...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[Loudmouth]

Absolutely the most idiotic argument ever. We don't need to know the origin of anything to observe what we observe.

I am talking about theories, such as atomic theory that is used in chemistry. You are telling us that we need to throw away atomic theory because we do not know where atoms came from. We need to throw out all of chemistry because we need to know the origin of atoms before we can study how atoms interact. That is YOUR argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

Intelligent people doe not use fetal development to prove evolution. They know that the fetus, the baby and the subsequent adult have the same DNA, so they know that argument is a vacuous lie.

What does the same DNA have to do with entropy?

Here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Please tell me where it says anything about having the same DNA:

"a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature"

Strangely, I see nothing about DNA. In all of my time learning about thermodynamics I have yet to read about programs that allow human beings to violate these laws. I have also never seen anyone point to a single step in the process of evolution that violates any of these laws.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It refutes the claim, "Countless people have faith, yet so few apparently experience miracles."

No, it supports that point. 35% claim to have experienced a miracle, yet the remainder haven't. I'm being generous here in assuming that the 35% all shared the same concept of 'miracle' and that they all did genuinely experience a miracle. That still leaves the majority of the faithful unrewarded.

God always answers prayer. He doesn't always say Yes.

This sounds like a bit of a cop-out. If miracles are a reward for faith, as you originally claimed, then God doesn't need to perform a miracle that relates specifically to the content of the believer's prayers. He simply needs to perform a miracle as a reward for the believer's faith. He can do that without saying "Yes" to their prayers.

How could it? Such a tree no longer exists, and such knowledge was not contained in the fruit. The knowledge was a consequence of disobediance, and the consequence of that knowledge was that man inherited a death sentance as well as a judgment on his choices of good or evil.

So Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil prior to consuming the fruit (their act of disobedience)? If they had no knowledge of good and evil prior to that moment, how could they have ever known that their disobedience was an act of evil? It sounds like God set them up to fail, placing the forbidden fruit within their reach and never imparting them with the knowledge they needed to tell right from wrong. In fact, the very act of acquiring that knowledge was forbidden to them, for reasons that remain obscure.

 

[BarryDesborough]

So Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil prior to consuming the fruit (their act of disobedience)? If they had no knowledge of good and evil prior to that moment, how could they have ever known that their disobedience was an act of evil? It sounds like God set them up to fail, placing the forbidden fruit within their reach and never imparting them with the knowledge they needed to tell right from wrong. In fact, the very act of acquiring that knowledge was forbidden to them, for reasons that remain obscure.

"A bit childish, really' - Ford Prefect in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, it supports that point. 35% claim to have experienced a miracle, yet the remainder haven't. I'm being generous here in assuming that the 35% all shared the same concept of 'miracle' and that they all did genuinely experience a miracle. That still leaves the majority of the faithful unrewarded.

A single miracle disproves a purely natural world. If any miracle ever happened, then the naturalist is proven to be living in a dream world, not reality.

So Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil prior to consuming the fruit (their act of disobedience)? If they had no knowledge of good and evil prior to that moment, how could they have ever known that their disobedience was an act of evil?

They were specifically told that by God. If God told the the difference between good and evil, they didn't have to know it themselves.

 

[driewerf]

Question: If you worked in a bookstore and was told to place the Bible in any section other than non-fiction, would you?

Yes. I would.


If you worked in a bookstore and was told to place the quran in any section other than non-fiction, would you?

 

[driewerf]

Actually, 80% of Americans believe in miracles,

Over the 99% of the Saudis believe in Islam. Does that prove that islam is correect? No. Neither your figure.

and 35% claim to have experienced them. 25% say that they've been cured from an illness by prayer, and that number goes up with people who are more religious.
source

Which just show that they want miracles to be true. A person who believes in New age will claim to be healeds by his gem stones or chakras. A christian will say it's a miracle from god, etc. It's easy to claim. It's harder to substantiate.

 

[pjnlsn]

Evolution, in reference to that part of biology is just in general likely.

 

[pjnlsn]

Well put, and something with which I agree.

The physicists/engineers I know are not concerned with biological evolution; cosmic evolution is, of course, a different story. But, most physicists tend to treat cosmic evolution as something fundamentally different - usually stopping right before "primordial soup." I am in a minority of scientists that do not favor cosmic or biological evolution.

For me, there are entropic problems with biological evolution. Actually, I have the same problems with cosmic evolution, and cosmic evolution gets complicated when you get into chromodynamics (my area of study.) This is one reason why Fermilab, and the LHC are conducting tests.

But, with all of that said, you will still get looks of horrific disdain if you EVER profess your doubt about [cosmic or biological] evolution in the scientific community, much like confessing doubt about the deity of Christ in a church.

There aren't entropic problems with biological evolution. Thermodynamics can in certain situations and with enough information let one predict the outcome of a system in some manner where other approaches would fail or not be as accurate. However, it's got nothing to do with an analysis of bone and genetic remnants to see how life on earth changed over time. Nor, in a very general sense, is there likely to be a meaningful change in such based on entropy, given how long that process takes.

And while it's a bit more likely that some meaningful change might come from applying thermodynamics to the changes in the arrangement of stellar bodies in the universe throughout all it's history, or cosmic evolution, if you want to call it that, i'm not aware of any 'problem' so large that it covers the entirety of the history of the universe and relates to the concept of entropy.

And offhand, statistics being what it is, your problem is likely to amount to something irrational, given that you're at least somewhat religious and that you call it 'cosmic evolution,' and that you prefer to suggest prejudice before giving details, without standing on a soap-box.

 

[SkyWriting]

Neither do I. I accept evolution as a scientific theory based on evidence.

There are a number of competing theories all based on evidence that point to
different theories on why and how things change. Science does not do biological
experiments using time machines to recreate past conditions.
So just saying you accept all theories of change is....well...another religion.
As is accepting all science as Holy ground.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A single miracle disproves a purely natural world. If any miracle ever happened, then the naturalist is proven to be living in a dream world, not reality.

An apparent miracle might mean that, or it might mean that we need to revise our current understanding of the universe. That really isn't germane to my question though. If miracles are a reward for faith, then why do the vast majority of the faithful go on unrewarded?

They were specifically told that by God. If God told the the difference between good and evil, they didn't have to know it themselves.

They were told not to eat from the tree. Yet they had no concept of right or wrong by which they could appraise this command. It seems that they were set up to fail from the beginning. Why would a supposedly omniscient deity even test Adam and Eve in this way knowing that they would inevitably fail because they had no concept of right or wrong? Bear in mind that it was God who placed the tree within their reach, even though the consequences of this action were known to him. Why would a supposedly benevolent deity hold the creatures of his creation responsible for his own divine incompetence? Why are Adam and Eve blamed for the sloppiness of a deity that should have known better than to place forbidden fruit within arm's reach of creatures that he had created without any concept of right or wrong? The blame for "original sin" rests with Eve's maker, not with Eve, who lacked any concept of wrongness up until the moment she bit into the fruit.

 

[twinc]

I am not really sure, as the book is a critical part of it, but it is not all (Darwin didn't know anything about genetics). So I think in this case your "in spite of" versus "with respect to" is a false dichotomy.

Evolution was being accepted long before Darwin or Wallace etc - twinc

 

[CabVet]

Evolution was being accepted long before Darwin or Wallace etc - twinc

Nobody proposed the right mechanism (natural selection) before them.

 

[Heissonear]

A single miracle disproves a purely natural world. If any miracle ever happened, then the naturalist is proven to be living in a dream world, not reality.

They were specifically told that by God. If God told the the difference between good and evil, they didn't have to know it themselves.

Words of wisdon.

Leaning towards one's own understanding to know right from wrong, and good from evil leads to Wisdom from Below. James 3:15

 

[ameliapond]

With respect to Darwin's Preservation of Favoured Races, or in spite of it?

Oh it goes right up there with Martin Luther's , "On the Jews and their lies"

 

[ameliapond]

Nature either operates as Darwin specified, or she doesn't.

Which is it?

Surely you realize that scientist do not have all the answers.
And getting one thing wrong doesn't invalidate all things by same person . Each thing must be weighed independently....tested and tried.

 

[Strathos]

You could say that gravity either operates as Newton specified or it doesn't.

We know now that it doesn't (not exactly), but Newton's theories and equations are still useful in most circumstances.

 

[pjnlsn]

There are a number of competing theories all based on evidence that point to
different theories on why and how things change. Science does not do biological
experiments using time machines to recreate past conditions.
So just saying you accept all theories of change is....well...another religion.
As is accepting all science as Holy ground.

There are no better or similar alternatives to current biology. Certainly it will continue to be improved, but there are no fundamental alternatives either similar or greater in likelihood. Or completeness, actually.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Words of wisdon.

Leaning towards one's own understanding to know right from wrong, and good from evil leads to Wisdom from Below. James 3:15

Confusion between assertion and reality.

 

[Heissonear]

Confusion between assertion and reality.

Maybe you should read the Scripture verse and see where your wisdom comes from.