There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why was sin introduced? We are ITS creation, was ITS omnipotence at error? I didn't sin just because i was born, like a calf or an otter or an anteater-came through the same hole-but yet an omnicient creator decided so? Why did GOD make the "israelites" his chosen-as opposed to all humans-in the time of the egyptians, then decide that all humans are welcome? In the time of JESUS? I think you GOD has some issues with decision making.
I am a christian, read the bible cover to cover, three or four times, i believe in GOD, but not the one your pushing.

a reply to: HiddenWaters

In addition, you have not addressed my questions. I am an omnipotent, omniscient being, I know all! Why did i not know what humans would do? Why did i create thousands of species of animal and plant, just to see them die-I AM A SADIST.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: chr0naut

How can you say it's scientifically probable there was a proto-Earth prior to all stars; when all evidence points to an unimaginable amount of stars existing prior to Earth??

Evidence?

Genesis 3 doesn't talk about some obscure proto-plant. It specifically states fruit trees grew to enough maturation to grow fruit! I wouldn't say it's improbable either; I'd say it's impossible.

Genesis 3 doesn't talk about the creation of plants at all. Genesis 1:11-12 does.

And yes, it does say that grass, herb and tree bearing fruit appeared the day before there were lights in the sky. So, it must be describing special creation and not some other hypothesis.

But here's the thing, you probably believe that ideas like the existence of pre-Big Bang singularity and inflation are well evidenced. But they are poorly evidenced and only by inference. Not to mention that evidence exists which totally contradicts each of the hypotheses.

You think there would be seas without stars?? Well isn't that something.

So you would have us believe that planets can form without stars, fruiting trees can thrive without sunshine, and seas can arise absent any heat from a nearby star.

In certain circumstances and by certain definitions, yes to all of those. Especially if special creation is true.

Alright.

Particles orbiting the 'Sun' suggests the 'Sun' existed during Earth's formation.

Are you not familiar with Genesis? Earth existed prior to the Sun!

The Sun as a gravitational mass, yes.

The scientific hypothesis is that same forces, acting on the same matter cloud, at the same time, produced the planets and the Sun.

Only after the Sun had accumulated enough mass to cause fusion by gravitational collapse, would it have lit. This would have been after the formation of the planets.

So the Earth, as an accreted mass, must have existed prior to the ignition of the Sun, according to the scientific hypothesis.

a reply to: chr0naut
Very simplistic ,but wrong. Evolution is if everybody beat their heads against the wall the thin boned would die and the thick bones would live. Therefore only the thick boned are alive to reproduce etc. etc. Till all you have left are thick boned people. myself I'm very simple but to me evolution is based on fact and can be proven and design is based on faith with no physical evidence. But designers use these holes in the facts (which are gaps yet to be filled in) to say look they do not know this but design explains it with no physical evidence so they must be true.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: chr0naut

The oldest known star is 13.6 billion years old. Created by previous super nova.

But. It is a secondary star.

There were stars before. But different.

Here's an interesting watch. But you need to sign up to watch it.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Hypothetical age of the universe: 13.799±0.021 billion years.

Estimated age of probably the oldest known star, BD +17° 3248, is actually older than the universe but with a ±4 billion year margin of error, indicates how rubbery the figure is.

The margins of error on most of the ages of the oldest stars are similarly measured in multiple billions of years.

Knowing this, an approximated billion years 'dark age' for the universe is fair.

There is no evidence that any of these stars are second generation. In fact, all of them are metal poor and the metallicity of stars should increase over time due to nucleosynthesis, so they don't actually fit the theory (a 2nd gen star should have metallic abundance created in the progenitor stars). Note that Hydrogen, which is a metal, is low because of the stars age (nucleosynthesis turns Hydrogen into heaver elemnts over time).

a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe i should've said. According to the documentary link.

But. It is the lack of the presence of iron that seems to determine the age of the oldest stars.

According to the documentary link.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I believe that outside of God that all the elements had to evolve, why are there so many. the cosmos, how and why, the whole system, everything is interlinked, it's not just about life

Argument from Ignorance, 'God of The Gaps'... This is fallacious thinking.

If we don't understand something, the proper thing to do is say "I don't know" until evidence reveals an answer. Plugging in 'God' to explain anything unknown is just lazy and unimaginative thought.

You can argue but you don't decide on my behalf

Reality decides on both of our behalves

I believe human life starts at conception, some people say life starts only after it leaves the womb

I think it starts once there is sufficient neurological development to give rise to sentience.

I also think humans originating from dust and a rib is silly nonsense.

Go study string theory to see how stupid your science is

Go study this scientific thing. Science is stupid.

LOL.

This universe as it exists is impossible, nothing makes any sense at all.

I understand the religious position is to insert god as an explanation every time something doesn't make sense to them.

Creation, no sun, mature fruit trees, whatever doesn't suit you and you can't believe but it's...

I don't need to invoke anything more than my years of gardening to know how absurd the creation story is. Hell, even children learn this through demonstration in school when they grow plants as a class project.

You can't reconcile this without appealing to magical god powers.

Simply you are arguing that God couldn't have created the world

Before we entertain what god can and cannot do, we should probably demonstrate it exists to begin with. We can only point to existent things as possible explanations.

a reply to: chr0naut

Genesis 3 doesn't talk about the creation of plants at all. Genesis 1:11-12 does.

And yes, it does say that grass, herb and tree bearing fruit appeared the day before there were lights in the sky. So, it must be describing special creation and not some other hypothesis.

Day 3. Not Genesis 3. I did a typo there, but it should have been clear I meant Day 3.

Correct. It must be describing special creation, as sunshine would not have existed at that time. The kind of light plant life uses, and the kind of light that provides warmth.

Of course you can appeal to gods magic to explain it. What couldn't be explained by a being that is all-powerful? Gods magic means nothing until god is demonstrated to exist to begin with, and appealing to its magic completely divorces the discussion from science.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: chr0naut
Very simplistic, but wrong. Evolution is if everybody beat their heads against the wall the thin boned would die and the thick bones would live.

No, only a few people will believe that there is advantage in banging your head against a wall. Probably only those who believe that only evolution exclusively explains biodiversity.

Therefore only the thick boned are alive to reproduce etc. etc. Till all you have left are thick boned people. myself I'm very simple but to me evolution is based on fact and can be proven and design is based on faith with no physical evidence.

If you look into it, the evidence for evolution is usually based upon a number of un-evidenced assumptions and the same evidence can also be applied to argue for alternate hypotheses just as easily.

Also, you will find that the evidence that questions evolutionary theory in specific instances is ignored and that the evidence presented is 'cherry-picked'.

Biodiversity is evidenced but too frequently those who are exlusively pro evolution point at biodiversification and say, "see, proof of evolution", when it isn't.

The thing is, the latest definition of evolution is the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES). It is clearly defined and codified.

The MES does not include things we have strong evidence for, such as epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, punctuated equilibrium, directed breeding, catastrophism and saltation, let alone hypotheticals like panspermia, ancient aliens, special creation and chemical abiogenesis, which can all be agents in biodiversification.

The truth is that evolution is just one theory among others. It doesn't explain everything and sometimes is evidenced against.

But designers use these holes in the facts (which are gaps yet to be filled in) to say look they do not know this but design explains it with no physical evidence so they must be true.

I think that by 'design, you mean the 'Intelligent Design" movement.

If there are gaps in our scientific knowledge or in the application of evolutionary theory, you can hardly blame the ID'ers!

Blame those who have failed to explain the gaps, those who suggest you accept their incompletley rationalized hypotheses.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: chr0naut

Day 3. Not Genesis 3. I did a typo there, but it should have been clear I meant Day 3.

Correct. It must be describing special creation, as sunshine would not have existed at that time. The kind of light plant life uses, and the kind of light that provides warmth.

Photosynthesis requires a certain level of light, it doesn't matter if it isn't sunlight. In Genesis, light was created and clearly in existence prior to the Sun providing it.

Of course you can appeal to gods magic to explain it. What couldn't be explained by a being that is all-powerful? Gods magic means nothing until god is demonstrated to exist to begin with, and appealing to its magic completely divorces the discussion from science.

Some things are self-evident. Science falls apart if it is not so.

Do you think God used spells and incantations to appeal a higher supernatural power?

Describing an act of God, who purportedly established the ordered formalism of nature, as "magic" is equivalent to describing science as 'a type of voodoo'.

That's just sloppy semantics used as an emotional appeal to support an otherwise weak argument.

hmmmmm let's see whats a good way to create an argument that last over time

use a set of beliefs backed by some math and set against a book that was designed to keep truth masked from the unbelievers via interputation


that should keep em busy...

a reply to: neoholographic

I am first going to have to point out, I believe Dawkins to be a dick. However, if you want to push Inteelegent design, in such a way, so as to compete with evolution, you are going to have to have it be able to provide the same level of evidence as evolution does. Its that simple. IF you want to have ID be considered a compeating scientific theory, it needs to meet the requirements of science. This means, be testable, verifiable, and repeatable. Evolution fits that set of criteria.

On flip side, if you want to say evolution is a belief set (at least to Dawkins), then that is a different set of criteria.

Beliefs and science are not the same thing.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

I am first going to have to point out, I believe Dawkins to be a dick. However, if you want to push Inteelegent design, in such a way, so as to compete with evolution, you are going to have to have it be able to provide the same level of evidence as evolution does. Its that simple. IF you want to have ID be considered a compeating scientific theory, it needs to meet the requirements of science. This means, be testable, verifiable, and repeatable. Evolution fits that set of criteria.

On flip side, if you want to say evolution is a belief set (at least to Dawkins), then that is a different set of criteria.

Beliefs and science are not the same thing.

Intelligent Design doesn't need to compete with Evolution. Intelligent Design isn't trying to replace Evolution. Intelligent Design is a different interpretation of the evidence without any gaps that's backed by Scientist that have been published in peer reviewed journals. Here's just some of them.

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

www.discovery.org...

Again, ID is saying we don't need an interpretation of the evidence that's filled with a bunch of gaps. We have an interpretation without the gaps and the reason that you have these gaps is because a naturalist interpretation can't explain the evidence.

We do it the scientific way. Through peer review not through hyperbole like Dawkins or Krauss.

When you listen to some people they throw around Evolution like it's the Bible of atheism. They say we don't know or we don't understand but they have BLIND BELIEF that these gaps will be filled in a way that pleases their atheism.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

Argument from Ignorance, 'God of The Gaps'... This is fallacious thinking.

I strongly doubt that there are actual gaps in cause and effect physicality underlying reality.

Suggesting that we accept or reject a hypothesis based upon a gap in our knowledge is truly an argument from ignorance.

The ignorance is claiming the superiority of a hypothesis whose chain of cause and effect is incomplete and then blaming it on the antithesis of such a fractured hypothesis.

If we don't understand something, the proper thing to do is say "I don't know" until evidence reveals an answer. Plugging in 'God' to explain anything unknown is just lazy and unimaginative thought.

"Plugging in" the word 'science' "to explain anything unknown is just lazy and unimaginative thought" (please refer to my previous comment for explication).

Reality decides on both of our behalves

Explain what reality is (without circular reference)?

I think it starts once there is sufficient neurological development to give rise to sentience.

I also think humans originating from dust and a rib is silly nonsense.

But humans can originate from a DNA template and a few common chemicals?

Go study this scientific thing. Science is stupid.

LOL.

Here's a quote from one of the world's top scientists; "Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” ― Werner Heisenberg

Here's another from the same guy; “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

What you keep ridiculing is not ridiculous but may represent a destination in thought that you have not yet reached?

This universe as it exists is impossible, nothing makes any sense at all.

I understand the religious position is to insert god as an explanation every time something doesn't make sense to them.

Nope, that would be a faulty understanding.

Many of the greatest scientists were (and still are) religious. They don't stop with a "God did it" explanation.

There is no requirement or edict directing the religious to go and 'plug the holes' in science. Religion doesn't give a damn about gaps in science.

I don't need to invoke anything more than my years of gardening to know how absurd the creation story is. Hell, even children learn this through demonstration in school when they grow plants as a class project.

You can't reconcile this without appealing to magical god powers.

You can't reconcile it.

Before we entertain what god can and cannot do, we should probably demonstrate it exists to begin with. We can only point to existent things as possible explanations.

We could go to rigourous mathematics and rationalism: Gödel's Ontological Proof - Wikipedia, and, of course, it's not incontravertable, but it's there.

a reply to: neoholographic

So you will be able to actually discuss some of those papers then? Because ID most certainly is not scientific, it is not testable.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: neoholographic

They say, we don't know or we don't have any answers yet

Yes! That's the intellectually honest position. Especially for the 'big questions'!

If we don't know the answer, then we state it as such, and then explore further for those answers.

Science is about that discovery. Religion gives a full-stop promise that those big questions have been answered, and it does so on a very weak foundation.

That's a weak answer. It's basically saying I don't know but they somehow know that the answers must please their belief system.

ID is an interpretation of evolution without the gaps.

Like I said, if SETI heard a signal with the first 1000 prime numbers coming from a distant star, they would infer intelligence without defining the intelligence that originated the signal.

ID doesn't need the gaps.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

What you don't seem to understand is science doesn't have the answers
The "God did it" argument is not silly or just faith based if compared to the " nature" argument

The science you offer is based on nothing, has nothing.

I can admit that creation is a faith, that it's not science
You only have science and it doesn't answer anything, you b love Eve in science because you have no choice

Get back to me when you have repetable observable and testable scientific evidence, your word doesn't carry

a reply to: neoholographic

The point about science is however, that the gaps are to be expected. You can not expect a complex system to be totally understood. WE don't understand Gravity, as much as we understand evolution. So should we come up with an alternative?

a reply to: Raggedyman

The God did it "argument" (cop out, when we are talking science) is indeed faith based. Show proof, not faith. Otherwise its UPG/USG.

Evolution has screeds of testable, verifiable evidence. Creationism? It is all gnoses.

a reply to: Phage

Wrong. This is the problem with the scientific paradigms. It is not dependent on Mass. The mass is calculated based on the observed gravity it's a circular argument we do not know what causes gravity we think we do but we don't.

Jaden