Why can't anyone see this, its like a great delusion.

[USincognito]

Well you are spot on that I am not well informed. I am way out of my league here. A few days ago I watched some YouTube and read some articles. That's pretty much as far as I've dabbled into it, and already I'm overwhelmed with the immense process that is thought to have taken place to be where we are today.

You've come to a good place to get some basic understanding. There are a number of scientists and people working in scientific fields who are participating members along with interested laymen like me.

If you have any questions, just ask them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You seem to be saying that electrons don't exist.

No, electrons just aren't what one might naively think they are.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's at least two problems with this post.

Fixed that for you

 

[Nicholas taylor]

I don't think you understood what I was saying. You do not need to choose between following God or following science. Millions of people around the world and most Christian denominations do not make or require such a choice. You can follow God as regards matters spiritual and science as regards material issues, as to how the world works.

I have been led to believe that Christians search for truth and understanding. Spirtual truth can be reached by them through God. Understanding of the world can be reached through science. There is no need for any conflict between the two. The conflict arises because a minority of fundamentalist Christian sects insist upon a literal translation of the Bible that requires they reject the well evidenced theories regarding the age of the universe and the Earth, and the evolution of life.

You say "there just may be a spiritual life after where you wish you had have thought more about whether it matters to make a choice". Very true, there may well be. But do I make choice between the spiritual life suggested by the Jews, or by the Muslims, or by the Hindus, or by the Christians, or by the Hopi Indians, or by the Bushmen of the Kalahari. All of these religions have detailed beliefs covering orgins, and morals, and spiritual matters. Which is the correct choice? Based on the evidence, none of them.

As to miracles in every church in every town, I'm pretty sure the staid congregations of the Church of Scotland where I worshipped would take a very dim view of such a claim. It strikes me as almost heretical!

Your right on all those matters. I should be more specific. Yes I agree science of course can co exist with a God. Watching a debate last night with Richard hawkins and John Lennox. Richard was saying there is no need for a God because the mechanisms all run them selves. John agreed that science has its place in studying how those mechanisms work but it is yet to have any explanation on how they started. So there is still room for God, he is not dead.

I asked my mum this question when I was a kid "which God is the one we should look to" her response was "Jesus Christ". And of course I asked why, she replied because he is the truth the light and the way. Over the years you start to understand this and it becomes evident that he is. When you say there is no evidence, I'm not sure how that's true. There have been many non Christian historians that not only say he existed but that there is good reason to believe he did rise from the dead because of the things that took place after. Even hawkins has admitted that jesus did in fact walk the earth. If the bible hasnt been proven wrong in any aspect as yet, why dis believe it, its used over and over for achiologists and the like.
I'm not one to get into relics but have a look at the " shroud of turin " it has been studied by some of the greatest minds and still found to be inexplicable. It would not be impossible for the lord to take a picture of him and record of him raising from the dead if he was who he said he was.

It was a foolish thing to say that every church has experienced a miricle. It would be true tho to say every church I have been to have experienced many. 1 in particular would see miracles every week. There is a church in Redding California "bethel" which has healing rooms open to the public everyday. Sometimes up to 500 people, sick people of course, go there for prayer and healing. Now let's just say that in all the world, on every Sunday in every church the thousands of people who are touched by God, there would only need to be one real case for him to be real?
We worship the Christian God because no one else did the miracles he said he did and no one else is still doing them today. Actually miracles aside, the verse "seek and you shall find is very relevant"

 

[Nicholas taylor]

The argument from incredulity has two facets that are usually combined - the first is plain incredulity, e.g. "that [sounds ridiculous/doesn't make sense/seems absurd], so it can't be [right/true]"; the second is lack of understanding, e.g. "I don't understand how it can be [right/true], so it can't be [right/true]".

It also applies where a claim is rejected because it conflicts with personal beliefs or convictions, e.g. "Evolution can't be true because God created each kind separately"

So the argument from incredulity is a form of argument from ignorance.

OK that seems fair. I watched something last night, a debate with John Lennox and Richard Hawkins. Hawkins brought up this argument because Lennox was saying "do you expect me to believe the cell was made randomly". Johns response to Hawkins argument was he could flip it around just the same and say Richard credulity believes in something completely irrational. So not sure whether incredulity can be a valid argument or not.

 

[Eisen Sphere]

It has become quite evident that Charles Darwin did not explain the origins of life very well. He did a great job of portraying minor variations of natural selection and in many cases he is correct. But his endeavor to convince man that all appearances of a great design can be explained via natural selection is falling apart. The evolving world from its environment is a far cry from the fundamental innovations to the beginning of life.

There have been many great minds in the field of evolution and how things have transformed, but so far any evo explanations of the origins of life are insufficient and limiting as even evolutionists are stuck on the idea of where the genetic information of DNA came from.

Darwin became public with his discoveries on the Origin of Species in the 1850’s. he formed a valid idea of species changing due to their environment. However, the discovery of DNA had not come about until 100 years later in the 1950’s.
For us to now understand how the specified information and complexity of DNA and RNA form the basis of each cell, it seems to me an incredible leap of faith to continue believing that nothing created everything through natural selection.

If you ask most people today, they will say there is no science in the idea of a design or of a God, and apparently there “is” science behind the idea of evolution. I’m yet to see or understand the science of evolution but even without scientific studies, you know as well as I do that you build, you design, you create stuff every single day. So the idea of a design is not that far-fetched. Yet the idea of even 1 protein creating itself by chance is said to be so far beyond impossible it’s hard for an intelligent mind to grasp.

Francis Crick a co-discoverer of the DNA helix, estimated that the chance of even one protein creating itself is 1 in 10 to the pwr of 164. To understand the magnitude of this number, an example is given in the idea of rolling two dice and getting double 6’s 150,000 times in a row. Another example is being blindfolded and picking out the correct particle amongst all particles in the known universe times 2. Many mathematicians accept that 1 in 10 to the 50th power is an impossibility. There are hundreds of different functioning proteins in one cell and hundreds of trillions of cells that perform different functions in the human body.

When you start to think how the hundreds of base pairs perfectly ordered in a double DNA Helix transcribe into hundreds of RNA base pairs that organize the hundreds of amino acids in a specific sequence to create a specific protein to function in a specific way your mind boggles.

But let’s say nothing is impossible, especially with unlimited time. If by some chance that 1 protein created itself at the same time hundreds of other proteins created their selves in the same location to be close enough to form a simple cell. That action would need to have been known ahead of time somehow because the cell would need to know how to eat, digest, excrete and replicate itself in its short lifespan. Otherwise, It may take another quadrillion years to get another go.

Now the theory of evolution is that it took very small steps in conjunction with chance. Granted that this allows a better chance that chance had its way. Although there are many arguments about this still being an impossible process even tho it was slowly creeping along like a mountain building itself. Lets have a look at what natural selection or stuff happening by itself has created.

We don’t live in a gray mush puddle of chemical soup that has no idea of beauty. Everything that has made itself somehow is magnificent. From the stars at night to the sun sets and rises in the day. The blue oceans that we sit and look at all day to individual families with birds, animals, humans, my wife and daughter, consciousness and emotions. The flowers of the field that have no other reason than to portray beauty or the trees that still care enough to keep us alive. Im confused how we look at this thing and laugh at people who believe in a God.

Romans 1:20; For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they are without excuse.

I could be off in my understanding of science, but still, why is the idea of this post being created and designed by a higher intelligence less believable than the letters rearranging themselves overtime to make something understandable? Is not one cell that knew ahead of its existence it was going to be apart of your eye much more complex.
References:
Google search

Might sound mean but I say let the evolutionists think the Darwin theory is real. That way when its time for judgement they will all look at each other and say, "Oh geez, we thought we were monkeys..."

 

[Speedwell]

Might sound mean but I say let the evolutionists think the Darwin theory is real. That way when its time for judgement they will all look at each other and say, "Oh geez, we thought we were monkeys..."

I thought you guys were supposed to be Evangelical Christians?

 

[Nicholas taylor]

Might sound mean but I say let the evolutionists think the Darwin theory is real. That way when its time for judgement they will all look at each other and say, "Oh geez, we thought we were monkeys..."

I haven't read Darwin's theories or books but im beginning to think he didn't suggest the beginning of life.
His suggestions about evolving due to environment seems correct. God did say it is finished and you can see that all things have evolved and seem perfect already. Inter species evolution exists tho. Just look at bacteria and dogs.

We haven't found any inter species transformation as yet. Bacteria even cannot evolve into another species of bacteria. We may have looked different 10,000 years ago but I'm not sure if we were ape's exactly

 

[Ophiolite]

Your right on all those matters. I should be more specific. Yes I agree science of course can co exist with a God. Watching a debate last night with Richard hawkins and John Lennox. Richard was saying there is no need for a God because the mechanisms all run them selves. John agreed that science has its place in studying how those mechanisms work but it is yet to have any explanation on how they started. So there is still room for God, he is not dead.

I asked my mum this question when I was a kid "which God is the one we should look to" her response was "Jesus Christ". And of course I asked why, she replied because he is the truth the light and the way. Over the years you start to understand this and it becomes evident that he is. When you say there is no evidence, I'm not sure how that's true. There have been many non Christian historians that not only say he existed but that there is good reason to believe he did rise from the dead because of the things that took place after. Even hawkins has admitted that jesus did in fact walk the earth. If the bible hasnt been proven wrong in any aspect as yet, why dis believe it, its used over and over for achiologists and the like.
I'm not one to get into relics but have a look at the " shroud of turin " it has been studied by some of the greatest minds and still found to be inexplicable. It would not be impossible for the lord to take a picture of him and record of him raising from the dead if he was who he said he was.

It was a foolish thing to say that every church has experienced a miricle. It would be true tho to say every church I have been to have experienced many. 1 in particular would see miracles every week. There is a church in Redding California "bethel" which has healing rooms open to the public everyday. Sometimes up to 500 people, sick people of course, go there for prayer and healing. Now let's just say that in all the world, on every Sunday in every church the thousands of people who are touched by God, there would only need to be one real case for him to be real?
We worship the Christian God because no one else did the miracles he said he did and no one else is still doing them today. Actually miracles aside, the verse "seek and you shall find is very relevant"

Nicolas, I know you only through our short interchange on this forum, but I like you. This is unfortunate as it presents me with a dilema. I don't wish to offend you, I don't wish to hurt you, but I fear if I respond honestly and accurately to this post of yours I shall do both, for it is filled with a great deal of nonsense. So I'm going to play the coward and shift the responsibility to you. Do you wish me to give you what I believe to be an honest and accurate response to your post? If you say "no", I'll say no more about it on this or any other thread. If you say "yes", I'll let you have my thoughts.

 

[Nicholas taylor]

Nicolas, I know you only through our short interchange on this forum, but I like you. This is unfortunate as it presents me with a dilema. I don't wish to offend you, I don't wish to hurt you, but I fear if I respond honestly and accurately to this post of yours I shall do both, for it is filled with a great deal of nonsense. So I'm going to play the coward and shift the responsibility to you. Do you wish me to give you what I believe to be an honest and accurate response to your post? If you say "no", I'll say no more about it on this or any other thread. If you say "yes", I'll let you have my thoughts.

Honestly, people block me all the on facebook time because im not afraid to reply with what i believe. I am quite thick skinned and also recognize that I've dabbled into stuff i have no idea on, so its not a problem if you give me your best shot. Just try to explain it so i understand. Im used to mockery behind intellectual words that dont make sense.

 

[Ophiolite]

Honestly, people block me all the on facebook time because im not afraid to reply with what i believe. I am quite thick skinned and also recognize that I've dabbled into stuff i have no idea on, so its not a problem if you give me your best shot. Just try to explain it so i understand. Im used to mockery behind intellectual words that dont make sense.

Thank you Nicholas. I shall give it my best shot, so I may take a little while to formulate it. If I include citations to back up my assertions it could take a couple of days. If I seem to have gone off radar send me a pm to nudge me back.

Edit: And there won't be any mockery. I don't mock people who are sincere and have an open mind. The insincere, close minded people usually do a far better job of inadvertently mocking themselves than I ever could.

 

[Nicholas taylor]

Thank you Nicholas. I shall give it my best shot, so I may take a little while to formulate it. If I include citations to back up my assertions it could take a couple of days. If I seem to have gone off radar send me a pm to nudge me back.

Edit: And there won't be any mockery. I don't mock people who are sincere and have an open mind. The insincere, close minded people usually do a far better job of inadvertently mocking themselves than I ever could.

Im just glad i found this forum. i posted this post on facebook a few days ago and only got 1 like from a Chinese girl who im not even sure can read english. the post before that which was on a more conventional, socially accepted matter got 77 comments. So its great to know where to come to converse about matters im more interested in.

If you got time to watch where the post predominantly came from, look here. He makes a better case than i do..

 

[Ophiolite]

If you got time to watch where the post predominantly came from, look here. He makes a better case than i do..

I shall, at least, view the first several minutes. It is only fair I make you aware of my biases and prejudices up front, when they are relevant to a discussion.

I'm not a fan of YouTube videos as a source of sound technical information, or as a medium for presenting a reasoned argument. In science that is generally done through textbooks and research journals respectively. Consequently I am suspicious of anything that is presented in what I tend to think of as a "dumbed down" format. That said there are honourable exceptions and perhaps this video is one of those, but I shall be approaching it with a high degree of skepticism.

That skepticism is enhanced when I read the title of the video Undisputable Proof of God. This offends me on several levels:
1. Science rarely deals in absolutes. This reads like bombastic rhetoric designed to attract those who are predisposed to accept the argument presented.
2. Since I expect to dispute their "proof", such proof is clearly not undisputable (sic)*
3. Undisputable! Clumsy, ugly, rarely used variant of the preferred indisputable. (Yes, I am a Grammar and Stylistic Nazi.)

*However, wikidiff suggests "As adjectives the difference between undisputable and indisputable is that undisputable is while indisputable is not disputable; not open to question; obviously true."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When you say there is no evidence, I'm not sure how that's true. There have been many non Christian historians that not only say he existed but that there is good reason to believe he did rise from the dead because of the things that took place after.

Citation? Who are these historians? To my knowledge there's even some uncertainty among non-Christian historians of the period whether Jesus existed at all. See Evidence for the Historicity of Jesus.

I'm not one to get into relics but have a look at the " shroud of turin " it has been studied by some of the greatest minds and still found to be inexplicable.

Not really. The 'Shroud of Turin' is probably a medieval fake, indicated by carbon dating, it's known history, its anatomical anomalies, and it has been plausibly reproduced using materials of that time.

Now let's just say that in all the world, on every Sunday in every church the thousands of people who are touched by God, there would only need to be one real case for him to be real?

Depend whether you define a miracle as a rare event or an otherwise impossible event. Let me know when an amputee grows a limb back.

We worship the Christian God because no one else did the miracles he said he did and no one else is still doing them today.

Which is entirely consistent with those miracles being stories made up to impress followers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK that seems fair. I watched something last night, a debate with John Lennox and Richard Hawkins. Hawkins brought up this argument because Lennox was saying "do you expect me to believe the cell was made randomly". Johns response to Hawkins argument was he could flip it around just the same and say Richard credulity believes in something completely irrational. So not sure whether incredulity can be a valid argument or not.

I'm going to assume that by Richard 'Hawkins', you mean Richard Dawkins. I can't quite make sense of the conversation you report, but the argument from incredulity, like the argument from ignorance, is a fallacy. It is never valid, by definition; i.e. not understanding something is not a valid argument that it is false.

The suggestion that the cell was 'made randomly' sounds like another argument fallacy, the straw man, where an argument is misrepresented so it is easy to refute or ridicule. In this case, although there are inevitably random events, chemistry is not random, and once replicators exist, natural selection can occur, which isn't random either.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Might sound mean but I say let the evolutionists think the Darwin theory is real. That way when its time for judgement they will all look at each other and say, "Oh geez, we thought we were monkeys..."

Actually, this "evolutionist", come Judgment is placing his trust in the merciful God who has made Himself known through His Son, Jesus Christ, by whose death and resurrection I have been redeemed, forgiven, justified, and have hope for eternal life in the Age to Come.

Perhaps you could do with a little less pseudo-science and a little more Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I haven't read Darwin's theories or books but im beginning to think he didn't suggest the beginning of life.

If you don't know his work, it's probably best not to speculate. He's said quite a lot about the origin of life.

... you can see that all things have evolved and seem perfect already. Inter species evolution exists tho. Just look at bacteria and dogs.

'Things' are far from perfect - for example, Unfortunate Design Flaws in Humans.

What is 'inter species evolution', and how are dogs and bacteria involved?

Bacteria even cannot evolve into another species of bacteria. We may have looked different 10,000 years ago but I'm not sure if we were ape's exactly

Bacteria can and do evolve into new species, and we're still apes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It has become quite evident that Charles Darwin did not explain the origins of life very well.

First sentence. Really?

Evolution theory is about the origin of SPECIES. Not of life itself.

There have been many great minds in the field of evolution and how things have transformed, but so far any evo explanations of the origins of life are insufficient

Maybe, just maybe, that is because evolution theory doesn't even address the origins of life?

Darwin became public with his discoveries on the Origin of Species in the 1850’s. he formed a valid idea of species changing due to their environment. However, the discovery of DNA had not come about until 100 years later in the 1950’s.

And the discovery of DNA was a slam-dunk confirmation of evolution theory (being descend with modification followed by natural selection).

DNA provided exactly what was a predicted: a carrier by which traits are past on to off spring AND which is subject to modifcation during reproduction.

For us to now understand how the specified information and complexity of DNA and RNA form the basis of each cell, it seems to me an incredible leap of faith to continue believing that nothing created everything through natural selection.

Evolution theory doesn't claim that either.

If you ask most people today, they will say there is no science in the idea of a design or of a God, and apparently there “is” science behind the idea of evolution. I’m yet to see or understand the science of evolution

Maybe, just maybe, you should inform yourself, before making threads about this subject?

Francis Crick a co-discoverer of the DNA helix, estimated that the chance of even one protein creating itself is 1 in 10 to the pwr of 164. To understand the magnitude of this number, an example is given in the idea of rolling two dice and getting double 6’s 150,000 times in a row. Another example is being blindfolded and picking out the correct particle amongst all particles in the known universe times 2. Many mathematicians accept that 1 in 10 to the 50th power is an impossibility. There are hundreds of different functioning proteins in one cell and hundreds of trillions of cells that perform different functions in the human body.

I guess it's a good thing then, that no evolutionary biologists (or geneticist) claims that any such thing ever happened.

When you start to think how the hundreds of base pairs perfectly ordered in a double DNA Helix transcribe into hundreds of RNA base pairs that organize the hundreds of amino acids in a specific sequence to create a specific protein to function in a specific way your mind boggles.

Not really, if you actually understand the underlying processes.
But, as you admit yourself, you have no understanding of any of this.

Yet, you feel qualified to spew nonsense about it.

We don’t live in a gray mush puddle of chemical soup that has no idea of beauty. Everything that has made itself somehow is magnificent.

"beauty" is subjective. It is not an objective unit of measurement.

The flowers of the field that have no other reason than to portray beauty

Errrr.... are you for real?
You do not realise that flowers form the basis for an entire eco-system of insects as a food source? Regardless of what we humans think of them?

Do you also not realise that there are flowers out there that have a smell that will make must humans puke their guts out? Or that are just plain ugly? Or will make them sick with their exotic spores?

Get over yourself - the universe is not here just for you.

or the trees that still care enough to keep us alive

Trees don't "care" about anything.

Im confused how we look at this thing and laugh at people who believe in a God.

Clearly. "Confused" is a good word to describe your state of mind, indeed.

I could be off in my understanding of science

I can guarantee you that you are...

but still

There is no "but". If you are wrong in your understanding of the sciences concerning this subject, then all your objections fall dead in the water.

There is no "but" after that "if".
If your premise is incorrect, your argument is invalid.

, why is the idea of this post being created and designed by a higher intelligence less believable than the letters rearranging themselves overtime to make something understandable?

Because letters aren't living things that reproduce with variation and which compete with peers of limited resources. Nore is there any selection pressure to arrange a string of letters in a meaningfull english sentence.

Your analogy makes no sense and is not analogous at all.

Is not one cell that knew ahead of its existence it was going to be apart of your eye much more complex.

"one cell" doesn't "know" anything.

Cells in complex living multi-celullar organisms don't know anything about the rest of the body. Cells operate on their own, obbeying local rules with no knowledge at all about what goes on elsewhere.

 

[xianghua]

It's actually a calculation of an enzyme spontaneously and instantaneously forming and thus has nothing to do with evolution.

since evolution base on random mutations its actually very similar. as i said: a tipical gene has about 4^1000 possible combinations. so what make you think that all functional sequences are near each other in such a huge space?

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes they do! Science is the interpretation of something observed. If 1 in 10 to the 50th pwr is accepted to have a "zero probability" and a case against evolution arose being 1 in 10 to the 40,000th pwr probable. Then their is surely a valid argument for incredulity there somewhere. The science becomes unsupported and even theory has no strength behind it. If big numbers have no place in the chance of evolution then fine. But well known scientists etc are the ones coming up with these interpretations not me.

As a geologist, I usually examine traits in rocks and their respective facies, and further look at fossils within them.

Geology plays a large role in support for the theory of evolution, however, when we speak of things like abiogenesis, these discussions involve cells that are soft bodied and existed, theoretically, in the archean or precambrian.

The reason I am saying this, is to point out that there are 600 or so million years worth of geology and paleontology that support the theory of evolution, beyond the discussion of abiogenesis. This is research to be considered when judging the theory.