Evolution and the Existence of God

[Foxfyre]

And all that is based on an assumption that we're reading it correctly.

I've asked my Creator for one thing when I depart this Earth. I want to take my list of questions with me--questions I've been compiling for a lifetime.

Just as scientific knowledge has grown and expanded for all of human history with many misconceptions corrected along the way, I suspect we're going to be really surprised at how much of it we're still getting wrong.

 

[antagon]

And all that is based on an assumption that we're reading it correctly.

I've asked my Creator for one thing when I depart this Earth. I want to take my list of questions with me--questions I've been compiling for a lifetime.

Just as scientific knowledge has grown and expanded for all of human history with many misconceptions corrected along the way, I suspect we're going to be really surprised at how much of it we're still getting wrong.

you mentioned the infinite character of knowledge and nature earlier. pursuant to what geuxtohell proposed as a dichotomy between the faithful and atheists, i find the mysteries which science struggles to fully understand to be a testament of the greatness and infinite nature of the universe, decidedly for me, a testament to God's infinite greatness by extension.

while i think we understand the generalities which i put out about DNA to be true, every decade the granular mechanisms which work to make heredity work are better understood, sometimes turned on their head. there's too much experience in scientific history to discount that there is always more, and that the details are never certain. it keeps the world exciting, no matter how much we understand about it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not one provable find, not one provable experiment. Nothing except a long list of assumptions. The fact remains. There is no evidence that one animal species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species. NONE, NADA. We have had what? 5000 years of recorded histories? Are we to believe that all the evolution of animals into multiple other animals occurred and then stopped before man was able to record it? That in the last 2 to 3 thousand years no species has been found that evolved into 2 or more different species is not important nor germane to the supposed theory of evolution? How so very convenient.

 

[Gadawg73]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

"religous convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want" can answer religous questions but never scientific questions.

 

[Gadawg73]

Not one provable find, not one provable experiment. Nothing except a long list of assumptions. The fact remains. There is no evidence that one animal species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species. NONE, NADA. We have had what? 5000 years of recorded histories? Are we to believe that all the evolution of animals into multiple other animals occurred and then stopped before man was able to record it? That in the last 2 to 3 thousand years no species has been found that evolved into 2 or more different species is not important nor germane to the supposed theory of evolution? How so very convenient.

Fossil records show species evolving over hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
Not 5000 years.
Take a look at some cell structures and viruses. Many of those evolve in seconds.
Respectfully, have you taken Biology 101 at a university?

 

[antagon]

Not one provable find, not one provable experiment. Nothing except a long list of assumptions. The fact remains. There is no evidence that one animal species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species. NONE, NADA. We have had what? 5000 years of recorded histories? Are we to believe that all the evolution of animals into multiple other animals occurred and then stopped before man was able to record it? That in the last 2 to 3 thousand years no species has been found that evolved into 2 or more different species is not important nor germane to the supposed theory of evolution? How so very convenient.

if you ignore evidences available to you, you can't credibly refute them.

can you take up evidences proposed for evolution and demonstrate that the theoretical conclusions associated with them are false? any bit will do.

i'm not impressed with your baseless argument, even if you put it in all caps.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not one provable find, not one provable experiment. Nothing except a long list of assumptions. The fact remains. There is no evidence that one animal species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species. NONE, NADA. We have had what? 5000 years of recorded histories? Are we to believe that all the evolution of animals into multiple other animals occurred and then stopped before man was able to record it? That in the last 2 to 3 thousand years no species has been found that evolved into 2 or more different species is not important nor germane to the supposed theory of evolution? How so very convenient.

Fossil records show species evolving over hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
Not 5000 years.
Take a look at some cell structures and viruses. Many of those evolve in seconds.
Respectfully, have you taken Biology 101 at a university?

The EXCUSE used as to why we have no proof of these mythical evolutions is that fossil records can not record the changes in a manner one can see. You can not use fossil records to show that an entirely new species was once a different species, because well they are different.

There is no fossil evidence of evolution of one animal species into 2 or more different species. You may want to actually learn what science does and does not know and what records they actually have.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not one provable find, not one provable experiment. Nothing except a long list of assumptions. The fact remains. There is no evidence that one animal species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species. NONE, NADA. We have had what? 5000 years of recorded histories? Are we to believe that all the evolution of animals into multiple other animals occurred and then stopped before man was able to record it? That in the last 2 to 3 thousand years no species has been found that evolved into 2 or more different species is not important nor germane to the supposed theory of evolution? How so very convenient.

if you ignore evidences available to you, you can't credibly refute them.

can you take up evidences proposed for evolution and demonstrate that the theoretical conclusions associated with them are false? any bit will do.

i'm not impressed with your baseless argument, even if you put it in all caps.

You have no evidence for me to refute. You have made a claim, that animals can evolve from one species into 2 or more different species. I have stated you have no proof. It is not my job to prove the negative, it is your job to prove the positive. Provide for me actual evidence that a single species has ever evolved into 2 or more other species and I do mean animals. Not viruses and not plants.

All you have is the DNA strands that YOU claim provide evidence that species are related. Using those records man is related to all kind of species. Pigs, Mice, Apes and I bet there are others as well. That is not evidence of evolution at all. You and science do not have the source for each species to prove they did not have those DNA relationships from the start.

Once again, you have a long list of ASSUMPTIONS. Assumptions made with out any evidence to support them. The only thing that IS proven is that within a species evolution occurs. They have extensive fossil evidence of the Horse for that part of the theory.

 

[del]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

"religous convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want" can answer religous questions but never scientific questions.

nor has he posited that they can, only that they can coexist, with which i agree.

 

[Gadawg73]

Not one provable find, not one provable experiment. Nothing except a long list of assumptions. The fact remains. There is no evidence that one animal species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species. NONE, NADA. We have had what? 5000 years of recorded histories? Are we to believe that all the evolution of animals into multiple other animals occurred and then stopped before man was able to record it? That in the last 2 to 3 thousand years no species has been found that evolved into 2 or more different species is not important nor germane to the supposed theory of evolution? How so very convenient.

Fossil records show species evolving over hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
Not 5000 years.
Take a look at some cell structures and viruses. Many of those evolve in seconds.
Respectfully, have you taken Biology 101 at a university?

The EXCUSE used as to why we have no proof of these mythical evolutions is that fossil records can not record the changes in a manner one can see. You can not use fossil records to show that an entirely new species was once a different species, because well they are different.

There is no fossil evidence of evolution of one animal species into 2 or more different species. You may want to actually learn what science does and does not know and what records they actually have.

Did man ever see the snow and ice fall 150,000 years ago?
We have ice records taken from core samples that show us what the makeupof the environment was during those periods 150,000 years ago.
Same with the fossil record.
Again, respectfully, where did you take Biology 101? Why is it that thousands of universities and colleges worldwide teach Biology and evolution as fact and only 2 do not?
Could it be that those 2 universities that do not are religous universities?

 

[Gadawg73]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

"religous convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want" can answer religous questions but never scientific questions.

nor has he posited that they can, only that they can coexist, with which i agree.

And I also agree.

 

[antagon]

Not one provable find, not one provable experiment. Nothing except a long list of assumptions. The fact remains. There is no evidence that one animal species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species. NONE, NADA. We have had what? 5000 years of recorded histories? Are we to believe that all the evolution of animals into multiple other animals occurred and then stopped before man was able to record it? That in the last 2 to 3 thousand years no species has been found that evolved into 2 or more different species is not important nor germane to the supposed theory of evolution? How so very convenient.

if you ignore evidences available to you, you can't credibly refute them.

can you take up evidences proposed for evolution and demonstrate that the theoretical conclusions associated with them are false? any bit will do.

i'm not impressed with your baseless argument, even if you put it in all caps.

You have no evidence for me to refute. You have made a claim, that animals can evolve from one species into 2 or more different species. I have stated you have no proof. It is not my job to prove the negative, it is your job to prove the positive. Provide for me actual evidence that a single species has ever evolved into 2 or more other species and I do mean animals. Not viruses and not plants.

All you have is the DNA strands that YOU claim provide evidence that species are related. Using those records man is related to all kind of species. Pigs, Mice, Apes and I bet there are others as well. That is not evidence of evolution at all. You and science do not have the source for each species to prove they did not have those DNA relationships from the start.

Once again, you have a long list of ASSUMPTIONS. Assumptions made with out any evidence to support them. The only thing that IS proven is that within a species evolution occurs. They have extensive fossil evidence of the Horse for that part of the theory.

you drive home the obvious that theories are presumptions or assumptions. theories in science are explored by way of hypotheses which are proven or disproved. these shape or refute the theory under examination. as the theory of evolution stands, no hypothesis has ever been raised and proven which refutes that there has been evolution, while many hundreds support it. in science, there is indeed an onus on the challenger to disprove a theory. the ball is in your court.

you've not challenged me, sarge, i've not published anything on the topic. can you put forward a finding or claimed resolution to a hypothesis supporting evolution which you have the wherewithal to refute? i take for granted that you've actually made such examinations and studied on scientific contentions before writing them all off with one of your own. a benefit of the doubt.

i reject your simplification of the ways DNA evidence indicates evolution. first you likened the DNA of a mouse and a human to be like a pool. i directed you to the specific, evolutionary relationship between the two genomes. ignoring that, you have reduced these the commonalities between pigs, mice, apes and men to be generic relationships. i advise you again, that the relationships can be shown to be that of descendancy, indicating a closer proximity between apes and men than between mice and men.

we have a strong understanding that genes are transcribed in reproduction, and are related to the phenotypes which are expressed in lifeforms. there is no evidence that any other mechanism is responsible for these functions. granted these understandings, we can determine which creatures are related to eachother and how. given collateral findings like fossils and RNA gene-dating, the relative time of divergence can be determined. all the broader theory of evolution contends is that there is a descendancy between creatures whereby adaptations represented in heritable genes are responsible for biodiversity. can you refute that without paraphrasing inaccuracies into play, or without ignoring major implications of the nature of genetics?

failing that, a hypothesis which i'll put up here in relationship to our discussion on faith could be addressed:

many who make faith(or lack there of)-based conclusions on the topic of evolution do so by ignoring and dismissing rather than exploring and examining evidence for evolution. in doing so, the contentions raised by such people as yourself aim to deem 99.xx% of the bioscience community as inept in their pursuits, without raising any plausible alternatives, or engaging in any real debate based on observations of nature on par with those scientists.

if you cant deny the realities of my theory, might you be among the first to act outside its bounds and base your negation of evolution on an observation of nature? can you deny that rather than addressing evidence, that you have already ignored and dismissed all that has been presented you without any specific argument refuting it?

 

[Foxfyre]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

"religous convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want" can answer religous questions but never scientific questions.

Sure they can. Science cannot answer the questions of how the human hand or the human brain are the most remarkable engineering feat ever accomplished, but a God who knows what he is doing answers that question quite nicely. All you have to do is believe it.

Einstein, who could not or at least did not accept a personal God, also could not embrace Atheism. He could not accept that the unimaginable complexity of the Universe, the symmetry, the obvious order, and the incredible beauty that exists was all just a matter of random chance. Therefore he was able to accept the possibility of some kind of cosmic intelligent design being a factor in all of this.

In fact intelligent design, whether emanating from some identifiable deity or not, fills in all the gaps that science cannot yet fill.

 

[geauxtohell]

i think that the genetic side of the argument goes beyond 'everything on this planet came from the same pool of resources.'

It goes much beyond that.

Furthermore, genetics emerged after evolutionary theory. Modern genetics has only served to affirm ET.

 

[geauxtohell]

Sure they can. Science cannot answer the questions of how the human hand or the human brain are the most remarkable engineering feat ever accomplished, but a God who knows what he is doing answers that question quite nicely. All you have to do is believe it.

It certainly can:
Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing

Futhermore, have you ever considered the homology between the bone structure in a human's hand and a bat's wing? They are virtually similar. A bird's wing is designed completely differently than a bat's wing.

Science doesn't have all the answers, but the "God in the gaps" mentality is an affront to scientific inquiry.

Science doesn't have to step on religion. However, religion shouldn't step on science either. You are entitled to hold your own personal beliefs, but to make blanket statements that "science can't do X so the only answer is God" is the other side of the "Evolution Disproves God" coin.

Einstein, who could not or at least did not accept a personal God, also could not embrace Atheism. He could not accept that the unimaginable complexity of the Universe, the symmetry, the obvious order, and the incredible beauty that exists was all just a matter of random chance. Therefore he was able to accept the possibility of some kind of cosmic intelligent design being a factor in all of this.

In fact intelligent design, whether emanating from some identifiable deity or not, fills in all the gaps that science cannot yet fill.

That's because ID is a canard. It doesn't really fill any gaps. It just white washes the questions. Again, ID can be believed as someone's personal belief system. I believe in ET and I believe in God, so at some level, I have to subscribe to ID.

However, I would never claim for a second that ID was a valid scientific theory. It is not.

Dr. Kenneth Miller does a wonderful job of explaining all of this. We always bring it up and link it, and the ID crowd always ignores it. Dr. Miller is a Roman Catholic.

Here it is again:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg]YouTube - Ken Miller on Intelligent Design[/ame]

Basically, the crux of this thread is addressed in this two hour segment.

 

[Neubarth]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

Yes, they co-exist quite well. What they do not do is blend. Faith and science are completely, totally and unquestionably separate and must stay that way in order to coexist. That is not to say you cannot have beliefs about the physical world that stem from faith and beliefs about faith that stem from your observations but they are separate from each other. Faith requires NO proof, it is personal and spiritual. Science requires no faith, it is cold and without opinion and requires a fluidity in beliefs and findings. Science cannot prove what is outside of the natural world (aka God) and faith cannot describe science as faith does not require proof or evidence.

They BLEND very well. I worship an ANGRY GOD who believes in total and painful destruction of all that oppose Him. That goes hand in hand with science which says the whole show is going to collapse in upon itself some day. Both perspectives totally mesh.

 

[Foxfyre]

Science doesn't have all the answers, but the "God in the gaps" mentality is an affront to scientific inquiry.

It is an affront only to those who accept only the possibilities they understand and refuse to open their minds to any other possibilities.

Science never does that. Science never presumes anything as absolute but that the possibility of other possibilities is always present.

 

[geauxtohell]

It is an affront only to those who accept only the possibilities they understand and refuse to open their minds to any other possibilities.

No, it's an affront to those who understand how scientific methodology works.

Science never does that. Science never presumes anything as absolute but that the possibility of other possibilities is always present.

Absolutely, but those possibilities must be able to be explained through natural measures and fit within the scientific method. Introducing any supernatural force automatically makes the venture non-scientific.

Again, Dr. Miller does a better job with this than I ever could.

BTW, the Santorum recommended and Bush Appointed Judge at the Dover Trial also agreed that ID is not a scientific theory.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is an affront only to those who accept only the possibilities they understand and refuse to open their minds to any other possibilities.

No, it's an affront to those who understand how scientific methodology works.

Science never does that. Science never presumes anything as absolute but that the possibility of other possibilities is always present.

Absolutely, but those possibilities must be able to be explained through natural measures and fit within the scientific method. Introducing any supernatural force automatically makes the venture non-scientific.

Again, Dr. Miller does a better job with this than I ever could.

BTW, the Santorum recommended and Bush Appointed Judge at the Dover Trial also agreed that ID is not a scientific theory.

But you see, you're trying to dismiss ID with scientific logic which puts you squarely into the faith based category.

I'm not trying to support ID with science. My contention is that science does not include what cannot be verified or falsified via scientific method, but neither does it suppose that we will never be able to use scientific method in areas that do not now apply.

Nor does science assume that it has the answers or even probability for all things and does not presume to speculate about those things for which it can establish no measure of probability. Science never concludes that those things outside the realm of science will never be within the realm of science. For that reason, good science is an ever expanding discipline unrestricted by premature conclusions.

ID has even less constraints than does science. Our understanding of ID is limited only by the limitations of the human mind to grasp ideas, propose, consider, hope for, or contemplate realities and/or possibilities. Actual ID isn't even limited by that.

 

[HUGGY]

Science and religion are welded together with the same question. Where did god come from? Where did the material of the universe come from? There is no answer to either question.

We as humans don't have a brain capable of exploring either question to any satisfaction.