Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So what? Science--including evolutionary biology--has nothing to do with the existence of God and makes no assertions about the existence of God one way or another. It is thus not the least bit surprising that many scientists should believe in God.
No, you aren't. Whenever you are provided material to consume, you make excuses to avoid it.
When I previously provided links for example, you told me you refuse to read material on linked sites. When I provide you courses, you claim they are a "waste of time". So don't pretend for a second you're interested in the details. If you were truly interested you wouldn't be here making any demands; you'd be off using the vast resources available to get an education on the subject.
You can keep lying to yourself, but you can't lie to the rest of us. Not when you're this transparent.
He's not really trying to prove anything. He's trying to show that, given our current understanding of physics, there are logically consistent and physically plausible explanations for the emergence of a universe like ours from empty spacetime, and from the state from which spacetime itself emerges - both of which would be colloquially considered 'nothing', but are not 'nothing' in the sense of the complete absence of anything, as both are states from which emergence is possible.LOL. I didn't mean that I know him personally! I just know OF him and what he is trying to prove. (that something could come from nothing).
It's just that I can't think of something coming from nothing. Of course...God would give me the same problem!
click to expandI'm only a laymen too, having spent a while studying and debating these topics you soon pick up the lingo! I think that if one (in this case the Doctor who wrote the letter) is to attempt to challenge the scientific consensus they can't be expected to be taken seriously if they can't even understand basic concepts like what a scientific theory is.
I agree...I can't put forth any scientific study but I also don't feel like I have to know the lingo to be able to speak to a science knowledgeable person. I worked at LaGuardia Airport in NYC for about 3 years and learned all the lingo..even pilot to tower control..used to listen to it for fun..not everyone could, of course, but I could. I also worked as a travel agent...do you know how many persons ask for a direct flight and they really mean a non-stop flight? I've always believed that the more knowledgeable person has to bend to the less knowledgeable person. This is humility in the works...
What you say about the big bang is the case with evolution too, it is accepted by the scientific community, the only objections come from a minority religious types with a particular set of beliefs to protect (i.e. a literal understanding of Genesis which is usually accompanied by the queer idea that God wrote the bible. Therefore, if Genesis is anything other than a literal recording of historical events that God is a liar). As someone else mentioned it's similar to the age of the Earth, it's obviously very ancient yet we have YECs dismissing any evidence and claiming it's less than 10000 years old.
Yes, yesterday I did notice that besides evolution we're separated into two groups...those that want evolution to be true and those that don't. I just really didn't know evolution was accepted as fact.
It still seems to me that there has to be a first cause--- Been listening to a lot of stuff on YouTube today.
Never really gave it too much thought....
I DO think those that say the earth is 10,000 years old are a bit off...I wonder how they justify that.
The building blocks of life can be created by natural processes, but I'm happy to agree with you to an extent - we haven't discovered how life started yet, but it did!
I'm not sure if other posters have attempted to explain to you that this is not really a problem for the TOE, however life started, be it through God's creation, natural chemical processes, or any other process we care to imagine, once the earliest life one Earth was established evolution is the best, if not the only, well evidenced explanation for how it diversified.
No,,, I noticed more what I said earlier in this post.
I don't think it could be through chemical processes, this is what Dr. Tour was talking about. I'll post the link again...He's no guru of mine,,I just understand what he's saying....If you're interested:
No problem, it's a fair request, I'll have a quick look later (I'm at work now).
Here you're speaking about Stephen Meyer....
He also speaks of fossil layers, BTW:
I mean that simply through artificial selection the process of evolution has been artificially "amplified" leading to these organisms have changed dramatically. Maize is maybe a more striking example than wheat...
Or look at these two fellows that have descended from wolves...
Just two examples of how the proccess of evolution can be "reproduced through experimentation" despite what the doctor claims.
Today I was watching the story of when Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands and noticed that the same bird developed differently on each island...this was his beginning into the origin of species.
Woah, I'm not saying that you are stupid, you obviously aren't. If you thought that I am implying that then it is obviously a flaw in my communication and I apologize. I'm criticizing the author of the letter, not you.
I knew that...no problem.
The TOE is an abbreviation of the Theory of Evolution, it get's repetitive typing that out all the time but it's important to make a distinction between evolution - the observation that populations gradually change or adapt, and the Theory of Evolution - which attempts to explain how it happens.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. (link)
It doesn't just happen in one or two generations, but is a gradual process of incremental changes, I think that you've said that you accept micro evolution? That's all it is, but over a longer period of time. There are different ways for speciation to occur, as described in the link.
The link wouldn't work...
I do believe in micro evolution...how could I not? It's a proven fact. I just don't see how animals can change into a different animal even given millions of years (or however long it takes). The Darwin birds remained birds,,,,they just adapted their beaks to their habitat and food supply.
Questions that deserve a better answer than I have time to offer at the moment (as I mentioned, I'm at work) I'll get back to you on this.
Well, one of the most prominent Genetic guys (that's the technical term for 'em I believe) in the world is Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project and is the founder of the Biologos website which has many articles on the for evidence of the TOE.
I suggest having a read through a few of the articles there.
Yes, I checked this site out yesterday.
Very readable and understandable...
I admit it alright, I also admit that a globe Earth is taught as a fact!
I hope you get a chance to look at that Biologos website, I'm sure it can answer your questions better than me.
Thanks for being so nice. I almost left here yesterday because of some reactions.
Yes, I agree. The above image doesn't mean too much if I've understood anything. Maybe the middle van should just be a larger sedan?since we can also arrange designed objects in hierarchy- order doesnt prove evolution:
also remember that even if these objects were able to reproduce it will not prove that they evolved from each other. so the same is true for living things.
Now I have to find out about the Kalam Cosmological argument!He's not really trying to prove anything. He's trying to show that, given our current understanding of physics, there are logically consistent and physically plausible explanations for the emergence of a universe like ours from empty spacetime, and from the state from which spacetime itself emerges - both of which would be colloquially considered 'nothing', but are not 'nothing' in the sense of the complete absence of anything, as both are states from which emergence is possible.
Agreed. Sorry, I just don't have the lingo.
Yes; it's a tricky problem - if God can supposedly exist without cause and without beginning, it's hard to see why one couldn't say the same of the universe and drop the need for the entire ontological realm of the supernatural. The Kalam Cosmological argument is just special pleading wrapped in semantics.
Back.He's not really trying to prove anything. He's trying to show that, given our current understanding of physics, there are logically consistent and physically plausible explanations for the emergence of a universe like ours from empty spacetime, and from the state from which spacetime itself emerges - both of which would be colloquially considered 'nothing', but are not 'nothing' in the sense of the complete absence of anything, as both are states from which emergence is possible.
Yes; it's a tricky problem - if God can supposedly exist without cause and without beginning, it's hard to see why one couldn't say the same of the universe and drop the need for the entire ontological realm of the supernatural. The Kalam Cosmological argument is just special pleading wrapped in semantics.
That's kind of a funny question....I have a quick question for you.
Do you reject the theory of evolution, because it contradicts your personal interpretation of scripture? Or, does it have nothing to do with scripture and you just believe all these Phd scientists, are practicing bad science?
That's kind of a funny question....
Two very bad choices.
Do you have a 3rd??
My theology has nothing to do with this.
I said that I'm Christian and I do believe that God created everything and/or is the first cause. There are different models even in theology for how He might have designed everything.
As to practicing bad science....
All I've been saying is that there seem to be two different sides to this evolution question and, to me, it seems to have more to do with one's theology than one's science and I think this is wrong.
The truth is the truth....no matter WHO gets hurt finding it.
None.Ok, if your theology has nothing to do with it, that would mean you simply believe the science is wrong.
What are your qualifications in this specific area of science, that allows you to toss out one of the most well evidenced scientific theories?
None.
I just have a brain that still works for the time being.
And I'm still not sure this is a proven fact...
or however the lingo goes.
Do you believe in God?
No.
You're an atheist.
So what qualifications do YOU have to say there is no God when all around you are His footprints?
See. It's the same.
Yes; sorry for not giving a link to it, but it's easy enough to find.Back.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is just what I've been posting here since yesterday. I said several times that the problem is that the universe came into being and did not exist before --- which is NOT what science used to believe. So now they have the problem of finding out what caused the BB, at that time back in the beginning.
So I watched this:
But later on I'll be watching these two:
Thanks for bringing this up....
You haven't said anything I haven't been saying since yesterday. You brought up my faith,,,not me.You didnt answer my question.
What you are doing, is the equivalent of me telling bridge engineers, they didnt design a bridge properly, that has been standing for 75 years and i have no education or qualifications, in engineering.
And, well evidenced scientific theories, have zero to do with a belief in god. Plenty of Phd biologists, believe in god and also recognize the theory of evolution as robust.
Yes,,,we know that it's a mathematical structure.Yes; sorry for not giving a link to it, but it's easy enough to find.
The claim that the universe came into being isn't as simple as it looks. As I mentioned before, it's clear that the universe as we know it (i.e. the observable universe) began at the big bang, but at present we simply can't say what preceded it (if anything).
There is also problem of any number of conflicts between our intuitive understanding of space and time and the strange nature of spacetime revealed by General Relativity and quantum mechanics, which call into question what 'beginning' or 'coming into being' means in this context, when the arrow of time we experience is the result of entropy increasing from a low point at the big bang, and not necessarily a general feature of any greater universe or multiverse.
I recommend Krauss's book ("A Universe From Nothing") if you're interest in this stuff - it's very readable, not technical, and gives a good overview of how cosmology got where it is today. Another similarly readable popular account of what we know about our place in the universe and how we know it is Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe", which covers the various kinds of multiverse that seem to be predicted by modern physics (including his own idea that our universe, i.e. reality, is a mathematical structure).
I never mentioned the word God one time in all my posts.
We that believe God created everything have the problem of not understanding where GOD got started.
We say He's the first cause....but how did HE get here?
What I'm saying is what you're saying above regarding what "prove" means. Yes,,,the present theory can be superseded and, it seems to me, already has been since many scientists are looking into alternative theories.
Re the fossil findings. As I said before,,,,we see each species of animal or flora or fauna in each fossil "age", but we do NOT see the change.
Also, if you google 'Fossil Hominins: Cranial Capacity vs. Time' and look under images, you will find a scatter diagram showing the continuous increase in the cranial capacity of hominins over the last 3.5 million years, from about 400 cm³ in Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus (2.5-3.5 Myr) to 1200-1600 cm³ in Homo sapiens. This seems to me to be as good an example of 'seeing the change' as anybody could ask for.a sequence of fossils that clearly show a morphological sequence can be dismissed as mere variation,
What has caused brand new changes to come into being? Maybe a daisy didn't exist before..WHY does it exist now?
I tend to agree with an intelligent being causing the original life ingredients and causing changes to them...but if it could be PROVEN, for sure, that everything this complicated came about on its very own...I'm willing to accept it.
Evolution has been observed in labs. If you haven’t reviewed the evidence and the science, how can you form a belief about it? What does it mean to you that the people who have reviewed the evidence, who are the experts, DO believe in evolution? How would it come about that the people most qualified to make the evaluation are wrong and you are right?i dont think so. its just a belief (if we are talking about something like a reptile evolving into a mammal) .not something that we can observe.
Many evolutionary biologists are looking into alternative versions of evolutionary theory. All of those versions, however, include universal or near-universal common descent, descent with modification, and a central role for natural selection in producing adaptive evolution.What I'm saying is what you're saying above regarding what "prove" means. Yes,,,the present theory can be superseded and, it seems to me, already has been since many scientists are looking into alternative theories.
P.S. OK, so I did bring up God!The fact that 'many scientists are looking into alternative theories' doesn't mean that the old theory of evolution was completely false. Also, the alternative theories are naturalistic and they entail the transmutation of species or, if you prefer, the transformation of one kind into another.
Yes,, it's this transmutation that is causing me a problem. If they're still looking into other theories, doesn't it mean the science is not sure about the theory of evolution? Maybe not...since science is always searching.
You ought to re-read JimmyD's post 204, particularly where he says,
Also, if you google 'Fossil Hominins: Cranial Capacity vs. Time' and look under images, you will find a scatter diagram showing the continuous increase in the cranial capacity of hominins over the last 3.5 million years, from about 400 cm³ in Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus (2.5-3.5 Myr) to 1200-1600 cm³ in Homo sapiens. This seems to me to be as good an example of 'seeing the change' as anybody could ask for.
Actually I know about this.
Is there a sudden change between
australopithecus afarensis and australopitecus africanus and homo sapiens? I just have this idea that God decided to make man into something better and different from all the other animal species. More "special".
As a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes over many generations. The first daisy didn't spring out of the soil without any parents, you know.
You don't have to reject your belief in God in order to accept evolution. After all, you don't have to deny the existence of God or to have proof that something as complicated as yourself came into existence without a divine creator in order to accept that your parents conceived you, and I can't understand why anybody should need a similar proof before they are able to accept the process of evolution.
My parents made me...but who made them and their parents? .....going all the way back to the first human?
It's difficult to accept that we come from a fish. It just boggles the mind.
Also, I have noticed that all the posters on here are atheist..well, not all. Why is that?
Can you not believe in an intelligent designer?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?