This is related to my nothing from nothing thread.

Some scientists claim that science can only accept that which can be reproduced in the lab. But that seems far from true. Lets examine some well known theories.

Take the Big Bang theory. Here's a definition from a science website. It is the same as what I was taught as a child in public school:

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
Big Bang Theory (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/)

And take the theory of evolution and abiogenesis for another:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)

These are obviously assumptions which science accepts as truths. No one can produce something from nothing in the lab or anywhere. And no one can produce life from non life.

Yet the theories based on these obviously false assumptions are now passed on as facts.

Sincerely,

Very true. It's so sad that these lies are being taught as truths.

I don't know how many times that you have to be told that the web site you are looking at are wrong before you understand. Web sites can be wrong it happens, kind of like how priests can molest children they shouldn't but it happens.

Evolution is the theory of how from the first replicating organism diversified and evolved. I always recommend the good people at Berkeley to explain evolution in a correct and easy to understand way. Here is their web site and the definition of evolution from their web site. Stop using the web site you have and use Berkeley one they have the entire theory correct on their site.
Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

For the Big bang I suggest you read the article from the University of Michigan they have a very good article that explains it very well. It even points out a few holes in the theory(oh my). Here is the web site and a highlight from the site.
THE BIG BANG (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm)
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

If you want to question theories good for you, science is about questioning theories but you should at least understand the existing theories and the evidence behind it. Otherwise you are wasting your time and appear to be uneducated.

Very true. It's so sad that these lies are being taught as truths.Many feel the same about the bible Donna.

1. If there was a god as depicted in the Bible who created the Universe out of nothing, THEN **THERE WAS NEVER NOTHING**... there was always god.

2. Evolution is **not** about the origin of life from non-living matter.


I really get tired of Christians lying about science. How morally bankrupt can they be?

I can't believe people site Wikipedia as a real source!!

His other source is a no-so-cleverly disguised site devote to the bible and intelligent design. It links to content like this: Intelligent Design (http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm)
And this: Who Wrote The Bible? (http://www.allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm)

Whenever someone feels the needs to register domain names like that versus having subdomains/subdirectories off the main domain (i.e. http://www.allaboutgod.com/bigbang) then there is some deception at work. This is often seen in MLM schemes.

He is passing the domain off as a definitive scientific reference when its owners actually professs the following (http://www.allaboutgod.com/aboutus.htm):

ABOUT US
We write compelling websites that reach out to skeptics, seekers, believers, and a hurting world with powerful evidence for God and the Good News of Jesus.

We believe truth transforms lives. Therefore, we place our content on the first few pages of the most popular search engines in the world. That way, when people seek answers on the Web, we're there with the truth at the top!

I don't know how many times that you have to be told that the web site you are looking at are wrong before you understand. Web sites can be wrong it happens, kind of like how priests can molest children they shouldn't but it happens. ....
If you want to question theories good for you, science is about questioning theories but you should at least understand the existing theories and the evidence behind it. Otherwise you are wasting your time and appear to be uneducated.

Are you saying that Science does not now and never has taught that the universe came from nothing?

Are you saying that Science does not now and has never taught that life on this earth evolved from non living matter?

Sincerely,

De Maria

His other source is a no-so-cleverly disguised site devote to the bible and intelligent design. It links to content like this: Intelligent Design (http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm)
and this: Who Wrote The Bible? (http://www.allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm)

Whenever someone feels the needs to register domain names like that versus having subdomains/subdirectories off of the main domain (i.e. http://www.allaboutgod.com/bigbang) then there is some deception at work. This is often seen in MLM schemes.

He is passing the domain off as a definitive scientific reference when its owners actually professs the following (http://www.allaboutgod.com/aboutus.htm):

1. Its not my domain.
2. All you have to do is Google the either evolution or the big bang and you will see that the explanations I presented are accurate.
3. Essentially, what Michealb is doing is pitting one scientist against another. However, I think I can prove that most scientists once believed and continue to believe that the universe came from nothing and that life evolved from non life.
4. Whether they once believed or continue to believe those unverifiable theories is proof that science violates its own standards, since science purports to contain only quantifiable, testable data.

So, let the discussion continue.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Are you saying that Science does not now and never has taught that the universe came from nothing?

Science isn't one person or even one group of people. So to say that science does or doesn't say something is impossible to do. All I can say is that current widely accepted theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing. Have people that called themselves scientist been wrong in the past absolutely without question. Could we still be wrong absolutely without question. Should we teach the theories that support the evidence the best at the time they are being taught absoutely without question.



Are you saying that Science does not now and has never taught that life on this earth evolved from non living matter?

I'm saying that there are many competing theories about how life came into existence from non-living matter. While I know of a few that sound reasonable and fit the evidence well. Until more work is done we don't have a solid theory that fits all the evidence yet. We may never be able to prove one theory over the other in this particular case. Abiogenesis may also be what prevents evolution from becoming a complete law versus a theory. It's okay we know we don't have all the answers yet but we will continue to study and refine our theories and maybe even find new ones.

Hi, I can't discuss the big bang as I am not a physicist and do not know let alone understand the maths behind the thoery. All I know is a little red shift theory.

As for the thoery of evolution. You can see evolution everyday in and out of the lab. The AIDs virus and other viruses are really good examples as they replicate and evolve so fast. That's why you need a new 'flu shot every year. The virus has modified itself to evade our defences via a process of genetic recombination and selection. You can see it in animals that have been separated to live on different parts on an island, it starts with genetic drift and ends up with two species who are completely adapted to their environment and cannot interbreed.

Evolution has been inferred, seen, recorded and recreated. Saying it doesn't exist is like saying cars can't move because I don't understand or have ever seen an internal combustion engine work.
“I'm smart, I don't understand this therefore it must be God!”

As for abiogenesis, yeah they've done loads of experiments on that causing the building blocks of life such as RNA, amino acids and even simple polypeptides to emerge from nothing but chemicals put under conditions replicating those at the beginning of the earth.

Just because I've never seen a black swan doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering faith without seeing is something you're taught by the bible you're not very good at it.

In science theories are based on facts and evidence, peer review, and testing of hypothesis. No one claims it to be the undying truth, it is just the best model we have to date. Sometimes theories held for years are overturned in a heartbeat when new evidence comes along. The closest I've ever seen to that in religion is the pope saying actually your right we made up the whole limbo thing unbabtised babies do go to heaven!

I know I'll never convince you otherwise of you beliefs and I'm not even going to try. But could you refrain from using ignorance as a position to argue from?

I guess you made this topic because you didn't believe me in the other thread, I'm glad that more of the scientifically minded members have replied here and backed up what I said.

Just one question, Why is this in religious discussions? - There seems to be nothing religious in your question, perhaps it would be better suited to a science board.

He's trolling. Let him be.

I guess you made this topic because you didn't believe me in the other thread, I'm glad that more of the scientifically minded members have replied here and backed up what I said.

Lol!! How does that song go? You're so vain. No this song is not about you.

Look at the dates of the OP. They are both my threads. I started the nothing from nothing thread in response to Roblobster's illogical challenge on another thread.

I let that slide for a while because I had to go out of town and I was engaging other people on other websites, as well I believe as TJ3 on this website.

I recently rejoined the discussion and engaged you because you were there.

I started this one much after listening to a scientist whom I don't know say that he couldn't believe anything that could not be proved in the lab. Then he said that since the existence of God could not be proved in the lab, he couldn't believe that God existed. Which led me to wonder how many things could actually be proved in a lab.


Just one question, Why is this in religious discussions? - There seems to be nothing religious in your question, perhaps it would be better suited to a science board.

Because I am proving the illogical position of concluding that God does not exist based on bad science which contradicts its own standards and can't even address the question because it doesn't have the evidence.

Sincerely,

De Maria

He's trolling. Let him be.

That's what all you atheists say. Yet you are the ones that come to the religious threads and put down our faith. You won't find me on the atheist threads putting down your beliefs or lack there of.

So, between you and I, it is you who more closely fits the description of troll.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi, I can't discuss the big bang as I am not a physicist and do not know let alone understand the maths behind the thoery. All I know is a little red shift theory.

Knowing one's limitations is a good thing.


As for the thoery of evolution. You can see evolution everyday in and out of the lab. The AIDs virus and other viruses are really good examples as they replicate and evolve so fast. That's why you need a new 'flu shot every year. The virus has modified itself to evade our defences via a process of genetic recombination and selection. You can see it in animals that have been separated to live on different parts on an island, it starts with genetic drift and ends up with two species who are completely adapted to their environment and cannot interbreed.

Did I claim that the entire theory of evolution was wrong? Or, like the other atheist before you, are you jumping into this discussion debating against your assumptions rather than what I've actually said.


Evolution has been inferred, seen, recorded and recreated. Saying it doesn't exist is like saying cars can't move because I don't understand or have ever seen an internal combustion engine work.
“I’m smart, I don’t understand this therefore it must be God!”

I challenge you to find any statement in which I have denied the possibility of evolution.


As for abiogenesis, yeah they've done loads of experiments on that causing the building blocks of life such as RNA, amino acids and even simple polypeptides to emerge from nothing but chemicals put under conditions replicating those at the beginning of the earth.

Have they proven it?


Just because I've never seen a black swan doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering faith without seeing is something you're taught by the bible you're not very good at it.

Are you saying that you believe in God although you haven't seen him. Or do you just believe in black swans?


In science theories are based on facts

I think I've proven that much information such as the existence of nothing before the Big Bang and the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter is illogical speculation passed off as science.


and evidence,

Provide evidence that there was nothing before a point in space appeared that exploded for no apparent reason. Go ahead, reproduce that event in the lab.

Produce life from non living matter in the lab.

Then you'll have evidence to prove your theories. Otherwise you are speculating or believing the wild speculation of others.


peer review, and testing of hypothesis.

Yeah right. How do you test the explosion of a point in space 15 billion years ago? If the hypothesis of life from non life has been tested, it has failed every test to this day. Yet the theory persists.


No one claims it to be the undying truth

No. But they deny that anything else could be true except their version of the truth which is based on nothing but speculation.


, it is just the best model we have to date. Sometimes theories held for years are overturned in a heartbeat when new evidence comes along. The closest I've ever seen to that in religion is the pope saying actually your right we made up the whole limbo thing unbabtised babies do go to heaven!

The Pope never said such a thing.


I know I’ll never convince you otherwise of you beliefs and I’m not even going to try.

Good idea.


But could you refrain from using ignorance as a position to argue from?

I'm certain I'm not the one arguing from ignorance.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Science isn't one person or even one group of people.

True.


So to say that science does or doesn't say something is impossible to do.

Ok. I'd have to agree. But there are generally accepted theories which become like fads though out the years.


All I can say is that current widely accepted theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing.

Widely accepted? I agree. In some circles.

In others circles the idea that nothing existed before the Big Bang remains in vogue.

And those that don't believe that version believe that a point in space existed before the Big Bang.

And those that don't believe that believe that another universe existed before the Big Bang and it collapsed causing the Big Bang.

And guess what? None of those "theories" are provable. They can't be tested, there is no evidence to support them.

Its very much like the guy that went out into the wilderness and heard a bunch of howls and yowls and was convinced that it was the Big Foot.

They see something in a telescope and make wild speculations. But they can't prove any of it. Yet they claim they are producing scientific facts.


Have people that called themselves scientist been wrong in the past absolutely without question.

Agreed.


Could we still be wrong absolutely without question.

Agreed.


Should we teach the theories that support the evidence the best at the time they are being taught absoutely without question.

But not exclusively. Because, as you agreed, it might be wrong. The previously held theory might come back in vogue. Other theories which are not widely held might be held in higher favor in the future.

And the theory which is held as the best theory at the time should be taught as theory, not fact. Unless of course, it is proven true.

This is done in other subjects because people learn from history and from other people's mistakes.

For instance, the theory of evolution is a theory. It could be proven wrong at any time. Yet, any challenge to it, like say, the theory of Intelligent Design is not permitted

The stock answer is, "we can't test the existence of God." But you can't test the existence of a point in space 15 billion years ago. You can't test the existence of another universe which collapsed and created this universe. Yet many accept these ideas and deny the most logical idea of all, the existence of God.

Because any person who finds something like a watch on the ground does not assume that it happened by accident. They conclude immediately that it was created by some intelligent form. But, they see things a million times more wonderful all around and they conclude that they came to be as a result of random events?


I'm saying that there are many competing theories about how life came into existence from non-living matter. While I know of a few that sound reasonable and fit the evidence well. Until more work is done we don't have a solid theory that fits all the evidence yet. We may never be able to prove one theory over the other in this particular case. Abiogenesis may also be what prevents evolution from becoming a complete law versus a theory. It's okay we know we don't have all the answers yet but we will continue to study and refine our theories and maybe even find new ones.

In the meantime scientists and science teachers refuse to hear that abiogenesis and evolution may not be true. And they exclude the possibility of the existence of God based on non-verifiable, non-testable information which is passed on as science.

It doesn't make sense.

Right, I really don't see playing verbal gymnastics with you as a productive way to utilise my time. Here are some news reports about what I was talking about with the pope and limbo, I feel I should have supported my claim earlier.
Limbo consigned to history books - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article598134.ece)
BBC NEWS | Magazine | How can limbo just be abolished? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5406552.stm)
When you have read the papers and studied the evidence personally and still find fault in the hypothesis I will be willing to discuss evolution and abiogenesis with you. Creationist scientist throw out much better arguments than you are trying to and they are valuable to talk to as they aid the integrity of science and make sure those extra experiments are preformed to tuck in any loopholes. For that I thank them. As for this debate I'm out.

Anyway michealb is much better at his than I'll ever be ;)

Because any person who finds something like a watch on the ground does not assume that it happened by accident. They conclude immediately that it was created by some intelligent form. But, they see things a million times more wonderful all around and they conclude that they came to be as a result of random events?

Evolution isn't random and until you understand that you will not understand evolution.

Evolution is random changes that are then SELECTED by the ability for that change to be passed on. Your watch doesn't get to play the selection game because it is what it is it can't change. If life was static then it too would require a designer but it's not static. It changes to fit its environment. Saying that evolution doesn't work because a watch requires a designer just shows that you need to learn more about the theory from a reputable location not a site that is promoting a theology.

Many feel the same about the bible Donna.

True but the point is why can people accept the Big Bang theory of nothing coming from nothing and yet use the same reasoning to discredit God creating?


Limbo along with quite a few church beliefs are nothing more than man made tradition.

Bottom line is this argument (I used "argument" because it is and forever shall be, an argument):

Both theories require faith.

There were no witnesses to Creation or the Big Bang. There were no witnesses to the beginning of life as we know it. Therefore, believing that God created the earth, life, and the elements requires just as much faith as believing that the collision of nothing created the same.

(Oh, and wikipedia? Great, entertaining, and often enlightening reading, but honestly stinks as a reference or point of argument!)

Bottom line is this argument (I used "argument" because it is and forever shall be, an argument):

Both theories require faith.

There were no witnesses to Creation or the Big Bang. There were no witnesses to the beginning of life as we know it. Therefore, believing that God created the earth, life, and the elements requires just as much faith as believing that the collision of nothing created the same.

(Oh, and wikipedia?? Great, entertaining, and often enlightening reading, but honestly stinks as a reference or point of argument!)

This is an absurd point of view. Your brain doesn't know when a photon hits your eye, but it knows it gets an impulse that tells it that some point in the past a photon did hit your eye and that the photon was purple and so you are seeing something that is purple. Does that require faith on the part of your brain? Do you not trust your brain's interpretation because it is acting only on what it thinks happened? - If you carried your argument to it's logical extreme, then reality is merely faith, which seems like a fairly pointless conclusion.

In the same way, we didn't see the beginning of the universe, but we can see what it has triggered since then and infer back in time. The difference between the scientific and the religious point of view is that the Big Bang theory can be tested and has been tested, we observe the CMB, homogeneity, and many other evidences.

In the same way, we see life, we see the building blocks of life and we imagine how they could have formed. There is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis yet but we have models and are studying them and understanding more and more. We just don't have enough evidence to make a solid enough claim yet.

In the same way, we see life, we see the building blocks of life and we imagine how they could have formed. There is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis yet but we have models and are studying them and understanding more and more. We just don't have enough evidence to make a solid enough claim yet.

You call it imagining, supposition, theory.

I call it faith.

Never the twain shall meet.

It's simple, really, when you correctly define the terms.

You call it imagining, supposition, theory.

I call it faith.

Never the twain shall meet.

It's simple, really, when you correctly define the terms.

I still don't see how you can call theory "faith", or even bundle theory with imagining and supposition (both of which I never said), which have very different meanings. A theory is a rigorous model that has been proven time and time again by observations and predictions that fit the observed evidence. Faith is when a belief is held in the absence of evidence or even if there is contradictory evidence.

I'm not asking you to understand nor define my faith. Its not necessary for you to do so.

Its why I love this website... AMHD is where people can express personal opinions on a variety of situations. We don't ask everyone to adhere to or buy into our own personal explanations of issues, we are simply given a soapbox on which to pronounce our views.

And that's what I did. I used my soapbox and gave my opinion. I was called absurd in the process, but that's OK. It goes with the territory of using a soapbox... I'm just glad you didn't have a rotten e-tomato! ;)

**Edit**
Actually, you did use "imagine" - we see the building blocks of life and we imagine how they could have formed.... I threw in "supposition," but blame that on my writer's mentality... thesaurus' fascinate me... but that is neither here nor there...

**Edit**
Actually, you did use "imagine" - we see the building blocks of life and we imagine how they could have formed..... I threw in "supposition," but blame that on my writer's mentality... thesaurus' fascinate me ... but that is neither here nor there...

Sorry, you're right, but I used imagine because we do imagine, we don't have a theory yet. But imagining in the scientific sense is based on making models and seeing if they produce the observed conclusions if you carry them through. It's still an evidence based activity.

It was actually childish of me to get my little touche' in there... So, apology not necessary.

Bottom line is this argument (I used "argument" because it is and forever shall be, an argument):

Both theories require faith.

There were no witnesses to Creation or the Big Bang. There were no witnesses to the beginning of life as we know it. Therefore, believing that God created the earth, life, and the elements requires just as much faith as believing that the collision of nothing created the same.

(Oh, and wikipedia?? Great, entertaining, and often enlightening reading, but honestly stinks as a reference or point of argument!)


That's how I see it as well HC. Faith, trust and believe what we are being told is fact.
Something's can be proven in science and religion but not all things. The remainder does take some sort of faith, trust to believe that is true.

That was my EXACT problem in school. History. I used to think to myself, how do you know, what you are teaching from that book in your hand, actually happened. But then I did of course, trust what the teacher was saying did happen. But I still had a hard time
Buying all of it. Oddly, enough, religion class, I never had those doubts. That's odd isn't it.

But yes, for both sides, it does take a bit of faith and trust.

Capuchin


Hebrews 11:

1Now faith is being SURE of what we hope for and CERTAIN of what we do not see.




Don't you see that evolutionists have this kind of "faith" in their theory.



And your analagy to vision:

Your eye, the retina, the optic nerve and all the connections can work and make its way to the occipital lobe, so technically you can "see" but it is the [ occipital ] brain that actually comprehends what it is seeing.

Evolutionists are cortically blind. They can "see" the evidence but are blind to comprehending God's work.

Capuchin


Hebrews 11:

1Now faith is being SURE of what we hope for and CERTAIN of what we do not see.




Don't you see that evolutionists have this kind of "faith" in their theory.



And your analagy to vision:

Your eye, the retina, the optic nerve and all the connections can work and make its way to the occipital lobe, so technically you can "see" but it is the [ occipital ] brain that actually comprehends what it is seeing.

Evolutionists are cortically blind. They can "see" the evidence but are blind to comprehending God's work.

But scientists do see evolution - It happens every day, your medicines and your food are based around it. We observe animals changing, we observe DNA, the medium through which changes propagate, we observe selection, when multiple organisms compete for a limited resource. We observe these EVERYWHERE and they form the basis for evolutionary theory. This is why evolution is theory.

We don't see a being who can create, we don't (really) see a possible physical pathway for creation. Aliens could have created us through significantly advanced technology, but you still have to wonder what created the aliens. This is why creationism is faith.

Somethings can be proven in science and religion but not all things. The remainder does take some sort of faith, trust to believe that is true.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder, and in my eye, neither science nor religion offers proof of anything. What they both offer are assumptions, explanations and inferences. Each of us judges for ourselves the persuasiveness and plausibility of these assumptions and the explanations derived from them.

Does it take "faith" to accept the assumptions and methods of science? No, it just takes a willingness to be bound by the limits of observation, measurement, and reasoning in formulating explanations. Faith is simply the choice not to be bound by those limits, so that the set of all possible explanations is much larger.

For myself, the limits imposed by the scientific method are quite acceptable for exploring questions of how the physical world, including life, actually works. Science is also adequate for exploring some aspects of the question of how the universe and our world came to be the way they are. But it is utterly unsuited to the task of finding out why there is something rather than nothing, where the biological urge to survive and propagate comes from, or whether our individual life has a value, meaning, and purpose that transcends the urge to survive.

A lot of the arguments between proponents of science and religion boil down to the issue of which kinds of questions are interesting and important. I think both kinds are, so for me, it's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]

Does it take "faith" to accept the assumptions and methods of science? No, it just takes a willingness to be bound by the limits of observation, measurement, and reasoning in formulating explanations. Faith is simply the choice not to be bound by those limits, so that the set of all possible explanations is much larger.

QUOTE]

I started thinking I would hightight all the points that seemed to hit home and I find myself wanting to hightlight your entire quote. :).

But the above is spoken with such reasonable sense and a feeling of great truth that it was one paragraph that did strike me the most.

OG - all of what you shared seems to tie it all up and summarize so nicely what is debated
What seems forever with no real conclusion.

To me, you seemed to address it all and lay a lot to rest. So very well done OG.

But scientists do see evolution - It happens every day, your medicines and your food are based around it. We observe animals changing, we observe DNA, the medium through which changes propogate, we observe selection, when multiple organisms compete for a limited resource. We observe these EVERYWHERE and they form the basis for evolutionary theory. This is why evolution is theory.

We don't see a being who can create, we don't (really) see a possible physical pathway for creation. Aliens could have created us through significantly advanced technology, but you still have to wonder what created the aliens. This is why creationism is faith.

You have said that evolution is not random, due to "natural selection."

But the changes you mention, such as anti microbial drug resistance, or dog breeding, or the widening of fast food fare to include Hispanic influences are due to humans. Humans as a agent of selection. And what are humans, but INTELLIGENT.

Besides MSSA may become MRSA, but it remains Staph.
Man may select special features to develop breed a dog, but it stays a dog.

What is the agent of change that explains
- bat echolation
- the biological big bang during the Cambrian period
- humans becoming bipedal
- the development of organ systems
- flowering plants?
among others?

This can never reproduced scientifically, it is all a theory and supposition, and yet people claim it as the truth when there is no proof.

How did these genetic changes come about.. Mutations? Because without this natural selection has nothing to work with.

Here is a scientific site

Genes and disease (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/)

"Most of the genetic disorders featured on this web site are the direct result of a mutation in one gene."

This is the mechanism by which one celled organisms became us??

You must have a lot of free time to spend all day looking for an exception to disprove the rule.

This can never reproduced scientifically, it is all a theory and supposition, and yet people claim it as the truth when there is no proof.I'm wondering what you would consider to be "proof" in this case? Or are you saying that the answers to these questions are beyond the scope of science?

Flatearthers,

If you would take the time to study the theory instead of blindly saying it's wrong because the church says so maybe you would understand it. You might as well learn the theory learn why is a good theory and about why it's still a theory instead of a law, so you don't make America the laughing stock of the entire developed world. People who understand the theory tend to put those that don't in the same category as the lady from the view.

Am I blindly saying its wrong?

Or am I asking specific scientific questions that evolutionists cannot answer and have no proof of, so the religious diversions begin.

What specific mutations in the "common ancestor" of primates led to humans vs apes?
What was the "selection" factor?


That is one of hundreds of questions that cannot be proved or answered by evolutionists blindly, religiously saying it is because of "selection" or "mutations.

Evolution cannot withstand critical scientific evaluation.

And it does take time to evaluate data rather than just, without thinking, spouting the party line.

Am I blindly saying its wrong?To me, it appears that you are.


Or am I asking specific scientific questions that evolutionists cannot answer and have no proof of, so the religious diversions begin.Some of the questions you ask have been answered long ago, some have not been answered yet, but may be in the future, and some have no answers at all because they are based on a misunderstanding of how the physical world works.


What specific mutations in the "common ancestor" of primates led to humans vs apes?
What was the "selection" factor?I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for sure, but this is probably a question that hasn't been answered yet, but may be eventually.


That is one of hundreds of questions that cannot be proved or answered by evolutionists blindly, religiously saying it is because of "selection" or "mutations.The fact that you can think of a question that hasn't been answered yet has no bearing at all on the validity of the theory that underlies the study of biological processes. Why would you think that it does?


Evolution cannot withstand critical scientific evaluation.This is simply not true. The evolutionary model has been subjected to intense critical scientific evaluation for almost 150 years and has withstood the scrutiny exceptionally well, as scientific theories go.

It is true, I'm sure, that in the eyes of creationists such as yourself, it cannot withstand the rantings and railings of creationists such as yourself. Big deal.

I think I remember just a few years back that someone working with DNA found that all us humans trace our ancestry back to to a single couple. Anyone have any information about this?

I think I remember just a few years back that someone working with DNA found that all us humans trace our ancestry back to to a single couple. Anyone have any information about this?

I remember the article and it wasn't that all humans traced back to a single couple is was that most people that don't live in Africa trace back to a small group of people that could have been tossed out Africa which to could have been the origins to the Adam and Eve story. I'll look later to see if I can find the article. Apparently though inbreeding really wasn't a problem with our ancestors cause recently, they found that blue eyes traces back to a very few amount of people as well. I guess it just shows that even if a small population has a beneficial mutation that it gets distributed fairly quickly through out a population.

Found it.
Massive Genetic Study Supports "Out of Africa" Theory (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080221-human-genetics.html)

Evolution isn't random and until you understand that you will not understand evolution.

Evolution is random changes that are then SELECTED by the ability for that change to be passed on. Your watch doesn't get to play the selection game because it is what it is it can't change. If life was static then it too would require a designer but it's not static. It changes to fit its enviroment. Saying that evolution doesn't work because a watch requires a designer just shows that you need to learn more about the theory from a reputable location not a site that is promoting a theology.

If something is random, then it is NOT by design. If something is not random, then it must be BY DESIGN.

Random

adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:

at random

1. Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

random: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/randomness?cat=technology)

And if it is by design, then an Intelligence must have designed it for a purpose.

Your logic is flawed. Selection is done by survival which isn't chance or design.

De Maria, can you tell me an example of something that you believe is random (by your definition, that is, not designed)?

Your logic is flawed.

No. I'm pretty sure I've got it right.


Selection is done by survival which isn't chance or design.

If something isn't either by chance or by design? Then by what is it?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria, can you tell me an example of something that you believe is random (by your definition, that is, not designed)?

Capuchin?

Have you not noticed you are speaking to a Christian? In my opinion, there is no such thing as luck or chance. All is by God's providence. Therefore, nothing is random.

Let me explain in more detail.

Random means lack of predictability. The more an event can be predicted, the less random the event.

Lets consider the roll of a dice. Here's my prediction concerning rolling a die. One of the six sides will face upwards.

How random is that? Not very. The randomness has been reduced to six sides.

Who reduced the randomness? Men did. It would be utterly ridiculous to bet on something which could never be predicted (total randomness or total chaos). No one would ever win.

So, who reduced the randomness in the universe? Who introduced order? Who made the laws which the universe obeys?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Lets consider the roll of a dice. Here's my prediction concerning rolling a die. One of the six sides will face upwards.

How random is that? Not very. The randomness has been reduced to six sides.

Your stance seems confused here, you first say that nothing is random, and then say that a dice is "not very random" and you talk about "degrees of randomness".

Is the side that faces up when you roll a dice random? Or designed?

Your stance seems confused here, you first say that nothing is random,

That is true. Nothing is random to God. It is all by God's design.

But many things appear random to us because we can't predict the outcome.


and then say that a dice is "not very random"

With reference to a rolling die.

In a completely random action, the result is not related to the cause. There is complete and absolute unpredictability. An explosion approximates this type of complete randomness.

Therefore, a rolling die is not very random. There are only six possibilities. Men reduced the odds.


and you talk about "degrees of randomness".

Correct. There is more unpredictability, more randomness, in the outcome of rolling a pair of dice than there is in rolling only one. The probability one will predict the outcome of rolling a pair of dice is lower than that of rolling one die.

This universe is completely predictable to God. Therefore it is not random to God at all.

But to us, this universe is less random today than it was a century ago because we have discovered more and more laws of nature and physics by which we can predict the behavior of God's creatures.


Is the side that faces up when you roll a dice random? Or designed?

It is by the hand of God. But it is random to us is in the degree of 1 out of 6 outcomes. We know we can't roll a seven if we roll only one die.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Does it take "faith" to accept the assumptions and methods of science?

Yes.


No, it just takes a willingness to be bound by the limits of observation, measurement, and reasoning in formulating explanations.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

OK, let me ask you, the Big Bang theory says:

... the primary assertion that the universe has expanded into its current state from an initial state of infinite density and temperature.

Where do scientists observe and measure this state of infinite density and temperature.? Please give me the address, I'd like to see this with my own eyes.

The answer is nowhere. It is an assumption. An untestable, unmeasurable assumption.

That's just one, I believe I've mentioned many more scientific assumptions in the course of these discussions which simply can't be measured nor observed. Yet Scientists will defend them tooth and nail.


Faith is simply the choice not to be bound by those limits, so that the set of all possible explanations is much larger.

In this statement you are simply belittling faith in God as though it were some thoughtless coping mechanism. But the fact is, faith in God is reasoned. We see the wonderful works of creation and we come to the reasonable conclusion that a wonderful Being must have created them. We've never seen anything designed with intelligence arise of its own power from chance or random occurrences. Therefore we come to the reasonable conclusion that God exists.

Faith in God does not oppose reason nor does it oppose faith in men. It does however put us at odds concerning the assumptions we accept.

You believe that God does not exist and therefore did not create the universe. Therefore you have faith in those scientists which claim they have discovered that God did not create the universe. You display this faith because you defend them even though their assumptions can't be tested or measured. And neither can they be reasoned.

We believe that God does exist and did create the universe. Our assumption can't be tested or measured but it can be reasoned. Order does not arise from disorder. Order only arises from intelligent design. That connotes the existence of a Great Designer. God.

Faith does not oppose reason. But that doesn't mean that scientists are all acting reasonably at all times. Nor does that mean that all scientific claims are reasonable.

Sincerely,

De Maria

With reference to a rolling die.

In a completely random action, the result is not related to the cause. There is complete and absolute unpredictability. An explosion approximates this type of complete randomness.

Well, I would contest that you are wrong here. If we know enough information about how a die is thrown, and about the surface conditions, the weight and shape of the die, we can accurately predict how it will land with computer modelling.

Contrary to what you said, the result is completely related to the cause. Rolling a die is a completely predictable process that obeys the laws of physics.

In an explosion, the result is not random at all. It is completely predictable provided we know enough information about what is going into the explosion. We use the order of explosions every day to power our cars, send satellites into space, predict the outcome of particle accelerator collisions.

It is not random ("to man"), it is not designed ("by man"). It is something else that you refuse to believe exists. "Random" is a very rare thing in this world, true randomness is incredibly hard to find. You'll find that most things are actually neither random or designed: like evolution, like the big bang, the order or "evidence of design" comes from the fact that what comes next depends on what happened before, even in explosions. It arises completely by natural processes. There is no need to evoke a designer to explain the appearance of design - this appearance is simply a thing that humanity has attributed to it.

Why is there order instead of chaos? Because simple rules - like gravitation, like the competition for limited resources, can obviously produce order from a chaotic system. The rules are order and come from the inherent properties of the systems they act on.

But where do the laws of physics - gravity , chemical bonding, electrical and magnetic properties come from?


I'd like to see you ask all the dice questions the next time your at a craps table. :D

OK, let me ask you, the Big Bang theory says:

... the primary assertion that the universe has expanded into its current state from an initial state of infinite density and temperature.

Where do scientists observe and measure this state of infinite density and temperature.? Please give me the address, I'd like to see this with my own eyes.

The answer is nowhere. It is an assumption. An untestable, unmeasurable assumption.

That's just one, I believe I've mentioned many more scientific assumptions in the course of these discussions which simply can't be measured nor observed. Yet Scientists will defend them tooth and nail.
You're confusing assumptions with inferences. A number of alternatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology) to the Standard Model of cosmological development have been proposed, but none have been as successful at predicting and explaining available measurements and observations.

When Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity in 1917, this was used as a mathematical starting point for most cosmological theories including the big bang and the steady state theories. In order to arrive at a cosmological model, however, theoreticians needed to make assumptions about the nature of the largest scales of the universe. The assumptions that the Big Bang relied upon were:

1. the universality of physical laws — that the laws of physics don't change from one place and time to another,
2. the cosmological principle — that the universe is roughly homogeneous and isotropic in space though not necessarily in time, and
3. the Copernican principle — that we are not observing the universe from a preferred locale.

These assumptions when applied to the Einstein equations naturally result in a universe which has the following features:

1. an expansion of the universe,
2. the universe emerging from a hot, dense state at a finite time in the past,
3. the lightest elements were created in the first moments that time existed as we know it, and
4. a cosmic microwave background pervading the entire universe should exist, which is a record of a phase transition that occurred when the atoms of the universe first formed.

These features were derived by numerous individuals over a period of years; indeed it was not until the middle of the twentieth century that accurate predictions of the last feature and observations confirming its existence were made. Non-standard theories developed either by starting from different assumptions or by contradicting the features predicted by the Big Bang.
But really, you're advocating for a Religious cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology) as opposed to Physical cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology).

But where do the laws of physics - gravity , chemical bonding, electrical and magnetic properties come from?

We don't know where gravity and electric charge come from. You can say that God did it, knock yourself out. But that pretty much means God has done nothing since the moment of the big bang.

We don't know where gravity and electric charge come from. You can say that God did it, knock yourself out. But that pretty much means God has done nothing since the moment of the big bang.

He can say god did it just don't ask us to teach that in schools. Really for the most part I don't really care if he doesn't believe in evolution, the big bang or a round earth. As long as they keep their religion to themselves and don't push god into the classrooms.

He can say god did it just don't ask us to teach that in schools. Really for the most part I don't really care if he doesn't believe in evolution, the big bang or a round earth. As long as they keep their religion to themselves and don't push god into the classrooms.FYI - he homeschools his kids. They should have an interesting future to say the least.

Well, I would contest that you are wrong here. If we know enough information about how a die is thrown, and about the surface conditions, the weight and shape of the die, we can accurately predict how it will land with computer modelling.

You just substantiated my argument.


Contrary to what you said, the result is completely related to the cause. Rolling a die is a completely predictable process that obeys the laws of physics.

Thank you. As I said, not completely random. If it were completely random, it would be completely unpredictable.


In an explosion, the result is not random at all. It is completely predictable provided we know enough information about what is going into the explosion.

Since we are speaking of the Big Bang, the closer model of explosion is that of a firecracker or a grenade, not of an engine whose explosion is directed in a certain direction.


We use the order of explosions every day to power our cars, send satellites into space, predict the outcome of particle accelerator collisions.

True. And if you picture the chaos of the Shuttle explosion, you will see what I was describing. A random event.

Very simple experiment. Get a firecracker. Take several markers and paint the outside of the firecracker with various colors. Now, make a diagram of precisely where the various colors will land after you explode the firecracker.


It is not random ("to man"), it is not designed ("by man"). It is something else that you refuse to believe exists. "Random" is a very rare thing in this world, true randomness is incredibly hard to find. You'll find that most things are actually neither random or designed: like evolution, like the big bang, the order or "evidence of design" comes from the fact that what comes next depends on what happened before, even in explosions. It arises completely by natural processes.

Exactly! This is why there must be a designer.


There is no need to evoke a designer to explain the appearance of design - this appearance is simply a thing that humanity has attributed to it.

Because we reason from what we see. We are not familiar with any thing which behaves intelligently and which contains such beautiful design which is in fact copied by many scientists, which is not the result of intelligent design.

We are not familiar with anything which creates itself.


Why is there order instead of chaos? Because simple rules - like gravitation, like the competition for limited resources, can obviously produce order from a chaotic system. The rules are order and come from the inherent properties of the systems they act on.

But order does not come from chaos. Order comes from intelligence.

You're confusing assumptions with inferences.

Since the assumptions are inferred on both sides, I don't think so.


A number of alternatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology) to the Standard Model of cosmological development have been proposed, but none have been as successful at predicting and explaining available measurements and observations.

But really, you're advocating for a Religious cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology) as opposed to Physical cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology).

How does "religious" cosmology differ from "physical" cosmology?

We don't know where gravity and electric charge come from. You can say that God did it, knock yourself out. But that pretty much means God has done nothing since the moment of the big bang.

Why?

He can say god did it just don't ask us to teach that in schools.

So, we have the freedom to say that god did it outside of School but not in School.

Why then do you have the freedom to teach that God didn't do it? Why not say, "Some believe God is the author of Creation, some don't believe in God so they don't."

Why not present the arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for the absence of God and let the children make up their own minds?


Really for the most part I don't really care if he doesn't believe in evolution, the big bang or a round earth. As long as they keep their religion to themselves and don't push god into the classrooms.

Why must an unrealistic picture of real life be portrayed in the classroom? Obviously many people believe in God and believe they have the evidence of His existence in their own marvelously designed bodies, in the design of the tiniest, most insignificant microbe and in the great power of the ocean and the limitless wonder of the heavens.

Why not present the arguments for the existence of God

Because there are none that correspond to observable evidence.

So, we have the freedom to say that god did it outside of School but not in School.

Exactly, in your home you can believe what ever crazy thing you want but in school you have to go by the accepted science. You wouldn't want us to teach that the world is flat even though the bible says so would you?


Why then do you have the freedom to teach that God didn't do it? Why not say, "Some believe God is the author of Creation, some don't believe in God so they don't."

They aren't teaching that god didn't do it any more than they are teaching that the tooth fairy didn't do it. They are teaching the basics of evolution which you agree with so I don't see the problem with this.



Why not present the arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for the absence of God and let the children make up their own minds?.
Because you should be doing that in your home. It is not the schools job to teach your religion or anyone else's for that matter. It is the schools job to teach math, english, history and science.


Why must an unrealistic picture of real life be portrayed in the classroom? Obviously many people believe in God and believe they have the evidence of His existence in their own marvelously designed bodies, in the design of the tiniest, most insignificant microbe and in the great power of the ocean and the limitless wonder of the heavens.
Because it's not the schools job to teach your kids about life. It's your responsibility. If you can come up with a test that proves your god over any other generic god or no god. Then you could get it taught in a science class but until then your god has not more importance than anyone else claiming responsibility for creation.

FYI - he homeschools his kids. They should have an interesting future to say the least.


Yes, home school kids normally do much better than public school children in many areas. So yes the homeschool children will have a very interesting future as the leaders of our society

Maybe a question for another time but has anyone done a study on how home school kids do in the real world? I'd be interested to see if increased test scores mean increased success and how those home school kids do against kids that get the same test scores that go to public school. Success is of course hard to measure since one persons success is anothers failure but it would be an interesting study to conduct.

This discussion could go on forever, but the best proof of God is a changed life. Besides you need some type of faith to believe either of them.

Because there are none that correspond to observable evidence.

It is a matter of perspective. We see the evidence of God's existence and God's creation in the beauty and wisdom of the design.

Apparently, you don't.

On the other hand, we see no absolute evidence that a state of nothingness existed before the Big Bang, nor that a so-called "singularity" came into existence for no apparent reason before the existence of space and time and then exploded and created space and time. Yet all these and many variations of these are permitted to be taught in the class room as facts.

So, why do you want to censor the evidence which we observe and teach only the evidence which you believe yet can't test nor prove?

What are you afraid of?

Maybe a question for another time but has anyone done a study on how home school kids do in the real world? I'd be interested to see if increased test scores mean increased success and how those home school kids do against kids that get the same test scores that go to public school. Success is of course hard to measure since one persons success is anothers failure but it would be an interesting study to conduct.

Your last statement says it all.

My kids are wonderful, obedient and God fearing children.

When my two oldest were 18 and 16, respectively, there was a youth rally at our parish. They attended along with hundreds of public school children. As far as I know, my children were the only home schoolers.

One of the lessons being taught by the youth counselors was the love of family. They asked the youth to describe their relationship with their siblings. As I understand it, my children were the only ones who admitted that they loved each other and got along well with each other. Apparently, this was a shock to all in attendance.

But I find that this is typical of home schooled children. I know many children who attend public school both in my family, my parish and those of friends and acquaintances. I also know many home schooled children. I can generally tell which is which by how they behave towards their brothers and sisters.

As for monetary success, we believe and preach:

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

If my children are penniless and yet love the Lord, that is all I care.

Sincerely,

De Maria

FYI - he homeschools his kids. They should have an interesting future to say the least.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Are you here to discuss the topic or to belittle Christians at every opportunity?