Creation vs. Evolution

[Tormod]

Well, there's always stonings, burning at the stake, wars, genital mutulation, and countless others which seem to be the direct result of faith...

 

Well yeah, just like guns kill people. ;)

 

I should probably have rephrased. Since when did faith represent a physical force, and how can it have had any effect on the creation of the world (there were no people around IIRC).

[InfiniteNow]

Well yeah, just like guns kill people. :hihi:

 

I should probably have rephrased. Since when did faith represent a physical force, and how can it have had any effect on the creation of the world (there were no people around IIRC). :)

 

Damn, you're good. :D

[CraigD]

Ok. Lets start off with probability. What is the probability that something as complex as the earth could have just formed out of nothing? That is a number that I don't believe anyone has found.

There have been many estimates of this number, so much so that it has a standard symbol, [math]f_\ell[/math]. Well known ones include:

• Frank Drake and colleagues, 1961: [math]f_\ell = 1[/math]
  
• Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis, 2002: [math]f_\ell = 0.13[/math]
  

Though the detail and ultimate accuracy of these estimates are varied and questionable, their existence is documented fact.

 

A major difficulty in making such an estimate in a constructive fashion – that is, reasoning from basic chemical and proto-biological models – is that there are several very different models describing very different sequences of events. The major classes of models are:

• ”Replicator first“, AKA: RNA first. These models are summarized well by a quote from Dawkins’s ”The Selfish Gene“: “At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.” The argument then proceeds that, regardless of its evolutionary fitness, the Replicator, by virtue of being dramatically more common than random, unique molecules, became the basis of all terrestrial life.
  
• ”Metabolism first“. This model was discussed in 12575 thread. It proposes that nearly any naturally occurring compartments allow cyclic chemical reactions to grow in complexity until they store information. The most successful information storing proto-organisms were the ancestors of modern RNA.

Although to my knowledge no clear scientific consensus yet exists regarding these two classes of models, my personal suspicion is that the metabolism first models is correct, and will, as biological modeling grows in quality, become the better scientifically substantiated and accepted of the two classes.

So the chances of the earth forming from nothing and becoming what it is today, the chances of the human eye evolving into what it is today, the chances of laws such as gravity being like they are, or the fact that the earth is just so positioned that life can actually be sustained, or that if any one element would be off just a touch, if the gravity wasn't just right, if the tilt of the earth wasn't just so, then none of us would be here, none of these could have just happened or evolved, because the chances of these happening are so great that it is not possible.

I believe this conclusion is incorrect. Currently, however, we lack the capability of making and testing models of adequate detail to either negate or affirm it. Until such a scientific capability exists, however, at least one source of empirical data likely to become available in the next few decades appears to me to have the potential to negate several of its underlying assumptions: the search for extraterrestrial life in the solar system. As future unmanned, and possibly manned space missions gather more data, we may discover evidence of past and present life on planets with conditions very different than Earth, demonstrating that life is capable of appearing in a wide variety of conditions.

 

:Exclamati

There had to be someone greater than us fine tuning every detail so that life can actually exist. That is the only possible explanation.

Please review hypography’s site rules, noting that, statements of the form “x is the only possible explanation” are often the beginning of a series of posts leading to a violation of

9. Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!

Arguing that you theory is possible is OK, provided you back up you claims using links and references, but insisting that no other is possible, is not.:Exclamati

[Moontanman]

Ok. Lets start off with probability. What is the probability that something as complex as the earth could have just formed out of nothing? That is a number that I don't believe anyone has found.

 

First of all the probability of the Earth forming is 100%. It is already here, the probability that universe is the way it is? 100% The only reason anyone can sit back and say it looks improbable is because we are already here. If the universe was set up differently we wouldn't be here to think how odd it was!

 

As for the formation of life, the same applies. Life isn't an odd or unusual thing, life is as natural as any other chemical reaction. When the right conditions come about life will develop quite quickly and totally naturally.

 

Complex life can be thought of in the same way. As soon as conditions were correct for the development of complex life it developed. For the first 3.5 billion years the conditions were correct for simple life but not until temperatures, chemical conditions, and oxygen levels were in the correct ranges did complex life develop.

 

To say that the eye is too complex for it to have evolved simply shows a lack of understanding of what the eye really is. Eyes in the animals kingdom stretch from a simple cell or cluster of cells that can detect light and dark to eyes much better than our own. Eyes have evolved independently several times, none of them are identical but all work as well as they are supposed to. There is no reason for a flat worm to have the eye sight of an eagle so they don't. That doesn't mean a flat worm's eyes are somehow inferior to an eagle's eyes they are just suited to different life styles.

[kcl0341]

Science and Philosophy

 

Scientists use mathematical models to describe something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions that can be tested by experiments or observations.

 

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.

 

Isaac Newton's Newtonian law of gravitation is a famous example of an established law that was later found not to be universal - it does not hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields. Outside these conditions, Newton's Laws remain an excellent model of motion and gravity. Since general relativity accounts for all the same phenomena that Newton's Laws do and more, general relativity is now regarded as a better theory.

 

For Hegel there are no independent truths and nothing is true by itself, alone. Every truth is sustained by and based on other truths. His method looking for truth is known as “Dialectic”.

 

I understand that my knowledge and capability of thinking will not allow me to seek “The Absolute Truth”. However, I am trying to draw a picture as if the universe was not created by God. If I accept that the universe was created by God, then I do not need to think hard for I have got all the solutions for every questions. Descartes declared” I think therefore I am” I think and I feel my own existence. I also feel I am not free at all as I have been always under the control of my own desires, fear, anxiety, social norms, etc. but I have entirely the freedom to think. This freedom is a real one for no one can stop me to think.

 

God or Creator

 

Einstein believed in God. He called his god is a Cosmological God who once created the universe, does not intervene with his creation again. So I think his god does not interfere with our human world in any activities. He believed that there was a beginning and an ending of the universe. His god is more a creator rather than a god.

 

For Spinoza, God is equated with substance that is Nature. On the other hand, God does not create anything that is different from Him, so He is Nature himself in another sense. Being does not mean being that is created by god, but simply God’s being. Man is not free and the world does not have a teleological end; everything is necessary and causally determined. Man is a slave because he believes he is free while being drawn along by necessity. Only one type of freedom remains open: knowledge. So the terms God, substance, Nature and Being describe the same thing.

 

For Hegel, being, through its internal movement, has hurled us into nothingness, and nothingness into being, and we cannot remain stationary in either of the two. Being has passed into nothingness and nothingness has passed into being. This is becoming. Hegel’s God, the absolute, exists only in a state of becoming. Hegel concludes, it can be said that the content of the Logic (pure reason) is the exposition of God as He is in His eternal essence, before the Creation of nature. This implies that God could be an entity as an “Absolute Law” before the creation of the universe. God does not interfere with the world. God is only a Creator.

 

God is the supreme being, creator and the ruler of the universe. The creator is an entity or being to cause something to exist. God, as the ruler of the universe, He will intervene with our human world. He will judge our thought and behavior whether we are good enough to enjoy the eternity. However, Einstein’s Cosmological God is only a creator and once the universe was created, he will leave his creation alone. The universe is self-sufficient and is capable to continue to exist. The creator would not interfere with our human affairs.

 

Every thing, says Spinoza, in so far as it exists in itself, tends to persevere in its being. The desire or longing to continue to exist forever is the actual essence of the thing. Thus, to be means to want to be forever, to have a longing for eternity. For Schopenhauer, every object in the world manifests itself as a longing or will to be. In other words, man is entirely controlled by the will to live. The ego can be perceived as a body but also as will. Thus, reality is will.

 

The will to exist is the essence of the universe. Every living and non-living things have struggled to exist by all means and they long for eternal existence. Thus the will to exist could be the First Cause for the existence of the universe. Again the will is just another name of God or Creator. The singularity starts the Big Bang. Before singularity would the “Will” be the First Cause or Prime Mover as suggested by Aristotole? It is known that at singularity all the laws of science will break down if General Relativity is correct. Therefore I would tend to think that before singularity spacetime could not exist. Perhaps there is only nothingness. What is nothingness? Is the will to exist is a nothingness? According to the Book of Genesis written by Moses, God created the universe by his word. Is that the “word” and the “will” means the same thing?

 

Scientists have proved that the universe is expanding from the “Red Shift” phenomenon. If the total amount of spacetime is included in the universe, then what is the substance beyond the universe? When the universe is expanding, the stars are moving away from the center of the universe. If the space is finite then the expansion of the universe has a limit. Einstein has introduced a Cosmological Constant in his General Relativity so that the model of the universe is a static one. If the space is infinite, then the universe could be expanding forever if it is necessary. However, according to the general theory of relativity there must have been a state of infinite density in the past, the big bang, which would have been a beginning of time. Similarly, if the whole universe re-collapsed, there must be another state of infinite density in the future, the big crunch, which would be an end of time. If Einstein is right, there must be a God or Creator who has created the universe.

 

Aquinas follows Aristotle in claiming that there must be something which explains why the universe exists. Since the universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist, its existence must have a cause. It must be something which exists by necessity,. If the universe has always existed, it still owes that existence to Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe—generally assumed to be God—is that explanation. Bertrand Russell had once said “ I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. ”For most of his adult life, Russell thought it very unlikely that there was a god.

 

Kierkeggaard wrote: How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it, why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into this world? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn’t it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom I make my complaint? Based on this, Heidgger, and later Sartre, dubbed the term “throwness” to describe this idea that human beings are exposed to or “thrown” into existence – in that we have no choice to come into existence. Sartrean existentialism argues man exists without purpose, finds himself in the world and defines the meaning of his existence. Identities are constructed by the individual consciousness only. An “identity” can include beliefs, projects, and various other things of value. Satre argues that no one else, including God if He existed, can choose your “identity” for you. So Sartre and some other existentialism believers deny the existence of God.

 

In the meantime, let us not to argue whether God does exist or not. Different philosophers have different concepts about God. Let me make a bold assumption that the concept of God is different from that of Creator. The Creator once created the universe He has left His Creation alone for the Creation is self-sufficient. However, God would watch and care our human world and He will make judgements whether our thought and behavior will satisfy Him. He is the only being who will decide every human being’s destiny—whether one can enjoy eternal life or throw him into the hell after death.

 

King Lee (kcl0341)

[Eclogite]

Ok, so what is your theory of how the earth, this universe and all the planets, how they were formed?

 

Evolution, as a word in English, can mean several things, many of them quite distinct and different from each other. A footballer may evolve his playing style in order to become a better player. I may evolve an idea about the significance of variations in the sulphur content of lunar mare basalts. A barred spiral galaxy may evolve into an elliptical through collision with another. A eukaryote may evolve from a prokaryote through endosymbiosis.

All of these instances include the sense of change, yet differ in several other ways. You have posted in the biology section, therefore our discussion should be restricted to biological evolution and probably more particularly to neo-Darwinian evolution, or the Modern Synthesis.

 

That said I shall briefly address your non-biological evolutionary points. However, if you wish to pursue those further I suggest you raise them in the appropriate section.

The consensus view held by the great majority of astronomers, cosmologists and physicists is that the present universe emerged from a dense, hot singularity, expanding over a period of some 13 billion years to its present form. (Personally I find this Big Bang approach weak and inelegant from a philosophical standpoint, but the scientific evidence for it is remarkably strong; many would say overwhelming.)

The sun and the planets, including the Earth, formed from condensation and coalescence of material from portions of a collapsing Giant Molecular Cloud. While details of the mechanisms remain to be worked out, the structure, dynamics and composition of the system, coupled now with sophisticated computer simulations and detailed analysis of meteorite composition, planetary chemistry, solar composition, and sampling of cometary material, have allowed us to lay out a convincing description of planetary formation. (If you wish I can recommend three or four hundred research papers to get you started on appreciating the richness of the evidence and the elegance of the theories.)

 

The card illustration is just a smaller example of how seemingly impossible it can be to get something (such as 20 cards to line up numerically after mixing them up) to fall into place perfectly with no flaws or mistakes.

The odds against any sequence occurring from a random deal of cards is exactly the same. The one we are seeing is the one that occurred.

We are talking about Creation vs. Evolution here, the probability that the earth, the universe and everything in it would fall into place like that has a very very probability.

You are expressing an opinion, with no supporting evidence and seemingly a lack of understanding of the behaviour of complex systems. To be sure we are on the same page would you take a moment to tell us what you understand by the term emergent property?

 

 

The examples of the eye are prime examples of what I am talking about. Each eye for each species is specifically made to suit that specific species. If there was anything different, then it would be worthless and ineffective. But each eye is fine tuned to the needs of each creature.

This is simply incorrect. On a personal level my eyes are most certainly not fine tuned to my needs. I walk around with bifocal glasses, plus a further set to look at computer monitors and I still bump into things. On a species level there are hundreds of species that would benefit from better sight than they have. The eyes of each species do the job adequately because that is how they have evolved. Not because they were made that way.

 

So tell me about chaos then? Explain to me this theory of chaos and how it worked.

On the border between chaos and order more complex systems will spontaneously emerge. This is where the nonsense about probabilities breaks down completely. Creationists belabour the difficulty of a particular protein forming by chance. They ignore the fact that there are far fewer shapes of proteins than there are possible compositions of proteins; and they seem not to understand that it is the shape of the protein that is important, not the composition. The shape of the protein determines its enzymatic properties. They ignore the role of autocatalysis. They ignore the fact that more than one protein and more than one protein shape could fulfil the same role. In terms of your card example, you do not have to deal all the hearts in order. All the spades in order will also work. Or any set of the numbers in order. Or the sevens replaced by a two, or a queen. It goes on.

Complexity arises naturally from the laws of physics and the values of the fundamental constants.

 

But the creationists ignore all this, just as they ignore a century or more of biological research that reveals a richness and a wonder in life that is infinitely greater than a cheap magic trick of instant creation. Creationists demean God by their simplistic, dull, boring, unimaginative claims for how it all was made.

 

Finally explain to me why intelligence is not valid science?

I take it you mean ‘why intelligent design is not science’. Because it makes no predictions. Because it makes no testable predictions. Because it offers no evidence in support of its contentions, but merely attacks the conventional theories – invariably using the data collected, interpreted and freely offered to the world at large by the very theorists who are attacked by creationists. Creationists are deficient at deriving any of the original research themselves. Intelligent design requires that we admit a supernatural element is responsible for some of the observed events in the universe. Since science sets out to discover and elucidate laws – regular rules governing how things happen – it cannot explore the supernatural, therefore intelligent design, whatever else it may be, is not a science. It must be – and is – founded on faith, which makes it a religion, but certainly not a science.

 

When scientists get together, talk about different issues such as the fine tuning of cells and the mechanics that go into them and the machines that make them up, when they get together and talk of such things and all of them agree that there is no possible way that any of that could have evolved or formed from another living organism (biogenesis), if they get together and say things like that, why cannot that be an acceptable form of science?

Because such scientists would be making statements that fly in the face of a volume of evidence that would take more than a lifetime to consider in full. They would be rejecting the evidence from palaeontology, zoology, botany, microbiology, molecular biology, genetics, embryology, developmental biology, ecology, anthropology and a dozen more disciplines.

 

Why can't testing and examining something like cells and their parts, and come to the realization that there is absolutely no way that this was formed by chance...why can't that be an acceptable form of science?

Because it flies in the face of the evidence to a degree that one can only reject that evidence through delusion, dishonesty or ignorance.

[Mike C]

So lets talk a little about this argument of creation or intelligence vs. evolution. My personal belief here is that the earth, universe, and everything in it was created by a higher being, someone greater than us all. I want to hear from all of you...What do you think? Lets talk a little about this and about the different sides to it. Give me your opinion, but back it up with evidence.

 

This is an argument between the bible and science.

 

The Laws of Conservation say that Matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.

So in my opinion, science wins here. So matter always existed.

For the physical universe, it always existed.

 

Now to the biological universe, the smallest lifeforms are the cells that reproduce to their own image except the 'stem cells' that can reproduce to other images (body parts) as well.

So if these cells are deposited on any other planet that has a hospitable environment for life to exist, you can bet your life that life of all kinds can evolve from these cells.

So, IMO, science wins here also.

 

So evolution has more credibility than the ID idea that is an offshoot of the pro bible faction.

 

Mike C

[Thunderbird]

Science and Philosophy

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that my knowledge and capability of thinking will not allow me to seek “The Absolute Truth”. However, I am trying to draw a picture as if the universe was not created by God. If I accept that the universe was created by God, then I do not need to think hard for I have got all the solutions for every questions. Descartes declared” I think therefore I am” I think and I feel my own existence. I also feel I am not free at all as I have been always under the control of my own desires, fear, anxiety, social norms, etc. but I have entirely the freedom to think. This freedom is a real one for no one can stop me to think.

Why do you think the belief in God gives you all the solutions?

 

God or Creator

 

Einstein believed in God. He called his god is a Cosmological God who once created the universe, does not intervene with his creation again. So I think his god does not interfere with our human world in any activities. He believed that there was a beginning and an ending of the universe. His god is more a creator rather than a god.

 

For Spinoza, God is equated with substance that is Nature. On the other hand, God does not create anything that is different from Him, so He is Nature himself in another sense. Being does not mean being that is created by god, but simply God’s being. Man is not free and the world does not have a teleological end; everything is necessary and causally determined. Man is a slave because he believes he is free while being drawn along by necessity. Only one type of freedom remains open: knowledge. So the terms God, substance, Nature and Being describe the same thing.

To me its about choice and intent. Life is what I create, But there are of course rules to creating, and if your a slave to a belief system that does not consider you own freedom along with others freedom you will only create a conflict in your self, and others. It seems you have a genuine conflict about your place in the world, well as a wise man once said "follow your bliss" Do what makes you happy. The rules of the Bible where not written by God, God makes tree's. If you want to understand creation study a tree.

 

 

For Hegel, being, through its internal movement, has hurled us into nothingness, and nothingness into being, and we cannot remain stationary in either of the two. Being has passed into nothingness and nothingness has passed into being. This is becoming. Hegel’s God, the absolute, exists only in a state of becoming. Hegel concludes, it can be said that the content of the Logic (pure reason) is the exposition of God as He is in His eternal essence, before the Creation of nature. This implies that God could be an entity as an “Absolute Law” before the creation of the universe. God does not interfere with the world. God is only a Creator.

 

God is the supreme being, creator and the ruler of the universe. The creator is an entity or being to cause something to exist. God, as the ruler of the universe, He will intervene with our human world. He will judge our thought and behavior whether we are good enough to enjoy the eternity. However, Einstein’s Cosmological God is only a creator and once the universe was created, he will leave his creation alone. The universe is self-sufficient and is capable to continue to exist. The creator would not interfere with our human affairs.

 

Every thing, says Spinoza, in so far as it exists in itself, tends to persevere in its being. The desire or longing to continue to exist forever is the actual essence of the thing. Thus, to be means to want to be forever, to have a longing for eternity. For Schopenhauer, every object in the world manifests itself as a longing or will to be. In other words, man is entirely controlled by the will to live. The ego can be perceived as a body but also as will. Thus, reality is will.

Its always struck me that a man purpose in life is to create a good story worth remembering. I would imaging if there is a god judging our lives it all has to do with who's lives are a good a read, something worth being taken to memory, which is the idea of "being saved" not in the meaning accepting god... but the universe accepting your life as something that has energy worthy of transfer to a higher state.

 

This is the same reason we will take in a movie. If the movie is good we remember, if not we forget we ever saw it. This is the highest energy your life can achieve is to be remembered.

 

If "The book of your life" is not a good read it would be thrown in a fire for a basic energy to warm Gods feet, or cook a good meal to eat while he down loads some good stories on his cosmic computer.

 

I am not being as trite as you might think here, this is how DNA works,.. information that moves the story along is saved and utilized. Energy can take a path to be transformed into higher forms of energy, or be recycled to lower forms. This may be just metaphors I'm utilizing here but I think if there is an after life.... we not some other... will actually be our own judge. When our lives are flashed before our eye’s without the filters of or own illusions will we accept it, or will we deny it, and wither under the truth of it.

The will to exist is the essence of the universe. Every living and non-living things have struggled to exist by all means and they long for eternal existence. Thus the will to exist could be the First Cause for the existence of the universe. Again the will is just another name of God or Creator. The singularity starts the Big Bang. Before singularity would the “Will” be the First Cause or Prime Mover as suggested by Aristotole? It is known that at singularity all the laws of science will break down if General Relativity is correct. Therefore I would tend to think that before singularity spacetime could not exist. Perhaps there is only nothingness. What is nothingness? Is the will to exist is a nothingness? According to the Book of Genesis written by Moses, God created the universe by his word. Is that the “word” and the “will” means the same thing?

 

Scientists have proved that the universe is expanding from the “Red Shift” phenomenon. If the total amount of spacetime is included in the universe, then what is the substance beyond the universe? When the universe is expanding, the stars are moving away from the center of the universe. If the space is finite then the expansion of the universe has a limit. Einstein has introduced a Cosmological Constant in his General Relativity so that the model of the universe is a static one. If the space is infinite, then the universe could be expanding forever if it is necessary. However, according to the general theory of relativity there must have been a state of infinite density in the past, the big bang, which would have been a beginning of time. Similarly, if the whole universe re-collapsed, there must be another state of infinite density in the future, the big crunch, which would be an end of time. If Einstein is right, there must be a God or Creator who has created the universe.

 

Aquinas follows Aristotle in claiming that there must be something which explains why the universe exists. Since the universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist, its existence must have a cause. It must be something which exists by necessity,. If the universe has always existed, it still owes that existence to Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe—generally assumed to be God—is that explanation. Bertrand Russell had once said “ I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. ”For most of his adult life, Russell thought it very unlikely that there was a god.

 

Kierkeggaard wrote: How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it, why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into this world? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn’t it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom I make my complaint? Based on this, Heidgger, and later Sartre, dubbed the term “throwness” to describe this idea that human beings are exposed to or “thrown” into existence – in that we have no choice to come into existence. Sartrean existentialism argues man exists without purpose, finds himself in the world and defines the meaning of his existence. Identities are constructed by the individual consciousness only. An “identity” can include beliefs, projects, and various other things of value. Satre argues that no one else, including God if He existed, can choose your “identity” for you. So Sartre and some other existentialism believers deny the existence of God.

 

In the meantime, let us not to argue whether God does exist or not. Different philosophers have different concepts about God. Let me make a bold assumption that the concept of God is different from that of Creator. The Creator once created the universe He has left His Creation alone for the Creation is self-sufficient. However, God would watch and care our human world and He will make judgements whether our thought and behavior will satisfy Him. He is the only being who will decide every human being’s destiny—whether one can enjoy eternal life or throw him into the hell after death.

 

King Lee (kcl0341)

The best disruption I have ever read of what could be called “God” in scientific terms is the singularity. It describes the eternal Principle. A point of no time no things, only a stable point at the center of all things that all things form and revolve around. Creating time and everything we experience as a temporal observer of time.

 

Time has no independent conceptual meaning without a contextual opposite.

 

The Singularity is a point that has no conceptual meaning without its contextual opposite.

 

The Time-singularity create an oscillation that manifest as the wave-partial duality, from this archetypal duality all other dualities manifest. Past-Future, Positive-Negative, Male-Female, Up-Down, Birth-Death, and so on.

 

Man's main duality is an oscillation within the need for autonomy and connectedness. All other dives he may have can be traced back to those two opposing, yet complimentary poles. If you want to find the main directive of the creator that would be it. Find a balance by finding what you want to connect with. What do see in creation that you think should be saved ? Once you find it connect with it, then you should connect with universal intent. Good post BTW. :)

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - The evolution of eyes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8

 

 

YouTube - Dawkins Makes an Eye http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ

 

 

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on the Evolution of the Eye || Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw

 

 

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on the Evolution of the Eye || Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2fjftZrkE

[Ahmabeliever]

I use as an example marine biology for I am retarded in subjects differing to this :confused:

 

Studies removing all leaf litter from streams and netting the top to stop further leaf contaminants showed no apparent change in the nutritional cycle, that is, there was no significant change in the population of fish from a stream with leaves, and without.

 

It has since been clarified leaves hold barely significant nutrition.

 

Yet, the leaves were housing bacteria and fungi, these fed grinding insects which fed predatory insects and ultimately fish and birds.

 

When the leaves were removed, the grinders population was decreased dramatically, yet the stream still produced the same amount of food!??

 

Answer - Substrate grazers and filter feeders replaced the grinders, and the nutritional chain remained intact.

 

Questions for the creationist -

 

How is it a stream can change in composition of life without a 'creators' hand?

 

If a forest system is 'perfect', why can we remove the leaf fall and still have the same amount of fish and the same nutrition percentages running through the food web?

 

And one I've always pondered

 

If the tower of Babel was a threat to God he must have run for the hills when he saw us on the moon.

 

Any God who finds solidarity and ambition among humans, including building tall buildings, to be a threat...

 

Is really not worth fearing. And is also a complete hypocrite - love one another - speak different languages and spread out you're scaring me!

[Ahmabeliever]

Oh and I must say - most christians haven't even read the bible. Only what their ministers choose to tell them about. LOVE (joke) If they did read it they'd realise how absolutely stupid and utterly contemptible it is.

[freeztar]

I use as an example marine biology for I am retarded in subjects differing to this :eek_big:

 

Studies removing all leaf litter from streams and netting the top to stop further leaf contaminants showed no apparent change in the nutritional cycle, that is, there was no significant change in the population of fish from a stream with leaves, and without.

 

It has since been clarified leaves hold barely significant nutrition.

 

Yet, the leaves were housing bacteria and fungi, these fed grinding insects which fed predatory insects and ultimately fish and birds.

 

When the leaves were removed, the grinders population was decreased dramatically, yet the stream still produced the same amount of food!??

 

Answer - Substrate grazers and filter feeders replaced the grinders, and the nutritional chain remained intact.

 

As someone who has studied riverine ecology and currently works in the field, I would love to see this study that you speak of. Do you have a link?

Where was it conducted? By who? What time frame? etc...

 

If the tower of Babel was a threat to God he must have run for the hills when he saw us on the moon.

 

Any God who finds solidarity and ambition among humans, including building tall buildings, to be a threat...

 

Is really not worth fearing. And is also a complete hypocrite - love one another - speak different languages and spread out you're scaring me!

 

:confused:

[Ahmabeliever]

searching....

 

While on subject - leaf litter has it's own role to play (ie: assisting denitrification, habitat, fungal food). I think the removal will cause problems despite the significance being overlooked in this study.

 

What I did find fascinating, was that the bacteria were responsible for the bulk of nutrients, and that the stream adapted to change so readily.

 

It might eventually change the entire eco-system, but my point is, gods perfect stream is subject to the whims of man, can be altered, will adapt, and nature fills each niche as best it can as niches become available.

 

The incans changed their sub-climate with aquaponics. For the better! Gods perfection there didn't sustain human life well enough, so they fixed it. Same with Terra Preta in the Amazon. Changed the ecology to suit our (human)needs.

 

Another significant detail in the study - the benefits of riparian cover were still met, except for leaf fall. The shade and erosion control, runoff containment, nutrient cycling, insect populations, etc, remained.

 

Now where's that damn link! I've been searching half an hour....

 

I'm going to have to go and think about what I was studying at the time I found this paper. Maybe native fish, more likely bio-film. All I know but I will find this for you... a NZ study, in the Waitakere Ranges, NIWA I think... specifically to do with removing leaf litter.

 

Still searching.....

[Thunderbird]

 

And one I've always pondered

 

If the tower of Babel was a threat to God he must have run for the hills when he saw us on the moon.

 

Any God who finds solidarity and ambition among humans, including building tall buildings, to be a threat...

 

Is really not worth fearing. And is also a complete hypocrite - love one another - speak different languages and spread out you're scaring me!

 

If you read these stories as mythological metaphors they do have meaning.

If someone tells you they are historical events they are missing the point of the story.

The tower is a metaphor for ego, and control. I do think the attitude that man has control over nature with technology is a modern day tower of Babel.

I love studying mythological metaphors in different religions they are a gold mine of the collective ethos. Its kind of ironic that the very best ones come from the native American Indian tribes and they know they are stories of myth.

[Ahmabeliever]

We make plenty of mistakes with nature, yes.

 

But we are also capable of ecological change for the good, my point.

 

Metaphors are great when they are not taught as literal truths.

[Pyrotex]

Ok. Lets start off with probability. What is the probability that something as complex as the earth could have just formed out of nothing? ....

Come on! This is just lame!

 

The Earth didn't just form out of nothing.

No one is claiming the Earth formed out of nothing.

The creation of the Earth has absolutely nothing to do with "evolution".

And the whole act of calculating a probability is without merit or sense.

 

You're walking on thin ice here. If you want to talk about evolution from a scientific perspective, then do so. You're off to a really bad start.

 

Pyro / MODERATOR

[Turtle]

Here's a new comprehensive examination on the topic from New Scientist.

 

 

If you think you understand it, you don't know nearly enough about it.

 

It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, arguably the most important book ever written. In it, Darwin outlined an idea that many still find shocking – that all life on Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection. ...

 

Each topic of myth & misconception is clickable to an expansive discussion. :) >>

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist