NationStates Jolt Archive


Can faith and science coexist?

Super-power
06-03-2005, 22:26
Although I am agnostic myself, I have started to play with the idea that science and faith (NOT religion necessarily, but faith) don't always have to clash w/each other. What is your opinion on this?
Niini
06-03-2005, 22:29
Yes, even more if you exclude religion.
I don't believe in higher power, but faith doesn't stop understading science
and other way around.
Eutrusca
06-03-2005, 22:33
Although I am agnostic myself, I have started to play with the idea that science and faith (NOT religion necessarily, but faith) don't always have to clash w/each other. What is your opinion on this?
There is no essential conflict between faith and science. As a matter of fact, science has begun to discover, among other things, that prayer/meditation can speed the healing process in humans and animals, and cause seeds to germinate at a more rapid pace.
Oksana
06-03-2005, 22:36
I said yes. Of course, they can coexist. Religion and science coexisting is more of a debate. That also I'd say yes to. I believe that religion can incorporate the belief of evolutionism and creationism.
New Sancrosanctia
06-03-2005, 22:37
No. and no, i'm not going to offer support for that.
Scouserlande
06-03-2005, 22:38
No becuase the two things faith in relgion and faith in science are polarly oposed, becuase none of the majory relgions accounts of the creation of the world for example fits with highly accsepted scientific models and tests, To have real faith in relgion you need to belive what it says completely this therefore puts it in contrast with science, really without some extreme liberal intrepretation of genesis can it be applied to scienctific ideas.
Niini
06-03-2005, 22:39
There is no essential conflict between faith and science. As a matter of fact, science has begun to discover, among other things, that prayer/meditation can speed the healing process in humans and animals, and cause seeds to germinate at a more rapid pace.

The healing stuff I believe but... Seeds germinate at amore rapid pace
never heard about it???

But meditation is strong power. It's like when doctors tell to hope for the best.
They have found that hope is poweful healer! :)
Scouserlande
06-03-2005, 22:40
There is no essential conflict between faith and science. As a matter of fact, science has begun to discover, among other things, that prayer/meditation can speed the healing process in humans and animals, and cause seeds to germinate at a more rapid pace.

Source? Id like to see wide spread accseptance by the scientific community on that, and even then it will most probally be a phycological phenomnon at best.
Manawskistan
06-03-2005, 22:42
YES.

On one condition.

One doesn't have all of the answers.

Completely trusting faith is kind of silly as we all know.

Completely trusting science is bad too. There was once a day when science determined that Newtonian Physics was the be-all end-all to Mechanical motion. Theories are just that... Theories. Some things will be nigh impossible to explain for centuries to come. I believe Albert Einstein himself said "No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but one experiment can prove me wrong"
Oksana
06-03-2005, 22:42
Originally posted by Scouserlande
No becuase the two things faith in relgion and faith in science are polarly oposed, becuase none of the majory relgions accounts of the creation of the world for example fits with highly accsepted scientific models and tests, To have real faith in relgion you need to belive what it says completely this therefore puts it in contrast with science, really without some extreme liberal intrepretation of genesis can it be applied to scienctific ideas.

I disagree. The bible is all about interpretation. In genesis, it says the god created earth. You can still believe in both evolutionism and creationism with that. "God" is a higher power. He is not human. Therefore, it is absolutely possible for "god" to represnet the force that created everything, not a man.
Eutrusca
06-03-2005, 22:42
The healing stuff I believe but... Seeds germinate at amore rapid pace
never heard about it???

But meditation is strong power. It's like when doctors tell to hope for the best.
They have found that hope is poweful healer! :)
http://home.xnet.com/~spindrif/index.htm
31
06-03-2005, 22:44
They do not have to clash at all. Since science has neither proven or disproven the existence of a basis for faith then science junkies don't have to yell there is nothing but us and death and religious junkies don't have to yell scientists are evil people out to destroy religion.
Smiles and strange meetings can travel around the world. One eight of the threads on this board can vanish with a poof!
Pantylvania
06-03-2005, 22:46
You don't have to believe a scientific theory in order to use it to make predictions.

Suppose you don't believe that certain elements produce high energy electrons while decaying into other elements. Suppose you also don't believe that Cherenkov light is produced by charged particles that move quickly through matter. You can still use those theories to predict how much a radioactive substance will glow under water, even if you believe the Cherenkov light is caused by God.
Pyromanstahn
06-03-2005, 22:47
They can't co-exist, because science is all about discovering the truth no matter what it may be, and faith is all about belief, whatever the truth may be.
Oksana
06-03-2005, 22:48
Originally posted by Scouserlande
Source? Id like to see wide spread accseptance by the scientific community on that, and even then it will most probally be a phycological phenomnon at best.

At the same time, you cannot heal unless your brain and your body both complete the necessary processes. If something is wrong with a person's brain or psyche they may not be able to heal well due to this. In other words, the stress caused by medical problems can cause stress which hinders your ability to heal. If someone offers you prayers, you may have hope. It will decrease you stress and allow your body to possibly heal.
Manawskistan
06-03-2005, 22:49
They can't co-exist, because science is all about discovering the truth no matter what it may be, and religion is all about believing in your religion, whatever the truth may be.
:headbang:

Don't use that T word! Did you read the whole thread or not :(
Niini
06-03-2005, 22:50
http://home.xnet.com/~spindrif/index.htm

I don't mean you are wrong, but I don't believe that web page...
It LOOKS like something punch of religious loonies have put together.
Naturality
06-03-2005, 22:53
Yes. At least they do for me.
Pyromanstahn
06-03-2005, 22:53
:headbang:

Don't use that T word! Did you read the whole thread or not :(

Sorry, I just saw that you said faith not religion, but even so faith and science cannot co-exist, at least not very well. I'll correct my post.
What's your problem with truth?
Oksana
06-03-2005, 22:57
You have to take in account that the bible was written by man. It began with genesis and the creation of the earth. Then, it goes on to talk about Adam and Eve. "Adam and Eve" apparently lived in the Fertile Crescent also known at that time as Mesopotamia. However, Mesopotamia was not the first civilization. In fact, Mesopotamia was populated by inhabitants from prior civilizations. This setting alone does not yield any sense. I believe that we were evolved from primates. I also do believe that there is a god, however, I do not believe him to be as a "man" but a higher power just like the Greeks worshipped deities whom they believed provided them with essential elements.The bible does not begin at the time of the Paleolithic era. It is impossible because they did not have a language. Yet they lived before the time of Adam and Eve and there are bones to prove that.
The Parthians
06-03-2005, 23:00
Some faiths allow for coexistence, some do not.
Pyromanstahn
06-03-2005, 23:01
YES.

On one condition.

One doesn't have all of the answers.

Completely trusting faith is kind of silly as we all know.

Completely trusting science is bad too. There was once a day when science determined that Newtonian Physics was the be-all end-all to Mechanical motion. Theories are just that... Theories. Some things will be nigh impossible to explain for centuries to come. I believe Albert Einstein himself said "No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but one experiment can prove me wrong"

The whole poont of faith is that you do trust it completly. That's what belief is, and faith is all about belief. If you have faith in something, you trust it, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Science works on precisely the opposite principle. I'm afraid to say this as I know it may annoy people, but while science doesn't have all the answers, faith has no answers.
Unruly Icarenots
06-03-2005, 23:07
I am a Christian so of course I have faith. I also have not come across one thing in science that has been proven to be 100% true that has conflicted with my faith. Scientific theories, on the other hand, I have disagreed with because they contradict my faith (notice the word theories is in bold). Faith and science can (for me) coexist. Now, if you have a person whose faith is that there is no air or water then I would say for that person their faith and science cannot coexist. ;)
Caribbean Buccaneers
06-03-2005, 23:07
As I know people who follow religions and agree with most of science, I know for a fact that the two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, when reading a lot of threads right here you begin to see that a lot of theories are just that, theories with little or no material evidence, and require faith themselves.
Extradites
06-03-2005, 23:08
Science is based on evidence, faith is faith because there is no evidence. Therefore science involving faith isn't science at all. I think involving religious arguements in sciense is very dangerous for the field, because in sciense everything can be questioned and overturned, allowing for free development of technology. In faith things aren't questioned so it would lead to a stagnation of progress. The reason we have made such leaps and bounds in discovery over the past one hundred years is because of the secularisation of society and science.
Pyromanstahn
06-03-2005, 23:14
I am a Christian so of course I have faith. I also have not come across one thing in science that has been proven to be 100% true that has conflicted with my faith. Scientific theories, on the other hand, I have disagreed with because they contradict my faith (notice the word theories is in bold). Faith and science can (for me) coexist. Now, if you have a person whose faith is that there is no air or water then I would say for that person their faith and science cannot coexist. ;)

If you want 100% proof before a faith becomes a conflict, then even the faith that there is no air or water cannot conflict, because the whole pooint about science is that a 100% proof does not exist, even for something that you are so sure about, as nothing can be proved to exist. The point is, that most people will accept reasonable proof of say, above 99.9%, and eventually, that sort of statistic will be able to be applied to all religions, so what do you do when your faith has a 99.9% chance of being wrong? Will you change your mind and disgard it as no more likely than that air and water do not exist?
Vegas-Rex
06-03-2005, 23:14
Some faiths allow for coexistence, some do not.

Exactly.
So long as your faith is in a different field than your science it works beautifully. If you believe that God created man you can look at evolution as the method he used and it all works out. Religious adaptability is a wonderful thing. The only reason that religion and science seem opposed is that some people have tried to turn science into a religion, which it isn't. Science is for all those details religion doesn't touch. For some these details are more widespread than others. For me they're basically everything, since I'm an atheist, but to others they're still pretty widespread.
Pyromanstahn
06-03-2005, 23:15
As I know people who follow religions and agree with most of science, I know for a fact that the two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, when reading a lot of threads right here you begin to see that a lot of theories are just that, theories with little or no material evidence, and require faith themselves.

All theories are theories. There is no such thing as absolute proof.
Vegas-Rex
06-03-2005, 23:17
I am a Christian so of course I have faith. I also have not come across one thing in science that has been proven to be 100% true that has conflicted with my faith. Scientific theories, on the other hand, I have disagreed with because they contradict my faith (notice the word theories is in bold). Faith and science can (for me) coexist. Now, if you have a person whose faith is that there is no air or water then I would say for that person their faith and science cannot coexist. ;)

All science is theories. You can only prove things in math.
Mondays Socks
06-03-2005, 23:18
I used to think they could until talking to my christian friend about god ending the human race. She said of course he wouldn't unless you count judgement. When i said what about the possibility of the earth ending up in a black hole, she told me it was 'just a theory thought up by a bunch of geeks'. But I could say the same thing about her idea of the apocolypse.

Isn't the main problem between science and religion the idea of how the world was created? I could just be thinking about christianity though, rather than all religions.
Pyromanstahn
06-03-2005, 23:18
All science is theories. You can only prove things in math.

Good of you to reitarate exactly what I just said.
England and Brittany
06-03-2005, 23:18
yes of course they can - I'm a maths/physics student in england, and also a reasonably active and committed evangelical christian. The point here is that they answer two different types of question - there's not a single scientific answer to questions of "why", and few religious answers to questions of "how". If anything science without either faith or religion is lacking a lot, and religion without science is missing half too. They compliment each other naturally in my view.

Personally I don't believe in evolution, because I think that the science is a bit weak and the evidence is non-existent, plus evolution can only occur once life exists, it doesn't even begin to explain how life started. However, I also do not believe creation as set out in the first chapter of Genesis, because the time-scale's all wrong, I'm left with neither science nor religion answering that one for me - still open to suggestions though!
Dakini
06-03-2005, 23:18
There is no essential conflict between faith and science. As a matter of fact, science has begun to discover, among other things, that prayer/meditation can speed the healing process in humans and animals, and cause seeds to germinate at a more rapid pace.
Mind over matter.

Buddhist monks are found to have the happy areas of their brains nearly constantly light up. Is that because there's something magical about meditation practises? Or is it simply because they have focused and practised and spent time gaining a peaceful, loving outlook on life?
Pyromanstahn
06-03-2005, 23:21
yes of course they can - I'm a maths/physics student in england, and also a reasonably active and committed evangelical christian. The point here is that they answer two different types of question - there's not a single scientific answer to questions of "why", and few religious answers to questions of "how". If anything science without either faith or religion is lacking a lot, and religion without science is missing half too. They compliment each other naturally in my view.

Personally I don't believe in evolution, because I think that the science is a bit weak and the evidence is non-existent, plus evolution can only occur once life exists, it doesn't even begin to explain how life started. However, I also do not believe creation as set out in the first chapter of Genesis, because the time-scale's all wrong, I'm left with neither science nor religion answering that one for me - still open to suggestions though!

The evidence for evolution is non-existant? What about all the various species of humans that link up a chain between apes and homo sapiens?
The Lordship of Sauron
06-03-2005, 23:21
Need to define "faith".

The widely accepted definition is "believing in something un-seen";

In that case, science IS faith, because we have to assume (ie: have faith) that "x" respondes in "y" manner, given "z" influences - gravity, for example, is completely non-measurable, DIRECTLY - and you have to have faith that, for example, gravity won't suddenly reverse on you in the morning.


"Religion" is another matter, and would warrent a whole other discussion.
Vegas-Rex
06-03-2005, 23:21
Good of you to reitarate exactly what I just said.

Sorry. Didn't notice your post.
Lancamore
06-03-2005, 23:22
Of course they can coexist. The Vatican says it finds no conflict between Catholic beliefs and the theory of evolution. And Catholicism is one of the more conservative forms of Christianity.
Pyromanstahn
06-03-2005, 23:22
Sorry. Didn't notice your post.

No worries. Makes the argument more powerful when two people say it one after another anyway.
England and Brittany
06-03-2005, 23:24
In faith things aren't questioned so it would lead to a stagnation of progress. The reason we have made such leaps and bounds in discovery over the past one hundred years is because of the secularisation of society and science.

This is a ridiculous thing to say, the first sentence because for most of the last 2000 years theologians have been constantly questioning and rethinking religious dogma, on which faith is typically based, even if they often come out wrong, they're questioning!

The second is pure speculation - perhaps the progress has come from the growth in population and therefore number of scientists? or perhaps from the fact that now the majority of the population is educated in western nations, rather than a tiny minority? your assertion is a belief - and that takes faith :)
Petrakai Proskulio
06-03-2005, 23:25
Completely trusting science is bad too. There was once a day when science determined that Newtonian Physics was the be-all end-all to Mechanical motion. Theories are just that... Theories.

I'm glad someone made this point, because I think it's a commonly mistaken view of what constitutes a faith in science. Faith in science is not faith in the theories that science produces, although that's part of it. What believing in science really means is a commitment to the scientific method, a rigid system of empirical evidence and observation of nature - and most importantly, the ability for anyone to review one's findings by examining the same evidence. I'd argue for this reason that it's never bad to "completely trust science." Newton's theories served for a long time as a model for how nature worked, but the true scientist is always on the lookout for more incisive, and more thorough ways of understanding the universe. A trust in science is never misplaced, because it is forever self-correcting: as new theories come along, the scientist updates his old views.
Nimzonia
06-03-2005, 23:25
Although I am agnostic myself, I have started to play with the idea that science and faith (NOT religion necessarily, but faith) don't always have to clash w/each other. What is your opinion on this?

Only for a narrow definition of faith. i.e. faith in things that don't contradict science.
Willamena
06-03-2005, 23:26
Can faith and science coexist?
Although I am agnostic myself, I have started to play with the idea that science and faith (NOT religion necessarily, but faith) don't always have to clash w/each other. What is your opinion on this?
How could faith and science not coexist? They are both processes: faith is a function of the human heart*, science one of the human mind.

*the conceptual heart, not the body organ.
England and Brittany
06-03-2005, 23:26
The evidence for evolution is non-existant? What about all the various species of humans that link up a chain between apes and homo sapiens?

I've never heard of any I'm afraid, the few that haven't yet been shown to be mixed skeletons tend to be flawed in timing and location, but even so, with the most trusting and generous heart, they comprise one skeleton every few hundred thousand years - not enough for me, and before you say that fossils are rare, that's not true, there are places in england where you can barely turn over a rock without finding a trilobyte fossil.
Vegas-Rex
06-03-2005, 23:27
yes of course they can - I'm a maths/physics student in england, and also a reasonably active and committed evangelical christian. The point here is that they answer two different types of question - there's not a single scientific answer to questions of "why", and few religious answers to questions of "how". If anything science without either faith or religion is lacking a lot, and religion without science is missing half too. They compliment each other naturally in my view.

Personally I don't believe in evolution, because I think that the science is a bit weak and the evidence is non-existent, plus evolution can only occur once life exists, it doesn't even begin to explain how life started. However, I also do not believe creation as set out in the first chapter of Genesis, because the time-scale's all wrong, I'm left with neither science nor religion answering that one for me - still open to suggestions though!

While it is impossible to prove anything, evolution has happened in a laboratory situation before, as have many steps on the way to creation of life. At this point disbelieving is rather pointless. While I could see some God setting up all of the conditions, laws, etc. to produce reality, there still was evolution unless God really really wants to trick us.

Seriously, "disbelieving" in evolution is really not a valid option.
Lancamore
06-03-2005, 23:27
Personally I don't believe in evolution, because I think that the science is a bit weak and the evidence is non-existent, plus evolution can only occur once life exists, it doesn't even begin to explain how life started. However, I also do not believe creation as set out in the first chapter of Genesis, because the time-scale's all wrong, I'm left with neither science nor religion answering that one for me - still open to suggestions though!
I don't want to start a flame, but I will defend evolution here. Evolution does not explain the origins of life. It doesn't have to. It's not supposed to. The origin of life is not something that the theory was designed to explain. Evolution can occur regardless of how life began.

Just because we can explain how evolution occured (random mutations of DNA causing desirable changes over millions of years) doesn't rule out the work of a higher power. God doesn't have to change the world with smoke and thunder. He could manipulate the smallest random interactions and changes, and create the same world we know today. This portrait of a subtle, unseen god appeals to me.
The Lordship of Sauron
06-03-2005, 23:30
I just see too many "missing" steps in evolution - couple that with the sheer impossibility (odds-wise) of everything, and even the most forgiving earth-model seems (to me) to rule out the possibility of "evolution" being the path that life came into being along.
England and Brittany
06-03-2005, 23:31
While it is impossible to prove anything, evolution has happened in a laboratory situation before, as have many steps on the way to creation of life. At this point disbelieving is rather pointless. While I could see some God setting up all of the conditions, laws, etc. to produce reality, there still was evolution unless God really really wants to trick us.

Seriously, "disbelieving" in evolution is really not a valid option.

I'm afraid I disagree, it's true that evolution has been shown with bacteria and so on, becoming immune to various types of antibiotics and so on, but that's very different to the species variagation needed to explain current life. Also, it still doesn't explain the beginning of life.

I'm a converted christian, and spent most of my life as a die-hard scientific atheist, believing evolution probably for similar reasons, but when I finally looked into it it didn't satisfy me.... plus, it violates the laws of thermodynamics - as a physicist I'm more inclined to trust them, but even so, they have been proven time and again, and are the basis of a large portion of our current technology, evolution is at very best a reasonable theory.
Ploymonotheistic Coven
06-03-2005, 23:32
Science and religious faith cannot.The very tenets of religious faith demand a lack of peer review because it would show lack of respect/honor towards their respective god/s/desses.
Lancamore
06-03-2005, 23:33
I just see too many "missing" steps in evolution - couple that with the sheer impossibility (odds-wise) of everything, and even the most forgiving earth-model seems (to me) to rule out the possibility of "evolution" being the path that life came into being along.

The seeming implausibility of the odds of evolution drops away when you consider the length of time for which it has been operating.

The oldest human-like fossil is from 4 million years ago.

Life began 3.4 BILLION years ago. 3,400,000,000 years. That means 3,396,000,000 years of evolution between the first organism and the first homonids.
Oksana
06-03-2005, 23:33
So if god created earth and all of it's inhabitants. Then, why are there dinosaur bones? Would that mean he created them millions of years before humans? Or he created the with humans because humans could not coexist with dinosaurs? :rolleyes:
Vegas-Rex
06-03-2005, 23:34
I've never heard of any I'm afraid, the few that haven't yet been shown to be mixed skeletons tend to be flawed in timing and location, but even so, with the most trusting and generous heart, they comprise one skeleton every few hundred thousand years - not enough for me, and before you say that fossils are rare, that's not true, there are places in england where you can barely turn over a rock without finding a trilobyte fossil.

Look, there have been very detailed authentic fossils of most of the stages of humanity's evolution. Less than other things because humans don't preserve too well, but still more than enough.

Anyways, as I stated earlier, we've seen evolution happen in a lab, the fossils that exist of everything show gradual changes and DNA evidence points to a centralized origin for all life. Whether or not evolution is the whole picture it has to be most of it. Refusing to accept what is the closest we can get to proof of anything is ridiculous.
The White Hats
06-03-2005, 23:35
How could they not? Faith is a function of the human heart*, science one of the human mind.

*the conceptual heart, not the body organ.
Why should heart and mind clash? Or am I misreading your post?
Niini
06-03-2005, 23:35
The seeming implausibility of the odds of evolution drops away when you consider the length of time for which it has been operating.

The oldest human-like fossil is from 4 million years ago.

Life began 3.4 BILLION years ago. 3,400,000,000 years. That means 3,396,000,000 years of evolution between the first organism and the first homonids.



Right! Obviosly there going to be 'missing' pieces. That's a 3.4 billion years old puzzle
England and Brittany
06-03-2005, 23:35
I don't want to start a flame, but I will defend evolution here. Evolution does not explain the origins of life. It doesn't have to. It's not supposed to. The origin of life is not something that the theory was designed to explain. Evolution can occur regardless of how life began.

Just because we can explain how evolution occured (random mutations of DNA causing desirable changes over millions of years) doesn't rule out the work of a higher power. God doesn't have to change the world with smoke and thunder. He could manipulate the smallest random interactions and changes, and create the same world we know today. This portrait of a subtle, unseen god appeals to me.

Now this I agree with! Indeed it was my view too until a couple of months ago when I actually looked into evolution and changed my mind.... I believe that god started life, how he did it and what mechanism he used I'm avoiding speculating on until more evidence is turned up - however, looking at the bible you'll notice that god tends to use physical means to manifest his power - earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. . A cynical mind might claim that people have been reading too much into natural disasters... but either way, it would not surprise me if god used a physical process to create man from microbes too.
England and Brittany
06-03-2005, 23:41
Look, there have been very detailed authentic fossils of most of the stages of humanity's evolution. Less than other things because humans don't preserve too well, but still more than enough.

Anyways, as I stated earlier, we've seen evolution happen in a lab, the fossils that exist of everything show gradual changes and DNA evidence points to a centralized origin for all life. Whether or not evolution is the whole picture it has to be most of it. Refusing to accept what is the closest we can get to proof of anything is ridiculous.

Well, again, I haven't seen any of these fossils, I did look into it, but I'm not a biologist myself, and it's possible that I missed them. Evolution is NOT the closest we can get to a proof, if there were hundreds of similar fossils for every stage in the process then it would be the closest, as it is it remains extremely weak in scientific terms - with only a hypothesis about the mechanism - admittedly half proven in a lab - survival of the fittest and genetic adaptation are certainly proven scientifically, but species variagation is not. I don't know what you're referring to when you talk about the DNA evidence, and a centralised origin of life does not imply evolution - evolution implies it, there is a strong difference in science - creation ALSO implies it.
England and Brittany
06-03-2005, 23:43
Science and religious faith cannot.The very tenets of religious faith demand a lack of peer review because it would show lack of respect/honor towards their respective god/s/desses.

This is wrong - it's only the case in certain religions such as islam where the Qu'ran is considered the literal word of God, in a religion such as christianity where the bible it both written and translated by man, and open to interprettation, there is massive scope for 'peer review' even if the peers lived 2 millenia ago, and also for continued investigation and discussion about it.
Willamena
06-03-2005, 23:43
Why should heart and mind clash? Or am I misreading your post?
Misreading, yes. I said they do coexist.
The White Hats
06-03-2005, 23:45
Misreading, yes. I said they do coexist.
My apologies.
Vegas-Rex
06-03-2005, 23:46
I'm afraid I disagree, it's true that evolution has been shown with bacteria and so on, becoming immune to various types of antibiotics and so on, but that's very different to the species variagation needed to explain current life. Also, it still doesn't explain the beginning of life.

I'm a converted christian, and spent most of my life as a die-hard scientific atheist, believing evolution probably for similar reasons, but when I finally looked into it it didn't satisfy me.... plus, it violates the laws of thermodynamics - as a physicist I'm more inclined to trust them, but even so, they have been proven time and again, and are the basis of a large portion of our current technology, evolution is at very best a reasonable theory.

Thermodynamics doesn't flat out say things can't stick together. It's not some anti-complexity drive, it just says that things decay. The system can resist this decay by absorbing outisde energy to maintain it's situation. As a physicist you should understand that, while we're constantly losing energy, we're also gaining it form the sun. Thus, life can resist the tendency to disperse.

Oh, and just about all of the steps leading to the origin of life (amino acid construction, cell walls forming) have been observed in labs as well, under very heavily controlled conditions that replicated those of the early earth.
My advice: get the book The Way Life Works by Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson. It refutes just about all of your points in a way that makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't have understood my biology class without it.
Caribbean Buccaneers
06-03-2005, 23:53
So if god created earth and all of it's inhabitants. Then, why are there dinosaur bones? Would that mean he created them millions of years before humans? Or he created the with humans because humans could not coexist with dinosaurs? :rolleyes:

Dinosaurs were his first attempt at creating an intelligent race. Their superior durability, natural defences and enhanced strength made them a force to be reckoned with, and for millions of years they terrorised the cosmos. But he got a little pissed off with the fact that they kept eating each other. So, he reluctantly hit them on the head with an asteroid.

'Sentient Mark 2', code-named 'Human', took approximately 65 million years to design. He wanted to use the fairly new 'mammal'-based technology; reptilian technology was undoubtedly well-established by Mother Nature Industries, and very reliable, but it was fairly limited in its capabilities -- he hoped to have a sentient capable of inhabiting even the coldest of places like Poland, Iceland, Alaska, Siberia, and maybe even Birmingham. So mammal technology was to be developed for the new sentient.
Apparently the initial designs were all flawed; prototype humans kept falling over because they lacked a tail, and replacing claws with nails frequently resulted in them going insane when attempting to open plastic supermarket bags. When he finally perfected the design and put them into standard use, he attempted to cover up any evidence that he'd tried once before. The technology of the dinosaurs was easy to get rid of as it was all based on a biodegradable material known as 'paper'. Unfortunately for him, he seriously underestimated the human's instinctive desire to dig holes for no apparent reason, so his dirty little secret was uncovered. For the moment, we eat each other in sufficiently low numbers that he is allowing us to continue to exist. Should the current trend of human-eating grow, we may find an apocalypse on our hands. Bear that in mind next time you go to McDonalds.
Vegas-Rex
06-03-2005, 23:55
Well, again, I haven't seen any of these fossils, I did look into it, but I'm not a biologist myself, and it's possible that I missed them. Evolution is NOT the closest we can get to a proof, if there were hundreds of similar fossils for every stage in the process then it would be the closest, as it is it remains extremely weak in scientific terms - with only a hypothesis about the mechanism - admittedly half proven in a lab - survival of the fittest and genetic adaptation are certainly proven scientifically, but species variagation is not. I don't know what you're referring to when you talk about the DNA evidence, and a centralised origin of life does not imply evolution - evolution implies it, there is a strong difference in science - creation ALSO implies it.

Not really. Creation would allow God to make things totally biologically different, but they're not. Just as DNA can say that you are your father's son it can say that you and plant at some point in the past had the same father, and it does. As for species variation, I really don't see how that could be unproven and yet genetic adaptation proven, as they are the same thing. You really need to learn more about biology. Check my last post, read that book, and even if it doesn't help you realize that the time for disproving evolution has passed it will make biology make more sense anyway. Another piece of suggested reading: Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice presents a God that basically follows the Christian model but still uses evolution.
England and Brittany
06-03-2005, 23:55
Thermodynamics doesn't flat out say things can't stick together. It's not some anti-complexity drive, it just says that things decay. The system can resist this decay by absorbing outisde energy to maintain it's situation. As a physicist you should understand that, while we're constantly losing energy, we're also gaining it form the sun. Thus, life can resist the tendency to disperse.

Oh, and just about all of the steps leading to the origin of life (amino acid construction, cell walls forming) have been observed in labs as well, under very heavily controlled conditions that replicated those of the early earth.
My advice: get the book The Way Life Works by Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson. It refutes just about all of your points in a way that makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't have understood my biology class without it.

For the first paragraph: For systems to do that they don't need energy, they need work, work has to be done in a controlled way to produce results, otherwise it normally has the opposite effect - for example, putting a filament inside your fridge will not help it stay cold! but will fill it with energy, however, using energy to power a fridge using the refridgeration mechanism does cool the fridge. Energy from the sun wouldn't help at all.

If the book helped your biology class then excellent - I will try to read it, but to be honest not being a biologist myself it's low on my list of priorities, since it affects neither my science nor my faith, and so is largely irrelevant to my life. I don't know where your idea of the conditions of the early earth comes from, the early earth was extremely inhospitable to life... and was completely random - just a globe of matter that was pulled together by gravity in the formation of the solar system - I assume that the conditions that are used in labs are derived backwards, assuming evolution to extrapolate the conditions, otherwise they must surely be speculation? Admittedly we're well out of my territory here, and I'm mostly speculating, though I have read a paper on this that put the probability of the primordial goo theory, timescale included, at 1 in 10^40 - generously, and 1 in 10^160 conservatively. It's usually put around 10^80 as I understand it.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:00
Not really. Creation would allow God to make things totally biologically different, but they're not. Just as DNA can say that you are your father's son it can say that you and plant at some point in the past had the same father, and it does. As for species variation, I really don't see how that could be unproven and yet genetic adaptation proven, as they are the same thing. You really need to learn more about biology. Check my last post, read that book, and even if it doesn't help you realize that the time for disproving evolution has passed it will make biology make more sense anyway. Another piece of suggested reading: Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice presents a God that basically follows the Christian model but still uses evolution.

I'm well aware of the compatibility of god and evolution, don't worry about that, a very good friend of mine - a muslim in fact, believes in both, as did I until recently. Creation would indeed allow god to do that, but why change a good thing? Besides, with a universal atmosphere, and near-constant temperature, everything will need to be similar in mechanism anyway, so why not make it the same? Either way - just because DNA is nearly identical between many different animals - does not imply evolution, only the other way around, there are numerous other explanations for DNA consistency.
Vegas-Rex
07-03-2005, 00:01
Now this I agree with! Indeed it was my view too until a couple of months ago when I actually looked into evolution and changed my mind.... I believe that god started life, how he did it and what mechanism he used I'm avoiding speculating on until more evidence is turned up - however, looking at the bible you'll notice that god tends to use physical means to manifest his power - earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. . A cynical mind might claim that people have been reading too much into natural disasters... but either way, it would not surprise me if god used a physical process to create man from microbes too.

Wait, so do we have the same opinion or not? Because I'm pretty sure the current theories about the origin of life have thermal vents that while less dramatic than volcanoes are basically what you're describing as being important. I think we've just shown that the answer to this thread's question is that yes, they can coexist, if you read those books I mentioned earlier.
Oksana
07-03-2005, 00:04
Originally posted by England and Brittany
I don't know where your idea of the conditions of the early earth comes from, the early earth was extremely inhospitable to life... and was completely random

I'm sorry, but I have to butt in. If you believe that early earth was inhospitable to live, then how did we get here? Obviously, we had to change somehow. Adapdation and evolution go hand in hand. If we did not adapt to our environment then we would not evolve.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:05
Wait, so do we have the same opinion or not? Because I'm pretty sure the current theories about the origin of life have thermal vents that while less dramatic than volcanoes are basically what you're describing as being important. I think we've just shown that the answer to this thread's question is that yes, they can coexist, if you read those books I mentioned earlier.

Oh sorry, of course I agree that science and faith can coexist - further in fact i think that science and religion can coexist, though needless to say both depend on the faith or religion in question. I'd be in quite a spot if they didn't... As would John Polkinghorn - a professor of mathematical physics at oxford and also an ordained anglican priest. I was simply explaining the reasons for not believing evolution, as i said earlier, I'm not a creationist either.
Vegas-Rex
07-03-2005, 00:07
I'm well aware of the compatibility of god and evolution, don't worry about that, a very good friend of mine - a muslim in fact, believes in both, as did I until recently. Creation would indeed allow god to do that, but why change a good thing? Besides, with a universal atmosphere, and near-constant temperature, everything will need to be similar in mechanism anyway, so why not make it the same? Either way - just because DNA is nearly identical between many different animals - does not imply evolution, only the other way around, there are numerous other explanations for DNA consistency.

I could say the same about paternity tests....
Serioulsy, I don't really see much of an alternative to evolution out there, and I don't really see what's wrong with it. Without actual inconsistencies you don't need to look for a new system, and you really haven't given me any. Also, if there was no evolution, how do you get any fossils of different species at all? While I agree there could be other parts to the picture throwing evolution itself out seems kind of arbitrary.

And yeah, I know I made peace in the post before this, but I like to get in the last word.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:07
I'm sorry, but I have to butt in. If you believe that early earth was inhospitable to live, then how did we get here? Obviously, we had to change somehow. Adapdation and evolution go hand in hand. If we did not adapt to our environment then we would not evolve.

That's a very good point :)! - what I meant by inhospitable to life was todays animal life, given that the atmosphere consisted largely of carbon dioxide. However since this contradicts nearly my entire argument up to this point, I'm in quite a tight spot... please forgive me for taking a few more minutes to try and resolve this issue in my head....
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:14
I could say the same about paternity tests....
Serioulsy, I don't really see much of an alternative to evolution out there, and I don't really see what's wrong with it. Without actual inconsistencies you don't need to look for a new system, and you really haven't given me any. Also, if there was no evolution, how do you get any fossils of different species at all? While I agree there could be other parts to the picture throwing evolution itself out seems kind of arbitrary.

And yeah, I know I made peace in the post before this, but I like to get in the last word.

I don't actually have a proposal in this case, I don't know how life came to it's current point. On the whole I'm inclined to believe evolution because natural selection makes so much sense, however, assuming the validity of evolution for a second, I would expect a far larger body of evidence for it, to even have 2 fossils of any single creature means that we should be able to expect fossils for the large majority of the path between species. The rebuttal for this is that the fossilised species lived for longer stretches due to being better, but again, this argument seems quite week to me.

As I say, I'm inclined to believe evolution on the whole, but it doesn't satisfy me yet, I'd like more before I have confidence in it's truth. And i do still think it contradicts thermodynamics - the process of course doesn't because it's not random, but the primordial goo theory does, and thermodynamics is a far far more established and proven theory.
Vegas-Rex
07-03-2005, 00:15
That's a very good point :)! - what I meant by inhospitable to life was todays animal life, given that the atmosphere consisted largely of carbon dioxide. However since this contradicts nearly my entire argument up to this point, I'm in quite a tight spot... please forgive me for taking a few more minutes to try and resolve this issue in my head....

Wait a minute, if you step out for a moment this thread will be boring again!
I have an idea. Since you're not a creationist but you don't believe in evolution, maybe you could give us some third method that explains the evidence. I haven't heard one before, and I'm really interested as to what your take is.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:18
Wait a minute, if you step out for a moment this thread will be boring again!
I have an idea. Since you're not a creationist but you don't believe in evolution, maybe you could give us some third method that explains the evidence. I haven't heard one before, and I'm really interested as to what your take is.

Really sorry that I don't have a third method :( - I didn't want to step out! if you have a solution to that point then by all means present it for me!!
San haiti
07-03-2005, 00:19
Faith and science co-exist?

They can. They do. End of thread.
Oksana
07-03-2005, 00:19
So what exactly is it about evolution you don't believe?
String musicians
07-03-2005, 00:21
Science and religion are both ways of looking for truth. They are both trying to explain the world around us. Faith is necessary in religion, and I think in science too, because science can't truly prove anything, therefore, you must base science on some sort of faith. Wouldn't you agree?
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:22
I'm sorry, but I have to butt in. If you believe that early earth was inhospitable to live, then how did we get here? Obviously, we had to change somehow. Adapdation and evolution go hand in hand. If we did not adapt to our environment then we would not evolve.

Unfortunately I think I have to concede that if the early earth did exist in the form it is thought to have... then the only solution of how life came to this point is for first plant-life then animal life to tranform it to what it is today... This doesn't back up either evolution or creationism I don't think.... but certainly lends itself well to the evolutionist. Of course it is irrelevent to the original point since evolution and god can coexist, but since this seems to have turned into a debate on evolution... I'd have to say that this leads me further towards that end.
San haiti
07-03-2005, 00:23
Science and religion are both ways of looking for truth. They are both trying to explain the world around us. Faith is necessary in religion, and I think in science too, because science can't truly prove anything, therefore, you must base science on some sort of faith. Wouldn't you agree?

noooo, Science isnt about completely proving things. Its about constructing a working model of how we view the world. It'l never be 100% acurrate but its the best we've got.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:23
So what exactly is it about evolution you don't believe?

It's not that I don't believe anything about evolution, it's just that as yet I haven't come accross enough evidence to convince me of it's truth. I don't have any objections to it, aside from the expectation of more evidence.
Oksana
07-03-2005, 00:25
Originally Posted by String musicians
Science and religion are both ways of looking for truth. They are both trying to explain the world around us. Faith is necessary in religion, and I think in science too, because science can't truly prove anything, therefore, you must base science on some sort of faith. Wouldn't you agree?

No, religion is based on faith. Faith is based on faith or hope, not truth. Faith is to believe in something even though there is no proof. Science is not based on faith at all. Science is based on relativism. Everything in science is relative to something else.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:26
Science and religion are both ways of looking for truth. They are both trying to explain the world around us. Faith is necessary in religion, and I think in science too, because science can't truly prove anything, therefore, you must base science on some sort of faith. Wouldn't you agree?

This is true, but as I said originally - they do both look for truth, but they're looking for different truths, religion looks for whys, science looks for hows, science can never explain beginnings, and the laws of nature have never started anything happening themselves, the only go from A to B, they can't explain A. Religion on the other hand, tends to explain the beginnings, and often why it is that way, but it's rare for religions to start speaking about the process by which something happened.
Vegas-Rex
07-03-2005, 00:27
I don't actually have a proposal in this case, I don't know how life came to it's current point. On the whole I'm inclined to believe evolution because natural selection makes so much sense, however, assuming the validity of evolution for a second, I would expect a far larger body of evidence for it, to even have 2 fossils of any single creature means that we should be able to expect fossils for the large majority of the path between species. The rebuttal for this is that the fossilised species lived for longer stretches due to being better, but again, this argument seems quite week to me.

As I say, I'm inclined to believe evolution on the whole, but it doesn't satisfy me yet, I'd like more before I have confidence in it's truth. And i do still think it contradicts thermodynamics - the process of course doesn't because it's not random, but the primordial goo theory does, and thermodynamics is a far far more established and proven theory.

I would like to establish once and for all that the accepted theories of the origins of life do not contradict thermodynamics. Thermodynamics says that systems degrade UNLESS YOU ADD ENERGY!!! Because the sun exists molecules can form more complex structures because they can abosrb outside energy to maintain them. This is the thermal vent thing I referred to earlier. The system does lose energy, but the system includes the earth's core, which can lose a lot of energy before it dies.

As for the fossils, the issue is more that only certain things fossilize. If you get caught in a mudslide you probably will be, but if your bones are eaten or crumbled to dust there won't be much of a fossil left. Even ordinary rot can get through bones remarkably quickly.

As we seem to be both realizing just how off topic we are getting I would just like to recommend you read the books I mentioned (actually, don't read Memnoch the Devil , but the other one's very useful) before checking out some other threads.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:30
No, religion is based on faith. Faith is based on faith or hope, not truth. Faith is to believe in something even though there is no proof. Science is not based on faith at all. Science is based on relativism. Everything in science is relative to something else.

This is quite astute... semantically I'm getting a bit riled up about the interchanging of faith and believe... but that's based on my own beliefs anyway, so I won't go into it. I don't think your view of faith and religion is quite right, but not wholy relevant so again I'll ignore it for a second. I'm interested in you view of science! It is of course perfectly accurate, science is only valid by accepting assumptions, and is therefore relative, however, the majority of the world's population tend to see science as a definite and certain truth, or at the very least either true or false, not 'true if' or 'false if'.
San haiti
07-03-2005, 00:33
This is quite astute... semantically I'm getting a bit riled up about the interchanging of faith and believe... but that's based on my own beliefs anyway, so I won't go into it. I don't think your view of faith and religion is quite right, but not wholy relevant so again I'll ignore it for a second. I'm interested in you view of science! It is of course perfectly accurate, science is only valid by accepting assumptions, and is therefore relative, however, the majority of the world's population tend to see science as a definite and certain truth, or at the very least either true or false, not 'true if' or 'false if'.

The only assumption made is that the universe is logically consistent i.e. if i drop a ball and it falls to the floor, barring anything special happening if i drop the ball again exactly the same thing will happen. We then attempt to make a model of how the world works.
Oksana
07-03-2005, 00:35
Originally Posted by England and Brittany
This is quite astute... semantically I'm getting a bit riled up about the interchanging of faith and believe... but that's based on my own beliefs anyway, so I won't go into it. I don't think your view of faith and religion is quite right, but not wholy relevant so again I'll ignore it for a second. I'm interested in you view of science! It is of course perfectly accurate, science is only valid by accepting assumptions, and is therefore relative, however, the majority of the world's population tend to see science as a definite and certain truth, or at the very least either true or false, not 'true if' or 'false if'.

So then why is my idea about religion wrong? We're arguing here about evolution and creationism. If you knew there was a god, based on evidence not faith or religion, you would know for a fact how the world began. You would not be arguing about it. Sure religious people are trying to find the "truth" but it is not logical truth they are looking for.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:35
I would like to establish once and for all that the accepted theories of the origins of life do not contradict thermodynamics. Thermodynamics says that systems degrade UNLESS YOU ADD ENERGY!!! Because the sun exists molecules can form more complex structures because they can abosrb outside energy to maintain them. This is the thermal vent thing I referred to earlier. The system does lose energy, but the system includes the earth's core, which can lose a lot of energy before it dies.

As for the fossils, the issue is more that only certain things fossilize. If you get caught in a mudslide you probably will be, but if your bones are eaten or crumbled to dust there won't be much of a fossil left. Even ordinary rot can get through bones remarkably quickly.

As we seem to be both realizing just how off topic we are getting I would just like to recommend you read the books I mentioned (actually, don't read Memnoch the Devil , but the other one's very useful) before checking out some other threads.

That's not true about thermodynamics! It says that systems degrade unless you add work, not energy, energy doesn't help, it simply makes things go more quickly, the only thing that can help is structured and intentional work - the old parallel is of a brick wall - it'll naturally fall down if left long enough, the bricks will start to fall off and so on, but simply shining lots of light on it won't help, it will give it energy, but to no avail, only if an intentional form of energy is applied, such as somebody picking up the bricks and putting them back, will it help, and both the sun and thermal vents are indiscriminate and random - their only relevance is to increase the speed at which things happen, and therefore the likelihood of this occuring randomly within the specified time.
Lancamore
07-03-2005, 00:35
Other bits of evidence that support evolution:

Vestigial organs. Snakes and whales both have vestigial leg bones, because they both evolved from a land-dwelling, four-legged animal.

Branching tree of life: As evolutionist portray it, the procession of life starts out simply, and branches off as certain improvements are acquired. For example, bilateral symmetry is an early evolutionary improvement. I imagine fish were the earliest complex animals to have it. From fish, bilateral symmetry is passed on to all mammals, reptiles, and birds. Radial symmetry developed separately, and didn't progress into the complex animals that bilateral symmetry did. Animals with radial symmetry have been around for millions upon millions of years, which dovetails nicely with the fact that they are mainly ocean-dwelling.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:38
So then why is my idea about religion wrong? We're arguing here aboout evolution and creationism. If you knew there was a god, based on evidence not faith or relgion, you would know for a fact how the world began. You would not be arguing about it. Sure religious people are trying to find the "turth" but it is not logical truth they are looking for.

Well, I believe there is evidence of god, but that is a whole other issue, and one that would last for days if not weeks, but just because I believe in god doesn't mean I suddenly think I have all the answers. What god saw fit to tell us was far more relevant to our lives than the beginning of the world, which I think is largely speculation on the part of some learned jews around 3000 years ago.

Incidentally, I've just recalled my objection to evolution - that the primordial goo theory at least contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.
Lancamore
07-03-2005, 00:38
That's not true about thermodynamics! It says that systems degrade unless you add work, not energy, energy doesn't help, it simply makes things go more quickly, the only thing that can help is structured and intentional work - the old parallel is of a brick wall - it'll naturally fall down if left long enough, the bricks will start to fall off and so on, but simply shining lots of light on it won't help, it will give it energy, but to no avail, only if an intentional form of energy is applied, such as somebody picking up the bricks and putting them back, will it help, and both the sun and thermal vents are indiscriminate and random - their only relevance is to increase the speed at which things happen, and therefore the likelihood of this occuring randomly within the specified time.


Theres a lot of time to work with. It took life almost a billion years to appear on the earth. And who is to say that god did not influence the random occurence? Whenever something is determined at random, I see an opportunity for the influence of a higher power.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:41
Other bits of evidence that support evolution:

Vestigial organs. Snakes and whales both have vestigial leg bones, because they both evolved from a land-dwelling, four-legged animal.

Branching tree of life: As evolutionist portray it, the procession of life starts out simply, and branches off as certain improvements are acquired. For example, bilateral symmetry is an early evolutionary improvement. I imagine fish were the earliest complex animals to have it. From fish, bilateral symmetry is passed on to all mammals, reptiles, and birds. Radial symmetry developed separately, and didn't progress into the complex animals that bilateral symmetry did. Animals with radial symmetry have been around for millions upon millions of years.

Interesting points - but I don't think they're even halfway conclusive - what about men's nipples? to my knowledge men are not thought to have ever nursed young children, in any stage along the evolutionary chain. They're vestigial organs in the same sense, but not evidence for evolution. The symmetry argument is beyond me I'm afraid, I don't have the zoological knowledge to comment on it.
Oksana
07-03-2005, 00:45
Originally posted by England and Brittany
Well, I believe there is evidence of god, but that is a whole other issue, and one that would last for days if not weeks, but just because I believe in god doesn't mean I suddenly think I have all the answers. What god saw fit to tell us was far more relevant to our lives than the beginning of the world, which I think is largely speculation on the part of some learned jews around 3000 years ago.

Incidentally, I've just recalled my objection to evolution - that the primordial goo theory at least contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.

What exactly did god tell us because I don't see evolutionists or creationists to people who don't want answers. I see them as people who are trying to find answers. Also, I would like you to give an overview of this evidence because I sincerely want to know.

And what animals have radial symmetry? I know they exist but I cannot think of any at the moment.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:45
Theres a lot of time to work with. It took life almost a billion years to appear on the earth. And who is to say that god did not influence the random occurence? Whenever something is determined at random, I see an opportunity for the influence of a higher power.

Of course - and I beg you all to remember along this that I do not see any conflict between evolution and god.

The timescale is long - but it takes an extremely long time to violate the laws of nature (it is theoretically possible for it to happen by chance, but the timescales are typically many times the age of the universe itself). It is easier to do for thermodynamics admittedly, especially for that law - but still extremely difficult. For all the necessary constituents to be present in one place, and for it to be violated the hundreds of times necessary to create a self-replicating DNA molecule the probability is infinitessimal, even on that timescale. If I were to believe in evolution, I would definitely not believe in the primordial goo theory, god is a much more probable cause, and also doesn't violate the laws of physics because he's intelligent.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:49
What exactly did god tell us because I don't see evolutionists or creationists to people who don't want answers. I see them as people who are trying to find answers. Also, I would like you to give an overview of this evidence because I sincerely want to know.

And what animals have radial symmetry? I know they exist but I cannot think of any at the moment.

well - I find evidence for god primarily in Christ - I can honestly do this if you like, but I'll have to stop talking on this thread, and I'd need to start a new one probably... or else chat to you seperately. Without going in to specifics - I'd say that what god told us are any quotes attributed to him in the old testamant, or to christ in the new testament. I haven't come accross any examples to cause me discomfort in saying that - but I haven't finished reading the bible yet, and may yet do so.

I doubt any animals have radial symmetry... most animals don't have mirror symmetry in reality, humans included. Plants probably exhibit both though I imagine.
San haiti
07-03-2005, 00:52
Of course - and I beg you all to remember along this that I do not see any conflict between evolution and god.

The timescale is long - but it takes an extremely long time to violate the laws of nature (it is theoretically possible for it to happen by chance, but the timescales are typically many times the age of the universe itself). It is easier to do for thermodynamics admittedly, especially for that law - but still extremely difficult. For all the necessary constituents to be present in one place, and for it to be violated the hundreds of times necessary to create a self-replicating DNA molecule the probability is infinitessimal, even on that timescale. If I were to believe in evolution, I would definitely not believe in the primordial goo theory, god is a much more probable cause, and also doesn't violate the laws of physics because he's intelligent.

Man, do you really think people like professors of evolutionary biology havent thought of this stuff? That they're whiling away their research time in total ignorance of a simple proof thought of by you that will disprove all their theories? I'll say it one more time. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DOES NOT DISPROVE EVOLUTION.

The second law of thermodynamics is as follows: Entropy cannot decrease in a closed system.

If energy flows into the system entropy (disorder) can decrease, that is all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

edit:added link
Lancamore
07-03-2005, 00:52
Interesting points - but I don't think they're even halfway conclusive - what about men's nipples? to my knowledge men are not thought to have ever nursed young children, in any stage along the evolutionary chain. They're vestigial organs in the same sense, but not evidence for evolution. The symmetry argument is beyond me I'm afraid, I don't have the zoological knowledge to comment on it.

Heres an explanation (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_093.html)

and another more complicated one (http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003/Men-Have-Nipples13jan03.htm)

"Because females do." They developed in a female, and since a child is made of a combination of his mother's and father's genes, the child has them too. They are simply a part of the structure of the human, their development controlled by the genes that create arms, legs, and noses rather than the genes that control sex and sex hormones. One could argue that "guys don't have ovaries but girls do" but they would be wrong. We just call them balls. They start out as the same thing, but their development is influenced by sex hormones.
Vegas-Rex
07-03-2005, 00:53
That's not true about thermodynamics! It says that systems degrade unless you add work, not energy, energy doesn't help, it simply makes things go more quickly, the only thing that can help is structured and intentional work - the old parallel is of a brick wall - it'll naturally fall down if left long enough, the bricks will start to fall off and so on, but simply shining lots of light on it won't help, it will give it energy, but to no avail, only if an intentional form of energy is applied, such as somebody picking up the bricks and putting them back, will it help, and both the sun and thermal vents are indiscriminate and random - their only relevance is to increase the speed at which things happen, and therefore the likelihood of this occuring randomly within the specified time.

Not once you get to chemistry. Energy is inherently directed into work because electrons can only be at specific levels. Thus, if you put heat into a mixture of chemicals certain bonds will be made and certain bonds will be broken, you don't need to aim it. This has happened before in the lab and has created the precursor molecules to life. It's not a contradictable matter anymore.
Hemp Manufacturers
07-03-2005, 00:54
Very few people understand what science is. Science is the antithesis of faith. It's like asking if red and blue can coexist - sure, but they are, in some sense, opposites.

As has been said, nothing in science is "proven". Science is the recursive process of uncovering the truth, using intuituion and observation. Faith is not that at all.

But faith != religion. Many if not most of the greatest scientists have been religious.

Science in no way introdues on religion. It does however contradict blind faith, which is not a requirement of religion, though many religious people fall into that trap.

For example, Einstein believed in god, and also in science. But he accepted nothing on faith, except that science could uncover the mysteries of god.

AS FOR EVOLUTION...There is NO link between apes and man. It was a HOAX that will never die (I refer to "The Missing Link"). Apes are just as evolved - probably more so - than humans. We are BOTH EVOLVED from a common ancestor. That ancestor is not any more ape-like than man-like. It is simple anthropomorphic hubris that bends our perceptions to think of apes as "less evolved" than we are. They are meerely "differently evolved", and in fact are under far greater evolutionary pressures than are we.

Yes, science and faith can coesist. But, science is pretty much the opposite world-view than faith. No, religion and faith are not at all equal. Yes, many great scientists are religious. No, humans are not evolved from apes. No, theories are never proven true, only continually shown to be accurate or inaccurate models of the universe. No, no proper scientist ever thought Newtonian Physics was "correct". Yes, we still travel the solar system using Newtonian Physics, as it is a perfectly adequate model of the universe for that purpose, and relativity theory would require too much number crunching to be useful for that purpose.

Yes, I am an egotistical pig.

P.S. Einstein was no more CORRECT than Newton. Both their theories are simply models of the universe. Neither theory IS the universe, and in a wierd sense only the universe itself is "correct". Newtownian physics is an incredibly useful, simple model of gravity. Einsteinian relativity is more accurate at predicting certain phenomenon, but less useful for gravity assists off planets.

Understand this simple idea - that neither Einstein or Newton are right or wrong, and you've finally understood science.
Lancamore
07-03-2005, 00:55
And what animals have radial symmetry? I know they exist but I cannot think of any at the moment.
Starfish, Jellyfish Anemones, Sponges, Hydras. I quote from some dictionary:

Cnidarian: Any of various invertebrate animals of the phylum Cnidaria, characterized by a radially symmetrical body with a saclike internal cavity, and including the jellyfishes, hydras, sea anemones, and corals.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 00:56
Briefly - the most convincing evidence for me for god's existence is this:

Christ said that he was god. I can only think of 4 solutions to this:

a) He was a lunatic.
b) He was a liar.
c) He didn't exist, and this is fiction.
d) He was God.

a) Is a matter of personal judgement, since it's relative, but i find it hard to believe that anyone who reads christ's words and actions in the new testament could view him as a lunatic.
b) Liars typically have motives of power or wealth, unless they don't know that they're lying in which case they're lunatics (see above). Jesus did not accumulate either power or wealth - in fact all he acheived for his 'lies' was torture and crucifixion, humiliation and extremely painful death essentially, not the typical results a liar would aim for, and he had plenty of opportunities to deny it.
c) This is the one I find most convincing (aside from (d) of course), but to be honest I find it hard to believe that a fictional character could have such a widespread effect not just on the world now but at the world then too. On a more objective note, 11 of his 12 apostles were executed for their teachings, peter was beheaded in rome itself, and their existence is very well documented since they caused such a stir at the time, clearly they believed it, and so either (a) or (b) must apply, and neither seem to fit.
d) This is my conclusion.

If you do want to discuss this further, let's not do it here because it's completely off-topic.....
Lancamore
07-03-2005, 00:57
Of course - and I beg you all to remember along this that I do not see any conflict between evolution and god.

The timescale is long - but it takes an extremely long time to violate the laws of nature (it is theoretically possible for it to happen by chance, but the timescales are typically many times the age of the universe itself). It is easier to do for thermodynamics admittedly, especially for that law - but still extremely difficult. For all the necessary constituents to be present in one place, and for it to be violated the hundreds of times necessary to create a self-replicating DNA molecule the probability is infinitessimal, even on that timescale. If I were to believe in evolution, I would definitely not believe in the primordial goo theory, god is a much more probable cause, and also doesn't violate the laws of physics because he's intelligent.

What if god caused the infinitessimaly improbable to happen? It doesn't violate the laws of physics, only probability. Heck, the Sox won the World Series again!
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 01:01
Not once you get to chemistry. Energy is inherently directed into work because electrons can only be at specific levels. Thus, if you put heat into a mixture of chemicals certain bonds will be made and certain bonds will be broken, you don't need to aim it. This has happened before in the lab and has created the precursor molecules to life. It's not a contradictable matter anymore.

Well, I'll concede that energy is necessary for some things to happen, and therefore makes them more likely, but it still doesn't solve the thermodynamics problem - the only way to make that law go in reverse it to apply intentioned and purposeful work to the system - and unless some extremely random things happened, this was not the case before life.
Vegas-Rex
07-03-2005, 01:02
AS FOR EVOLUTION...There is NO link between apes and man. It was a HOAX that will never die (I refer to "The Missing Link"). Apes are just as evolved - probably more so - than humans. We are BOTH EVOLVED from a common ancestor. That ancestor is not any more ape-like than man-like. It is simple anthropomorphic hubris that bends our perceptions to think of apes as "less evolved" than we are. They are meerely "differently evolved", and in fact are under far greater evolutionary pressures than are we.



Just to clarify that for you before you get attacked: you're not saying that we don't share a common ancestor, you're just saying that since then we've both evolved further on different paths, right?
San haiti
07-03-2005, 01:05
Well, I'll concede that energy is necessary for some things to happen, and therefore makes them more likely, but it still doesn't solve the thermodynamics problem - the only way to make that law go in reverse it to apply intentioned and purposeful work to the system - and unless some extremely random things happened, this was not the case before life.

Did you read my post?

long version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

short version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
Oksana
07-03-2005, 01:08
Nobody denies Jesus existed.
Vegas-Rex
07-03-2005, 01:08
Well, I'll concede that energy is necessary for some things to happen, and therefore makes them more likely, but it still doesn't solve the thermodynamics problem - the only way to make that law go in reverse it to apply intentioned and purposeful work to the system - and unless some extremely random things happened, this was not the case before life.

What I'm saying is that the very structure of atoms directs any ambient energy into purposeful work because electrons can't exist in intermediate states. If there is energy nearby some of it will be directed at bonding, and such bondings of the right chemicals, which happened to all be present on the early earth, creates life. The work is purposeful because quantum physics makes it so. God could have some role in setting the rules of quantum physics, though.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 01:09
Did you read my post?

long version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

short version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

I did read your post, but the same applies, for this to work, the energy applied has to be applied in a specific manner for a specific purpose, not just applied generally, and so the sun's indiscriminate energy input is largely irrelevant. By the way - with the thermodynamical argument I'm only referring to the primordial goo theory, not evolution itself.
The White Hats
07-03-2005, 01:10
Did you read my post?

long version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

short version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
I'm tempted to posit an even shorter version: crystals.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 01:11
What I'm saying is that the very structure of atoms directs any ambient energy into purposeful work because electrons can't exist in intermediate states. If there is energy nearby some of it will be directed at bonding, and such bondings of the right chemicals, which happened to all be present on the early earth, creates life. The work is purposeful because quantum physics makes it so. God could have some role in setting the rules of quantum physics, though.

Ok, well this is a fair point, if you're right in claiming that the energy encourages bonding, not just energises electrons, I don't know if that's true because I didn't take chemistry far enough.
San haiti
07-03-2005, 01:12
I did read your post, but the same applies, for this to work, the energy applied has to be applied in a specific manner for a specific purpose, not just applied generally, and so the sun's indiscriminate energy input is largely irrelevant. By the way - with the thermodynamical argument I'm only referring to the primordial goo theory, not evolution itself.

No it doesnt. Work isnt even mentioned in the second law, whatever version you use.
EKB
07-03-2005, 01:12
Science certainly can't exist with Christianity.
The White Hats
07-03-2005, 01:13
I did read your post, but the same applies, for this to work, the energy applied has to be applied in a specific manner for a specific purpose, not just applied generally, and so the sun's indiscriminate energy input is largely irrelevant. By the way - with the thermodynamical argument I'm only referring to the primordial goo theory, not evolution itself.
(From your previous posts) I think your problem is that you're supposing a leap straight to DNA. As I understand it that's not the model. What I've heard is that DNA is reached after iterations of increasing complexity from simple organic molecules.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 01:14
I'm tempted to posit an even shorter version: crystals.

crystals are different... as i understand it they're caused by the cooling of a substance, therefore the loss of energy and since it's a slow process this naturally allows it to form into a regular lattice. It's the cooling (rather than the heating we're talking about) that causes the regular structure. The entropy in that system is decreasing - but in the universe as a whole it's increasing because of the energy given out.
Lancamore
07-03-2005, 01:14
Science certainly can't exist with Christianity.
dummy...
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 01:16
(From your previous posts) I think your problem is that you're supposing a leap straight to DNA. As I understand it that's not the model. What I've heard is that DNA is reached after iterations of increasing complexity from simple organic molecules.

As I understand it this is true - but the leap to DNA is necessary because the molecule has to be self-replicating, otherwise there is as higher a chance of it decaying before it can find the other molecules necessary to be self-sustaining.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 01:17
No it doesnt. Work isnt even mentioned in the second law, whatever version you use.

Sorry, by work I simply meant that the energy has to be applied to a purpose, and after a fashion designed to further that purpose, it can't simply be applied randomly.
Manawskistan
07-03-2005, 01:18
Understand this simple idea - that neither Einstein or Newton are right or wrong, and you've finally understood science.

I'll agree with you here. Once you get to normally observation, the differences between Newtonian mechanics and Einstein are so similar the idea that one is less correct than the other is somewhat laughable.

Newtonian mechanics works with considerable accuracy for any practical application. Now, once you get into nano and particle acceleration and stuff that pushes the edges of the Newtonian scope, it's time to consult Einstein. That said, there's still some holes that need to be patched before we can say we've got everything handled.

I'll guarantee that once we patch one of those 'holes' in current theory, another one will open up and that will be the question to answer.

As for faith? I don't know, it seems like some people treat faith like some of the atheists treat science. Faith doesn't have to be a be-all end-all to everything. Neither does science. I'm rather fond of the deist point of view myself. Even with all this astronomy and the big bang and all that, I find it somewhat difficult to think that it all just... happened.

Edit:
Evolution defeats the second law of thermo? LOL hahahaha

NET ENTROPY CHANGE IN THE UNIVERSE must be greater or equal to 0.

When the sun shines down on a plant and it grows, there's more 'energy' from the sun going into that plant than what is being returned in developed plant matter. Some heat gets shot off into space, or gets radiated. Net entropy of the system? It's >0. Did a plant reproduce? yup.

Now an animal comes along and eats the plant. It chews it up, swallows it. It lets off some heat. It also grows a bit. The heat from the animal goes into the atmosphere, and the net entropy of the system goes up.

Rinse, repeat, and make sure some of that built up heat gets shot out into space.
Oksana
07-03-2005, 01:19
Originally posted by England and Brittany
As I understand it this is true - but the leap to DNA is necessary because the molecule has to be self-replicating, otherwise there is as higher a chance of it decaying before it can find the other molecules necessary to be self-sustaining.

That is evolution, hon. That is why there are several different kinds of "humans" before live was actually sustained on earth.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 01:19
Guys... I'm sorry, but I'm in England, and it's past midnight here and I have an early start tomorrow.... I might need to head off now and leave you guys to it i'm afraid.

If it helps - you did do a little bit more to convince me of the possible validity of evolution as a process, though not of the primordial goo. I'm still a long way from accepting it even provisionally as yet though....
The White Hats
07-03-2005, 01:22
crystals are different... as i understand it they're caused by the cooling of a substance, therefore the loss of energy and since it's a slow process this naturally allows it to form into a regular lattice. It's the cooling (rather than the heating we're talking about) that causes the regular structure. The entropy in that system is decreasing - but in the universe as a whole it's increasing because of the energy given out.
Not always by cooling, you can take solids from one state to another by providing enough energy to break pre-existing bonds, and if the external environment is right thereby form crystals.

But my point wasn't really about that. It was that if you take a solution of, for example salt in water, and apply energy, you will end up with crystals and vapour. The vapour boils off, all you can see is ordered complexity where previously there was none, all through the application of undirected energy. No violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics involved.
England and Brittany
07-03-2005, 01:22
As for faith? I don't know, it seems like some people treat faith like some of the atheists treat science. Faith doesn't have to be a be-all end-all to everything. Neither does science. I'm rather fond of the deist point of view myself. Even with all this astronomy and the big bang and all that, I find it somewhat difficult to think that it all just... happened.

I like this paragraph :) - since I became a christian my beliefs have been constantly changing and adapting as i learn more and more. And the big bang is another example of where faith and science compliment each other.
Ninjadom Revival
07-03-2005, 01:24
Of course they can. www.creationists.org
Laocidean
07-03-2005, 01:57
Faith of course, by any definition can coincide with science. God has created science to be a part of Him, for anyone who has the faith. However, some science is just wrong.

Evolution is a theory. not a fact.

God is faith. a total different matter.
Lancamore
07-03-2005, 03:14
Faith of course, by any definition can coincide with science. God has created science to be a part of Him, for anyone who has the faith. However, some science is just wrong.

Evolution is a theory. not a fact.

God is faith. a total different matter.
You can't imagine how wrong you are.

theory A testable explanation of a broad range of related phenomena. In modern science, only explanations that have been extensively tested and can be relied upon with a very high degree of confidence are accorded the status of theory
Vernain
07-03-2005, 03:29
Of course they can coexist. Certain things have been proven by Science. Not ALL things that are in the Bible require belief only. It wasn't long ago that there was no proof that King David ever existed but that has since changed. Darwin's theory has not been proven yet I believe some aspects of evolution are apparent within a species. Evolution from one species to another is pretty far-fetched science and would take far more faith to believe than someone's spirit beling released from the body and moving on to it's next stage in it's growth.
Lancamore
07-03-2005, 03:37
Of course they can coexist. Certain things have been proven by Science. Not ALL things that are in the Bible require belief only. It wasn't long ago that there was no proof that King David ever existed but that has since changed. Darwin's theory has not been proven yet I believe some aspects of evolution are apparent within a species. Evolution from one species to another is pretty far-fetched science and would take far more faith to believe than someone's spirit beling released from the body and moving on to it's next stage in it's growth.

Darwin's theory has been proved many times. I refer you to my above post. You are interpreting the word 'theory' incorrectly.
Oksana
07-03-2005, 03:40
I agree with you Lancamore. There's evidence they just don't see it.
Hemp Manufacturers
07-03-2005, 04:02
Just to clarify that for you before you get attacked: you're not saying that we don't share a common ancestor, you're just saying that since then we've both evolved further on different paths, right?

Correct.
Drangonsile2
07-03-2005, 04:30
my view (waits for religious nuts and anti religious nuts to attack me)
god created science so that man could muniputat their surroundings to better their lives.
Pacness
07-03-2005, 04:34
I am a devout Christian, and I fully believe the religion and science can coexist. I don't know how one can look around and now see how some higher being had a hand in all of this. Interesting article in this dude's blog on this subject. (http://nawoksrance.blogspot.com/2005/02/evocreation.html)
The Cat-Tribe
07-03-2005, 05:22
For anyone curious about this subject, I highly recommend any number of books by the recently deceased theologian Langdon Gilkey.

Langdon Gilkey was the author of about 20 books, most recently Nature, Reality, and the Sacred: The Nexus of Science and Religion. Dr. Gilkey argued throughout his life that religion and science could maintain authoritative voices in their own realms and that one did not necessarily conflict with the other. He published at length on the topic, fighting on two fronts: against Christian fundamentalist attacks on science, and against secularist attacks on religious meaning and truth.

He was a Professor of Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School for over 25 years. He taught at many other schools, including the University of Virginia, Georgetown University, Vassar. and Vanderbilt.

A great example is:
Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock
by Langdon Gilkey
http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/gilkey.html

Creationism on Trial is Langdon Gilkey's fascinating blow-by-blow account of his experiences as a witness for the ACLU at the 1981 creationist trial in Little Rock, Arkansas. Dr. Gilkey explains the difference between first- and second-order questions. He also explains how most of the science witnesses opposed to creationism were devoutly religious and that most of the major US religions were represented by the plaintiffs against the creationists.