Answers In Genesis -- Anti-science Or The Truth?

[Ouroboros]

Freeday, sounds like you're becoming a believer in Theistic Evolution. Basically you have no problems with the theory at all, just that you believe there is a purpose that drives the mutations into what it is "supposed" to become. Kind of a Lamarckian Evolution, but with a supernatural twist.

[Vigile]

i guess i should rephrase myself, ToE doesn't threaten me, because i feel it will never be proved.

 

You christians are exasperating. You (as in you, Freeday) accept that biological life forms change over time, yet you make a statement that ToE will never be proven. Which part of the theory? The basics have been proven. We know for a fact that life forms change over time. Why is it so hard for you to extrapolate large changes from small changes given a large enough window of time?

 

 

 

so i accept the core idea of evolution, but yet i am not threatened by it. however you want to interpret it, you can.

 

Ok, good. But for the record, how do you think we interpret it?

[freeday]

Freeday, sounds like you're becoming a believer in Theistic Evolution. Basically you have no problems with the theory at all, just that you believe there is a purpose that drives the mutations into what it is "supposed" to become. Kind of a Lamarckian Evolution, but with a supernatural twist.

 

 

i think i will come up with my own version of evolution, call it supercalifrasiovolution. lol. now i just need to become a doctorate and publish my own thesis

[Antlerman]

i think i will come up with my own version of evolution, call it supercalifrasiovolution. lol. now i just need to become a doctorate and publish my own thesis

If you pass peer review, I'll be impressed. Otherwise you don't need a doctorate if you want to just publish specualtions. There's good money selling books to religious lay people. Look, you bought one.

 

BTW, I don't think I misinterpreting at all what you said here, "ToE doesn't threaten me, because i feel it will never be proved." Prove me wrong by agreeing to this statement:

"

Even if there is indisputable, rock solid, you're-an-idiot-to-deny-it proof of the Toe, my faith will survive because it isn't tied to it

."

Agree to that, then explain your previous statement that it doesn't threaten you because it'll never be real enough to be a threat. I don't see how I'm misundertanding you. Your words were pretty clear.

[mwc]

good point there MWC.

 

i knew i wasn't crazy, its the Law of Conservation of Mass that states matter can not be created nor destroyed. this applies to the principle of general relativity in a closed system. its debateable wether our universe is a closed system, but based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, i am lead to believe that it is a closed system. (ex. stars run out of compressed hydrogen and burn out or colapse.) but there is a monkey wrentch in there, there is the principle of special relativity. which from what i read, matter can be lost. if somebody can read and understand it better. i would love a easy to understand definition. remember, us down here in mississippi are held to a lower standard. down here things are printed on a 6th grade level. hell were is that cartoon book with adam and the dinasours. i could probably understand it better.

I'm going to help you out with a simple little formula: E=mc^2

 

What this little guy does is tell you that energy and matter are the same thing. They can be converted back and forth. So, while matter isn't technically "created" it can come into being when energy get converted into it (for example this could be from stars exploding and "creating" various elements that just don't occur under "normal" conditions). Of course, the primary use of the formula was the atom bomb where we converted matter back into energy. We know that works very well.

 

Also, be very careful when you invoke the word "law of" as you do. They aren't laws of anything. Like the rest of science they are "theories of" just like the "theory of evolution." So far they have held up very well but they are only "laws" in that the people who named them called them laws.

 

If we are to believe in some versions of string theory (I think) then gravity "leaks" to us from another dimension (as do some other "features" of our universe and people have the mathematical models to show this). Does this make us open or closed? The 2nd law doesn't cover this nor was it ever meant to do so. Invoking it because it covers open/closed systems is dishonest.

 

Of course if energy can "leak" in then maybe it can also get out? Maybe black holes lead to white holes? But then what of Hawking Radiation where black holes eventually "evaporate?" There are lots of questions and we're stuck a long, long way from anything interesting so we have to guess and model and (now) computer simulate answers. Creating a little universe and possibly that micro black hole will go a long way to answering some of these questions.

 

mwc

[freeday]

i think i will come up with my own version of evolution, call it supercalifrasiovolution. lol. now i just need to become a doctorate and publish my own thesis

If you pass peer review, I'll be impressed. Otherwise you don't need a doctorate if you want to just publish specualtions. There's good money selling books to religious lay people. Look, you bought one.

 

BTW, I don't think I misinterpreting at all what you said here, "ToE doesn't threaten me, because i feel it will never be proved." Prove me wrong by agreeing to this statement:

"

Even if there is indisputable, rock solid, you're-an-idiot-to-deny-it proof of the Toe, my faith will survive because it isn't tied to it

."

Agree to that, then explain your previous statement that it doesn't threaten you because it'll never be real enough to be a threat. I don't see how I'm misundertanding you. Your words were pretty clear.

 

i was talking about ToE concerning the creation of life, or creation science. which, to my knowlegde, you guys don't really concern yourself with. that was what i got from asimov when he said things came from a common descent. plus nobody even talked about the origin part of what i posted. i thought that was some good information. wether you believe in ToE or not.

 

for the record i beleive in evolution to a certian point. the whole discusion on the the last page of the thread i started states what i believe. which is very close to what you believe. i think you just take it a step further.

 

 

good point there MWC.

 

i knew i wasn't crazy, its the Law of Conservation of Mass that states matter can not be created nor destroyed. this applies to the principle of general relativity in a closed system. its debateable wether our universe is a closed system, but based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, i am lead to believe that it is a closed system. (ex. stars run out of compressed hydrogen and burn out or colapse.) but there is a monkey wrentch in there, there is the principle of special relativity. which from what i read, matter can be lost. if somebody can read and understand it better. i would love a easy to understand definition. remember, us down here in mississippi are held to a lower standard. down here things are printed on a 6th grade level. hell were is that cartoon book with adam and the dinasours. i could probably understand it better.

I'm going to help you out with a simple little formula: E=mc^2

 

What this little guy does is tell you that energy and matter are the same thing. They can be converted back and forth. So, while matter isn't technically "created" it can come into being when energy get converted into it (for example this could be from stars exploding and "creating" various elements that just don't occur under "normal" conditions). Of course, the primary use of the formula was the atom bomb where we converted matter back into energy. We know that works very well.

 

Also, be very careful when you invoke the word "law of" as you do. They aren't laws of anything. Like the rest of science they are "theories of" just like the "theory of evolution." So far they have held up very well but they are only "laws" in that the people who named them called them laws.

 

If we are to believe in some versions of string theory (I think) then gravity "leaks" to us from another dimension (as do some other "features" of our universe and people have the mathematical models to show this). Does this make us open or closed? The 2nd law doesn't cover this nor was it ever meant to do so. Invoking it because it covers open/closed systems is dishonest.

 

Of course if energy can "leak" in then maybe it can also get out? Maybe black holes lead to white holes? But then what of Hawking Radiation where black holes eventually "evaporate?" There are lots of questions and we're stuck a long, long way from anything interesting so we have to guess and model and (now) computer simulate answers. Creating a little universe and possibly that micro black hole will go a long way to answering some of these questions.

 

mwc

 

thank you for the clarification, the creationist make a valid point with the whole thermodynamics 2nd law closed system. but i have never found it to be the solid evidence that proves God's existence, hence why i have not really brought it up. to my knowledge the basics of the principle is that all matter in a closed system will deteriorate (sp) (rundown) if energy is not put back into it.

 

i think the big bang lends credit to it. but its all in how you look at it. has anyone ever brought up the point of the Anthropic Principle? if not i will lay it out there for you, but it is purely speculative based on oppinion of the interpritation of the facts. but the more you know, the better you can make a discission whether you choose to believe in a higher power or not.

 

 

antlerman: sorry if my posts the other day were a little harsh and matter of fact. i had a bad night at work and was tired. most of the time i have a joking attitude.

[Ouroboros]

i think i will come up with my own version of evolution, call it supercalifrasiovolution. lol. now i just need to become a doctorate and publish my own thesis

Only if you can put a catchy tune to it. (and a cute girl singing it)

[Ouroboros]

thank you for the clarification, the creationist make a valid point with the whole thermodynamics 2nd law closed system. but i have never found it to be the solid evidence that proves God's existence, hence why i have not really brought it up. to my knowledge the basics of the principle is that all matter in a closed system will deteriorate (sp) (rundown) if energy is not put back into it.

Usually how Creationists use it is that they use it in the wrong context. They use 2nd Law of TD to say that Evolution could not have happened. But that's a very false claim, since we have a lot of input energy to Earth. The core heat, inertia (Earth is spinning), gravitational forces (the Moon), catastrophies (meteors), back ground radiation from space and the heat and radiation from the sun, and not forget the magnetic polarity of our home planet. All this adds to the energy all the time, so Evolution did not happen in a closed system, unless you look at it for a time period of some trillions years or whatever, when the sun burns out, the moon is long gone and the planet has cooled down and stopped spinning. Then from time zero until that time, the planet is back to a void, desolate and dead planet. But during time between, 2nd Law is invalid as an argument.

 

When it comes to the 2nd Law applied to the Universe, I think there's way too much unanswered questions to really know how and what. We don't know if dark matter exists or not, or dark energy, or to explain what is the carriers of gravity, so we can't just say it must be one way or the other yet. They have lot of ideas based on current knowledge, but each time new evidence is presented the ideas have to be adjusted.

 

i think the big bang lends credit to it. but its all in how you look at it. has anyone ever brought up the point of the Anthropic Principle? if not i will lay it out there for you, but it is purely speculative based on oppinion of the interpritation of the facts. but the more you know, the better you can make a discission whether you choose to believe in a higher power or not.

I'm not sure about the Antropic Principle. I guess I have little reading to do.

[freeday]

thank you for the clarification, the creationist make a valid point with the whole thermodynamics 2nd law closed system. but i have never found it to be the solid evidence that proves God's existence, hence why i have not really brought it up. to my knowledge the basics of the principle is that all matter in a closed system will deteriorate (sp) (rundown) if energy is not put back into it.

Usually how Creationists use it is that they use it in the wrong context. They use 2nd Law of TD to say that Evolution could not have happened. But that's a very false claim, since we have a lot of input energy to Earth. The core heat, inertia (Earth is spinning), gravitational forces (the Moon), catastrophies (meteors), back ground radiation from space and the heat and radiation from the sun, and not forget the magnetic polarity of our home planet. All this adds to the energy all the time, so Evolution did not happen in a closed system, unless you look at it for a time period of some trillions years or whatever, when the sun burns out, the moon is long gone and the planet has cooled down and stopped spinning. Then from time zero until that time, the planet is back to a void, desolate and dead planet. But during time between, 2nd Law is invalid as an argument.

 

When it comes to the 2nd Law applied to the Universe, I think there's way too much unanswered questions to really know how and what. We don't know if dark matter exists or not, or dark energy, or to explain what is the carriers of gravity, so we can't just say it must be one way or the other yet. They have lot of ideas based on current knowledge, but each time new evidence is presented the ideas have to be adjusted.

 

i think the big bang lends credit to it. but its all in how you look at it. has anyone ever brought up the point of the Anthropic Principle? if not i will lay it out there for you, but it is purely speculative based on oppinion of the interpritation of the facts. but the more you know, the better you can make a discission whether you choose to believe in a higher power or not.

I'm not sure about the Antropic Principle. I guess I have little reading to do.

 

good post, the antropic principle just a list (128) of known stuff, that has a very limited range of variation or else life would not exist on earth. or it would be very limited stuff.

 

it is interesting to read and learn how delicate the balance is. an apologetic will tell you it works to perfectly, to have happened by chance. evolutionist will say, if it didn't work perfect, we wouldn't be here.

[Dhampir]

The delicate balance of nature actually ponts not a bit toward any all-powerful god. "Look at nature. God designed the world and everything in it to be *Juuuusst right* for our survival!" If god were all-powerful, don't you think he could have made us to be able to survive anywere, y'know like, the gaseous interior of Jupiter, or the surface of the sun?

[freeday]

i think i will come up with my own version of evolution, call it supercalifrasiovolution. lol. now i just need to become a doctorate and publish my own thesis

Only if you can put a catchy tune to it. (and a cute girl singing it)

 

i was thinking about letting antlerman hook me up with a tune.

[Dhampir]

now i just need to become a doctorate and publish my own thesis

How can you do anything if you become a doctorate?

[Antlerman]

i was talking about ToE concerning the creation of life, or creation science. which, to my knowlegde, you guys don't really concern yourself with. that was what i got from asimov when he said things came from a common descent. plus nobody even talked about the origin part of what i posted. i thought that was some good information. wether you believe in ToE or not.

 

for the record i beleive in evolution to a certian point. the whole discusion on the the last page of the thread i started states what i believe. which is very close to what you believe. i think you just take it a step further.

I see the confusion on my part. The ToE does not address what came before evolution. So when you say the ToE will never be proved valid (in essence) I took that to mean the finding we have already all evaluated in science that is call the ToE, the stuff that the creationists say can't be.

 

If you're talking a theistic evolution, one that applies a faith to what's behind the science, I have no issue with that. It isn't denying science; it is simply layering faith over valid theory. No problem. Mythology is inspiring, and I won't argue its place in the human experience of life. Glad you're not burying your head in the sand in embracing your faith. I sincerely mean that.

antlerman: sorry if my posts the other day were a little harsh and matter of fact. i had a bad night at work and was tired. most of the time i have a joking attitude.

No problem, I have irritable days too.

[Ouroboros]

Freeday, you have to understand that abiogenesis (origin of life) is a less developed area than Evolution (origin of species). They are separate faculties in similar science, but Abiogenesis is more chemistry than biology. And it's quite "young" as a science too.

 

And you can also see that in history of science, you have ideas and problems without solutions, until one day one or a few suddenly have some epiphanies and come up with some hypothesis that can be tested. Darwin built his ideas were the top of a longer discussion and science before him. Many scientists before Darwin were on similar tracks, and Wallace came up with the same conclusion as Darwin about the same time. And Darwin's biggest contribution was the natural selection more than anything else.

 

I think that Abiogenesis have yet to see the scientist that have the major breakthrough with a new insight to how it could have happened. Maybe it's 20 years away, or 50 or 100, or maybe next year. But this area is just a baby compared to theory of evolution. So it's hard to say anything, or point any direction right now. There are though some tests that prove parts of it, but nothing conclusive.

 

Where it all comes down to is that the ToE is pretty solid, so it's quite clear that the Creation story isn't literal. But how it started with the first cell, or first RNA or first virus, well that's an open question. Maybe our planet is just a laboratory by an extraterrestrial society? Who knows. Still science have to use speculations parsimoniously and won't dive into superstitious or supernatural explanations.

[freeday]

cool beans, i am glad we have come to an understanding finally. i have always thought abiogenisis was the same thing as evolution. i now know better.

[mwc]

thank you for the clarification, the creationist make a valid point with the whole thermodynamics 2nd law closed system. but i have never found it to be the solid evidence that proves God's existence, hence why i have not really brought it up. to my knowledge the basics of the principle is that all matter in a closed system will deteriorate (sp) (rundown) if energy is not put back into it.

Back when my wife would still discuss this type of stuff with me I learned quite fast that creationists abused the 2nd law very badly. It neither proves nor disproves god of course but it does show, to me, what lengths some people will go to in order to misuse science to their advantage. I find this in very poor taste.

 

Your end result is essentially correct in the simplest terms. One possible end for the universe (provided no energy is input) is it will expand until it grows into cold, empty space (there will be free floating hydrogen, and some misc., atoms but they'll be too far apart to form together so the universe will be basically "empty" space).

 

i think the big bang lends credit to it. but its all in how you look at it. has anyone ever brought up the point of the Anthropic Principle? if not i will lay it out there for you, but it is purely speculative based on oppinion of the interpritation of the facts. but the more you know, the better you can make a discission whether you choose to believe in a higher power or not.

Obviously you are not saying whether or not you are using something like the Anthropic Principle to bolster your choice in god or not. I really do not care. However, let me put it to you this way before you consider any of the fine tuning theories. If the universe was any other way and we existed within them we would be making the same exact arguments. The universe would exist. It would be "tuned" to support our particular flavor of life (whatever form it happened to take). The proof being we existed. See how that works? So, for example, if the universe was made out of pudding and we existed, we would argue that the universe had to be made out of pudding in order for life to exist. If we didn't exist to make the argument then it all becomes moot. Since we exist to make the argument then the conditions we exist within are just the right ones we need. It's all fairly circular. I might argue that an asteroid or a decent gamma ray burst would end this all in a heartbeat (as opposed to the slower methods of climate change which, ignoring human contributions, a few volcanic events of a decent size would wreak global havoc inside of 10 years). My point again is that the principles are only accurate because we exist to talk about them. If things change and someone exists in that new environment they will make the same exact argument. And so on.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

cool beans, i am glad we have come to an understanding finally. i have always thought abiogenisis was the same thing as evolution. i now know better.

I can understand the confusion. If you really look at science, the labels we use overlaps a lot too. Like Chemistry and Biology, or Chemistry and Physics or Quantum Mechanics, Astronomy and Cosmology and ... well you get the point. 100 years ago the idea of "origin of life" was more of spontaneous generation, which has been disproven. The funny thing is that the Bible and Creationism is "Divine Generation", which to our eyes would look exactly like spontaneous generation, but is not accepted by science anymore. Another side to this whole thing, is that in each domain of science, there will be outbreak groups. For instance the whole "origin of life" was and is studied by evolution, chemistry and biology scientists, and eventually when someone can establish it's own observations, hypothesis, tests, conclusions and theory, then Abiogenesis will become a more established concept.

 

---edit---

 

And to add to the discussion about the "fine tuned universe". I look at it this way. Say that the "design" or setup of the Universe could be described as a number. Pick a random number, but only certain numbers would result in a stable universe where life could evolve. Let's say any number that is a product of 4 primary numbers. Let's pick one: 10, product of 2 and 5, so no, that's not a life stable universe. Pick another one 16, product of 2x2x2x2, so yes, there we have one, or this one 6545 = 5x7x11x17, also a life stable universe. So in the universe 16 and 6545 we'll have life. And in one of them (6545) life develops into higher thinking species that can contemplate life. These individuals will of course start to think about the meaning of life and origin of life. And furthermore, they will develop the notion that their universe 6545 is a perfectly designed universe. What they don't know is that they could have had a universe 270351 and had the same notion.

[Lightbearer]

Whoa... AiG is a hot plate. Haha.