Show Me And I’ll Believe

[Erasmus00]

Nothing begins to exist without a cause.

 

Happens all the time. Google "vacuum fluctuations" or the Casimir effect for the experimental evidence.

-Will

[Biochemist]

Yeah. Next thing you know, I'll be inviting you out for a drink and showing you my favorite Bible verses.

I will take you up on it if I get close to your part of Texas.

[Biochemist]

Nothing begins to exist without a cause.

What about "Rebel without a cause"?

 

;)

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Rsade

Nothing begins to exist without a cause.

This is a very plausible "assumption" on the surface, but no logic has ever been able to prove it. And we do know of a number of events or processes in the world that have no "cause". Radioactivity in unstable atoms is one of these. The random walk of an electron through a substrate is another. When it starts to rain, why does one spot of the sidewalk get wet quickly, but another spot only inches away stay dry for several minutes?

 

The usual retort to this is usually, "but if we knew everything, EVERYTHING (like God purportedly does) then we could explain the cause!"

 

Trouble is, we now have proven that most of the interesting processes in the world, including the weather, cannot be predicted very far into the future even if we had TOTAL INFINITE KNOWLEDGE of the current conditions -- even down to subatomic levels, to a trillion decimal places of accuracy.

 

To say that we cannot predict something even with infinite knowledge is semantically equivalent to saying that it doesn't have a "cause". For if it did, and we knew that cause, then theoretically, we could give unlimited predictions.

 

The usual retort to all that is usually, "but God is Infinitely Wise and Knows Everything, even things that are impossible to know!"

 

At that point, the rational debate degenerates into a mindless melee.

[tarak]

If you believe in the present state of your universe,your world,your reason,your cell phone,your car and carburettor,the internet and your education,your skyscrapers,great walls and pyramids,subways and spillways,your gods and demigods,Edison and electric bulb,human thoughts,dreams and actions,you will first believe and define your self as a confident creature living on this planet co-existing with a myriad others.

If you want to explain yourself and your existence in your past and future along with other inhabitants of this beautiful world,the concept of evolution is the best plausible option one has to approach to balance one's self in relation to his world.No body need to prove anything to anybody, until we can recognize and believe the phenomenon of change[(gradual or sudden, silent/stormy)a mutation,development,differentiation,flux,second law of thermodynamics] happens in the universe.Whether it was Darwin or Lamarck/Lysenko,it was a human endeavor towards explaining our existence after painstaking years of observation and effort and all the products of human intellect have been products of great effort which helped in our evolution from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens.

Living systems which are capable of self-sustainance,inter-dependence and reproduction; in their interactions with the environment; are bound to influence and get influenced by it.They certainly acquire certain changes.

If you ask me to show the common ancestor of eubacteria and archaebacteria or Chimpanzee and humans,I would suggest you to climb that wonderful phylogenetic tree and experience it. Whether anybody proves it or doesn't prove it; evolution is happening and will continue to do so forever as our lives are too short to fathom that natural experience.

Don't you think we evolved all the way from those pieces of nucleic acids???in whichever direction you imagine.(could be retrogressive) and whichever theory you believe in.When you see a DNA sequence and its homology across species and genera you know there is a methodfor the flow of information and for a process to happen,which we call life.Definitely at some point of time we evolved to recognize our gods and demons.Ultimately,all I believe that we evole without our notice.......:lol:

[blazer2000x]

Sorry, blazer, but I'm afraid somebody sold you a bill of goods. Perhaps you bumped into Arnold Schnabel's book, "Has God Spoken", or the creationist tome, "People and Pandas". Perhaps your father is a Baptist preacher, I dunno.

 

I'm sorry that you think that I "ignore" evidence, because I don't. I have read most of the two books I mentioned. There is lots of stuff in them that is offered as "evidence". But both books distort the very meaning

...

But the fact is, there is a large force of movers and shakers in the extreme religionist camp that have a LOT to gain by keeping you ignorant.

 

Perhaps the only thing I can accomplish is simply to take a stand for what is true, and for what is most noble in the human spirit: intellegence and curiosity. You should know that people like me exist, and we're not out to destroy your little religion. We are out to understand the universe, and inch by inch, we will do so. With or without you.

 

Well, not quite. I am in public school (where they do not teach creationism). My dad is not a preacher. I don't believe in the easter bunny, but that's obviously not what you meant.

Why I believe in the Biblical God personaly is not what I'm trying to discuss. (and by the way, all the terms I use I learned in my biology class, they have the same defenitions as applied by the dictionary and evolutionists). You say they have a lot to gain by "keeping me ignorant"? Well, you haven't met some of the people I have I guess.

 

What I'm trying to talk about is why I disagree with the evolutionary theory.

 

Let me write an analogy now. If a builder makes millions of bycicles, he is bound to make mistakes while building them, right? Lets say that if a mistake makes a bycicle sell better than others, it will be incorporated into the design of all following bycicles. Give it infinity if you want to make changes like this, but you'll still never get a motorcycle. You won't even get gear shifts or a bell or anything. So, now say instead of building a bycicle and making mistakes on that, he is just making a simple wooden cube. How long do you think it will be before he accidently makes a jet plane?:hyper:

 

There's some other stuff I want to say too, but I'll save it for later; because or else you'll forget about the example I just gave.

[blazer2000x]

This is a very plausible "assumption" on the surface, but no logic has ever been able to prove it. And we do know of a number of events or processes in the world that have no "cause". Radioactivity in unstable atoms is one of these. The random walk of an electron through a substrate is another. When it starts to rain, why does one spot of the sidewalk get wet quickly, but another spot only inches away stay dry for several minutes?

 

The usual retort to this is usually, "but if we knew everything, EVERYTHING (like God purportedly does) then we could explain the cause!"

 

Trouble is, we now have proven that most of the interesting processes in the world, including the weather, cannot be predicted very far into the future even if we had TOTAL INFINITE KNOWLEDGE of the current conditions -- even down to subatomic levels, to a trillion decimal places of accuracy.

 

To say that we cannot predict something even with infinite knowledge is semantically equivalent to saying that it doesn't have a "cause". For if it did, and we knew that cause, then theoretically, we could give unlimited predictions.

 

The usual retort to all that is usually, "but God is Infinitely Wise and Knows Everything, even things that are impossible to know!"

 

At that point, the rational debate degenerates into a mindless melee.

 

Not sure where you're getting those "usual retorts". But, then again, I only know of religion from a Christian standpoint. I know I would never say something as dumb as "even things that are impossible to know!"; that contradicts itself, and scripture. ("for with God all things are possible." Mark 10:27b KJV)

 

Oh, and I forgot, I have never even heard of those two books you mentioned earlier, so I'm not sure what you meant by what proof they were offering. I don't believe in God because of anything anyone has said or written.

[Racoon]

Settle down Blazer2000,

No one is making personal attacks.

 

This is Science Forum. Discussion of Philosophy is also Welcome.

 

No one is saying you don't have Convictions. Thats a Good Thing when aimed in the right Direction! Like in Archery :hyper:

 

Why not chat a little bit about what You like to do outside of Theology, and let us know that your mission, like Jesus, Is Love and Peace!?? :hyper:

[Pyrotex]

...Let me write an analogy now. If a builder makes millions of bycicles, he is bound to make mistakes while building them, right? Let's say that if a mistake makes a bycicle sell better than others, it will be incorporated into the design of all following bycicles. Give it infinity if you want to make changes like this, but you'll still never get a motorcycle. ...

And why not?

Let's say the bicycles are for an infinite race along an unknown and changing racetrack through territory that slowly goes from dessert to bog and back. People buy bicycles in the hopes they will survive the next leg of the race. Most don't. So they look at the bicycles of the survivors of the last leg. The aren't sure what makes a bike "better", they just look for the commonalities of the bikes that made it. Some "mistakes" turn out to be pretty nifty. An extra handlebar that is useful for hanging bottles of water. An extra brake switch that doesn't do anything but make a loud metallic clicking sound. Some useful past mistakes aren't any good for the same thing they used to be good at--because the terrain or climate has changed. Maybe the riders will find something else to use them for.

 

Meanwhile, the bicycle makers are trying to make the kinds of bicycles that will sell, by copying those that survived the last leg of the race. They even copy the mistakes on those surviving bikes, but alas, they sometimes make mistakes on the mistakes. (mistakes on the mistakes on the mistakes...)

The mistakes accumulate. Only if they are useful for something, anything, and it helps their riders survive the next leg of the race, they aren't really "mistakes" are they?

 

So, why couldn't your analogy work? You can't see how a gasoline motor could evolve out of all of this? I suggest that maybe that means you haven't put enough thoughtful detail into the analogy yet. Failure of imagination does not prove the non-existence of what you do not imagine.

 

Keep trying. I like your analogy.

[Pyrotex]

...and scripture. ("for with God all things are possible." Mark 10:27b KJV)...I don't believe in God because of anything anyone has said or written.

So, what does "all things" include? It may include all "things" the writer was aware of or knew about. Or "all things" may have been a local slang of the day, meaning... what?... health, wealth and happiness? I dunno. And neither does anyone else.

 

Languages evolve, too, you know. What the KJV seems to mean today, is often worlds away from its original intended meaning according to what the best scholars can figure out. Jewish scholars today are still arguing over phrases that their ancient ancestors wrote 2500 years ago.

 

Oh, and one more thing. I know it may be hard to believe that I wish you no ill will or insult, but I don't. I'm not trying to "make you wrong"--it really isn't personal. You are probably a wonderful person, and if I had met you 30 years ago and you were the right gender, I would have married you. This is about logically defending what we believe. It's like an Olympic sword duel, where nobody gets killed, and sometimes the game is a draw.

[Biochemist]

...I don't believe in God because of anything anyone has said or written.

I assume you were excepting the Biblical authors from this statement.

[HydrogenBond]

One variable that nobody has brought to the evolutionary table is hydrogen bonding. It is the primary basis for the properties of DNA and RNA packing and template relationships. It is the backbone of all proteins and it is what defines the unique properties of water. This one variable is a weak bond that allows the living state. Electron types bonds alone could not support life. It makes sense to me that the foundation of the dynamic activity within the living state should be its defining variable.

 

In chemistry, all its variety is defined by the electrons and orbitals. This simple foundation can explain everything. The same is true of hydrogen bonding structures, they are just functions of fundamental principles of hydrogen bonding. Just as the electron defines rocks and chemicals, so hydrogen bonding defines the living state. The DNA is only a special case. If one tried to explain all the chemical diversity in nature without the electron it would look something like genetic style evolution, without rhyme or reason.

[Rsade]

OK then according to stevencarrwork, InfiniteNow, pyrotex, santus, etc, all agree that evolution is false based on the facts. But true if taken on faith. God bless you for I am an open theist Christian and you have finally come to your senses! kisses and hugs..heh

 

"Evolution of the species" ,autobiogenisis ,and the start of the universe (it was created by a intelligent force…suck it up and call it god or gid) according to science are all faith based belief systems, because they have no empirical evidence that support their claims!

 

Plenty of logical assumptions, but no facts. Quantum theory is not logical but has facts. I believe Quantum theory and use it, I don’t believe that evolution can explain the jump from one phylum OR even one SPECIES to another. A finch is still a finch and a fruit fly is still a fly!

 

So evolution of the species is not possible with the TIME frame allowed. Don’t even THINK of autobiogenisis, the universe isn’t old enough to make life out of inorganic chemicals. So, I withdraw the logical part of " Plenty of logical assumptions".

 

It is irrational and rather ignorant to worship Darwin and science.

[C1ay]

OK then according to stevencarrwork, InfiniteNow, pyrotex, santus, etc, all agree that evolution is false based on the facts. But true if taken on faith.

Thanks for not including me in that line up. Evolution is true based on facts and evidence. That doesn't mean that it answers all of our questions, especially those on origins of life. There is enough evidence to show that evolution is responsible for some answers though. There is little doubt that we need a new flu vaccine each year to deal with the newly evolved strain. There is also ample evidence to show that species like alligators and crocodiles are related and that they have a common ancestor. For these reasons you cannot make the blanket claim that evolution is false, the evidence simply doesn't support that claim.

[ughaibu]

I dont understand what "true if based on faith" is meant to mean. An essential element of truth is that it can be demonstrated and shared regardless of faith or any belief associated with that faith. "True if based on faith" implies that delusions are "true", rather than 'real for the deluded'. One might as well contend that any reality is at the mercy of fleeting moods, a contention that has it's place but not in a discussion of evolution.

[InfiniteNow]

OK then according to stevencarrwork,

InfiniteNow

, pyrotex, santus, etc, all agree that evolution is false based on the facts. But true if taken on faith.

Uhmmm.... No. Sorry, try again...

 

:)

[Biochemist]

I wonder how many folks here recognize that the main factions here use different definitions of "evolution". The most generally accepted definition (that species change over time) is accepted by almost everyone, including the vast majority of strict Creationists.

 

I really wish that the folks that critique "evolution" would be more explicit about their issues when the science elements are under discussion. And I would hope that the basic science sorts in this forum could successfully tease out the specific areas of agreement and disagreement.

 

Evolution is a basket of ideas, some synergistic, some conflicting. Saying that evolution is supported by fact (true) is like saying that socialistic economic theory is supported by fact (also true). Neither statement surfaces any particularly valuable discussion.