Posted on 02/21/2006 9:53:32 AM PST by presidio9
> I know my biases - do you understand yours?
Yup. Mine are based on the concept of "cause and effect."
It is far more irrational to suppose an unintelligent process randomly created something more intelligent than the creative process itself.
Consider that we now know at least 10 dimensions exist and our universe only appears in 4 of those dimensions (1 of them being time). Scientists readily acknowledge that those other dimensions may include orthogonal time dimensions, meaning that they would be "timeless".
Furthermore there may be far more intellignet beings in the other 6 dimensions than exist in our 4 (supposition, but logical and rational to postulate)).
Furthermore we know there are interactions and influences from those other dimensions into our 4 dimensions (as apparent in quantum electrodynamics, quantum mechanics research labs).
Fair enough.
So - what caused life?
And of course the answer is - you don't know. Which brings us right back to my previous post. In our ignorance of the "what caused", we "fill in" with whatever we've adopted as our belief system.
This begs the question: how did you arrive at your belief system, if you have no "cause & effect" knowledge of what initially caused life?
I can tell you part of the answer: faith
Science cannot prove the existence of love, yet we know personally the truth about love, just as we Christians know the truth about the power and influence of the Holy Spirit within our souls. It is part of us and is as real as any scientific proof.
I believe in Jesus Christ with more absolute certainty than I believe in any scientific truth. It has been proven to me directly as a fact. I do not have to have "faith", I know.
Sir Isaac Newton invented the modern scientific process that all of the Darwinians rely upon to discredit the concept of ID, yet here is what Sir Isaac had to say;
"This beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...." -- Sir Isaac Newton"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than any in profane history." -- Sir Isaac Newton
Einstein was also a "Creationist". He believed that an intelligence was behind our creation.
So it is irrational to base your disbelief in a Creator strictly and wholly in science, because some of the worlds greatest scientists would tell you that science cannot comprehend Creation, yet.
> Many of the greatest scientists in the world know the absolute truth that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour and others affirm the existence of an Intelligent Creator.
Uh-huh. And the vast bulk of the "evolutionists" are Christians. So your point is...?
> Science cannot prove the existence of love
Sure it can, just as it can prove the existence of any emotion. There are chemcial and electrical changes to the human brain that are associated with emotions.
> Sir Isaac Newton invented the modern scientific process that all of the Darwinians rely upon to discredit the concept of ID...
You don't *honestly* believe that bringing up the views of a scientist who lived hundreds of years prior to the formation of a theory is a good refutation of that theory... do you?
>Einstein was also a "Creationist". He believed that an intelligence was behind our creation.
He also wasn't Christian. So does that ruin your hypothesis?
Sheesh. It sure would be a nice change of pace if the ID arguement could be expressed from something other than pure emotionalism, but I'm not seeing it happening anytime soon.
Your point is excellent and essential. Einstein said much the same. he said that by understanding some of the deficiencies and limitations of the human mind he was able to arrive at his famous theories of relativity.
In cosmology theory now we are at a near standstill because we are awaiting for that next person who will step outside of our current box of thinking and propose some new revolutionary way of thinking about the universe. (and still the Bible remains unrefuted by science after earlier scientific theories discredited the Bible. Now the Bible comes back as even more scientifically consistent.)
In quantum theory now so many more scientists are beginning to understand that the beauty and harmony that they are witnessing could not be the product of random processes, particularly as it applies to string theory.
Discoveries that indicate 10 dimensions exist not just our 4 has them really scratching their heads about the possibility of intelligent beings existing in timeless, eternal other dimensions (as the Bible states). (BTW: any communications or interaction from those other dimensions would be through force fields, most likely (radio uses force fields) which would otherwise meet the definition of "spirit" [without mass but conveying information and force])
Other scientists are trying to avoid believing that God is a possibility so they are conjecturing outrageous theories that are far less plausible than the existence of God, such as the multiverse theory which has now been more widely discussed among scientists than the theories of an Intelligent Creator.
Multiverse acknowledges that our universe cannot exist by random process because the probability that so many of the parameters that define our universe would just happen to assume the precise values necessary for life to exist becomes almost infinitely improbable.
Thus, they propose that there are an almost infinite number of universes all with different physical parameters. The vast majority would not support life but we happen to be in the 1 universe that has the right parameters.
> And of course the answer is - you don't know.
No more than I know that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, I suppose. However, there comes a point when the evidence is sufficient to render doubts unreasonable. Evolution long ago passed that point.
> In our ignorance of the "what caused", we "fill in" with whatever we've adopted as our belief system.
If you are simply looking for any convenient answer, I suppose that's true. But the scientific method does not permit that. The greatest sceintists are those who discovered somethign they were *not* looking for. Kepler and Darwin of course spring immediately to mind.
"And the vast bulk of the "evolutionists" are Christians. So your point is...? "
I am a Christian evolutionist in the sense that I believe in the power of evolution to adapt species to the environment. I know we that we are subject to evolutionary processes. But no christian believes evolution created the world or created life. No Christian believes evolution created the soul in man, or created the Holy Spirit.
none, not 1, believes evolution created life. You cannot be a Christian and believe Jesus was a liar.
"Sure it can, just as it can prove the existence of any emotion. There are chemcial and electrical changes to the human brain that are associated with emotions"
Wrong. dead wrong. None of the measurments of brain waves or cerebral bloodflow are proof that love exists. They show that emotions exist and that our brains change states as we perform cognitive tasks or emote.
If such were the criteria then science has already proven that the Holy Spirit exists within man because those same changes in brain states occur as people feel the presence of the Holy Spirit.
That is not scientific proof of love, or the Holy spirit. It is merely proof that we, well, alive and the brain functions in different ways.
"You don't *honestly* believe that bringing up the views of a scientist who lived hundreds of years prior to the formation of a theory is a good refutation of that theory... do you?
Sir Isaac newton was the father of modern science. My point clearly stated that he did not require or rely upon modern scientific theories to prove what he knew to be true already. he did not need any new theories to prove what had already been proven to be true by personal revelation.
Newton affirms that revelation is valid and that science does not replace or supplant revelation.
My point was clear so please do not create false strawmen. I did not say Newton refuted Darwin. Newton refuted the idea that science provided supreme knowledge to man.
"He [Einstein] also wasn't Christian. So does that ruin your hypothesis? "
groan...of course not. Einstein destroys your idea that there cannot be a Creator. He was a deist. he did not dispute Christianity. No man is a Christian or can believe in Christianity until they themselves personally ask Jesus Christ to come into their heqart. At that time they will be shown the absolute truth, by revelation of the Holy Spirit. Just because Einstein had chosen to accept Christ does not mean he refutes Christ, he could not know.
Sheesh. It sure would be a nice change of pace if the ID arguement could be expressed from something other than pure emotionalism,...
yes, it would. Everything I have told you is a fact or a legitimate hypothesis that has not been refuted by fact. Yet you react only with emotional, and often irrelevent, remarks.
> But no christian believes evolution created the world or created life.
No *evolutionist* believes any such thing either. Nor does much of anybody believe that evolution created the moon, clouds, rainbows or gold nuggest.
See, this is why people like yourself are so difficult to take seriously: not only do you spout these strawman arguements, you don't even bother to come up with *good* strawman arguements.
It's difficult to tell which is worse: that you knowingly use such dis-honest tactics, knowing that you are being dishonest... or that you are either too dim or too lazy to recognize that you are spouting utter nonsense.
And see, this nonsense doesn't help your case either: "Einstein destroys your idea that there cannot be a Creator." No, Einstien did no such thing. Einstein provided not one jot of evidence for a creator. He may (or may not) have believed in such, but he certainly did not demonstrate.
Sigh. Some people...
You have ignored or misunderstood the points I have made and then you get all emotional and reactionary.
For instance, I told YOU what an evolutionist was. You did not tell me. I am likely far more experienced and knowledgeable than you on evolution. I've spent many months involved in technical research on evolutionary systems and techniques. I've used such techniques to develop algorithms.
Tell me ONE dishonest statement I have made. I do not lie. period. I may be wrong but I will not lie.
Furthermore, you claim that no evolutionist believes evolution is responsible for the origins of life. You are wrong again. Many evolutionists believe evolutionary processes are responsbile for the origins of life.
Here is a list of scientific papers from Univ of California that seek to do just that! (took me 30 seconds to find) "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere"
Here are the titles of just a few of those papers that deal with evolution TO CREATE LIFE. All of these papers deal with, in their own words, "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere";
"Chemical Evolution in the Atmosphere of Titan: Comparison to the Prebiotic Earth." -- David Clarke and Jim Ferris. p. 249-262. (Evolutionary processes on another planet that does not yet even have life)
"Evolutionary Consideration on 5-Aminolevulinic Synthase in Nature". P. 405-412. ;
"Primary Sources of Phosphorus and Phosphates in Chemical Evolution." E. Macia, H. V. Hernandez and J. Oro. p. 459-480.
"Studies on Order in Prebiological Systems at the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution". M. Hobish
"First Steps in Eukarogenesis: Physical Phenomena in the Origin and Evolution of Chromosome Structure, J. Chela-Flores.
"Electrical Energy Sources for Organic Synthesis on the Early Earth," Christopher Chyba and Carl Sagan.
Many of the papers proposed that life came from extraterrestrial substances yet to be found.
Many of these papers are articles of faith (forget the pun) proposing low probability theories and then searching for evidence.
""Einstein destroys your idea that there cannot be a Creator." No, Einstien did no such thing. Einstein provided not one jot of evidence for a creator. He may (or may not) have believed in such, but he certainly did not demonstrate."
Again you contrive a strawman for me. Einstein destroys your argument by his intellect and the fact that he was a scientist that acknowledges that science is not required for a man of science to believe in a creator.
Einstein and Newton show that science is inadequate to prove the existence of a Creator, and unnessary since the Creator proves to us already that He exists.
God does not do parlor tricks, nor does he provide "stool samples" for scientists to put under a microscope to "prove" he exists using wholly primitive techniques of human scientists.
You too can know the absolute truth. You just have to ask the right questions and do what God has already told us to do to discover Him.
God gave us an instruction book. Use it!
And a simple book is just a "complex" assemblage of letters. That doesn't mean letters fell together to create "War and Peace".
You're wasting your time.
Crick mentioned that there has not been time for evolution to produce the variety of lifeforms on earth in the 4.5 billion years since earth formed.
Actually, that is your problem. You assign "fact" to speculation.
And your problem is that you assign "fact" and "ultimate truth" to just-so fairy tales. Excuse me if I prefer evidence.
Excuse me if I don't accept your characterization. The most recent "fairy tale" I can recall was outlined in "Nature" magazine by a Korean scientist.
> Excuse me if I don't accept your characterization.
Most zealots don't.
That is because most people of any type won't accept your characterization.
And yet you choose to mischaracterize science, and choose to mischaracterize people who use logic and evidence.
Go back to your fairy tales.
Proof?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.