There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution! Smell it here!

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
How does Darwinian Evolution conflict with Christianity? Why does there need to be a scientific theory such as Intelligent Design anyway? I have never found conflict to exist between natural selection and God. Even "unguided" evolution is by itself divinely guided. Even the most complex repeated patterns in biological creatures which some claim to be proof of intelligent design against natural selection are at best limiting the power of God's will over his creation. There should exist no conflict between Natural Selection and God.


A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation.


Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I haven't referred to God, I only infer design. I cannot know if it's God and I don't pretend to understand what God is. Can an effect cause itself into existance? I thought it was cause then effect?

I can speculate that God does not exist in space time. Therefore linear time is irrelevant it's only relevant to the physical universe. God exists outside of time. Notice how I said speculate. You should use that term a little more instead of stating things as facts.

You believe it is a self ordering system. So let me ask did the universe fine tune itself so that we can exist? or did it just get lucky by as much as one part in a billion?

People like Ken Miller reconciles his darwinian belief and belief in God by saying that it was all set up in the big bang, then natural forces take over. That is just another form of intelligent design if you ask me. And he's one of the most outspoken critics!

This is all well and good, but it is not the subject of the thread, I'm not really interested in your opinions on anything really.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
How does Darwinian Evolution conflict with Christianity?


Agree with you entirely.

BUT, until it's called Aristotlean Evolution, why bother?

Smells like a distraction, either way.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller

Originally posted by Misoir
How does Darwinian Evolution conflict with Christianity?


Agree with you entirely.

BUT, until it's called Aristotlean Evolution, why bother?

Smells like a distraction, either way.


Actually you can't even say "Christianity" as Christianity is about Jesus... Christianity didn't even exist until much later.. In fact, the cult of yawheh pretty much evolved into Christianity though co-evolution and the stealing of other religious beliefs into their religions theological DNA. lol



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

I haven't referred to God, I only infer design.


Irrelevant. My argument would still be entirely valid, and you will still be sitting there entirely refuted.



Can an effect cause itself into existance?


Existence is Causality.. Your argument is meaningless. Hence, what is cause and effect without existence? .. You can apply the format of that question to anything.. The argument I've made is irrefutable. You can't circumvent it, especially when you require it to even try. You lost this debate...
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I am not convinced by any of the possibilities, but I will take them into consideration.

One thing I am still quite perplexed by, is how come Coelacanth which is thought to be 400million years old never evolved or changed at all?

You would think 400 million years is enough time for evolving at least a tiny bit...considering the Dinosaurs are claimed to have went extinct only 60 some odd million years ago.

So....who wants to try explaining this glaring problem to me?

What mechanism causes evolution to occur in almost all these other species but the oldest species of all, the Coelacanth, stays the same?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Existence is Causality.. Your argument is meaningless. Hence, what is cause and effect without existence? .. You can apply the format of that question to anything.. The argument I've made is irrefutable. You can't circumvent it, especially when you require it to even try. You lost this debate...


Makes no sense what so ever, existance is causality? what was existing before the big bang? Before the laws of the universe emerged? A effect can't cause itself into existance.

It's circular reasoning. Irrefutable? No it's just illogical. Meaningless

Did the universe self order itself so we can exist or did it get lucky?
.
I love how you declare victory just on the basis of your own illogical opinions. And yes I do take your previous post on the other page as a threat. I doubt whether you will last long here with your attitude. That's if ATS wants to retain any civility.

You have no idea about biology, physics, information science or logic. In your brief time here on ATS this is perfectly clear.

You claim to be an expert on information theory, yet think snowflakes contain specified code. Yeah get this, Jack thinks that a when a snowflake melts it is a decoding specified encoded information and the specified function is melting!
When asked for a naturally occuring code, he just pulls this existance causes existance crap because he can't answer the challenge. His entire defense is built on these illogical pieces of garbage that he himself created.

You also think amino acids can code. You think existance is the cause of existance. You think self order ordered itself. You won't find any of these things in the scientific literature. You also refuse to acknowledge any verifiable science that does not fit your views, you think you know better than microbiologists and evolutionary biologists such as James Shapiro and every other scientist that considers IC. And there are lots of them. You accept a story as empirical evidence even if it is simply peer reviewed speculation. That's scientism not science.

Not only that you are rude, insulting and make threatening comments.


edit on 1-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Also, why do Monotremes like the Duck Billed Platypus lay eggs yet have mammary glands and is endothermic?
Why is it's DNA related to bird and reptile DNA?

Does that mean mammals came from birds?
Could that explain where aquatic mammals came from?

I was told they believed that mice/rats or something like that were the original mammals, but that doesn't really explain very much. It seems to me these monotreme creatures would be more likely candidates for the original mammals considering they lay eggs.

Oh yeah, and it does have a "duck" bill...


The unusual appearance of this egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal baffled European naturalists when they first encountered it, with some considering it an elaborate fraud.



Monotremes (for the other species, see Echidna) are the only mammals known to have a sense of electroreception: they locate their prey in part by detecting electric fields generated by muscular contractions.



Recent studies say that the eyes of the platypus could possibly be highly similar to those of a Pacific hagfish or North Hemisphere Lampreys and to those of most tetrapods. Also it contains double cones, which most mammals do not have.



. In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the platypus has ten sex chromosomes, compared with two (XY) in most other mammals (for instance, a male platypus is always XYXYXYXYXY),[64] although given the XY designation of mammals, the sex chromosomes of the platypus are more similar to the ZZ/ZW sex chromosomes found in birds.[65] The platypus genome also has both reptilian and mammalian genes associated with egg fertilisation.[34][66]



Platypus
Monotreme
Coelacanth

Which came first? The mammal that gave live birth or the mammal that laid eggs?
Ask yourselves.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
After looking a little bit at both the Coelacanth and wondering why it hasn't changed one bit over 400million years...

Then looking at the bird-reptile-mammal monstrosity that is the Platypus, I can't help but conclude that no one knows what the hell they are talking about.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





The evidence for design continues to be found by mainstream science.


Normally I would have stopped right there, because that's just an outright lie. But, for some reason, I felt compelled to continue reading...



Evolution continues to provide no answer that can refute intelligent design.


Well of course it can't. Evolution, the theory (someone had to put that in there), is bound by the rules and dictates of the scientific method. Intelligent design is religion. Religion is bound by no such rules and dictates. Anything and everything is explained in religion.

Yet I kept reading...



Any perceived evolution in life is a result of programming and not a cause of life.


Ahh. Ok, so this isn't one of those spoof troll threads, you are actually being serious.

Well, I will try to address this from a serious perspective then, giving only my opinion and feelings on the matter. I happen to believe in the theory of evolution as it's all but complete. It's a proven theory, science and data supports it, and we can witness micro-evolution at work all around us.

But see, this is the thing. Evolution isn't trying to tell you why life started or where it came from, it's only trying to explain how it got to what we see here now. Evolution will never be able to "disprove god" because it's simply beyond it's prerogative to even approach that.

Evolution and a "creator" mix and fit perfectly, and for most people open to the theory of evolution, that's fine. the only people who have an issue with the two mixing are people like you, coming at this from a purely religious standpoint.

Ok, lets take the salmon for example.

Coming from your point of view, the salmon just blinked into existence with the needed genetic mutations to make it what it is, namely that compass.

Yet, science shows:


Salmonidae are a family of ray-finned fish, the only living family currently placed in the order Salmoniformes. It includes salmon, trout, chars, freshwater whitefishes and graylings.
The Atlantic salmon and trout of genus Salmo give the family and order their names.



Current salmonids arose from three lineages: whitefish (Coregoninae), graylings (Thymallinae), and the char, trout and salmons (Salmoninae). Generally, all three lineages are accepted to share a suite of derived traits indicating a monophyletic group.[3]

Salmonidae first appear in the fossil record in the middle Eocene with the fossil Eosalmo driftwoodensis first described from fossils found at Driftwood Creek, central British Columbia. This genus shares traits found in the Salmoninae, whitefish and grayling lineages. Hence, E. driftwoodensis is an archaic salmonid, representing an important stage in salmonid evolution.[3]

A gap appears in the salmonine fossil record after E. driftwoodensis until the late Miocene about seven million years ago (mya), when trout-like fossils appear in Idaho, in the Clarkia Lake beds.[4] Several of these species appear to be Oncorhynchus—the current genus for Pacific salmon and some trout. The presence of these species so far inland established that Oncorhynchus was not only present in the Pacific drainages before the beginning of the Pliocene (~5–6 mya), but also that rainbow and cutthroat trout, and Pacific salmon lineages had diverged before the beginning of the Pliocene. Consequently, the split between Oncorhynchus and Salmo (Atlantic salmon) must have occurred well before the Pliocene. Suggestions have gone back as far as the early Miocene (~20 mya).[3][5]


Salmonidae

Now see, the fossile record alone shows you that this fish is a evolution from an earlier species. and the part you are missing, or ignoring, is the fact that evolution doesn't always go from bad to good.

There are countless dead ends on the evolutionary tree, only those that manage to adapt positive traits survive. Sure, we see a salmon with a compass in it's head, what we don't see are the hundreds or more possible variations that didn't make it.

Evolution is, at the core, a random process. Yes, some things adapt to their environment, but at the core, evolution isn't just that, it's also a random process of genetic mutation.

Again, science says this is correct, and has data to help persuade people.

BUT.......

It will never address where that first spark came from, it will never address why the laws of physics and the rules of reality are what they are, THAT my friend, is the territory reserved for religion, and it can happily coexist with science (and reality) if you let it.

Troll away, I really don't care, I said my thing.
edit on 1-8-2012 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


So Existence as an eternal causality. I am not sure why the idea of intelligence being inherant to that eternal casuality i.e. a pantheistic God or whatevs, is not at least rational in this scope of thinking. I don't see that notion being invalidated as a possibiity. What am I missing.


Makes no sense what so ever, existance is causality? what was existing before the big bang? Before the laws of the universe emerged? A effect can't cause itself into existance.


An effect can't. He used the word cause tho
Implying that Existence itself being that initial cause.

Really either take is no less mind boggling and bizzare. You asked him what then existed before the big bang, and the obvious retort is what before God. Either way we are faced with some eternal component to reality (Existence if you want). Wether it was a transcendent Godhead or an eternal physical Universe. Either one is magical and impossible in my eyes. I dare call it intelligent stuff ^_^
edit on 1-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The evidence for design continues to be found by mainstream science.


Tell your god that he needs to recall his #ty designs and try again. All these ones I really enjoyed were "intelligently designed" to have cancer and die. Your god is an idiot and a crappy craftsman.


Actually, the original generation lived nearly 1000 years each. Isaiah said that if we know the end from the beginning, we know the entire story. At the end of the Bible, it is revealed that the beast of man is 666. Carbon has 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. At the beginning of the Bible, God said that we would die when we mess with the fruit of knowledge. What is that fruit? It's technology. When we reached out our own hand for the fruit, we began to slowly degrade the tree of life (DNA).

Who's fault is that again? Did God say that we would die if we rose above his bio-mechanical technology in pride? We were placed in a perfect garden. All of God's fruit was there for us. The more man manipulates his own environment, the more cancer we suffer.

There is another reason. If you smoke, you get cancer? Why? You took a reward that was not earned. This always results in a debt. The same comparison with taking the reward of technology is the same. Our technology does not give back. Giving is the key to understanding suffering. If we decide not to smoke, but instead suffer quitting, our health is preserved. If we suffer the work of exercise, we live longer. This is because suffering work leads to reward earned. Either way, we suffer. It's our choice to suffer for what we receive. If we choose to suffer as a result of being a thief, then that's our choice and not God's choice. God's technology always gives back. Can a piece of fruit pollute the environment? No.

You are blaming the wrong source. In this life, you do only two things: You think and you move. Everything else, beyond these two things, was given to you as a gift. Do you make your hair grow or eyes see? Do you make the Earth turn? Do you make your stomach digest? You do NONE of it. You have been given everything, yet proclaim that God is to blame for your own actions. You might rethink your position.

You might argue that one life is not enough. You might say God is a terrible God for allowing someone to die too soon. You would be wrong again. Jesus said, "you must be born again." In other words, it's the process. A soul is baptized into the water of reality more than once. Baptism and all other symbols have root meanings. Baptism has the root meaning of immersion of the soul into water. The point is not what you can take from this life. The point is finding a love for the eternal Father that gave you your life. He desires to move you from the water to the spirit where corruption is ended. All you need to do is learn to love others more than yourself. God is one of the others.


edit on 1-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisoirHow does Darwinian Evolution conflict with Christianity? Why does there need to be a scientific theory such as Intelligent Design anyway? I have never found conflict to exist between natural selection and God.


It's one thing to say evolution doesn't conflict with a belief in a Creator God and it's an entirely different argument to say it doesn't conflict with --->insert specific religious dogma



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 




Well of course it can't. Evolution, the theory (someone had to put that in there), is bound by the rules and dictates of the scientific method. Intelligent design is religion. Religion is bound by no such rules and dictates. Anything and everything is explained in religion.


Religion is not not intelligent design. Intelligent design is the correct conclusion to what we observe in the nature of digital information being present in inert matter. Intelligent design is the common sense implication of what is observed all around us. To find any other conclusion, with such a mountain of evidence, takes faith. If anything, science has created a religion around trying to avoid the third aspect of light--Spirit (Consciousness). Light is not merely a duality of particle and wave. It's a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Father is Light. Son is Wave / Word. Holy Spirit is the first I AM. God is all three and the Great I AM. The archetypes of the creator are locked into the physics we describe with the very linguistics He provided. Particle / Wave duality is missing Consciousness to make life from matter. Where does this INTELLIGENCE originate? It's obvious if you are not blinded by bias.

Nature goes further. All of our reality is formed with hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen has one electron and one proton, but no neutron. Why no neutral? The electron and the proton are in a balanced state of positive and negative. Where do we make the connection to good and evil and the necessity for free will? Move six days along the chain of creation and we have 666--Carbon. Carbon has six protons, six electrons and six neutrons. Revelation calls this the beast. What is killing the air we breathe? What is our fruit of knowledge made from? Does this ring a bell with the apple in Genesis? What is the air atomically? It's 777 (Nitrogen) and 888 (Oxygen). 777 is God's mark on the Bible throughout. Look up the heptadic structure of the Bible. 888 is Jesus in Greek Gematria. 888 has been know from antiquity to be the WORD of God. What do you use to speak the word? Breath. What is taken away by the Carbon when misused? The breath. How do we overcome the carbon? Preserve the WORD.

What part of this is not matching science or the history of the world as we know it? The beast has always been mankind itself. We are the ones killing the Earth, and the word that we need to reverse this has been there all along. Our own bias keeps us from reading it as the symbols it must be. Symbol says more than the space it occupies. It's digital. How else could God express something so vast in one small book? Our minds are just now able to conceive of this. Why? We repeated creation within the machine you are using to view Word in the form of energy, collapsed from memory. The SAME process as in nature.

As I stated before, nearly every theory of quantum mechanics demands an observer. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the primary candidate for seeing the world as it is. Consciousness collapses the indeterminate wave of probability in a determined environment. Yes, we are determined or the entire universe would have no possibility of governance by law. The ONLY thing science can observe with any certainty is law. Apart from law, which is the PRIMARY topic of the Bible, there is no science. You can avoid it with faith all you like, but we derive ALL our laws from past observations of wise men of religion in the form of proverbs. Proverbs are natural law stated in parable. Religion is the source of all science that comes before. Before you claim science is the source, consider the true source. Science is merely a child learning to trust its Father. Right now, it's a prodigal son.

On top of this, you have Leonard Susskind noting that we are living in a hologram because the SCIENCE demands that energy is actually INFORMATION. Just as God said. We are made from WORD.

Science studies the Law. God is that Law. Religion is your only connection to what Susskind is saying from the observations. Unless you are arguing with Susskind, you will fail in an attempt to say that the Bible is not what it claims. See my article on existence linked in my signature. I go into detail on the subject of light and the trinity.




edit on 1-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



I am not sure why the idea of intelligence being inherant to that eternal casuality i.e. a pantheistic God or whatevs, is not at least rational in this scope of thinking. I don't see that notion being invalidated as a possibiity. What am I missing.


Exactly! Well said.


An effect can't. He used the word cause tho
Implying that Existence itself being that initial cause.

Really either take is no less mind boggling and bizzare. You asked him what then existed before the big bang, and the obvious retort is what before God. Either way we are faced with some eternal component to reality (Existence if you want). Wether it was a transcendent Godhead or an eternal phA physical Universe. Either one is magical and impossible in my eyes. I dare call it intelligent stuff ^_^
edit on 1-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


I completely understand what you are getting at. These really are philosophical things and we could only guess. Jack won't say this he knows he's right and he is irrefutable and apparently wins every argument by way of circular reasoning, denial and some other funny stuff. If he uses the word cause, then it's still circular logic. Cause applying itself to cause. Existance as a cause is just a cop out. What is existance? Existance of what caused existance. It makes no sense at all.

Oh and he thinks prions self assembled. That's a good one.


When we say what came before we are refering to linear time. If there was a beggining to time as phyicists believe. Then time is something we simply can't pin down. Jack will say existance created time perhaps. So something was existing outside of time. He's says existance caused the universe, so there was something existing before the existance of the universe.

So yeah, you could say existance/god, started the universe, it started time, it fine tuned the laws of physics it creates and self orders. So you are absolutely correct either way is a paradox. His version does not rule out god. He simply gives existance and pre existance some of the same qualities. And yes both imply eternity. In fact thinking of it that way it's not that different is it?

There are a several reasons why I think there is a higher intelligence involved, firstly the simple fact that it appears so. Even darwinists admit this, Dawkins has stated the "apearance" of design is overwhelming. But it's an illusion. That illusion has not been explained away by any means.

Second the fine tuning of the universe to allow even simple molecules to form. One part in a billion at least. As well as Godel incompletenes theorym. If the universe is logical and consitstant as science has stated for hundreds of years, it is incomplete as far as Godel is concerned, and requires a cause outside of the system. Logic from perhaps the greatest logician ever.

Third, the coded nature of DNA. No known natural cause has ever created a code there is no way known. This really upsets people and invokes emotional responses. But it is a fact. And no man made code has even come close to it's efficiency and complexity.

Fourth The fact the the cell is not just running on chemistry but highly specified information that controls the interconnected interaction of thousands of molecular machine. Make no mistake these are nano robots, and regardless of what people say there is no explanation for any of them. The cell is the most incredible thing we know of in existance.

Fith, the NDE phenomena thousands of cases all over the world. All of them must be dillusions as far as the materialists go. All of them, no exceptions. Even the ones that can recount acurately the events when it was impossible to do so.

Sixth, personal experience, transcendental states that allow perception beyond this reality and reveal a profound sense of love so powerfull it would literally knock you off your feet. I can't over emphasize this. There is a force of love that is incomprehensible out there. I've felt it and I have never felt anything like it before the experience. I understand what the NDErs are talking about. My advice to any doubter is to seek this out, personal truth, there are many methods.

I don't mean this as an argument it is just my opinion. Never read the bible, I don't like organised religion at all, I see the damage it can cause, although I respect peoples beliefs.
edit on 1-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Bananas also grow up, not down.


A lot of people would be surprised if they knew how much we have altered food. Cows look nothing like their ancestors.

You wouldn't even recongize corn from 1000 years ago.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
You know what?

Instead of replaying the old ridiculing of ID and Creationism, I will let the web do the talking:

An Index to Creationist Claims


Here are about 400 examples (yes, "evolution of the eye" and "gap between amphibian and reptiles" are included, among many others) of creationists claims, every one proven wrong or misinterpreted by the beginning and so on.

Evolution tops every other explanation, till proven otherwise. Until now, there is no better theory. And you can jump up and down driven by your religious ideas, they are still unproven and therefore a much less good theory/explanation.
edit on 1-8-2012 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Sigh. We need a head banging on the wall emoticon.

Evolution doesn't have to happen. Creatures are not forced to change. If they are succeeding in their environment, they don't need to change.

Obviously, whatever the Coelacanth did early on, worked out well and they don't need to change.

Alligators and crocs haven't changed much in millions of years either, they don't need too. Evolution is forced, but not mandatory.

Do you know that the platypus is also venemous? Though creationists like to use the platypus as an anomaly, it has actually provided valuable genetic information for evolution.

While the platypus is a mammal that lays eggs, it is very similar reproduction wise to the marsupials.Because in marsupials, the embryo is also encased in a shell until birth.

The platypus isn't as unusual as people think, it just carries the shell further.

Whether marsupials, monotremes and placentals are all broken from the same branch, or marsupials and monotremes extend from placentals, is what is unknown.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Evolution doesn't have to happen. Creatures are not forced to change. If they are succeeding in their environment, they don't need to change.


I thought that environmental changes would force the organism to adapt to them.

Are you insinuating that the Earth didn't change much over 400 million years?

Also, are you suggesting the Coelacanth is the most robust specimen as it's obviously the most successful in terms of longevity and resistance to adaptation?

If you don't mind, could you please supply a peer reviewed article explaining the mechanisms why "Evolution doesn't have to happen?"





top topics
 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join