...continued.

If you're talking about your own interpretation of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth... well, I won't comment on how I feel about that.

I, sir, am routinely "taken to school" on a whole host of subjects. But not this one!!!

NO -I am NOT referring to Church of Christ.

I am referring to the followers of the teachings of jesus Chrsit. This has NOTHING to do with denominations. If I had to guess, god is angry about denominations, as they ONLY serve to divide up His followers, who are supposed to be coming together, not dividing up.

I know its kind of nebulous, but the church of Jesus Christ is defined by those who follow His teachings, Those who cease to do so CHOOSE to no longer be part of His church. And as I said above, His TRUE church is NOt contained within any single denomination.

Hope that is a little clearer.

I'm listening to Jethro Tull's song "My God".  What an apt title.  

Great article, Eric.

I wanted to talk science, but since this has become a religious discussion...


That's an interesting quote.  But when it says "by him were all things created", it doesn't really mean [b]all[/b] things, does it?  It doesn't mean, for instance, that Jesus created miniskirts, or the internet, or the Harry Potter books, does it?

But it does specify "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers".  So does that mean that Jesus created all "powers" from the Catholic church to the Soviet Union to General Motors?

Eric, I share your view, but the religious (note the qualifier please) evolutionist is more likely to grow in his faith the more complex the thing he studies.  We all know nature will never produce a lead pencil much less one that can reproduce.  The religious evolutionist's faith is iron-clad.  No amount of common sense can penetrate.  Planerench out.

Actually the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not state that the universe will degenerate into chaos and it is not incompatible with Evolution theories.  

Please read up on the laws of thermodynamics at [url]www.entropylaw.com[/url]  It may help some of you who have only a basic grasp of thermodynamics understand what we've been trying to say for the last couple of days.

TEST:

I'm having trouble replying [:(!]

Evolution (ie. "speciation") is NOT SCIENTIFIC because evolution is NOT FALSIFIABLE!!

[b]Hypothesis:[/b] "(Divergent) Evolution" states that organisms that closely resemble each other (humans & apes for example) do so because they share more genetic similarities than organisms that don't resemble each other (humans and horses).
[b]Observation:[/b] The American organ pipe cactus looks almost identical to the African giant spurge plant.
[b]Prediction:[/b] These two plants that share nearly identical morphology are closely related genetically.
[b]Result:[/b] These two plants are actually completely unrelated based on genetic relatedness.
[b]Conclusion:[/b] "Evolution" is not supported by this observation (and many others like it).  

However...

Along comes "convergent" evolution which states that organisms that closely resemble each other (American organ pipe cactus & African giant spurge plant) do so because they are "adapted" to survive in similar environments.

Well, isn't that just so tidy.

Evidence that refutes "divergent" evolution supports "convergent" evolution (and evidence that refutes convergent evolution is used to support divergent evolution). Rare anomolies are ignored. (but the even more rare bones of Lucy become sacred artifacts of evolution)

Either way, "Evolution" is still supported no matter what the observation or result.  
I call that unfalsifiable.

continued...

...continued

[b]Pop quiz:[/b]
Fossilized bones of  organism A share strong homology to organism B and lived in similar environments to each other.
Fossilized bones of organism C bears very little resemblance to organism D but also lived in similar environments to each other.

Use the "logic" of evolution to predict whether A & B are close evolutionary relatives and predict whether C & D are close evolutionary relatives.
Betcha can't do it with bones alone.
Need more info on these organisms?

A=horse
B=zebra
C=chihuahua
D=Irish wolfhound

Any "respected" scientist looking at just those bones would conclude that the horse and zebra (different species) were much closer related than the chihuahua and wolfhound (same species). Paleontologists do it every day and create elaborate evolutionary trees based on their "predictions".("Fooled 'em again", said God).


P.S. And don't even get me started on how SLOPPY biologists are when defining what a "species" is.

I have never heard of such an amorphous and useless notion in science than "evolution".
I guess that automatically makes me an unrespected expert since only "respected" scientists support "evolution".


BIOLOGICAL "SCIENCE" OF TODAY IS BECOMING WHAT  PSYCHOLOGICAL "SCIENCE" OF THE SEVENTIES WAS.

P.P.S. The_Macallan, Ph.D Microbiology

Interesting.  My wife is an MMI Ph.D. student.  I'd be interested in knowing what you've published and what you work on.  

See the Kano model.

It looks to me like Darwiniasm/Evolution is becoming a kind of religion. My belif is in Science and the scientific method. Evolution is a useful theroy, but I doubt that it is 100% correct. But by the scientific method, we can examine the exact ways in which it is not correct, and eventually form a new, better hypothesis/theroy and test it, and so on until we figure out what is really going on. My central idea is that while we do not currently know everything that is going on in the evolution of life, we will find the truth by research and experimentation, not by saying "well, God must have done it!".

The problem with the creationist belief is that none of it is or can really ever be proven. All there is is that the Bible says so, and nobody really knows for sure exactly where it came from. Yes, Christianity and other religions have inspired men and nations to both good and evil deeds since long before I was born, BUT none of that proves that anything in the Bible is correct! It does not matter who believes it, what matters is if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe that one of the big strikes against Creationism is that there are many different religions in the world, and most of them have incompatible belifs about how the world was created. How are we to know for sure which one is correct? The only way to know these things is proof, but, by it's nature, no religion can prove anything. Evolution is the only theroy that attempts to prove itself.

Of course,  if you choose to believe in a God, you can believe that God created the laws of the universe for his own reasons. Personally, I believe that there is something out there that current science cannot explain, but I reject most organized religion as more of a tool to control the masses and obtain power. But that's a whole different topic.

While trying to keep my anonymity [rolleyes], my research generally deals with immune system/nervous system connection.  Namely, how the immune system affects nervous system (Alzheimers, SLE, etc.) via autoantibodies & cytokines.

Interesting indeed.  I'd really like to verify your Ph.D. status and read up on what you're doing.  Please email me with some contact information.  My email account is in my profile.  I promise I'll keep your identity a secret. [rolleyes]

Seriously, I'm not just full of it.  I'm honestly interested in what you study.  My wife might need to make more connections in the field [:)]

[i][b]Au contraire, mon frere![/b][/i] They [u]will[/u] indeed be able to make a conclusive statement about the existence of God one day!

It will just be too late for them, that's all!

Eric The(JustAskDr.CarlSagen!Dr.Sagen?Carl?Ooops,You'llHaveToWait,He'sOccupiedNow!)Hun[>]:)]

Someone Wrote:


This is something that takes into account the logic of Eric the huns post in the moustrap example and provides the opposite result.

Because indeed the vacuum tube and the transistor are indeed based upon the same idea and that idea is to produce more voltage or current then you are putting in trading one for the other.  Both are exactly irreducible both are complex however one is the evolution of the other.  

I don't think that two contraptions suited to the same purpose but utilizing seperate underlying physics makes for one or the other to be rendered false.  Because both vacuum tubes and transistors function toward the same purpose as do the multiple kinds of mousetraps. The Author is buying the hidden premise that it is either GOD or EVOLUTION. but not both, or not either. which are 2 of the 4 possibilites which he does not explore.

Another idea that could endanger this article is the thought that their are billions of complex  systems already wiped out each because they had no use and we are only seeing the ones that survived and find ourselves looking for ones that are failing.  What I am getting at is so what is complex systems seem to just be each for one purpose that in no way gets rid of the idea that they have evolved.

Plus I have gotten an idea  that nature is far more forgiving then a mouse trap. In that complex systems can function at 70 percent efficiency and the task handled can work within that as it is kinda sloppy itself.  The world is kinda messy only end result are concrete and sometimes there are pieces left over. IOW, a moustrap exists but was it kinda a do-hicky with a somewhat efficient arm and locking mechanism and perhaps to much velocity at first and just kinda tor itself apart when it operated, did the mousetrap do this 1000 times before it was able to kill mice efficiently. Because the man who invented may have went through 1000 iterations before he got what he was after.  Did the complex automata that exist today go through 10^30 iterations to reach their current 85% effciency. And just because they exist in a seemingly fixed state today does not mean they are gradually changing still?  I am not saying I disagree with the idea or the Authors but I don't necessarily disagree with Darwin either, nor GOD Himself for that matter.

Benjamin


Benjamin

That's an interesting site.  It's unfortunate that the site's creator doesn't have writing skills to match his knowledge of thermodynamics. [:\]  (Of course, he's hardly the only one in the fields of science and engineering with that problem.  Perhaps English isn't his native language.)

Evolutionary theory as an explanation of how biological systems work is not falsifiable only because we don't have the resources to test it.  But it's easy enough to design an experiment:

1) Take a population of species Z.  Randomly divide the population into four groups, A, B, C, and D, each of which has enough genetic diversity to be self-sustaining.

2) Place groups A and B into isolated (from each other) instances of an environment X in which most of the organisms can survive.  Do the same with groups C and D in instances of environment Y, which presents a different set of survival challenges than environment X.  (For instance, X might offer little food but few predators while Y offers lots of food but many predators.)

3) Wait long enough for ten million generations to pass.

Prediction: The ancestors of these groups will have diverged into at least two different species.  A will resemble (genetically and by other standards) B and C will resemble D more than A or B will resemble C or D.    

PS: Can you design an experiment that could disprove "intelligent design"?

That's science??
Designing an impossible experiment shows what?? [>:/]

Sorry, I really don't want to wade through four pages of Creationist drivel, so I hope nobody else has brought this up yet.

I just wanted to mention that M.C. Hawking has an AWESOME song on his website:
[img]http://www.mchawking.com/store/images/ftc_zoom.jpg[/img]

Achmed sez checkitout. [:D]

In this case, it shows that the obstacles to testing the theory are logistical, not theoretical.

Is evolution a messy theory?  Yes, but then biology is a messy subject.  In my opinion, the field is still worth studying and theorizing about even though it's too complex for neat, mathematical formulas.

BTW, I'll ask again: Can anyone offer an alternative to evolution that better explains the available evidence and an experiment that could falsify that theory?  

Renamed,

That's where we differ somewhat.

I think both "evolution" and creationism are limited explanations of nature.  They both have huge unexplainable holes (unanswerable questions, observations) that take faith to fill.  

Creationists (of which I'm not) acknowledge their reliance on faith when they reach their limit of understanding or evidence.  What triggers much animosity is when many evolutionists (of which I'm not) don't acknowledge their reliance on faith when their theory reaches it's limits of understanding or evidence.

Many have noted that evolution (science) requires as much faith as creationism (religion).

Science relies on the "[i]we could demonstrate speciation if we had enough time and could find all the fossils[/i]" statement of faith. Much like your million-year thought experiment - that's a statement of faith.

Creationism relies on the "[i]understanding what God did is beyond the realm of experimental science[/i]" statement of faith.  

So to answer your question, no, I have no "better" explanation that stands within the constraints of scientific rigor.  But that scientific constraint is a box that, outside of which, many ought to be thinking also.

---------------------
---------------------

God does not exist at the bottom of a test tube after an experiment performed in triplicate.  Nor does he exist at the right side of a "therefore" sign at the bottom of a mathematical proof.

Sounds more to me like you are unable to argue his points, so you moved into questioning his credentials.

But then, I'm just a delusional creationist.

[rolleyes]

No one was created. No one was evolved. This is my dream and only I exist, so now you all have nothing to worry about. You may continue now! [;)]

[beer]

Creationists can never answer the question:

Why is it that we can see the light from stars that are millions of light years away?

Actually, that one is REAL simple.

Creationists beleive that God created a fully functional, ready-to-use world.

Creation theory holds that God SPOKE the world into existence. So all God had to do is to instantaneously create a universe with the light from its furthest stars already in transit and reaching the planet earth.

Silly Major - trix are for kids. [}:D]

So God made the light already in transit, huh?


You've got to be kidding me!
You actually believe that?

Well, I guess you have no choice but to dream up and, support far-fetched rationalizations, such as that one.
Otherwise the whole house of cards comes down.

It must make your head hurt, sometimes.

You are delusional. I never said I disagreed with him did I?  I've never once said that evolution is pure science.  I simply want to verify his Ph.D.  Actually my wife wants to verify his Ph.D. because she's never met a microbiologist (of which she is) who didn't agree with evolution.  

You're really streching it today aren't you?  It must be a religious/creationist thing to jump to completely unjustified conclusions, huh?

Aren't [b]all[/b] scientific theories limited explanations of nature?  For every explanation of the form "B happened because of A", we can ask, "Why A?".


True enough, but in my opinion there's a significant difference in the size and number of the holes and the degree to which each theory depends upon faith as opposed to logic and evidence.

And if we're just going to throw up our hands and say "It's all a matter of faith", then why limit ourselves to just evolution and creation?  There's no end to the number of silly ideas we could admit as possibilities.

I suppose God also "created" objects and materials that can be radiologically dated at over a Billion years old.
Why?

If you think rationally, these objects must actually BE that old.
Therefore, the Earth is that old.

I'm curious as to what the answer could be.
I bet it's funny.

Since it took six days, creationists must believe that God is a slow talker. [;)]

Well, how stupid would it be of God to create a planet, namely the earth, that wouldn't benefit from the light of the stars (the stars have a SPECIFIC job in the economy of God, see below) He created for several hundred million years???

The Scriptures do not directly address the light years issue, so we are left to speculate somewhat. However, it they DO sorta address the light / time continuum.

The "heavens" (including light from far distant stars) have a SPECIFIC purpose in the economy of God, to my satisfactiuon explaining the light / time thing, as follows:

Consider Psalms 19:1 -

[i]The  heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their  expanse is declaring the work of His hands.[/i]

When you look into the sky and see the stars, you are SUPPOSED to be awe struck with the power and magnificence of the God who created them, not accuse others of "far fetched rationalizations."

Yes, a God capable of speaking the earth into existence could DEFINITELY create teh light already in transit, also explaining thew "old looking earth" question. "Their expanse declaring the work of His hands "is where I get my "light in transit" explanation.

You said NO ONE could ever answer the light / time issue. Well, I gave you an answer. You proceed to mock the answer I give, telling me you don't really want an answer. You merely wish to win the argument, which is HIGHLY "unscientific."

You religious evolutionist zealot, you. [}:D]

That you think the purpose of the stars is to benefit the Earth, harkens back to the days when we thought the Earth was the center of the universe.  It's not rational, rather, it is a pained rationalization.



...and the reason God made carbon/radiologically dated objects that would seem to be millions, and sometimes billions of years old?

Why are y'all so angry all the time? This is directed toward all those who are angry all the time, whether you believe in the Bible or not.

I mean, has the Peace of Christ 'that passeth all understanding' not taken hold on you? [u]If[/u] you believe in the Bible and on Him, that is.

[u]If[/u] you believe in Him, but not so much in the inerrancy of the Bible, then wink at the foolishness of your fellow believers that do, and continue in His Goodness.

[u]If[/u] you don't believe in the Bible, hasn't the self-righteous contentedness that you should be feeling after deconstructing Christianity in your own minds, quelled your anger at the foolishness of it all? And 'in your own mind' is all we're talking about here. Right?

So I think all groups should be able to shake the dust off their sandals at each other. If you believe in Him, continue to do so.

If you don't, then by all means stay the course.

All groups will receive the rewards they so justly seek. Some, an eternal life with a Risen Savior. Others, an incredibly long dirt nap, with no waking up at the end.

Eric The(NotAnIntentionalFlame-ThoseWillComeLaterAndNotFromMe)Hun[>]:)]

I didn't say the purpose of the stars was to benefit the earth. I said it was to show man the greatness of creator God. To cause him (man) to fall on his knees in worship and surrender to God. Life is about God, and His glory.

A point CLEARLY missed by you. In all senses.

I'm awe struck by the inefficiency of devoting 99.99999% of the universe to the sole purpose of providing mankind with nightlights.  That doesn't seem to be suggestive of "intelligent design". [:\]

Post from Major Murphy -

But, Major Murphy, if 'man is the measure of all things' then, quite rightly, the Earth is the [u]center[/u] of the universe!

Surely not in the strictest scientific sense, but from a more humanist standpoint, all things are measured from their distance from the Earth and the Solar System in which it is contained.

The idea that the Earth is the physical center of the universe was discarded long ago with equally erroneous scientific theories as well.

So I would think that we could stop going back to a time when Her Most Catholic Majesty of Spain, Queen Isabella, was the only monarch who thought that Christopher Columbus might be onto something!

Need I remind you of some of the 'scientific' beliefs and theories of that day?

Eric The(Humour-filled)Hun[>]:)]

Again, the purpose of teh stars was to show man the greatness of His creator, God.

The next two verese go on to say -

"Day and night the voice of the stars is heard. There is no language where their message is not communicated."

Re-read my post. You will see the purpose of the stars was to show man IRREFUTABLE evidence of the awesome might and power of God. To cause man to humble himself in front of His creator.

You will see that point ONLY if you WANT to see it. If you DON'T want to see it, you won't.

God withholds knowledge of Himself from the skeptical, and those who only seek to mock God.

The purpose of stars, the very reason for their existance, is "to show man the greatness of creator God. To cause him (man) to fall on his knees in worship and surrender to God. Life is about God, and His glory..."?

So the stars are  in existance only so that they may be viewed by man, for the above stated goal?

Does this include the Sun?
Or is that not considered a star, too?

Again, this doesn't only harken back to the days where the Earth was considered the center of the Universe, this makes Man the center.

The idea the God made the stars, so that later, when he made Man, Man would have something to look at that would "show man the greatness of creator God", is hard to swallow.

You suggest that God made all of the light from stars "in transit", so that they may be viewed from the Earth, by Man.

If this is so, then the Earth is indeed the focus, and center of the universe.
Or did He also make light "in transit" to other points of the universe, where there are no eyes to see it?

To what purpose?

So are some cough medicines.

But they BOTH will cure what ails you.

Think of it this way. If God is who He claims He is, then He is deserving of ALL of man's praise and glory.

For God then to create a superstructure that will bring God the praise he deserves is right and good and just.

The heavens declare the goodness of God. That IS hard to swallow, because our sin nature makes it so.

GOD ALONE can give you the ability to "swallow" it. All those who come to Him and ask he will in no wise cast out. The first step is in receiving Jesus Christ as Saviour. We can worry about the creation stuff later on.

Why is it that when the discussion turns to logic, you bail out like you just did?

While legitimate questions, they are IRRELEVANT to the larger issue - the eternal destiny of your soul.

Resolve that, and the rest will fall in place.