Evolution as Faith

bob_2 · 03-25-09 2:31 am

In response to Neal Walls proposition that all of Evolution is proven, as a package, microevolution as well as macroevolution, mutations and natural selection: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:As shown above, evolution as the core mechanism of biology suffers from some severe drawbacks. There is an overwhelming tendency of organisms to suffer, rather than benefit from mutation. The balance of earth's ecosystems, including the relationships between species, is nearly impossible to explain under evolution's ever-changing view. In reality, evolution is not really different than other philosophical or religious opinions about the origins of life. It seems to be supported by some facts and seems to be refuted by others. There are gaps in the theory that must be filled by "the benefit of the doubt." In religious circles, this is referred to as "faith." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-evolution-faq.htm" target=_top>http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-evolution-f aq.htm</a> Read the whole article. This in essence is Neal's religion, if the article is correct. His faith.

bob_2 · 03-25-09 2:47 am

Follow the logic if you can: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954. Although, 1954 vintage, it still rings true. It is a religion. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues: In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it. - H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, 138 <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evidence-for-intelligent-design.htm" target=_top>http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evidence-for-int elligent-design.htm</a>

bob_2 · 03-25-09 2:50 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Could life evolve randomly from inorganic matter? Not according to mathematicians. In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000. ...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.- Mark Eastman, MD, Creation by Design, T.W.F.T. Publishers, 1996, 21-22. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm" target=_top>http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life. htm</a> (Message edited by Bob_2 on March 25, 2009)

bob_2 · 03-25-09 3:00 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Philosophy of Life - Exploring My World from an Impartial View If matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, then I should be able to go out to the Mountains of Colorado and find naturally-occurring computers, cameras, and cell phones. As we've seen, those inorganic devices are much less complex than a "simple" organic bacterium. Yet, most people would find my statement to be "silly" at best. Why? Whether organic or inorganic, the complexity and design is obvious. To take this concept to a simple level, I examined the watch on my wrist (mine is digital). I contemplated the interdependent system of silicon chips, wires, and LED displays? Actually, by today's technological standards, that's a pretty simple device. However, is there any question that it was created by a group of designers, handed off to a team of mechanical engineers, and then placed into production by a team of automation specialists? Then I took a minute to look at the wrist under my watch. I've grown comfortable with its apparent simplicity. I looked closer at the skin and hair follicles. I touched them. I thought about the nerves that just told my brain to synthesize that touch. Then I focused more closely and pondered the microscopic makeup of each of my cells. I imagined the complex cellular city at work, and contemplated the wonder of my brain that allowed me to imagine such a thing. I thought about the veins just under the surface of my skin. I thought about my heart pumping oxygenated blood through those veins to keep my wrist and hand alive. I thought about my lungs as they inflated, deflated, and processed that oxygen for my heart. Then I flexed my hand. I pondered the miraculous communication effort that occurred in a milli-second. I created a thought -- my brain processed the subconscious instruction and translated it into a task for my body -- my nervous system delivered that task to my wrist - and my wrist performed the task perfectly. I never really thought about what just happened? How does an interconnected system like that evolve gradually and randomly over time? It goes on and on... My digestive tract -- How did that evolve gradually over millions of years? Without processed energy, how would my earliest, evolving ancestors even exist? My part in a two-part reproductive system -- Come on, how did that evolve randomly over millions of years through natural selection and genetic mutation? How do you pass on new and improved genetic traits without the means to reproduce in the first place? I was finally thinking about these things! So, out of all this, I developed a new thesis for my view of life... We need to drop our preconceived notions. Dump our presuppositions. Just meditate on this material with an impartial mind. Does this stuff have "metaphysical" implications? Sure. But why should that deter us from logically examining the evidence? Where did we get the notion that science and technology somehow have to exist in a naturalistic vacuum? That's not true science. True science is observing the evidence, creating a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis through various means. Philosophical presuppositions have no place in true science. If science reveals things outside the bounds of known physics, then science should be applauded for its impartial contribution to philosophical and metaphysical thought. I. L. Cohen is a mathematician, researcher and author -- a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and officer of the Archaeological Institute of America. In his book, Darwin was Wrong -- A Study in Probabilities, Cohen writes: In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. 1 ...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail -- no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. 2 ...after all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. 3 …every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. 4 ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science. 5 1 I. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities, New Research Publications, Inc., 1984, 6-7. 2 Ibid., 8. 3 Ibid., 214-215. 4 Ibid., 209. 5 Ibid., 210. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/philosophy-of-life.htm" target=_top>http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/philosophy-of-li fe.htm</a>

john8verse32 · 03-25-09 1:03 pm

from a previous quote: There is an overwhelming tendency of organisms to suffer, rather than benefit from mutation and the "suffering" often results in the death of those organisms which are not suited to their environment, while the few offspring which are better suited to their environment because of some small mutation, are the ones who succeed and reproduce the change. Brown bears against a background of white snow would not need fear any predator, but their increased visibility would make it more difficult for them to catch prey to eat. So the mutation which made big bears white instead of brown apparently benefited the few white bears to the point that they thrived in a white environment better than brown bears.... thus we have polar bears in the Arctic, and brown bears farther south. doesn't prove "macro-evolution" as is constantly pointed out, but it does demonstrate the mechanism which seems to be at work in adapting life to its changing environments. and suggest why two legged horses only succeeded in photoshop. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/874.gif" alt=""> its the balance issue.....which sometimes is easily forgotten in efforts to prove what one believes insted of searching for the truth.

bob_2 · 03-25-09 2:42 pm

Macroevolution is not about brown or white bears, it is about bears becoming whales, which is someone's imagination working overtime or extrapolating the wrong direction.

elaine · 04-14-09 5:48 pm

Scientific explanations must incorporate specific mechanistic descriptions of how an event occurred. If Intelligent Designers cannot explain how a Creator transformed nothing into something then ID reverts to being a religion requiring faith, rather than a scientific explanation. Merely stating that "Creation was a Divine Miracle" does not fulfill the requisite of a scientific explanation. Lee Strobel is often recommended reading here. But here are just a few of his beliefs writen in his The Case for a Creator : pg. 257 he tells of a hospitalized woman who died. Her "soul" flew out of her body and sailed through the hospital's roof. The disembodied "soul" then spotted a tennis show that had been abandoned on the roof--a particularly curious and trivial observation for a "soul" to make en route to Heaven. Apparently altering its travel plan in response to seeing the tennis shoe, the "soul" then flew back down through the hospital roof to dwell once again with the dormant woman, thus resurrecting her from the dead. Strobel offers this anecdote in his book as confirmation that we survive death. "We've got to be more than our bodies or else these stories would be ludicrous to us." That he gives weight at all to such loony folklore is evidence only of his own gullibility.

bob_2 · 04-14-09 5:55 pm

Sorry Elaine, "The Case for Faith" has been quoted by me not "The Case for a Creator". I would have to see the context, to see what you are talking about. You have a tendency, with John to drag things out of context to try and make people look foolish. I'll try and get the context since you are only quoting the silly part.

elaine · 04-14-09 10:04 pm

You have mentioned Strobel so often, I'm surprised that you haven't read this one.

bob_2 · 04-14-09 10:44 pm

Wrong assumption, but I don't believe you have the context, because there are no quote marks between his words and yours, and how he ties the anecdote together with his point. SORRY, no comprende!!!!!

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 03-25-09 2:31 am

Evolution as Faith

#2 03-25-09 2:47 am

Re: Evolution as Faith

#3 03-25-09 2:50 am

Re: Evolution as Faith

#4 03-25-09 3:00 am

Re: Evolution as Faith

#5 03-25-09 1:03 pm

Re: Evolution as Faith

#6 03-25-09 2:42 pm

Re: Evolution as Faith

#7 04-14-09 5:48 pm

Re: Evolution as Faith

#8 04-14-09 5:55 pm

Re: Evolution as Faith

#9 04-14-09 10:04 pm

Re: Evolution as Faith

#10 04-14-09 10:44 pm

Re: Evolution as Faith

Board footer