| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Question for evolutionarians.; ...is that even a word? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 17 2005, 08:31 AM (1,116 Views) | |
| The 89th Key | Jul 17 2005, 08:31 AM Post #1 |
|
Anyway, I thought about this the other day and want your take... For those of you who believe the Earth is 6 billion years old, or whatever the figure is: Let's say God did create the entire universe from nothing. Therefore physics, as we mortals know them, aren't applicable to God. Thus, don't you think it's possible for God to have made the Earth instantaneously with materials (such as sedimentary strata, and other objects that support evolution via carbon dating) that qualify as 6 billion years old because in fact He just made the chemical compositions of said material to look that way to our scientists? |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jul 17 2005, 09:22 AM Post #2 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No. Made them in shapes of living creatues too I suppose? Made to fool some of us to question his existence I suppse. :rolleyes: |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 17 2005, 10:23 AM Post #3 |
|
Well anything that might seem to support the theory of evolution may have very well been created that way so that the Earth could survive for thousands or millions or billions of years...whatever you believe in. Don't you think? I don't see why not...since God's not bound by our Earthly measures, so I think it's a valid question. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jul 17 2005, 10:23 AM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Maybe God created evolution. Maybe God evolved. Maybey Maybe Maybe. More unanswerable questions. Go play your piano. A mind is a wonderful thing to waste. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 17 2005, 10:29 AM Post #5 |
|
I do believe God created evolution. Just not on the we-came-from-monkeys-frogs-and-cells type of evolution. I think God created the Earth as one self-sustainable large organism with microevolution, the Earth able to heal itself, etc...if you know what I mean. But to think we came (and will turn in to) dust is idiotic, IMO of course.
|
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Jul 17 2005, 01:54 PM Post #6 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I can't believe I'm going to jump into this - especially since I don't have my regular internet access right now and won't be able to argue back and forth as much as normal ![]() Do I believe in evolution? Yes. There is physical evidence of the evolution of species - no, it can't take us from the beginning of time to now, but evolution can be seen in small steps, and I think it's a logical way for life to have gone from A to Z. Do I believe that there is a non-theological answer to the creation of the universe? Yes. Here's the big one: Do I think we know what it is? No. Anyone who says they have the "answer" to how the world was created and got to where we are today is full of shit. End of story. We don't know. Scientists don't know. But they're working on it - and I believe that it will be science that finds the answer. I'm willing to accept the "I don't know" for now, though, because that's really what science is. "Hey! How does this work?" "I don't know. Let's try to find out". And that's still where science is as far as the origins of the universe. It just happens that I think a scientific explanation (even though at this point one doesn't exist) is far more probable than intelligent design. Your question is one that I can't even really fathom. Not that I think it's a stupid question - but because I am so staunchy atheistic, all I can do is look at that question and say "Well, sure, if there was really a god I suppose that would be likely. But there isn't. So what's your point?" Someone with even an inkling of belief in a higher power would have at least a shot of answering it intelligently. But to me (and I'm not trying to make a big bashing statement here - just trying to explain) trying to answer that question would be like you honestly trying to come up with an intelligent answer to the question: "Let's assume that Santa Claus is a real guy living in the North Pole. Isn't it possible that he's magical enough to manipulate time so he IS able to visit all those houses in one night?" It's so far out of the realm of possibility, that your mind just can't come up with an answer. That's how I feel about this question. I'm not saying any of this trying to be disrespectful - just trying to explain where my opinions are coming from. *donning flame proof suit* |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| Fizzygirl | Jul 17 2005, 02:36 PM Post #7 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
You mean to say Santa isn't real?
|
|
Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a purpose. ~ Garrison Keillor My latest videos. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 17 2005, 02:39 PM Post #8 |
|
You know, I think (somehow) that your answer was exactly what I wanted to hear from an atheist, yet it also is exactly what you would like me to hear. Satisfying both our beliefs in one answer? Good job!
|
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 17 2005, 04:17 PM Post #9 |
|
Cheers
|
To you first question "evolutionarians., ...is that even a word?", we prefer to call ourselves rational thinking people. To your second question, yeah, sure, but both ideas are preposterous. Its like asking if there really were a Santa Claus, couldn't he just act as the tooth fairy the other 364 days of the year so we didn't need an extra guy capable of visiting all those houses in one night? (edit dol - i wrote this before seeing your post with a similar theme... great minds, they say )
|
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 17 2005, 05:34 PM Post #10 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
When I read the first question, I chuckled at the silliness of it and was reminded of a conversation I had with each of my sons (I think I had with each of them) when they were about 3 or 4 and trying to figure out the world. I suspect many if not most of you have had similar conversations with your young ones. Daddy, what if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow? Don't worry sweetheart, it will. But what if it doesn't? It will. It always does. But what if it doesn't? It will. What if the world ends tonight and the sun doesn't come up. That's not going to happen, dear. Don't worry about it. But couldn't it happen? Couldn't the earth end tonight? Well, it COULD end tonight, but it won't. Don't worry about it. But what if it DOES happen? You said it could happen. And on and on and on (It's at this point that a parents skill at distracting a child is VERY important. It keeps the parent sane and keeps the child safe from bodily injury!) So, 89th! How's the new job?
|
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 17 2005, 06:02 PM Post #11 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Really, 89th, here's the answer: It doesn't matter. If the world behaves as if the theory of evolution is correct, 100% of the time, then why does it matter whether it happened, or whether God planted evidence to mimic the theory of evolution? The important point, to me, is that this is the way the world actually functions, and (as far as we know) can be expected to function into the future. That has all sorts of implications for human behavior (animal husbandry, development of new antibiotics, etc.). As long as that's the way the world actually functions, it matters not to me how we got there. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 17 2005, 06:14 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
but evolution can be seen in small steps, and I think it's a logical way for life to have gone from A to Z. You are using the same logic here to rationalize evolution that those who see intelligent design as having merit use to rationalize intelligent design. But those who dismiss ID as having any scientific foundation to it dismiss ID based on this very method of logic. I have always known that the theory of evolution depended on using the same method of logic as ID, but it's good to see it admitted to. Thanks. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 17 2005, 07:40 PM Post #13 |
|
It's good, thanks for asking. Aside from the major-want-to-kill-myself-traffic-jams every now and then...it's not too shabby. A lot better than my old job. As you might tell, I jump on the CR during lunch. ![]() Seriously...it's the break I look forward during the day. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 17 2005, 07:42 PM Post #14 |
|
It might not matter to you, and that's fine. But for me it's crucial. Personally I find ID to be much more of a reasonable explanation than the big-bang theory. And so I started this thread to pose the idea that what if God created the Earth and the only way the Earth could survive was to program every living/geological object as if it had been here for billions of years. An interesting thought...I thought. :wacko: |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 17 2005, 07:44 PM Post #15 |
|
I've always referred to you as "those living in the Matrix". ![]() ...note the keyword in Intelligent Design. (I'm not talking about "design") :lol: JK.
|
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Jul 18 2005, 06:08 AM Post #16 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well, Larry, I suppose you have a point. I admitted that there's nothing that can be proven at this point. I stated that evolution on a smaller scale has been proven. I said that I thought that it was a logical way for the life on earth to have gotten to where it is. Am I saying it's absolute hard fact? Nope. I'm hypothesizing based on what is known. So go ahead and be smug about your "revelation". I for one don't see any shame in saying "This is what we know. Because we know that, it COULD be logical that THIS has happened. But we don't really know at this point." |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jul 18 2005, 06:23 AM Post #17 |
|
Senior Carp
|
dol was the closest to the correct answer here. I could give her the correct answer and she’d understand it immediately. Most of the rest of you are hopeless. That’s no joke. |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Jul 18 2005, 06:25 AM Post #18 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
of course now I'm dying to know that the correct answer is, FrankM.
|
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jul 18 2005, 06:34 AM Post #19 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
The answer is that what we do not know is infinite compared to what little we do think we know. But this idea that God thought.. 'Hey.. in the 19th century there will be this guy named Darwin come along.. I think I'll mess with their heads a little! Hee hee..let's see.. some aged strata, a few fossilized bones... that'll do it! Those dimbos will think evolution is real.. BWAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Hey, what's the point of being the Diety if you can't have a little fun?'... Nahhhhhhhh. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 18 2005, 09:35 AM Post #20 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
![]() That’s one way to look at it, Mik, but it is a very ancient Greek sort of anthropomorphization of God, and not at all a Christian one. Did you get this insight while burning a calf in honor of Zeus? ![]() The world (read “cosmos”) is sufficiently complex and complicated to allow for a large number of different readings as to what is going on. Some scientists – such as Ernst Haeckel, seem to have employed very dubious interpretations of data to make their case for evolution, which have later been entirely rejected by the scientific community. Now, certainly parts of evolutionary theory have been “proven” – but I don’t see anyone making lizards from birds in their Junior Science kits in their kitchen sink. If part of the Scientific Method is verification through repeatability then there is problem of limits as to how much we can state evolution is more than a well tested hypothesis that seems to answer a number of problems but is not yet integrated enough to bear the weight of “theory”. Intelligent Design is by the same account (with much lesser testing and much lesser opportunity for data analysis) also a hypothesis. I don’t have any necessary stake in either one, or in any particular “theory” of origin and development. The fact is – we cannot account for things like motion within the atom or what is going on with photons and light. We have some theoretical investigations as to why atoms in an “excited state” emit photons to achieve balance, or can capture passing photons in its respective ground state or in an excited state, and how photons can be constantly emitted and captured in the atoms of the materials through which they travel. But even the question of what exactly are photons and electrons and neutrons, what governs their movements, why electrons move all the time without loss of energy, why photons only exist in movement, and such, is still being worked out. I would ask our esteemed “rational thinking people” here whether the question of sub atomic motion will necessarily have to be worked out in parallel with evolutionary theory in order to account for the mechanism itself that could even allow for changes in the genetic structure of the being to move from one state to another on such a macromolecular scale as DNA. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 18 2005, 09:37 AM Post #21 |
|
It's 42. ...right Frank?
|
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Jul 18 2005, 02:31 PM Post #22 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
*snicker well that's ALWAYS my answer. But then I'd like to know if Frank has the question. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 18 2005, 02:40 PM Post #23 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jul 18 2005, 06:37 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Carp
|
IT wrote:
Oh really Steve? Sounds like you have a cataclysmic breakthrough here. The fundamental objection to ID has always been its lack of any meaningful experimentation. You apparently know something so crucial here that it can overturn the fundamental objection to teaching ID as a science rather than as, say, philosophy. So would you please clear away the smokescreen you created in the remainder of your post and share this vital piece of information with us. Could you also give an example where ID advocates have interpreted any data other than the experimental results published by scientists? Read the stuff published by such widely touted ID advocates as Bradley, Dembski, Behe, Meyer, etc. Find me one example where any of them have even suggested some experiment that could be used to scientifically verify the ID hypothesis. If you can, I will be more than happy to add my voice to those advocating that ID be included in science courses on biological origins. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 18 2005, 07:13 PM Post #25 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Frank: I don't understand what you are on about. I never claimed ID to be at the level of scientific theory -- it is a hypothesis broadly speaking. The GK term means "assumption". ID is a hypothesis; as far as I know everything beyond intraspecies evolution is still in strictissimus hypothesis. I am also stating that ID has less claim than evolution to the status of "theory" from the vantage of the scientific method. In fact, given the presuppositions of ID, I don't see how it can be advanced to anywhere near the level of verifiability or falsification. So what are you reading into my words that pain you so? That said, since you asked for one, the work of Jed Macosko and others at UC Berkeley on the problem of irreducible complexity in RNA polymerase, DNA, amino acids, enzymes, and proteins is something you might look at. He is an ID advocate. Whether or not you agree with his research, hop on board the bandwagon.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









8:36 AM Jul 13