(12-10-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

You are never going to prove anything 100%. But I'm pretty sure you don't jump off a cliff without a parachute, because you're pretty sure based solely on the evidence, but not proof, that the theory of gravity is correct, or basically so.

Gravity is a law. It's proven 100%.

No it isn't. We thought Newton's law of gravity was a law, until Einstein had to tweak it. There could be other adjustments we need to make in certain situations, that we don't know about yet.

(12-10-2015 11:18 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

You are never going to prove anything 100%. But I'm pretty sure you don't jump off a cliff without a parachute, because you're pretty sure based solely on the evidence, but not proof, that the theory of gravity is correct, or basically so.

Gravity is a law. It's proven 100%.

No it isn't. We thought Newton's law of gravity was a law, until Einstein had to tweak it. There could be other adjustments we need to make in certain situations, that we don't know about yet.

(12-10-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 09:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'm not a Genisis literalist, nor am I really even that religious, but the story of Adam is no more off the wall than man evolving from fish and monkeys.

We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

You are never going to prove anything 100%. But I'm pretty sure you don't jump off a cliff without a parachute, because you're pretty sure based solely on the evidence, but not proof, that the theory of gravity is correct, or basically so.

Gravity is a law. It's proven 100%.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-exp...ory-or-law

(12-10-2015 11:18 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

You are never going to prove anything 100%. But I'm pretty sure you don't jump off a cliff without a parachute, because you're pretty sure based solely on the evidence, but not proof, that the theory of gravity is correct, or basically so.

Gravity is a law. It's proven 100%.

No it isn't. We thought Newton's law of gravity was a law, until Einstein had to tweak it. There could be other adjustments we need to make in certain situations, that we don't know about yet.

Exactly. Physicists don't even know what gravity is. There are several speculative ideas as to what produces gravity (Wikipedia lists 16 alternative theories).

The next step is reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics, which is no where near a solution. But even then, we may not ever know the ultimate answer.

(12-10-2015 11:18 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:18 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

You are never going to prove anything 100%. But I'm pretty sure you don't jump off a cliff without a parachute, because you're pretty sure based solely on the evidence, but not proof, that the theory of gravity is correct, or basically so.

Gravity is a law. It's proven 100%.

No it isn't. We thought Newton's law of gravity was a law, until Einstein had to tweak it. There could be other adjustments we need to make in certain situations, that we don't know about yet.

(12-10-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:04 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  We have evidence for the latter (not evolving directly from monkeys or fish, obviously), but none for the former.

There was an acorn on my driveway this morning. This is evidence that someone climbed my oak tree last night. Evidence is not proof.

You are never going to prove anything 100%. But I'm pretty sure you don't jump off a cliff without a parachute, because you're pretty sure based solely on the evidence, but not proof, that the theory of gravity is correct, or basically so.

Gravity is a law. It's proven 100%.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-exp...ory-or-law

Informative read. Thanks.

(12-10-2015 11:12 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the strongest possible argument for the existence of a higher power. The laws of physical science (thermodynamics) say that things essentially deteriorate to the lowest level over time. Evolution violates that principle. Must be a higher power somewhere. That's why the whole creation v. evolution debate leaves me uninterested. I have no problem believing that a higher power could use evolution as his process for obtaining the results that it has attained.

I happen to believe that higher power is the Christian God. I have my reasons, you may have your reasons for believing in a different higher power. I respect your reasons, and expect you to respect mine. If we have a discussion, I will try to convince you of my viewpoint, just as I am sure you will try to convince me or yours.

Not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. For every mutation that led to a higher-order creature, there are lots of mutations that were complete dead ends. I doubt that entropy decreases from that process, for the whole system.

Like you said, a higher power could have set up evolution to take place, but it sure seems like a violent, cruel way of doing things.

When someone claims that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, they are referring to the 2nd law, which basically states that systems will experience higher rates of entropy (disorder) over time in a closed system. If evolution was solely dependent upon the energy available on earth alone, then it clearly would not work - nor would life exist. But the earth is not a closed system because the living creatures that live here ultimately get the energy needed from our sun. We have a giant nuclear reactor of the fusion variety providing the energy needed to create more highly ordered systems on earth.

(12-10-2015 11:42 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:12 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the strongest possible argument for the existence of a higher power. The laws of physical science (thermodynamics) say that things essentially deteriorate to the lowest level over time. Evolution violates that principle. Must be a higher power somewhere. That's why the whole creation v. evolution debate leaves me uninterested. I have no problem believing that a higher power could use evolution as his process for obtaining the results that it has attained.

I happen to believe that higher power is the Christian God. I have my reasons, you may have your reasons for believing in a different higher power. I respect your reasons, and expect you to respect mine. If we have a discussion, I will try to convince you of my viewpoint, just as I am sure you will try to convince me or yours.

Not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. For every mutation that led to a higher-order creature, there are lots of mutations that were complete dead ends. I doubt that entropy decreases from that process, for the whole system.

Like you said, a higher power could have set up evolution to take place, but it sure seems like a violent, cruel way of doing things.

When someone claims that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, they are referring to the 2nd law, which basically states that systems will experience higher rates of entropy (disorder) over time in a closed system. If evolution was solely dependent upon the energy available on earth alone, then it clearly would not work - nor would life exist. But the earth is not a closed system because the living creatures that live here ultimately get the energy needed from our sun. We have a giant nuclear reactor of the fusion variety providing the energy needed to create more highly ordered systems on earth.

Yea that's a better explanation than mine.

Scientific discovery doesn't disprove God, it just shrinks the number of things we need a supernatural explanation for.

(12-10-2015 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the strongest possible argument for the existence of a higher power. The laws of physical science (thermodynamics) say that things essentially deteriorate to the lowest level over time. Evolution violates that principle. Must be a higher power somewhere. That's why the whole creation v. evolution debate leaves me uninterested. I have no problem believing that a higher power could use evolution as his process for obtaining the results that it has attained.

I happen to believe that higher power is the Christian God. I have my reasons, you may have your reasons for believing in a different higher power. I respect your reasons, and expect you to respect mine. If we have a discussion, I will try to convince you of my viewpoint, just as I am sure you will try to convince me or yours.

the [b] defines the 'why' of either science AND religion EXIST

you almost sound mormon (forgive me....once had a programmer that was from salt lake...we had that discussion a few moons ago )

your premise is my premise was his premise....none of 'reasons' bother me.....

defending faith makes no sense to me....faith will always yield faith....

the end result is zero on both sides.....the only difference is one is still evolving through discovery while the other is still mired in the interpretation of doctrine.....I don't think that is an unfair statement to make....

(12-10-2015 11:49 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Scientific discovery doesn't disprove God, it just shrinks the number of things we need a supernatural explanation for.

The other side of the coin is that scientific discovery explains the way that God accomplished everything. Scientific discovery is by a large measure essentially reverse-engineering anyways.

(12-10-2015 01:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:49 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Scientific discovery doesn't disprove God, it just shrinks the number of things we need a supernatural explanation for.

The other side of the coin is that scientific discovery explains the way that God accomplished everything. Scientific discovery is by a large measure essentially reverse-engineering anyways.

If you want to interpret it that way you can, but there no indication of God or engineering in evolution.

I suppose you could argue that the rules the universe plays by are an indication of a deity or higher order of some kind.

(12-10-2015 01:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:49 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Scientific discovery doesn't disprove God, it just shrinks the number of things we need a supernatural explanation for.

The other side of the coin is that scientific discovery explains the way that God accomplished everything. Scientific discovery is by a large measure essentially reverse-engineering anyways.

science drives to ~1

hence faith = faith

hence ~ = ~

it's nothing more than pick the liquor o' day.....

these threads are too funny in my world of crazy.....the purest material.....

(12-10-2015 01:43 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 01:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:49 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Scientific discovery doesn't disprove God, it just shrinks the number of things we need a supernatural explanation for.

The other side of the coin is that scientific discovery explains the way that God accomplished everything. Scientific discovery is by a large measure essentially reverse-engineering anyways.

If you want to interpret it that way you can, but there no indication of God or engineering in evolution.

I suppose you could argue that the rules the universe plays by are an indication of a deity or higher order of some kind.

Exactly. That way science and God are not in conflict. It may be somewhat simplified, but then again why does everything have to be complex? Some of the most wondrous things in nature are actual quite simple. It even helps to explain the difference between us (homo sapiens) and the other species of primitive man. We are different because God created us in him image, he interfered in the natural process of evolution.

Every scientific theory leaves open, and some could argue even points towards a higher power, regarding the creation of the universe.

(12-10-2015 01:52 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 01:43 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 01:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:49 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Scientific discovery doesn't disprove God, it just shrinks the number of things we need a supernatural explanation for.

The other side of the coin is that scientific discovery explains the way that God accomplished everything. Scientific discovery is by a large measure essentially reverse-engineering anyways.

If you want to interpret it that way you can, but there no indication of God or engineering in evolution.

I suppose you could argue that the rules the universe plays by are an indication of a deity or higher order of some kind.

Exactly. That way science and God are not in conflict. It may be somewhat simplified, but then again why does everything have to be complex? Some of the most wondrous things in nature are actual quite simple. It even helps to explain the difference between us (homo sapiens) and the other species of primitive man. We are different because God created us in him image, he interfered in the natural process of evolution.

Every scientific theory leaves open, and some could argue even points towards a higher power, regarding the creation of the universe.

engineering is applied common sense

science defines such in context

language is the most amazing of all that allows

ooogaa booga....rubbing sticks to create heat

have never understood the issue, "where do we come from"......it just never made sense to the simple/complex part of being "human"

so much time wasted on so few IMO.....but that's just me....

life is so amazingly cool.....how few actually get to enjoy it is why I smile every day....I am lucky

(12-10-2015 01:52 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 01:43 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 01:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:49 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Scientific discovery doesn't disprove God, it just shrinks the number of things we need a supernatural explanation for.

The other side of the coin is that scientific discovery explains the way that God accomplished everything. Scientific discovery is by a large measure essentially reverse-engineering anyways.

If you want to interpret it that way you can, but there no indication of God or engineering in evolution.

I suppose you could argue that the rules the universe plays by are an indication of a deity or higher order of some kind.

Exactly. That way science and God are not in conflict. It may be somewhat simplified, but then again why does everything have to be complex? Some of the most wondrous things in nature are actual quite simple. It even helps to explain the difference between us (homo sapiens) and the other species of primitive man. We are different because God created us in him image, he interfered in the natural process of evolution.

Every scientific theory leaves open, and some could argue even points towards a higher power, regarding the creation of the universe.

No. False. You can surely say that a supreme being created the world and that he set the universe into motion where it confirms to the laws of nature created for existence. However, it's still a statement of faith. The earlier point about how science shows the mechanisms behind events/principles earlier assumed to have only occurred via supernatural means only is accurate. Stating that science proves that God created something is not valid. It doesn't mean that a supernatural being didn't use the scientific method to design things; however, how can anyone prove that a being did so?

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

There is a startling amount of ignorance in this paragraph.

And folks, I know it's easy to do but let's try not conflating the origin of the universe, or even of life, with the origin of species.

(12-10-2015 02:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 01:52 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 01:43 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 01:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 11:49 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Scientific discovery doesn't disprove God, it just shrinks the number of things we need a supernatural explanation for.

The other side of the coin is that scientific discovery explains the way that God accomplished everything. Scientific discovery is by a large measure essentially reverse-engineering anyways.

If you want to interpret it that way you can, but there no indication of God or engineering in evolution.

I suppose you could argue that the rules the universe plays by are an indication of a deity or higher order of some kind.

Exactly. That way science and God are not in conflict. It may be somewhat simplified, but then again why does everything have to be complex? Some of the most wondrous things in nature are actual quite simple. It even helps to explain the difference between us (homo sapiens) and the other species of primitive man. We are different because God created us in him image, he interfered in the natural process of evolution.

Every scientific theory leaves open, and some could argue even points towards a higher power, regarding the creation of the universe.

No. False. You can surely say that a supreme being created the world and that he set the universe into motion where it confirms to the laws of nature created for existence. However, it's still a statement of faith. The earlier point about how science shows the mechanisms behind events/principles earlier assumed to have only occurred via supernatural means only is accurate. Stating that science proves that God created something is not valid. It doesn't mean that a supernatural being didn't use the scientific method to design things; however, how can anyone prove that a being did so?

I never said that.

Let's look at a very simplistic view of the Big Bang.

1. ALL energy and matter is condensed into an infinitely small point. Holding that Newton's first law is correct (yes I'm aware it may not function the same way in a situation where all energy and matter are condensed into a singularity), and all energy and matter in the universe are contained in the singularity, what outside force or being set the Big Bang into motion? I understand that is a very simplified question to ask, but it is one that, based on our current understanding of physics, leaves open the possibility of God having his fingerprint on the very beginning of everything

(12-10-2015 05:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

There is a startling amount of ignorance in this paragraph.

And folks, I know it's easy to do but let's try not conflating the origin of the universe, or even of life, with the origin of species.

You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(12-10-2015 07:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 05:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

There is a startling amount of ignorance in this paragraph.

And folks, I know it's easy to do but let's try not conflating the origin of the universe, or even of life, with the origin of species.

You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Done and done! What's next?

(12-10-2015 07:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 05:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

There is a startling amount of ignorance in this paragraph.

And folks, I know it's easy to do but let's try not conflating the origin of the universe, or even of life, with the origin of species.

You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You should look it up yourself. You've demonstrated a couple of times that you don't understand evolution. Your "no historical evidence" comment is just the latest example.

(12-10-2015 07:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 07:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 05:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  So you have all these smart people prying into both subjects. One subject goes back about 4,000 years and there is historical evidence and scores of theories. The other subject goes back billions of years and there is no historical evidence and there is only one mainstream theory.

Lesson: groupthink is dangerous.

There is a startling amount of ignorance in this paragraph.

And folks, I know it's easy to do but let's try not conflating the origin of the universe, or even of life, with the origin of species.

You should look up the word ignorance and get back to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You should look it up yourself. You've demonstrated a couple of times that you don't understand evolution. Your "no historical evidence" comment is just the latest example.

Ok, I'll bite. Show me the historical evidence.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk