Chance and evolution

[lucaspa]

Dr. Carl Baugh said, or I heard it wrong, Darwin did pleasd insane. BUt if he didnt o well...

Then you should check Baugh, shouldn't you? I gave you a site with Darwin's writings. Didn't Baugh say Darwin wrote this? Then it would be among his writings. Find it.

"Evolution did occur and is occuring as we speak"

Well, you are unless I have in the last month or so not heard that it is, the scientific community agrees that we are not evolving.

Two different concepts:
1. Evolution is occurring.
2. Humans are evolving.

You switched terms. Evolution, remember, is descent with modification. It applies to populations of organisms. And yes, it is occurring. Or hadn't you heard about cautions in using antibiotics because microorganisms are modifying and becoming immune?

Perhaps you hadn't heard of scientific papers describing how some populations of humans are also being modified. Here are a couple:
6: Hum Biol 2000 Feb;72(1):201-28 Tibetan and Andean patterns of adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia. Beall CM
11: Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 1999 Sep;124(1):1-17 Adaptation and conservation of physiological systems in the evolution of human hypoxia tolerance. Hochachka PW, Rupert JL, Monge C

Both of these papers show modifications of people living at high altitudes in the Himalayas and Andes to the decreased levels of oxygen (hypoxia) there. Notice the words "adaptation" and "evolution" in the titles of the paper.

Gnarly, your source has deceived you. I'm sorry.

Another example of evolution happening.

3. D. Grady, Quick-change pathogens gain an evolutionary advantage.Science, vol.274: 1081, 1996 (November 15). The primary research articleis JE LeClerc, B Li, WL Payne, TA Cebula, High mutation frequencies among Eschericia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science, 274: 1208-1211, 1996 (Nov.15).

These papers describe the evolution of a brand new species of E. coli with a brand new ability: the ability to live in acidic solutions such as apple juice. This evolution had tragic results since we don't pasteurize apple juice because bacteria can't live (or couldn't) in the acid conditions. Over 20 people died as a result of this bit of evolution.

"Where did God come from?"

Sir, now come on, sincerely. No wonder you deny the existence of GOD, you dont even know what GOD is. Here is a website that goes in more detail: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

But to make it shorter, you dont know the concept of GOD. GOD has always existed, there is no begginning to GOD.

You missed the point Gnarly. I was arguing for God there by saying that this particular argument against God was invalid. Please go back are read more carefully. Just like posing that unanswered question can't challenge the claim that God caused the existence of the universe, asking where the universe came from can't challenge the claim that evolution caused the diversity of life on the planet.

Or maybe you got the point but are trying to distract me? That tactic won't work.

Also, saying "God always existed" is still answering the question, isn't it? It's the same as saying "God didn't come from anywhere but was always present."

If GOD was created, wouldnt that make GOD not GOD?

Not necessarily. Remember, God is known thru His interactions with humanity and what He says He will do for humanity. Even if God were created by some other entity, those wouldn't change, would they? God would still have set the Hebrews free from Egypt and still resurrected Jesus. Aren't those what makes God God?

The cause is greater than the effect as you should have learned in grade sshool.

Ah, you're going to try the Kalam argument. This is a logical proposition that has since been shown to be false. Ever hear of Chaos Theory? Ever here the story that a butterfly flaps his wings in China and New York has a blizzard? In that case, the cause is less than the effect, isn't it?

There are many ways in nature where the cause is less than the effect. Here's another one. A mutation changes one base in the genome of a multilegged worm called Artemia and the offspring have only six legs instead of 12.
1a. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature716_fs.html Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W. Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7

"How did God create the universe?"

God is all-powerfull, if you are refering to my GOD.

Either you did miss the point or you are trying to turn the discussion into a referendum on God. I'm not going to do that. Please go back and read the post again.

Gnarly, you can view science as the search to discover just how God did create the universe. Yes, God is powerful, but God can also choose how He will act. Science is trying to determine which choice God did in fact make.

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God."

Do you undestand what Gravesande is saying there?

What happens to many Biblical literalists is that they believe that unless God is acting by a miracle, then God is not acting. Where did you get that idea?

"1. "How did the diversity of living organisms come about?" Answer: They evolved thru descent with modification." Yes, could have, but not a fact.

Yes, is a fact.

"2. Where did they descend from? Answer: A primitive cell." You really need to reexamine your critearia. Even a single cell organism is very complex. No organism is truly "simple." Name a primitive cell, once you do, I can as of right now garuntee you it was not truly without complexity. If this is true as I claim, evolution cant be really true....

Protocells. Oh, they do have complexity, but the complexity comes about thru chemistry

3. How did the cell come about? Answer: Chemistry. Once again, cause has to be greater than effect. Chemistry brought the cell into being.

Already has. Been done. Thousands of times. Start here and we can discuss it in more detail if you want:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

5. Where did stars come from? Answer: From gravity collapsing hydrogen. Serious? Yes. But lets look at what Brandon Carter has calculated; The odds against the conditions be suitable for later star formation without which planents would not exist is 1 followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros!

Source? Several months ago Discover had an article showing that the early conditions of the universe such as to form stars. We can see new stars form now. Several of them via the Hubble. If Carter's calculations were accurate, we wouldn't see this.

6. What caused the Big Bang? Answer: We don't know. Exactly, not that it is wrong, but it is though not a scientific observation, but rather a epistomological question in philosophy.

It's also a question for science. It's just that we have at least 5 hypotheses and insufficient data to decide between them. I have a thread in the forum entitled "First Cause" that lists them.

But that the cause is the subject of science can be seen by these scientific papers describing 2 of the hypotheses. You can also read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
1. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/inf_lowden.html
2. http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/hawking1/
1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001. "Ekpyrotic" model. www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515/189

No known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch.'

Well, there are mechanisms, but it wouldn't produce an infinitely cycling universe. Second Law of Thermodynamics would get them. However, I'm not talking about this anyway. Besides, the data says the universe isn't going to Crunch. It is going to expand forever.

The Big Bang either had to be created by something, which only implies a creator, or it didnt happen.

4 of the 5 hypotheses for causes of the Big Bang do not involve a "creator" as in a deity. The 5th hypothesis is, of course, that deity caused the Big Bang in order to create the universe.

Bottom line: you can't say "only".

I'm afraid your source has again kept a lot of information from you. Sorry again. I hate to see good people like you conned.

"Your logic is just as invalid as that of the militant atheists who try to deny that God created the universe by saying we don't know the origin of God."

There is no "origin" to GOD, He has always existed and always will. That shows GOD didnt come from somewhere.

1. Did you notice that I said that the atheist argument was wrong?
2. We are talking about your logic to say evolution is false, not whether God always existed or not.

3. Your statements that God has always existed and always will is your belief. I'm not trying to change that belief. However, that belief does not "show God didn't come from somewhere." The phrase "God didn't come from somewhere." is simply stating the belief that God has always existed in different words. It's not a logical conclusion.

 

[gnarly love]

I can give a refutation to almost all those arguements, but then you will give most likely an equall refutation. I do this so much in another forum like this. It is just one dumb endless cycle. I have seen the hatered of GOD, it dwells within the closed hearted of the open minded.

I do wish to know; what are the 5 hypothesiss of the Big Bang?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I can give a refutation to almost all those arguements, but then you will give most likely an equall refutation. I do this so much in another forum like this. It is just one dumb endless cycle. I have seen the hatered of GOD, it dwells within the closed hearted of the open minded.

Throwing in the towel?

And, you do realize that lucaspa is a Christian, right?

 

[Arikay]

So basically Lucaspa does not agree with you and neither do the Majority of christians, Thus they must not be "true christians"

A tip, Stop Reading DrDino. It will save you both money and sanity.

 

[Jet Black]

I can give a refutation to almost all those arguements, but then you will give most likely an equall refutation. I do this so much in another forum like this. It is just one dumb endless cycle. I have seen the hatered of GOD, it dwells within the closed hearted of the open minded.

I do wish to know; what are the 5 hypothesiss of the Big Bang?

the thing is, Lucaspa and many of the other posters here are christians. you can give refutations, but what you need to do is back them up with facts. not hovind seminars.

 

[DaQo'tah]

Hi my name is DaQo'tah

I am a Christian..I believ in the Bible and all the books and stories within the Bible.

I believe in Evolution as well...I believe that evolution is in harmony with the text of Genesis...they may sing to us with each a different voice, yet they are easly able to be heard and enjoyed...

Today I write on the topic of "Chance" as viewed by a Christian like myself.

Is there such a thing as "chance"...yes and no...deppends on the point of view. ..let me show you how,

In the story of Jonah and the whale (or fish for you who read the story), Jonah found himself on a ship in the middle of the sea in a very bad storm. The crew of the ship knew the storm was so bad that it had to be a sign from God. So the crew decided to cast lots to see who was at falt for the storm.

Well the lot fell onto Jonah and sure enough the crew tossed him over the side of the boat, and into the mouth of the waiteing fish there..GULP!, and he was gone.

NOW.....now this casting of the lot...was it just left to chance?

If you were a scientest watching the crew cast lots, toss dice, draw straws, ect, and closely watched how things went, would you notice anything but "chance"?....I dont think so.

I believe that if anyone was watching closely the casting of the lot onto poor Jonah they would not have seen any sign or proof at all that anything else was ruleing the casting of the lots except for Dumb Luck and the rules of chance..

Yet we who are believers in the Bible also see something else very clearly,,,for we see the "hand of God" in the casting of the lot onto Jonah.

We dont see that there was any "chance" here at all...


so yes, the rules of chance can be in effect, and not in effect in this world,,,both systems working yet not,,,,and still have truth.

This means that within evolution the scientest can correctly see only "Chance" at work,,and yet the Believer so no sign of Chance at all,,,and yet both views are correct.

harmony!

 

[gnarly love]

I just desire to learn the 5 cases of the big bang. Please someone give me these cases...

 

[Arikay]

Im not sure we understand you. Do you mean 5 possible first cause events? Or do you mean 5 differnt hypothesis about the big bang.

Do any of them include the big bang spinning?

I just desire to learn the 5 cases of the big bang. Please someone give me these cases...

 

[gnarly love]

5 hypotheses for causes of the Big Bang sounds nice. And I might include Big Bang spinning if you also explain it to me...
Thanks.

 

[Arikay]

So, you want 5 possible first causes.

see this thread:
the first post,
http://www.christianforums.com/t43923

As far as the big bang spinning, thats often a false argument DrDino uses, it normally says that since the big bang was spinning when it happend, no planets should have a retrograde rotation, or something like that. As I said, its a false argument.

 

[obediah001]

No the big bang itself is the false argument here!

 

[Mike Flynn]

No the big bang itself is the false argument here!

Care to justify yourself? Or are you just here to pass judgement?

 

[obediah001]

It came from the imagination of desperate men & so far the discipline of science has not supported the imaginative theory at all.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

No the big bang itself is the false argument here!

Put up or shut up.

You do realize that the Big Bang theory was formulated by a Christian, right?

 

[Mike Flynn]

It came from the imagination of desperate men & so far the discipline of science has not supported the imaginative theory at all.

Once again, care to justify that? or are you just here to pass judgements?

I know you don't believe me obediah001, but your posts are only giving testament to your ignorance in the field of science. If you want to refute the Big Bang, can you give us something more specific or not?

The discipline of science points to a big bang according to every measurment of the universe we have ever made. If you want to argue this, do so with some tangiable arguments. If you want to pass judgement, read the new testatment...this isn't your job as a Christian.

 

[obediah001]

yeah I am sure of that one haha. A true christian I am sure. you is getting funny in your desperation here!

 

[Mike Flynn]

yeah I am sure of that one haha. A true christian I am sure. you is getting funny in your desperation here!

Desparation? You sure are a strange judge of character. Let me ask you this: What good fruit will come from your insults to scientists?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

yeah I am sure of that one haha. A true christian I am sure. you is getting funny in your desperation here!

Do you have anything substansive to bring to the table here or are you just going to keep passing around insults and writing "evilution is false" without basis?

 

[Arikay]

The first to propose what has now become the big bang theory was a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître. So congrats, you just insulted a priest.

Now can you go and troll somewhere else?

yeah I am sure of that one haha. A true christian I am sure. you is getting funny in your desperation here!

 

[revolutio]

yeah I am sure of that one haha. A true christian I am sure. you is getting funny in your desperation here!

Even if you do believe the things you have been posting you are still clearly trolling. I find it hard to accept that you are not fully aware that your unsupported and rash remarks will incite discord. Though I hardly expect you to stop for a polite request, I would recommend that anyone who is thinking of responding to these posts not do so.