DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Post Reply New Topic

One of the underlying assumptions in religion which causes problems is the concept that the universe is essentially chaotic and requires an overseeing mind to keep things in order. Science, in general, assumes that there is order in the universe due to basic laws of universal operation which does not require an independent mind (generally referred to as "God") to keep order. In other words science assumes an inherent order in the universe and its efforts are towards discovering what those laws may be. In general, religion posits, through unsubstantiated speculation, the structure of the universe and when science or any independent mind questions this speculated order, the questioner is assumed to be a threat to the basic order of the universe and frequently treated brutally.

Another widespread theory is that intelligence requires a thinking mind. It may seem grotesque to suspect that there can be intelligent action without a mind but the basic laws of the universe coordinate to produce sophisticated structures, including the structures of life, with no discernible independent mind behind the process. Those processes within a thinking mind are essentially a series of intellectual filters that eliminate non-functional solutions to problems. The basic brutal processes extant within the universe duplicate this filtration process and, for all practical concerns, is a process of intelligence. That is why evolution works. But this collation of processes is not, in any sense, sensitive to the accepted pleading processes incorporated in religions for beneficent action. One cannot reverse the force of gravity or any of the other basic forces in action in the universe by requesting for mercy. Which is why religion is more or less not operational for practical purposes.

Interesting, only 2/3 (33/50) accepts evolution theorie.

Well, we can - and should - question our believes and observations. But we have witnessed lifeforms evolving, adapting to changes in their environment. Or did he forget about DDT and mosquito's? Or bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics?



I do look around at the beauty in nature, and you are wrong. I find that scientific concepts about the origins of life and evolution, the notion that replicating proteins are somehow responsible for creating all this beauty greater then anything any religion has ever come up with.

Now I cant belive an Aspie could belive in Evolution or the official version of 911 as its an NTs job to blindly belive any pack of lies the decievers want to decieve us with, whereas an Aspie needs to know the whys and hows of mere facts, and will look for themselves.

Regarding the fossil record backing evolution, Iam afraid you are wrong, Darwin predicted that the fossil record would back up his theory, but no such fossils have ever been found which has forced scientists to adapt new theories such as genetic mutation.
Trouble is genetic mutation has also been proved wrong due to finding a DNA repairing enzine.

Hence the recent poularity in believing aliens put us here, basically they will just come up with lie after lie as the previous lie is proved wrong.

My belief in God is based more on logic and reason than faith.

Do you actually know how complicated a single cell is?

So who wants to explain how natural selection caused the lizards to grow wings and evolve into birds?, the girraffe neck explaination sounds feasable but surely half grown wings on a lizard would be a handicap and they would all get eaten before they could fly?

Darwinian natural selection may occur if the following points are satisfied:

1. If there are organisms that reproduce, and
2. If offspring inherit traits from their parents(s), and
3. If there is variability of traits, and
4. If the environment limits the size of natural populations,
5. Then those members of the population with maladaptive traits (as determined by the environment) will die out or reproduce less, and
6. Then those members with adaptive traits (as determined by the environment) will survive to reproduction or reproduce more.

From Darwin (1859)

Draco dussumieri, a lizard with half grown wings on its side.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcb-eteHjFA[/youtube]

Personally, I am a man of faith, but I can also understand the concepts of scientific findings. I personally believe that religion and science are not mutually exclusive, but that they can complement each other. In other words: "On the first day, God said 'Let there be Bang'. And the universe was created."

From my POV, God did create the universe, but when he did that, he also created many natural laws that underly it, like physics and the concept of evolution. I consider scientific laws to be "God's special effects", as it were. The six "days" of creation in abrahamic religions are not days at all, but are instead symbols of the "phases" of which creation followed (and, interpreted in a certain way, this order is the same as a scientifically-accepted order of things that came to be in the universe). After all, a day on Venus is 243 days on earth, so the term "day" is not absolute.

Bottom line: faith explains the "why", science explains the "how".

However, I do take alot of flak from some people who intend to literally interpret religious texts (Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc.)... and people say that AS people have problems understanding figurative speech.

Nature does all things spontaneously, by herself, without the meddling of the gods.

-- Lucretius (ca. 99 BC- 55 BC)

I have the same view point on this topic ToadofSteel. If I remember correctly, I read a book while I was at summer camp. It was called The Science of God and it talked of the parallels between science and religion (though if I remember correctly it talked only of the Abrahamic faiths though I'm not sure). I think that book is what made me have my current POV.

Also, for some general background info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

In a nutshell:
God created laws of evolution, physics, and other sciences as a means to carry out his creation...

Let me attempt to create an analogue: If you were faced with a project where you had to digitally resize 1,247 pictures to make them smaller, would you rather go through, meticulously resizing each one manually, or create a script to do it for you?

Unless your obsession is to resize pictures in Photoshop (which mine isn't), most people would opt for the latter...

Occam's razor.

The attacks on September 11, 2001, were indeed a conspiracy: by a group of Islamic fanatics. People with Asperger's syndrome tend towards greater independence in thought, but this does not imply acceptance of the latest conspiracy theory (which I see as a perverse intellectual trendiness more than freethinking). While a measure of skepticism is healthy, the compulsion to concoct elaborate theories to explain atrocities in some way that reinforces one's political biases verges on the frankly delusional.

Science is not grounded in the presumption of omniscience. Science is grounded on the scientific method: a process by which new hypotheses are subjected to experiment with untenable ideas discarded and empirically validated ones promoted. Since humans perform the scientific method, it is still subject to their personal biases, but falsifiability and peer review ensure the integrity of knowledge. Scientists and those who use science know that our knowledge is incomplete and in some cases wrong. Science is not the place to go if you want the assurance of unchanging "answers."

I would think most scientists and scientifically minded individuals consider extraterrestrial life an interesting philosophical question or mathematical probability rather than a question we currently have the means to explore empirically.

You are clearly alluding to William Paley's watchmaker argument (i.e., irreducible complexity), but you fail to elaborate for the uninitiated. Paley's argument is an analogy (watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe) and has all the flaws of any argument from analogy. A quick websearch should yield a plethora of counterarguments and critiques.

I take it Paley's (or some similar) argument left a strong emotional resonance with you such that the mere mention of a cell's complexity revivified the argument for you, but in terms of reasoned debate, this does nothing (because your adversary may not have the same recollections).

You commit a logical fallacy here: the strawman. The theory of evolution is not necessarily suggesting lizards sprouted wings and then became birds in three discrete stages. It is just as plausible some intermediate species possessed some characteristics of each. In either case, someone has already provided a photograph of a reptile with wings (which may not be related to the wings of birds, by the way).

If your "belief in God is based more on logic and reason than faith," I and I'm sure others here would like to hear your arguments. Don't be shy.

I honestly stopped reading that post the moment you said "Occam's Razor"... It just assumes that there can be no assumptions...

Draco dussumieri, a lizard with half grown wings on its side.



Its so cute!

I thought somebody would bring this or a gliding snake up.

Quite good but Iam not convinced.
Firstly, they are not "wings" as in the sense a Birds wings are its arms or front legs, the lizard has its 4 limbs plus these extendable flaps of skin on its beely as does the flying snake.

This lizard can indeed glide from tree to tree, so they are not "half grown wings" as you say, but fully formed for the function they provide this creature, that is, to glide from one tree to another.

If this same lizard had these "wings in a half grown form that would not enable the creature to glide, they would be useless apendages that would be more likely to hinder, rather than help the creature, they certainly wouldnt give it an advantage in natural selection terms over others of its kind who hadnt developed half grown wings.

(Unlike the giraffee neck "proof" of evolution where every extra half inch would put higher leaves on a tree in eating range.

I would use the same observations of those who belive the governments version of events, deluding themselves as they cannot face the idea that the vehicle of thier patriatism could be so treturous as to sacrifice thier own citizens in order to gain the excuse to start a war, despite it being a quite common occurance historically.





It certainly is subject to their own biases, and even more pertantly, to the biases of those that fund scientific institutes and univercities and so can inist thier own agenda is served.
Many scientists see the order in science and physics and conclude such order cannot come out of chaos, yet are unwilling to sacrifice thier careers in defiance of said agenda.






Sorry Iam a simple (ex) mechanic who failed at state school I have never heard an argument of Paley or similar to have recieved such an emotional reonance from, all I do have is a mind that can reach its own conclusions independantly of its peers, what is popular, or what is propoganderised into me from infancy. I had hoped this was an Aspie trait shared by others.

If your "belief in God is based more on logic and reason than faith," I and I'm sure others here would like to hear your arguments. Don't be shy. [/quote]

But I am shy
Maybe another thread another time as its quite late here.

In the meantime maybe you would like to read my thread where I show photographic evidence that the exhaust trail on the FBI released Pentagon shots are not the invisible heat haze from a Gas Turbine engine, but the visible chemical reaction of a Rocket engine as attached to a missile.

If a hole takes 1 hour to dig, how long does it take to dig half a hole? There is no such thing as half a hole. There are no such things as half wings. In evolution, all gradual changes in animals and plants pass through stages that are at each step always useful. Thus the flying wing (of birds and bats) was preceded by something else that was useful.

Another hypothesis is that the primitive "half-wing" was not used to glide but capture prey like a big feathered glove (like a catchers mit in baseball). Later the glove grew larger and flapped a bit, and this helped the creature to leap over obstacles. Eventually this flapping glove evolved into a wing and true flight.

http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/teache ... Flight.pdf

There is much evidence that many dinosaurs were feathered. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:F ... _dinosaurs The velociraptors had bone structures identical to those of modern birds. The feathers probably were protection against cold but eventually they evolved into wings.

************************************************************************
HOW GOD EXISTS. Study Relativity: Time & space curve, bent by the gravitational mass of the Universe. Future is the past. Evolution + billions of Years + Human desire grows Christ who builds the Universe He evolves in. Heaven is built because of Science & our desire. Humans want immortality and it is the purpose of science to learn all knowledge and preserve species and eventually individuals. Every computer scientist is building Heaven. Every doctor is working towards immortality and what this tenacious species wants, we eventually obtain. That's what we do with the next five to ten billion years. We want immortality for everyone and as sure as we built the Nautilus, the Moon Program, & International Space Station we shall have that 1500 mile cube mentioned in the second to last chapter of Revelation. All started off as dreams but Humanity makes dreams come true. What faith conceives of science can build and will build because what faith wants and what science wants, is the same. That cube may be self fulfulling prophesy, but did Christ from the future inspire John to write what he did about it? I believe Christ did, but even if He didn't, as sure as the Nautilus, the moon-ship Columbia and the communications satellite (invented in a science fiction story by Arthur Clarke), it will be built! Because Humans want it.

That cube must have a Leader. The Galilee Carpenter is Christ because we want it. Future Humanity can have any one we want to in that position. From reading both their words I can tell, Christ wants it. Buddha does not. Even folks that don't believe in God, know Jesus is special. He is what He is because we want Him to be. Study relativity. Time and space are bent by the gravitational mass of the Universe. They curve, and black holes bend space and time. In the future life learns to get back to the past. Why? Because we want to, just as we wanted to fly and go into space.

Brains are carbon based computers. Souls are Operating systems Christ must indwell, & debug to make us fit for Heaven. (Infected OS's ruin ANY Network) The contents of any hard drive can be "ghosted to a bigger, better, faster hard drive. I had mine done a few weeks ago. We haven't learned to do the carbon based kind yet, but our descendants will and due to relativity, everyone is uploadable, IF we let Christ debug us and make us fit to be uploaded. We all have a choice we must make. Like all OS's we get defects that would corrupt any network we were connected to, so we are not connected to the Kingdom of Heaven until we invite Christ to indwell us, and repair us. That's known as becoming Born Again. Pray, "Jesus Christ, please forgive my faults, come live in me, correct my faults and help me to forgive and bring others to you. Amen."


Some of course won't be fit for that cube because they won't let Christ indwell them and debug them and/or, they won't forgive. If Christ let undebugged souls/operating systems and the souls of those who won't forgive into Heaven it would soon be as much as the beta test environment we have here. But those not fit for Heaven will still have immortality. It just won't be as good. I believe Heaven is Heaven and Hell becomes Hell because of the folks who go there. Some pick up litter. Some drop it. Now imagine litter bugs littering for eternity unstopped in what started out as a nice environment and imagine a similar place where there never were any litter bugs. Just what exactly is God supposed to do with those who wont let themselves be made fit for Heaven? What would you do? Rodney King said, "Why can't we all just get along? But some just won't.

Google the Anthropic Principle. There are actually three versions of them. There are over a hundred ways the laws of the Universe had to be "just right," in order for life to be able to evolve,. This shows it either had to be a "done deal." (the Strong Anthropic Principle), or else there would have to be so many Universes that the equivalent of a hundred quarters all falling out of someone's pocket and landing on their edges happened all by accident. It would take googleplexes of Universes for that to happen by chance. (The weak anthropic Principle). But if there are that many Universes, the chances of God evolving are increased by all of them and once He existed in any of them He would "scoop the pool" the way the first single celled organism did in the oceans of Earth those many billions of years ago.(The modified Anthropic Principle). If there are that many Universes for God not to exist here would have to be something constant through out all of them with all their different laws of physics that stopped evolution before it reached that point. Not very likely.

Form follows functionality. God is only member of His species but He IS a species. There is only 1 best, ultimate, fittest way to survive in the Multiverse. Wherever the Supreme Being evolves He will reach that 1 best, ultimate, fittest way & thus become the exact same Being. Multiple starting points also would not stop this & He would encourage as many starting points as possible just as many life forms have multiple births.

The Gaia hypothesis states that life regulates the atmosphere of Earth to keep it life bearing. I submit that the Gaia Hypothesis and the Anthropic Principle are the same. Due to relativity, evolution and the desire of life to keep existing, life also regulates the Universe(s) to keep it life bearing.

Evolution IN Bible. 1 Cor. 12:27. We are body of Christ, individually members of It. Eph 4:15 Rather speaking the Truth, In Love, we are to grow up in ALL WAYS into the Head, into Christ. John 15:1-2 I Am the vine. My Father is the Vinedresser. Every branch and me that does not bare fruit He takes away. Every branch in me that does bare fruit He prunes so that it may bare more fruit. Luke 13:9 It is like a mustard seed......it grew and became a tree, & the birds of the air perched in its branches.

Revelation 3:20. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me, If Christ did not ask permission before entering us to debug us, He would be no better than those creatures on Star Gate who invade and take over people. He does not turn us into pods. We continue to exist, but we are fulfilled and loved from the inside out! http://www.proofgodexists.org

The first chapters of the Bible clearly indicates that God created light before he created the Sun and the Moon so it is obvious that the scientific theory that the Sun makes the day cannot be correct. Of course, the Sun seems to shine but if one accepts the Bible that must be some sort of illusion.
Just recently I dialed a wrong number and a man with a very deep voice answered. At first I though it was Henry Kissinger but when I asked him, it turned out it was God who rarely answers the phone because he cannot stand telephone salesmen. When I expressed doubts he told me he could prove it. He told me that at a specific moment the next morning he would make the Sun rise. Obviously no human could do that. Sure enough, the next morning, the Sun rose.
That seems to be final obvious proof that evolution is nonsense.