Skip navigation
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community

16356 Views 77 Replies Latest reply: Jan 29, 2008 1:18 PM by cclaydog RSS Go to original post 1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next
  • fred-urie Legend 830 posts since
    Dec 17, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    45. Jan 21, 2008 9:46 AM (in response to kfkolonel)
    Re: Does believing in God...

    How can there be faith based knowledge? Do you think that David

     

    Koresh knew something about the universe?

  • cclaydog Rookie 25 posts since
    Dec 10, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    46. Jan 21, 2008 12:12 PM (in response to Jim Sullivan032)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

    I agree with you Jim. I share the dismay that you have. Why can't people "reconcile their faith with the facts we know about the physical world"?

     

     

     

     

     

    For example, we know that the universe had a beginning. We know that in no experiment has matter ever created itself from nothing. We know that in no experiment has life ever been created from non-life. Yet the atheist believes otherwise. The atheist has to believe that the universe is eternal or it created itself from nothing.

     

     

    We have no evidence of dramatic macro evolutionary changes in animals in our fossil record, yet the "enlightened" evolutionist faithfully believes otherwise. What theories do fit into these "facts of nature"? Creation from nothing by an Omnipotent God certainly fits. Atheism - not so much.

     

     

    One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a song without a composer. Obviously, one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The design inherent within the Universe is quite evident, and is sufficient to draw the conclusion demanded by the evidence, using the logic that God gave us, that God does exist and macroevolution did not happen.

     

     

  • homeskoolyZ Rookie 62 posts since
    Jan 11, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    47. Jan 21, 2008 1:01 PM (in response to cclaydog)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    cclaydog wrote:

    I agree with you Jim. I share the dismay that you have. Why can't people "reconcile their faith with the facts we know about the physical world"?

     

     

     

     

     

    For example, we know that the universe had a beginning. We know that in no experiment has matter ever created itself from nothing. We know that in no experiment has life ever been created from non-life. Yet the atheist believes otherwise. The atheist has to believe that the universe is eternal or it created itself from nothing.

     

     

     

    We have no evidence of dramatic macro evolutionary changes in animals in our fossil record, yet the "enlightened" evolutionist faithfully believes otherwise. What theories do fit into these "facts of nature"? Creation from nothing by an Omnipotent God certainly fits. Atheism - not so much.

     

     

     

    One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a song without a composer. Obviously, one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The design inherent within the Universe is quite evident, and is sufficient to draw the conclusion demanded by the evidence, using the logic that God gave us, that God does exist and macroevolution did not happen.

     

     

     

    We do not know that the universe had a beginning.

     

     

     

     

     

    We know that matter does create itself from nothing.

     

     

     

     

     

    The rest of your post is typical Christian apoligist crap designed to brainwash children. 

     

     

     

     

     

    In conclusion, you're a moron.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • cclaydog Rookie 25 posts since
    Dec 10, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    49. Jan 23, 2008 2:55 PM (in response to Jim Sullivan032)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

     

     

     

    Jim, just two quick points:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    1. Darwin said that if his theory was true, that "the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great". I could quote from hundreds of scientists from all backgrounds that document the fossil record disproves Darwin's theory. This one point alone disproves macroevolution as a fact.

     

     

    2. Mutations, the "mechanism" of macroevolution, do not bring progressive changes. Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little (for homeskoolers): mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders - mutations are unable to produce entirely new forms of life. Jim, macroevolution is dependent on these genetic changes. Bacteria might become immune to antibiotics, but it's still just bacteria. Fruit flies might grow a third leg out of their butts, but they're still just fruit flies.

     

     

     

    "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species.... That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change" - by guess who? (SJG)

     

     

     

    This concept of macroevolution is based on fossils we don't find and on genetic mechanisms that have never been observed. The case for creation is based on thousands of tons of fossils that we have found and on genetic mechanisms (variation within type) that we do observe and put into practice every day. As a logical person, I'm inclined to prefer a model that's based on what we do see and can explain (creation), rather than one that's based on what we don't see and cannot explain (evolution).

     

     

  • broadbill Rookie 124 posts since
    Sep 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    50. Jan 24, 2008 5:39 AM (in response to cclaydog)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

    cclaydog wrote:

     

     

     

    Jim, just two quick points:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    1. Darwin said that if his theory was true, that "the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great". I could quote from hundreds of scientists from all backgrounds that document the fossil record disproves Darwin's theory. This one point alone disproves macroevolution as a fact.

     

     

    I have pointed this out already, but you are assuming that every dead body of every species fall down and makes a fossil.  That is simply not true.  The great, great, great majority of life forms that have livee on this planet over the many millenia did not result in a fossil...they simply rotted away and were gone. You can't discount this.  Don't you think that many of the transisitional species might have come and gone from this earth without ever leaving a fossil record?  Just because there isn't a transitional fossil doesn't mean there wasn't a transitional species.  What about all of the fossils we might miss because they are located at the bottom of the ocean?  Under an ice sheet?  Under a subdevelopment?  

     

     

    2. Mutations, the "mechanism" of macroevolution, do not bring progressive changes. Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little (for homeskoolers): mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders - mutations are unable to produce entirely new forms of life. Jim, macroevolution is dependent on these genetic changes. Bacteria might become immune to antibiotics, but it's still just bacteria. Fruit flies might grow a third leg out of their butts, but they're still just fruit flies.

     

     

    I think you don't understand the context of the time in which evolution occurs.  This gradual change of macroevolution occurs over a span of years that is simply incomprehensible to us the human perspective.  No, a single mutation that occurs in single generation does not result in a new species.  But many, many, many mutations over a very long time does.  You cannot see evolution over the time-span in which we humans inhabit this earth and so scientists must relay on model species (bacteria, fruit flies) in order to study it.    

     

     

     

    "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species.... That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change" - by guess who? (SJG)

     

     

    I think you are oversimplifing or possibly taking SJGs comments out of context here...would you mind providing the reference so I can read the comment in its context?  I have no problems with this comment is sounds correct but it doesn't disprove evolution for me...I'm not sure how you read this and get evidence for creationism out of it.  

     

     

    This concept of macroevolution is based on fossils we don't find and on genetic mechanisms that have never been observed. 

     

     

    The case for creation is based on thousands of tons of fossils that we have found and on genetic mechanisms (variation within type) that we do observe and put into practice every day. As a logical person, I'm inclined to prefer a model that's based on what we do see and can explain (creation), rather than one that's based on what we don't see and cannot explain (evolution).

     

     

    You sound like a smart person so I wonder about this statement.  The creation story I know isn't based on fossils or genetic mechanisms...are we talking about the same creation story (the christian creation)?  For example, how do you explain that how human fossils have been found that would pre-date when humans were created in the genesis story?  I don't even find modern day theologians think the story of creation actually happened and is more of an allegory for god's love and how humans messed it up.

     

     

     

    Furthermore, it sounds like you believe in creationism because you don't believe in evolution....you do see the flaw in this reasoning, right?

     

     

  • duckgems Rookie 3 posts since
    Nov 19, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    51. Jan 24, 2008 6:38 AM (in response to Jim Sullivan032)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

    For me, believing in an intelligence to the Universe does not negate me believing in evolution.  I see the signs of a greater wisdom in all that is alive.  Evolution is the way that this wisdom created life.

     

     

  • Iontach Rookie 1,340 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    53. Jan 24, 2008 8:09 AM (in response to cclaydog)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

    cclaydog wrote:

     

     

    "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species.... That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change" - by guess who? (SJG)

     

    When you provide a quotation like this, it's common courtesy to give a full reference.  Or did you get it from one of these

     

     

    In any case, you're misinterpreting Gould.  He's quite right - a mutation doesn't produce major new material, because a mutation is a single change in DNA.  Errors - mutations - occur all the time, whenever a species reproduces - this is observable.  Of course you don't make a new species by mutating the species - you don't get a new species with every reproduction, do you? 

     

     

    Mutation isn't the cause of evolutionary change.  Natural selection is the cause of evolutionary change.  Every so often, one of those random mutations makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce.  All else being equal, the organism that best fits its environment wins out.  

     

     

    Ot course, random mutations are as likely to result in negative effects as they are positive ones.  In later generations, you can also get unexpected effects.  Having a particular mutation gives resistance to malaria, which is a good thing - it means that children with that mutation are less likely to die, more likely to grow up and become parents themselves.  But that very fact means that natural selection has increased the number of adult individuals that carry the mutation, so they're more likely to get together and reproduce.  And it turns out that if you have that genetic mutation from two parents rather than one, you get sickle cell disease.  There are similar given-with-one-hand-taken-away-with-the-other in TB and Tay-Sachs and in cholera and cystic fibrosis. 

     

     

    Evolution by natural selection provides a simple, elegant and beautiful account of these things.  Creationism leaves them as a set of random unconnected acts by a creator who thought it would be a good idea to lie about sickle cell to his most cherished creations.

     

     

  • cclaydog Rookie 25 posts since
    Dec 10, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    54. Jan 24, 2008 1:54 PM (in response to broadbill)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

    I have pointed this out already, but you are assuming that every dead body of every species fall down and makes a fossil. That is simply not true. The great, great, great majority of life forms that have livee on this planet over the many millenia did not result in a fossil...they simply rotted away and were gone. You can't discount this. Don't you think that many of the transisitional species might have come and gone from this earth without ever leaving a fossil record? Just because there isn't a transitional fossil doesn't mean there wasn't a transitional species. What about all of the fossils we might miss because they are located at the bottom of the ocean? Under an ice sheet? Under a subdevelopment?

     

     

    I partly agree with you - your point is partially true and does not by itself prove beyond any doubt that macroevolution couldn't possibly have occured.  But wouldn't you also agree that since we can and have found hundreds of thousands of fossils of extinct and still living animals literally everywhere over the last 200+ years, that at least SOME of them would be transitional between current animal types?  After all, if evolution brought about all life forms that we now see from a single living thing, wouldn't every fossil we find be transitional?  My point was to ask - where is the evidence to justify this theory as fact

     

     

    I might say that all life came from little pink aliens that got stranded here billions of years ago - they simply rotted away and were gone... same logic.

     

     

     

     

     

    I think you are oversimplifing or possibly taking SJGs comments out of context here...would you mind providing the reference so I can read the comment in its context?

     

     

    "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," Stephen J Gould at Hobart College on February 14, 1980, as quoted in:  Sunderland, L.D. (1984), Darwin's Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books) Page106.

     

     

    You sound like a smart person so I wonder about this statement. The creation story I know isn't based on fossils or genetic mechanisms...are we talking about the same creation story (the christian creation)? For example, how do you explain that how human fossils have been found that would pre-date when humans were created in the genesis story? I don't even find modern day theologians think the story of creation actually happened and is more of an allegory for god's love and how humans messed it up.

     

     

    If you want a "creation story", I recommend the Norse story of Odin and Ymir or the Japanese creation story by Yasumaro.  I didn't know we were looking for good stories... 

     

     

    I personally believe in special creation and have found that the overall body of scientific evidence does not conflict with my personal beliefs.  Various conclusions and speculations drawn by others from certain data may disagree with my beliefs, but opinions are like armpits...  I don't feel the need to have proof for everything that I believe, but it's important to not have anything that would disprove what I believe.  You mentioned modern day theologians buying into evolution - there are a few here and there.  I'd suggest that they take their argument with Jesus Himself - "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." - Mark 10:6

     

     

  • cclaydog Rookie 25 posts since
    Dec 10, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    55. Jan 24, 2008 2:54 PM (in response to Iontach)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

    You said "Natural selection is the cause of evolutionary change."  This is a completely irrational statement.  What does natural selection cause?  It certainly eliminates the unfit and preserves the fitter (more fit?), but what CAUSES things to become fit or unfit?  The fact that an organism is adapted to its environment tells us absolutely nothing about how it became adapted.  Does natural selection somehow create the fit?  Nobody believes this.  Who's more fit anyway?  Those that have survived?  So natural selection causes the survivors to survive?  OK, I say that what causes people to run is the fact that they are runners.

     

     

    No offense, but you shouldn't comment on things if you don't understand them. 

     

     

     

     

     

    You also said "Ot course, random mutations are as likely to result in negative effects as they are positive ones."  Actually, favorable mutations amount to less than 1% of all mutations that occur.  And of course, mutations are changes in already existing genes.  A gene must be present before it can mutate, and the end result of is merely a varied form of an already existing gene.  Mutations represent an undesirable departure from the original.  It doesn't add any genetic material.  You tell me, where did the original genetic material come from?

     

     

  • Iontach Rookie 1,340 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    56. Jan 24, 2008 5:27 PM (in response to cclaydog)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

    cclaydog wrote:

    You said "Natural selection is the cause of evolutionary change."  This is a completely irrational statement.

     

     

     

     

    Fair enough.  Natural selection is a necessary and sufficient condition for evolutionary change - as is mutation.  How's that? 

     

     

    Can you explain now why natural selection and mutation are incompatible with belief in God?  You seem to believe they are.  Help me out, because this, I certainly don't understand.

     

     

  • Turd Fergeson Rookie 1 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    57. Jan 24, 2008 9:07 PM (in response to Jim Sullivan032)
    Re: Does believing in God...

    Believing in God does not really cause people to doubt evolution, but living for God and trusting the Bible as fact will arouse that doubt.  God is either who He says He is or the entire Bible is just another book.  Genesis makes it clear that in no uncertain terms the universe-everything-was created in 6 days.  Six risings and settings of the sun as we experience them today.  That is a far cry from time frame science puts on evolution.  The problem is this-too many people want to put there own interpretation on the Bible so they may happen to "believe" in God, but don't want to pay the price of living for God.  They want to trust God their way.  It is easy to say I believe in God and I go to church sometimes and know a lttle about religion, but in the grand scheme of things, when all is said and done, that is not going to cut it.  As JeanK wrote you must accept Christ dying as a sacrifice for your sins in order to experiecne salvation.  There is no way around that. It is easy to ridicule this way of thinking, as many people who "believe" in God do, because this is not a popular way to live.  It takes extreme fortitude to be able to live like this because the world is agianst you.   If,as a Christian, you say a certain lifestyle or action is sinning (homosexuality, drunkeness, forniction...) you become a narrow-minded hate monger, an over zealous nut.  In contrat to this though, if you want to allow everyone to do as they please  and live in fear of stepping on toes and offending then you will be perfectly accepted by the world, where your 'belief" in God certainly won't cause you any problems.  I say all that to say this:  Yes, truly believieng in God causes people to doubt evolution.

  • broadbill Rookie 124 posts since
    Sep 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    58. Jan 25, 2008 5:09 AM (in response to cclaydog)
    Re: Does believing in God...

     

    cclaydog wrote:

     

     

    I partly agree with you - your point is partially true and does not by itself prove beyond any doubt that macroevolution couldn't possibly have occured. 

     

     

    I'm not trying to convince you of proof beyond any doubt...what I'm trying to do is convince you that the evidence we currently have demonstrates that theory of evolution is the best explanation for what we see on earth today.  Conversely, where is all your evidence that evolution is divinely inspired?  

     

     

    But wouldn't you also agree that since we can and have found hundreds of thousands of fossils of extinct and still living animals literally everywhere over the last 200+ years, that at least SOME of them would be transitional between current animal types? 

     

     

    Are you talking about fossils from animals that LIVED 200 years ago or about fossils we have dug up in the last 200 years?  Regardless...yes, they have found transisitional fossils....I don't understand why you keep stating there is no such thing.  Do you actually think transisitional fossils do not exist?

     

     

     

     

     

    I think you are oversimplifing or possibly taking SJGs comments out of context here...would you mind providing the reference so I can read the comment in its context?

     

     

     

    "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," Stephen J Gould at Hobart College on February 14, 1980, as quoted in:  Sunderland, L.D. (1984), Darwin's Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books) Page106. 

     

     

    Thanks, I don't have time to read right now...but I noticed this was from a talk in 1980....that is getting on 25 years now....our understanding of evolution has come a fair bit since then.  Not to put words in SJG mouth, but I would be interested if he still held those thoughts that he did all those years ago when he first gave that talk.

     

     

    If you want a "creation story", I recommend the Norse story of Odin and Ymir or the Japanese creation story by Yasumaro.  I didn't know we were looking for good stories...  we aren't, but I find that creationists tend to like their fairy tales

     

     

    I personally believe in special creation and have found that the overall body of scientific evidence does not conflict with my personal beliefs.  Various conclusions and speculations drawn by others from certain data may disagree with my beliefs, but opinions are like armpits...  I don't feel the need to have proof for everything that I believe, but it's important to not have anything that would disprove what I believe. 

     

     

    Look, this is the nice thing about science....I don't have to prove or disprove anything.  With science, the evidence stands by itself...we have fossils (and yes, there are transisitional fossils too), we have carbon dating, we have  our observations.  You may not agree with the interpretation of the data, you might be critical of how the data was collected....but the fact remains that its still evidence.  Again, what I would like to see if a similar investigation into creationism and see how that theory holds under similar scrutiny that the theory of evolution has been subjected to.

     

     

    You mentioned modern day theologians buying into evolution - there are a few here and there.  I'd suggest that they take their argument with Jesus Himself - "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." - Mark 10:6

     

     

    ....that is their "cross to bear"...so to speak.  I could think of nothing worse than being a theologian with strong religious beliefs and having those beliefs constatntly bombarded by reason and science.

     

     

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...