I’m still waiting. Waiting for a scientifically-valid study to come out with the answer that “God Did It”. So many studies, with none leading to a deity. This is interesting, but didn’t we already know Darwin was right?
Darwin Was Right: Natural Selection Speeds Up SpeciationScienceDaily (Apr. 6, 2008) ? In the first experiment of its kind conducted in nature, a University of British Columbia evolutionary biologist has come up with strong evidence for one of Charles Darwin’s cornerstone ideas — adaptation to the environment accelerates the creation of new species.”A single adaptive trait such as color could move a population towards the process of forming a new species, but adaptation in many traits may be required to actually complete the formation of an entirely new species,” says UBC post-doctoral fellow Patrik Nosil, whose study is just published.* “The more ways a population can adapt to its unique surroundings, the more likely it will ultimately diverge into a separate species.”Nosil studied walking-stick insects in the Santa Barbara Chaparral in southern California. Stick insects cannot fly and live and feed on their host plants. Different “eco-types” of walking-stick insects are found on different plants and exhibit different color patterns that match the features of their host plants. For example, insects of the cristinae eco-type, which feed on plants with needle-like leaves, have a white line along their green bodies.By displacing some eco-types away from their customary host plants and protecting others from their natural predators, Nosil found that color pattern alone could initiate speciation, while natural selection on additional adaptive traits such as the ability to detoxify different host-plant chemicals are required to “seal the deal,” or complete the speciation process initiated by differences in color pattern.”Natural selection has been widely regarded as the cause of adaptation within existing species while genetics and geography have been the focus of most current research on the driving force of speciation,” says Nosil.”As far as advancing Darwin’s theory that natural selection is a key driver of speciation, this is the first experiment of its kind done outside of a lab setting. The findings are exciting,” says Nosil.
JS…at least you ask valid questions and make valid points…
First off, my question focused on the beginning of the universe. BJ brought in evolution…
There can only be 2 options. Either the universe had a beginning. Or the universe is eternal.
Of course it does. It places Him as the Creator.
A creation can not be greater then the creator. (whether that creator is an energy force or a supernatural being).
Have you ever studied the “Inflation Theory”?
Phreedm,
I don’t know, nor do I know much of anything about the possible origin of the universe. Since I can’t come to any conclusion without jumping, I have to profess ignorance.
Funny thing is, you don’t actually know either. You simply “know” that God did it. You aren’t privy to any of the important details that could be used to base an argument on.
Now explain to me again why I am “forced to believe in a creation story.”
Or the universe is cyclic or the universe does not exist or there are many universes with varying laws and histories.
There are many possibilities, why are you removing some of them without first debunking them?
Yet that still doesn’t actually explain anything. “God did it” is roughly translated as “I have no idea.” Conveniently it also implies that the question does not need further inquiry.
Please define “greater.” This statement seems awfully subjective to me and not useful in a logical argument.
Phreedm,
If I were teaching a university course and I walked into class and said “I can square the circle” and then didn’t explain how to do it, would you call that “explaining”?
If not, then why do you think that “God is the Creator” counts as an explanation for the origin of the universe?
Phreedm please correct me where I’m
wrong.
The bible dates the “creation” at
6000 years or 4000 BC, and the flood
at 2000 BC. If everyone is decended
from Noah’s family at what point did
the people forget that there was only
one God? Why is there no geological
evidence of the flood? Why is there no history of the flood written by
anyone else? (Chinesse,Egypitian etc)
The bible puts the earth at the center of the universe, but we know
this is not true.
How you can believe that before anything else existed a all knowing all powerful thing (who looked like us)existed? If there was nothing before god created it how could he
have knowledge about anything?
There is evidence that the Big bang
occured. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/feb/HP_news_03064.html
There are also theories that the Big bang is a cyclic event where the universe will collapes into a Big crunch and another Big bang.
http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=big+crunch&in=
Matter, energy, space, and time exist
therefore we exist. Why does there need to be a creator. Besides the only most people what you believe is
that they were brainwashed as children to believe it. At what point
in your life did you study all the various religions and sciences and pick the one you believe? Or did you inherit your beliefs from your parents?
NGK…
Great questions, with poor answers.
It’s doubtful whether your truly seeking answers…
A what point did 50% of England’s youth believe Churchill to be a myth…
Comment from: phreedm
It’s doubtful whether your truly seeking answers…
…says the religiously insane idiot who seeks only to deflect the post topic off thread with his occult fairy tales.
Still – everyone around here seems to be interested in validating this religious troll and his ‘debate’ by arguing with him and treating his noxious superstitious babblings as if they had some sort of merit. So, go ahead, give him a reason to pollute the comments around here even more (not sure if you noticed, but every time he gets responses treating his comments as if they had merit, he increases the frequency and occult content of his comments). But, hey – if that’s what floats yer boat…
way to answer the question phreedm.
the only responses I can recall you ever providing (besides links from news sources of questionable credibility) is bible refferences and ad homineum attacks.
that might fly in a church but its gonna take a lot more for anyone here to regard you as anything more than a nuisance.
Phreedm you said they were great questions how about answering them.
Still waiting.
Amazon.com
Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, presents here a scientific argument for the existence of God. Examining the evolutionary theory of the origins of life, he can go part of the way with Darwin–he accepts the idea that species have been differentiated by the mechanism of natural selection from a common ancestor. But he thinks that the essential randomness of this process can explain evolutionary development only at the macro level, not at the micro level of his expertise. Within the biochemistry of living cells, he argues, life is “irreducibly complex.” This is the last black box to be opened, the end of the road for science. Faced with complexity at this level, Behe suggests that it can only be the product of “intelligent design.” –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Publishers Weekly
Charles Darwin’s theory of life’s evolution through natural selection and random mutation fails to account for the origin of astonishingly complex biomolecular systems, argues Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. In this spirited, witty critique of neo-Darwinian thinking, he focuses on five phenomena: blood clotting; cilia, oar-like bundles of fibers; the human immune system; transport of materials within the cell; and the synthesis of nucleotides, building blocks of DNA. In each case, he finds systems that are irreducibly complex?no gradual, step-by-step, Darwinian route led to their creation. As an alternative explanation, Behe infers that complex biochemical systems (i.e., life) were designed by an intelligent agent, whether God, extraterrestrials or a universal force. He notes that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helix structure, proposed that life began when aliens from another planet sent a rocket ship containing spores to seed Earth. Perhaps Behe’s plea for incorporating a “theory of intelligent design” into mainstream biology will spark interest. Illustrated. Translation and U.K. rights: Simon & Schuster.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc. –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Michael J. Behe
Darwin’s Black Box – The biochemical challenge to evolution.
Associate Professor of Biochemistry Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, PA
The “irreducible complexity” of structures at a molecular level is a modern equivalent to Paley’s watch
Michael Behe is part of the intelligent design movement, who also include Phillip E Johnson, William A Dembski, Stephen C Meyer, Paul Nelson, Robert C Koons and Dr. Walter L Bradley.
Darwin admitted: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breakdown” (Darwin Origin of Species, 6th ed. NYU, 1988, p. 154).
“No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner–no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. But we are here. All these things got here somehow; if not in a Darwinian fashion, then how?” (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 187).
Here we have evidence of design at the molecular level — William Paley would be pleased
Irreducible complexity:
What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”? Well for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. Michael J. Behe in Darwin’s Black Box
Examples given are: mousetrap, blood clotting, cilium, flagellum, immune system, intracellular transport.
Darwin’s Black Box The biochemical challenge to evolution.
* Darwin’s black boxDarwin’s Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. Within the biochemistry of living cells, he argues, life is “irreducibly complex.” This is the last black box to be opened, the end of the road for science. Faced with complexity at this level, Behe suggests that it can only be the product of “intelligent design.” Read the 294 reviews at Amazon lots of evolutionists hot under the collar, whatever you think of it he has opened Pandora’s box..
Citw I guess you missed the Dover trial. Behe got smacked down hard
by a Bush appointed judge. Look at this: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol27/5699_citethe_edge_of_evolutionc_12_30_1899.asp
In his landmark verdict for the plaintiffs, Judge John E Jones III ruled that “ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition”
You know what is “irreducibly complex” is the animal kingdom.
If you reduce the number of predator to prey to equal numbers (Noah)it
could not sustane itself.
Example: the giant anteater consumes
70,000 ants a day, so when the 2 ants
got off the ark they would 1 get away
the anteaters would starve, or 2 they
would be eaten and the anteaters would starve.
Besides comparing evolution to ID is
like comparing the space shuttle to a hot air balloon the balloon doen’t
fly, but is buoyed up by a lot of “hot air”
Phreedm I’m still waiting.
Christ is the Way:
Have you read Darwin’s Black Box? I mean, beyond the book jacket and Amazon reviews?
I have.
Sorry–should have been:
Christ is the Way:
Have you read Darwin’s Black Box? I mean, beyond the book jacket and Amazon reviews?
I have.
The problem is that science is based on human logic and reason, and proof in human-designed and interpreted experiements. But the Bible clearly states many, many times that our logic-based thoughts cannot comprehend the true nature of his works, “thoughts”, or power. Keep in mind, these were things written many centuries before the explosion of modern science, so it’s not just a cop out by modern day Christians to deny scientific theories
http://home.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/mystery.htm
The judge was absolutely right to say that Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific proposition. Science can (and has) point(ed) to how the physical laws God created work, and some of what He actually created. But science cannot explain His ways. That is because, as I previously stated, science is based on human logic and experimental proof, and the Bible stated centuries ago that human reason (as designed by God) is just incapable of comprehending His ways.
I’ve compared it to an ant trying to understand Calculus. And I truly feel that it is man’s pride in his own reasoning power that leads one to believe that there is nothing that is INCAPABLE of being understood by our brains. Rather, some things take longer periods of time and great effort to gain an understanding of. But if you could imagine that there is a God, who created everything in the Universe in all of its amazing and ever-revealing complexity, shouldn’t it then be conceivable that such a diety would probably operate and “think” in a manner entirely different than our own?
Let me also state that He is not just something that we can never understand. While we are completely inferior, He is a personal God who loves us
uoflcard,
Again, appealing to the authority of the Bible is not going to convince any atheists. The Bible is making an extraordinary claim and does not go on to prove it. The Bible shows no signs of being written by a divine being, it’s just a book.
Your argument will only convince those who want to be convinced.
uoflocard wrote:
This is a very common misconception and criticism of science.
Science fully accepts that we are limited, fallible creatures, and that we may never have all the answers–that’s why the scientific method champions objective, verifiable evidence over wishful thinking and religious faith.
Science is based on what is known, on what can be tested and proven, while (most) religion is based on ignorance and the unknown or unknowable.
For religion, “believing without seeing” is a virtue; in science, it is a “sin.”
Trues “knowing” God exists, and that He created the universe for you, and has a special plan for you, and knows and cares about your every thought and action for all eternity.
Sorry, let me try that again:
uoflocard wrote:
This is a very common misconception and criticism of science.
Science fully accepts that we are limited, fallible creatures, and that we may never have all the answers–that’s why the scientific method champions objective, verifiable evidence over wishful thinking and religious faith.
Science is based on what is known, on what can be tested and proven, while (most) religion is based on ignorance and the unknown or unknowable.
For religion, “believing without seeing” is a virtue; in science, it is a “sin.”
True pride is “knowing” God exists, and that He created the universe for you, and has a special plan for you, and knows and cares about your every thought and action for all eternity.
Anyone read what Conservapedia states regarding the evolution vs. creation debates (anyone who is familiar with Conservapedia is not going to be surprised): http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
The URL in the previous post did not work. Here it is: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism Conservapedia's atheism article]
I give up.
Sorry!