Is there a GOD? - ding! ding! ding ding geeeeet reaaaaaady toooooo rummmmble!!!!

[dwcrawford]

Did anybody hear about the Catholic priest who died and reincarnated as a Rabbi?  He went to hell twice.

[willowtreewren]

But people can believe in both God (higher power) and evolution.  They can go hand in hand!!

Yes, of course they can, Del.

And the Golden Rule is a wonderful guide for any society.

 

[Hemodoc]

But people can believe in both God (higher power) and evolution.  They can go hand in hand!!

Dear Del, for Bible believing Christians, those that believe in evolution are a small minority.

[Hemodoc]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/must-there-be-a-bottom-line/

I found this article in today's NYT to be quite interesting and germane to the discussion on this thread.

Dear Monrein,

Good article.  However, the dichotomy between science and religion as mutually exclusive is not the message of many on the creationist side at all.  The biggest enemy of evolution is actually from science itself and the complexity of life.  Despite the attempt to artificially separate abiogenesis from evolution, in fact they go hand in hand as a continuum.  That is how I was taught, and that is how it is still viewed under the radar, but it is still there.  There is nothing simple about a living cell.

The difficulty with evolution is that at it's central core are beliefs and speculation instead of scientific facts.  Survival of the fittest for example is a tautology with circular reasoning.  The age of rocks is dated by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks.  That is circular reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fossil

On the other hand, it is falsely portrayed that the Bible is anti-science which is not true.  That is based on the fact that people have lost sight of what science really is through the scientific method:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Example, punctuated equilibrium is based on Haldane's Dilemma and the lack of transitional fossils.  The fossil record shows stasis throughout the life of organisms.  The shark you see today is exactly like the shark you see in the fossils, except for size.  Many other such examples too numerous to name at present.  In effect, Stephen J. Gould postulated his hypothesis based on the lack of evidence of Darwinian gradualism.  Once again, because there is no evidence, that is evidence that it happened in the manner in which Gould believed.  Since there is a lack of fossils showing the saltation in question, this is then the evidence that it happened very quickly. There is another possibility, it never happened at all since God created all creatures just as the Bible states.  Much of what we accept as science in evolution is based on speculation over the lack of evidence.  Punctuated equilibrium is one example for sake of discussion that many aspects of evolutionary philosophy are outside of testing by the scientific method.  The scientific method is the foundation on which we seek this knowledge and much of evolution cannot be tested in the same sense that we test other areas in science.

When you ask where did God come from?  I don't know.  When we ask where did all of the matter come from that formed the big bang, the answer is I don't know.  Both systems of thought in the end analysis are actually religious in nature based on the faith and beliefs of their advocates.  I have looked at both sides of the coin, actually several sides of the coin and the evidence that I see from the Bible of the record of His Son in the crucifixion for example and the speculative philosophy of evolution with the ever advancing complexity of life, I choose that of the foundation of the Bible.  Yes, there is a God and He is our Creator and our Saviour.

[Rerun]

Did anybody hear about the Catholic priest who died and reincarnated as a Rabbi?  He went to hell twice.

               

[Stoday]

But people can believe in both God (higher power) and evolution.  They can go hand in hand!!

Dear Del, for Bible believing Christians, those that believe in evolution are a small minority.

It's best to go to the source of a survey rather than a report of it. http://www.harrisinteractive.net/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

You cannot draw Hemodoc's conclusion from the source. All you can say is that 56% of respondants who attend church more than once a year believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Another fact from the survey — 40% of respondants believe in creationism; 47% in Darwin's theory of evolution.

[Stoday]

There's no such thing as a transitional fossil. If one were found, it would be given the name of another species.

Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis evolved from Homo erectus. But hey! a transition was found, so it was called Homo heidlebergensis and classed as a different species.

In principle, all species are in transition. Everything evolves to better meet a changing environment.

[Hemodoc]

But people can believe in both God (higher power) and evolution.  They can go hand in hand!!

Dear Del, for Bible believing Christians, those that believe in evolution are a small minority.

It's best to go to the source of a survey rather than a report of it. http://www.harrisinteractive.net/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

You cannot draw Hemodoc's conclusion from the source. All you can say is that 56% of respondants who attend church more than once a year believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Another fact from the survey — 40% of respondants believe in creationism; 47% in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Dear Stoday,I didn't reference any poll in my comment and the poll that you are referring to is not the source of my comment.  Let's look at a different poll that actually separates those of "Christian" belief into different categories.  As I said, Bible believing Christians do not believe in Darwinism except for a small group.  If a person only goes to church once a year, that is pretty poor proof of any internal belief in the Bible and being born again.  The Bible and the theory of evolution are not compatible and are completely at odds with each other. 

The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans

More People Believe in the Devil, Hell, and Angels Than Believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Differences in Beliefs Among Major Religious Groups

Born-again Christians are more likely to believe in the traditional elements of Christianity than are Catholics or Protestants. For example, 95 percent believe in miracles, compared to 87 percent and 89 percent among Catholics and Protestants. Fully 92 percent of born-again Christians believe in Hell, compared to 75 percent of Catholics and 78 percent of Protestants.

On the other hand only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. And fully 60 percent of born-again Christians, but only 43 percent of Catholics, believe in creationism. Born-again Christians are also more likely to believe in witches. Catholics are more likely to believe in astrology and re-incarnation.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20071129005072&newsLang=en

[Hemodoc]

There's no such thing as a transitional fossil. If one were found, it would be given the name of another species.

Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis evolved from Homo erectus. But hey! a transition was found, so it was called Homo heidlebergensis and classed as a different species.

In principle, all species are in transition. Everything evolves to better meet a changing environment.

Dear Stoday, that is actually not factually true.  The difficulty with Darwinian evolution is that the proposed myriad of transitional forms is absent and not found despite a very robust fossil record.  What is found instead is stasis, or species staying the same over alleged long periods of time.  Once again, this is the driving force of Stephen J. Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory.  Variations are only noted with in the same kind of animal.  The fabled missing link is still missing throughout the entire chain.

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory about how the evolutionary process works, based on patterns of first appearances and subsequent histories of species in the fossil record. The theory holds that species originate too rapidly to enable their origins to be traced by paleontologists (punctuation), and then persist unchanged through geological time in stasis (equilibrium). All is due to a mysterious shared homeostasis that is postulated to regulate the collective morphology of individuals. When species-level homeostasis is working, species persist unchanged; when species-level homeostasis breaks down, speciation results. It is difficult to imagine a construct more antithetical to Darwinian natural selection.

http://palaeo-electronica.org/2007_3/books/equal.htm

Please note that this theory is based on the lack of evidence as the evidence that it occurred!!  Take a look:

 The theory holds that species originate too rapidly to enable their origins to be traced by paleontologists (punctuation), and then persist unchanged through geological time in stasis (equilibrium).

That is not science, it is pure speculation that in fact cannot be falsified.  How can you falsify a theory based on the lack of evidence documented to justify it.  So, because there is no evidence, that is evidence.  Sorry, that is completely illogical and it is speculative evolutionary philosophy, not science.

[dwcrawford]

In fact there is very little difference in this thread and the sister thread "the truth about evolution".  I thought the later was created to allow this one to stay on topic.  Can you find anything in Epoman's writings and rules about staying on topic?  If no, I'm quite sure it is in the Bible somewhere.

Rules general mean  everyone without a written exception.

[fc2821]

 
     Did you read the joke about the fellow who came to the thread to discuss God and wound up in hell? 

[Hemodoc]

In fact there is very little difference in this thread and the sister thread "the truth about evolution".  I thought the later was created to allow this one to stay on topic.  Can you find anything in Epoman's writings and rules about staying on topic?  If no, I'm quite sure it is in the Bible somewhere.

Rules general mean  everyone without a written exception.

Ok inspired by thread: http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=620.0 that topic was getting off course, it was about gays and marriage. It turned into a GOD debate. Well lets continue the debate here.

Is there a GOD? I personally believe YES! I can't imagine that with the complexity of the human body especially the brain, and all the feelings we have, that go hand in hand, for example sex, it serves a purpose and it FEELS GOOD!  I just can't imagine that we were an accident, a "Big Bang" happened and a million years later we have Tivo.  There are so many beautiful things in this world that are just too perfect. Some people say we evolved from apes, well they can bite my ass. If apes evolved into man, why are there still apes? Is the bible right I hope so! remember though, it was written by man, and things do get lost in translation. I don't know which religion is correct, there are so many! Catholics believe Christians are going to hell and Christians believe Catholics are going to hell, and everyone thinks buddhists are all going to burn. Who is right? I personally think that as long as you believe in a GOD and live a good life, you will go to heaven when you die, if I didn't believe in GOD and NO forgiveness for the ultimate sin (suicide) I would have offed myself 13 years ago. But I fear GOD and I try to follow his rules as much as possible. Because when I die I want to go to heaven and chill with "THE MAN" and talk about the mysteries of the universe, things like what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

Well that should start things off....

DISCUSS!

Dear Dan,

Nothing wrong with the other thread, but Epoman started this thread talking about evolution and why he believed in God.  "Some people say we evolved from apes, well they can bite my ass." 

Likewise, the Bible states that by the things that He has created, He has shown us that He is God, even the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  We are still on topic on this thread.

Thank you,

Peter

[fc2821]

    Staying on topic about is there a God, why I belive ther is a God precisely. 
    Just six numbers govern the shape, size, and texture of our universe. If their values were only fractionally different, we would not exist: nor, in many cases, would matter have had a chance to form. If the numbers that govern our universe were elegant--1, say, or pi, or the Golden Mean--we would simply shrug and say that the universe was an elegant mathematical puzzle. But the numbers Martin Rees discusses are far from tidy. Was the universe "tweaked" or is it one of many universes, all run by slightly different, but equally messy, rules?
     

[rocker]

    Staying on topic about is there a God, why I belive ther is a God precisely. 
    Just six numbers govern the shape, size, and texture of our universe. If their values were only fractionally different, we would not exist: nor, in many cases, would matter have had a chance to form. If the numbers that govern our universe were elegant--1, say, or pi, or the Golden Mean--we would simply shrug and say that the universe was an elegant mathematical puzzle. But the numbers Martin Rees discusses are far from tidy. Was the universe "tweaked" or is it one of many universes, all run by slightly different, but equally messy, rules?
   

Aaaaaaaah, someone finally gets to the anthropic principle!

I find no conundrum posed there, at all.

Why did those numbers all line up precisely to be the ones that produced us?  Well, because they are the ones that produced us.  We're here to observe them.  Had those numbers been different, there would have been a different universe (and of course, there may well be many such universes), different consciousness would have arisen, and marvelled at the fact that the universal constants were so precisely attuned to them.

I just....find the causality of the anthropic principle to be backwards.



This goes along with the search for "Earth-like" planets in the universe as part of the search for other life.  Certainly, earthlike planets are the most likely to produce life like us, and of course that's what we're most interested in.  (Egoists that we are )  That's not to say that any kind of life is far more likely to exist on such planets....with a sample size of one, we are woefully ignorant of the range of types of life that are possible.

  - rocker

[fc2821]

     rocker, how about the Drake equation?   The Drake equation (sometimes called the "Green Bank equation", the "Green Bank Formula" or–erroneously–the "Sagan equation") is an equation to calculate the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, the Milky Way. 
   Sometimes I think we look for "earth like planets" becaue we are looking for a place to  immigrate. 

[rocker]

     rocker, how about the Drake equation?   The Drake equation (sometimes called the "Green Bank equation", the "Green Bank Formula" or–erroneously–the "Sagan equation") is an equation to calculate the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, the Milky Way. 
   Sometimes I think we look for "earth like planets" becaue we are looking for a place to  immigrate.

The Drake equation is cute....but as we know from math, you can't solve a single equation with that many unknowns!  It's less of an equation, and more of a thought experiment.  But yes, it has been the basis for many fascinating discussions over the years.

As for immigration - well the physics are currently against it.  (Who said "Space is big.  Really, really big."?)  But no reason to stop trying!

Does God have a position on interplanetary immigration?   

 - rocker

[Hemodoc]

Dear Rob, great question.  I remember going to a conference in Internal Medicine where one of the topics was an update of HIV.  The speaker went over the incredible relationship of a perfect lock and key between the virus and our T-Cell receptor.  After going over this incredible evidence, she marveled: "Isn't mother nature amazing."

The difficulty with the anthropic principle is the fact that people blinded by evolution can't see the element of design by God.  It is turned instead into philosophical discourse right out of Descarte, I think therefore I am.  The anthropic principle is instead evidence of design throughout the entire creation.  Take a look at a post on ICR going over the fact that the anthropic principle is just a larger watch in accordance with Paley's watchmaker paradigm:

CREATION'S RESPONSE

Old arguments have an uncanny way of returning at a later time with increased strength. Thus after two centuries, Paley's reasoning still applies and is even stronger than before. The chief reason is the discovery of a new "watch" in nature. In fact, not just one watch has been found, but a whole showcase full, all beautifully constructed and running smoothly. This reference is not to literal watches, but instead, to hundreds of carefully balanced equations, constants, and properties of matter! It is further realized that if any of these quantities were changed in the slightest way, the result would be catastrophic. Scientists, in describing today's universal balance, often refer to "astonishing precision," "cosmic coincidences," or a "contrived appearance." This perspective has been summarized in the Anthropic Principle which states that the universe appears to be carefully designed for the well-being of mankind.1, 2

http://www.icr.org/article/design-nature-anthropic-principle/

[Hemodoc]

     rocker, how about the Drake equation?   The Drake equation (sometimes called the "Green Bank equation", the "Green Bank Formula" or–erroneously–the "Sagan equation") is an equation to calculate the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, the Milky Way. 
   Sometimes I think we look for "earth like planets" becaue we are looking for a place to  immigrate.

The Drake equation is cute....but as we know from math, you can't solve a single equation with that many unknowns!  It's less of an equation, and more of a thought experiment.  But yes, it has been the basis for many fascinating discussions over the years.

As for immigration - well the physics are currently against it.  (Who said "Space is big.  Really, really big."?)  But no reason to stop trying!

Does God have a position on interplanetary immigration?   

 - rocker

Yes, it is called heaven and hell.

[Hemodoc]

     rocker, how about the Drake equation?   The Drake equation (sometimes called the "Green Bank equation", the "Green Bank Formula" or–erroneously–the "Sagan equation") is an equation to calculate the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, the Milky Way. 
   Sometimes I think we look for "earth like planets" becaue we are looking for a place to  immigrate.

The Drake equation is cute....but as we know from math, you can't solve a single equation with that many unknowns!  It's less of an equation, and more of a thought experiment.  But yes, it has been the basis for many fascinating discussions over the years.

As for immigration - well the physics are currently against it.  (Who said "Space is big.  Really, really big."?)  But no reason to stop trying!

Does God have a position on interplanetary immigration?   

 - rocker

Dear Rocker,

It is interesting that you easily see that the assumptions of the Drake equation render it to nothing more than a thought experiment.  However, have you ever looked at the equations for radiometric dating as well that are based on unproven and unprovable assumptions?  There are many examples of rocks of a known age from an observed volcanic eruption grossly in error when dated by these methods:

"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?"
by Keith Swenson

Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test.

Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably. (The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating.

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

Take a look at the difficulty caused by the assumptions of radiometric dating that make it nothing more than a thought experiment as well:

Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions

The assumptions on which the radioactive dating is based are not only unprovable but plagued with problems. As this article has illustrated, rocks may have inherited parent and daughter isotopes from their sources, or they may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to their current locations. Or inflowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rocks. In addition, the radioactive decay rates have not been constant.

So if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years, especially since they contradict the true history of the universe as recorded in God’s Word.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/assumptions

[fc2821]

What?

[willowtreewren]

What?

ditto 

[cariad]

I hate to add another link, but it's a good one. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/museumintro.htm

Someone grossly uneducated on potassium/argon dating sent a sample in to a lab when the lab clearly stated that they cannot date rocks less than roughly 2 million years old. Some choice quotes from the link:

Andrew MacRae replied "...all Austin has proven is that if you do something silly, and misapply K/Ar dating to rocks erupted yesterday, you get nonsensical age results" (MacRae 1998).

Henry Barwood notes that "Bad measurements, like bad science, reflect only on the measurer (Austin), not on the measurement (the procedure) (Barwood 1998)."

This article also mentions that Austin published under a different name, trying to make it appear that he had been converted to his thinking by research independent to his own.

Usually dating methods, both direct and indirect, are used in conjunction to date a specimen. Pseudoscience offends me. I must train myself to stop reading this. 

[Hemodoc]

What?

Dear Rob,

Radiometric dating assumes the initial conditions which are unknown, they assume no contamination which is unprovable, and they assume a constant rate of decay which is also unprovable.  When samples are submitted, the submitter is usually required to state which rock level it was found in as way to calibrate the results to see if they are accurate.  The geological level is dated by index fossils.  So even going to radiometric dating, it is referenced back to the "known" age by geologic level which is determined by the index fossils which are dated by the age of the rocks.  It is all circular reasoning.

The problem with dating using this method is exactly what Rocker spoke of with the Drake equation that you cannot draw any conclusion from equations that have more than one unknown.  Using assumptions no matter how "reasonable" is an unreliable practice.  Once again, there have been many examples of volcanic eruptions of known age dated quite erroneously through these methods.  If a 20 year old volcano is dated at over a million years old with this method, then how old is the earth really?

[Hemodoc]

I hate to add another link, but it's a good one. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/museumintro.htm

Someone grossly uneducated on potassium/argon dating sent a sample in to a lab when the lab clearly stated that they cannot date rocks less than roughly 2 million years old. Some choice quotes from the link:

Andrew MacRae replied "...all Austin has proven is that if you do something silly, and misapply K/Ar dating to rocks erupted yesterday, you get nonsensical age results" (MacRae 1998).

Henry Barwood notes that "Bad measurements, like bad science, reflect only on the measurer (Austin), not on the measurement (the procedure) (Barwood 1998)."

This article also mentions that Austin published under a different name, trying to make it appear that he had been converted to his thinking by research independent to his own.

Usually dating methods, both direct and indirect, are used in conjunction to date a specimen. Pseudoscience offends me. I must train myself to stop reading this. 

Dear Cariad,

The answer to the issue is right in the middle of your text in case you missed it.  They do ask for samples of an expected age and also they do ask that you tell which geological level it comes from.  Take a look:

First, Austin sent young, low-potassium (and therefore very low in radiogenic argon) rocks to Geochron Laboratories, which specifically states in its advertisements: "We are not in a position to analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." (Geotimes 1995-7). He did it anyway and specifically states in his paper that "No information was given to the lab concerning where the dacite came from or that the rock has a historically known age (Austin 1997)". This puts potentially large error-bars on the data and also opens his research to ethical questions. In response to the original post, Andrew MacRae replied "...all Austin has proven is that if you do something silly, and misapply K/Ar dating to rocks erupted yesterday, you get nonsensical age results" (MacRae 1998). Henry Barwood notes that "Bad measurements, like bad science, reflect only on the measurer (Austin), not on the measurement (the procedure) (Barwood 1998)."

I agree that it got nonsensical results because of the assumptions of the dating technique, not anything unethical on the part of Dr. Austin.  If radiometric dating is a gold standard, then why do you have tell the lab how old the sample is before it is sent.  The age is assumed in these techniques BEFORE the sample is analyzed.  Any variance for this is felt to be an error and another run is performed until they get the age of the rock that they are looking for.  This is NOT how science is done.

In medical practice, the labs get monthly samples of known value to see how calibrated that individual lab machine is running.  The lab does NOT know the values before they do the test.  Dr. Austin simply did what is done in all medical labs in this country on a monthly basis, send in a known sample and see how close they get.  Cariad, I would encourage you to learn more about this before you dismiss summarily in error the Austin experiment.

[fc2821]

No, what I ment is how did we get on that subject in the first place?