Thought about creation

[dismayed]

This is an old explanation that doesn't prove evolution by any stretch. I'm a science teacher and an optical physicist. In all my years there hasn't been any rock solid evidence of evolution. Many scientists, who hate the idea of intelligent design or creation, simply refuse to accept the alternative to evolution, which has more evidence for than against.

Are you saying that intelligent design as it has currently been defined is a valid scientific hypothesis and/or theory? Remember the scientific method? Science demands that you must document test cases. Please describe a test case by which we can disprove the existence of a supernatural being.

[dismayed]

Can someone please explain to me how someone can honestly believe that science and religion have to be at odds?

Prune, maybe this question is directed at you. I believe in God, but I think that Genesis was a story given to humans by God that they could understand given their limited comprehension at the time. It would have done no good to try to explain evolutionary biology to a newly sentient human being. And quite honestly what does it matter what method our Creator decided to use to create us.

Q1. What does it matter? Why do you even care... why is evolution such a big deal to you? Why do you think they are mutually exclusive views of creation?

Q2. Do you literally believe the Earth was created in six days, that the Earth formed before the stars, that woman was formed from a man's rib, talking snakes, the whole nine yards? Is that why you don't agree with evolution?

I'm being totally serious here. I literally don't understand.

[Prunepicker]

Are you saying that intelligent design as it has currently been defined is a
valid scientific hypothesis and/or theory? Remember the scientific method?
Science demands that you must document test cases. Please describe a test
case by which we can disprove the existence of a supernatural being.

No. I'm saying that evolution has yet to be proven. Intelligent design has
more going for it than evolution, i.e, there isn't any proof of one speicies
evolving into another. Not that it's right, it's just that evolution hasn't been
proven and ID has more going for it. I'm not giving an answer to anything. I
simply don't have a reason to believe that evolution has ever happened or
is happening.

Michael Behe.

I accept his philosophy.

[onthestrip]

No. I'm saying that evolution has yet to be proven. Intelligent design has
more going for it than evolution, i.e, there isn't any proof of one speicies
evolving into another. Not that it's right, it's just that evolution hasn't been
proven and ID has more going for it. I'm not giving an answer to anything. I
simply don't have a reason to believe that evolution has ever happened or
is happening.

Michael Behe.

I accept his philosophy.

So you are saying ID has more going for it right now than evolution simply because you just dont happen to believe in evolution? Thats idiotic. How on earth does ID have more going for it right now. Are thousands of scientist, more importantly biologists, working right now to create a THEORY of intelligent design? Come on now.

To show how dumb this argument is Ill go back to Richard Dawkins funny assesment about gravity, Intelligent falling vs. theory of gravity. Which makes the most sense to you?

[Prunepicker]

So you are saying ID has more going for it right now than evolution simply
because you just don't happen to believe in evolution?

No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

This is what I'm saying.

1. Evolution hasn't been proven. Not in any way, shape or form.
2. There's more evidence that each species came from itself.

The only reason I say this is because it's a fact. Right now, March of 2009,
there is no solid evidence that a species evolved from another species.
There's only extrapolation, which means, scientists, who want to believe in
evolution, must make up information to fill the gaps. When evolutionists can
prove their point WITHOUT guess work or filling in the spaces with
hypothesis, THEN, and only then will I accept evolution as an honest to
goodness viable scientific solution.

Right now there is NOTHING to prove evolution.

[08hybridok]

I want to get my opnion in here, altho I pretty much agree with prune. I will say I believe in ID, I'm a christian, but most of all it makes sence.

If eveoloution, why do we still look the same we did 100 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago, as far back as I can see pictures, we look basicly the same. Yes eveloution takes time, but how much time? We can create new dog breeds in just a few generations. Like someone said (Prune maybe) how did 1 orginasim become every living thing on the planet? I can see a dog/wolf mutation or something. But a whale and a daisy? Did ceation happen in 144hrs? I don't think so, day's could have been our years, decades, millenia.

I also believe science can back up ID. The Bible stories, I've seen shows saying how a volcano erupted and that was the pilar or fire by night & cloud by day, and the parting of the red sea was timed somehow by something (sorry can't recall the show now) but basicly lowered the water level at a point they could walk accross.

[Prunepicker]

I want to get my opinion in here, although I pretty much agree with prune.
I will say I believe in ID, I'm a Christian, but most of all it makes sense.

If evolution, why do we still look the same we did 100 yrs ago, 1000 yrs
ago, as far back as I can see pictures, we look basically the same. Yes
evolution takes time, but how much time? We can create new dog breeds
in just a few generations. Like someone said (Prune maybe) how did 1
organism become every living thing on the planet? I can see a dog/wolf
mutation or something. But a whale and a daisy? Did creation happen in
144hrs? I don't think so, day's could have been our years, decades,
millenia.

I also believe science can back up ID. The Bible stories, I've seen shows
saying how a volcano erupted and that was the pillar or fire by night &
cloud by day, and the parting of the red sea was timed somehow by
something (sorry can't recall the show now) but basically lowered the
water level at a point they could walk across.

When you mentioned a whale and a daisy, I couldn't help but think, "if I
were an evolutionist, it would make perfect sense." For some reason they
don't agree with that. I really don't know why. If things evolve then they
evolve, regardless. If they can only evolve into certain things then they
really don't evolve.

As far as ID goes, I'm not going to argue pro or con. My point is strictly
that evolution is only a "theory", not a theory that proves a point, but a
theory that has yet to be proven.

[HSC-Sooner]

Rapid evolution documented in ground lizards (ie they have a 'crop'-like organ not seen before in parental populations):
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

No, a daisy cannot 'evolve' into a whale just like that. They have a shared ancestor, probably dating back to millions of years ago to some of the first multicellular organisms. That's the idea of evolution, new species coming from a parental species. Not all of them survive. Evolution describes this process of speciation. But change only occurs if there is a drive for it.

This is why we still look the 'same' as we did a 1000 or 10000 years ago. When there is no real selective pressure (ie individuals die) then organisms tend to stay the same. A bat doesn't go "oh, I need to evolve" and *poof*, it's a giant bat now! If it works at being a bat in its environment, then those that stay within the normal variation lives.

This is why dogs can change so fast. If we want a big spotted dogs, we breed the ones that have big spots. Those that don't, our ancestors either neutered or cull. Within generations, you have Dalmatians. Let's say we release a population of dalmatians onto an island. Lets pretend this island has lions on them. Soon, there will be no dalmatians left on the island since their bright spots make it easy to be eaten unless the population changes. Lets say there was a litter of pups and one of them didn't have bright spots. Lets pretend that this pup has brown spots. He survives and reproduces with some of the surviving dalmatians. His litter has half spotted and half brown spots. The cycle repeats.

This process is seen in the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Except you remove dalmatians and replace it with pathogens and replace lions with antibiotics.

[dismayed]

No. I'm saying that evolution has yet to be proven. Intelligent design has
more going for it than evolution, i.e, there isn't any proof of one speicies
evolving into another. Not that it's right, it's just that evolution hasn't been
proven and ID has more going for it. I'm not giving an answer to anything. I
simply don't have a reason to believe that evolution has ever happened or
is happening.

Michael Behe.

I accept his philosophy.

Prune, I'd still like to hear your view on my second post (e.g. the why are they mutually exclusive to you posting).

Regarding this post though, I really don't see how you can say that about ID. As I have noted, but maybe I wasn't direct enough, as ID is currently defined it cannot be science because it does not follow the basic rules of the scientific method. As currently stated it can never even be listed as a hypothesis, let alone a theory, because the assumption has been stated in such a way that it can never be disproved by a test case. That in itself makes it invalid. I have read the Behe site before, because you have posted it before, and the site doesn't deny this at all and it never even addresses it. The fact is as stated this isn't science.

On the one hand you have something that perhaps not perfect conforms to the rules of science. On the other hand you have something that can't even cross the first hurtle of rules of science. How on Earth can you then say that thing has more going for it... as stated it can never even be considered for evaluation!!

[Prunepicker]

Can someone please explain to me how someone can honestly believe that
science and religion have to be at odds?

Prune, maybe this question is directed at you. I believe in God, but I think
that Genesis was a story given to humans by God that they could
understand given their limited comprehension at the time. It would have
done no good to try to explain evolutionary biology to a newly sentient
human being. And quite honestly what does it matter what method our
Creator decided to use to create us.

Q1. What does it matter? Why do you even care... why is evolution such a
big deal to you? Why do you think they are mutually exclusive views of
creation?

Q2. Do you literally believe the Earth was created in six days, that the
Earth formed before the stars, that woman was formed from a man's rib,
talking snakes, the whole nine yards? Is that why you don't agree with
evolution?

I'm being totally serious here. I literally don't understand.

I must have missed this.

Q1. It matters because evolution is not a proven theory. There are many
links that evolutionists have had to fill in the blanks because there isn't
any viable proof, otherwise. If it's going to be taught as a fact it needs to
be completely factual. Evolution is 50% fact and 50% fill in the blank.
Those are my hyperbolic numbers.

Q2. What I believe doesn't fit into the equation. The reason I don't believe
in evolution is answered in Q1. It has yet to be absolutely and inexplicably
proven.

[dismayed]

I must have missed this.

Q1. It matters because evolution is not a proven theory. There are many
links that evolutionists have had to fill in the blanks because there isn't
any viable proof, otherwise. If it's going to be taught as a fact it needs to
be completely factual. Evolution is 50% fact and 50% fill in the blank.
Those are my hyperbolic numbers.

Q2. What I believe doesn't fit into the equation. The reason I don't believe
in evolution is answered in Q1. It has yet to be absolutely and inexplicably
proven.

So you would rather rely on an assumption that is 100% unprovable as currently stated by the scientific method rather than something that is 50% fact and complies with the scientific process?

Do you see what I've been getting at here? ID is flat out not science, but I wouldn't necessarily disregard alternative theories if they actually attempted to follow the scientific process. Believe me I have read many an ID website and I don't see it out there, anywhere.

[Prunepicker]

So you would rather rely on an assumption that
is 100% unprovable as currently stated by the scientific method rather than
something that is 50% fact and complies with the scientific process?

Do you see what I've been getting at here? ID is flat out not science, but
I wouldn't necessarily disregard alternative theories if they actually attempted
to follow the scientific process. Believe me I have read many an ID website
and I don't see it out there, anywhere.

I'm not a supporter of ID.

Look, evolution is not a fact. I used the term very loosely in my previous
post. There are a lot of similarities but it stops there. There is absolutely
nothing that links one species to another. The only links they have are
made up, because there isn't anything to connect.

When I was teaching science we teachers were told to manipulate the
data, in classroom experiments, to reach the conclusion dictated by the
administration. Anytime you have to manipulate the data to arrive to a
conclusion then it isn't science. That's what evolutionists have to do.

[Prunepicker]

This discussion of evolution creates many arguments. Like politics, there is a
love-hate policy. Because we want to be right, whether in politics, religion,
education, etc... we disregard facts. Why? Because we want to be right and
nothing else matters. This type of thinking is a very natural part of
human assumption and/or rationalization.

Facts are an important requirement in my coming to any decision. Feelings
never enter into the process. Why? Because feelings have a tendency to
disregard truth. Feelings are not a product of the intellectual or scientific
process.

[oneforone]

If Evolution were true. Why hasn't man evolved again? Why would it stop at the state we are now? Why haven't other species evolved? Nothing has changed in thousands of years. Wouldn't we see some kind of change in the physical make up of man or animals?

(IE: Fish growing legs, cows growing wings, humans growing gills, a tail, or a snout, animals learning to speak, read, write and drive cars.)

I think both Intelligent Design and Evolution should be left to the individual to decide what he or she believes. All that matter is that he or she has an open mind to understand and respect both concepts.

An open mind allows you see things from different angles. Kind of like the first time you tried to stuff the round peg into the square hole on the box when you were a kid. It took you a couple of tries to figure out to flip the box over to an opposite side and VIOLA! the round hole.

I think my high school psychology teacher said it best. Yes, evolution occurred but, not how we think. Man did not morph into who he is today. He just merely adjusted to his environment as time went on. The more he learned about his capabilities the more he adjusted. This lead to the physical changes in his bone structure.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

If Evolution were true. Why hasn't man evolved again? Why would it stop at the state we are now? Why haven't other species evolved? Nothing has changed in thousands of years. Wouldn't we see some kind of change in the physical make up of man or animals?

Man continues to evolve. Human skeletons from 1000 year old European archilogicial sites are much smaller than we are today. The mere fact that modern humans have nearly identical dna to pond scum should offer some clue as well.

Noted Evolutionist Richard Dawkins spoke to a crowd of about 4000, mostly students, at OU last week. After his 45 minute presentation, he took questions for about another 45 minutes. It was one of the most enlightened discussions of evolution and religion I have heard. The first chapter of his book, God Delusion, can be read on his web site.

RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

[HSC-Sooner]

I think my high school psychology teacher said it best. Yes, evolution occurred but, not how we think. Man did not morph into who he is today. He just merely adjusted to his environment as time went on. The more he learned about his capabilities the more he adjusted. This lead to the physical changes in his bone structure.

That's what evolution does. Except there's no learning, it's just who survives and reproduces. Physical changes in body structure and also biochemistry and shape (look up sickle cell anemia and malaria).

A fish doesn't decide it wants legs and evolves. If an organism is well adapted to the niche it occupies, there's little selective pressure and thus, less evolution. But introduce pressure and the species must adapt or disappear.

I'm not interested in banning intelligent design or creationism outright. If people want to teach it to homeschool kids or at Sunday schools, I have no qualms about it. But to teach it in a science class is to destroy the idea of separation of state and religion. What is there to prevent people from teaching flood geology in a geology course? Or the earth-centric view of the universe in astronomy? It also puts forth an argument for other religious creation beliefs to be taught as science.

Would people be okay with a Hindu creation of the world in science? Or Islamic or Buddhist.

[citizenkane]

There is absolutely
nothing that links one species to another. The only links they have are
made up, because there isn't anything to connect.

The discovery of DNA further bolstered the theory of evolution because it showed specifically how different organisms were related to one other. Common sequences in genetic material allow us to see evolutionary links between such organisms.

[Prunepicker]

If Evolution were true. Why hasn't man evolved again? Why would it stop at
the state we are now?

I was watching a show on pBS a few years ago. An evolutionist was
describing how it took about 12,000 years for even the most insignificant part
of evolution to take part.

Well, I did the math.

[DaveSkater]

I think the whole world was terraformed by a great and powerful alien race hundreds of millions of years ago. Like current day pets and scientific experiments, I think they dropped in whole species to see how they performed. Perhaps they were performing cause and effect studies of global catastrophes, or perhaps the earth was a giant petri dish, and they were studying the effects of pathogens and anitbodies. Their galaxy was an order of magnitude larger than ours, (think: Horton Hears a Who) and we're literally like germs and virii. Several times during the process/project they would wipe the slate clean and start anew. (the great extinctions). The new species that occur and are dropped into the fray are genetically engineered critters, and are being studied for their various uses in whatever processes they're studying. 10 billion highly specialized human sized "anti-bodies" would serve a very nice purpose for wiping out, say, a tumor in a planet sized being. Or germs in an infected quadrant of space (think federation vs. Klingon's ala Star Trek style, or the Rebels vs the Alliance ala Star Wars).

We're just in the maturation stage right now. They're still conducting studies and experiments and comparisons of which types of human "anti-bodies" are the most virulent, the most aggressive and the most cunning.

As soon as they have their "medicine" another mass extinction will occur.

By the way, their God is the real one. (LOL) They still haven't explained Him away yet. So religion lives on, science is intact, and explanations for that pesky situation at Area 51 are given.

That's my story, and I got several other just as "unproveable" as that one. As did Darwin, and Dawkins, and the Hindu's and the uncounted other scholars much more knowedgeable than I.

To be able to imagine is the ability to create. And to create is what God did. And according to scripture, He created us in His image.

Perhaps we're miniatures of the alien race I mentioned above. Just much, much smaller.

[08hybridok]

Just another quick thought/theory before I runn off to work:

If eveloution is the way it all started, what created the initial amoebia, or whatever it is we all started as?

Also I love a line from Joan of Arcadia:
Joan [scarastic] "It's a tree"
God: "Let me see you make one"

Which also leads me to say how can a scientist create things like water. I know from chem it's H2O. But how, with out having water all ready, can you take H & O and say, now mix togather and fill my glass with water!
Ot the same theory with Joan's tree.

[USG '60]

God didn't want us making things out of nothing so he gave us plenty to work with. He also created the world so that it would take a long time and have to go through a lot of changes. He also fixed it so we would eventually figure out how he did. Why would anyone doubt what I just said?

[OKCisOK4me]

IF god created the earth to make it appear as if it were billions of years old since that is what it is suppose to be, then all those shows on the Discovery Channel and channels alike are wrong! Unless they're trying to confuse us.

My theory of the 7 days is that it was a passage of time in accordance with god's view of time, which as stated above could be millenia. To put it lightly, maybe after those billions of our years, he decided the earth would benefit by putting people on it. Unfortunately we've only existed on this planet for 3/4 of one blink of god's eyes. The creator hasn't even taken a full breath!

If you haven't gotten a chance to read it, please read 'Case For a Creator' by Lee Strobel. It's in the religious section at Barnes & Nobel and a great read for anybody interested. If god really was a scientist, it would definitely make these arguments non existent..

[dismayed]

Just another quick thought/theory before I runn off to work:

If evolution is the way it all started, what created the initial amoeba, or whatever it is we all started as?

Right, and that is exactly why evolution and belief in God do not have to be at odds with one another like so many folks try to paint the picture. Science is saying that over time life forms have evolved from earlier forms and specifically common ancestors. But science can only go back so far. It can't explain what happened before the Big Bang for example... because how can you describe something with our laws of physics and biology for a time before the universe and all its laws existed? That is where philosophy and religion come in.

I think there is an unfortunate trend by some religious folks to paint anyone who believes in science as anti-religion. This is the main reason I wanted to comment in this thread, I think it is entirely possible to have both. Unfortunately, I think when Christians choose this battle to fight they are turning more away from religion than anything. The younger generations are very logically and science minded. When religious leaders put this stake in the ground and say "choose" many are simply looking at religion as some kind of insane irrational entity and turning completely away. The ranks of the adamant atheists are growing larger and larger with every generation. People who try to drive these ultra-literal viewpoints really need to consider the effect it is having on their religion. At the rate we are going just a few more generations and I think that'll be it. And I find that quite sad. There are certain questions that are not answerable in life... I think that religion and philosophy are an important and ever increasingly neglected part of life.

[USG '60]

Don't forget that there are perfectly viable religions that have no god involved. They function as "philosophies of life" and are about living peacefully and productively with other humans. There is no reason that the young people should turn against them. They will remain viable because they don't make ridiculous demands of the people.

[willy_p19]

I'm not a supporter of ID.

Look, evolution is not a fact. I used the term very loosely in my previous
post. There are a lot of similarities but it stops there. There is absolutely
nothing that links one species to another. The only links they have are
made up, because there isn't anything to connect.

When I was teaching science we teachers were told to manipulate the
data, in classroom experiments, to reach the conclusion dictated by the
administration. Anytime you have to manipulate the data to arrive to a
conclusion then it isn't science. That's what evolutionists have to do.

What then do you make of the ERVs shared between humans and chimpanzees?

I do think it's odd, of course, to suggest that species cannot evolve over millions of years but can super evolve from the remnant 'kinds' of Noah's flood less than 6,000 years ago. What is a kind anyways?

Good to be back.