View Full Version : Fossil Discovery shows why evolution theory it is still a theory
Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 04:30 PM
and not scientific fact.
The Hominid fossil Ardi discovery throws some more cold water on the idea of humans descending from apes.
"Researchers concluded that both the human branch and the ape branch of the family tree have evolved significantly from its common ancestor, and chimps can no longer be thought of as a "proxy" for that common ancestor."
The science article can be read at: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/10/01/tech-biology-hominid-fossil-ardi.html
boxcar
10-04-2009, 04:57 PM
and not scientific fact.
The Hominid fossil Ardi discovery throws some more cold water on the idea of humans descending from apes.
"Researchers concluded that both the human branch and the ape branch of the family tree have evolved significantly from its common ancestor, and chimps can no longer be thought of as a "proxy" for that common ancestor."
The science article can be read at: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/10/01/tech-biology-hominid-fossil-ardi.html
Be prepared for a lecture on what a "scientific" theory is -- quite possibly from 'cap. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
Dick Schmidt
10-04-2009, 05:58 PM
"The Hominid fossil Ardi discovery throws some more cold water on the idea of humans descending from apes."
No it doesn't. It simply identifies a more remote possible human ancestor, one that is closer to the common ancestor of chimps, bonobos and humans. Of course we didn't descend from modern apes; they are as highly evolved to fit their niches as we are. We, as well as modern apes, all descended from an ancestral line that has split and specialized for the past 25 million years. We are all apes.
Of course, it does call into doubt the intelligence of the author and anyone else still fighting the "evolution is just a theory" battle. Evolution is a proven and observable fact and anyone who can't see that is a scientific moron. I can never get over how many nit-pick every item in the evolutionary record yet cling like grim death to a bunch of fairy tales told by a tribe of dirty, ignorant wandering desert nomads with absolutely no concept of how the world around them works. This battle has been fought and the stupid lost.
You're free to go on believing the Sun circles the Earth (which is, of course, flat) and other biblical nonsense, but I prefer reality. You should try it. You might also try reading the article and trying to understand the science behind it before you make a fool of yourself again.
Dick
Religious war: grown men fighting over who has the best invisible friend.
God huh? My imaginary friend's name is Bobo.
Steve 'StatMan'
10-04-2009, 06:14 PM
So who does Bobo believe in? :lol:
The dirty, wandering nomads.
And the BILLIONS of other people who are dismissed by an obviously A-hole comment.
If evolution does exist, some have obviously not evolved nearly as much as others. Must be your head needs sunlight to evolve, and when it so far up yer arse, it doesn't get it.
Show Me the Wire
10-04-2009, 06:45 PM
From National Geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
"The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings. "[bolding added]
Sounds like Evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact, regarding origin, except for the faithful believers.
I don't think National Geograpic is pushing invisible friends.
boxcar
10-04-2009, 08:56 PM
From National Geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
"The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings. "[bolding added]
Sounds like Evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact, regarding origin, except for the faithful believers.
I don't think National Geograpic is pushing invisible friends.
Of course, they do: Father Time. Time is the super superhero of the evolution fiction. Time + Randomness = Everything is Possible. Takes an awful lot of faith to believe that fairytale.
Boxcar
mostpost
10-04-2009, 11:59 PM
This battle has been fought and the stupid lost.
The trouble is they will never realize it because they're.....you know........
Evolution is a fact. Like many facts, we are still learning what it entails. That we have discovered another branch, or perhaps an old branch leading in a different direction does not invalidate the theory or the fact.
mostpost
10-05-2009, 12:20 AM
yet cling like grim death to a bunch of fairy tales told by a tribe of dirty, ignorant wandering desert nomads
The Bible has a great deal of value as a moral compass. It has value as a historical record of the Jewish people. It has little value as a purveyor of scientific truth.
Even if God undertook to explain creation and the world to his/her chosen people, they would not have had the background to understand the explanation. Even a generation ago 99% of us would not know that such things as Quarks and charm and strings even existed. Some of us (ME!!) don't understand them now.
It has been said; "If God didn't exist, man would have to invent him. I believe that God Is and Was. I also believe that men have "Invented" Him to fill their own needs.
I think you will understand my meaning. I think others will not.
bigmack
10-05-2009, 01:09 AM
While I've hung on to the possibility of hedging my bets until the 'final curtain' it dawned on me that even as a child I snickered at the whimsy of Noah rallying two of everything and floating around amongst 40 days of rain.
As we speak, Ardi rests within the house as Lucy. Ardi was 4 million years ago - Lucy 3.
Folk gotta harbor a whole lotta faith to not see the likelihood of Darwinism.
Of course, they do: Father Time. Time is the super superhero of the evolution fiction. Time + Randomness = Everything is Possible. Takes an awful lot of faith to believe that fairytale.
BoxcarThe Anglican Archbishop James Ussher on the other hand explains it all?.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh (in what is now Northern Ireland). The chronology is sometimes associated with Young Earth Creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago.
....Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). This view had been almost completely abandoned by 1997, six thousand years after 4004 BC. Today some biblical scholars, as well as a number of evangelical Christians, believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible calling for a 6000-year-old Earth.[2]
While were at it Box,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm
Larry King says her name is not Ardi, it was Susie!
rokitman
10-05-2009, 08:56 AM
Darwin: the most unscientific "science" in all of recorded history.
46zilzal
10-05-2009, 10:00 AM
Flogging a dead horse again?
There was an interesting cover article in National Geographic a few years back. Was Darwin Wrong? One opens the cover and on the first page was an emphatic NO in bold letters.
The genius of this man (and don't forget Wallace who pieced it together as well) was in predicting a common "key" (DNA) to all of this just be observation. Years and years and years after the fact, HE, ,much like Einstein in physics, has proven to be right on the money.
The most amazing recent finding was the discovery of the fusion of the second chromosome in humans that exactly accounts for TWO separate ones in the great apes.
Animals are ALL a family of organisms:FACT
LottaKash
10-05-2009, 10:01 AM
Darwin: the most unscientific "science" in all of recorded history.
I agree, and even "Darwin" himself admitted that he was wrong, as there were so many dead-ends, and unexplainable things...
If evolution is true, then when did it suddenly end ?....And if it didn't end, then where are all these "hybrids" now ?....Where are all the half-man and half-monkeys now ?...So it "just stopped" ?.....Evolution just ended ?....Get real....
I suppose, the same types of people that believe in "evolution", believe in Santa Claus too...I mean, it is a nice story and all.... And, we tell this lie to our children as well...
How does one explain, for each and every person on the planet, a set of unique "fingerprints and DNA".....How does evolution explain that ?....Go ahead, some "evolutionist" please explain...I know you can't....Because we were created by GOD, like it, or believe it or not...
In the Bible, it states in Genesis, how Eve was created from Adam's rib, but from the Hebrew, "rib" is translated from "CURVE"....Now how can another human be created from a curve ?....Do you suppose a DNA curve ?......Does anyone dare to believe that God is, and was, smarter than Darwin ? ...I do...
best,
46zilzal
10-05-2009, 10:08 AM
Idiot America has good explanations for this.....Hits it on the head.
A good explanation if your are an idiot, I suppose.
Tape Reader
10-05-2009, 10:34 AM
For another interesting view on this subject one could visit
http://www.sitchin.com/ (http://www.sitchin.com/)
hazzardm
10-05-2009, 10:43 AM
I am curious. A question for those who do NOT believe in the evolution origins of man.
Do you believe evolution occurs in species besides homo sapien, or that it does not occur at all?
hazzardm
10-05-2009, 10:56 AM
I agree, snip......
If evolution is true, then when did it suddenly end ?....And if it didn't end, then where are all these "hybrids" now ?....Where are all the half-man and half-monkeys now ?...
Right here :D
http://www.1-800-translate.com/TranslationBlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/neanderthal_1.gif
boxcar
10-05-2009, 11:31 AM
The Bible has a great deal of value as a moral compass. It has value as a historical record of the Jewish people. It has little value as a purveyor of scientific truth.
Even if God undertook to explain creation and the world to his/her chosen people, they would not have had the background to understand the explanation. Even a generation ago 99% of us would not know that such things as Quarks and charm and strings even existed. Some of us (ME!!) don't understand them now.
It has been said; "If God didn't exist, man would have to invent him. I believe that God Is and Was. I also believe that men have "Invented" Him to fill their own needs.
I think you will understand my meaning. I think others will not.
And those "needs" seem to be pretty universal.
Would you mind expanding on just what needs we have to invent some superior being? And why do you think those needs exist?
Boxcar
mountainman
10-05-2009, 12:41 PM
"The Hominid fossil Ardi discovery throws some more cold water on the idea of humans descending from apes."
No it doesn't. It simply identifies a more remote possible human ancestor, one that is closer to the common ancestor of chimps, bonobos and humans. Of course we didn't descend from modern apes; they are as highly evolved to fit their niches as we are. We, as well as modern apes, all descended from an ancestral line that has split and specialized for the past 25 million years. We are all apes.
Of course, it does call into doubt the intelligence of the author and anyone else still fighting the "evolution is just a theory" battle. Evolution is a proven and observable fact and anyone who can't see that is a scientific moron. I can never get over how many nit-pick every item in the evolutionary record yet cling like grim death to a bunch of fairy tales told by a tribe of dirty, ignorant wandering desert nomads with absolutely no concept of how the world around them works. This battle has been fought and the stupid lost.
You're free to go on believing the Sun circles the Earth (which is, of course, flat) and other biblical nonsense, but I prefer reality. You should try it. You might also try reading the article and trying to understand the science behind it before you make a fool of yourself again.
Dick
Religious war: grown men fighting over who has the best invisible friend.
God huh? My imaginary friend's name is Bobo.
Brilliant post. But science can't refute the existence of god anymore than it can confirm him (her? it?). On a personal note, while I strongly believe that man in his arrogance and quivering fear of death has conveniently created a god holding the power to bestow eternal life, a suspiciously man-like diety with human traits and values, I also have the feeling that I'm accountable to some higher power. Something unrefined, all-powerful and more elemental than the god of scriptures. A force that so greatly transcends our understanding as to invalidate all questions of existence, past, future, linear time, and perhaps even right and wrong. A force that could no more explain itself to us than we can teach geophysics to a gerbil. So in my opinion, god may exist, but ultimate answers don't, because we can't possibly know what questions to ask. And probably never will.
LottaKash
10-05-2009, 01:26 PM
Right here :D
http://www.1-800-translate.com/TranslationBlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/neanderthal_1.gif
Hey, how did anyone get their hands on that picture of my brother ?.....He wasn't evolutionized yet....Only me, on my mommy's side...:jump:
best,
GameTheory
10-05-2009, 01:49 PM
I agree, and even "Darwin" himself admitted that he was wrong, as there were so many dead-ends, and unexplainable things...
If evolution is true, then when did it suddenly end ?....And if it didn't end, then where are all these "hybrids" now ?....Where are all the half-man and half-monkeys now ?...So it "just stopped" ?.....Evolution just ended ?....Get real....It didn't stop and what you are saying has nothing to do with evolution -- that is evolution as taught by the people that don't believe in it. That's the problem with this debate -- most of the people arguing against the theory don't know what the theory is.
I will say the same is true of the "opposite" of this debate (not really the opposite, but anyway). The recent crop of anti-God books by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc were embarrassing for their total ignorance of the theology they supposedly reject -- they don't know a thing about it.
46zilzal
10-05-2009, 02:00 PM
It didn't stop and what you are saying has nothing to do with evolution -- that is evolution as taught by the people that don't believe in it. That's the problem with this debate -- most of the people arguing against the theory don't know what the theory is.
EXACTLY
Assuming we evolved from the apes.
Who created the apes?
Are the two are not mutually exclusive.
Are there any other species alive today, as well as the species they evolved from? Doesn't evolution replace the earlier, less robust versions? Isn't evolution a continual improvement type of thing?
To only sure thing so far is the ridiculous and insulting comparison of religious people to dirty nomads.
illinoisbred
10-05-2009, 02:11 PM
Darwin probably should have stopped short[Frank Costanza's move}.I think he was correct on his adaptation idea[in regard to finch beak structure and turtles in the Galopagos] It was a bit of a reach to expand those observations into the Theory of Evolution.
GameTheory
10-05-2009, 02:15 PM
What I am curious about is why the idea of evolution bothers people so much. There is no conflict between religion and evolution, and most mainstream Christian theology also sees it this way. (I was taught evolution in a Catholic school, for instance. Lutherans and a good bunch of other protestants also don't seem to have a problem with it.) Of course there are some denominations that are fundamentalist and who believe in literal creationism. They do have a legitimate conflict. But are there other reasons? Are ALL of you evolution-deniers fundamentalist creationists? (That is a serious question and it not meant in any accusatory way.)
Now, there are a lot of pro-evolution folks who do think it removes the need for the "God explanation" of the world, and so I suppose on that basis it is "threatening" to believers who would like to see more believers as there are people out saying that you don't need to believe in God, we've got evolution. But just because they say so doesn't mean that the religious folk need to buy into that false dichotomy. No one ever seems to argue, "I've got no problem with the idea of evolution IF I was convinced by the evidence, I'm just not convinced." It always seems to be, "Evolution CAN'T be true because that would mean my world view is wrong, therefore I will try to find holes in the evidence." Of course, it is never stated that way, but it sure seems to be what they're thinking. The IDEA of evolution is threatening for some reason. Are there non-creationist reasons for this that I'm missing?
GameTheory
10-05-2009, 02:20 PM
Assuming we evolved from the apes.
Who created the apes?Evolution has nothing to say about ORIGINAL creation. How did the universe get here, etc. One reason why there is no conflict between the idea of a creator God and evolution tinkering with things once created.
Now of course evolution does have something to say about where apes came from here on Earth -- from earlier, non-ape forms.
46zilzal
10-05-2009, 02:23 PM
Organism
Organism has a mutation
Mutation allows this organism to have an advantage from predation, hunger etc.
More of mutated organisms are able then to survive to adulthood.
Adult mutated organisms reproduce in greater numbers than un-mutated
After a awhile the entire population has a much higher percentage of mutated organisms.
Easy to understand
illinoisbred
10-05-2009, 02:31 PM
Would the Theory of Evolution exist if it wasn't for capitalism? The story is that when Darwin finally disembarked from the HMS Beagle, the word reached him that another English scientist had come to similar thinking and would be publishing soon. Darwin had a large family and was in serious need of cash. He hastily wrote and believed "the Theory" would make his book a better seller.
46zilzal
10-05-2009, 02:40 PM
Wallace and Darwin are much akin to Newton and Leibnitz
Have a problem then come to a similar answer apart from the influence of the other
Organism
Where did the organism come from? :D
Black Ruby
10-05-2009, 03:09 PM
Where did the organism come from? :D
Where did God come from?
boxcar
10-05-2009, 04:47 PM
Where did God come from?
Wrong question. There was never a time he didn't exist, which is why his name is "I am Who I am". Jesus himself said, "...before Abraham was born, I am."
The better question, therefore, would have been: Where did we all come from? ;)
Boxcar
Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 04:48 PM
Where did God come from?
That is what makes him GOD. Nobody made him, always existed.
hazzardm
10-05-2009, 05:27 PM
Kinda like Brett Favre
Kinda like Brett Favre :D :ThmbUp:
Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 08:59 PM
I don’t understand why people totally dismiss the idea of a Creator. The quick dismissal flies in the face of history, facts and the thought process.
Great philosophers through the ages have tried to define the meaning of life and they knew, in ancient times man was different from the rest of the animals. They knew creation happened, but they struggled with the question of the meaning of it all.
How do you jettison all of that ancient knowledge for the idea you are not different from the other animals and life is a random accident. This accidental randomness and sameness flies in the face of proven science and thought.
The Bible says there was a beginning. Science says the universe had a beginning, and did not always exist as it was previously accepted.
The Bible, as well as ancient philosophers, say man is created separate and apart from all other animals. Darwin’s theory needs a missing link. This first discreditng of missing link theory came from a communist society which has no vested interest in GOD. Chinese scientists have been saying, for years the concept of a missing link does not fit into the fossil record. However, the Darwinian evolutionist kept rejecting Chinese scientific claims that the fossil record does not support the missing link. This new discovery confirms the Chinese findings and further erodes the idea man evolved from apes. The new fossil makes descent from the ape family as being. irrelevant to understanding our beginnings”. ( Per the National Geographic reporting on the finds significance on Darwins Theory).
If we look to other applicable ideas regarding scientific explanations and advanced mathematics we find Occam’s Razor.
Occam's Razor states
when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
Between the two competing theories The Creator being theory withstands the scrutiny of Occam’s Razor, while the accidental random does not.
Additionally, mathematicians and physicists understand the trueness of the the equation is related to the equations beauty. Once, again the idea of a loving Creator is a beautiful equation of beginnings, while the equation of randomness and accident is ugliness.
From where I sit it looks like history, facts and thought process, make the idea of a Creator a more viable option than the complex convoluted ugliness of accidental randomness account.
cj's dad
10-05-2009, 09:09 PM
"I don’t understand why people totally dismiss the idea of a Creator".
Because IMO it makes it so much easier to lead a life of unaccountability !!
bigmack
10-05-2009, 09:14 PM
From where I sit it looks like history, facts and thought process, make the idea of a Creator a more viable option than the complex convoluted ugliness of accidental randomness account.
How would you place on the level of absurdity the fable of Noah & his Ark against the complex convoluted ugliness of accidental randomness ?
46zilzal
10-05-2009, 09:18 PM
Great philosophers through the ages have tried to define the meaning of life and they knew, in ancient times man was different from the rest of the animals. They knew creation happened, but they struggled with the question of the meaning of it all.
How do you jettison all of that ancient knowledge for the idea you are not different from the other animals and life is a random accident. This accidental randomness and sameness flies in the face of proven science and thought.
The Bible says there was a beginning. Science says the universe had a beginning, and did not always exist as it was previously accepted.
The Bible, as well as ancient philosophers, say man is created separate and apart from all other animals. Darwin’s theory needs a missing link. This first discreditng of missing link theory came from a communist society which has no vested interest in GOD. Chinese scientists have been saying, for years the concept of a missing link does not fit into the fossil record. However, the Darwinian evolutionist kept rejecting Chinese scientific claims that the fossil record does not support the missing link. This new discovery confirms the Chinese findings and further erodes the idea man evolved from apes. The new fossil makes descent from the ape family as being. irrelevant to understanding our beginnings”. ( Per the National Geographic reporting on the finds significance on Darwins Theory).
If we look to other applicable ideas regarding scientific explanations and advanced mathematics we find Occam’s Razor.
Occam's Razor states
when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
Between the two competing theories The Creator being theory withstands the scrutiny of Occam’s Razor, while the accidental random does not.
Additionally, mathematicians and physicists understand the trueness of the the equation is related to the equations beauty. Once, again the idea of a loving Creator is a beautiful equation of beginnings, while the equation of randomness and accident is ugliness.
From where I sit it looks like history, facts and thought process, make the idea of a Creator a more viable option than the complex convoluted ugliness of accidental randomness account.
One has tons of evidence and the other is MYTH...Easy to choose the logical one.
46zilzal
10-05-2009, 09:20 PM
How would you place on the level of absurdity the fable of Noah & his Ark against the complex convoluted ugliness of accidental randomness ?
Especailly in light of what the Sante Fe Institute has discovered in the realm of self organizing systems at the edge of chaos. They are discovering that this order is inherent to many systems. Read Waldrop's COMPLEXITY and he can explain it to you.
Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 09:25 PM
How would you place on the level of absurdity the fable of Noah & his Ark against the complex convoluted ugliness of accidental randomness ?
What part is absurd the flood happening or the warning of the pending flood?
Archeology is finding evidence of a great flood all over the earth around the time of Noah's existence.
If a flood did happen, I would wager people in ancient times would act like like people today. They would try and save their possessions from flood water. The ancients were pretty proficient boat builders. Noah could be a representative story how man survived the flood. There also is the Babylonian story Gilgamesh(sp) which is similar to Noah.
Before you go down the path of literal interpretation, a reminder, I am in the camp that not every line in the Bible is literal in its meaning.
Show Me the Wire
10-05-2009, 09:28 PM
One has tons of evidence and the other is MYTH...Easy to choose the logical one.
Could you please cite the tons of evidence on origin. The subject of this thread is the beginning, not what happened after the beginning.
Why don't you try understanding the point before you post and then post some facts to bolster your statements.
bigmack
10-05-2009, 09:35 PM
I am in the camp that not every line in the Bible is literal in its meaning.
Picking & choosing the veracity of Scripture is not a often guided concept in Bible class to the kids. I've seen lives ruined by the posturing of 'believe this - but not that'.
Hook, line but never mind the sinker and the evolution theorem is flawed?
GameTheory
10-06-2009, 01:57 AM
From where I sit it looks like history, facts and thought process, make the idea of a Creator a more viable option than the complex convoluted ugliness of accidental randomness account.Again, you don't have to choose. Evolution isn't a theory about the origin of life, it is a theory about way organisms adapt over time in the context of their environment (which also evolves -- you can't separate the two). You can believe in a creator, even one that designed you, and still believe in evolution. God would have created the rules of the universe, right? Therefore, you could say God designed you, and the process he used was evolution. Or isn't he as clever as he is usually given credit? I'm quite sure he could handle it.
And you're over-emphasizing the "accidental randomness" stuff, which is quite common amongst anti-evolutionists. Evolution isn't all about mad chaos and just happening to hit upon all this "well-designed" life. Typically examples are given like, "Imagine you threw a bunch of boards and nails into a giant box and shook them up and you opened the box and a perfectly designed house was there." That isn't the theory of evolution -- not even close. So let's please stop with the "what are the odds?" kind of arguments. They are straw men.
Evolution would say that it is "accidental" that the koala bear came about just exactly as it is, but it is no accident that mother nature (or God) came up with SOMETHING. Just like if you roll some dice, you can say that whatever numbers come up were unlikely amongst all the possibilities, but it wasn't unlikely that SOME numbers came up -- it was near impossible not to roll SOMETHING because that is the nature of the dice-rolling system. It is not random that things evolve, but there is a component of randomness in all the specific details of the specific changes they undergo. It is a highly-structured stochastic process, not a chaotic random process. The rules of time & physics DEMAND that evolution take place. In the general sense, evolution is simply another word for time.
Another little understood aspect is synthesis, which never really gets any play. It is highly likely that early [very early] organisms actually ABSORBED other organisms and they became one thing. What eventually became animal organs likely started this way, like your eyeballs maybe. And of course you've got a bazillion mitochondria in most of your cells -- these little buggers have their own DNA, and they are keeping you alive. So none of us is really a separate organism even now -- there are a whole bunch of other little critters inside of us without which we would drop dead. Near to the beginning (relatively) of the process, the borders between "life" and "not life" were pretty fuzzy. You've got a semi-membrane caused by some chemical reaction and the process inside that membrane is slightly different that what is going on outside of it -- that's all it takes for "life" to begin, or a "life-like" process anyway -- just a container with a continuing and predictable chemical reaction going on for a while. Think of a very simple amoebae type organism -- just a blob with a membrane around it really. And that membrane separating the "thing" from "not the thing" is easily penetrated, and so often some "not the thing" ends up inside this membrane more or less permanently, making it fuzzy whether it still should be considered "not the thing". So you get one organism living inside another with slightly different properties, and along with some catalysts and that energy from the sun keeping things going you are on your way. And then is no reason to think that this same type of thing isn't going on right now in a pond somewhere -- why some people think evolution has stopped I don't know.
boxcar
10-06-2009, 11:02 AM
"I don’t understand why people totally dismiss the idea of a Creator".
Because IMO it makes it so much easier to lead a life of unaccountability !!
BINGO! Go to the head of the class! No creator, no ultimate accountability.
Boxcar
BINGO! Go to the head of the class! No creator, no ultimate accountability.
BoxcarUltimate Accountability? Maybe the universe does not follow your human projections of guilt and innocence. Good vs Evil. Maybe you actually limit what is by what you are. Understanding reality requires more than a bearded being in the sky passing human judgments as proscribed by simplistic limited world views.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/27/david-attenborough-science
Sir David Attenborough has revealed that he receives hate mail from viewers for failing to credit God in his documentaries. In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance."
Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
One theological apology for the worm from Creationists is God did NOT design things this way, but they became this way after sin entered the world.
In the billions of years that the earth has existed, when exactly did sin arrive?
Single cell creatures? When fish evolved into the early amphibians, the dinosaurs? If sinning is native to man, at what point in mans' evolution did sinning become possible? Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon ?
So if one accepts the concept of "ultimate accountability" God is ultimately accountable for the worm as well as the hummingbird.
Show Me the Wire
10-06-2009, 08:55 PM
hcap:
As usual off point and ground already covered in other threads.
I see none of the GOD doesn't exist crowd attempted a persausive logical argument to answer my question. I posted a sincere inquiry why one would choose to deny a Creator exists, based on empirical thought processes and historical thought.
GameTheory, gave a thoughtful answer, with which I agree. Like GameTheory, I see no conflict between science, and empirical thought, and belief in a Creator.
That is why I posed the question. What is the non-conflict between empirical thought and historical beliefs that convinces certain people that creation happend without a Creator?
Is it as simple cj's dad answer?
As A. Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Do you deniers of a Creator lack imagination, never pondering the meaning of your existence, wonder why you have the capability to love and express other emotions, etc.?
I do not see a conflict between a Creator and the natural laws around us. We have had this discussion many times before. I took exception to the notion of "Ultimate Accountability" Although I believe in the order of things, I also realize chaos exists-within the boundries of a structured universe. In the past I brought up fractals. An example of laws repeating from the large scale down to to the extremely small. But not every permutation follows in exact detail.
http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-01/fractal-art-alfred-laing-spiral-fantasy.jpg
Trees follow a distribution law. From the one to the many, and back to the one. That is sort of a "plumbing" analysis. Nutrients and by-products of the sunlight/chlorophyll interaction dynamically move in both directions. From the leaves to the trunk, and from the trunk/massive root system back out to the leaves.But the variety and different species of trees are a result of random selection as well as an overall scheme. I think that trees unite the earth with the atmosphere and Sun. A larger "plumbing" scheme perhaps?
Random selection itself does not invalidate the overall .....
http://www.pseudology.org/cad_obzor/Images/tree_roots.jpg
Randomness exists within limits. My link to the worm burrowing into the child's' eye, I think demonstrates that although the evolved-or- created- human social structure will compassionately help, there is no accountability for random occurrences of diseases and accidental deaths. Not everything is structured for our benefit by an always benevolent God. The universe is structure AND chaos. And we don't recognize that interaction very well.
"Ultimate Accountability" is not possible in the middle of a category 4 hurricane. Or pandemic. The bubonic plague should not be viewed as a god driven event. It was the semi-chaotic result of random selection
GameTheory
10-07-2009, 01:10 PM
"Ultimate Accountability" is not possible in the middle of a category 4 hurricane. Or pandemic. The bubonic plague should not be viewed as a god driven event. It was the semi-chaotic result of random selectionBoth sides of that argument bug me. I dislike when religious people assign motives of God to natural disasters and disease. Falwell-types saying AIDS is God's punishment for being gay, or Katrina is the retribution of some sort on a wicked people. But I am just as annoyed by Attenborough-types saying that human suffering wouldn't be allowed by a benevolent God -- they can also use the same examples: AIDS, Katrina, etc. For one thing, it seems lost on everyone that they are essentially making the same argument, and they are both putting themselves in the position to be able to know what God (GOD!) would or wouldn't do, and the reasons God would have for doing or not doing something. Completely infantile and totally narcissistic.
I've got news for both the believers and the non-believers -- if there is a God, you don't get to tell him what's what. Sort of the other way around. That's why he's called God.
There is an excellent book for anyone that likes to think called "The Reason for God". Now the point of the book is for people who can't bring themselves to believe in God, or to lead a religious life because of X reason to have that reason answered and addressed (from a Christian perspective). In other words, the book tries to convince you to be Christian. But that isn't necessarily the reason to read it, as the author tackles the most common questions he gets (he's a pastor) about these things, but he also takes to task religious people about fanaticism, etc and gives answers to things you probably haven't heard before. This is not a religious advertisement from me -- I'm not religious. But I have a pastor friend who suggested it, and as a book of thinking and philosophy it is quite good and will get you thinking. It broke down for me in the second half where he goes into a harder sell for Christianity -- the first half is just devoted to those questions that keep people from believing, while the second half is more about Christianity specifically. (It also didn't address my tougher questions in the first half because they are less common. But then I've spent a lot of time thinking about such issues.)
Anyway:
http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/0525950494
Definitely worth a trip to the library if you don't wanna buy it...
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.