Mutation and evolution

[dad]

So the split happened after the flood and not after Adam and Eve left the garden???

Far as I can tell, yes, about a century after the flood. Biological life on earth started to die at the fall, of course, even though in the still merged universe, it took over 9 centuries for a man to finally die!

[dad]

....
And yet, the postcranial skeleton of these hominines is very much like a human's.

And, so?..... Why would we care if a monkey had a similar skull or not? Because you claim we decended from that sort of thing? Doesn't add up. A butterfly has eyes, am I a butterfly too? A dog has a tongue, are you a dog? A short man walks, and is about the same size as a chimp, does this mean they are brothers?
I would ask what actual adapting we know actual men have really done since Eden? I could see some differences as possible and likely. Like our teeth, where maybe we used to use the wisdom tooth more or something. Maybe even like Flores man, some adapted into little shrimps of men, etc. But the business of saying we are beasts, and related to cockcroaches, (as many freely have admitted to me!), baboons, etc. -that came from Granny in the pond, well, that is all purest speculation only. Perhaps a better adjective might be 'filthy', rather than pure.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I do want to see some of the recovered skulls myself, but when I read in Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith that every single piece of human fossil remain ever found fits modern man he had a very extensive bibliography supporting his statement. I wish I still had that book because now I want to post some of his sources. He wasn't getting his information from religious groups. He was getting it from legitimate palentologists. When I read the statement in his book I frankly thought he made it up, but I thought, you know - Strobel's statement (he makes it more than once - he actually made kind of a big deal about it) is a pretty big deal if it is true. So I started to look-up some of his sources. And guess what? He was right! There are lots of skulls from pre-species of mankind, but not a single one of them is a complete skull.

Correct. However this is well known.

There are complete bones for other parts of the body, but none of the ones that are different from modern man.

I suppose with a cursory glance no, however upon closer examination you'll notice different angles for the joints and different pelvic configurations.

And more than that, every single complete bone and every single bone fragment FITS MODERN MAN!

This is absolutely false, look at the picture of the mandible above, that is absolutely not from a modern man.

It floors me how people are blowing that statement off. Sure - you can show another picture of another skull with bone fragments that fit modern man.

Again that picture does not fit a modern man, take it to a surgeon. Ask him, what's funny about this picture.

What is the point? Sure - you can take one skull and based on that shape another skull correctly, but when every single human skull ever found has nothing but pieces that fit modern skulls, what pray tell are they using as a base of reference in their forensic science recreations?

Again look at the fossils after studying the modern skull, and tell me if you still think this is the case.

I'll tell you what they are using. They are using other skulls that also contained nothing pointing to any form other than the form of a current skull.

It STILL floors me.

Why not ask a paleontologist yourself how they do a reconstruction. Go straight to the source instead of trusting some book you read or a stranger on the internet.

Somebody please refute the statement that every bone fragment ever found fits a modern skull. I mean, if you have never found a single bone fragment that doesn't fit a modern skull, then you also haven't found a base of fragments from different skulls that collectively form a different shape. Rather you have found a base of fragments from different skulls that collectively form our CURRENT shape.

Again this contention is absolutely wrong. Look at the fragments.

Nobody refutes that every bone fragment from every skull ever found fits modern man. I don't get it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the ramification of that.

Where is this claim comming from?

And what's with the ad-hominum arguments?

What do you mean? I am not saying that your claims are baseless due to your education. I am saying why not ask a paleontologist wheather the claims written in a book are true or not.

Let's say I'm a third-grader who can barely spell his own name. If my statements are accurate and my logic is sound, who cares? Telling me to get an education doesn't refute my argument.

I'm sorry, I don't recall telling you to get an education. However if I did, and I offended you, I'm sorry.

Besides which, nobody here has asked about my background so nobody knows whether or not I have an education. I could have seven or eight doctorates in fields like evolutionary science and palentology. I'll tell you that in reality my education is somewhere between those two extremes. I'm not someone with seven doctorates, but I'm also not a third grader. But my education level isn't relevant so it probably shouldn't be a part of this debate.

Someone has Lee Strobel's book. Could someone post some references for me? The fact that EVERY SINGLE BONE FRAGMENT ever found from pre-species of mankind FITS MODERN MAN is surprisingly well documented.

Again how can this be so, when the image above doesn't even fit modern man. A quick study of human anatomy will lead one to the conclusion opposite of the claims in that particular book.

[Mastriani]

I actually believe in adaptation, or evolution in the ancient world, but the changes that were needed started with God's created creatures! The bit about trying to do an end run around creation, and credit some magically appearing first lifeform is very false, and absolutely unsupportable!!!!!!!
(And, yes, in that spiritual and physical past, hyper evolution was the name of the game)

This sort of elementary semantics is simply laughable, and indicative of a disposition lacking maturity in both character and deduction capabilities.

NO ONE has tried to do an "end run around creation", I haven't seen one comment that would support that sort of balderdash. The contentions presented here, (mostly by thinking individuals, and most often supported by scientific data for or against individual positions), is that there is a common ground for creation and evolution, that the pieces fit in a manner that we are trying to agree upon.

Hyper-evolution is largely unsupported, and is not an accepted theory, nor have I been able to find one referenced scientific article pertaining to such. Although I am surprised that someone so indoctrinated would side with Richard Dawkins in a logical discourse. As usual you fail to attack with superlatives and proffer zero data support of your stance. Your
"contentions" are notably unremarkable and lacking any logic, data, statistics, information, or reasonablility.

[dad]

...
This sort of elementary semantics is simply laughable, and indicative of a disposition lacking maturity in both character and deduction capabilities.

I can laugh too. What is funny is assuming the present is the be all end all, and trying to hold a different past and future to it's limitations with no evidence!

NO ONE has tried to do an "end run around creation",

Well, of course they have. You assume there was no creation in the biblical garden of Eden sense, then imagine your way back to some magic Granny instead. No can do. Nothing supports that, but assumptions and beliefs. Present adapting, or evolving, does not mean in any way that the evolving did not start with created creaures!

I haven't seen one comment that would support that sort of balderdash. The contentions presented here, (mostly by thinking individuals, and most often supported by scientific data for or against individual positions), is that there is a common ground for creation and evolution, that the pieces fit in a manner that we are trying to agree upon.

If you mean the old agers, I don't disagree they are thinking individuals. I disagree with the beliefs they have that cannot be supported. Cheifly, that the past was PO.

Hyper-evolution is largely unsupported, and is not an accepted theory,

Of course it is supported. The bible supports it. Science supports it, because we know evolution has occured, I think, to a large degree. (Like all cats coming from the one pair). It can't happen in the physical only present, which is all that old ageism is based on, there is the problem. Of course it is not happening now, but it did happen in the past.

nor have I been able to find one referenced scientific article pertaining to such. Although I am surprised that someone so indoctrinated would side with Richard Dawkins in a logical discourse.

The name sounds familiar, but I never read his work. Scientific research is limited to the present, natural world, and assumptions derived from it. It is, in other words, severely handicapped, and limited.

As usual you fail to attack with superlatives and proffer zero data support of your stance.

The zero data is mostly yours. Because the data in question concerns the past, and your beliefs and assumptions are not data.

Your
"contentions" are notably unremarkable and lacking any logic, data, statistics, information, or reasonablility.

Your contentions are belief based, and contain only the logic, data, statistics, information, or reasonablility of the box! Which is precious little, biased, half baked, and ignorant of most of the picture!

[Jbuza]

gone

[Zenith]

Zenith,

How can you say that naturalism (I'll use that term rather than 'science' because of the 'all things must come from a natualist cause' part, which I maintain as theory rather than fact) is not bathed in absolutes when it starts with an absolutistic theory that God can not be the cause?

where do you get this from? there is actually a very small amount of scientists who say anything at all about god. there are a few individuals who stir up quite a bit of noise about their own, personal atheism, but they most certainly do not speak for the majority of the scientific community. i, like many scientists, am not content with any conclusion without sufficient facts. and even then, i am still skeptical. personally, i view everything as a probability. there is a distinct probability that god exists, but that he is quite different than anyone thinks he is.

I'll agree with you that science is the study of that which exists. But as a Christian I believe that God exists. As a Christian who also believes in science, I believe that science and God are on a collision course. You say 'Big Bang' and I say 'Let There Be Light!' I'm not going to discount the notion that science is the study of what exists. I'll go a step further back and say that science will eventually prove that God exists. It's actually well on the way toward doing so, because science keeps shooting-down alternative explanations for things like the origin of morality, the origin of the universe, and the origin of species.

they are only viewed as opposing beliefs because of the interpretations of the individuals who believe them. to me, atheists and theists spend too much time talking about their own beliefs than figuring out if they are really right. i'd rather take nothing for granted and see how the world works from a more naive point of view; i try to work on a clean slate.

also, the main purpose of science is to shoot down the theories it develops, this is something that many non-scientists fail to properly realize. science disproves a theory and everybody thinks that means it proves christianity. it doesn't work that way. it only means that that one theory, or even just a small part of that one theory, was wrong and that it needs to be readjusted or redeveloped so that it fits the evidence more accurately. this is an ongoing process.

If God exists (and I believe he does) why would He want to be disproven? He wouldn't. Rather, He would want us to find Him, and Science will do so. You and I may not live to see it, but we are seeing the beginning of it because all of the other theories are getting shot down.

the first few sentences i would agree with. but the last is an inaccurate statement. scientific theories are always being disproven, thats the whole point. they are disproven so that more accurate theories can be developed instead, and we get a better picture of the world around us. right now science is stronger than it has ever been before, and there are so many varying minds working on scientific theories that theories are being shot down everyday. that only means that science is progressing even faster.

Let's talk genes. How many genes are there in Human DNA? Scientists, who hold that DNA is the 'computer code' that determines what we develop into, always said that there must be hundreds of millions and maybe even billions of genes in a human strand of DNA. Weren't they surprised then when they decoded DNA and found there were only about 30,000? Not only that, but they found that DNA changes throughout your life. In other words, if a group of homosexuals starts to pay attention to you when you are an adolescent and you decide to partake of that lifestyle, your DNA will adapt to it and as a part of your free will you will become a homosexual. If on the other hand you tell them to buzz off and start dating the opposite sex, your DNA will adapt and make you straight. It's all about choice. Naturalists try to discount free choice (by saying we are nothing more than dna-encoded computers) strictly because free will smacks of God. Science has proven that we have free will and yet naturalists won't admit that fact because free will can't be explained by 'naturalist causes.'

most of this has already been properly refuted by another poster, but i had to respond to the first few statements. the genes in dna all affect more than just one thing in an organism. one tiny change in the order of proteins in one gene can affect hundreds of aspects in the organism. there is not just one gene for each single aspect.

i'm not too knowledgable on genetics, but i know enough to say that it doesn't work the way you explained it.

The problem with naturalism is that, because of their contention that all things must have naturalist causes, they are completely closed even to the possibility that God might exist.

you are extrapolating far too much than is really there. not a single person i know thinks of it this way. a lot of the people i know actually do believe in a god, or at least believe that we cannot know for sure.

What if God came down in a pillar of fire and held a press conference in the White House Rose Garden? A true scientist would have to at least admit that a pillar of fire going up into the stratosphere that says to a national audience of millions that it is God (and then answers questions from the media) might really be God. A naturalist would have to call it a solar flare. A Christian scientist might mention that the 'solar flare' spoke. The naturalist would say that the 'speaking' was random noise amplified by the radiation in the solar flare, and that though what millions heard might have sounded like God holding a press conference and answering questions, it was just blind luck that it looked that way. Why would naturalists have to say that? Because saying that it might be God would be against their #1 theory that all things have naturalist causes. A true search for truth would take scientific fact alone and would not care what it might say or not say about God.

all i can say is that you are making up random scenarios based on your limited experiene with science. your stereotypes of scientists are hardly an accurate portrayal of real science. a true scientist would observe with as little bias as possible. i know that i would not discount obvious speaking as "random noise".

The chance for amino acids, if all of them really did get created naturally (which science has shown didn't happen)

this is not true, science has not done this (and show me where you got the misinformation from). science has actually shown that most of the amino acids are able to form naturally.

falling into the correct sequence to form a single protein is about the same as the chance for a tornado going through a junkyard to randomly throw-together a fully functional Boeing 747.

and how did you come up with these odds?

And that's to create one protein. There are thousands of proteins in a single living cell, and they would have to all be thrown together randomly for there not to be a God.

another thing theists fail to realize is that it is not random. there is a cause for everything. random only means that it is too complex of a process for us to fully understand yet.

Naturalists don't discount that probability. Rather they say that those odds are still more probable than the idea that God did it. Well, that's their opinion. I'll bet they think the Lions are going to win the Super Bowl too. But they have to say that because saying anything else would throw naturalism right out the window.

they don't have to say it. they say it because that is what the evidence reveals. but the evidence does not reveal anything about god. science cannot disprove god, and has no authority to say that god does not exist.

The odds say there is a God. In the absence of any other theory that can stand up to subjective reason and analysis (i.e.: the scientific method), true science must accept that possibility as a legitimate theory.

the odds are from a skewed perspective. irreducably complex systems is not evidence for god because we have nothing to compare it to. saying that a cell is too complex to have evolved by itself is an opinion, it is not evidence.

Based on evolutionary theory (or naturalist theory or darwinist theory or whatever name you want to give it) the species called "Mankind" is nothing more than a transitionary subclass of the major line called "Primate." If evolution is true and I find 'human' remains, the odds of them matching modern Mankind are incredibly remote because evolution holds that there is no such thing as a fully evolved Man. We are still in flux. Thus there should be countless forms further back on the evolutionary ladder that any 'human' fossils we may find could have come from. If we still have dinosaur fossils, shouldn't we also still have fossils from Mankind that go back before our current form? Of course there should be. Naturalism has to come up with an explanation for not finding them because they haven't found them and the only legitimate conclusion one can make based on their absence is that evolution did not occur - which again smacks of God.

what do you mean "not finding them"? there are plenty of fossils of proto-man. you just have the opinion that they arent the ancestors of man. besides, it is extremely rare that bones become fossilized.

According to the scientific method, if the laws of probability point away from a theory that theory starts to lose clout. Evolution isn't just flawed. Based on any true scientific investigation, it just plain didn't happen. Naturalists however can't agree to that because they don't have an alternative explanation and they aren't willing to say "we just don't know" about something as fundamental as the origin of species.

this paragraph shows just how little you know about evolution. how many "true scientific investigations" have you read about discounting evolution? none, thats right. what exactly do you define as a true scientific investigation?

Back to morality... When you say "the whole being whatever culture the individual belongs to" your argument falls apart. Based on that, each culture should have its own moral code and there should be as many moral codes as there are cultures. Those moral codes should have a tremendous amount of diversity and only a few underlying similarities - all would for example benefit having some form of culture. But the converse is true. There is only ONE underlying moral code, and NO culture going back to the beginning of time has EVER deviated from it except in very superficial ways - and even then the superficial variations are for reasons that fit back in with that single moral code! A single, underlying moral code that unites humanity smacks of God!

they are similar because they are all formed by human minds. it smacks of similar ancestry and simliar physical structure. humans all found that by helping each other out, fewer of them died. so they started living communally.

Science does not disprove God. Quite the contrary. Science should make us all religious.

you're right that it doesnt disprove god. that is simply impossible to do. but i believe it rather makes us less religious, and more attentive of the world around us.

[Wall-dog]

BeGood,

I don't think it was you who questioned my education. I think it was someone else. I could go back and look to see who it was but I don't think its important. I think what is important is that it be understood that the implied argument that if I don't believe in evolution I must be an uneducated simpleton, well - that argument is bunk. Many educated people don't believe in evolution.

Wall-dog wrote:
I do want to see some of the recovered skulls myself, but when I read in Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith that every single piece of human fossil remain ever found fits modern man he had a very extensive bibliography supporting his statement. I wish I still had that book because now I want to post some of his sources. He wasn't getting his information from religious groups. He was getting it from legitimate palentologists. When I read the statement in his book I frankly thought he made it up, but I thought, you know - Strobel's statement (he makes it more than once - he actually made kind of a big deal about it) is a pretty big deal if it is true. So I started to look-up some of his sources. And guess what? He was right! There are lots of skulls from pre-species of mankind, but not a single one of them is a complete skull.

Correct. However this is well known.

I'm glad we agree, though I wonder if you fully see the ramifications of that. Let's say that I have fragments from what I believe to be 26 skulls for a particular pre-species of Mankind. I start to try to put them together. Now, in a few cases I may get lucky and have two or three pieces that actually fit together, but for the most part I've got gaps between the fragments. This is problematic for many reasons - not the least of which is that there is no way I can really know that the fragments even come from the same skull. I know they are roughly the same age because I found them together and because I can carbon-date them, but there is no way I can really know I don't have fragments from multiple skulls that just happened to be together.

But even if I'm right that I have fragments from 26 skulls, how do I put them together? I'll start by going through each skull and putting each piece that fits perfectly into another piece together. Then I'll try to use these few sections to figure out how to place the other fragments. If the check-bone fits one way on one skull for example it probably goes in the same basic place on the other skulls.

But my 26 skulls are not all from the same geographic location and I have no way of knowing if there were differnet ethnic groups within the species I'm working with. Ethnic groups have distinct bone patterns that may not be shared by other ethnic groups. The American Indian for example generally has higher cheek bones than most other groups today. I've got a spat of Indian blood and have high cheek bones because of it. Furthermore, different skulls within the same ethnic group can be quite different. My sister's skull is much rounder than mine for example. Next, not all skulls are the same size. This is really important because none of my skulls are complete so I have no conclusive way to gauge the size of ANY of them. I have techniques that should give me reasonable guesses, but none based on this sub-species because I don't have any complete skulls to use as a base. So I have to look at other sub-species both before and after, and based on the assumption that they evolved one to the other I'll start to use the other species to fill-in the blanks on the current species.

But I have the same problems with the other species I'm trying to use, and beyond that I've already made my technique into a circular argument by using the theory of Evolution as a basis for how I put the skulls together.

Palentologists do the best they can with what they've got, but there is no way they can really say what any of those skulls should look like.

Throw into the mix that every fragment they have fits a modern skull and one has to wonder why they don't use the modern skull as a base... Maybe that's because if I did that I'd put together 26 modern-looking skulls?

Wall-dog wrote:
There are complete bones for other parts of the body, but none of the ones that are different from modern man.

I suppose with a cursory glance no, however upon closer examination you'll notice different angles for the joints and different pelvic configurations.

My grandmother had bad arthritis. Do you think upon closer examination she would have different angles for the joints and/or a different pelvic configuration? And on top of that you've got all the same problems you have with the skulls with each bone. The vast majority of bones are incomplete and none of the skeletons are anywhere NEAR complete. The bones that supposedly have differnet angles and configurations just happen to be the biggest bones in the body which are also in the most pieces. Between disease, arthritis, and the inherent problems of palentology as discussed in reference to skulls make it impossible for me to do more than speculate what the joints might have looked like. And keep in mind that micro-evolution happens all the time so a small variation is to be expected. But you won't find enough to show more than micro-evolution without throwing in lots of subjective interpretation.

Wall-dog wrote:
And more than that, every single complete bone and every single bone fragment FITS MODERN MAN!

This is absolutely false, look at the picture of the mandible above, that is absolutely not from a modern man.

I don't know that mandible, but I do know only one intact mandible from a pre-species of man exists and it fits a modern man. What someone may have assembled from fragments based on the same subjective 'science' discussed above isn't relevant. There are also several partial skulls with intact mandibles that some palentologists claim to be human but that other palentologists say are not related to humans (including pre-species) at all. Pictures may say 1000 words, but some of those words may be false... That mandible is subjective at best, as is the skull it is attached to.

Wall-dog wrote:
It floors me how people are blowing that statement off. Sure - you can show another picture of another skull with bone fragments that fit modern man.

Again that picture does not fit a modern man, take it to a surgeon. Ask him, what's funny about this picture.

He might point out how much of it is material added subjectively by the palentologists who put it together.

Wall-dog wrote:
What is the point? Sure - you can take one skull and based on that shape another skull correctly, but when every single human skull ever found has nothing but pieces that fit modern skulls, what pray tell are they using as a base of reference in their forensic science recreations?

Again look at the fossils after studying the modern skull, and tell me if you still think this is the case.

Keep in mind when you say that, that had the palentologists used modern skulls as their base they'd have created modern-looking skulls.

Wall-dog wrote:
I'll tell you what they are using. They are using other skulls that also contained nothing pointing to any form other than the form of a current skull.

It STILL floors me.

Why not ask a paleontologist yourself how they do a reconstruction. Go straight to the source instead of trusting some book you read or a stranger on the internet.

Who do you think wrote the books? Their methodology isn't the problem though. Nobody questions whether or not the vast majority of palentologists did the best with what they had to work with. The problem is that they didn't have enough to work with. The best guess someone can make is still a guess. And when other people use guesses as a basis to guess from, the guesses keep getting bigger.

Wall-dog wrote:
Somebody please refute the statement that every bone fragment ever found fits a modern skull. I mean, if you have never found a single bone fragment that doesn't fit a modern skull, then you also haven't found a base of fragments from different skulls that collectively form a different shape. Rather you have found a base of fragments from different skulls that collectively form our CURRENT shape.

Again this contention is absolutely wrong. Look at the fragments.

That's a great idea. Please provide photos of fragments that haven't been assembled. We'll see how much they look like pieces of modern skulls.

Wall-dog wrote:
Nobody refutes that every bone fragment from every skull ever found fits modern man. I don't get it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the ramification of that.

Where is this claim comming from?

Re-read your first quote where you said it was a well known fact.

You are very civil BeGood. You are a true gentleman and it is a pleasure to debate you! I don't think you questioned my education. I think it was someone else. If you look back through the thread you'll see it. No biggy though. I just wanted to make sure anyone reading the thread would see how silly telling me to 'get an education' is when nobody here knows my level of education...


OK. Now Zenith

Wall-dog wrote:
Zenith,

How can you say that naturalism (I'll use that term rather than 'science' because of the 'all things must come from a natualist cause' part, which I maintain as theory rather than fact) is not bathed in absolutes when it starts with an absolutistic theory that God can not be the cause?

where do you get this from? there is actually a very small amount of scientists who say anything at all about god. there are a few individuals who stir up quite a bit of noise about their own, personal atheism, but they most certainly do not speak for the majority of the scientific community. i, like many scientists, am not content with any conclusion without sufficient facts. and even then, i am still skeptical. personally, i view everything as a probability. there is a distinct probability that god exists, but that he is quite different than anyone thinks he is.

I think you would agree that the naturalist version of the scientific method, which says as a 'rule' that all things must be explainable by naturalist methods, kind of discounts God doing it right from the start. Why was Intelligent Design not allowed to be taught in public schools recently? Because it breaks that 'rule.'

Wall-dog wrote:
I'll agree with you that science is the study of that which exists. But as a Christian I believe that God exists. As a Christian who also believes in science, I believe that science and God are on a collision course. You say 'Big Bang' and I say 'Let There Be Light!' I'm not going to discount the notion that science is the study of what exists. I'll go a step further back and say that science will eventually prove that God exists. It's actually well on the way toward doing so, because science keeps shooting-down alternative explanations for things like the origin of morality, the origin of the universe, and the origin of species.

they are only viewed as opposing beliefs because of the interpretations of the individuals who believe them. to me, atheists and theists spend too much time talking about their own beliefs than figuring out if they are really right. i'd rather take nothing for granted and see how the world works from a more naive point of view; i try to work on a clean slate.

also, the main purpose of science is to shoot down the theories it develops, this is something that many non-scientists fail to properly realize. science disproves a theory and everybody thinks that means it proves christianity. it doesn't work that way. it only means that that one theory, or even just a small part of that one theory, was wrong and that it needs to be readjusted or redeveloped so that it fits the evidence more accurately. this is an ongoing process.

We have some common ground then. I agree with that 100%. But the thing is that science has been disproving naturalist theories for the past 30 to 50 years but it has yet to do much damage to the Bible. And because of the 'must be explanable by naturalist causes' thing, the majority of scientists don't have the clean slate you have. I commend you for having an open mind. That makes you one of a very few group of pure scientists.

Wall-dog wrote:
If God exists (and I believe he does) why would He want to be disproven? He wouldn't. Rather, He would want us to find Him, and Science will do so. You and I may not live to see it, but we are seeing the beginning of it because all of the other theories are getting shot down.

the first few sentences i would agree with. but the last is an inaccurate statement. scientific theories are always being disproven, thats the whole point. they are disproven so that more accurate theories can be developed instead, and we get a better picture of the world around us. right now science is stronger than it has ever been before, and there are so many varying minds working on scientific theories that theories are being shot down everyday. that only means that science is progressing even faster.

Absolutely science is stronger than it's ever been, but it is also closer to God. Naturalism doesn't currently have any viable theories out there, but as a Christian I'm confident that should naturalists come up with some new theories, scientists such as yourself will shoot them down.

Wall-dog wrote:
Let's talk genes. How many genes are there in Human DNA? Scientists, who hold that DNA is the 'computer code' that determines what we develop into, always said that there must be hundreds of millions and maybe even billions of genes in a human strand of DNA. Weren't they surprised then when they decoded DNA and found there were only about 30,000? Not only that, but they found that DNA changes throughout your life. In other words, if a group of homosexuals starts to pay attention to you when you are an adolescent and you decide to partake of that lifestyle, your DNA will adapt to it and as a part of your free will you will become a homosexual. If on the other hand you tell them to buzz off and start dating the opposite sex, your DNA will adapt and make you straight. It's all about choice. Naturalists try to discount free choice (by saying we are nothing more than dna-encoded computers) strictly because free will smacks of God. Science has proven that we have free will and yet naturalists won't admit that fact because free will can't be explained by 'naturalist causes.'

most of this has already been properly refuted by another poster, but i had to respond to the first few statements. the genes in dna all affect more than just one thing in an organism. one tiny change in the order of proteins in one gene can affect hundreds of aspects in the organism. there is not just one gene for each single aspect.

i'm not too knowledgable on genetics, but i know enough to say that it doesn't work the way you explained it.

My argument wasn't really refuted. It was challanged but I continued to support it. The number of genes isn't the point though. The point is that they change based on the decisions you make and based on the way you live your life. THAT just 'does not compute' according to naturalism.

Wall-dog wrote:
The problem with naturalism is that, because of their contention that all things must have naturalist causes, they are completely closed even to the possibility that God might exist.

you are extrapolating far too much than is really there. not a single person i know thinks of it this way. a lot of the people i know actually do believe in a god, or at least believe that we cannot know for sure.

Respectfully, you are wrong. The whole basis for keeping Intelligent Design out of public schools is that it isn't 'scientific' because it attributes 'non-naturalist causes' to such things as the origin of the universe. You are right that there are some agnostic and even some religious scientists, but if they allow even the possibility of God to enter their professional lives, they are ostricized and ripped apart as 'non-scientific' for it. But some of them do anyway, and in many cases it is the scrutiny of these scientists that is disproving naturalism. But they can't use God as a theory. All they can do is shoot-down all of the other theories...

Wall-dog wrote:
What if God came down in a pillar of fire and held a press conference in the White House Rose Garden? A true scientist would have to at least admit that a pillar of fire going up into the stratosphere that says to a national audience of millions that it is God (and then answers questions from the media) might really be God. A naturalist would have to call it a solar flare. A Christian scientist might mention that the 'solar flare' spoke. The naturalist would say that the 'speaking' was random noise amplified by the radiation in the solar flare, and that though what millions heard might have sounded like God holding a press conference and answering questions, it was just blind luck that it looked that way. Why would naturalists have to say that? Because saying that it might be God would be against their #1 theory that all things have naturalist causes. A true search for truth would take scientific fact alone and would not care what it might say or not say about God.

all i can say is that you are making up random scenarios based on your limited experiene with science. your stereotypes of scientists are hardly an accurate portrayal of real science. a true scientist would observe with as little bias as possible. i know that i would not discount obvious speaking as "random noise".

You must be the one who told me to get an education. When you talk about my limited experience with science you are making an ad-hominum argument. My knowledge of science isn't the issue here. It is only relevant as it relates to my arguments. If my knowlege of science is really that weak you should have no problems ripping me apart without insulting me.

As for my stereotypes, all I can say is that my contention on the 'rules' of naturalist science are 100% accurate. Naturalism is closed to the possiblity of God.

The thing about random noise was a reference to naturalist science's explantion for Electronic Voice Phenomonon, which they attribute to random noise and to radio interferrence. I've heard some of what EVP researchers have captured. Much of it could be anything, but a fair amount can't be dismissed by calling it 'Random Noise', and yet that's what naturalist scientists have to call it because naturalism has not other explanations for it.

The Pillar of Fire is a reference to God in the Tabernacle as per The Old Testament. The Rose Garden, well, that I made up

Wall-dog wrote:
The chance for amino acids, if all of them really did get created naturally (which science has shown didn't happen)

this is not true, science has not done this (and show me where you got the misinformation from). science has actually shown that most of the amino acids are able to form naturally.

I haven't made my primary source a mystery. Read The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel and then look at his bibliography. Those are my sources.

Where did science do this? In a petri-dish in a lab under the best possible environmental circumstances for making amino acids even though those conditions had NOTHING TO DO with what the early Earth looked like! I know about that experiment. It was way back in the '50s. And furthermore they only made a SINGLE amino acid. As I've said earlier, one isn't enough. You'd need thousands all lined up in the right sequence to make a single protien. And you'd need thousands of proteins all lined up in exactly the correct sequence to make a single living cell. They didn't do that in a lab.

I got the odds from Lee Strobel's book. That was his analogy

Wall-dog wrote:
And that's to create one protein. There are thousands of proteins in a single living cell, and they would have to all be thrown together randomly for there not to be a God.

another thing theists fail to realize is that it is not random. there is a cause for everything. random only means that it is too complex of a process for us to fully understand yet.

I think theists understand that better than athiests. We call that cause 'God'.

Wall-dog wrote:
Naturalists don't discount that probability. Rather they say that those odds are still more probable than the idea that God did it. Well, that's their opinion. I'll bet they think the Lions are going to win the Super Bowl too. But they have to say that because saying anything else would throw naturalism right out the window.

they don't have to say it. they say it because that is what the evidence reveals. but the evidence does not reveal anything about god. science cannot disprove god, and has no authority to say that god does not exist.

I'm not asking you to prove God doesn't exist. If you can simply create a scenario where you can explain the origins of the universe, the origins of species, and the nature of morals and cognitive thought, and explain it without any need for God, that'll be good enough. It'll get you the Nobel Peace Prize too.

Wall-dog wrote:
The odds say there is a God. In the absence of any other theory that can stand up to subjective reason and analysis (i.e.: the scientific method), true science must accept that possibility as a legitimate theory.

the odds are from a skewed perspective. irreducably complex systems is not evidence for god because we have nothing to compare it to. saying that a cell is too complex to have evolved by itself is an opinion, it is not evidence.

You are correct. It is however fact to say that the odds are roughly the same as the odds of a tornado going through a junkyard assembling a fully functional Boeing 747 by randomly throwing garbage around. What takes more faith? Believing God did it or believing the Tornado did it?

My contention is that if I can disprove all naturalist causes, then science should at least open itself to the possibility that God might exist and then allow that possibility to be viewed as a legitimate theory.

Wall-dog wrote:
Based on evolutionary theory (or naturalist theory or darwinist theory or whatever name you want to give it) the species called "Mankind" is nothing more than a transitionary subclass of the major line called "Primate." If evolution is true and I find 'human' remains, the odds of them matching modern Mankind are incredibly remote because evolution holds that there is no such thing as a fully evolved Man. We are still in flux. Thus there should be countless forms further back on the evolutionary ladder that any 'human' fossils we may find could have come from. If we still have dinosaur fossils, shouldn't we also still have fossils from Mankind that go back before our current form? Of course there should be. Naturalism has to come up with an explanation for not finding them because they haven't found them and the only legitimate conclusion one can make based on their absence is that evolution did not occur - which again smacks of God.

what do you mean "not finding them"? there are plenty of fossils of proto-man. you just have the opinion that they arent the ancestors of man. besides, it is extremely rare that bones become fossilized.

Actually, I'm happy to admit that most of them are true 'ancestors' of Mankind since all of the bone fragments fit modern man. Re-read the part of my post to Be Good please...

Wall-dog wrote:
According to the scientific method, if the laws of probability point away from a theory that theory starts to lose clout. Evolution isn't just flawed. Based on any true scientific investigation, it just plain didn't happen. Naturalists however can't agree to that because they don't have an alternative explanation and they aren't willing to say "we just don't know" about something as fundamental as the origin of species.

this paragraph shows just how little you know about evolution. how many "true scientific investigations" have you read about discounting evolution? none, thats right. what exactly do you define as a true scientific investigation?

Another ad-hominum argument. Actually, I happen to know quite a bit about evolution. I'm only a layman on the subject, but I'm a well-read layman. That's why I keep pointing you to Lee Strobel's book. He interviewed true experts.

I'd be happy with any investigation that doesn't use naturalism as an assumption. Find one and we can start there. But you won't find one

Wall-dog wrote:
Back to morality... When you say "the whole being whatever culture the individual belongs to" your argument falls apart. Based on that, each culture should have its own moral code and there should be as many moral codes as there are cultures. Those moral codes should have a tremendous amount of diversity and only a few underlying similarities - all would for example benefit having some form of culture. But the converse is true. There is only ONE underlying moral code, and NO culture going back to the beginning of time has EVER deviated from it except in very superficial ways - and even then the superficial variations are for reasons that fit back in with that single moral code! A single, underlying moral code that unites humanity smacks of God!

they are similar because they are all formed by human minds. it smacks of similar ancestry and simliar physical structure. humans all found that by helping each other out, fewer of them died. so they started living communally.

I'll agree that had mankind not banded into communities then mankind would have become extinct, but that only proves that communities would exist all over the place, and it would be safe then probably to assume that all communities by nature would have moral codes. What it does NOT explain is why all of these communities came up with the SAME moral code.

Physical structure for the mind? What makes you think the mind is physical? Show me a computer that is capable fo cognitive thought.

Wall-dog wrote:
Science does not disprove God. Quite the contrary. Science should make us all religious.

you're right that it doesnt disprove god. that is simply impossible to do. but i believe it rather makes us less religious, and more attentive of the world around us.

I'm not asking you to disprove God. All I'm asking is for you to explain self without needing God to do it.

This is a wonderful debate in spite of the ad-hominum arguments. I thank you for keeping it civil. I know that when we question things as basic as this there is a tendency to get hostile and I want to thank everyone for avoiding that temptation!!

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to skip the spell check or I'll be here all night. This is a long post

<edited - I had a bushism where I said 'many educated people don't believe in education.' I changed it to what I really meant - 'many educated people don't believe in evolution.' Kind of funny mistake!>

[Zenith]

wall-dog

i don't have much time right now but i read your post and wanted to ask you something. what do you define as a supernatural force? why is there an inherent difference between god and nature? why do you think that the spiritual world could affect the physical world in any way? if the spiritual world acted on the physical world, then it would have to have some physical presence, thus negating its spirituality. i have found that abstract things like love, beauty, pain, etc. are not physical in any way, but are real forces that act on each other by means of physical characteristics. these things would be the closest to the spiritual world that we can witness. but why would they not be naturalistic causes, if they are dependant upon physical entities?

[sandy_mcd]

Let's say I'm a third-grader who can barely spell his own name. If my statements are accurate and my logic is sound, who cares? ... In other words, if a group of homosexuals starts to pay attention to you when you are an adolescent and you decide to partake of that lifestyle, your DNA will adapt to it and as a part of your free will you will become a homosexual. If on the other hand you tell them to buzz off and start dating the opposite sex, your DNA will adapt and make you straight.

I've been keeping out of this thread, in part because I don't have that much interest/knowledge of biology/paleontology, but also because my beliefs are so different from most of the comments that it would be a total waste of everyone's time for me to post. Even so, this statement about DNA changing as a result of behavior has got to be one of the most farfetched claims I have read here. What references are there for such an astounding claim ?

[August]

Let's say I'm a third-grader who can barely spell his own name. If my statements are accurate and my logic is sound, who cares? ... In other words, if a group of homosexuals starts to pay attention to you when you are an adolescent and you decide to partake of that lifestyle, your DNA will adapt to it and as a part of your free will you will become a homosexual. If on the other hand you tell them to buzz off and start dating the opposite sex, your DNA will adapt and make you straight.

I've been keeping out of this thread, in part because I don't have that much interest/knowledge of biology/paleontology, but also because my beliefs are so different from most of the comments that it would be a total waste of everyone's time for me to post. Even so, this statement about DNA changing as a result of behavior has got to be one of the most farfetched claims I have read here. What references are there for such an astounding claim ?

Isn't that partially what Lamarckian evolution states?

[sandy_mcd]

Isn't that partially what Lamarckian evolution states?

Yes. But I don't see your point. Lamarck's and Lysenko's ideas do not have much in the way of a scientific following.

Lamarck's scientific theories were largely ignored or attacked during his lifetime; Lamarck never won the acceptance and esteem of his colleagues Buffon and Cuvier, and he died in poverty and obscurity. Today, the name of Lamarck is associated merely with a discredited theory of heredity, the "inheritance of acquired traits." However, Charles Darwin, Lyell, Haeckel, and other early evolutionists acknowledged him as a great zoologist and as a forerunner of evolution. Charles Darwin wrote in 1861:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

Who was this man, and why did he inspire such conflicting attitudes?

And the related:

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко) (September 29, 1898—November 20, 1976) was a Soviet biologist who, during the 1930s, led a campaign of agricultural science, now known as Lysenkoism, which went explicitly against contemporary agricultural genetics and lasted until the mid-1960s in the USSR.
Such would be the pattern of Lysenko's success with the Soviet media from 1927 until 1964—reports of amazing (and impossible) successes, which would be replaced with claims of new successes once the old ones became failures. What mattered more to the press was that Lysenko was a "barefoot scientist"—an embodiment of the mythical Soviet peasant genius.
Lysenko's "science" was practically nonexistent. When he had any clearly formed theories, they were generally a mishmash of Lamarckism and various confused forms of Darwinism; the majority of Lysenko's work consisted of so-called "practical directions" for agriculture, such as cooling grain before it was planted.

[August]

Isn't that partially what Lamarckian evolution states?

Yes. But I don't see your point. Lamarck's and Lysenko's ideas do not have much in the way of a scientific following.

Lamarck's scientific theories were largely ignored or attacked during his lifetime; Lamarck never won the acceptance and esteem of his colleagues Buffon and Cuvier, and he died in poverty and obscurity. Today, the name of Lamarck is associated merely with a discredited theory of heredity, the "inheritance of acquired traits." However, Charles Darwin, Lyell, Haeckel, and other early evolutionists acknowledged him as a great zoologist and as a forerunner of evolution. Charles Darwin wrote in 1861:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

Who was this man, and why did he inspire such conflicting attitudes?

And the related:

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко) (September 29, 1898—November 20, 1976) was a Soviet biologist who, during the 1930s, led a campaign of agricultural science, now known as Lysenkoism, which went explicitly against contemporary agricultural genetics and lasted until the mid-1960s in the USSR.
Such would be the pattern of Lysenko's success with the Soviet media from 1927 until 1964—reports of amazing (and impossible) successes, which would be replaced with claims of new successes once the old ones became failures. What mattered more to the press was that Lysenko was a "barefoot scientist"—an embodiment of the mythical Soviet peasant genius.
Lysenko's "science" was practically nonexistent. When he had any clearly formed theories, they were generally a mishmash of Lamarckism and various confused forms of Darwinism; the majority of Lysenko's work consisted of so-called "practical directions" for agriculture, such as cooling grain before it was planted.

I was not implying that they had any sort of scientific support, although I did read that Lamarck's ideas were making a comeback lately. I agree with you, there is no proof that behaviour can change DNA, just pointing out that the idea was considered before, and apparently some still take that seriously.
(Too funny, the song "Weird Science" is playing on my Yahoo music station now as I am typing this.)

[sandy_mcd]

I was not implying that they had any sort of scientific support, although I did read that Lamarck's ideas were making a comeback lately. I agree with you, there is no proof that behaviour can change DNA, just pointing out that the idea was considered before, and apparently some still take that seriously.
(Too funny, the song "Weird Science" is playing on my Yahoo music station now as I am typing this.)

Good point. I should clarify what I meant. Phlogiston is a laughable concept today, given what we know now. At the time it was proposed, however it was a reasonable idea to consider in the light of contemporary knowledge. It turned out to be wrong, but that does not imply the people who thought of it were not clever and intelligent. But to seriously propose it today would require a complete unfamiliarity with modern scientific thought. Likewise I am unaware (perhaps just ignorant) of any modern research interest in behavior affecting DNA.
[Well, Linda Ronstadt is on here at the moment.]

[August]

Good point. I should clarify what I meant. Phlogiston is a laughable concept today, given what we know now. At the time it was proposed, however it was a reasonable idea to consider in the light of contemporary knowledge. It turned out to be wrong, but that does not imply the people who thought of it were not clever and intelligent. But to seriously propose it today would require a complete unfamiliarity with modern scientific thought. Likewise I am unaware (perhaps just ignorant) of any modern research interest in behavior affecting DNA.
[Well, Linda Ronstadt is on here at the moment.]

I don't argue about everything. It just seems that way.