Topic awaiting preservation: With eyes wide shut (Page 2 of 2)

Veneficuz and Emperor, I would recommend 'Intelligent Design' by William Dembski and 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael Behe. One covers the teleological argument of a Creator (argument from design). For those who have not heard of it, it basically says this: Just as we see the roof of the Sistine Chapel and know that random chance did not and could not create such a work, so too we look at the complexity of the design in the universe and see that it cannot arise from random chances.

The other book, Darwin's Black Box, deals in detail with irreducible complexity in cells and the impossibility of co-dependent biological systems evolving together.

While your argument regarding survival of the fittest sounds plausible, it simply does not hold up to serious scrutiny. While many animals hunt in packs and care for one another to increase their odds of survival, this is not normative in the animal kingdom. Considering the enormous number of creatures on the earth, one would think that the number of species working together would be in the tens of millions. This simply is not so. Also worth noting is that humans place worth on life, while animals do not. By this I mean that we consider life itself to be intrinsically valuable, and are willing to sacrifice the needs of the few for the survival of the many. Animals do not do this. Their worth on life begins and ends at protecting themselves. Even animals that try to protect their young are not willing to sacrifice their own life to save their offspring.

Moon Dancer, my apologies if I seemed to place words in your mouth. You did not say that nature is sentient. You did, however, apply an action to nature that would require sentience. Balancing one act with another requires that the one doing the balancing knows that things are out of balance to begin with. Since nature is not a sentient being, then it can not know if things are out of balance.

Your claim that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form is false as well. Archaeopteryx appears abruptly on the scene, with fully formed wings and feathers. Unless you are suggesting that it hatched this way, it is what it appears to be; a bird. "Archaeopteryx probably can't tell us much about the origin of feathers and flight in true protobirds, because archaeopteryx was in a modern sense, a bird." (Science Journal, 1993, p. 259) The lack of sound regarding the evidence of transitional species is deafening. If transitional forms were so obvious and numerous, then scientific theories like ?punctuated equilibrium? would not need to exist to explain the lack of such records.

It is ?not (a) Christian belief that God the Creator is everything and is therefore nature itself.? This is Pantheism. Christianity is strictly monotheistic and Trinitarian in nature. Christians believe that God transcends the physical universe and is not confined to it. As the Creator of the universe, He transcends the universe just as a painter transcends his painting.

My apologies for accusing you of saying that humans are not part of nature. After reading the posts again, this is obviously not true. Feel free to flog me publicly

My main problem with evolution is that it lacks not only evidence, but also an adequate explanation for the beginning of the universe. It also fails to explain the existence of things such as 'morality' and 'conscience' in human beings. Such things obviously have little, if any real use in an evolutionary worldview.




[This message has been edited by The Jackal (edited 08-25-2003).]

The Jackal: I'm sure we've covered ID here before - theories that rely on incredulity ("I can't believe that this wasn't created by some kind of intelligent force") are fundamentally flawed from the start. The fact that you can't believe something can't have happened naturally is not very convincing. The specific arguements for ID also tend to be pretty badly flawed. You want to read Richard Dawkins (and Stephen J. Gould) to see how evolutionary trajectories can lead to complex (and simple) 'designs'. That also touches on your mention of the law of thermodynamics and is touched on by Gould a number of times - there is no trend towards increasingly complexity there may be increasing optimisation to the specific environment but this doesn't entail increasing complexity (see the evolutionary trajectories of common intestinal parasites - which also have some bearing on ID).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Jackal-
Regarding Archaeopteryx: That particular species could very well have hatched that way. I don't see that as an absurd suggestion in the least. Grotesque and amazing mutations can occur at any time. Sometimes a species can adapt to the mutation - it is beneficial to them. In others a mutation can destroy a species because the deformity creates such a barrier to survival. A case in point of spontaneous grotesque mutations are frog and amphibian deformities occuring on a global scale. Frogs have been found with multiple legs growing out of one socket, eyeballs growing in their mouths, tails that do not absorb back into the body after the tadpole stage, multiple tails, mottled skin, extra thin skin - the list of deformities goes on. The propensity for the mutation occurs when the tadpole is hatched.

The reasons for these mutations is not fully understood. It has been linked to pesticides, retinols, increased exposure to ultra-violet light and parasites. Something is causing these amphibians to mutate. It could be caused by humans, it could be something else environmental that we are not even aware of. The question then becomes, because these frogs are mutating will the result be the loss of a species or a different species that has adapted to the new environment?

As far as the leaps and jumps in the fossil record that lack "links" in the evolutionary chain, please keep this in mind. The fossil record is the product of a dynamic planet. The processes necessary to create fossils are complex and conditions have to be just right. Millions of years can go by before the right conditions can form again. Or, millions of years of geologic work containing fossil records can be lost through erosion and other geomorphic processes. A lot of changes can occur over that time. Some of these "leaps" only appear to be so because the record has either been lost connecting the two or just hasn't been found yet. There is a lot of this planet that has not been explored.

By the way - no flogging is necessary.

Perhaps the most amazing thing of all is this; after examining the evidence, I have come to one conclusion and evolutionists have come to the opposite conclusion. No doubt that the argument will continue, hopefully with respect for all people involved. At the very least we can agree that changes must be made to better preserve the environment and the resources therein. For the sake of creationists and evolutionists, I pray we will.

quote:

---

My main problem with evolution is that it lacks not only evidence, but also an adequate explanation for the beginning of the universe.

---

And what explanation does the judeo-christian mythos offer for the beginning of the universe?

Oh, right, 'god' made it.
So....we're right back to, "where did god come form?"

Can you offer an 'adequate explanation' of that?

Bugimus - lowering consumption of energy does not have to be so negative on the economy...if the corporations would only focus more energy on things that take advantage of that mindset.

The idea that we need to keep increasing our energy cinsumption to support the economy is baffling. The idea that we need to tinker *more* with nature is quite frightening. Surely, there are natural phenomon that would dwarf our impact on the earth.....but what, are we in a competition? Is it our goal to make sure that our negative impact outdo nature's?

The mroe dependent on our high-power-consuming devides, the more devestating a loss of power, a breakdown of the system.

What about when the power hungry devices we so greedily consume become to much of a drain, and we can't afford to keep them running. What if we *don't* find this 'miracle' power source you want so badly?

It is not hard to picture us running ourselves into global poverty by relying on more and more devices that consume more and more power....

DL, God is the first cause. It makes no sense to ask "where did God come from?" As an eternal Being, He exists outside the relm of time, indeed He created time. God is the first cause, creation is the effect. Evolution lacks a first cause. It simply says "There was nothing, and then BANG! There was something." Nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever will. Common sense and imperical scince tell us this.

The Bible, however, says "In the begining God..." Since God has always existed, you cannot go back any farther than Him.

Without a first cause, evolution lacks any real credability in my eyes.

I think you're mixing debates. On one hand you're debating the creation of the universe, on the other you're debating evolution.

Regardless of where the universe came from, evolution is real now, IMHO. Whether divinely programmed or just an effect of life, it seems foolish to completely discard an equally viable explaination.

Evolution does NOT have to discount the existence of God. For some it does, like DL (for example). For others it doesn't, Jade (I believe) has mentioned something along these lines before.

Think on it for a while and explain to me why micro advances in evolutionary science aren't good enough? Why must it be Macro evolution? In the theory of Evolution (important note - It's a theory) micro evolution can be seen relatively easily. Macro Evolution is not an unrealistic extension of micro Evolution. Eventually it may be disproven. Who knows?

As far as lack of fossil records relating to macro evolutionary jumps, they may not exist. Not because of poor fossil creating conditions (although that is a likely explaination) but because Macro Evolution may not exist in the sense that scientists think it does. Lets use the dog example. I believe that we agree that dogs have the same root species, do we not? For the sake of explaination let us assume we do. Today, we have dogs of every shape and size leading us to believe that micro evolution exists and is/was at work.

Using the above reasons, this is how I explain the impression of Macro Evolution using the proven (or at least commonly accepted) understanding of Micro Evolution:

From this base species of "dog" several species branched off and continued developing seperately, usually from differing environmental needs (but others are possible). At some point the developmental species that became the German Shepard broke away from the base species and continued becoming a German Shepard as we know it today. Some time after the German Shepard broke away and several evolutionary shifts of the base species later, the shitzu(sp?) base species broke away and continued to evolve into the shitzu we know today. All of the other dogs that evolved from this changing base species die from disease or whatever you like (this is for simplicity, not necessity). That leaves us with two dog species that technically came from the same root, but will never be able to be traced back to the exact same base species because that base species evolved before and after each separate family broke away from it. In this view of evolution there IS no linking species. The closest you can get is 'similar'. Unfortunetly for scientists, 'similar' doesn't win arguments with people who claim to only accept absolute truths.



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-27-2003).]

You raise some good issues Grythus. I don't see how discussing evolution and the beginning of the universe are mutually exclusive. It makes little sense to discuss evolution without pointing out how it explains creation. Since evolution is one theory on the creation of the universe, it only makes sense that the two are intertwined.

The idea that God created the universe and left things alone to evolve on their own is known as Theistic Evolution. This clearly contradicts the Biblical account of creation and is a self-defeating theory. The only way Theistic Evolution is true is if God is not sovereign, and if He is not, then why worship Him? Evolution involves chance. Chance and a sovereign God are mutually exclusive terms.

Your theory regarding macroevolution is interesting, but it lacks evidence. Macroevolution is an argument from silence. True science draws conclusions from observations, not "what if's." this is why ideas such as punctuated equal librium have come to be. Evolutionists are trying to explain that which the evidence simply does not support.

Perhaps we should start another thread on the topic. Just a thought.

quote:

---

The Bible, however, says "In the begining God..." Since God has always existed, you cannot go back any farther than Him.

---

And...you consider that an "adequate explanation"???

quote:

---

You raise some good issues Grythus. I don't see how discussing evolution and the beginning of the universe are mutually exclusive. It makes little sense to discuss evolution without pointing out how it explains creation. Since evolution is one theory on the creation of the universe, it only makes sense that the two are intertwined.

---

Except Evolution isn't a theory on the creation of the universe, just a theory on where life came from, or at the least, how life works today. That's my point. Is that evolution doesn't need to be responsible for creating anything. All it is is the progression of our physical development NOW. The rest of it is as theoretical as can be. To assume that micro Evolution as seen today substantiates evolution theories regarding creation is ridiculous and any scientist who proposed such a thing would be laughed at.

quote:

---

The idea that God created the universe and left things alone to evolve on their own is known as Theistic Evolution. This clearly contradicts the Biblical account of creation and is a self-defeating theory. The only way Theistic Evolution is true is if God is not sovereign, and if He is not, then why worship Him? Evolution involves chance. Chance and a sovereign God are mutually exclusive terms.

---

I don't think I agree with this. Why must it contradict the Bible? If everything happened as it did in the bible that still doesn't change the fact that we are still evolving today. Chance and a Sovereign God are only mutually exclusive if you believe that God is controlling the our llives and has determined what our futures are going to be. Chance and Free Will go hand in hand.

quote:

---

Your theory regarding macroevolution is interesting, but it lacks evidence. Macroevolution is an argument from silence. True science draws conclusions from observations, not "what if's." this is why ideas such as punctuated equal librium have come to be. Evolutionists are trying to explain that which the evidence simply does not support.

---

It is true, my theory lacks evidence. That's kind of the point. It IS ,however, a plausible explaination. Not to be offensive but, as it goes, you believe in the theory of God as much as I believe in the theory of Evolution. Without distinct proofs there can be no full understanding on either side of the equation. That's why I can't understand the complete dismissal of one theory over another.



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-29-2003).]