Evolution Debate ...

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
No 1,

The bible has 2 or 3 wildley diferent anwers for anything you look up. The bibles are full of contridictions, so how anyone can believe it is the truth is just sillyness. The big thing for me is I have yet to meet someone who can explain the bible and the contridictions, in a logical sense. Know one has shown me a good reason to believe. I am opened minded so convince me, if you are up to it.

This is off topic and I don’t have time to get into another debate (as you could deduce from my infrequent postings here) but I will answer a couple that I have addressed before. You don’t seem to realize that there is only one account of the creation story (Genesis 1) and a lot of references to it (such as Genesis 2). Genesis two is not a creation story but does refer to it. The problem most people have in that understanding, is that they are reading in English, while the original was recorded in ancient Hebrew, and the verb tenses haven’t been taken into account. All of the Gen.2 references to creation are in the past tense, so that is should be translated as “God had created….” Gives it a totally different meaning.

Genesis 1:20 says that the fowl were created out of the waters, but Genesis 2:19 states that the fowl were created out of the ground.

Actually, Gen. 1:20 just says they were created, doesn’t say what out of. Gen. 2:19 says that they had been created out of the ground.


Quote:
No, they would have slept with their sisters.

Other humans existed elsewhere, as evidenced by Cain's lament that he would be treated as a murderer in exile from the Garden of Eden... where he eventually picked up a wife.

Of course other humans existed. They were his brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews (no aunt or uncles or cousins) and there were likely a lot of them (no birth control: Adam to Eve the first time they met, “Stand back, I’m not sure how big this thing’s going to get!”) I’m aware of Cain’s lament that his punishment was too harsh, but not that he would be treated as a murderer in exile from the Garden of Eden. His parents (and therefore their descendants) were exiled before he was born. There is mention of him moving to a place east of Eden.

Like is that new worry for religion? Like if we meet "people" from other worlds (which we will whether it is tomorrow or a million years from now) are they scared the "aliens" will prove religion and God wrong once and for all, as there is a very strong possibility the end of organized religion would occur.

Biblically, our religion is intended only for the Earth. I doubt very many religious people would want to try to convert other worlds.

But scientifically, the chance of other “people” from other worlds existing is zero. Just to start with, you need a yellow sun, just like ours, which eliminates 98% of them, and it must be the exact same distance from the center of the galaxy as ours, and must be halfway between two of the spiral arms (now almost all of the rest are eliminated) and then you need a planet exactly like ours with a moon like ours (which is supposed to be next to impossible). And that’s just the beginning of all the critical criteria just for primitive life to be able to exist.

But I enjoy sci-fi too.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Gordon J Torture said:
I believe in evolution, and also that it can by taught and discussed without it interfering significantly in any religious beliefs.

For example, one could say "I believe God created the Universe and all the chemicals in it and then he watched as through chemical reactions, environmental and atmospheric changes, life came into existence and thus, evolved as a result of natural selection."

That's Deism, and a lot of people accept it, but the official scientific community rejects it totally.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
You are precluding ...life as we know it.
If you would need a yellow sun... how could god have possibly existed before he created the yellow sun ?
I sure would like to see the scientific backing for your statement...

But scientifically, the chance of other “people” from other worlds existing is zero. Just to start with, you need a yellow sun, just like ours, which eliminates 98% of them, and it must be the exact same distance from the center of the galaxy as ours, and must be halfway between two of the spiral arms (now almost all of the rest are eliminated) and then you need a planet exactly like ours with a moon like ours (which is supposed to be next to impossible). And that’s just the beginning of all the critical criteria just for primitive life to be able to exist....

You'd be surprised where primitive life can exist...even on Earth.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Well thats coz the scientific method is not based on the supernatural. That belong on the dionne warrick show...Let me define the SCIENCE method for you again 8O




Systematic apporach of observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing and hypothesis evaluation that forms the basis for modern science.
l

n principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses


The set of rules used to guide science, based on the idea that scientific laws be continually tested, and modified or replaced if found inadequate.

the 'tool' that scientists use to find the answer to questions (The Scientific Method allows scientists to solve complicated problems by taking a series of smaller steps:


Systematic, step-by-step approach to problem solving.

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.


A systematic, precise, objective study of a problem. Generally this requires observation, hypothesis development and testing, data gathering, and interpretation.


A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.

An inefficient but highly successful method of knowledge construction based on experimental testing of hypotheses .


A systematic form of inquiry that involves observation, speculation, and formulation and testing of hypotheses.
66.208.12.20/amsedu/wes/glossary.html

Uses observation and experimentation to explain theories on the workings of the universe.


the step by step process by which scientists investigate hypotheses using experiments


the procedure scientists follow to understand the natural world:(1) the observation of phenomena or the results of experiments; (2) the formulation of hypotheses that describe these phenomena and that are consistent with the body of knowledge available; (3) the testing of these hypotheses by noting whether or not they adequately predict and describe new phenomena or the results of new experiments; (4) the modification or rejection of hypotheses that are not confirmed by observations or experiments.


the means of science by which phenomena are observed, hypotheses are tested, and conclusions are drawn.


A systematic approach to observing phenomena, drawing conclusions and testing hypotheses.


orderly process by which theories are developed, tested, and either verified or disproved.


This begins with the identification of a question involving the structure or function of the natural world, usually using inductive logic. The question is interpreted in terms of a theory, and hypotheses are formulated and tested by experiments and observations of nature

the observation, explanation and testing of an explanation by repeatable experiments

A method for doing science based on the assumption that all true knowledge is verifiable using empirical evidence. Well-ordered, successive stages--defining a research problem, constructing hypotheses, data gathering and analysis, and prediction of facts--are outlined.




"There is no single scientific method. Some of the methods of science involve logic, eg, drawing inferences or deductions from hypotheses, or thinking out the logical implications of causal
is a procedure for conducting research that states that a testable hypothesis should be verifiable and the results repeatable
academics.tjhsst.edu/psych/oldPsych/ch1/terms.html

a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses

The scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists propose new assertions about our world in the form of theories: observations, hypotheses, and deductions. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The metho
en.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
You are precluding ...life as we know it.
If you would need a yellow sun... how could god have possibly existed before he created the yellow sun ?
I sure would like to see the scientific backing for your statement...

I was referring to life in the universe. A creator by definition would exist independant of it's creation.

Scientific backing? You want the articles or references? I could dig up some references for you but there's no way I would have the time for much more than that. I could possibly find a few more of the criteria for you. The information is quite common in the scientific community if you know where to look.

You'd be surprised where primitive life can exist...even on Earth.

Actually, no I wouldn't. I've read quite a few articles on the subject, and seen quite a few programs. But the most hostile environment on earth is still better than anywhere else in the known galaxy.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
So therefore ...for god to be a living god he would have existed outside of parameters of the universe as we currently know it. Which would of course mean ...that life,or some form of it ...would be capable of being ,outside what we currently understand as an exceptable enviroment for living.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Extrafire when are you going to start posting an actual scientific methods for your conclusions. We are discussing science not hokus pokus supernatural jibberish. Present your proof in the scientific method. Otherwise your supernatural ideas do not belong in the realm of science, but rather in the church, where they belong. There you do not need proof.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

zenfisher said:
So therefore ...for god to be a living god he would have existed outside of parameters of the universe as we currently know it. Which would of course mean ...that life,or some form of it ...would be capable of being ,outside what we currently understand as an exceptable enviroment for living.

Yes, but not life as it exists in the universe.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
If life we do not understand can exist outside of our universe...why would it not be possible for life we do not understand to exist within our universe.Especially seeing as what we know about our universe is infintesimal. Relatively speaking.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
I am asking you to present valid scienctific methods, as defined in the realm of science for your assertions of a creator. Please present your "proof" of this. Otherwise you are reducing this thread to a bible study. If thats your intention...than start another thread. 17 pages and still you have produced nothing under the defination of science to prove anything you say. I think its pretty clear.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

zenfisher said:
If life we do not understand can exist outside of our universe...why would it not be possible for life we do not understand to exist within our universe.Especially seeing as what we know about our universe is infintesimal. Relatively speaking.

Life that exists outside our universe could likely enter it and exist here, but it could not originate here.

Interesting fact; our knowledge of the universe doubles every 2.5 years.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
peapod said:
I am asking you to present valid scienctific methods, as defined in the realm of science for your assertions of a creator. Please present your "proof" of this. Otherwise you are reducing this thread to a bible study. If thats your intention...than start another thread. 17 pages and still you have produced nothing under the defination of science to prove anything you say. I think its pretty clear.

Evidence pointing to a creator was on the thread "Challenge Vanni". Proof of a creator is impossible, as is proof of any other origin for the universe. All of which, argument and counter-argument, was on that thread.

This is the "Evolution Thread". Here I have been presenting problems with evolutionary theory. The Bible and creation was brought up by others, and I stayed away from most of those threads because they were off topic. A few I have replied to.

Of the 17 pages, I don't think my posts would fill 2. Yours would likely fill half, and none of yours, to my recollection, were filled with scientific evidence supporting evolution. It's the double standard again.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

Extrafire said:
zenfisher said:
If life we do not understand can exist outside of our universe...why would it not be possible for life we do not understand to exist within our universe.Especially seeing as what we know about our universe is infintesimal. Relatively speaking.

Life that exists outside our universe could likely enter it and exist here, but it could not originate here.

And exactly how do you plan to prove that assumption. Your statement did not explain why it would not be possible...for life...we do not understand...to exist....within our universe.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

zenfisher said:
Extrafire said:
zenfisher said:
If life we do not understand can exist outside of our universe...why would it not be possible for life we do not understand to exist within our universe.Especially seeing as what we know about our universe is infintesimal. Relatively speaking.

Life that exists outside our universe could likely enter it and exist here, but it could not originate here.

And exactly how do you plan to prove that assumption. Your statement did not explain why it would not be possible...for life...we do not understand...to exist....within our universe.

I think you're getting into metaphysics here. Life in the universe requires a carbon base. Silicon and Boron are the only other two contenders that have been considered and they don't qualify. Anything else, such as you're suggesting, would lie in the spirit realm, and that isn't a subject for scientific study. While such could exist, and could exist in our universe, and evidence could point to that existance, the physical universe could not produce it. Am I missing something here?
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
No I am trying to point out how illogical your reasoning is.

You states our knowledge of the universe doubles every 2.5 years. Those are still grains of sand in mighty big desert. It is conceivible we are missing several pieces which would allow for other lifeforms to exist based on other than a carbon base. We just don't know. We don't have the proof...yet.

But more to the point if it is impossible in this universe or dimension it is likely impossible in the next. Again we don't know. But just as we cannot prove that a creator or a big bang started the whole ball of string...we cannot make assumptions about something we have so little data on.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

Extrafire said:
Am I missing something here?

Well, yes, actually. You're missing just about everything.

As several people have been trying to point out to you from the beginning, the Argument from Design was bankrupted several centuries ago by David Hume, the Argument from Ignorance and the related Argument from Irreducible Complexity are in no sense scientific arguments, they are in fact common logical fallacies, and those three arguments are the essence of your position. Intelligent Design is not science, it's pseudoscience. It generates no testable hypotheses, leads to no new insights, doesn't explain anything that doesn't already have more parsimonious explanations, yet it's impenetrable to any kind of evidence. Divine intervention can always provide multiple outs against any kind of evidence or argument, which is why science rejects it. It's not useful or necessary as an explanation of anything, it is in fact the death of rational explanations; it answers everything without explaining anything.

If you can produce legitimate evidence and analyses that are not any of those fallacious arguments, and that logically and necessarily point to the existence of an intelligent designer, I'll reconsider my position, but until you do, I will continue to consider you to be simply wrong. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Zen:
No I am trying to point out how illogical your reasoning is.

You states our knowledge of the universe doubles every 2.5 years. Those are still grains of sand in mighty big desert. It is conceivible we are missing several pieces which would allow for other lifeforms to exist based on other than a carbon base. We just don't know. We don't have the proof...yet.

Well, it isn’t my idea. Scientists have said that carbon is the only base for physical life in our universe. Are you referring to physical life? Or “spirit” lifeforms? Official science also says those are impossible (just ask Dex). Either way, your position is illogical.

But more to the point if it is impossible in this universe or dimension it is likely impossible in the next.

Again, this is not logical. The physical properties of our universe began with our universe about 13.5 billion years ago. We know that there was an external cause, and anything that could cause this universe would have to have different properties.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Dex,
Extrafire wrote:
Am I missing something here?


Well, yes, actually. You're missing just about everything.

I was referring to Zen’s comments on lifeforms. I’m not sure I understand just what he’s driving at. Metaphysical life? Angels? Physical life in our universe utilizing a base other than carbon? He doesn’t really say. Are you at all familiar with the science of life? If so, you’re well aware that the consensus is that life requires carbon. You have demonstrated that you consider the physical universe to be all there is, so from your point of view, what would your opinion be of Zen’s musings of esoteric lifeforms?
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Dex;

As several people have been trying to point out to you from the beginning, the Argument from Design was bankrupted several centuries ago by David Hume, the Argument from Ignorance and the related Argument from Irreducible Complexity…..

We’ve been through all this. Those who have presented such arguments have generally misrepresented design positions. Prominent evolutionists such as Gould and Dawkins have been refuted (The Blind Watchmaker is a case in point) and you and I are never going to reach consensus, so let’s not go through it all again.