Science vs. Creationism

[LogGrad98]

So maybe God used the natural process of evolution to develop man in his image, tweaking it here and there until it was just right. Maybe he is how those proteins shifted shape and developed into new structures that could align amino acids in a new way that allowed DNA to mutate in advantageous ways. Maybe there is nothing truly random about it.

Because the one point that does stand from CJs posts is that really if you get into the biochemistry the odds of an advantageous random mutation are infinitesimal compared to the odds of a non-advantageous mutation. The most common mutations seen are by and large detrimental to the organism, so they don't get passed along - technically cancer is a genetic mutation, for example. Other genetic mutations are known in human circles as "birth defects", like if a baby is born with its heart outside its body, or with an extra chomosome or something. So maybe an all-powerful being helped things along by putting the right puzzle pieces together at the right time in the right place to make the jump, so to speak.



Just playing Darwin's advocate.

 

[carolinajazz]

There are at least a coupe of dozen provable, agreed upon processes. You have confused a discussion about which is more important with a discussion of which one exists.

...not confused at all, nor is this discussion confusing to me. What seems to "confuse" you is your blind faith/acceptance of organic evolution as opposed to the true scientific provable Genesis explanation that the Creator made living things whole and complete, ready to reproduce "according to there kinds"! The "religious fundamentalist" that support or believe that God created the earth and all living things on it in six 24 hour days is not supported by what the Bible actually says nor by "proven" scientific fact. But you cannot get around the fact that "true science" supports direct creation and that Darwin and any of his predecessors idea of "evolution" is not just unprovable but has been overwhelming discarded as IMPOSSIBLE! How about this statement from one of your well known "evolutionist!"

Julian Huxley admitted that the mathematical odds against evolution was one chance in 1,000 to the millionth power (i.e., 1 followed by three million zeros). Huxley gave the odds this way: "The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! ... no one would bet on anything so improbable happening...."

And, be reminded that such ridiculous odds were calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeroes would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being?

Then add another thousand volumes of zeroes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary properties of life built into it. Add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and our orbit, and our daily rotation, and the moon, and the stars!

So the only conclusion should be to shift ALL books supporting "evolution" to the humorous fiction section of the libraries!

 

[carolinajazz]

Heck ,even pope John Paul II was accepting evolution.

...well that makes a world of difference! We are going to use the quote of a religious icon who has purposely supported the coverup of thousands of pedophiles in his organization by spending billions to silence victims and move them from parish to parish rather than have them removed from there positions! Now THAT'S a credible source!

 

[carolinajazz]

For example, in every court case actually presented since the beginning of the last century, evolution has prevailed as the scientific explanation. Any decent lawyer would know that.

I believe he was referring to the actual "evidence" necessary to convince a "jury" or judge that evolution has occurred! Now, the flip side of that coin would be the ridiculous "argument" that God created all things in six 24 hour days.....which we have already proven or shown DID NOT take place and is not taught in the Bible!

 

[MVP]

...well that makes a world of difference! We are going to use the quote of a religious icon who has purposely supported the coverup of thousands of pedophiles in his organization by spending billions to silence victims and move them from parish to parish rather than have them removed from there positions! Now THAT'S a credible source!

I guess you missed first part of my post so I will repost it and reverse numbers a bit so it would be easier for you to understand how small you are in this discussion.

Must be tough finding anything supporting your delusions among those 0.14% scientists who are not supporting evolution.

99.86% of scientists support evolution. Can't get any more credible than that...

 

[Zulu]

...not confused at all, nor is this discussion confusing to me. What seems to "confuse" you is your blind faith/acceptance of organic evolution as opposed to the true scientific provable Genesis explanation that the Creator made living things whole and complete, ready to reproduce "according to there kinds"! The "religious fundamentalist" that support or believe that God created the earth and all living things on it in six 24 hour days is not supported by what the Bible actually says nor by "proven" scientific fact. But you cannot get around the fact that "true science" supports direct creation and that Darwin and any of his predecessors idea of "evolution" is not just unprovable but has been overwhelming discarded as IMPOSSIBLE! How about this statement from one of your well known "evolutionist!"

Julian Huxley admitted that the mathematical odds against evolution was one chance in 1,000 to the millionth power (i.e., 1 followed by three million zeros). Huxley gave the odds this way: "The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! ... no one would bet on anything so improbable happening...."

And, be reminded that such ridiculous odds were calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeroes would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being?

Then add another thousand volumes of zeroes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary properties of life built into it. Add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and our orbit, and our daily rotation, and the moon, and the stars!

So the only conclusion should be to shift ALL books supporting "evolution" to the humorous fiction section of the libraries!

Soo what's the probability of there being an almighty being????

How did that almighty being come about???

Was he/she formed ready to reproduce????

 

[moevillini]

No one is going to be impressed by random quotes from questionable sources.

no one?

LOL

 

[moevillini]

I've always wondered about this - did Adam and Eve go to heaven?

 

[colton]

I've always wondered about this - did Adam and Eve go to heaven?

From the LDS point of view, yes most definitely. Don't know about other traditions.

 

[One Brow]

So maybe God used the natural process of evolution to develop man in his image, tweaking it here and there until it was just right. Maybe he is how those proteins shifted shape and developed into new structures that could align amino acids in a new way that allowed DNA to mutate in advantageous ways. Maybe there is nothing truly random about it.

This position is called "theistic evolution". It's not a scientific position, but it does contend with the science much less strongly.

Because the one point that does stand from CJs posts is that really if you get into the biochemistry the odds of an advantageous random mutation are infinitesimal compared to the odds of a non-advantageous mutation. The most common mutations seen are by and large detrimental to the organism, so they don't get passed along - technically cancer is a genetic mutation, for example. Other genetic mutations are known in human circles as "birth defects", like if a baby is born with its heart outside its body, or with an extra chomosome or something. So maybe an all-powerful being helped things along by putting the right puzzle pieces together at the right time in the right place to make the jump, so to speak.

The vast majority of mutations are neutral. They have no effect at all on phenotype (the visually apparent structures and behaviors of an organism). Many mutations are environment-dependent; growing larger is useful on the African plain, but detrimental on a smaller island.

 

[8]

From the LDS point of view, yes most definitely. Don't know about other traditions.

You can't be sure can you? I think it's more of an assumption.

And it's really not that much of an accomplishment considering they lived before the days of sex, drugs, and rock & roll.


*edit* there was most definitely sex, but the options for infidelity were limited, and rather incest-y

 

[Biggs]

"In my experience, students who continue to think of this as a dichotomy will either have their faith so shaken when they learn the evidence for evolution that they drift away from the Church, or they will simply shut their eyes and their minds to what I consider to be a glorious way to view creation." Robert Whitning (BYU Evolution professor)

Theistic Evolution makes the most sense to me, so that's what I'm going to believe in.

 

[One Brow]

The "religious fundamentalist" that support or believe that God created the earth and all living things on it in six 24 hour days is not supported by what the Bible actually says nor by "proven" scientific fact.

I'm well aware you are not a Young Earth Creationist, but are instead an Old Earth Creationist.

But you cannot get around the fact that "true science" supports direct creation and that Darwin and any of his predecessors idea of "evolution" is not just unprovable but has been overwhelming discarded as IMPOSSIBLE!

Overwhelmingly, scientists consider evolution from a common ancestor to be an established fact.

How about this statement from one of your well known "evolutionist!"

Julian Huxley ...

Julian Huxley has been dead for almost 40 years, and stopped doing science in the 1930s. He's not highly esteemed.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html

Ruse also describes what he calls "metaphysical Darwinism" (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism") which is indeed a metaphysical system akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. These must be considered separate to the scientific theory, and are often in contradiction to the actual scientific models.

Then add another thousand volumes of zeroes for the improbability of the earth ...

The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Every conceivable outcome is mind-numbingly improbable, yet some outcome is mandatory.

If you shuffle a canasta deck, the probability for the exact sequence of cards you wind up with is less than one in 10 to the power of 160. Yet, some sequence of cards must occur.

 

[One Brow]

I believe he was referring to the actual "evidence" necessary to convince a "jury" or judge that evolution has occurred!

So was I. Again, in every court case since the 1920s, evolutionary theory has prevailed.

 

[One Brow]

From the LDS point of view, yes most definitely. Don't know about other traditions.

JWs (and most likely carolinajazz) -- absolutely not, they won't even be resurrected

 

[carolinajazz]

Soo what's the probability of there being an almighty being????

“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer.

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. Hence, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological information. What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence. Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not. Yet, when it comes to sophistication and efficiency, none of these even begin to compare with the information stored in the genetic code of living organisms.

 

[carolinajazz]

99.86% of scientists support evolution[/COLOR][/B]. Can't get any more credible than that...

“After years of proudly skeptical agnosticism, scientists are grudgingly beginning to give God a second look,” observes columnist Pete McMartin of The Vancouver Sun, a British Columbia, Canada, newspaper.

Although religion and science have been in conflict for centuries, “that’s simply no longer true,” says Wasley Krogdahl, a former University of Kentucky professor of astronomy and physics. He adds: “Cosmology has made it clear that the universe had a beginning, and that implies a creator.”—The State Journal-Register, Springfield, Illinois.

At least some scientists are rethinking the origin of the universe. The reason? “The universe makes a lot more sense than it did 50 years ago,” explains astronomer Krogdahl. During the last 25 years, the development of more sensitive equipment has resulted in the discovery of quasars, neutron stars, and pulsars. Krogdahl concedes that as the knowledge of the universe increases, so does the evidence that there is a God. Such evidence, he notes, “has simply knocked the props out from under the atheists.”

Yet, what has taken scientific minds years to accept after exhaustive research and study, students of the Bible have known for centuries. “[The Creator’s] invisible attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity, have been visible, ever since the world began, to the eye of reason, in the things he has made.” (Romans 1:20, The New English Bible) or as another translation puts it: "For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."

Simply put, the undeniable evidence has always been there.

 

[VINYLONE]

Simply put, the undeniable evidence has always been there.

Can you please point me in the direction of this evidence. Please.

 

[carolinajazz]

I've always wondered about this - did Adam and Eve go to heaven?

Romans 5:12 states that “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

The evidence, then, points to a passing on of sin from Adam to succeeding generations as a result of the recognized law of heredity.


Sin put man out of harmony with his Creator. It thereby damaged not only his relations with God but also his relations with the rest of God’s creation, including damage to man’s own self, to his mind, heart, and body. It brought consequences of enormous evil upon the human race.


Adam was not deceived, so his sin was willful, deliberate. (1*Timothy 2:14) It amounted to the murder of his offspring, for they now inherited his imperfection, thus coming under sentence of death. Clearly, Adam deserved to die, for as a perfect man, he had willfully chosen to disobey God’s law. It would have been contrary to God's righteous principles for him to apply the ransom in Adam’s behalf.

Adam had no existence before he was created, and he would have none after he died. So he had only two choices: (1)*obedience and life or (2)*disobedience and death. If Adam had not sinned, he would have lived on earth forever. He would never have gone to heaven.

The first humans, Adam and Eve, were created perfect. Their fall into sin was deliberate. Before them was either everlasting life or death. They disobeyed God and sided with Satan. When they died, they had no prospect of benefiting from Christ’s ransom sacrifice.

 

[babe]

“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer.

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. Hence, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological information. What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence. Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not. Yet, when it comes to sophistication and efficiency, none of these even begin to compare with the information stored in the genetic code of living organisms.

"Intelligence" is not the probable result of "creation".

Once in a while, CJ, you have some stuff that is intelligent, but it's usually in a quoted source or link.

Judeo-Christian theological dogmatists who believe in the Bible as the "spirit-breathed infallible Word of God" want to roll up all the answers into one word. . . . "God". . . . and equate that with the First Cause. So-called "Scientists" who "have issues" with the underlying implications of "God", primarily in the problem of an authoritative reference source for a code of morals outside of themselves, are even more dogmatic. Such folks wrap themselves in the cloaks of a "philosophy", perhaps "Secular Humanism", and attempt to invest "Government" with the role of being an "authoritative reference source for a code of morals" of their own predilections.

"Science" has every fundamental problem any religion has, when it comes to being "an authoritative reference source for a code of human law or conduct". Plus some more. We are, as humans, always ignorant, and always fallible. Even when we play "Science" games, or write "Bibles". Even when we idolize "The Way Things Are" and profess to be impartial observers, we always lie to ourselves. Maybe some of us don't want to "lie to ourselves", but we cannot escape it.

Everything we think is within us, within our hearts, souls, minds, spirits and bodies, whatever we imagine these things to be.

An interpretation of reality can never be the same thing as reality, the best we can do is imagine. . . . make an image. . . . make an idol of what we want the universe to be.

The worst thing we can do is claim to be "authoritative" and codify and enforce that idolatry on our children, or one another, because that is, in it's bare essential nature, an attempt to suppress cognition, enforce stupidity, and end "intelligence". This is difference between twentieth century socialized education as envisioned by statist proponents, and the classical education that produced our founding fathers imbued with ideals about freedom and liberty and a nation where the people were to be protected from statism by a constitution, limited state power fundamentally derived from the consent of the governed in the context of inherent natural rights vouchsafed to individuals.

Joseph Smith theorized "Intelligence is Eternal" right along with "The Elements are Eternal, matter cannot be created or made".

It is our inherent nature, and the inherent nature of the universe, to keep on thinking, to be creative, and to do it on purpose. . . . on our own purposes, in a condition of ongoing "creation". Nobody can freeze an image of that and make an idol of it that will not just fall apart. No religion, no philosophy, and no state can kill creativity, and those who try will fail, after some career of destruction.

I struggle against my own "mortality" and limitations, against my own grand schemes of comprehension that just don't measure up to the conditions of my own existence. Anyone who is trying to be honest will come to recognize in themselves the same sort of failure. Better to fail at that, than "succeed" in authoritarianism.

"Creation" is the result of intelligence, the consequence of action, the child of purpose. Not sure "intelligence" can really be idolized or codified or moralized. Pretty sure "intelligence" in unexpected, unpredictable, and exciting. . . . and revolutionary to the way we have previously thought.