Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Thank you. You have answered my question.

hmm...

you said:

Those references that could be verified in all but possibly one instance prove my point, sub-speciation, * not * true speciation.

so...

what question did i answer? as far as i can tell, that ball is still in your court, sir

metta,

~v

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Yep, and that is the difference between science and scripture. One is a work in progress, and the other is set in stone...



v/r

Q

Water, the primary building block of life on Earth and without which its evolution would never have started, drips drop by drop on a huge stone edifice, a mountain if you like. Eventualy over time, over countless millenia this once massive and immovable stone is reduced to dust. Where once there was something hard and unshakeable there is nothing. But all is not lost, to the contrary, each and every particle has moved on, has found some new niche to fill. Something set in stone is not imune from change indeed change itself is the only imutable. Evolution is how life has adapted to harness this imutable change and it will still be doing so long after any mountain we see today is but dust carried to the four corners.

[presser_kun]

Very interesting concept, though not a new one, that belief in God is subject to erosion.

Science readily admits the possibility of theory being overturned, but religionists do not. That's one of the principal reasons for the Great Conflict between science and religion, I think.

Don't want to wander from the topic of evolution, though, so here's how I think this relates.

Everything, the theory of evolution, and the theory of god, is subject to change. And change they will, like or not.

Which one is true, whatever that means? Perhaps both. "True" means, for me, "fits the facts." Nothing, IMHO, can be true if it doesn't. Science itself exists because inquisitive humans one day turned over a rock and saw something that couldn't be explained by the theory of god.

Some say that the science worshippers are wrong, but I think they do that because they are afraid that their world will be rocked if they admit to the possibility that the theory of god may not be the best way of understanding the facts we see around us. Facts, of course, are the things that are so obviously true no sane person would question them (except for the philosophers), such as dust is dry, water's wet, the sun shines, etc.

As Brian says, some of the things we see in life -- some of the facts -- are not explained by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, for one. So maybe the theory of god has some good points to make, too.

I'm new to this thread, and spot-checked earlier posts. Lunamoth said that, perhaps, to say one believes in evolution isn't the right way of saying what is meant: that one assents to the theory of evolution.

I've said "theory of god" here several times. Does it bother anyone? Is that because it's not allowed to consider existence of an all-powerful, omniscient being a theory? Wonder why it's not allowed?

If we could see that it is, indeed, just a theory, albeit a time-honored and cherished one, then perhaps we'd be able to sort through these troublesome issues without quite so much anxiousness and antagonism.

My two cents' worth.

peace, all

presser_kun

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by presser_kun

Some say that the science worshippers are wrong

As Brian says, some of the things we see in life -- some of the facts -- are not explained by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, for one. So maybe the theory of god has some good points to make, too.



presser_kun

I enjoyed your 2 cents worth.


I think its wrong to say scientists or those interested in science worship it. No doubt there are some who do but for most I have met, and myself, the boundary between worship and passionate interest are pretty clear. Sometimes I wonder if some of those with deeply held religeous convictions confuse someone who is interested in the sciences with Scientologists. Science to me is not a religeon its a method of study.

2nd point is conciousness is not unique to humanity, only the language skills to ponder over it at such great length are. And if conciousness is not an evolutionary developed tool to aid survival I will eat my hat Just imagine what it means to not be concious, how would any organism be able to purposefully move in 3 dimensions within its enviroment without it? Nothing beyond a jellyfish could have evolved without it. Conciousness however does not imply self-awareness and it is this capacity that truly allows man to contemplate his existance. But even here Mankind does not seem to be alone. There are a small number of species, mostly mamals but not exclusively so, in which self-awareness seems to be apparent during behavioural experiments. A good non-mamal example is N'kisi the african grey parrot who within his 950+ word vocabulary clearly shows he has his own emotional and asthetic values.http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/...feature1.shtml
Bonobos and chimpanze are far more capable than even this.
So I would argue that neither conciousness nor self-awareness are faculties given to Man by God. They are evolutionary tools we developed because the gave us some advantage. I still believe there is some Grand Design at work but I cannot sustain the notion that it is as anthropocentric as the majority of religeons imply or state. And evolution theory, and all the sciences, are not a God or a religeon but merely a logical way to explore and seek out the answers to the Big Question. Not in the works of mans hand but in the multiverse itself.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

you said:

Those references that could be verified in all but possibly one instance prove my point, sub-speciation, * not * true speciation.

so...what question did i answer?

The question was not asked aloud for others to hear, although one can piece the conversation back well enough to decipher for themselves if they wish. As for me, I will not spell it out for anybody else just now, and likely never.

as far as i can tell, that ball is still in your court, sir

Very well, if the ball is now in my court, then I make the conscious decision to foul out. Your score.

My beef with bob never did have anything to do with ideology. My beef was always, from the beginning, about attitude. Let me say this again so there is no uncertainty by anyone: This was never about what bob believes, my beef was with the attitude in which his belief is presented.

If you feel it is now time to humiliate me in retaliation or some such, then please go ahead and just get it over with. I have chinks in my armour, they are easy enough to find. bob has chinks in his armour too, he just doesn't believe they exist.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao_Equus!

I like your post here about water and stone.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Eventualy over time, over countless millenia this once massive and immovable stone is reduced to dust. Where once there was something hard and unshakeable there is nothing.

In relating this with what Q and you had to say about (science) being "a work in progress," and (religion) written "in stone," a thought occured to me that humans do not live for millenia. I believe the current estimate for what we now consider modern humanity does not reach back much beyond 200 millenia, a far cry from countless. I agree, over time, water does wear on stone, and the effects of erosion are evident. Perhaps, in some similar way, those laws we call religion that are "set in stone" are eroding, as you allude. (I might add, I like this allusion) Yet, by the time those laws are eroded into anything that significantly loses its value to humanity, we are no longer human, and no longer need those laws "written in stone" anyway...

In other words, they are plenty "solid" for their intended time and purpose, even if in the final analysis they end up not actually being "eternal."

Just a thought, maybe not even a good one.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Water, the primary building block of life on Earth and without which its evolution would never have started, drips drop by drop on a huge stone edifice, a mountain if you like. Eventualy over time, over countless millenia this once massive and immovable stone is reduced to dust. Where once there was something hard and unshakeable there is nothing. But all is not lost, to the contrary, each and every particle has moved on, has found some new niche to fill. Something set in stone is not imune from change indeed change itself is the only imutable. Evolution is how life has adapted to harness this imutable change and it will still be doing so long after any mountain we see today is but dust carried to the four corners.

It was once said that life could not begin without oxygen either...and we now know that is horse pucky.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It was once said that life could not begin without oxygen either...and we now know that is horse pucky.

I know for fact that I can cut through stone with water @ 25,000 PSI, instead of having to use a torch to melt it. I could cut a grand canyon in less than 100 years, if if had the equipment to do it (based on today's technology). As we have seen over the past few weeks in the South East US and the Islands, technology is not required to change the face of the earth in relatively short order.

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, presser_kun!

Haven't seen you around a whole lot lately...partly my fault, I've been kinda in and out on an irregular basis lately myself.

Originally Posted by presser_kun

Science readily admits the possibility of theory being overturned, but religionists do not. That's one of the principal reasons for the Great Conflict between science and religion, I think.

I like this, but I think I would word it somewhat differently if I had said it. I think that doctrinally I agree with you that science does "readily" admit the possibility of theory being overturned, but as we just saw demonstrated, dogmatically it has always been an uphill battle against the powers that be. Thomas Kuhn went into this in depth in describing what he called scientific paradigms...I don't recall the name of his book right off (something about scientific revolutions, it has been awhile since I read it). And obviously, he didn't use the terms I do about doctrine and dogma. Just because science admits "possibility," doesn't mean they make it easy at all.

And to some extent this is correct and to be expected.

But there is also a political / power element attached. Human egos...what can I say?

Everything, the theory of evolution, and the theory of god, is subject to change. And change they will, like or not.

Oh absolutely, I agree.

Which one is true, whatever that means? Perhaps both.

I agree here too.

"True" means, for me, "fits the facts."

Hallelujah! Now you're preachin' to the choir!

Nothing, IMHO, can be true if it doesn't. Science itself exists because inquisitive humans one day turned over a rock and saw something that couldn't be explained by the theory of god.

Well, yes and no. Even if one chose to chase the history of science back through alchemy into the earilest history, it was about attempting to understand, and manipulate natural forces. One aspect of humanity is that we have for a very long time worshipped those forces that we had no other name for, as God (s), depending on culture. Prehistoric humanity was already religious in the stone age. Perhaps not like churches and citadels and temples; religion at that time was much more personal. Related to but not quite what we might call superstition today. The closest thing to institutional religion would have been the shaman at that time. So "theory of God" has been around for a very long time, and quite sufficient to explain by far the vast majority of life for most of that time.

If anything, I would think that science was born as alchemy when the first human decided he would play "God." That sounds much ruder that it is meant, but kept in the confines of this specific discussion, it fits.

Some say that the science worshippers are wrong, but I think they do that because they are afraid that their world will be rocked if they admit to the possibility that the theory of god may not be the best way of understanding the facts we see around us. Facts, of course, are the things that are so obviously true no sane person would question them (except for the philosophers), such as dust is dry, water's wet, the sun shines, etc.

I see your point, does it surprise you if I agree?

As Brian says, some of the things we see in life -- some of the facts -- are not explained by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, for one. So maybe the theory of god has some good points to make, too.

So that I am also in agreement with the follow on. Science plays an important role, but that role is not sufficient to meet the psychological needs of the average person. Let alone explain the extraordinary occurances that happen every so often in most of our lives.

By the same token, it i stoo easy to just say "God does it" or "God made it" or whatever as some form of explanation. That is no explanation, it is the old motherly "brush off" (I say that with greatest love and respect for the mothers out there). But it is true. It is not an explanation, it is a way to silence challenge. Especially a challenge to authority. "How dare you challenge God!" I'm not challenging God, I'm trying to understand Him. Besides, what on earth makes you qualified to speak on behalf of God?

I don't do authority well...

I've said "theory of god" here several times. Does it bother anyone? Is that because it's not allowed to consider existence of an all-powerful, omniscient being a theory? Wonder why it's not allowed?

Why should it? It certainly doesn't bother me. I've called it "God concept" before, and still got a frosty reception from the atheists and non-theists. Sometimes there's just no winning...

If we could see that it is, indeed, just a theory, albeit a time-honored and cherished one, then perhaps we'd be able to sort through these troublesome issues without quite so much anxiousness and antagonism.

Well, there's one crucial bit of evidence lacking in this brief here, that is how this "God theory" became so all-pervasive, across all cultures, across all environs, dating well into pre-historic times, if it is "just" a theory. In other words, *there had to be something there* that "everybody" was attempting to describe. What exactly that was I do not know and cannot guess, there may no longer be evidence. But there most assuredly was something, something BIG.

Properly used, theory in my mind holds a great deal of weight. But the term does get abused sometimes, and as a result some people have a less than favorable view of the term. In my mind, to be properly a theory, it must always be consistent. Its language and jargon must be specific and consistent. That is how it can be used for prediction, and held subject to experiment. I'll stay with "concept," but I think we're saying much the same thing.

Thanks for your post!

[juantoo3]

Regards again, T_E!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I think its wrong to say scientists or those interested in science worship it. No doubt there are some who do but for most I have met, and myself, the boundary between worship and passionate interest are pretty clear.

It really is too bad that we typically gauge a barrel of apples by the one or two rotten ones found on top.

Of course, the same can just as easily be said in reverse, those who represent science typically paint a religious person with a single color too.

Sometimes I wonder if some of those with deeply held religeous convictions confuse someone who is interested in the sciences with Scientologists.

I am certain it happens. My own brother pulled that stunt on me just a couple of weeks ago.

If a person thinks through things on their own instead of listening to BS, and pulling from an assortment of *knowledgeable* sources so they can get a more rounded view, I think they tend to do pretty good in figuring things out for themselves.

Science to me is not a religeon its a method of study.

OK. But I see religion in the personal sense as a method of study as well, so once again science and religion are the same, at least in very many respects. Enough alike that the scientific method can rightly be called "just another" meme.

2nd point is conciousness is not unique to humanity, only the language skills to ponder over it at such great length are. And if conciousness is not an evolutionary developed tool to aid survival I will eat my hat Just imagine what it means to not be concious, how would any organism be able to purposefully move in 3 dimensions within its enviroment without it? Nothing beyond a jellyfish could have evolved without it. Conciousness however does not imply self-awareness and it is this capacity that truly allows man to contemplate his existance. But even here Mankind does not seem to be alone. There are a small number of species, mostly mamals but not exclusively so, in which self-awareness seems to be apparent during behavioural experiments. A good non-mamal example is N'kisi the african grey parrot who within his 950+ word vocabulary clearly shows he has his own emotional and asthetic values.http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/...feature1.shtml
Bonobos and chimpanze are far more capable than even this.
So I would argue that neither conciousness nor self-awareness are faculties given to Man by God. They are evolutionary tools we developed because the gave us some advantage. I still believe there is some Grand Design at work but I cannot sustain the notion that it is as anthropocentric as the majority of religeons imply or state. And evolution theory, and all the sciences, are not a God or a religeon but merely a logical way to explore and seek out the answers to the Big Question. Not in the works of mans hand but in the multiverse itself.

I very much enjoyed the links you provided here. I read most and printed quite a bit of related material to go through, hopefully soon. I knew of some work being done with parrots and porpoises, but hadn't looked deeply into it yet. I spent more effort looking into Koko the Gorilla and Dr. Penny Patterson. Frankly, in that instance (over three "conversational" transcripts) I saw no evidence of "future" thinking. This you presented with the parrot gives me pause, I am impressed. Not quite sure I see "future" thinking, but I do see a great deal of analysis, the kind of learning not generally associated at this high of a level with animals. It will be interseting to see where this parrot is in five, ten and twenty years. What I predict, to my chagrine, is that he will soon peter out and level off. So far, there seems to be a boundary that animals do not cross. Right about the level of a four or five year old human. This parrot is pushing four, both in age and intellect.

Very impressive. Thanks for sharing it.

[Tao_Equus]

Greetings Juantoo

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I very much enjoyed the links you provided here. I read most and printed quite a bit of related material to go through, hopefully soon. I knew of some work being done with parrots and porpoises, but hadn't looked deeply into it yet. I spent more effort looking into Koko the Gorilla and Dr. Penny Patterson. Frankly, in that instance (over three "conversational" transcripts) I saw no evidence of "future" thinking. This you presented with the parrot gives me pause, I am impressed. Not quite sure I see "future" thinking, but I do see a great deal of analysis, the kind of learning not generally associated at this high of a level with animals. It will be interseting to see where this parrot is in five, ten and twenty years. What I predict, to my chagrine, is that he will soon peter out and level off. So far, there seems to be a boundary that animals do not cross. Right about the level of a four or five year old human. This parrot is pushing four, both in age and intellect.

Very impressive. Thanks for sharing it.

Just wanted to provide you with a further link on intelligence in birds. This one primarily deals with crows. I would agree there does appear to be a cut off point in animals equivilant to about an average 4yr old human. I noted in both my own children that about that age there is a change in them, and its about that age the human brain at last stops growing and is fully formed. For my eldest son this change was striking especialy in terms of memory. At age four he would describe with much detail memories of the house we lived in for only the first 6 months of his life. Infact his recal was perfect for everything that happened to him up till about that age. A year later 95% of it was forgotten. Quite a strange phenomenon. Perhaps once we know more about intelligence in the animal kingdom we will begin to be able to make correlations that are qualifiable. The Human animal is undoubtedly diffierent and in evolutionary terms this change was very recent so its a logical step to say that what makes us conciously human starts when our brains are fully grown. Though I offer no evidence to support it other than my knowledge of brain development in humans and a hunch.

Anyway heres the link I promised; http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/

peace

Edit afterthought; It was about age 5 that my eldest son first talked in terms of religeons. I had always taken him in to a nearby cathedral as an infant and explained to him in simplistic terms what it was for. But at 5 he said to me 'I am glad people believe in Jesus'. When I asked why his reply was 'It means I get nice Christmas presents'

[n4h1z]

Peace to all..

I vote for creation. In my belief, every living creatures is a product of a grand design by a Master Creator.Each creature is unique in its own design.Science itself yields evidence and demonstrate that all living things are created.However the theory of evolution denies the truth of creation.

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".

The first person to seriously take up the issue of evolution which originated in ancient sumeria and shaped in ancient Greece was a French biologist, Jean Baptiste Lamark. In his view, girrafes originated in antelope-like animals which extended its neck to reach the leaves from higher branches. His theory was defended by an English naturalist, Charles Darwin. In His book The origin of species, he claimes that all living things descended from one common ancestor through coincidences. According to Darwin, forinstance, whales evolved from bears that tried to hunt in the sea.

Evolutionist says that the first organism was a cell that emerged from inanimate matter by chance. This evolutionary claim,however, is contrary to one of the most fundamental rules of biology: Life comes only from life, which means that inanimate matter cannot generate life.Life cannot come out from something lifeless.This shows that the first life ever comes from life Itself, which is God.Only God could give life out of lifelessness.This matter is also discussed in the Quran: "It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living." (Surah Rome: 19)

As we know, the basic structure of life is protein, which is build up of many types of amino acids, which comprises of carbon,nitrogen,hydrogen,ferum,Oxygen and inorganic elements.The theory of evolution states that the first protein appear by chance in a primordial soup.Probability of amino acids to form a protein by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 950. According to mathematics principal,probability smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 is almost impossible.

The cell itself is a concrete evidence of creationism. A sell is sufficient even by itself, for it can generate food,move and communicate with other cells,it has data bank,etc.In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a muddy lump.It is very certain that a structure this complex couldn't be the work of "chance".

The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Please go to--> http://www.comparative-religion.com/...7508#post47508

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by n4h1z

Peace to all..

I vote for creation. In my belief, every living creatures is a product of a grand design by a Master Creator.Each creature is unique in its own design.Science itself yields evidence and demonstrate that all living things are created.However the theory of evolution denies the truth of creation.

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".


The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Please go to--> http://www.comparative-religion.com/...7508#post47508

nice post n4h1z
i am seeing it the same way.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by n4h1z

Peace to all..

I vote for creation. In my belief, every living creatures is a product of a grand design by a Master Creator.Each creature is unique in its own design.Science itself yields evidence and demonstrate that all living things are created.However the theory of evolution denies the truth of creation.

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".

The first person to seriously take up the issue of evolution which originated in ancient sumeria and shaped in ancient Greece was a French biologist, Jean Baptiste Lamark. In his view, girrafes originated in antelope-like animals which extended its neck to reach the leaves from higher branches. His theory was defended by an English naturalist, Charles Darwin. In His book The origin of species, he claimes that all living things descended from one common ancestor through coincidences. According to Darwin, forinstance, whales evolved from bears that tried to hunt in the sea.

Evolutionist says that the first organism was a cell that emerged from inanimate matter by chance. This evolutionary claim,however, is contrary to one of the most fundamental rules of biology: Life comes only from life, which means that inanimate matter cannot generate life.Life cannot come out from something lifeless.This shows that the first life ever comes from life Itself, which is God.Only God could give life out of lifelessness.This matter is also discussed in the Quran: "It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living." (Surah Rome: 19)

As we know, the basic structure of life is protein, which is build up of many types of amino acids, which comprises of carbon,nitrogen,hydrogen,ferum,Oxygen and inorganic elements.The theory of evolution states that the first protein appear by chance in a primordial soup.Probability of amino acids to form a protein by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 950. According to mathematics principal,probability smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 is almost impossible.

The cell itself is a concrete evidence of creationism. A sell is sufficient even by itself, for it can generate food,move and communicate with other cells,it has data bank,etc.In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a muddy lump.It is very certain that a structure this complex couldn't be the work of "chance".

The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Please go to--> http://www.comparative-religion.com/...7508#post47508

However the theory of relativity (physics), has been proven as correct (as far as we have researched it), and we know that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed...only changed from one form to the other, or to an inbetween state (plasma). We also know that matter is a lower state of energy, or lower frequency (vibration). This said, isn't "life" energy, supported by matter? Or is life something that resides within energy? In otherwords does life use energy as a carrier for its essence to remain, while energy uses matter to conduct itself through?

Also, can't evolution compliment Creatinism, instead of opposing it?

Just asking for thoughts on it.

v/r

Q

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

can't evolution compliment Creatinism, instead of opposing it?

Just asking for thoughts on it.

My thought is that it can.

God can, perhaps, did, create via a process like evolution.

Let's be honest. What we call evolution is a human label for what we observe. Let's not confuse the label with Truth.

What I mean is this: There is no East, West, North, South. Those, too, are just human labels. Markers, or symbols we construct to help us make sense of what we see in the world.

Evolution is, at best, I think, a process, imperfectly understood. It's the best our brightest can devise. Given the facts as we know them, it seems that things evolved.

Why can't God have given impetus to that evolution?

I think he can. Did, for my part.

black and white
when there is
so much grey

where's the sense
in that

we should
i think
understand that
the creator
can work in shadows
and
probably does
more than we want to
believe

god
man
humans
(sorry, ladies)
we are all of one
thing, one substance

i have no problem
believing that god
he
she
created
using
evolutionary processes

after all
if god made anything
then he made it all
including
the process we call
evolution

There, in poor blank verse, is my take on the idea.

peace,

presser_kun