GW's views on Evolution

[david a]

Easy e,
You must be a true evolutionists, so it must not be worth my time to reply either.

Colin Patterson, Juilian Huxley, Steven Jay Gould are not serious scolars in the field??????? Come on son, do your homework.

Atomic,
The references are there; as I'm sure your looking them up right now....

[Atomic]

david a--

Bwahaahah. I don't have to look them up, my man, I already know who they are. Like I said, you did an excellent job taking things out of context and using them to suit your goal.

Tomorrow....

Atomic

[david a]

Atomic,
Keep your finger on the text, my friend, and ignore the smuggled in autocrasy. I'm waiting to back up my claims.. but then again whose pointing the fingers here.

[fascistfury]

i keep trying to tell everyone how stupid GW is, butno one wants to believe me. now, maybe y'all can see what a total moron we may have as our prsident!

[Eazy-E]

Fascistfury-

I agree 100% with you on this. GW spent 4 years at Andover(a very expersive prep school), 4 years at Yale and 2 years at Harvard. But look at the result of all that training!?

He still seems unable to string two ideas together in a cohert manner. And now he seems unable to distinguish between near scientific certainly and a creation myth.

And he wants to be the education president?!

Am I the only one scared here? I dont know what the minimum threshold for presidential intelligence is, but I dont think GW is even 50% there!


david a-

How do I reply to your clever sophistry? I noticed you already posted elsewhere with your 'scientific' evidence claiming that science has proven Jesus has risen from the dead with certainly.

You have basically picked a very small subset of the scientists that worked on Evolution and basically quoted them out of context. Obviously, Evolution is an incomplete theory that is being refined and changed, but very few competent scientists in the area disagree with most of its basic premises.

Your selective argument for the Resurrection is even worse -you quote a bunch of pseudoscientists or 'whacks' and claim this is rigorous evidence! And fail to mention the other 99% percent of relevant ( and more respected) scientists that would strongly disagree with your 'proof'. This is the type of crap that gives science a bad name!

Maybe your fundamentalist upbringing has taught you all of these 'truths', but you need to grow up and use your brain!

Reason and faith are compatible for many devoted believers. There is no need to assume the head in the sand approach to reason.

E

[david a]

Easy E,
Nowhere did I use scientific evidence to "prove" the resurection. What I did use was historical arguementation right from the pages of scripture. Any quote I did give, which was only one, was from a legal professor( in which I thought was clear), not from a scientist. I also gave one reference to a book written by a journalist-not a scientist, so I really don't know where you are going with that arguement.

I do agree with your statement that Evolution is an incomplete theory though. However I do not think it is refined but redefining, whereas the views are changing, but the evidence is not.
As you stated - evolution is a theory, a belief system, so,
it's o.k to believe in evolution- just don't blame God for it.

For your own information, I have looked at this with an open mind as I continue to do so, but I think it is only fair for you to stop firing empty bullets at me and back up what you say with hard evidence.

[Linden]

David,

I think what you might be forgetting, and what many people forget when attempting to debate the concept of evolution is that evolution itself is a general, basic fact among the scientific community. There is the "Theory of Evolution" which means there is a basci theorizing on how exactly evolution functions. No one other than clueless or dogmatic scientists attemopt to dispute the relevance of evolution.

However, there are many disputes on exactly how evolution took place, and is taking place, and the obvious technicalities of the theory itself.

You quoted Stpehen Jay Gould in one of your posts, which I hope was not attempt to state that he is unsure about the basis of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould is a very prominent thinker on evolutionary theory, and a very prominent proponent of evolution in general.

There is absolutely, and I say absolutely no sufficient evidence to support the fantastical tales of creationism.

If you read history correctly you will see that creationism is simply a primitve tool to make sense of the unexplained.

Oh, and to oppress, and command through guilt and punishment.

Evolution is a scientific fact end of story. If you want to debate how evolution takes place, and the manner in which it selects the components of future generations, then wonderful. But don't attempt set the world back thousands of year by trying to clumsily knock it down as heresay.

If we are to worship any form of religion it should be Greek Mythology. It's far more creative, and there is a much wider selection of God's to pray to.

Chrsitianity is rather bland, and God keeps demanding that we give him money.

I'm sorry, but Chrisitanity is just not fiscally reasonable.

[Eazy-E]

Linden,

Thanks for the more articulate reply to david a.

I find it interesting how fundementialist types justify their beliefs by misquoting and relying to quack science.

It seems much easier to just believe in God, and avoid all of the sophistry. But they have some need to justify their beliefs in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

E

[david a]

Linden,
Thank you for your post.

Evolution either cosmic or biological, cannot logically be a theory of origins. Its operations presuposes the existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors, and an environment of some specific kind, that operstes upon those entities, in some specifically ordered fashion. This type of structure found in evolution, did not itself come through evolution.

I am in no way stating that the above mentioned subjects are affirming a dibelief in evolution, but showing that evolution may not be so confirmed by science. Although they do have serious controversies, their "faith" remains in tact. You know why I say faith? Because they have too. Evolution conflicks with the bible and the creator theory.
When someone denies the creator, they must then deny that he created. Dr. George Wald(1967 Nobel peace prize winner in Science drove this point home-
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities:creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion:that of supernatural creation. We cannot except that on philiosophical grounds;therefore, we choose tobelieve the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance"(dennis Lindsay/The dinosaur Dilemma,Christ for the nations,Vol.35,No.8)
British biologist L. Harrison Matthews, In the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species concedes:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology, and biology is thus in thepeculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of Evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation- both consepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of truth"

About my "misquotes":
1st quote: Phillip Johnson(creationist)notes: "While Patterson's address raised much controversy, Idiscussed evolution with him for many hours and he did not retract any of the specific skeptical statements he has made, but he did say that he continues to accept evolutiion as the only conceivable explanation for certain features of the natural world."(Phillip Johnson/Darwin on Trial/1993)
2nd quote: In a later interview Sutherland asked Patterson whether he knew of any good transitional forms.Patterson affirmed his prior statement that he did not know any he would try to support."(Luther Sutherland/Darwin's enigma)
Darwin's quote-pretty strait foreward.We know he didn't die a creationist. Same with Huxley(the grandson of Thomas Huxley-Darwin's bulldog)We know him to be a big promoter of evolution, a grat philosopher, and very anti-christian.
Steven Jay Gould's quote is out of his book Ontogeny and Phylogeny n.430 1977)

Now let me address some issues that evolutionists must answer.
a) The age of the earth.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field is decaying fast at a rate of 1400 years. That is to saythat 1400 years ago the magnetic field of the earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we go back as far ass 10,000 years we would find that the earth would have a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star! This is of course, highly improbable, if not impossible. It is believd that the magnetic field of earth id due to circulating electric currents in it's core. If we go back about only 20,000 years we would have found that estimated heat produced by the currents would have melted the earth.
b)Bird migration. many species of birds fly in excess of 8000 miles(eg.Golden plover/Artic tern).Experiements have shown that birds have inherited knowledge of latitude,lonitute,direction by stars,calender,clock and other necessary navigational data. This presents evolutionists with one baffling problem. How do you explain these abilities to evolve through mere chance? Obviously, it is of no benefit to navigate perfectly across only half of an ocean.The migratory instincts are therefore useless, unless perfect.
c)Visual beauty. All of nature abounds with visual beauty.
The origin,development,perfection and widespread presence of beauty in the world of life completely defies evolutionary explanation. Especially when beauty is hidden and unnecessary. To the evolutionist, everything thatevolves must have a practical purpose, or else it would never evolve. Why then do we see the splendors of the abyssal fish(which is a beautiful bright red color, and yet lives in total darkness 1.5 miles under surface of ocean),thebeauty found inside some shells, the dazzling colors inside the mouth of nestlings, the brilliantly colored eggs of many deep sea creatures and so on.
If visual beauty is a consequence of evolutionary progress, why is it that the lower forms of life display greater visual beauty than the higher forms, such as man?


Lastly, -Christianity "scorches and condemns"

Do you realize that if you put this label to christianity you must also, in fairness, point fingers also to many eastern religions as well.
Reincarnation is a system of payback/ a consequence of sin,
so also is Karma where you live out your punishment in another life. But in all these religions you never know if you are ever forgiven, while christianity offers it to you by the address of the cross.

[Linden]

>>Evolution either cosmic or biological, cannot logically be a theory of origins. Its operations presuposes the existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors, and an environment of some specific kind, that operstes upon those entities, in some specifically ordered fashion. This type of structure found in evolution, did not itself come
through evolution.<<

Not true. If you analyze the different theories of evolution you will find that it simply states that at some point very simple moleculure structures gradually, and randomly as Stephen Jay Gould hypothesis, over many millions, possibly billions of years. No one proposes that there was some human like creature inhabiting the earth upon its inception, but instead that some simple bilogical structure slowly over time developed certain characterisitics based upon its environment, and its direct challenges. Scientists know this happens. It has been documented through fossil records, and it can be seen in the selective breeding of certain animals. You would first have to dismiss the effects of selective breeding to then dismiss the likelihood that these biological structures could not do the same, randomly through breeding and environmental challenges over a period of time.

Another good example of environment affecting biology is in preadolescent girls getting their menstrual cycles even earlier now than they did before due to environmental and cultural changes.

There is no reason to believe that this is not what took place throughout life on earth; coupled with the fact that fossil records help support this.I am in no way stating that the above mentioned subjects are affirming a dibelief in evolution, but showing that evolution may not be so confirmed by science.

Evolution is not confirmed only in the sense that there are many different ways it could have happened. Evolution is our only sound, evidence-supported theory of how life progressed on earth. Of course man does not have all the answers and never will, but we have to go with the most logical evidence-supported theories in order to make the most logical sense of our past and present. Evolution does a much better job at this than does faith in creationsim; which is supported only by texts that were written after the intial event.

>>Although they do have serious controversies, their "faith" remains in tact. You know why I say faith? Because they have too. Evolution conflicks with the bible and the creator theory.<<

The serious contorversies are only in the exact method. Evolution is not a system of faith because it is based by more than heresay, and emotion. It is supported by fossil evidence. The point is there is more weight carried by the theory of evolution, and more logical explanations about the way life functions on earth than there is by creationsim.

>>When someone denies the creator, they must then deny that he created. Dr. George Wald(1967 Nobel peace prize winner in Science drove this point home- "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only possibilities:creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that
leads us only to one other conclusion:that of supernatural creation.We cannot except that on philiosophical grounds;therefore, we choose tobelieve the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance"(dennis Lindsay/The dinosaur Dilemma,Christ for the nations,Vol.35,No.8)British biologist L. Harrison Matthews, In the foreword to the 1971
edition of Darwin's Origin of Species concedes: "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology, and biology is thus in thepeculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of Evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation- both consepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of truth"<<

Again, David I sympathise with your struggle to convince, but they are not the general consenus among scientist. Three will always be someone who comes along to question a certain stance or theory, but it does not shatter the fact that a majority of the anthropological and biolgical commuunity supports the evolutionary theory because it supplies the most reasonable answers.


>>Now let me address some issues that evolutionists must answer. a) The age of the earth. The strength of the earth's magnetic field is decaying fast at a rate of 1400 years. That is to saythat 1400 years ago the magnetic field of
the earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we go back as far ass 10,000 years we would find that the earth would have a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star! This is of course, highly improbable, if not impossible. It is believd that the magnetic field of earth id due to circulating electric currents in it's core. If we go back
about only 20,000 years we would have found that estimated heat produced by the currents would have melted the earth.
b)Bird migration. many species of birds fly in excess of 8000 miles(eg.Golden plover/Artic tern).Experiements have shown that birds have inherited knowledge of latitude,lonitute,direction by stars,calender,clock and other necessary navigational data. This presents evolutionists with one baffling problem. How do you explain
these abilities to evolve through mere chance?<<

No one claims these abilites evolved by mere chance, they come from an inherent need to do so. It's a method of survival passed down from one generation to the next in order for that particular species to survive. Evolution is about randomness, only in terms of searching for the most successful traits. When these particular traits become present in that animal, obviously that animal is going to have the greatest chance of survival, and thus pass along these successfult raits to its offspring. Just like a dog bred with certain features will pass along those features to its offspring until it becomse a purebred quality.

These animals will keep these qualities until another challenge within its environment forces it to adapt, and pass along these traits to another member of its species. And on and on and on, until ti becomse the most successful trait I its biology.

Some species are not successful enough in doing this, and therefore die out do to lack of being the fit.

Evolution is about diversity, and struggling to survive until particular traits are mastered and then passed along through their genes.

>>Obviously, it is of no benefit to navigate perfectly across only half of an ocean.The migratory instincts are therefore useless, unless perfect.<<

These traits seem like a mark of perfection to you, maybe some kind of exact creationsim, but they are simply traits required to survive. At some point in these birds biological history they found it necessary to find the best means to survive. What you fail to note is that this may seem like a perfect thing to you, but species die all the time, and have come and gone in the fossil record. So many animals never master these necessities, or means of survival; they simply fail to adapt quick enough, or with enough sufficiency.

What about these other animals who have died out due to not adapting to changes in their environment? Evlution does not necessarily create perfection. It creates necessity, and some times it gets it wrong, and sometimes it gets it right. It is important to also note that evolution is not an entity, nor an exact science, it is simply a term used to describe the manner I which animals struggle to survive.

People practice Jiu-Jitsu techniques until they master them. Why, because they need them to be successful in their challenge.

And a person's talent for a praticular sport, their motor skills, are passed down from one generation to the next.

Also, the intstincts these birds have do not always treat them kinldy, they fail in certain animals of that species. It is not necessarily an exact thing, but it dominates the gentic code, because that is what helps them survive.

>>c)Visual beauty. All of nature abounds with visual beauty.
The origin,development,perfection and widespread presence of beauty in the world of life completely defies evolutionary explanation. Especially when beauty is hidden and unnecessary.<<

Now this is a rather odd statement. The notion of beauty is relative. Human beings attache beauty to those things that it decides. Some people do not find beauty in nature so this statement is false. The natural world is as challenging and ugly in as it is beautiful.

In fact that is its beauty, but only because I think so, not because it is law.

>>To the evolutionist, everything thatevolves must have a practical purpose, or else it would never evolve.<<

Not necessarily true, everything that evolves is simply trying to survive, and some things do and some things don't. A particular living thing's usefulness only becomes so when another animal employs its existence to surive, or if it causes some sort of environmental impact. The interaction between living things, the web that they create, and the manner in which they play off one another becomes their usefulness.

>>Why then do we see the splendors of the abyssal fish(which is a beautiful bright red color, and yet lives in total darkness 1.5 miles under surface of ocean),thebeauty found inside some shells, the dazzling colors inside the mouth of nestlings, the brilliantly colored eggs of many deep sea creatures and so on. If visual beauty is a consequence of evolutionary progress, why is it that the lower forms of life display greater visual beauty than the higher forms, such as man?<<

Again, you are using the term beauty in a scientific sense and it is merely a relative term. Who knows why some of thse animals have such colors ( I'm failry sure that is not for man to gawk at, and write poetry about) We know that some animals have such colors in order to attract and repel other animals. If we have not found purposes for other animals markings it is simply because man cannot know everything, but it can know what is rational, and what is irrational.

In fact why would a God create these animals? What is their purpose? Please don't tell me that they are here for our pleasure that would be the height of arrogance. Human beings die, and decay in the exact same manner any animal does. There is no prcoess reserved for this "special" creature called the human being.

We have already proven that other animals have intricate emotional lives, and that animals such as a chimpanzees use tools to hunt, and so on.

The evidence for mans uniqueness is slowly shrinking, and I myself believe that mankind's only truly unique quality is its ability to express feelings through art, and to create what is lying within his mind. Other than that man's uniquness is simply brabarism unequaled.


>>Lastly, -Christianity "scorches and condemns" Do you realize that if you put this label to christianity you must also, in fairness, point fingers also to many eastern religions as well. Reincarnation is a system of payback/ a consequence of sin, so also is Karma where you live out your punishment in another life.But in all these religions you never know if you are ever forgiven, while christianity offers it to you by the address of the cross.<<

David, to be honest with you, I have no faith in virtually any of man's insitutions. I think any organized form of religious belief is a bad thing. But the problem is David, Chirisitanity has forced more violence, and unfairness on others than any tohe religion in the hsitory of humanity. It has opressed, and punished more than any other insitution, with maybe the exception of Nationalism.

There will be no piece in this world until Nationalism and organized religion are erased form the earth.

Finally David, the argument over creationsim always comes down to the same basic arguments.

Who created God? Of course we have to ask who created the universe, but at the very least we can accept that we simply cannot answer such questions based on our current knowledge. But at the same time, who created God?

God was mortal at one time, so he was indeed a human being. Therefore it is easier for me to beleive that we don't know who or what created the universe (although there are theories) than it is for me to believe that some spontaneous human being appeared on earth at some point in time.

What is the purpose of mankind? Why are we here, and what is the purpose of going through this morrtal process. There is none, and even religion does not give one.

Why is there such severe cruelty throughout the world? If there is a God, how can he sit by and watch when there is so much intense cruelty? Yes, this is life, but what does it do for us in the end? I mean, we are leaving the earth at some point, so why do we need to prove to God that we have not succumbed to the same evils as the Archangel did?

In fact we can do evil things on earth, and we can still repent, so what is the purpose?

Why are children born with birth defects, and devastating illnesses that cause them to die shorlty after birth, or later on in childhood? What does that teach them? How can you teach such profound things to an innocent child?

Is it to teach the rest of us a lesson David? So, God sacrifices in order to teach lessons? Why have lessons David? God has the power to cure, to kill, to save, but there are so many people who are incurable, insalvageable, and who survive even though they do ruthless things.

Why does evil sometimes get presedent over good?

Why do we as human beings have the ability kill like God can?

These questions cannot be answered because religion is based on nothing but an imaginary tale that falls well short of giving explanations relative to our current knowledge.

Religion was a snazzy subject back when we didn't possess the intellect to defy it.

I'll tell you this much David, even if I was given absolute proof of God's existence, I would refuse to allign myslef with him. I would sooner burn in hell than sit side by side with someone who has allowed such cruelty, and depravity to run rampant on what I could only describe his little gameboard.

If there is a God then he has been extremely irresponsible.

[Atomic]

David--

All of these things have been hashed out here tons of times and refuted repeatedly. I suggest you look up Science Wars on the net. You'll see it is only a small fringe of people that believe as you do, that science and evolution aren't agreeable. I'll only add in a few points...

First point about creationism. Evolution does not give a creation theory, the Big Bang theory does. Evolution in no way deals with the origins of life.

Magnetic theory. Completely false and refuted in many books, including the Blind Watchmaker. The theory is not correct because the magnetic field is not decaying like you said. Hell, all it really does is shift. Next, how does that even relate to the real way of dating things, such as carbon analysis? Carbon analysis is a widely accepted practice, try refuting that with the scholars and scientists.

Quickly, on migration. How quickly do you think these guys developed this system? I think you seem to believe there has to be some sort of inherent reason for everything--there does not. Traits are chosen for by Natural Selection, which is completely blind in operation. It doesn't see into the future, nor does it dole out consiquences for actions. It just moves forward. Now, if you want good answers to how this happens, start reading some scientific journals, as it's a well documented phenomena with excellent conclusions on how it developed.

The quick on that is this: there's migration and navigation. Both work differently. Migration is the more complex of the two, using magnetic fields, etc. Now, figure you have, oh, say, a sea turtle. That sea turtle migrates from Africa to a small island off of South America. It finds the location precisely every time (this is a true case). Interestingly, if you take these turtles, throw a tracking device on them and release them off the coast of Spain, they'll end up hitting somewhere around Florida or by-pass and hit Mexico.
The answer to this is they do not know the latitude and longitude for where they're at when you misplace them, so they cannot correct for their movements. So, what happens is they end up in the wrong place and in most cases, die off because they cannot create a new population. So, the answer is that the change geography happened slowly, which only meant minor changes in location over many generations, but when you look back 8,000+ years compared to now, it's a big different!(Similar things are documented in Monarch Migrations, birds, etc).

Back to the example. Why from Africa to S.A? Fairly easy answer. Most likely, the turtle migrated for safer spawning areas (which it only does in S.A.). This turtle is quite old in phylogenetic terms and has been migrating for quite some time (thousands and thousands of years). So, the short story is, the turtle started migrating when the continents were closer together because if you remember basic science and geology, the continents were once linked together. Again, this is the short of it, but I can provide you with the location of info on this if you'd look it up.

Now, pick up any good Ethology book (study of behavior) and this stuff will be spelled out for you. It'll explain circadian rythms, as well as other similar phenomena used by animals to migrate from place to place.


As for the others, not much merit in them.

Atomic

[Edited by Atomic on 11-14-2000 at 07:58 PM]

[david a]

Good evening gentlemen.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution is our only sound, evidence supported theory how life progressed on earth."
------------------------------------------------------------
If evolution is a theory based on scientific evidence, then what criteria must be met for your theory tobe considered scientific?
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything, or at the very least, they are not science."- Gaylord Simpson
The oxford dictionary defines science as-
"A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of DEMONSTRATED truths or with OBSERVED facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its domain."
Thus ,for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by events, prossess, or properties which can be observed and demonstrated. It is obvious, that no one has has observed the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the conversion of a fish into an amphibian, or ape into man. No one has even observed the origin of a species by natural occuring processes. Evolution has been assumed, but not observed. Thus, the general theory of evolution fails to meat this scientific criteria. This statement has been affirmed by many evolutionists including Goldschmidt and Dobzhansky who are wholly commited to faith in evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution in no way deals with origins of life."???
------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is a model for the explanation of origins. If evolution has debunked creation as the origin of life, than realistically, evolution becomes the origin of life. The origin of life must come either by design or by chance. There is no other way.
------------------------------------------------------------
"No one claims evolution is by mere chance..."???
------------------------------------------------------------
"Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance-absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the amazing edifice of evolution: this central consept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or conceivable hypotheses and nothing on this score of our position is likely ever to be revised." -Jacques Monod
You yourself claim that with particular sucessful traits, "obviously that animal is going to have the greatest chance for survival."
------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution is about diversity and struggling to survive until traits are mastered and then passed along the genes."
------------------------------------------------------------
You use an eg. that people practicing BJJ techniques until they master them. Do you think a person like Rickson or one of his children, right from birth, automatically know the intricacys of grappling because of his father Helio's mastery of it? Of course not. Rickson had to learn them, regardless of his inherited genes. About my bird migration theory: Even though the birds have inherited certain "survival" genes from their parents, they still must learn how to use them for the very first time by them selves. The lesser white-throated warbler is such a bird. As the summer draws to a close, and the young birds are independant, the parent birds take off for Africa. The new generation does not leave until weeks later, flying instinctively across thousands of miles of unfamiliar land and sea for the first time, to rejoin their parents.
------------------------------------------------------------
About natural selection- Darwin's idea that inheritance aquires characteristics. The idea that when cells in the tissues are affected by the environment, hereditary units are formed. They units were carried to germ cells and passed on to offspring and so on..
Today we know that inheritance is controlled by the genes found solely in the germ cells(eggs,ova, etc.). only alterations in the genes of the germ cells are inheritable. No hereditary units are formed and so acquired characteristics are not inherited.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil record? Give me one ligit transformation and I will take your "fossil record" arguementation seriously. lol
-----------------------------------------------------------

I will tend to your questions on morality and wickedness as soon as I can, but I must study for my exams now.

I will leave you with this one thought though.

Regarless of what some may think, God is not a cosmic rapist who forces his love on someone. We choose to live our life distanced from God due to our own volition. If God forced his love on us so that we would spend eternity with him against our will, Heaven would not be heaven, would it?
No, indeed, it would be hell. The consequences of our will dictates how we live our life. If we view our origins as random chance, we as humans will live our lives by a different standard subjected by our own moral laws. Are we just "dancing to our own DNA?" Tell that to someone who has lost a loved one by a horrible murder. Tell that to a women who has just been raped, that the rapist was only dancing to his own DNA. There must be then moral law- good and evil.
If I cut a child up into small pieces with a sword in front of you, would you admit to it being wrong. Of course you would. Ahh, but what if you said you would not like it but you could not say that it is wrong(people have said this).
Even though that person does not admit to evil, he admits to the moral feeling of it being wrong. You see, without moral law, we might as well commit the most hainus crime- who cares... but if there is such a thing as good or bad, there must be then morality, if there is morality there is moral law, if there is moral law there must be a moral law giver.

[jungwoo]

evolution is a religion

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy (a religion.) Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: " . . . cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." I think this definition adequately defines evolution, don't you?
People tend to lump both evolution and science together, which is a mistake. Evolution is a belief system, whereas science involves observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations.
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Since all the evidence a scientist has EXISTS ONLY in the present, he/she cannot for sure, state how the earth was formed, when dinosaurs lived, etc. because he/she cannot follow through with step number 4.
Creation is a much more reasonable and believable answer for me. Do you really want to think that you possibly evolved from fungus growing on a tree?

[Atomic]

jungwoo--

You are an idiot. That's all I can say, based on your lack of understanding of evolution and your thoughts that it is a belief system. It is not; it is a scientific theory with a lot of back up. And, for your idea that we evolved from fungus, ever more stupid. Don't worry, there definately is hope.

David--

Your definitions of science aren't really that great and your premise isn't completely correct. Unfortunately, it takes a different medium other than the internet to properly point this out to you. I have attached some links for everyone, including the science wars articles I talked about. Read them--they are quite good and cover the topic.
I'll re-state would S.J. Gould said at a recent lecture on campus: "Science and religion aren't competing in the world and the idea of this competition is only found in the Western hemisphere and only by religious fringes."

Lastly, here's a nice quote for a good article I'll include on this topic. Argue out of this one....

"Science and theology are both in the business of truth – they both display similar periods of confusion, revision and
consolidation – so why does science work and religion doesn’t? My colleague Robert will be arguing that the chief
reason is science’s tendency to question everything logically, whereas religion relies on the Divine word as it appears in their respective holy texts, and because this word is divine it is unquestionable. So for instance King James I, writing in 1628 warned that articles in religion must be understood in their “literal and true meaning”. The problem arises when science shows that the Divine word is – quite simply – wrong. However I will leave Robert to argue the finer points."

The rest of that article is found here.

http://www.dcu.ie/~comms/msc/sc&rel.htm

These are just a few of the articles out there.

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1997/apr/opin_970428.html

http://members.tripod.com/ScienceWars/

Lastly, this is Dawkins on faith and science.

http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/publications/humanist/dawkins.html

Atomic

[Edited by Atomic on 11-15-2000 at 11:39 PM]

[jungwoo]

Atomic

First of all, I want to apologize for the comment I made about fungus growing on a tree. I realize tha it was unnecessary.
You say evolution is a scientific theory with a lot of back up. We all know that theories can and do change due to more evidence being found, evidence being refuted, etc. The only way one could always be sure of arriving at the right conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon one's knowing everything there is to know. I think that both you and I can agree on at least one thing: that man is not all-knowing, nor does he claim to be. And we must face the fact that man will never know absolutely everything about the past.
All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe . . . everything, exists now. In the present. The average person, and student, is not taught that scientists have only the present to work with and can't deal directly with the past. What evolution really is, is an explanation about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (fossils, animals, plants, etc) originated.

-I believe that the only one that can legitimately claim this (to be all-knowing) is God, who was there in the beginning.

I will now attempt to respond to your question.
"Science and theology are both in the business of truth – they both display similar periods of confusion, revision and consolidation – so why does science work and religion doesn’t?"
First of all, I'm not attacking science. If I came across this way, I apologize for the confusion. But I still maintain that evolution is a principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science, or history. Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But, the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problem, as I and others see it, is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief of evolution that is the basis for their scientific models (the interpretations, or theories) they use to attempt an explanation of the present.

I have a question that I have been pondering for a while now.

I was just wondering how the eye could have been produced by natural selection? It couldn't have evolved over long periods of time, because it is absolutely useless unless it is complete. Isn't it?