You're welcome.

Re: You're welcome.

Mike Brown said:
Evolution is BOTH a theory AND a fact.

Not only that, but claiming that evolution is on the same plane as "other theories" (I read creationism) is not an accurate way to portray the scientific process.

There is no requirement that you "believe", or have faith in, in evolution. Evolution has an almost insurmountable amount of evidence and repeatable scientific tests which support it.

Simply put, we, not being scientists familiar with evolutionary science, are not qualified to make a determination as to the validity of evolution vs creationism. One is supported by a huge sea of scientific evidence, the other is not.

Saying that evolution is just a theory is WOEFULLY ignorant. Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Hi Mike,

I think you need to re-read Caleb's post.

Where is the scientific evidence that has provided consistent and reliable proof of evolution in the context of change from one species to another? It is all typically theoretical and mathematical calculations projected over very looooooooooooooong timeframes. "Theory" very much applies under such circumstances, as it does with concepts such as the "Big Bang" theory etc. FYI there is plenty of scientific research which does support creationist concepts, so you cannot make the claim that all of the evidence is stacked on one side, that is simply not the case.

There is lots of great evidence to support adaptation, mutation, hybrids, etc. That is not really contested. I don't need to defend Caleb, but referring to his comments as "WOEFULLY ignorant" is pretty strong given what he said. You do not necessarily have to have "faith" to consider that there are some aspects of the scientific world that probably won't get answered in a finite manner within our lifetime, or perhaps ever. Theory, best guess, educated guess, etc - you may not like the terms, but effectively that applies in some points of context.

Jump from evolution to the Big Bang theory (Lambda CDM model, etc) for a second. Very similar situation, where part of the concept is credible, but it is not entirely comprehensive. It is not really contested that the universe is expanding, and based on the expansion rate we can estimate the timing for the origin of the universe. But what originally caused that "bang" to happen? Where did all of the incomprehensibly high energy density, temperatures, and pressures required for this originate from? You can't get something from nothing, so where did the massive "something" come from? There's been speculation, but no scientist has the answer to this..... and probably never will. The "faith" crowd are happy with their answer, and I don't see how that is any less credible than the scientific speculation about a topic we acknowledge we do not know very much about.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Matt Lillie said:
My question for theists: Who created the creator?
Click to expand...

One traditional response to this:

"God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. "

A common modern atheistic view is the concepts of super/multi universe/time independence :

"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."

Either way it is a bit of a mind-bender to think about. All are pretty loosely defined concepts, which of course can not be confirmed experimentally any moreso than the creationist concept.
 
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.

It should become obvious that we (humans) are not equipped with the mental capacity to wholly understand the natural world around us. As a coping mechanism we create myths and/or other simpler explanations so that we can move beyond the big questions and pay attention to more pressing smaller immediate concerns. The caveman too busy pondering his existence to pay attention to his environment, got eaten.

We will not resolve this here, but it might help to consider that we are all ignorant to some degree. Some are not comfortable with that and prefer having a relatively complete story to believe. Different strokes.... I'm OK with knowing I don't understand everything. In fact I'm pretty used to it from life's many (IQ) tests.

While we can argue about where the line is between observed science and belief systems, does that really matter? Life is short and this is one of those unanswerable questions that our ancestors argued over, without much success either.

JR
 
Re: You're welcome.

John Roberts said:
While we can argue about where the line is between observed science and belief systems, does that really matter? Life is short and this is one of those unanswerable questions that our ancestors argued over, without much success either.

JR
Click to expand...

Good point JR, many, myself included, have been guilty of getting sucked into such discussions, accomplishing essentially nothing, potentially just irritating others, as there are many different viewpoints one can take on such issues. At least it is nice to see how this thread has stayed civil. That says a lot about the quality of the group gathered at SFN.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Randy Pence said:
except for the fact that al gore never said that

snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet
Click to expand...

Yeah, he actually said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Which IMO was a way to construe his actual level of involvement to gain an advantage in a political race - what most people take issue with.

Gore's involvement may have been influential in providing funding and establishing government programs that supported the development of the Internet, but IMHO that ball was already big and rolling pretty fast by the time Gore showed up. I don't know all the specific legislation that Gore introduced, supported, and/or voted for, but I believe much of it had to do with the interconnection of NSFNET (which was an early component of the Internet that had replaced CSNET, an NSF network that could access ARPANET) with other networks and super-computing sites. I believe some of the funding that he provided went into the research that Marc Andreessen did at U. of Illinois to develop the Mosaic web browser, which later formed the basis for Netscape. The thing is, the protocols for the world wide web (arguably the most successful aspect of the modern Internet) came out of CERN in Switzerland. Mosaic would have been useless with out the work at CERN by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, and the notion of a hyper-linked interface was even then, not news. Douglas Engelbart demonstrated hyperlinks, a GUI, and a mouse 23 years prior to the contributions of Berners-Lee and 9 years before Gore was even elected to Congress.

Much (or possibly all) of this work would have impossible without the work of Dennis Ritchey at Bell Labs on the C Programming Language and his development of the UNIX operating system.

I think the point is that no one man can be given all of the credit for developing the Internet or for its growth to where it is today. What I (and most people I think) find unpalatable is the crediting of the advances of society laid on one man's shoulders such as Edison, Jobs, and in this case, Gore - when that is clearly not the case. Much of this work (especially in the case of the Internet) was one person using the prior work of others to build new tools and technologies.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Jeff Babcock said:
Hi Mike,

I think you need to re-read Caleb's post.

Where is the scientific evidence that has provided consistent and reliable proof of evolution in the context of change from one species to another? It is all typically theoretical and mathematical calculations projected over very looooooooooooooong timeframes. "Theory" very much applies under such circumstances, as it does with concepts such as the "Big Bang" theory etc. FYI there is plenty of scientific research which does support creationist concepts, so you cannot make the claim that all of the evidence is stacked on one side, that is simply not the case.

There is lots of great evidence to support adaptation, mutation, hybrids, etc. That is not really contested. I don't need to defend Caleb, but referring to his comments as "WOEFULLY ignorant" is pretty strong given what he said. You do not necessarily have to have "faith" to consider that there are some aspects of the scientific world that probably won't get answered in a finite manner within our lifetime, or perhaps ever. Theory, best guess, educated guess, etc - you may not like the terms, but effectively that applies in some points of context.

Jump from evolution to the Big Bang theory (Lambda CDM model, etc) for a second. Very similar situation, where part of the concept is credible, but it is not entirely comprehensive. It is not really contested that the universe is expanding, and based on the expansion rate we can estimate the timing for the origin of the universe. But what originally caused that "bang" to happen? Where did all of the incomprehensibly high energy density, temperatures, and pressures required for this originate from? You can't get something from nothing, so where did the massive "something" come from? There's been speculation, but no scientist has the answer to this..... and probably never will. The "faith" crowd are happy with their answer, and I don't see how that is any less credible than the scientific speculation about a topic we acknowledge we do not know very much about.
Click to expand...

I don't see what I am missing from Caleb's post.

Saying that evolution is but one theory of many does not represent the situation in the scientific community correctly.

One (scientific) theory (and fact!) has a huge amount of repeatable scientific tests which support it. The other does not. Simple as that.

Creationism does not have any credible evidence. Scientific evidence IS stacked on one side.

Trying to construe creationism/intelligent design as "one of the theories" of how we came to be as if it is just as scientifically credible as evolution is a travesty.

This is the kind of thinking that leads people to want "intelligent design" taught in science classrooms! SCARY!

Just because some people call it the "Theory of Intelligent Design" does not make it a scientific theory.



Re: Speciation

There is a lot of evidence of evolutionary change.

Divergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.

Mike Brown said:
I don't see what I am missing from Caleb's post.

Saying that evolution is but one theory of many does not represent the situation in the scientific community correctly.

One (scientific) theory (and fact!) has a huge amount of repeatable scientific tests which support it. The other does not. Simple as that.

Creationism does not have any credible evidence. Scientific evidence IS stacked on one side.

Trying to construe creationism/intelligent design as "one of the theories" of how we came to be as if it is just as scientifically credible as evolution is a travesty.

This is the kind of thinking that leads people to want "intelligent design" taught in science classrooms! SCARY!

Just because some people call it the "Theory of Intelligent Design" does not make it a scientific theory.



Re: Speciation

There is a lot of evidence of evolutionary change.

Divergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Mike,
As JR suggested, this thread is becoming a waste of time. I don't wish to argue with you, it is clear from the tone of your responses that it is pointless. All I would suggest is that if you put honest effort into exploring issues from an unbiased perspective (have you ever looked into what responses/challenges there are to the issues you raise?) - you might be less one-sided in your responses if you did. You seem be approaching everything as an all-or-nothing deal. All I have attempted to raise in my posts is that things are a little less black and white than some of us might think. There is lots of great research, we have learned a lot, but we have a long way to go.

On the topic of our schools, I only WISH that they would think a bit more outside the box in teaching curriculum. If we want bright minds, kids should be taught how to question EVERYTHING, and how to investigate issues in an unbiased manner, considering many views, forming their opinions themselves rather than always assuming the textbook is right. If teachers want to teach intelligent design alongside their existing materials, I have no objection (as long as everything is presented in a fair light - it is soooo easy for personal bias to enter the equation).
 
Re: You're welcome.

Jeff Babcock said:
Mike,
As JR suggested, this thread is becoming a waste of time. I don't wish to argue with you, it is clear from the tone of your responses that it is pointless. All I would suggest is that if you put honest effort into exploring issues from an unbiased perspective (have you ever looked into what responses/challenges there are to the issues you raise?) - you might be less one-sided in your responses if you did. You seem be approaching everything as an all-or-nothing deal. All I have attempted to raise in my posts is that things are a little less black and white than some of us might think. There is lots of great research, we have learned a lot, but we have a long way to go.

On the topic of our schools, I only WISH that they would think a bit more outside the box in teaching curriculum. If we want bright minds, kids should be taught how to question EVERYTHING, and how to investigate issues in an unbiased manner, considering many views, forming their opinions themselves rather than always assuming the textbook is right. If teachers want to teach intelligent design alongside their existing materials, I have no objection (as long as everything is presented in a fair light - it is soooo easy for personal bias to enter the equation).
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you infer that I have not researched my opinion. :lol: The irony does not escape me.

The issue is not black and white. I am certainly open to other theories. Not believing in a christian idea does not make me close minded.

However, I take offense when people try to put intelligent design/creationism on the same playing field as evolution. As if they are equally researched/proven.

Intelligent design should NOT be taught in school because they are not directly comparable. I don't wish to be insulting, but creationism is a christian origin-myth. Thats all. It has no place in secular schools. To me it is no less correct or incorrect than the native american origin story.

If you have any evidence of creationism there are many scientists looking to disprove evolution, the problem is they just keep finding evidence which supports it!
 
Re: You're welcome.

Matt Lillie said:
My question for theists: Who created the creator?
Click to expand...

Matt,

This is unfortunately a question that is based on the misunderstanding of what one means when one says God. To ask the question "who created God" makes no sense whatsoever. The reason being is that God is not some mighty theory, cause,or explanation among many, but rather the answer to the question, why is there something rather than nothing. That is why I frown upon both "God of the gaps reasoning" and also others claiming god of the gaps reasoning when they don't fully understand what is being claimed.

It was recently stated in this way within an article written for a popular audience:
"But God, as the classical Catholic intellectual tradition understands him, is not one cause, however great, among many; not one more item within the universe jockeying for position with other competing causes. Rather, God is, as Thomas Aquinas characterized him, ipsum esse, or the sheer act of to-be itself — that power in and through which the universe in its totality exists. Once we grasp this, we see that no advance of the physical sciences could ever “eliminate” God or show that he is no longer required as an explaining cause, for the sciences can only explore objects and events within the finite cosmos."


Aristotle came to God through reason alone some 300 years before Christ even walked this earth. The God of the philosophers, the old testament, and Christianity (most specifically non-fundamentalist) has always been a reality that must be outside of space-time, must be unconditioned, uncaused, single, unique, and ultimately simple. In other words we can come to know God as pure actuality, in Aristotelian terms, and a pure act of existence.


Take care,
Phil
 
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.

I wish they'd teach children civics and math... maybe a little real science if it isn't too controversial.

At the rate we're going maybe teach them to speak Chinese.

JR
 
Re: You're welcome.

This has actually been one of my main studies over the past several years and it many times comes down to several things.

The overarching theme is that these discussions/arguments normally are misdirected in that it is not actually faith vs. reason, science vs. religion, etc. that is being argued, but rather 2 different metaphysical views of reality.

(1) Materialistic-cum-mechanistic
(2) Aristotelian view of Formal, efficient, material, and final causality (the above only keeps material and a shriveled version of efficient causality)


These four are normally the big topics that must be discussion before one can actually delve into many of things mentioned earlier.

(a) the perpetuation of the myth that faith and reason are intrinsically opposed to each other
(b) the misunderstanding that philosophical discussion should be thrown out because no truth can come from it (in fact making that statement itself makes a philosophical statement)
(c) assuming the truth of empiricism/materialism
(d) throwing out final causality and formal causality in modern metaphysics

Once these 4 things are sorted out some headway can be made on much of what is being discussed in this thread. So as one could expect the discussion may be a bit too off topic for a sound forum, but I'm most always in the mood to discuss metaphysical principles with others. :)


Take care,
Phil
 
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.

Jeff Babcock said:
"God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. "


"...some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters."
Click to expand...


What was so great about Aquinas' rational arguments for God's existence is it didn't matter if the universe did in fact exist past eternal. Most don't realize that his arguments where based on the here and now. He showed right here and now in this very moment the necessary existence of God outside of space-time.

In more technical terms, all motion requires a move from potentiality to actuality. (I have the potentiality to press the 't' key, but it must be actualized.) A potentiality by itself is just that, a potentiality. The potentiality of my pressing the 't' key is actualized by the firing of motor neurons, which depends on other neurons actualizing their potential, which depends on the state of the nervous system, which depends on its current molecular structure, which depends on atomic basis of that molecular structure, which depends on electromagnetism, gravitation, the weak and strong forces, and so on and so forth, all simultaneously, all here and now. As one can see this series must have a definite end, it most definitely cannot extend into infinity as I would not be pressing any key right now. (Or doing anything for that matter, including existing.) Each member of this kind of series, called an essentially ordered series is dependent upon all previous in the series right here and now for their existence. And as we can also gather, the first member of this series must be itself unmoved as if this member was not unmoved, then it itself would be going from a potentiality to an actuality and the series would continue on at least one more. Also obvious from this is that nothing within space-time can be this unmoved mover as everything is going through some sort of change at some point. (To be within a physical universe itself requires this.) We can also then see why this argument gets it name as unmoved mover.


As opposed to some earlier, these discussions are not in vain and can come to objective truth. Relativism in our culture has become so rampant and it is quite a shame because as it is said, the truth will set one free. Freedom without any knowledge of the true or the good is just blind decisions made for the sake of being able to make choices. True freedom is the use of intellect, to come to know the good, and will, to choose the good. It takes a great amount of humility to come to true knowledge, and that is why I find the two quotes in my signature right now to be dead on. Many times people simply get frustrated or too emotionally involved to think clearly. It has taken myself some practice to simply witness to what I believe to be the objective truth I have come to and to take a step back and look at things as objectively as possible.


Take Care,
Phil
 
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.

I have not logged in for a while and don't know any of you. So, my $.02 probably won't matter... But, here goes nothing:

Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth
we've witness evolution over the last 50 years on all scales


Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
evidence of the big bang.


So, all this stuff is tested and hard science.


oh, and this is not entirely relevant to the evolution thing... but the big bang thing... watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
 
Last edited:
Re: You're welcome.

Mike Brown said:
I appreciate that you infer that I have not researched my opinion. :lol: The irony does not escape me.
Click to expand...

I don't see any further value in the discussion at this point. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientific books and publications that discuss creationist concepts, many of which do not dismiss and are compatible with many concepts within theory of evolution. I will not waste anyone's time by linking to them, I am not trying to promote an agenda. If you wish to dismiss every single idea they claim, you are obviously free to do so.
 
Re: You're welcome.

Jeff Babcock said:
I don't see any further value in the discussion at this point. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientific books and publications that discuss creationist concepts, many of which do not dismiss and are compatible with many concepts within theory of evolution. I will not waste anyone's time by linking to them, I am not trying to promote an agenda. If you wish to dismiss every single idea they claim, you are obviously free to do so.
Click to expand...

Jeff, I completely agree with your first statement, but disagree that you are not trying to promote an agenda. Trying to discuss creationism and evolution as if they are in the same scientific realm is an attempt to mislead people into the christian faith. That IS the stated agenda of christian lobbying groups like the "Discovery Institute". Teach the controversy? There is no controversy among scientists.

To quote wikipedia: The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such."[SUP][26][/SUP] and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."[SUP][26][/SUP] According to Skeptic, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."

Re: scientific books and publications about creationism, I think you don't link to them because they do not contain any repeatable scientific proof for creationism. If you have any please feel free to PM me. Just one will suffice.

I, along with the entire scientific community, will continue to dismiss every single idea they claim BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. It's that simple. If I told you that microphones work because of magic elves imitating the source you would probably not believe me unless I supported my argument with evidence..... if I didn't support my argument do I have any right to accuse you of being small minded and un-researched?

Bringing the topic back around, it is appalling that these people who blatantly disregard science are allowed to represent the people of the US. It is against our best interest as a country.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom