Darwin's family tree.

[nebula]

If you don't believe in macroevolution, where do you suppose all the organisms we see today came from? The fossil record shows that very few of the organisms living today are at all similar to the animals that lived earlier in the fossil record. Evidence shows there existed a time in which no animals with spines existed. So where do you think these came from? A creator deity whose own presence is entirely unexplained?

That is the point of contention, isn't it?

While it is easier for you to believe that random chance and time led to the formation of amino acids that joined together and became self-replicating and then led to a group of organisms to evolve into something else -

It is easier for us to believe there is a Supreme Being who created the dimension(s) we live in and all that is within it. All he has to do is order some atoms to come together, and they come together to form something new (ie. vertebrae).

Is your view any more observable than our view?

Well, I could argue the obeservability of our view, although experience taught me that missionary experiences in places like Africa, India and the mountains of Mexico where tumors have fallen off bodies, limbs were regrown in a few seconds, and the dead were raised back to life in the name of Jesus are not readily believed.

(I probably just lost you right now, didn't I?)

The bottom line is we believe we have been given evidence for ouselves to believe in God, but it isn't the kind you can put into the laboratory or experimentation.

Of course, random chance and time can't either.

[ted]

Fair enough, but I hope this wouldn't prompt you to dismiss the evidence we do have supporting scientific theories. (That is my biggest problem with Believers' attitude to science. And reality.)

Nice jab.

Let me help you clear something up:

When I, as a Christian man, look at evidence that was a result of scientific process, I don't stop at the simple results. Other factors could, and do, influence results. Things such as omitted evidence, discarded findings in final reports, attitude of the researcher, biases, and a host of other factors could very well impact the results of findings and/or results and/or observations.

It would be nice to take the scientific community at face value, but even you can admit to where findings have been designed to push a certain theory or hypothesis. Money corrupts the scientific community just as bad, or worse, as it does the Christian community. Begging for grants for further study is just as bad as fleecing millions of people for "miracle water". I understand that it may not be very widespread, but it does happen enough for me to question things- just as I questioned Christianity for years. To not look closer at someone's little study would be a crime against intelligence.

So, while you may have a problem with a Believer's attitude concerning reality, you will have to excuse this Christian man's hesitation to immediately accept someone's scientific findings without digging a little deeper.

Simply questioning the methods, conditions, and findings of scientific research in no way demonstrates a persons grasp of reality.

Hey, I have no problem with pure, un-molested scientific study. I actually think it does a wonderful job of describing God's creation- within the limits we are currently under, that is.

However, when science, and indeed Christianity, push beyond truth and prop speculation as fact, we all become the victims.

I am a man who believes in God. I believe He sent His only Son to die for my sins, and I have accepted His gift to humanity. I believe I am reborn under these conditions and saved from eternal damnation which is to be the final judgement for those who do not accept the gift of the Blood of Jesus.

Worse yet, in some people's eyes, I get all of this from the Bible and hold it as final authority over these matters. Call me a thumper, but I believe every word.

If that means that I have, somehow, an intellectually retarded grasp of reality, then so be it.

In the mean time, I'll keep my eyes open for that one, all important piece of scientific research which proves to me that God will not do exactly as the Bible says He will.

Regards,

t.

[nebula]

It is easier for us to believe there is a Supreme Being who created the dimension(s) we live in and all that is within it. All he has to do is order some atoms to come together, and they come together to form something new (ie. vertebrae).

Yes, but where does this Supreme Being come from?

That reminds me of a monologue I heard one time.

The man was arguing that no matter what you call it, 2 + 2 will always = 4. But of course some philosopher will invariably come along and say, "Yes, but why do we call it 'two'??"

Like - who cares!? Why not say avocados and avocadoes make guacamole?

Do you see what I am saying here?

Let me throw this back at you: does our inability to know what happened in all stages of the Big Bang (I forget the specifics, but there is a stage in there that is still a complete mystery), what was there before the Big Bang, and what caused the Big Bang mean that it did not occur?

So, how does my inability to know or figure out where this Supreme Being came from counter His existance?

I anticipate you will tell me he is eternal, or even that he is eternity itself, and because he has always existed he does not need an explanation....

Did I suprise you?

You use a Supreme Being as your explanation, but you do not seem to see that this Being also needs explanation.

I don't need an explanation for the human need for love and hope in order to survive - I just know that without it we cannot survive.

Sure, it would be cool to be omniscient and understand all mysteries and all knowledge . . . but where would the sense of wonder be?

Sometimes it is nice to just know I am loved and not have to make sense of why it is so.

But again, does your inability to explain what was before the Big Bang and what caused it mak it any less irrelevant?

Christians love to use the watchmaker analogy, God as a watchmaker, Creation as the watch.

I prefer "gardener" analogy myself. A gardener interacts with his garden after it is made, and intermixes letting the garden do its thing while yet intervening at times to make it better - or uproot everything and replant.

The irony is that they posit a more complex entity, the watchmaker, as an "explanation" for the watch. It's not really an explanation at all, in fact, it's quite the opposite, since such complexity is even less probable than the complexity of the universe we were initially addressing.

I'm not following your train of thought.

I find the probability of the order of the universe having a "mind" behind it all than random events.

Then, as the ultimate escape, they claim God is not subject to natural laws like probability; "he invented them so he must somehow live outside them". Of course, this eliminates reason altogether. This does not bother me--reason is a human invention, after all--but it also eliminates any reason to believe in God, and not to believe in any other reasonless entity: Thor, Zeus, faeries, elves, etc. This elimination of reason does nothing to prove God. It just eliminates disproof of God, and the disproof of all possibilities.

Again - we come across the differences in opinions.

But I won't throw this "escape" at you.

It is possible that He works miracles at the quantum level, and thus we can't see what makes them happen.

One of the most amazing things I learned about anatomy was all the process that occur between the thought of movement and the muscle actually moving. It involves so many steps and ion transfers and other complexities that trying to pass the test on thesse systems is like - yet it all happens in a fraction of a second! It's unbelievably remarkable!

Click here for a tutorial on muscle contraction - of course, this doesn't even cover what goes on with the nervous system to get to that point!

So even though now I understand the mechanics of the steps, I don't really understand them. I just have to sit back and accept - OK, that's just the way it is.

So, when it comes to understanding the existance of God, I'm at the same place.

(Had to split the post)

Edited November 27, 2006 by nebula

[nebula]

Is your view any more observable than our view?

Maybe not directly observable, but it is certainly more probable.

Why?

(I believe God is more probable - so?)

Well, I could argue the obeservability of our view, although experience taught me that missionary experiences in places like Africa, India and the mountains of Mexico where tumors have fallen off bodies, limbs were regrown in a few seconds, and the dead were raised back to life in the name of Jesus are not readily believed.

(I probably just lost you right now, didn't I?)

Not at all. I'd just like to see the evidence of these things.

I can give you some info on missionary trips, if I can. Would that help?

The bottom line is we believe we have been given evidence for ouselves to believe in God, but it isn't the kind you can put into the laboratory or experimentation.

Fair enough, but I hope this wouldn't prompt you to dismiss the evidence we do have supporting scientific theories. (That is my biggest problem with Believers' attitude to science. And reality.)

And I have already shown that I know more about organic chemistry and human anatomy than you do.

As far as evidence to the distant past goes . . . give 10 scientists one piece of evidence, and there will be 10 different interpretations to that evidence. I'm not kidding! Evidence is a lot more subjective to interptetation than you may realize.

[nebula]

It would be nice to take the scientific community at face value, but even you can admit to where findings have been designed to push a certain theory or hypothesis. Money corrupts the scientific community just as bad, or worse, as it does the Christian community. . . .

Case in point - Homo floresiensis

[billie]

He could seed a perfect garden, if He didn't want to give the plants freewill..........

[Joshua-777]

How is God breathing life into dirt any more feasible than abiogenesis? And how is there any more evidence for it? (Keep in mind, science doesn't consider words in a book to be evidence.)

Well fossil records of the cambrian period looks like they've been placed "Created" Honestly, evidence, logic in the law of biology, life has to come from life, God is life" he made us, so life comes from life, holding true to that law, without a sudden change of that law. Now as far visible evidence, Honestly, it takes faith to believe that life came from non life, The only evidence supporting is an very unlikely propibility with no evidence to back it up, Well if God created us out of dust, logic would imply that the only evidence that can be gathered from that is that our bodys will decompose back to the dust, "soil" when we die, and that the same minerals will be in our body as in the ground, Now, if God is that spark of life, than the observable evidence shows just that, we cannot formulate our creator, can we even formulate another human body and bring it to life? than how can we bring God to our limited science and understand him? we can't so the evidence we can find in science shows that if God where to exist, that it would be as it is.

Yes, but there are many other religions which allege their deities are real and true. I could have faith in Christianity, but why not have faith in any of these other religions instead? There are many things to have faith in, so when I decide what to have faith in, I look for evidence. For me, evidence determines what I have faith in. But for many religious people, faith comes first, and then, having faith, they suddenly claim to see the evidence. In fact, they often allege the evidence can't be seen without faith. This completely reverses the process of reasonable decision-making, and it does not explain why I shouldn't simply have faith in some other deity, who other people claim is true.

Now, many will claim, you know they even made a jedi religion? what is funny is that I don't believe in religion. I believe in Jesus Christ who I have a personal relationship, who works in my life, now with all religion you have some flaws, which are easily pointed out, even in Christian denominations I have found flaws that don't hold true to the bible, humanity is flawed. You say evidence is what determines what you have faith in, if evidence supports a divine creator, that that's good that you are searching, To know which one, well honestly, There are alot of false teachings, and alot of religions that I can say is false, but to get into that would take up a whole nother topic, so I may start one after we get through the darwins tree of life, now my question, what are the odds of one man fulfilling over 365 prophecys? As far as evidence for me, yes I have my evidence, and I hope I can provide accurate evidence if you chose to search it openly. My main evidence is what he's always done in my life, and what he's doing in my life, and what he's promised to do in my life. Now, when you get a chance, read my testimony on my front page, I have a partial testimony, which is brief, theres no way I could put my full testimony without writing a book.

This is not surprising. Small cellular creatures with bilipid membranes will not fossilize nearly as well as organisms with hard shells or skeletons. Not to mention, cell fossils can't even be seen by the human eye, so they are incredibly difficult to find. The Cambrian explosion is pretty well-documented, relative to prior biological events, because many of the organisms involved were large, hard-shelled creatures. They fossilized easily, whereas cells and small, boneless creatures do not. The fact we can't find these things in the fossil record doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, it suggests they don't preserve well and/or they are hard to find. I haven't read Dawkins' book, but I imagine this is what he would have continued on to say, because he certainly wasn't making a case for creationism. Still, we do have fossils from well before the Cambrian explosion.

So what evidence can you provide that they evolved from single Cell organisms to multi cells organisms? Just wondering.

Yes, but where does this Supreme Being come from? I anticipate you will tell me he is eternal, or even that he is eternity itself, and because he has always existed he does not need an explanation. This explanation could be used for anything, any deity, even to justify scientific explanations. I could say that the gravitational singularity that led to the Big Bang was eternal, and had always existed.

Well ya gotta look, If He promises us ever lasting eternal life, well than that would mean he is everlasting, eternal. gravitational singularity eternal, always existed, well than you can understand how God always existed.

You use a Supreme Being as your explanation, but you do not seem to see that this Being also needs explanation. Christians love to use the watchmaker analogy, God as a watchmaker, Creation as the watch. The irony is that they posit a more complex entity, the watchmaker, as an "explanation" for the watch. It's not really an explanation at all, in fact, it's quite the opposite, since such complexity is even less probable than the complexity of the universe we were initially addressing

.

Well, think logic, actualy less probable? makes sence to me, I mean you've got a high creator, that is beyond what we can understand, he creates us, we couldnt understand God until we are perfect, We where created perfect, everything in this universe was, until sin entered the world causing Entrophy, the second law of thermodianamics, If God is all perfect, we are no where near, so how can we understand total and utter perfection?

Then, as the ultimate escape, they claim God is not subject to natural laws like probability; "he invented them so he must somehow live outside them". Of course, this eliminates reason altogether. This does not bother me--reason is a human invention, after all--but it also eliminates any reason to believe in God, and not to believe in any other reasonless entity: Thor, Zeus, faeries, elves, etc. This elimination of reason does nothing to prove God. It just eliminates disproof of God, and the disproof of all possibilities.

you have alot to learn, not in a bad way, keep searching, it is good to search for evidence, there are many decievers in this world.

Maybe not directly observable, but it is certainly more probable.

well, probibility is bent to the one who percieves it, but this statement will be adressed once we get to the top of the tree

Well, I could argue the obeservability of our view, although experience taught me that missionary experiences in places like Africa, India and the mountains of Mexico where tumors have fallen off bodies, limbs were regrown in a few seconds, and the dead were raised back to life in the name of Jesus are not readily believed.

(I probably just lost you right now, didn't I?)

Not at all. I'd just like to see the evidence of these things.

Good for searching, I've seen some awesome things like this, and also heard many missionarys testimonys on things like this, it's so awesome to hear the Holy Spirit is moving in such ways,.

[Joshua-777]

As a science teacher, I'm sure you know about the principle of parsimony: the least complex answer is the most probable one. Both God and the gravitational singularity behind the Big Bang are fundamentally causeless, but God is much more complex. In fact, God might even be more complex than the universe itself, as the watchmaker is more complex than the watch. These things considered, God is a much less probable explanation for the universe than a gravitational singularity precipitating the Big Bang. And he is a much less probable explanation for life on Earth than scientific theories of abiogenesis.

Just curious, what observable evidence does the principle of parsimony provide? Cause thinking about it, I'm a construction worker, I build houses, is the house I build more complex than I am? Logic, implys that if a creator can create the whole universe than, wouldn't he have to be more complex? Now, gravitational singularity, created all that is, even life in the long run? Now, in the same theory, can a house build a human being? Gravitational singularity is not alive, can it build somthing that is alive?

Hey, if Jesus really is the way the truth the life, would you want to know?

Oh, and by the way, you've got some good posts, thanks for holding respect, and I hope I do the same.

[nebula]

That reminds me of a monologue I heard one time.

The man was arguing that no matter what you call it, 2 + 2 will always = 4. But of course some philosopher will invariably come along and say, "Yes, but why do we call it 'two'??"

So you're saying, if life and/or the universe had a beginning, why not call this source "God"? (Is that what you're saying? Because I'm not sure...)

Nope, you missed my point completely.

What you have done has turned scientific study into a philosophical debate. That was my point.

You see, you have started with the premise, "God does not exist," and therefore any evidence you find is interpreted through this lens.

I believe God exists, and therefore any evidence I find is interpreted through this lens.

Why not? Well, because God represents a lot more than some abstract starting point for the universe. God is tied up in the Bible, the Christian church, etc. Most Christians would claim God is much more than a concept, that he is an immanent and a transcendent being. Such a claim needs evidence.

He made Himself real enough to me.

There have been times I wanted to walk away, but the evidence of those times He met me had no other explanation, and so I stuck with Him - else I'd be living a lie.

If you are up to the challenge, here is another story of a man who had an encounter with God - click here . I know him persoanlly, so that's why I pulled it up.

But here's a snippet of what he said:

In 1971, I was a 16-year-old smart aleck atheist and I took great pleasure in talking young Christians out of their faith. Why live by faith? By its very nature you can't know what you believe is true. . . .

<snip>

[After debating for over 5 days with a group of Christians in their home] I moved to their front door just bathed in self-pity. I began to walk out into the night, but I felt if I crossed that threshold. I was literally walking into Hell. But at that very moment on that very threshold I got the shock and surprise of my young life. Suddenly, seemingly out of the nowhere a mighty presence came upon me. It was powerful and terrifying and at the same time sweet and very appealing. And He said in a voice that didn't make a sound and yet was so mighty it spun me around and actually knocked me to the floor.

"If you want to know I am real why don't you ask me?" He asked.

I was scared to death and trembling yet I managed to whisper, "Are you real?"

And suddenly that presence out in the doorway swept into the room and began to swirl around and He simply said, "I am." . . . .

Let me throw this back at you: does our inability to know what happened in all stages of the Big Bang (I forget the specifics, but there is a stage in there that is still a complete mystery), what was there before the Big Bang, and what caused the Big Bang mean that it did not occur?

So, how does my inability to know or figure out where this Supreme Being came from counter His existance?

It doesn't, it just shows your Supreme Being isn't the ultimate answer, just like the gravitational singularity before the Big Bang isn't the ultimate answer. The difference is, most scientists do not claim to know the ultimate answer, but Christians do. They say God is the ultimate answer, but God can't be, because God's own presence still begs questions, just like the Big Bang does.

Let me get this straight -

Are you saying that because the existence of God can't be explained, He doesn't exist?

Very, very weak argument.

I don't need an explanation for the human need for love and hope in order to survive - I just know that without it we cannot survive.

Exactly. It is unfortunate but true, many people and societies need the supernatural to give them love and hope, to enforce their moral codes, etc. That is why religion has been so popular throughout human history. But this doesn't say anything about Truth, in fact, it seems to suggest that religion is just a useful invention.

Again, you completely missed my point.

You said: "You use a Supreme Being as your explanation, but you do not seem to see that this Being also needs explanation."

What I meant was that I do not need to explain the existance of love to know it exists, I don't need an explanation for why we need it for survival in order to believe it is so. The same with hope.

Where would you be today if your parents didn't love you? Did you have to put your parent's love through scientific scrutiny to know they love you?

Sure, it would be cool to be omniscient and understand all mysteries and all knowledge . . . but where would the sense of wonder be?

Exactly! Not knowing can be even more meaningful than knowing.

Bingo!

My problem is when we believe we know things that we don't. . . . For me, science has shown me how much I do not know about the universe, and it has thusly increased the awe and the magic therein.

OK, this frustration you describe comes from the result of debating and arguing with too many Christians who don't really care about science and scientific discovery.

If it helps, I'm not a part of the "6-Day" camp. I read Genesis 1 for theology, not science; I read Genesis 1 to learn about God, not the Earth. And reading it that way has opened up some incredible doors of understanding!

The first time I saw the first Hubble deep field, I was flabberghasted! I thought the discovery that giant black holes were at the center of galaxies was totally awesome! Give me more!

The difference between you and me, though, is that you marvel at the ability of . . . I don't know . . . particles? . . . to just do all that while I marvel at the Creative power behind it and wonder. But I'm not content with the "God did it and that's all I care." I want to understand the hows. I want to know more of what's out there.

[nebula]

Had to split the post again.

I prefer "gardener" analogy myself. A gardener interacts with his garden after it is made, and intermixes letting the garden do its thing while yet intervening at times to make it better - or uproot everything and replant.

Hmm. Still, the gardener is subject to natural laws.

You are over-reading the analogy.

And wouldn't a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent gardener never need to uproot everything and replant? He (or she) could seed a perfect garden from the beginning?

You should talk to some artists sometimes. Have you ever known an artist to make a wonderful masterpiece and then quit creating anything new? Ask George Lucas why he upgraded the original Star Wars movies.

I see the picture you have in your head of a "perfect, omniscient" being is one who is dull, uninventive, distant, unfeeling, egotistical. . . .

But of course, to go on, we'd have to get into the whole "Why would God create?" and the creation of free-will and the affects that would have on what has been created, and the whole works. And that would take this thread well off it's original course of Darwin.

Then again . . . talking about the origins of the universe is off-topic from Darwin as well. . . .