|
The Leverguns.com Community Forum |
Actually what makes it so emotional is that religion is at the CORE of mostKismet wrote:That is perhaps part of what makes the debate so emotional.
Michael,Kismet wrote:Kirk - I certainly appreciate your discussion in this matter. With you and some of your compatriots on this board (they know who they are), this has been an interesting discussion.
I don't think the religious "masses" (those numerous consumers who don't think deeply about the subject) realize what you state above. Even if they "defeat" the theory of evolution in science, such a result will not achieve their ultimate goal. That is perhaps part of what makes the debate so emotional. If, for example, the local school boards didn't get involved and let scientists resolve the matter (I'm not suggesting that it would be painless), I don't think the issue would become so divisive. (Obviously I stand firm in my belief that if ID has merit then it can prevail in the scientific marketplace of ideas without help from the pulpit.)
Michael in NH
Michael, the theory of Intelligent Design is what spurred the earliest of the scientists to seek knowledge about the world and universe around them. I find it amusing that today folks want to discredit the idea of intelligent design as something from the lunatic fringe. Those of us who believe that there is a Creator do so because of the fingerprint of intelligence shown in every aspect of the world around us. Something as simple as the clotting of your blood after a paper cut or a pin arrogant idiot is so complex that to expect the dozens (hundreds?) of interdependent reactions and functions to arise piece by piece from the primordial soup is a lot larger leap of faith than to believe that someone actually designed that minute part of our being to function that way.Kismet wrote:To those of you that do believe in Intelligent Design as a scientific theory I have a question. Assume that in the years to come that Intelligent Design becomes the operative theory of how the world came to be as it is ... do believe that such a theory would prove YOUR religious beliefs?
I tend to agree. Many people I interact with seem to think that it is religion that is shoving ID ahead and that it is science that is holding it back. I see the very opposite: it is 21st century science that is fueling ID, and it is the theological implications that are holding it back in the minds of many who do not want to concede the existence of God. I have given many lectures on ID in Canada, the UK and the USA (by the way Michael, I spoke on this subject at the University of New Hampshire just about a year ago .... could have gotten together with you for coffee if I'd have known you were around!) and I have witnessed, time after time, students and professors who say, after seeing videos of molecular machines, and the functional complexity of the information encoded in proteins, 'Okay ........ but you're going to say God did it." It is being rejected, not for scientific reasons, but for philosophical or theological reasons. It is the theological and philosophical implications that make it so difficult for many scientists, suddenly finding their core beliefs shaken, to accept what 21st century science is telling them. Nevertheless, there are beginning to appear papers in the scientific peer reviewed journals, that are slowly correcting our thinking, in spite of philosophical objections. Judging from the sheer number of biology professors I know who privately have accepted that life required ID, but who publicly have yet to make it known, I'd say that in our generation, we will see a swing back to the understanding that life did require a highly intelligent Designer.Kismet wrote:(Obviously I stand firm in my belief that if ID has merit then it can prevail in the scientific marketplace of ideas without help from the pulpit.)
Michael in NH
All I know about him is what CARM has on their site:Rebel1972 wrote:Paul ,Have you ever heard of Arnold Murray?To me ,He seems to make more sense than a lot of other preachers we have on TV
alnitak, I happen to agree with a lot of what you said, but the above statement holds one of the problems with Macro-evolution and the scientific method. With most of micro-evolution we can use the scientific method and actually get real data to work with. Real science is observable and repeatable, micro-evolution is something that we have tested and observed in a large number of organisms, and we have come up with informed ideas of the workings of the process.-- Much of micro-evolution, and some of macro-evolution (e.g. punctuated equilbrium) has been demonstrated or supported by the fossil record.
How do we know that our Creator did not create evolution but our esteemed scientists just haven't figured that out yet?TCB in TN wrote:alnitak, I happen to agree with a lot of what you said, but the above statement holds one of the problems with Macro-evolution and the scientific method. With most of micro-evolution we can use the scientific method and actually get real data to work with. Real science is observable and repeatable, micro-evolution is something that we have tested and observed in a large number of organisms, and we have come up with informed ideas of the workings of the process.-- Much of micro-evolution, and some of macro-evolution (e.g. punctuated equilbrium) has been demonstrated or supported by the fossil record.
Up until now, we have NOT been able to observe any macro evolution. Even in fruit flies, and different bacteria strains, we have not been able to see any of these transformations that are really at the root of the argument. That problem then puts all information found in the fossil record in the realm of interpretation. So while some evidence found in the fossil record could support a certain pov (any POV), it is still not PROOF. What some of us who happen to be Christians have such a conern about is that theory, hypothesis, and conjecture are passed off in Education, and media as fact.
How do we know that our Creator did not create evolution but our esteemed scientists just haven't figured that out yet?
Which brings us to the real issue of insulting and belittling someone's belief, which is the real intention behind Mr. Kismet's posts, regardless of how inadequately he attempts to disguise that fact.
TCB in TN -- To a certain extent, what you say is true of macro-evolution...we can't really prove it or test it given the time and conditions that need to exist. However, the fossil record is more complete than people acknowledge. Years ago the argument was that we saw none of the intermediary species, yet since that time, many of those "missing links" have been found and the fossil record is much more complete. We also have seen the predicted patterns emerge more than once -- confirmation of prediction being one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. Some of that may be open to interpretation, but more collaboration is being found all the time. The difficulty is that, so far, ID can't be proven -- although a number of questions are raised by the observations. And certainly, questions of faith have to be taken on ... faith. As Godel's Incompletness Theorem asserts (paraphrasing with great liberty) -- we can never know with certainty that which happens outside while observing from within....we have not been able to see any of these transformations that are really at the root of the argument. That problem then puts all information found in the fossil record in the realm of interpretation.
Very much along my line of thought. My thing is how long is one of God's days for a being that is eternal why would he chose to run him self on our concept of time?Old Savage wrote:Well, here it is - I think God created it over a long period of time - but not seven of our days.
yet since that time, many of those "missing links" have been found and the fossil record is much more complete.
I think part of the problem is that most evolutionary biologists are still looking at morphology (a 19th century approach that looks at body shape, body plans, skeletal structure, etc.) to infer common descent, with the occasional look at phylogeny. Even with that, the fossil record pretty much falsifies Darwin's theory of common descent. However, we now know that the structure of a plant or animal is largely determined by the information encoded in its genome. When we look at the quantum leaps in genetic information between, say, a fish and an amphibian, or between a chimp and a human, the gaps in genetic information are staggeringly enormous, making gaps in the fossil record look like small potatoes by comparison.TCB in TN wrote:yet since that time, many of those "missing links" have been found and the fossil record is much more complete.
Wow, I have read a lot about evolution and genetics through the years, and have yet to hear a better explanation, or even one as good for that matter! I am very impressed, and I can answer your question as to what you are doing! Sir you are helping to inform and give some of us poor souls a better understanding of a very complex subject. Thanks for the time!KirkD wrote:I think part of the problem is that most evolutionary biologists are still looking at morphology (a 19th century approach that looks at body shape, body plans, skeletal structure, etc.) to infer common descent, with the occasional look at phylogeny. Even with that, the fossil record pretty much falsifies Darwin's theory of common descent. However, we now know that the structure of a plant or animal is largely determined by the information encoded in its genome. When we look at the quantum leaps in genetic information between, say, a fish and an amphibian, or between a chimp and a human, the gaps in genetic information are staggeringly enormous, making gaps in the fossil record look like small potatoes by comparison.
To illustrate using MicroSoft Word and Apple's 'Pages', they are both word processing software that may have many similarities in appearance and end result. An evolutionary biologist who looks at morphology could conclude that the many similarities are a result of common descent (i.e., both evolved from a common older piece of software, without any help from intelligent humans, through a process of random changes to the code and when something worked, it's fitness preserved the changes). However, when we look at the actual coding differences between MS Word and Pages, that theory goes out the window.
Similarly, the chimp and human have a lot of structural similarities, and evolutionary biologists have inferred, therefore, that we have a common ancestor. However, with the sequencing of both genomes, we have found that there are approximately 3,000 genes difference between the two (not to mention massive non-protein coding differences). There isn't enough time in the universe to evolve one novel gene of average length, forget about dozens, hundreds, or thousands. Recent work has shown that the probability of finding just one average length protein-coding gene in sequence space is approximately one chance in 10 with 210 zeros after it. The upper limit for what the universe is capable of performing in a search over 10 billion years might, at best, locate a sequence that had a probability of 1 in 10 with only 119 zeros after it. In other words, the search capacity of the universe falls almost 100 orders of magnitude short of what is required to find any sequence at all that codes for just one average protein. The upper limit for the total number of trials on earth over a 4 billion year span is, at best, around 10 with 41 zeros after it.
Bottom Line: Writing any kind of computer software at all that is of any significant length, using a process of mutation/insertion/deletion is not going to work anywhere in the universe; the number of trial available is simply far too miniscule in comparison with what we see encoded in MS Word, which is far less impressive than what we are seeing encoded in the genomes of life.
Perhaps the best way to come face to face with the difficulties is to start writing genetic algorithms. They will not get off the ground without a fitness function and the fitness function must always encode sufficient information to properly identify the desired outcome. It turns out that to do this, the fitness function must always encode more information than the desired outcome. So before you can evolve the information required for life, you must first produce a fitness function in nature that actually contains more information than what you have to evolve. Unfortunately, most evolutionary biologists have no experience writing evolutionary algorithm software. Within that absence of knowledge, speculation can flourish unchallenged. That is slowly changing, however, with a few landmark papers on functional information and functional complexity having been published over the past year.
By gum! What am I doing! I come here to discuss shooting old leverguns!
Some unintelligent back-woods Creator believer obviously chiseled those footprints next to those dinosaur prints... I bet there are ‘tool marks’ in those human-like footprints.piller wrote:About an hour and a half South of my home there are human footprints in the same rock and within inches of dinosaur footprints. The area is on the Paluxy river near Glen Rose, Texas. Please explain to me how this occur using the faux science of the evolutionary principle as espoused by Kismet. As a stong proponent of the science upon which physics and chemistry is based, the side by side prints would require the prints to have been made within hours of each other. Evolutionists throw out this evidence. Discarding evidence which would mean you would have to change your theory is scientifically unethical. Being unethical in what evidence is thrown out makes all the evidence used to support your theory suspect. This is only one of many pieces of evidence which were thrown out because the scientists (if one can call them that) were more interested in proving a theory than in a search for truth and answers.
The full piece can be found here ...Precisely because the majority in science has been wrong on note-worthy occasions, progress often does depend on courageous dissenters. The principle is clear: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." So wrote Charles Darwin.
LAUGHED MY A-- OFF AT THIS ONE!!!!!!!Quick Karl wrote:So what you're saying is that a 45-70 leaving my barrel has almost no chance in hell of morphing into a 50-110 by the time it hits the target, right?
Fricken Darwin, I swear...
