Evolution question

[eagle359]

If you want to use pure science, does not the law entropy suggest that a system would move to a more simple state(more disorder) rather than a more complex state(less disorder)?

 

[PPBart]

To have faith in God and all he has done and still does requires the acceptance of these facts without question and proof...

Nonsense. If God wanted humans to live "without question or proof" he wouldn't have given us the capacity to reason, think, discover.

And I agree with the previous comment that evolution does not require denial of the existence of God. However, it seems that creationists seek to require the denial of evolution.

 

[sandman7925]

This thread is funny. The original question sounds like something Spicoli from "fast times at ridgemont high" would ask and some of what followed wasn't much different.

 

[SeventhSon]

Sometimes you just have to pull the pin and throw the grenade into a full room.

Yes, I know this guy didnt actually pull the pin.

 

[TomTerrific]

That's called Pascal's Wager and it is generally considered one of the weakest arguments for the existence of God. It's not even about trying to prove the existence of a higher power as much as using fear to push the modern Christian idea of eternal punishment for not believing in the right god (which is a later doctrine that actually has very weak Biblical evidence but I'm not going to get into that here). It has no relevance outside the Christian paradigm.

And why apply it just to Christian concepts? What if the Hindus are correct? Or the Jains?

 

[TomTerrific]

The theories about the origin of the universe seem impossible. Our brains evolved in the savannas of Africa to escape lions and tigers, not to do quantum mechanics. Lawrence Krauss

 

[91Foxtrot]

If you want to use pure science, does not the law entropy suggest that a system would move to a more simple state(more disorder) rather than a more complex state(less disorder)?

Yes, in a closed system. But earth is far from a closed system, we are constantly effected by the sun.

 

[rtr_rtr]

If you want to use pure science, does not the law entropy suggest that a system would move to a more simple state(more disorder) rather than a more complex state(less disorder)?

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

 

[TomTerrific]

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

+1

 

[gunslinger06]

The whole concept of 'faith' means telling yourself something is true with absolutely no backing. There is plenty of evidence that animals do evolve and adapt. Sure, it all isn't there, but at the same time, we don't know how humans built the pyramids in Egypt. They are there though and it is generally assumed that they built them. Of course trying to figure out how something that happened so long ago, such as the step from ape like creatures to humans is going to be mighty difficult to prove.



Aren't all major religions past the Bible being the all knowing source of knowledge? I went to Catholic schools for 13 years and have studied the Bible in great detail. Much of it never happened at all. That really isn't up for debate. Look at all the variations of the Bible. Hell, look at all the different English translations of the Bible. The differences just through minor translations are pretty big. Take it across 7+ languages and much can be interpreted in many different ways. As with all religious documents, it is the idea behind what is being told that is what is important. Trying to say that everything that happened in the Bible is 100% true and that things in history that aren't in the Bible didn't happen at all is silly. The world was not created in seven days. Snakes / Serpents / Reptiles don't talk.

On the note of the Bible, I am all for discussing Bible stuff if anyone wants. Often at work my co-workers and I have fun little Bible discussions. It is just very interesting comparing how different people interpret different things in the Bible...such as the New Testament vs the Old Testament.


Scientists have been teaching about atoms for how many years? The Greeks first came up with the idea of what we now call atoms around 600 BC. It wasn't until almost 1900 AD that the electron was 'discovered'. Jump forward 100 years and we now know without a doubt that atoms exist, yet we still don't know too much about them. I say all of this because the same is somewhat true for the theory of evolution. We know that animals evolve / adapt. Survival of the fittest does exist. I don't think anyone would really debate that. Humans have been roaming the planet for a long time. We have certainly come a long way since the pre-caveman days. Trying to prove exactly what happened when certain pre-humans started to slowly merge into 'modern day' humans is a big grey area that took place over many years. We do know that there were other types of humans that lived a long time ago. Neanderthals did exist. We have their bones AND we know that their DNA differed from current humans. Physically, they looked different. Their brains were also not as 'advanced', if you want to call it that, as ours are. One day definite proof for the 'missing link' will be found. Will it be soon? Maybe? But discounting the idea of evolution just because it hasn't been proven 110% yet is not very logical.

Quick Q for ya. You say we haven't found the missing link for any animal yet. I don't really know what you mean from that. We do know that birds and other animals evolved from dinosaurs. Are you talking about the pre-dinosaur stage? Finding proof from that far back in time would be very hard to find due to Earth changing so much. Maybe eventually though :P

/End 1:30 AM rant. Sorry if what I said above didn't make any sense. Too tired to proofread!

There is a lot in this post and in this thread so please bare with me. Faith is not believing in something with no proof. There is ample evidence of the existence of God to put your faith in Him. Many believe there is a lot of proof of the theory of evolution. It's our choice where to put that faith. Choose wisely.

Secondly, many major religions have moved past the Bible as being the principle source of knowledge. This is why we have gay priests. As far as the truth of the Bible not being "up for debate", I'd have to disagree. We can't confuse whether the Bible is TRUE with weather the Bible is LITERAL. There are many things in the Bible, the creation being the first, where something must be described in human terms that no human could have fully grasped. I BELIEVE-the serpent in the Garden of Eden is an example of this. However, it is entirely possible that I am wrong. An omniscient God could certainly make a snake speak if He so desired. I believe everything in the Bible is true, I do not think ALL of it is literal.
Many dismiss the Bible because of it's various interpretations and certain inconsistencies, especially in the four Gospels. It is dismissed as a book that was written for King James and is riddled with mistakes. The fact is the Bible is not A book. It is a collection of 66 books written by 40+ authors over 600+years. Are there inconsistencies in the Gospel? Sure. If any four of us witnessed the same event, our stories would differ slightly- THAT DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT IS TRUE. Slight inconsistencies in the Bible do not make it invalid, they help to authenticate it.
Concerning atoms- True, we taught about atoms long before we could "see" them. However, our theories were tested using cathode tubes, x-rays, and crystal diffraction. Many theories were concocted and dismissed after experimentation-including Bohr's famous drawings of the atom. With evolution, there is no experiment we have done that confirms this theory. We have only observation. We look at a whale's fin and say "Hey, that looks like a human hand, they must have the same ancestor." It's like looking at two paintings similar in color usage and brush pattern and saying one evolved from the other. No, they had the same CREATOR.

 

[eagle359]

I am sorry but the "ICE" proof does not hold water. If ice stayed ice I might go for it, but ice comes back to water at some time.

 

[gunslinger06]

Quote Originally Posted by eagle359 View Post
If you want to use pure science, does not the law entropy suggest that a system would move to a more simple state(more disorder) rather than a more complex state(less disorder)?
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

The law of entropy does state that a system will move toward its lowest state of order/energy. Regardless of the gain or loss of energy or gain of energy to the overall system of the earth, the move from a single celled organism to a human would require a move from a high entropy to low entropy. Moving from a pile of atoms to the molecules necessary to build the amoeba would require moving from a higher state of disorder to a lower state of disorder. This argument is like saying if I pour a random pile of atoms into a pot and introduce a random energy source I will eventually generate life and if I keep going I will come up with a human. If this is how life progresses, how did it start? How did the atoms "know" to align into molecules? How did the molecules "know" to align into a protein chain? How did the protein "chain" know to align into a system? If evolution is "survival of the fittest" why do we have such an amazing diversity of animal and plant life? We know that animals produce after their own kind and that they have a strong tendency to either kill or not breed with "damaged" mates. Given these facts, how can we believe that entire species were came from mutation?
Many criticize Christians for blindly accepting the Bible and it's teachings without question. In fact, most evolutionists do the exact same thing. The difference is they have put their faith in a group of men. We have put our faith in the hand of God. Pascal's argument- it may be a weak argument for the EXISTENCE of God, but it's certainly something to consider when thinking of where we place our trust.

Lot's of good discussion and I hope you folks reading will consider this-never blindly trust in anything. Blindly trusting in evolution is of no value. Blindly trusting in God because that's what you were taught is of no value. Seek the truth. God makes Himself known to those who seek His face. If you can't find your keys, it's not because they don't exist. If you can't find God, it's because you are not looking in the right place and in the right way. You can see the evidence of God everywhere. His fingerprints cover every inch of the Earth. To truly find Him, you must seek Him with your heart.
God bless you all and Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas!

 

[JWG223]

Nonsense. If God wanted humans to live "without question or proof" he wouldn't have given us the capacity to reason, think, discover.

And I agree with the previous comment that evolution does not require denial of the existence of God. However, it seems that creationists seek to require the denial of evolution.

The entire premise of our existence, according to my understanding of the Christian faith, is that God wants the Universe to reason, and not blindly accept. This is why Lucifer was allowed to become Satan, according to the Bible, and not squashed immediately, along with the 1/3 of the angels who left heaven under his rule.

 

[JWG223]

Sometimes I am reminded of the response someone came up with. Sounds something like "If both of us die and one doesn't believe in God or the afterlife and the other does; and, in fac,t there is a God and afterlife, it would be better to believe. As the non-believer will be very disappointed and the believer will just rot in the ground with no other recourse or accountability." Something like that. I just choose to believe. I am not trying to convince others. Just witnessing a bit. It is, and will continue to be, a grand argument and good to read. Thanks guys for listening again. And thanks for not getting personal or accusatory with each other. Nice discussion. Later...

Respectfully, you just outlined a lack of belief, and Pascal's wager. Both are ineffectual of salvation.

I do not believe that one "chooses" to believe in God.

If God is real, then one has a living, breathing relationship with God. It is not a choice, it is a state of being and constant communion with your creator, though His word, and his Son. If you lack this, then both the "believer" and the Atheist will be dissappointed, although one lived a lie and one lived honestly with no pretenses.

Pascal's wager in itself implies that neither people believe, as there is still complete and utter disconnect from a relationship "If I die and God is not real...". This is not the voice of one who has a relationship.

This is my entire understanding of the Christian belief system, summed up by the texts John 14:6, John 3:16, and Matthew 4:19. As per the Christian faith, after studying it my whole childhood, if you can make sense of and understand and truly assimilate those 3 into your life, Pascal's wager will seem an empty gesture, and you will understand exactly what the Christian faith expects of one's life and path to salvation.

Since you profess to believe these things, take this and mull it over, if you want. Your statement "I just choose to believe" bothers me a great deal, as it hints at YOU being in control of God's reality, as it were. I don't feel like these are the words of someone with a living relationship, but then, I am far from qualified to judge, it just kindof concerned me regarding your testimony quoted.

At any rate, I am just trying to express my thoughts, as I interpret your Holy Bible, and as relates to Pascal's Wager, which you have brought up.

 

[JWG223]

Quote Originally Posted by eagle359 View Post
If you want to use pure science, does not the law entropy suggest that a system would move to a more simple state(more disorder) rather than a more complex state(less disorder)?
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

The law of entropy does state that a system will move toward its lowest state of order/energy. Regardless of the gain or loss of energy or gain of energy to the overall system of the earth, the move from a single celled organism to a human would require a move from a high entropy to low entropy. Moving from a pile of atoms to the molecules necessary to build the amoeba would require moving from a higher state of disorder to a lower state of disorder. This argument is like saying if I pour a random pile of atoms into a pot and introduce a random energy source I will eventually generate life and if I keep going I will come up with a human. If this is how life progresses, how did it start? How did the atoms "know" to align into molecules? How did the molecules "know" to align into a protein chain? How did the protein "chain" know to align into a system? If evolution is "survival of the fittest" why do we have such an amazing diversity of animal and plant life? We know that animals produce after their own kind and that they have a strong tendency to either kill or not breed with "damaged" mates. Given these facts, how can we believe that entire species were came from mutation?
Many criticize Christians for blindly accepting the Bible and it's teachings without question. In fact, most evolutionists do the exact same thing. The difference is they have put their faith in a group of men. We have put our faith in the hand of God. Pascal's argument- it may be a weak argument for the EXISTENCE of God, but it's certainly something to consider when thinking of where we place our trust.

Lot's of good discussion and I hope you folks reading will consider this-never blindly trust in anything. Blindly trusting in evolution is of no value. Blindly trusting in God because that's what you were taught is of no value. Seek the truth. God makes Himself known to those who seek His face. If you can't find your keys, it's not because they don't exist. If you can't find God, it's because you are not looking in the right place and in the right way. You can see the evidence of God everywhere. His fingerprints cover every inch of the Earth. To truly find Him, you must seek Him with your heart.
God bless you all and Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas!

I don't believe a Christian can truly communicate with an Atheist, unless they once were an Atheist, or the Atheist once was a Christian. All of the things you have said point to utter belief, but to me, who is an Atheist, you basically said "Don't trust anything without verification...but God is real and if you can't verify, you're just doing it wrong."

That may make sense to you, and I can understand why, but to me, it sounds like "Just trust that Evolution is the way, just because you don't see it yet just means that science hasn't pieced things together completely, yet."

Personally, I don't believe in either, although I do believe in Micro evolution.

To me, the creation of the universe is unimportant. I am here. I can choose to benefit the universe---or not. I can be happy---or not. I'll do what I can to happily benefit the universe. It's inception matters no more to me than my cat cares of what machinery made it's food into little pellets. If there is an all-powerful being out there who knows everything and loves me more than anything, then he'll figure out a good way to express that, since I have nothing against the concept, except that I find it erroneous. I bet he could change that if he were all that he's cracked up to be by various religions. I looked. I tried. I'm not going to go so far as to stare into the blackness until I fabricate shapes, so to speak.

 

[Armed Mage]

There is a lot in this post and in this thread so please bare with me. Faith is not believing in something with no proof. There is ample evidence of the existence of God to put your faith in Him. Many believe there is a lot of proof of the theory of evolution. It's our choice where to put that faith. Choose wisely.

Secondly, many major religions have moved past the Bible as being the principle source of knowledge. This is why we have gay priests. As far as the truth of the Bible not being "up for debate", I'd have to disagree. We can't confuse whether the Bible is TRUE with weather the Bible is LITERAL. There are many things in the Bible, the creation being the first, where something must be described in human terms that no human could have fully grasped. I BELIEVE-the serpent in the Garden of Eden is an example of this. However, it is entirely possible that I am wrong. An omniscient God could certainly make a snake speak if He so desired. I believe everything in the Bible is true, I do not think ALL of it is literal.
Many dismiss the Bible because of it's various interpretations and certain inconsistencies, especially in the four Gospels. It is dismissed as a book that was written for King James and is riddled with mistakes. The fact is the Bible is not A book. It is a collection of 66 books written by 40+ authors over 600+years. Are there inconsistencies in the Gospel? Sure. If any four of us witnessed the same event, our stories would differ slightly- THAT DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT IS TRUE. Slight inconsistencies in the Bible do not make it invalid, they help to authenticate it.

Here's my question though: If an all-knowing, all-powerful god wanted the Bible to be a universal guidebook for communicating religious truths, why did he leave it up to fallible men to write, edit, and compile it over centuries? There were countless different religious texts based on the teachings of Jesus that formed countless different sects and variations of Christianity up to the Council of Nicea. Why do you trust that the version the self-appointed religious leaders and political elite that decided what was going to make up the Bible over 300 years after the fact is exactly what God wanted for humanity, and not just a case of history being written by the victors?

 

[AustinBR]

Respectfully, you just outlined a lack of belief, and Pascal's wager. Both are ineffectual of salvation.

I do not believe that one "chooses" to believe in God.

If God is real, then one has a living, breathing relationship with God. It is not a choice, it is a state of being and constant communion with your creator, though His word, and his Son. If you lack this, then both the "believer" and the Atheist will be dissappointed, although one lived a lie and one lived honestly with no pretenses.

Pascal's wager in itself implies that neither people believe, as there is still complete and utter disconnect from a relationship "If I die and God is not real...". This is not the voice of one who has a relationship.

This is my entire understanding of the Christian belief system, summed up by the texts John 14:6, John 3:16, and Matthew 4:19. As per the Christian faith, after studying it my whole childhood, if you can make sense of and understand and truly assimilate those 3 into your life, Pascal's wager will seem an empty gesture, and you will understand exactly what the Christian faith expects of one's life and path to salvation.

Since you profess to believe these things, take this and mull it over, if you want. Your statement "I just choose to believe" bothers me a great deal, as it hints at YOU being in control of God's reality, as it were. I don't feel like these are the words of someone with a living relationship, but then, I am far from qualified to judge, it just kindof concerned me regarding your testimony quoted.

At any rate, I am just trying to express my thoughts, as I interpret your Holy Bible, and as relates to Pascal's Wager, which you have brought up.

I don't believe a Christian can truly communicate with an Atheist, unless they once were an Atheist, or the Atheist once was a Christian. All of the things you have said point to utter belief, but to me, who is an Atheist, you basically said "Don't trust anything without verification...but God is real and if you can't verify, you're just doing it wrong."

That may make sense to you, and I can understand why, but to me, it sounds like "Just trust that Evolution is the way, just because you don't see it yet just means that science hasn't pieced things together completely, yet."

Personally, I don't believe in either, although I do believe in Micro evolution.

To me, the creation of the universe is unimportant. I am here. I can choose to benefit the universe---or not. I can be happy---or not. I'll do what I can to happily benefit the universe. It's inception matters no more to me than my cat cares of what machinery made it's food into little pellets. If there is an all-powerful being out there who knows everything and loves me more than anything, then he'll figure out a good way to express that, since I have nothing against the concept, except that I find it erroneous. I bet he could change that if he were all that he's cracked up to be by various religions. I looked. I tried. I'm not going to go so far as to stare into the blackness until I fabricate shapes, so to speak.

I could not say it better myself. Excellent job at summing that up. We had this same discussion back at Catholic High School in my philosophy class. For about two months we debated the concepts of religion. Not just Christian religions either. It essentially comes down to choice. If there is an all-loving God, then all is good after death. If there isn't, then it doesn't really matter much. The whole idea of eternal damnation was crafted to keep people on the "right" side of the line. Many churches state that donating money to them will get you into heaven (right side of line I am referring to). The concept of Hell has been crafted multiple times throughout different religions throughout history. Every time it is to the benefit of the group crafting it. "If you do this (which helps us), then you don't go to Hell."

@GunSlinger: The Atoms don't have to "know" anything to accidentally move into the right place at the right time to form atomic bonds with other atoms that worked out the right way. Plants don't "know" to grow towards the sun. I remember learning in Chemistry about how scientists took a big pool of various elements and ran an electric charge through them and it formed what many argued is the base / origin of life. Having a degree in Chem, you probably know what I am talking about. Elements don't need to be sentient in order to form normal chemical / atomic / whatever other types of bonds exist.

A common question that people pose in order to prove God is the "unmoved mover argument." Pretty much stating that everything is a cause and effect and that God is the initial cause. We first learned about this in 6th grade and I posed the argument that the universe could have just always existed and that I am OK with it just always being. The teacher would try to pose the argument that it needed to be created, like everything else, in order to exist, and that the creator must be God. Well, I argued that if the universe couldn't just always have been there, then why could God just always be there? Why would he not need to have a creator in that case? If God can always exist and people are OK accepting that, then why not be OK with the universe being the thing that always existed? He didn't like my argument and I got in trouble, but I am still on the same page. Why do things need to be created? Is it to give people closure or a sense of comfort that there is some higher being out there looking out for them? If someone really believes that and it helps them with live, then I am encouraging. I just don't like how religions, across history, have always encouraged people to 'spread the word' and to try to recruit people to their church / cause. In the end, I see Churches as any other business that is for-profit. After all, churches make LOTS of money.

 

[gunslinger06]

@GunSlinger: The Atoms don't have to "know" anything to accidentally move into the right place at the right time to form atomic bonds with other atoms that worked out the right way. Plants don't "know" to grow towards the sun. I remember learning in Chemistry about how scientists took a big pool of various elements and ran an electric charge through them and it formed what many argued is the base / origin of life. Having a degree in Chem, you probably know what I am talking about. Elements don't need to be sentient in order to form normal chemical / atomic / whatever other types of bonds exist.

[/QUOTE]

I can't say I have ever heard of such an experiment. You would have to form amino acids in order to form proteins in order to build a cell. Could an amino acid be formed by putting the right ratios of the right chemicals into a container and introducing the appropriate electic current? I seriously doubt it. Random chemicals? No way. Could you form a protein that way? No way.
I am aware of how atoms form molecular bonds. They form bonds for 2 reasons- the state of energy of the electrons after the formation is lower than before or energy is introduced into the system to exite the electrons in order to form a bond. EVEN IF you could make a protein molecule, that is one molecule. You would need milions to make an organism. Evolutionsts believe that given enough time this will all happen somehow. You can put a pile of legos in a bag and shake them as long as you desire but you won't make a castle.

 

[rtr_rtr]

I am sorry but the "ICE" proof does not hold water. If ice stayed ice I might go for it, but ice comes back to water at some time.

Ice was far from the only thing discussed on that page. Regardless, what happens to people when they die? Same principle

I can't say I have ever heard of such an experiment. You would have to form amino acids in order to form proteins in order to build a cell. Could an amino acid be formed by putting the right ratios of the right chemicals into a container and introducing the appropriate electic current? I seriously doubt it. Random chemicals? No way. Could you form a protein that way? No way.
I am aware of how atoms form molecular bonds. They form bonds for 2 reasons- the state of energy of the electrons after the formation is lower than before or energy is introduced into the system to exite the electrons in order to form a bond. EVEN IF you could make a protein molecule, that is one molecule. You would need milions to make an organism. Evolutionsts believe that given enough time this will all happen somehow. You can put a pile of legos in a bag and shake them as long as you desire but you won't make a castle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

 

[AustinBR]

I can't say I have ever heard of such an experiment. You would have to form amino acids in order to form proteins in order to build a cell. Could an amino acid be formed by putting the right ratios of the right chemicals into a container and introducing the appropriate electic current? I seriously doubt it. Random chemicals? No way. Could you form a protein that way? No way.
I am aware of how atoms form molecular bonds. They form bonds for 2 reasons- the state of energy of the electrons after the formation is lower than before or energy is introduced into the system to exite the electrons in order to form a bond. EVEN IF you could make a protein molecule, that is one molecule. You would need milions to make an organism. Evolutionsts believe that given enough time this will all happen somehow. You can put a pile of legos in a bag and shake them as long as you desire but you won't make a castle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

That is it.

After millions or even a few billion years of amino acids being formed, they would have formed basic organic compounds and then basic proteins.

Random question. If life is found on Mars or somewhere else in our solar system....how would that be justified by you?