www.ditl.org

To Varthikes, et. al.: Your knowledge of Scripture certainly far exceeds mine, to my own discredit. But I am a believer in the original monotheistic faith (although ancient Judaism may better be described as a monolatry) and I do have definite beliefs about Scripture. One of the most fervent of my beliefs is that Scripture - which in this case I define in the most narrow sense as the Pentateuch - can be TRUE without being FACT.

Fundamentalism is impossible, since the Bible has never been re-written. St Jerome of course tried to "edit" it to his own anti-Semitic and somewhat spiteful taste when he translated it into the Vulgate, but that's another topic. In other words, to use an example from my own faith: there are sects of Jews who wear long locks of hair at their temples, known as peyes, because of the Biblical injunction to "not cut the corners of your beard." However, if you want to be that fundamental about the Bible, you should be in Jerusalem every Saturday sacrificing various livestock and agricultural products over the fire butning in a huge cubic golden altar!

We can have perfect faith in the teachings and messages of the Five Books of Moses, as I do, without assuming every item in them is a factual recording. Do I believe in the teachings of Judaism? Absolutely! Do I believe that Methuselah died at the age of 969 years? Absolutely not!

Likewise, the message of Genesis is that G-d created the universe and our world according to his plan. I choose to, and I have explained HOW, believe that evolution is one of the tools that "He" made and is making use of to effect that achievement.

To Varthikes, et. al.: Your knowledge of Scripture certainly far exceeds mine, to my own discredit. But I am a believer in the original monotheistic faith (although ancient Judaism may better be described as a monolatry) and I do have definite beliefs about Scripture. One of the most fervent of my beliefs is that Scripture - which in this case I define in the most narrow sense as the Pentateuch - can be TRUE without being FACT.

Fundamentalism is impossible, since the Bible has never been re-written. St Jerome of course tried to "edit" it to his own anti-Semitic and somewhat spiteful taste when he translated it into the Vulgate, but that's another topic. In other words, to use an example from my own faith: there are sects of Jews who wear long locks of hair at their temples, known as peyes, because of the Biblical injunction to "not cut the corners of your beard." However, if you want to be that fundamental about the Bible, you should be in Jerusalem every Saturday sacrificing various livestock and agricultural products over the fire butning in a huge cubic golden altar!

We can have perfect faith in the teachings and messages of the Five Books of Moses, as I do, without assuming every item in them is a factual recording. Do I believe in the teachings of Judaism? Absolutely! Do I believe that Methuselah died at the age of 969 years? Absolutely not!

Likewise, the message of Genesis is that G-d created the universe and our world according to his plan. I choose to, and I have explained HOW, believe that evolution is one of the tools that "He" made and is making use of to effect that achievement.

How can you have perfect faith in something if you believe it's partly false?

How do you choose whether something in the scriptures is factual or not?

Do you take creation of Man as described in Genesis to be one of those fictional points?

I don't believe that the Bible (at least, the Pentateuch) is false - I believe that the intention of it is NOT historical fact-recording, but that of educating people in the tenets of a faith. I don't see a dichotomy.

I will give an example from the New Testament - I don't personally accept that as Scripture, but many do. In the two different gospels describing the birth of Jesus, Jesus is described as being born in two different places. If we were to view the New Testament as an historically accurate document, then we must discard its validity because it contradicts itself. However, even as a non-Christian, I wouldn't dream of telling a Christian to discard his faith because of that "error." I'm sure that anyone can understand that the city of Jesus' birth is not an important fact regarding the truth of his teachings. Would the tenets of the Christian faith change based on whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or in Nazareth?

There is no contradiction there.

Read the account at Luke 2 carefully if you have access to a translation. If you don't, I can provide you with a link to one.

Tiberius wrote:

Varthikes wrote:Paul Davies - physicist
Allan Sandage - astronomer
Robert Jastrow - astronomer, physicist, cosmologist

And why are these people's opinions on biological evolution correct? I wouldn't cite Steven Hawking on marine biology, so astrophysicists would not be a valid source regarding biological evolution.

Anyway, I don't see anything in that article regarding any part of science that Paul Davies has challenged. The article on Allan Sandage seems to indicate that he equates non-design with randomness, and I have already explained how naturalistic process can give non-random results despite there being no intelligence behind it. The article on Robert jastrow says that he is not a believer of creationism or of Intelligent Design.

You explained (at least tried to) on the basis of natural selection how life got to where it is today. However, natural selection doesn't explain (at least as far as have) how life originated. Or how the Earth came to be in such a precise orbit to allow the existance of life. That is just as important. And, that is how other areas of science are involved here. Other areas like physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.

And, here are some more quotes from actual scientists, this time stating outright the evidence they see point to a Creator.

In other words, if there had been someone on Earth during the first day, he/she/it would have had light, but the sources of the light would have been unseen by the thick layer of clouds covering the Earth at the time.

By the fourth day, this would have changed by the plants absorbing the initially carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere. If there had been someone on Earth then, they would have been able to see the sun, moon, and stars. The light would have reached the Earth unobscured.

Then the Bible is wrong when it says that God made the sun and moon at that time, because they changed in no way.

Okay. A brief lesson in Hebrew grammar. In the Hebrew language, the verb has two states: a perfect state that indicates completed action, and an imperfect state that indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. The Hebrew word for "created" as used in Genesis 1:1 is a perfect state verb, showing the action stated there was complete. In Genesis 1:16, "proceeded to make" in Hebrew is an imperfect state verb, indicating that the action is continuous or in progress.

The animals survive because they, a random individual, received a specific trait from a specific mutation in a specific gene (out of so many genes). Do you not see the chance here?

Yes, on the level of the individual, the traits are random.

However, there is much more to evolution that that!!!

Evolution is what traits are passed on and spread throughout the population. Remember, individuals do not evolve, populations do. And natural selection makes sure that the traits which are beneficial are passed on through the population.

A trait will not spread through a population by chance. It must be a beneficial trait for that to happen. There is a selective force which prevents damaging traits from continuing.

Where does the trait come from?

Well, let me know when they think they've solved the puzzle.

Why do remain so convinced that science will fail in this?

Because, no matter what sort of evidence science puts out, I know that which is believed by those of the organization to which I belong is truth.

Yes, they get enough nutrients, but they have to eat A LOT of it to do so. Spending 16 hours a day eating 25 to 45 pounds and digesting only a small amount in that time.

Ah, so they DO get sufficient nutrients, despite what you said previously?

Then we merely have an animal that is very adapted to its environment. it is a specialist. it has adapted to one particular environment to such a degree that a change to that environment will be very damaging to the species. it's happened before - in fact, animals have become extinct because they have been adapted to suit an environment that changes. if the animal can't adapt to those changes, then it dies out.

Yes, they get sufficient nutrients, but insufficient per serving, forcing them eat LOTS of it. If they were adapted for such an environment, shouldn't their stomach be better adapted to derive nourishment from the food it's been adapted to eat?

First of all, Genesis 2 and 3 talks about how God originally created the original Human pair perfect, that they would never get sick or grow old and die and how they forfeited that because they rebelled and failed to obey a simple order.

Where did that come from? With regards to the brain, I haven't mentioned anything from the Bible.

In your second point, you asked what it said of a God you gave us an imperfect brain. That ^ was my response.

Second, it's not that we don't use every part of our brain. Just that we don't use it to its fullest potential in our current 80-year (give or take) lifespan.

Ah, so you've changed your claim now. Instead of "only being able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain capacity", you are now claiming, "only being able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain potential".

May I ask how the brains total potential has been determined in order to know we are only at the 10% mark? How has it been determined what 100% is?[/i]

First, "potential" is a synonym for "capable".
Second, 10% is an estimate--a rather high one at that according to some neuroscientists. I'll get back to you on the specifics.

In the meantime, here are some more questions to ponder:

Can natural selection account for Human abilities such as humor, being able to ponder on such issues as where we come from and where we are going, spirituality, immortality, the very debate we're having now?

Varthikes wrote:You explained (at least tried to) on the basis of natural selection how life got to where it is today. However, natural selection doesn't explain (at least as far as have) how life originated. Or how the Earth came to be in such a precise orbit to allow the existance of life. That is just as important. And, that is how other areas of science are involved here. Other areas like physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.

Agreed - the chances of a planet having the correct distance from its star, the right axel tilt, etc, for life to develop, and even given those requirements, for life to actually begin, are something like 1 a billion. There are, however, trillions upon trillions of stars in the universe. You do the maths.

The animals survive because they, a random individual, received a specific trait from a specific mutation in a specific gene (out of so many genes). Do you not see the chance here?

Yes, on the level of the individual, the traits are random.

However, there is much more to evolution that that!!!

Evolution is what traits are passed on and spread throughout the population. Remember, individuals do not evolve, populations do. And natural selection makes sure that the traits which are beneficial are passed on through the population.

A trait will not spread through a population by chance. It must be a beneficial trait for that to happen. There is a selective force which prevents damaging traits from continuing.

Where does the trait come from?

The devlopment of a trait in a specific individual is purely chance. The passing on of that trait through reproduction, however, is not. If the trait confers a disadvantage the individual has a much lower than average chance of reproducing and thus passing on that trait. If the trait confers neither an advantage nor a disadvantage the individual has an average chance of reproducing and thus passing on the trait. If the trait confers an advantage the individual has a much higher than average chance of reproducing and thus passing on the trait, and therefore the trait would, over thousands of generations become commonplace. This is a very simplified description of how evolution works.

Varthikes wrote:You explained (at least tried to) on the basis of natural selection how life got to where it is today. However, natural selection doesn't explain (at least as far as have) how life originated.

Biological evolution makes absolutely no claim as to being responsible for the origin of life, nor does it make any explanation.

Or how the Earth came to be in such a precise orbit to allow the existance of life. That is just as important. And, that is how other areas of science are involved here. Other areas like physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.

Given the sheer number of stars in the universe, there would be literally trillions of planets out there. If only one planet in ten billion could support life, then there would still be billions upon billions of earth like planets.

Remember that a thing that has a small chance of occurring can still happen countless times if it has enough opportunity.

And, here are some more quotes from actual scientists, this time stating outright the evidence they see point to a Creator.

Let's look at these quotes....

Andrew McIntosh wrote:As a scientist, I look at the world around me, and observe engineering mechanisms of such remarkable complexity that I am drawn to the conclusion of intelligent design being behind such complex order.

First of all, he's a mathematician. I don't see how he's remotely qualified to make a judgement about biological systems. Secondly, he is mistakenly concluding that complex order can only come about via intervention from an intelligent being. This is false. I have already explained how natural selection can result in ordered systems, and there are many other things that are incredibly complex that occur without intervention, such as weather and oceanic currents. Also, the only Andrew McIntosh I could find is not in fact a mathematician, but a chemical engineer and Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory. Given his views on things such as his belief that trilobites were made extinct by Noah's flood, he appears to be guilty of assuming what he wishes to prove.

John K G Kramer wrote:The complexity of nature clearly points to a Creator. Every biological and physical system, once understood, shows incredible complexity.

Again, the mistake that complexity needs a creator.

Also, the story about him HERE has something very interesting. it says that he found it hard to believe in evolution, so he found it hard to write an essay about it. he added a few sentences to this essay claiming that it was easier to believe that God did it, and he got a low mark (never mind the fact that he was supposed to describe how evolution was the origin of life - which it wasn't). And this was in his second year at uni. How could he think that "since a second year university student can't explain evolution, it must be false" is a valid argument? And when he got his low mark, instead of thinking that his low mark was evidence that he didn't do a good job, he concludes that he did indeed do a good job and his views on the subject are correct after all. That argument is very flawed.

Jean Dorst wrote:The order of the living world is plainly evident. It was set up by a superior Power that I personally call God. It is here that faith agrees with scientific truth. Far from contradicting it, it completes it, providing a simpler understanding of our universe.

Once again, the mistake that complexity and order require a creator.

And I fail to see how an infintely complex God is a simple solution.

Andrey Dmitriyevich Sakharov wrote:I cannot imagine the universe and human life without an intelligent beginning, without a source of spiritual 'warmth' that lies beyond matter and its laws.

Argument from incredulity. "I can't believe that X occurs unless it is caused by Y, so since we have X, then we must have Y as well."

And once again, the person quoted has no qualifications in biology, or astrophysics.

Bob Hosken wrote:Each animal is in some way uniquely designed to suit its particular environment, and I cannot help but attribute the complexity of the design to a Creator, rather than to random evolutionary forces.

Again, the argument from incredulity, and also the mistake of assuming that evolution is random. I've explained several times that evolution is guided by natural selection.

Okay. A brief lesson in Hebrew grammar. In the Hebrew language, the verb has two states: a perfect state that indicates completed action, and an imperfect state that indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. The Hebrew word for "created" as used in Genesis 1:1 is a perfect state verb, showing the action stated there was complete. In Genesis 1:16, "proceeded to make" in Hebrew is an imperfect state verb, indicating that the action is continuous or in progress.

And how exactly is removing the clouds a part of making a star?

Where does the trait come from?

The trait is caused by a random mutation, yes. BUT, before you start claiming you were right, your post stated that chance alone is responsible. Chance, over time, would result in most possible mutations, and only the beneficial ones would be passed on. You cannot claim that evolution is random because a small part of the process is.

I have already explained how beneficial traits are more likely to be passed on, and Captain Seafort has just explained it again.

Because, no matter what sort of evidence science puts out, I know that which is believed by those of the organization to which I belong is truth.

In other words, "I know evolution is wrong because the people I know say it is wrong". Who are these people, and what qualifies them to claim that evolution is wrong?

Yes, they get sufficient nutrients, but insufficient per serving, forcing them eat LOTS of it. If they were adapted for such an environment, shouldn't their stomach be better adapted to derive nourishment from the food it's been adapted to eat?

Pandas do not live solely on a diet of bamboo. They also eat meat, fish and eggs when it has the chance.

My question was not rhetorical. if evolution did a bad job on the panda as you claim, doesn't that mean that God did a bad job also? In fact, given that God is supposed to be able to make things perfectly, I'd say that the bad job he did on the panda is even worse than claiming evolution is responsible!

In your second point, you asked what it said of a God you gave us an imperfect brain. That ^ was my response.

I notice that you didn't respond to my first point about the brain, the response that is found on Snopes. Do you concede the points made on that page?

In regards to the above quoted claim from you, can you point to a passage in the Bible that says that God made people stupid when he kicked them out of Eden? because, if I remember the Bible correctly, God does specify the punishments he will inflict on people, and taking away 90% of their brain capacity isn't one of them.

First, "potential" is a synonym for "capable".

Yeah, and that would lead to the word "capability" being used in the claim, not the word "capacity". Capacity refers to a specific potential - the potential amount of storage "The tank has a capacity of 100 liters". In any case, even if the word "capacity" was intended to refer to potential, it is very misleadingly worded.

Second, 10% is an estimate--a rather high one at that according to some neuroscientists. I'll get back to you on the specifics.

I look forward to it.

Can natural selection account for Human abilities such as humor, being able to ponder on such issues as where we come from and where we are going, spirituality, immortality, the very debate we're having now?

On what basis are you claiming that these things fall into the sphere of natural selection?

In any case, they can be explained by social bonding behaviour (we like people who can make us laugh), the fear of the unknown (death) with an explaination which alleviates those fears and simple curiosity.

Tiberius wrote:

Varthikes wrote:You explained (at least tried to) on the basis of natural selection how life got to where it is today. However, natural selection doesn't explain (at least as far as have) how life originated.

Biological evolution makes absolutely no claim as to being responsible for the origin of life, nor does it make any explanation.

Then, it is without foundation. If life could not have started on its own without an intelligent designer, how could it have gotten to where it is now?

Or how the Earth came to be in such a precise orbit to allow the existance of life. That is just as important. And, that is how other areas of science are involved here. Other areas like physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.

Given the sheer number of stars in the universe, there would be literally trillions of planets out there. If only one planet in ten billion could support life, then there would still be billions upon billions of earth like planets.

If. Could. Astronomers have found many planets, but none with any indication of supporting life. It's all purely speculation.

Remember that a thing that has a small chance of occurring can still happen countless times if it has enough opportunity.

A small chance. Tell me, would you allow a surgeon to operate on you if he made a thousand wrong moves for every right one?

And, here are some more quotes from actual scientists, this time stating outright the evidence they see point to a Creator.

Let's look at these quotes....

Andrew McIntosh wrote:As a scientist, I look at the world around me, and observe engineering mechanisms of such remarkable complexity that I am drawn to the conclusion of intelligent design being behind such complex order.

First of all, he's a mathematician. I don't see how he's remotely qualified to make a judgement about biological systems.

First, I originally didn't specify any type of scientist and they are, in fact, all involved here, as I mentioned before. Second, these ARE educated people. How do you think they got as far as they did if they weren't. Third, he's qualified in judging the liklihood that biological systems could come to where they are today through a series of random mutations.

Secondly, he is mistakenly concluding that complex order can only come about via intervention from an intelligent being. This is false. I have already explained how natural selection can result in ordered systems, and there are many other things that are incredibly complex that occur without intervention, such as weather and oceanic currents.

You only see the final product of the ordered systems. How can you be absolutely sure that a Creator isn't involved? As for the weather and oceanic currents, their complexity had to have been set in motion at some point. Yes, I know that the sun and the Earth's rotation and revolution causes it, but they do so because of laws had been set down in the Universe.

Also, the only Andrew McIntosh I could find is not in fact a mathematician, but a chemical engineer and Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory.

Andrew McIntosh - mathmatician

John K G Kramer wrote:The complexity of nature clearly points to a Creator. Every biological and physical system, once understood, shows incredible complexity.

Again, the mistake that complexity needs a creator.

Also, the story about him HERE has something very interesting. it says that he found it hard to believe in evolution, so he found it hard to write an essay about it. he added a few sentences to this essay claiming that it was easier to believe that God did it, and he got a low mark (never mind the fact that he was supposed to describe how evolution was the origin of life - which it wasn't). And this was in his second year at uni. How could he think that "since a second year university student can't explain evolution, it must be false" is a valid argument? And when he got his low mark, instead of thinking that his low mark was evidence that he didn't do a good job, he concludes that he did indeed do a good job and his views on the subject are correct after all. That argument is very flawed.

Did you read his evidence of a Designer in his research?

Okay. A brief lesson in Hebrew grammar. In the Hebrew language, the verb has two states: a perfect state that indicates completed action, and an imperfect state that indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. The Hebrew word for "created" as used in Genesis 1:1 is a perfect state verb, showing the action stated there was complete. In Genesis 1:16, "proceeded to make" in Hebrew is an imperfect state verb, indicating that the action is continuous or in progress.

And how exactly is removing the clouds a part of making a star?

He's making them discernable to the Earth's surface. Removing the clouds allows the light to shine upon the ground without obscurance.

Also, it should be noted that the same phrase, "proceeded to create" is used in conjunction with the sea creatures. Indicating that creation of the sea creatures (and the whales) on the fifth day continued on into the sixth when the land animals were formed.

Where does the trait come from?

The trait is caused by a random mutation, yes. BUT, before you start claiming you were right, your post stated that chance alone is responsible. Chance, over time, would result in most possible mutations, and only the beneficial ones would be passed on. You cannot claim that evolution is random because a small part of the process is.

I have already explained how beneficial traits are more likely to be passed on, and Captain Seafort has just explained it again.

Ultimately, then, whoever survives survives because they randomly received a random mutation. Am I right? And a whole series of that leading from one-celled microbe to Man?

Because, no matter what sort of evidence science puts out, I know that which is believed by those of the organization to which I belong is truth.

In other words, "I know evolution is wrong because the people I know say it is wrong". Who are these people, and what qualifies them to claim that evolution is wrong?

They are a people found worldwide who teach the exact same thing no matter where you go. They are a people whose first authority is The Bible. They respect science. Indeed, many discoveries science has made of the world and the Universe have served to enrich their appreciation of their God. It is an organization funded entirely by voluntary donations, which amount to somewhere in the billions/year. It isn't only their view of evolution, but other areas like their position on politics, morality, the fulfillment of Bible prophecies... Some of them were in the Nazi Concentration Camps and survived with no emotional scars.

My question was not rhetorical. if evolution did a bad job on the panda as you claim, doesn't that mean that God did a bad job also? In fact, given that God is supposed to be able to make things perfectly, I'd say that the bad job he did on the panda is even worse than claiming evolution is responsible!

Who am I to know His reasons. I also don't know why he created mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, and such. But, I don't deny that He did.

In your second point, you asked what it said of a God you gave us an imperfect brain. That ^ was my response.

In regards to the above quoted claim from you, can you point to a passage in the Bible that says that God made people stupid when he kicked them out of Eden? because, if I remember the Bible correctly, God does specify the punishments he will inflict on people, and taking away 90% of their brain capacity isn't one of them.

He did not take away their brain capacity. He took away their immortality, making them unable to use their brain capacity to the fullest within their now-limited lifespan.

I notice that you didn't respond to my first point about the brain, the response that is found on Snopes. Do you concede the points made on that page?

I'll let the article I linked to below answer that. I'll just note for the record, though, that I do not believe that psychic powers has anything to do with the unused capacity.

First, "potential" is a synonym for "capable".

Yeah, and that would lead to the word "capability" being used in the claim, not the word "capacity". Capacity refers to a specific potential - the potential amount of storage "The tank has a capacity of 100 liters". In any case, even if the word "capacity" was intended to refer to potential, it is very misleadingly worded.

Yea. I met capacity. It was late. I was tired.

Second, 10% is an estimate--a rather high one at that according to some neuroscientists. I'll get back to you on the specifics.

I look forward to it.

Here you go.

Can natural selection account for Human abilities such as humor, being able to ponder on such issues as where we come from and where we are going, spirituality, immortality, the very debate we're having now?

On what basis are you claiming that these things fall into the sphere of natural selection?

Well, you're claiming that we got to where we are today by means of natural selection. And, animals aren't capable of these things.

In any case, they can be explained by social bonding behaviour (we like people who can make us laugh), the fear of the unknown (death) with an explaination which alleviates those fears and simple curiosity.

That explains their usage. It does not explain how they got here.

Varthikes wrote:Then, it is without foundation. If life could not have started on its own without an intelligent designer, how could it have gotten to where it is now?

You're making the mistake of assuming that if evolution dopesn't explain where life came from then nothing does. This is not true. There are several theories about the origin of life, such as abiogenesis. However, evolution is about the way life changes. This does not include how life began. Evolution does not describe the origin of life.

If. Could. Astronomers have found many planets, but none with any indication of supporting life. It's all purely speculation.

Your position is also speculation as well. However, given the fact that we know that planets are out there, it seems more likely that one day we will find another planet that is capable of supporting life as we know it rather than earth being the only such planet.

A small chance. Tell me, would you allow a surgeon to operate on you if he made a thousand wrong moves for every right one?

Probably not, but your analogy is flawed. The laws of probability doesn't tell us which planet would come out right, only that some would.

If the operation has a one in one thousand chance of working, but it's being performed 100,000 times, then the laws of probability would tell us that about 100 patients will survive it. You seem to be arguing a strawman here by changing the argument to one that does not apply.

In just the same way, if a star has only one in a billion chance of having a life-supporting planet, there will still be a thousand such planets in a sample of a trillion stars. Given a large enough population, even improbable events will happen many times, be it with doctors performing a risky operation or stars having the right kind of planet.

First, I originally didn't specify any type of scientist and they are, in fact, all involved here, as I mentioned before. Second, these ARE educated people. How do you think they got as far as they did if they weren't. Third, he's qualified in judging the liklihood that biological systems could come to where they are today through a series of random mutations.

Educated does not mean they are educated in the field of evolution or cosmology. Steven Hawking is an educated man, yet I wouldn't say he's an authority on marine biology. So can you tell me how a mathematician should be considered an authority on either cosmology or biological evolution? And he isn't qualified to judge the liklihood that biological systems could come to where they are today unless he actually understands how they work.

And again, evolution is not random!

You only see the final product of the ordered systems. How can you be absolutely sure that a Creator isn't involved? As for the weather and oceanic currents, their complexity had to have been set in motion at some point. Yes, I know that the sun and the Earth's rotation and revolution causes it, but they do so because of laws had been set down in the Universe.

Speculation, argument from incredulity, and circular logic. you can't believe that such complexity can arise without an intelligence to set it in motion, so you speculate that an intelligence started it all to show that an intelligence started it.

Andrew McIntosh - mathmatician

That article indicates that he believes in intelligent design because he wants God to be the intelligent designer. Hardly a valid way to conduct science!

Did you read his evidence of a Designer in his research?

yes. Argument from incredulity. He can't believe that such complex bacteria formed so early via evolution, therefore there must have been a designer.

He's making them discernable to the Earth's surface. Removing the clouds allows the light to shine upon the ground without obscurance.

By that logic, if I make a statue and it has an unveiling ceremony, the statue is unfinished until the curtain around it is opened. Letting something be seen is not part of making that thing. Removing the clouds to let the sun shine through is not part of making the sun.

Also, it should be noted that the same phrase, "proceeded to create" is used in conjunction with the sea creatures. Indicating that creation of the sea creatures (and the whales) on the fifth day continued on into the sixth when the land animals were formed.

Speculation. My bible says no such thing. Can you cite the exact verse?

Ultimately, then, whoever survives survives because they randomly received a random mutation. Am I right? And a whole series of that leading from one-celled microbe to Man?

No. They did not randomly receive that mutation. I've already explained countless times that the traits which are passed on are the successful ones. The traits that are passed on are NOT chosen randomly. Why do you keep citing randomness as evidence against evolution when it has been explained how evolution is not random?

They are a people found worldwide who teach the exact same thing no matter where you go. They are a people whose first authority is The Bible. They respect science. Indeed, many discoveries science has made of the world and the Universe have served to enrich their appreciation of their God. It is an organization funded entirely by voluntary donations, which amount to somewhere in the billions/year. It isn't only their view of evolution, but other areas like their position on politics, morality, the fulfillment of Bible prophecies... Some of them were in the Nazi Concentration Camps and survived with no emotional scars.

So they decide that the Bible is true and then try to prove it. tell me, if there is a scientific discovery that supports their position, they accept it, yes? What do they do if a scientific discovery is made that damages their position? Do they still accept it? or do they make excuses for it? The science is wrong? If you interpret the discovery in this particular way, it still fits what we believe? There's a word for when people decide on what is true and then refuse to accept evidence otherwise, instead claiming that such evidence is false or needs to be interpreted in a way to maintain ther beliefs. Close-mindedness.

Knowledge is not gained by chosing what is true before you have studied everything available.

Who am I to know His reasons. I also don't know why he created mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, and such. But, I don't deny that He did.

When people are happy in their ignorance, they learn nothing.

He did not take away their brain capacity. He took away their immortality, making them unable to use their brain capacity to the fullest within their now-limited lifespan.

So he DID take away their ability to use all their brain potential (not capacity).

And is this again speculation? Or does it say that in the Bible?

I'll let the article I linked to below answer that. I'll just note for the record, though, that I do not believe that psychic powers has anything to do with the unused capacity.

And I've already explained why that article isn't convincing.

Yea. I met capacity. It was late. I was tired.

Then we have a source which is deliberately misleading. it uses the word capacity in a way that implies storage space, not potential.

Here you go.

You can't really expect that site to count as a valid resource, do you? They post vague claims, cite no sources and this is coming from a site that claims its purpose is to give people humor, inspiration and creative problem solving - not science! They even admit that no emprical data to support the 10% position:

My reasoning may not satisfy those bent on empirical data, (for none exists) but it is the best my research can offer.

This site gives no specifics.

Well, you're claiming that we got to where we are today by means of natural selection. And, animals aren't capable of these things.

First of all, we are animals. Secondly, other animals do display humour. And thirdly, animals like elephants display a certain awareness of death. They may not be able to communicate the specifics of what they are feeling about it, but that would be due to a less complex communication system than ours.

That explains their usage. It does not explain how they got here.

Because things like social bonding are beneficial in a social structure.

Then, it is without foundation. If life could not have started on its own without an intelligent designer, how could it have gotten to where it is now?

Why would you say a theory is "without foundation" if it does not cover material outside its scope? A believer in the prime mover, however you wish to name him/her/it, should welcome that opportunity to allow the idea of creation to coexist with evolution, rather than to have to attack all the time.

Tiberius wrote:

Varthikes wrote:Then, it is without foundation. If life could not have started on its own without an intelligent designer, how could it have gotten to where it is now?

You're making the mistake of assuming that if evolution dopesn't explain where life came from then nothing does. This is not true. There are several theories about the origin of life, such as abiogenesis. However, evolution is about the way life changes. This does not include how life began. Evolution does not describe the origin of life.

Why Abiogenesis is Impossible

And check out Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by biochemist Michael J. Behe

He's making them discernable to the Earth's surface. Removing the clouds allows the light to shine upon the ground without obscurance.

By that logic, if I make a statue and it has an unveiling ceremony, the statue is unfinished until the curtain around it is opened. Letting something be seen is not part of making that thing. Removing the clouds to let the sun shine through is not part of making the sun.

Perhaps not by the primary definition that we put to the English word "make".

Also, it should be noted that the same phrase, "proceeded to create" is used in conjunction with the sea creatures. Indicating that creation of the sea creatures (and the whales) on the fifth day continued on into the sixth when the land animals were formed.

Speculation. My bible says no such thing. Can you cite the exact verse?

Genesis 1:21- "And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters (which I assume you take to mean the whales) and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged creature according to its kind."

Ultimately, then, whoever survives survives because they randomly received a random mutation. Am I right? And a whole series of that leading from one-celled microbe to Man?

No. They did not randomly receive that mutation. I've already explained countless times that the traits which are passed on are the successful ones. The traits that are passed on are NOT chosen randomly. Why do you keep citing randomness as evidence against evolution when it has been explained how evolution is not random?

All right. You agreed that the trait is the result of a random mutation.

Now, what determines which gene this mutation occurs in to allow this new trait?

What determines WHAT that mutation is?

What determines WHEN this mutation occurs?

What determines WHO gets this new trait? Yes, you've explained that it's passed on

from those who survive. But where did those who survive get the trait to be able to pass it on? It had to start somewhere, didn't it?

They are a people found worldwide who teach the exact same thing no matter where you go. They are a people whose first authority is The Bible. They respect science. Indeed, many discoveries science has made of the world and the Universe have served to enrich their appreciation of their God. It is an organization funded entirely by voluntary donations, which amount to somewhere in the billions/year. It isn't only their view of evolution, but other areas like their position on politics, morality, the fulfillment of Bible prophecies... Some of them were in the Nazi Concentration Camps and survived with no emotional scars.

So they decide that the Bible is true and then try to prove it. tell me, if there is a scientific discovery that supports their position, they accept it, yes? What do they do if a scientific discovery is made that damages their position? Do they still accept it? or do they make excuses for it? The science is wrong? If you interpret the discovery in this particular way, it still fits what we believe?

There's a word for when people decide on what is true and then refuse to accept evidence otherwise, instead claiming that such evidence is false or needs to be interpreted in a way to maintain ther beliefs. Close-mindedness.

Knowledge is not gained by chosing what is true before you have studied everything available.

Scientists aren't immune to close-mindedness themselves. They can allow their theories to influence their evidence instead of letting their evidence influence their theories. They can let their imaginations get ahead of them. And, if one scientist says something differently, he/she is hushed by his/her colleagues. That is until someone else comes along and determines that that one was actually correct.

Science has a history of making conclusions and finding that those conclusions are incorrect. According to David Raup of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, some of the cases in the fossil record "have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

They don't argue with solid, proven scientific facts. Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, spoke in his Natural History of a "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps." He goes on to comment that it seems as if there were as many variations on each evolutionary theme as are individuals. How can something be a solid scientific fact when the facts differ?

He did not take away their brain capacity. He took away their immortality, making them unable to use their brain capacity to the fullest within their now-limited lifespan.

And is this again speculation? Or does it say that in the Bible?

If you're referring to their now-limited lifespan:

Genesis 2:17- God tells Adam that if he eats from a certain tree, he would die in that day (day being an unspecified length of time).

Genesis 3:19- After Adam and Eve eat from the tree they were told not to, God sentences them, "In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to the dust you will return."

Romans 5:12- "Just as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all mankind because they had all sinned."

Yea. I met capacity. It was late. I was tired.

Then we have a source which is deliberately misleading. it uses the word capacity in a way that implies storage space, not potential.

And the brain can't be described as having storage space? It stores all of our knowledge and memories.

Well, you're claiming that we got to where we are today by means of natural selection. And, animals aren't capable of these things.

First of all, we are animals. Secondly, other animals do display humour. And thirdly, animals like elephants display a certain awareness of death. They may not be able to communicate the specifics of what they are feeling about it, but that would be due to a less complex communication system than ours.

First, read this article and the following article.

Second, other animals do things that many of us would consider humorous and causes us to respond likewise. But is this really humor? Not simply an act of being happy?

Third, elephants display an awareness of death when they're upon it. But thoughts of what is beyond death? Or thoughts of immortality? Or, are you going to tell me that elephants might believe in a form of reincarnation or heaven or something?

Double post.

Mikey wrote:

Then, it is without foundation. If life could not have started on its own without an intelligent designer, how could it have gotten to where it is now?

Why would you say a theory is "without foundation" if it does not cover material outside its scope? A believer in the prime mover, however you wish to name him/her/it, should welcome that opportunity to allow the idea of creation to coexist with evolution, rather than to have to attack all the time.

Because evolution is not capatable with creation as told in Genesis. Chapter 2, verse 7 of that book states that God formed the first man from the dust. Not from earlier animals. The Bible is my final authority.

Varthikes wrote:All right. You agreed that the trait is the result of a random mutation.

Now, what determines which gene this mutation occurs in to allow this new trait?

What determines WHAT that mutation is?

What determines WHEN this mutation occurs?

What determines WHO gets this new trait? Yes, you've explained that it's passed on from those who survive. But where did those who survive get the trait to be able to pass it on? It had to start somewhere, didn't it?

No one is arguing that specific mutations are anything but random - the what the where and the who are pure chance. If it were possible to analyse every individual organism that ever lived, the number of mutations that confered a disadvantage on the individuals possesing them would vastly outnumber those that confered an advantage.

Mikey wrote:Why would you say a theory is "without foundation" if it does not cover material outside its scope? A believer in the prime mover, however you wish to name him/her/it, should welcome that opportunity to allow the idea of creation to coexist with evolution, rather than to have to attack all the time.

Because evolution is not capatable with creation as told in Genesis. Chapter 2, verse 7 of that book states that God formed the first man from the dust. Not from earlier animals. The Bible is my final authority.

And if the bible told you that gravity carried everyone upwards? Or that rain is bone dry? Or that massacring entire cities is a good thing? Or that 2 + 2 = 5? Would it be your final authority then?