waking moment with itching thoughts of self-destruction, but with the hope that there's more than these thoughts of miserableness, I continue to live with a glimmer of happiness. Without it, I might as well be dead. Because there would be nothing for me to care about anyways.

[Enkidu]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

The entire starting point for everything said on this website is " God exists, the bible is truth" how can this even pass off as evidence ( objective in nature ) for anything?

The main argument is literally, because we believe in god and evolution leaves no room IN OUR minds for a divine creator, evolution is wrong. I'm not even going to say they have evidence because the majority of what they are saying is quite out of context and in some cases flat out wrong.

Three. So there is no God, no gods, no nothing. What is the purpose of life? This is all pointless, meaningless, we're all going to die and that's it. We're doomed to a life of misery because we know this is all there is. Might as well whore ourselves out to every girl or man we see because this is all there is, we're meant for nothing more than our own personal selfish gratification and nothing less. Let's make today one hell of a party, gentlemen.

Out of everything said in this entire thread, I find this the most insulting. I could actually write a ridiculous essay in response to this, but as I'm working on one right now for class I would rather not write two. Instead I will ask that you go look up Immanuel Kant and maybe research the other side of the argument a bit, because is nothing more than a Kent Hovind argument. And explaining the idea of social contracts, the realm of the spirit and all that other moral related jazz is not something that can be done without a serious essay or 30 paragraph post.

Your also calling humans nothing more than beasts that need to be kept in line with some kind of heavenly goal, that is also equally as insulting. All its really doing is painting evolution as this horrible hope torn picture and Religion, spiritualism whatever you want to call it as the "true light of this world" bullcrap.

I would rather believe that life is meaningful. I would rather believe that I have hope, that I'm going to a place with no more of this earthly pain, no more depression, no more suffering. I struggle every waking moment with itching thoughts of self-destruction, but with the hope that there's more than these thoughts of miserableness, I continue to live with a glimmer of happiness. Without it, I might as well be dead. Because there would be nothing for me to care about anyways.

So your saying that, without god, Everything loses meaning? That if god were to not exist, you would no longer love your family? No longer have aspirations? That death is somehow better than life? I disagree with you entirely, if god were disproven by science, I doubt 80% of the world would commit suicide. I also doubt that everything would lose meaning, even for you. Rationalizing something as X is cool and Y will cause me to kill myself after ramming a bus into a convenience store is defiently not showing this "hours of research " you were talking about.

Maybe looking up people who agreed with your initial opinion, and maybe a few of them having a short one paragraph concession I'll believe, but not full blown out research. Because I have done research, thats why I'm not saying " god is false and anyone who believes in god needs to die " Or among the other misconceptions, insults and absurdities that as equally uninformed atheists will spout.

[Okami]

There's a book called Blue Like Jazz by a guy named Donald Miller. In it, he expresses his feelings of his childhood self, not getting his mother an adequate Christmas Present, and calls himself Hitler. He wonders if those in the room with him know that they are sitting with Hitler. The context may be a bit off there...but that's exactly how I feel sometimes, especially in a case such as this.

Basically, we're all human. We're not animals and nor are we beasts. But when purpose is void, I am basically insaulting myself 110% more than anyone else, and that makes me beastly. I may as well turn into one, since there's no other way to live!

Also, king Soloman wrote about it in this crazy little book called Ecclesiastes. He was then known as the wisest man in all the earth, and yet his conclusion at the end of the book was that all the pleasure in the world is meaningless, so totally meaningless. The only thing that really mattered in the end was finding hope in God. He had 700 wives and many concubines and everything you could possibly think of wanting, yet it was meaningless. Of course, how do you find time to sleep with all those wives? Gosh, I hope he had good stamina! Ahem...yeah, I would rather agree with him than just sit here believing I came from a rock. Thick-headed, I mean! It's a joke! Naw, either way...Darwin contributed some good theories to personality development and emotional response for Psychology, other than that, well, I'm just a little too biased to go on.

For me, if God were not here, I would not be here. He is the only thing that keeps me walking through the day. It's in that reason I find hope, because I am alive. Because of all my bad decisions in the past that I have to account for, and yet still am alive...

The fact that in 2003, when I was in a major rollover accident, and came out of it only with scratches on my waist and neck from seatbelt restraint...That didn't happen just out of pure random luck, nothing could ever sway me on that. You see, I'm alive, I am scarred, but alive. That's what keeps me going, because of those things I did to myself, that is how I have recieved my call to Psychology.

[kuoleva]

I've left this thread alone for awhile, but I have to ask one question:

Why does there have to be a god for us to have purpose?

I believe in god, yes, a divine force beyond human comprehension. I do not, however, believe that if that god doesn't exist, we are void of purpose. Like Enkidu said, there's no way to discuss this without an essay, but I find total reliance on a creator to be pathetic and insulting.

Some of the kindest and most helpful people I know consider themselves atheist. Take my 4th grade teacher for example. I ran into him awhile ago, and we had a chat about lifestyle. He's vegan, MEGA green, has been teaching for years, and volunteers at hospitals and such, and was in the Peace Corps for a few years prior to teaching. He doesn't believe in god. He told me, and I quote,

"No, I don't believe in god. I do believe in love, though. I don't need to have a carrot on a stick to make me love to help people. I don't need a promise of heaven, or a threat of hell. I believe I am here for a purpose, and I will live up to it because I want to, not because I want to go to heaven and please a creator. I did what I did, and do what I do because of love. If there is a god, that god is simply love, and the kindness I know resides in all creatures."

I know this will be taken out of context to say "BUT GOD IS LOVE OMGWTF". You believe in god, which you believe is love. He just believes in love. Pure love. No father figure up in the clouds going "Hey, you should do this so you can go to heaven". No carrot on a stick. Just love. Really, if you say "he believes in love so that means he believes in god", I will jump through the screen and hit you.

Edited May 24, 2009 by kuoleva
I fail at explaining. :<

[Illithian]

I've left this thread alone for awhile, but I have to ask one question:

Why does there have to be a god for us to have purpose?

I believe in god, yes, a divine force beyond human comprehension. I do not, however, believe that if that god doesn't exist, we are void of purpose. Like Enkidu said, there's no way to discuss this without an essay, but I find total reliance on a creator to be pathetic and insulting.

Some of the kindest and most helpful people I know consider themselves atheist. Take my 4th grade teacher for example. I ran into him awhile ago, and we had a chat about lifestyle. He's vegan, MEGA green, has been teaching for years, and volunteers at hospitals and such, and was in the Peace Corps for a few years prior to teaching. He doesn't believe in god. He told me, and I quote,

"No, I don't believe in god. I do believe in love, though. I don't need to have a carrot on a stick to make me love to help people. I don't need a promise of heaven, or a threat of hell. I believe I am here for a purpose, and I will live up to it because I want to, not because I want to go to heaven and please a creator. I did what I did, and do what I do because of love. If there is a god, that god is simply love, and the kindness I know resides in all creatures."

I know this will be taken out of context to say "BUT GOD IS LOVE OMGWTF". You believe in god, which you believe is love. He just believes in love. Pure love. No father figure up in the clouds going "Hey, you should do this so you can go to heaven". No carrot on a stick. Just love. Really, if you say "he believes in love so that means he believes in god", I will jump through the screen and hit you.

I am in complete and unarguable agreement with this post.

[Zafur]

Okami...

It seems that you think that believing evolution is a fact would negate your spirituality, thus stripping you of your purpose in life, and chance of peace in heaven. Because of this, you're rather reluctant to believe that evolution is true, and believe in Genesis as total fact...

Why do you just choose to follow Genesis? Unless you're extremely orthodox, I doubt you follow everything in the Bible. I bet you wear clothing that is made of a mixture of clothes, and disregard most other things in Leviticus. Why is it that if you can go so far as to believe that God caused the Big Bang, but you cannot believe that he's also behind evolution? It doesn't just simply have to be one or the other, as has been repeatedly stated.

Believing in evolution does not negate God, just shows a different possibility of how he controls the universe. God is not a sole source of purpose in life. You can find purpose in almost everything. Of course if you believe in God, God created those things you can find purpose in, thus purpose can be traced back to him, but removing him from the picture does not remove the things you find inspiration and purpose in.

Humans are part of the animal kingdom. We have enough intelligence to not "act beastly", most of the time, but since removing God does not remove purpose, which you claim to cause beastliness, that part is irrelevant. This is also the case for heaven. Evolution does not mean heaven doesn't exist. You can still have your eternal peace with believing it.

Do you have a real reason that you cannot believe in both at the same time?

Do you have proof that evolution in itself is impossible, backed up by only scientific evidence? Only scientific, since I've explained that your beliefs so far do not explicitly negate evolution.

[Illithian]

Few things I'd add to Zafur's post:

Firstly, technically humans are not part of the animal kingdom. Humans have the ability to reflect upon the past (and future), an ability that animals lack.

Secondly, it seems almost dishonest when someone firmly believes in Genesis, but in other parts of the bible act as if they are a guide.

And no one answered any of my questions.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

This is so much nonsense I can't even believe it. I have to say something about this, for the sake of anyone that reads it.

As was already mentioned, quite a few (but not all) of the arguments in there are presupposing that the Bible is true. That is bad logic, and sets this thing on the wrong foot already.

The "Evolution - Genesis" table is also has a glaring inaccuracy, which again, doesn't do this any favors.

Land animals before trees

I'm pretty sure that plants would have to come before land animals, since photosynthesis is the foundation that drives the entire food chain. Without plants, the first land animals would have nothing to eat. That seems obvious, really. I could be wrong, though. Moving on, the big bang, the universe from nothing.

In support of the idea that nothing can give rise to the universe, cosmologists argue that quantum mechanics predicts that a vacuum can, under some circumstances, give rise to matter. But the problem with this line of reasoning is that a vacuum is not nothing; it is something—it is a vacuum that can be made to appear or disappear, as in the case of the Torricellian vacuum, which is found at the sealed end of a mercury barometer. All logic predicts that if you have nothing, nothing will happen. It is against all known logic and all laws of science to believe that the universe is the product of nothing. This concept is similar to hoping that an empty bank account will suddenly give rise to billions of dollars all on its own.

First, trying to argue against quantum mechanics on the basis of "logic" (seems more like they mean "intuition") is a bad move. QM is highly, highly counter intuitive, and makes absolutely no sense if you approach it using standard intuition.

Second, they misunderstand the concept of "vacuum". A vacuum is the absence of matter. As far as I know, there aren't different kinds of vacuums, The Torricellian vacuum they mention seems to just be a vacuum made in a specific way, not a special kind of vacuum different from other kinds.

They are right though that a vacuum is not nothing. It's actually less than nothing. Current observations support the hypothesis that a vacuum actually possesses a very slight negative energy, like anti-gravity.

Thirdly, saying that something from nothing is against all laws of science is blatantly ignoring their own statement that some cosmologists argue that something can come from nothing in certain circumstances based on the laws of quantum mechanics. They didn't even split this contradiction up among different paragraphs in hopes of getting me to forget the first sentence.

Lastly, drawing a parallel between finance and quantum theory is so bad it should just be thrown out. The only way the comparison would make sense is if that bank account was constantly getting deposits and withdrawals of totally random amounts at totally random times, to simulate Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. Like I said before, quantum mechanics is so unbelievably convoluted that it's impossible to understand using our standard intuition.

In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is, “If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning.” Their experiments are simply trying to prove the opposite—that an intelligence is required to create life.

Bad, bad, bad. There's some logical fallacy at work here, I can smell it (and my sense of smell is usually pretty bad), I just don't know the name.

Just because the experiment is intelligently designed doesn't mean it can't apply to unintelligent things. If the experiment results in life by using conditions that could have conceivably happened without intelligent intervention, then it is possible for life to begin without intelligence to guide it.

If you really believed this argument, you would have to invalidate all of science, since all experiments (all good ones anyway) are conducted in highly controlled environments to factor out all variables except for the one currently under study. These highly controlled environments do not resemble reality in the least, but they let us piece together slowly the entire picture of reality, one factor at a time, without interference from other variables.

I do agree with their conclusion that the experiment they mentioned does not definitively prove that life evolved from nothing, but I don't think the experiment was ever meant to be that. The fanfare was probably more media's doing than the scientists, since quite a few (but not all) are rather conservative in their proclamations. The experiment is a stepping stone, to other experiments about the origin of life. Now, to attack the specific points the use to attack this experiment:

1) There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment. (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor)

As far as I know, there's no proof that it wasn't like that either. However, ammonia and methane I think are the result of biological processes, and probably couldn't exist in significant amounts before life. Still, it does show that amino acids can be formed under reasonable conditions with a little intelligence or luck, and is a stepping stone to other research.

2) The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

I'll concede this point, since it sounds like a fair criticism. (Shocking, really) That's assuming it's assumptions about ozone and amino destroying UVs are correct, which I think they are. If someone can tell me if they are true or false that'd be great.

3) The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

One of my favorite sayings answers this quite well: It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

If the right-handed amino acids cannot create life, then this is a non issue. The left-handed ones will go on to create life, and the right-handed ones will be chemically destroyed, eventually.

If right-handed ones can create life, then why they didn't would be a fair question to raise. However, disproving this specific experiment doesn't disprove the principle, it just means that different experiments need to be devised.

4) Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.

Evolution is not pure chance. Evolution is composed of two equally important parts, mutation and natural selection. Mutation is entirely random, but natural selection isn't. It introduces the nonrandom bias of favoring mutations that increase an organism's reproductive success. I'll say it again, evolution is not random.

Here's a more accurate junkyard metaphor, made to resemble a genetic computer algorithm based on the process of mutation, natural selection, and reproduction.

Several roughly identical piles (say, 100) of junk exist in the junkyard. A very small tornado rips through the yard, introducing slight, random variations in piles. The most jumbo jet-like pile it then chosen, and the rest of the piles are discarded. The chosen pile is then copied 99 times. A tornado rips through the yard again. Rinse and repeat a few billion times.

And before you argue "Choosing implies an intelligent designer" or some other nonsense, this is just analogy. It's not perfect, it's just made to show a concept. In biological evolution, the "chosen ones" are whoever lives to breed another day.

Now for the section about comparative anatomy, the assumption that similar looking anatomical structures have similar origins.

One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.

Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.

There's no subtly in the origin definition. Similar structure suggests similar origin. It's straightforward, plain as day, and even mentioned in the first paragraph of the section.

A bat's wing and salamander's forelimb have similar structure. This implies that they have similar origin.

A bat's wind and an insect's wing, though they have identical function (enabling flight), have very different structure. This implies that they have different origins.

It couldn't be any clearer.

We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption.

It might be an assumption, but it is not an unreasonable one. Siblings resemble themselves more then they resemble other people, and they have a common ancestor, their parents. The physical resemblance is due to shared genetics.

Anatomical structures are shaped largely by genetics. Extrapolating the sibling thing, it stands to reason that similar anatomical structure amongst different animals implies similar DNA, which in turn implies a common ancestor.

In fact, there is another logical reason why things look alike—creation by an intelligent designer using a common blueprint. This is the reason that Toyota and Ford motor vehicles look so much alike. They are built to a common plan—you only have to look at them to realize this. However, the problem with the living world is that in many cases either explanation (i.e., evolution or creation) appears to be logical and it is often impossible for us to tell which is the more reasonable explanation. This is why it is important for us to understand which worldview we are using to interpret the evidence.

Creation presupposes the existence of God as the creator. Science (ideally, at least) presupposes the existence of nothing, and builds our knowledge based entirely on observation.

There is, however, one discovery that appears to make the evolutionary view of descent from a common ancestor look illogical and flawed. This discovery is that structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. If the structures evolved from the same source, you would expect the same genes to make the structures. The fact that these structures are similar (or homologous) is apparent, but the reason is not because of Darwinian evolution. It is more logical and reasonable to believe in a common Creator rather than a common ancestor.

This is interesting, and if true is worth looking into, since it refutes the whole "similar structure implies similar DNA" issue I pushed earlier in the post. I want to hear more about this. Unfortunately, there's no more in the section about this. T_T

Many evolutionists readily admit that they have failed to find evidence of the evolution of large structures such as bones and muscles, so instead they argue that they have found homology among the complex organic molecules that are found in living systems. One of these is hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. Although this protein is found in nearly all vertebrates, it is also found in some invertebrates (worms, starfish, clams, and insects) and also in some bacteria. Yet there is no evidence of the evolution of this chemical—in all cases, the same kind of molecule is complete and fully functional. If evolution has occurred, it should be possible to map out how hemoglobin evolved, but this cannot be done. To the creationist, however, hemoglobin crops up complete and fully functional wherever the Creator deems it fitting in His plan.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005071327.htm

Next section, missing links. The usual hum drum about how the fossil record is incomplete and stuff like that. I wonder if it's incomplete in that the fossils there aren't links, or that there's just nothing there, in which case it could be anything.

Then there's a chart dealing with the classification of fossils that have been found into either ape or human. Kinda meaningless, since evolution is about a spectrum of change, not rigid groups, classification like that isn't really helpful for anything.

Finally, stuff about "kinds". It argues that animals are not capable of reproducing out of their "kind", and that the "kind" boundary has never been crossed.

Based on my understanding of evolution, it's not about mixing "kinds" together, but making new "kinds". Not about crossing barriers, but erecting new ones. If a "kind" becomes geographically separated into two or more populations, the members of those populations can evolve separately in different ways, until they are reproductively isolated (meaning they can no longer interbreed), forming new "kinds". That's evolution.

Damn this is long. Tear at it.

[Illithian]

Jiggy, that logic is virtually infalliable.

Basically you just said everything I wanted to say about that ridiculously useless document.

I don't really have time to comment on each point you made in your document. The main thing that I agree with is the concept that creation came before the creator, and that Science came before nothingness; the idea that Science came before everything.

In any case, this debate has seemingly gone back to the original point. I do hope Wraith posts back in this topic, or else there will be no realistic opposition for the Bible side.

[Zafur]

I consider humans part of the animal kingdom, regardless of our intellect or mental abilities. We have the same systems of life and such... We do not fit in as plants, bacteria, or fungi. But that's another debate, I guess.

Oh, and I'd like to apologize if my previous post seemed a bit stingy. The way this discussion goes in circles because of evading questions was getting a bit annoying.

[Enkidu]

Something else to note as one of the main differences between "Evolution" and "intelligent design" is that Evolution is a part of science, it is falsifiable ( IE: Falsification ) and anything that cannot, or is not willing to be scrutinized as such is not considered science.

And by reading a few Pro-Intelligent design ( creationism ) essays, papers and books it's fairly evident that the authors have no intention of ever believing otherwise, they think " God exists, therefore intelligent design is right" which leaves no room for any kind of scientific method or in keeping with contemporary terminology is not falsifiable.

This means, regardless of evidence against a principle or belief that the belief itself will not be discarded for a more accurate or truthful one ( IE: thats how science works ) assuming there is adequate evidence for the contrary. That said, I am not saying either evolution or Intelligent design have been proved or disproved fully, but evolution is a part of science and if it is dis-proven, the scientific community as a whole will discard it and use a newer principle as long as unbiased hard evidence is found. ( of course not accounting for one or two adamant scientists, but the community as a whole )

while on the other hand, many creationist advocates have said, multiple times; " Even if ID were disproven, it would never shake my belief in god or ID because evidence means nothing " Now while that may have merit on it's own, this however does not make it exempt from the real world application and implications it has. It is NOT a science, it may have its merits as a body of literature, American history, journalism, debate etc,. but by self definition you can't classify it as science.

[Okami]

I could give you that point, Enkidu :] You're absolutely right, it is not a science to believe in God or intelligent design or anything else when it comes to a higher power.

As for everyone's skeptism and wanting 'real reasons' from me as to why I believe, well, I suppose I don't hold to anything harder than the fact that I'm alive today, as I've previously mentioned. I now know that your greatest mistakes can turn to become the most beautiful blossoms. Because I went through that...that hell, I've become someone greater than who I was before.

Jesus was an incredible guy, I think all of us could agree to that to some extent. He has given hope to many people in broken generations before us, and even in today's society. He was a great teacher, showed hypocrites their hypocrisy, showed sinners their sin, but in the end, had grace enough to forgive even those who tried to stone him, those who beat him, even to those who tormented him in Roman crucifixion.

He was a man anyone could look up to: patient, humble, forgiving. Those are the kinds of qualities I would seek in any person I call a friend. That was why people followed him, because he was so different from everyone else, he was kind to the outcasts, people with disease, illness, and leprosy. Even his disciples were astounded that he would even think to touch those kinds of people, it appalled them.

It's that kind of thing that brings my love of Psychology, to go against the norms of society. Jesus was a rebel in that way, I'd say that's good enough for me. :]

I believe that everything we do causes reap-and-sow, so basically, what we do in this moment will bring results in a later moment. If my pitiful attempts at a debate bring any added knowledge to anyone (Even if it just proves to you all how asdfghjkl;'ing stupid I am, then so be it, that's something gained!) then my part has been done. I'm not so good with the Biology stuff anymore, it's been years since I took the course...now Physics is another matter all together. Gosh, I do love the laws of gravity. Then again, I'm not too good with that, too.

Maybe Sociology...I could tell you why people do devious things! Nah...that's not helpful either. I'm just an all-around unhelpful person. Sorry :[

[Zafur]

Wait... So you're saying your belief in Intelligent Design has to do with you being still alive after going through negative events, and how good Jesus was/is?

I agree with the things you brought up about Jesus being all über awesome and stuff, but I don't see how it relates.

"God let me live through a car accident, (and Jesus PWNS, yo!) so that means Genesis is true and should be taken literally."

You surviving can be used for why you believe in God, not for why you hold that part of the Bible with greater value than Evolution and its evidence.

o-o

[Okami]

Just trying to make some connections here, Zaf. Gotta show that God is real before He can create a universe, you know :]

[Zafur]

Mm. People who won't believe probably wouldn't even with someone on the internet telling a story about it. But for debates like this, you have to at least pretend he does when you're talking about it.

Edit: Since, you know. It's Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, not Existence of God Vs Evolution. Slightly different.

You're into psychology, do you find yourself constantly examining people's minds?

[Enkidu]

I could give you that point, Enkidu :] You're absolutely right, it is not a science to believe in God or intelligent design or anything else when it comes to a higher power.

What I was getting at, is although Intelligent design is clearly not a science ( and should not be taught as a science, although Journalism, Debate, American history and literature are subjects where such a topic can be taught to serve a point ) Both science and religion both use assumptions, I assume that god is real, therefore I beleive in god. I assume that the theory of evolution is accurate to a point, and put my faith in what evidence there is.

The huge point I'm trying to make is, unlike religion which is pure assumption, pure suspension of reason; science does require hard proof, to the best of our current ( as a society/civilizations ) knowledge after which every law can still be dis-proven if there is evidence to argue against it.

In one of wraith89"s earlier posts, it was said something like " I've seen your science, and it's going down a dangerous path" And I have to completely disagree with that. Creating assumptions that must be validated to a point to even make it to the hypothesis stage, and then extensive testing must be done after which to even give it the title of theory are of the most logical ways anyone can go about making new discoveries.

If we already knew what it was we were trying to find, we would know everything already, so saying that using LOGIC to figure things out is dangerous because we initially rely on assumptions is an incorrect statement. It would be dangerous if these assumptions were pulled out of thin air ( they are not ) and not weighted or tested before being published, however there is a real basis for the theory of evolution, our advancement in biology and chemistry are proof that at least some part of the theory is valid.

It's that kind of thing that brings my love of Psychology, to go against the norms of society. Jesus was a rebel in that way, I'd say that's good enough for me. :]

Almost every new scientific idea is seen as absurd once it comes into the lime light, however unlike problems of Morales and ethics which are swayed by powerful speeches, noble acts and protests of spirit; the scientific community is swayed by irrefutable evidence and real world application.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Something else I've wondered about. Okami mentions believing in God because she thinks life should have a purpose. Well...

...what if you do discover that purpose, and you don't like it? What then?

[Zafur]

If God set a purpose for you, that's potentially going against your free will. Of course you could choose not to do God's purpose, but if he punishes you for it,I think that might still be going against your free will. (It's like saying a horse has free reign, but whipping it when it goes somewhere you don't want it to go) Of course,we don't know if he would or not.

[FLOOTENKERP]

Nobody can prove that God exists, but nobody can prove how we came to be altogether. I am a Jehovah witness, I like to believe that there is a God because it comforts me knowing there is a protector that is going to clean the world of its evil. But I don't know. God may or may not exist, but we all know that we didn't come to be on our own. There has to be something that caused this, and I'm sure science will never find out. Who knows? Maybe when we die we will find out the answer, or like science says, we are just asleep for eternity. Science has not once been able to disprove God's existence, if they cannot disprove him, then could it be possible that he exists? Same with Ala, Buddhism, and all those other religions, can we call them stupid for believing in something we don't? We can't disprove anything. God to me is hope that one day we will live on a happy Earth and Heaven, and as a Jehovah witness, it is my job to spread around that hope across the world. Maybe just by believing in God, he exists.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Nobody can prove that God exists, but nobody can prove how we came to be altogether. I am a Jehovah witness, I like to believe that there is a God because it comforts me knowing there is a protector that is going to clean the world of its evil. But I don't know. God may or may not exist, but we all know that we didn't come to be on our own. There has to be something that caused this, and I'm sure science will never find out. Who knows? Maybe when we die we will find out the answer, or like science says, we are just asleep for eternity. Science has not once been able to disprove God's existence, if they cannot disprove him, then could it be possible that he exists? Same with Ala, Buddhism, and all those other religions, can we call them stupid for believing in something we don't? We can't disprove anything. God to me is hope that one day we will live on a happy Earth and Heaven, and as a Jehovah witness, it is my job to spread around that hope across the world. Maybe just by believing in God, he exists.

The thing is, hope and comfort mean nothing to science. All that matters to science is whether or not something is true based on observation. It is cold, harsh, and indifferent, but science's purpose is not to give hope or comfort to the world. It's not meant to take it away either. The sole purpose of the scientific method is to objectively pursue what is true by means of careful observation and controlled experiments.

So, there is a lack of evidence falsifying God, and a lack of evidence supporting God. Where do we turn?

Scientist have a guideline for this sort of thing known as Occam's (somethimes spelled Ockham's) Razor (also known as the Principle of Parsimony).

Stated in Occam's own words, it is "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate", or "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." More commonly, it is said to be "A hypothesis must be no more complex than necessary"

The basic assumption behind Intelligent Design is that complex things require an intelligent designer.

So, it follows from that assumption that because we and the world around us are complex, we must have been designed. The problem with this is that our designer must be at least as complex, and likely more complex, than the thing that is being designed. And so we run into the problem of where the designer's complexity originates. Or, "Who designed the designer?"

If we follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, we are left with an infinite chain of designers, each rising in complexity to the limit of infinity. Most scientists hate infinity, and it is commonly seen as a sign that a new, more accurate theory is necessary.*

One attempt to explain this away is to say that the deity's (the most common designer candidate) complexity "just is". This adds a new assumption to the theory that violates the original one, as now we have a complex thing that apparently does not need an intelligent designer. So already there is a contradiction of assumptions.

Applying Occam's Razor with the new assumption in place, we can cut the deity out of the picture entirely. If complexity can spontaneously be formed, in the absence of proof of a deity's existence, we can draw the conclusion that our complexity was formed this way, without the need to postulate a second entity.

The end result of that line of thought is that somewhere down the line, complexity must be able to arise from simplicity somehow. Currently, the method we have for biological complexity arising from chemical simplicity is known as evolution, which works by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

Now, I will admit here that Occam's Razor is not a rigorously defined theory of axiom. It's only a guideline. However, it is my belief that Occam's Razor is a very common sense principle that reflects the goals of science quite well, which is to explain the complex phenomena of the universe using tools that are as simple as possible. Whether you accept Occam's Razor or not is up to you, just know that it is very widely accepted, especially among scientists.

There's nothing stopping Intelligent Design from being a legitimate science. It is possible that we were designed by some superior intellect (whether aliens or deities, take your pick) and then "seeded" onto this planet.** However, such a claim is very extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require evidence that is equally or more so extraordinary.*** So far, most of the "evidence" put forth by ID proponents is simply poking holes in evolution, and saying "They're wrong, so we must be right". That's not even evidence, so it doesn't meet the "extraordinary evidence" requirement for such an extraordinary claim that they are making.

If ID people want to be taken seriously as a science, they need to stop just trying to just prove that evolution is wrong and start looking trying to prove their own theory right. Until then, ID will not be taken seriously by anyone even remotely scientific.

*As an aside, general relativity faces this exact problem, currently. GR predicts that the mass at the center of a black hole reaches infinite density. Scientists that this as a sign not that black holes actually are infinitely dense, but that the theory is not complete enough to handle edge cases like this. GR tends to deal with things that are massive (like kilograms and stuff, not size), and QM with things that are extremely small in size. Black holes are both small and massive, so it's believed that QM and GR need to be combined in some way to fully explain what happens at the center of black holes.

**Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) even admits this himself in an interview for the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (It quite surprised Ben Stein)

***This is why quantum mechanics, despite being probably the most extraordinary and colossally messed up body of scientific theories in the entire history of science, is so widely accepted. The body of observational evidence so perfectly matches up with the predictions of QM that it's almost impossible to deny that it is true.