[_ Old Earth _] Did God Use Evolution

[Barbarian]

I gave up in disgust when Strobel dismissed the entire work of Stephen Hawking because he makes use of imaginary numbers, making his conclusions, erm... imaginary.

You're not joking? Do you have a cite for that? That's hilarious.

 

[logical bob]

I borrowed Case for a Creator from the library so I don't own it and can't quote exactly. Here's a favourable review of the book from the IDEA Centre.

Strobel gets at the heart of the scientific issues for the various topics, even such esoteric concepts as superstring theory and Stephen Hawking’s supposedly “non-singularity†universe. Though reading those words may cause your eyes to cross, the book provides easy to follow examples, analogies, and explanations to drive home the basic ideas. For example, when considering Hawking’s “non-singularity†universe (that is, a universe without a beginning) interviewee William Lane Craig, Ph.D., shows how Hawking attempts to deny a beginning point for the universe. However, to do so, Hawking has to employ an imaginary number (i.e. the square root of negative one), which appears to mathematically address the issue, but cannot be valid for the real world – in reality, the beginning has just been masked behind a mathematical model. Craig exposes Hawking’s mathematical slight of hand for what it is. Thus, Strobel writes:
"I was amazed! Even though Hawking's Internet Site says his theory implies that the universe 'was completely determined by the laws of science,' even he wasn't able to successfully write God out of the picture." (pg. 120)

 

[logical bob]

[quote="logical bob":2jnomzj9][quote="Faith Hope Love":2jnomzj9]No, no one has seen apes evolve to form monkeys. No one was there when God first created the earth. Anyways your post sounds extremely scientific and very far off

It's very naive to think that science can't say anything about things humans can't see directly. Science makes a lot of predictions about millions/billions of years ago which are supported by our observations. It predicts that we won't find human and dinosaur remains in the same stratum, and we don't. It predicts that whale and dolphin genes should be more like those of other mammals than those of other marine species, and they are. It predicts the existence of transitional species and, as The Barbarian has been demonstrating for a long time, we find their remains. It predicts the presence of retro-viruses incorporated into DNA, and there they are.

In cosmology black holes, cosmic background radiation and many other things were predicted in theory before they were observed. The fact that nobody was there when the cosmic background radiation originated is irrelevant.

ToE gives an account of how species develops that shows human descent from earlier primates is explained by the same factors we see at work in directly observable cases like the bacteria I mentioned and the peppered moth.
But if all this is too "extremely scientific" you can always post a and hope it goes away.[/quote:2jnomzj9]

lol...a smiley and then never come back again. But sorry to say I have a brain, and I feel a need to respond.

Now let me mention just because it sounds scientific doesn't mean it is. See if useing science vocab is your only deffence you don't really have one at all. Predict this predict that. I predict this thread is going to go on for a while. Have some proof other than someones prediction? Transitional species? There isn't any. Maybe you don't believe me but if you want to sit and admire your proof of scientific words, go right ahead. Next time have some evidence. Peppered moth lol. Both the light colored ones and the dark colored ones exsisted before the Industrial Revolution.[/quote:2jnomzj9]
Fixed your quotes for you there.

You accuse me of hiding behind scientific language, but there isn’t any there. Those three paragraphs of mine you quote don’t contain a single technical term. If you think that was science jargon I’m afraid it only goes to further show that you don’t know anything about science.

If I were you I’d learn some science before making sweeping statements like “evolution isn’t a science†or “science only deals with observables.†I’d definitely learn some science before telling a professional scientist they would learn something from a book by Lee Strobel or asking a trained biologist if they’ve heard of Lamarck.

If someone came in here saying “the Bible is wrong about this†and “the Bible is wrong about that†and it turned out they’d never read it you’d rightly say they didn’t know what they were talking about. You’re doing exactly the same thing in this thread.

 

[Physicist]

Re: Challenge

Actually, I have read Strobels, not the particular text that you cite but his "Case for Christ'. Mt Strobbel, who is a journalist, not a scientist, appears to assume his conclusion before he starts to write. He presents about as impartial view as Fox news. Most of his points are easily refuted by examing the actual scholarly consensus on them.

I have read Case for a Creator. It's very poor. Writing like a testimonial, Strobel sits uncritically at the feet of a series of "experts," Michael Behe and William Lane Craig among them.

Strobel seems to think that if there were any methodological flaws in the Miller-Urey experiment then any future discussion of abiogenesis would be dead in the water.

He sets great store by Lane Craig's cosmological argument, seemingly unaware that undergraduates shred it as a warm-up in Philosophy 101.

I gave up in disgust when Strobel dismissed the entire work of Stephen Hawking because he makes use of imaginary numbers, making his conclusions, erm... imaginary.

Now you have me worried. Here I thought all along that electromagnetism is real but I guess not because it uses complex numbers. Quantum theory is even worse. I mean, how real can spinors be? God forbid we have to use some of the concepts of string theory.

Back to only 'natural' numbers

 

[Barbarian]

Hawking has to employ an imaginary number (i.e. the square root of negative one), which appears to mathematically address the issue, but cannot be valid for the real world – in reality, the beginning has just been masked behind a mathematical model. Craig exposes Hawking’s mathematical slight of hand for what it is.

What? (Barbarian checks) Strobel is a lawyer and a journalist. Somewhere, I got the impression that he was mathematically trained. Guess not. I wonder if anyone's explained it to him. Engineers routinely use imaginary numbers to analyze real vibration problems, among other things.

Why is it that all the guys who hate science, don't know anything about it?

 

[jasoncran]

lol, i dont believe in the theory of evolution, but that's one i will have to dismiss then.

ax+bi = is real or we wont be able to use the computer or start the car etc

i love math.

 

[Barbarian]

Geek Humor

 

[jasoncran]

lol

 

[freeway]

A closer exam of Barbarian drawing of three different fossil. One thing for sure is fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory. They show and he insisted that if the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist then his theory is dead. Yes, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitional, missing link. Not only is there not one single, undisputed transitional fossil. The opposite has prevailed and that the real fossils record reveals that animals were fully formed from the beginning. Looks like God knew what His plan was and did not need mere chance and death upon death to create man... To paraphrase Jasoncran, we're way pasted Genesis, creation has finished nothing more to do but wait upon the Lord..

 

[freeway]

I gave up in disgust when Strobel dismissed the entire work of Stephen Hawking because he makes use of imaginary numbers, making his conclusions, erm... imaginary.

You're not joking? Do you have a cite for that? That's hilarious.

Although I really enjoy the books by Strobel and I have dug a lot of information from them. I do not agree with him saying that he can throw out all of Hawking's. After all Hawkings is a very intelligence man, But as man goes they do make mistakes, To me Hawkins biggest mistake is not believing in Jesus the creator of all that Hawkins examines.. Although Hawking is a very smart man and I don't agree that everything he has said is 100% true. I must say there is a huge difference between being a intelligent man and a wise man.. He studies the heavens and fails to see the Creator Jesus..

Romans 1:22-23 Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

 

[jwu]

Re: Challenge

Back to only 'natural' numbers

Don't you dare to use those atheistic "natural numbers"! We need a new and Godly mathematics that uses only supernatural and spiritual numbers!

 

[Physicist]

Suggest you read some modern biology text

A closer exam of Barbarian drawing of three different fossil. One thing for sure is fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory. They show and he insisted that if the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist then his theory is dead. Yes, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitional, missing link. Not only is there not one single, undisputed transitional fossil. The opposite has prevailed and that the real fossils record reveals that animals were fully formed from the beginning. Looks like God knew what His plan was and did not need mere chance and death upon death to create man... To paraphrase Jasoncran, we're way pasted Genesis, creation has finished nothing more to do but wait upon the Lord..

What do you think a transitional fossil would look like? A bird with half a wing? Of course the fossil animals are fully formed. They simply have traits that have not fully transitioned to the modern species.Thus, you have Archaeopteryx with teeth, something no modern bird has. I strongly suggest you read some modern biology text to gain a basic understanding of what the field is all about. You would not appreciate someone criticizing the Bible if he had not even bothered to read the text and understand its basic principles. Same thing applies to criticism about science.

 

[jasoncran]

theres no fosssil in between, those two transisitionals. i guess its not needed, and i have friends who are biologists and dont accept the toe. for that reason.

in order for it (the mutation) to occur and be passed on the male and female of the species most have the genes for that at the same time, and the survive the natural selection process.

so i guess those mutations arent so random or are they.

 

[Barbarian]

A closer exam of Barbarian drawing of three different fossil. One thing for sure is fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory.

Of course. Here is an intermediate predicted by the theory. It has the head, teeth, spine, hips tail, ribs, and other parts of a small theoropod dinosaur, but it has feathers. And not just feathers. Assymetrical flight feathers. It's a transitional because it has apomorphies found in both groups as predicted.

They show and he insisted that if the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist then his theory is dead. Yes, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitional, missing link. Not only is there not one single, undisputed transitional fossil.

You just saw one. It has more dinosaur traits than bird traits. Is is a bird or is it a dinosaur? It is precisely what Darwin's theory predicted. Huxley, his close friend, even predicted, based on anatomical data, that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Facts are what they are. Might as well come to terms with them.

 

[Barbarian]

theres no fosssil in between, those two transisitionals. i guess its not needed, and i have friends who are biologists and dont accept the toe. for that reason.

They can't be very sharp biologists, then. A quick look would find a host of intermediates between Archy and modern birds on one side, and between Archy and dinosaurs on the other. Would you like to see some of them?

in order for it (the mutation) to occur and be passed on the male and female of the species most have the genes for that at the same time, and the survive the natural selection process.

No. Unless it is on a sex chromosome, it makes no difference at all. This issue troubled Darwin, but when Mendel learned how heredity works, it became clear how a single mutation could spread through a population.

so i guess those mutations arent so random or are they.

So far, all of them seem to be random.

 

[jasoncran]

ok, so you presume that they are randomn. correct, then whats to make them produce one wing and live then two wings and live.

chance. correct, so we assume again the the one lives is the fossil or transitional. yets that randomn. becuase why something selects that has no intellegence

so sex and reproduction and so on arent needed to continue the gene line. odd. for you to say that one barb. how can they also have the wings and not the gene to reproduce or the mutations dont take only add and not go in reverse as missing organs, which some(HUMANS) are born still born. for they have no heart or a defective one.

i guess having ba in biology and or phd in marine biology makes one stupid. the later is in the field doing fish farming. had to leave the u.s. to keep his job. lots of money in the field marine biology so much so that i make more them.

i also work with a former biologist that has to work elsewhere cant live on the high pay or sporadic pay as the farms close alot due to failure in the business end. hard to do reaserch when theres no money involved

i will quote a freind

"one can know all the world about conch, but not keep a facility open and running on that conch"

 

[Barbarian]

ok, so you presume that they are randomn.

It's what the evidence shows.

correct, then whats to make them produce one wing and live then two wings and live.

Genes for limbs are the same for both sides. You don't get a right wing without a left. Unless it's a republican fossil. ;)

chance. correct, so we assume again the the one lives is the fossil or transitional. yets that randomn. becuase why something selects that has no intellegence

Fitness. Natural selection tends to preserve the fit and eliminate the unfit. So the fit get to be the basis for the next generation. This produces increasingly fit organisms.

so sex and reproduction and so on arent needed to continue the gene line.

For some organisms, that's true. But the ones we normally think of require sex.

for you to say that one barb. how can they also have the wings and not the gene to reproduce or the mutations dont take only add and not go in reverse as missing organs, which some(HUMANS) are born still born. for they have no heart or a defective one.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

i guess having ba in biology and or phd in marine biology makes one stupid.

I know some stupid PhDs. They tend to be smart people, but not all of them are.

i also work with a former biologist that has to work elsewhere cant live on the high pay or sporadic pay as the farms close alot due to failure in the business end. hard to do reaserch when theres no money involved

i will quote a freind

"one can know all the world about conch, but not keep a facility open and running on that conch"

People farm conchs? (Barbarian checks)

Turns out, they do:
http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archives ... 0star.html

 

[Faith Hope Love]

lol okay, peopel know what I believe and what I think already. Now I can't remeer who said what adn I can't figrue out hot to quote properly...thanks whever put peepered moths in, I didn't check to see if it was right or not but thanks for messing with my quotes

Now, um....Asking a scientist if they had ever heard of Lamarck. I never did that. Scientist should notice puncuation and grammer here....although I'm gunna say my spellings off sometimes That was something I wrote awhile ago, and I simply wrote for someone who had probely never heard of him. Thats all. lol. Me quoting me to someone else....something like that.

lol funny was someone complaining about Strobel a journelist...why? All your doing is complain about him. Whats wrong with his work? Anyways I am sure you all have answers for that one...It's a good easy read an Strobel being a journelist makes it a good intersting none boring read....unlike the books about darwins theory. They are boring. Admit it. lol. Anyways....that is my opinion. We do not have to argue my opinion.

And it funny the Hakwins conclusions are imaginary.....never knew that one. It's also funny that the stuff Strobel writes about isn't. lol. ironic.

Science people talk science. I simply keep things understandble...lol. No really I got it. I was just being lame, in a way. @logical bob your'e a trained scientist? Cool! I have a question though...I'm sure you have an answer, and chances are everyone else will to. Wait...you believe in evolution here right? O`well. sigh* I look at these threads an then click reply and forget who says what....Anyways back to my question.If the world evolve...you know if we evolved from apes and so forth (I am not talking about evolving planets here), how did love evolve? If so what is the scientific formula fo the stuff? lol

Now people don't have to have scientific evidence to belief something. Its called faith. Another thing. People believe things because they don't want to admit there is a God, they don't want there to be a God. So they make themselfs believe there isn't a God. People believe in evolution for money. Well maybe not believe. But people have been known to try to sell transitional fossils, for money. If your'e making thousands of fossils for evolution your'e gunna like it.

People who seem to know everything about science..whats your definition for science?

 

[Physicist]

Science people talk science. I simply keep things understandble...lol. No really I got it. I was just being lame, in a way. @logical bob your'e a trained scientist? Cool! I have a question though...I'm sure you have an answer, and chances are everyone else will to. Wait...you believe in evolution here right? O`well. sigh* I look at these threads an then click reply and forget who says what....Anyways back to my question.If the world evolve...you know if we evolved from apes and so forth (I am not talking about evolving planets here), how did love evolve? If so what is the scientific formula fo the stuff? lol

Now people don't have to have scientific evidence to belief something. Its called faith. Another thing. People believe things because they don't want to admit there is a God, they don't want there to be a God. So they make themselfs believe there isn't a God. People believe in evolution for money. Well maybe not believe. But people have been known to try to sell transitional fossils, for money. If your'e making thousands of fossils for evolution your'e gunna like it.

People who seem to know everything about science..whats your definition for science?

As a scientist (but not a biologist), let me correct a few things here.

Humans did not evolve from apes. Biologists would classify humans as apes. We share a common ancestor with the other great apes (orangutan, gorrila, chimpanzee).

Feelings of affection are common among higher mammals that live in groups.Ever have a dog as a child? Such affection has obvious survival advantages for the group.

Belief is really not a matter of choice. While I think it would be wonderful if there truly were a Santa Claus, wishing it so will not make it so. Belief can be based upon evidence,as it is in science, or it can be based upon tradition and indoctrination. Religious faith fits this latter category.

While some people will fake religious or scientific artifacts, this does not discredit ethical research in either field.

 

[logical bob]

@logical bob your'e a trained scientist? Cool!

No, I'm not a trained scientist. The people I was referring to were Physicist and The Barbarian.