ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects
ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Christianity - Christian
 How did we come to be?
 Where do humans come from?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
354 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  14:38:34  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
It has been theorised by Charles Darwin in "The Origin of Species) that we have evolved, funnily enough this theory is taught in our schools to our children today, There is also another theory brandished around called "Intelligent Design" This means that there was a creator, and is founded from bible beleiving creation science groups.

If your reading this then the above is not new to you, the problem is we have all become dofmatic in pushing our beliefs, but is there any foundations to either Theory?

Lets investigate. I will post a few links to some of the better websites from both - just for some background laying of the argument - but I dont wish to be caught up in there agendas, but be free to ask and answer and search for truth the questions that we ourselves come up with.

I am not big on words and for those that are - please try and keep it simple, factual and logical as my brain struggles, even though I was created in God's own image . Oops there I go again - I just cant help the teaching coming out, its ingrained lets be more practical.

1/ I think that I am created by God.
2/ I think that God Created the Earth.
3/ I believe whole heartedly the Bible.

This topic is about my first statement 1/ I think that I am created by God. where do I get this notion?

a/ I was taught it when I became a Christian.
b/ I can't comprehend in my mind that I was not created.
c/ I have yet to hear a stirring argument against this notion - But I am open to hear your evidence against it
d/ Logically, (In my limited mind) I cant see the connection from slime to human and all the way in between.
e/ I have never seen an animal (in my limited time) morf from one species to another - I have seen pictures of birth defects and extra toes or even heads - but no real change.
f/ Frankly the thought of me being an accident - Scares me

Can anyone give me evidence contrary to my thoughts and theory that I am created by a God who is the Master creator/Intelligent designer?

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 28 Jul 2009 :  12:00:09  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
You cannot compare the Theory of Evolution with the belief that there was an intelligent designer.

ID is not a scientific Theory on a fact.

'Intelligent Design' or Creationism, does not undergo the scientific peer review system that evolution does. Evolution has testable, observable fact. There is nothing to test, nor observe, in 'creationism', it is a belief, based on a leap of faith.

In science, a current Theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observations contradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation. However, the falsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based.

Evolution continually is reviewed and there has been nothing that has disproven it. The initial theory by Darwin has been expanded, with many facets as to how evolution works, Darwin just came up with the initial findings, and one facet. Since the discovery of DNA there has been many others that have just added to the Theory of Evolution.

The three main mechanisms that produce evolution in the theory, are natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. Natural selection favors genes that improve capacity for survival and reproduction. Genetic drift is random change in the frequency of alleles, caused by the random sampling of a generation’s genes during reproduction. Gene flow is the transfer of genes within and between populations.

What you are basically doing, is putting forward a belief, using scientific terminology, ignoring totally what a scientific Theory actually means.

If you are putting forward intelligent design as a scientific Theory. Put forward the factual evidence, and the scientific process of how that fact works.

To date, the intelligent design community has not done so, and totally ignores all evidence to the contrary. It is not open for scientific peer review, it is not open for change from factual evidence, it is just a belief based on a faith in their being a god, with no facts whatsoever to back it up.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 28 Jul 2009 :  12:03:30  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
I must also add, the Theory of Evolution is on how things change over time, it does not cover the 'cause of life', that is abiogenesis.

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 28 Jul 2009 :  12:14:06  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
After reading my long winded reply, I must summarise :

A scientific Theory, is a process of gathering evidence to come to a position, of how a fact occurs.

Creationism, takes a position, and tries to find explanations, of how that position is true.

Godless Heathen

Edited by - davo on 28 Jul 2009 12:14:42
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 29 Jul 2009 :  11:39:39  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
b/ I can't comprehend in my mind that I was not created.


You were, but a well understood process. There was no stork. ;)

quote:
c/ I have yet to hear a stirring argument against this notion - But I am open to hear your evidence against it


What part of the process of procreation are you having difficulty with? ameoba do it, bees do it, trees do it .. all different ways ..

quote:
d/ Logically, (In my limited mind) I cant see the connection from slime to human and all the way in between.


Who said slime? This is just wording, and we are talking about millions of years of gradual, slow, change. Not a leap from one thing to another. The whole Theory is about how that gradual change occurs. Contrary to what you may believe, evolution has been understood for thousands of years. Animals have been bred for certain characteristics, as has plants. Theories over how evolution work have come and gone, Darwins theory just had major implications in that it has not yet been disproved, and discoveries since then, have only built on the concepts of natural selection. The discovery of DNA has not only supported his initial theory that has stood the test of time, but built on it.

quote:
e/ I have never seen an animal (in my limited time) morf from one species to another - I have seen pictures of birth defects and extra toes or even heads - but no real change.


We are talking change that happens over a large period of time, not just short periods as in some situations (there is macro and micro evolution). What you seem to be suffering from in misunderstanding, is the common process of ID proponents that talk about things changing in an extremely short period of time, or the infamous 'croco-duck', half crocodile half duck. This is just extreme and misleading propaganda that pushes a totally incorrect concept of what the Theory of Evolution is about. This propaganda is why you refer to 'chance' and to sudden morphing, where the whole Theory of Evolution is about explaining how the gradual change to populations occur over time.

Evolution explains how, by slow process, something over a period of time can change. It explains quite clearly all the facets of biology we use today, and NOTHING in DNA and biology make sense without it, indeed all discoveries to date have supported and built on the theory. It's the most scientifically ripped apart and peer reviewed theory ever, yet opponents of it due to their religious belief have made up some concept of it being a 'cult', without even understanding just how open it has been in process of review. If evidence came about in any format whatsoever that showed it to be false, it would be dropped in a heartbeat, and indeed theories put forward like Lamarkism (a method of transmutation) was dropped when evidence came about it couldn't be true, and indeed, pangenesis, as proposed by Darwin, was proved incorrect, it came and went like many other evolutionary theories. Darwin has been clearly unsuccessful with concepts, he is not an idol as put forward by fundamentalist concepts trying to portray him as such. That does not make the concept of natural selection wrong. That is science. Scientists follow truth, and are open to change of concepts. His theory on natural selection has stood the test of time is all.

There are a number of ways this happens, in the process. 'Natural selection' is just one of many facets of the Theory. Not the be-all and end-all as put forward by groups such as the discovery institute, let alone 'Darwinism'. His theory has just survived the test of time, of peer review etc.

Every generation an organism inherits 'traits' from it's parents genes. These changes are referred to 'mutations', and unlike the common term before you jump up and down about mutants, in science this just means CHANGE. I am using the term here so you familiarise yourself with some scientific terminology, that tends to be exploited for the wrong reasons, without explanations of in fact, what it means scientifically.

Put simply these changes happen from a number of things, natural selection which is ndoubtably the most well know facet of evolution, proposed by Darwin, whereby traits which help the organism survive and reproduce are more likely to accumulate in a population over time than traits that are unfavorable, and genetic or 'allelic' drift - that in the process of passing on genes from a parent, the alleles in offspring are a random sample of those in the parents. Gene flow, speciation, adaption, mutation .. there's a huge amount of other facets of evolutionary theory. Yet for some reason, those that find these facts contradict their belief, demonise one aspect as idolatry. very strange.

quote:

f/ Frankly the thought of me being an accident - Scares me


Accident? There are very clear and extremely well understood processes as to why and how you are here, based on solid evidence and clear observation.

Where is the evidence for creation? 'Creationism' is simply analogy, with no evidence provided for observable fact.

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 31 Jul 2009 :  00:55:22  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Where this is very much an Appeal to Authority Fallacy (therefore making that plain at the start of the post), I thought I would put in perspective the level of general consensus on Evolution and the age of the earth. This is too big to be a global conspiracy, there is no reason to do so.

After reading some of the creationscience link that kevin put forward, I can see that there is not so much evidence, than conjecture, most all of the book the whole site appears to come from, I can refute quite straight forward, and I am sure I will be asked to do so. I am concerned about what is really just cherry picking at the edges of the majority consensus on global knowledge, to justify personal faith.

Well pretty much the same as these scientific bodies state below :

Reference : http://www.interacademies.net/?id=6179.

IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION


We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world,
within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data,
and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed,
denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and
parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an
understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live
empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and
of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived
experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open
questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never
contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion
years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the
effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of
photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation
of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the
release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of
fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve,
in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are
describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the
structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin.

We also subscribe to the following statement regarding the nature of science in relation to the
teaching of evolution and, more generally, of any field of scientific knowledge :
Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been
successful and of great consequence. Science focuses on (i) observing the natural world and
(ii)formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable
phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that
account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still
unobserved phenomena.

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a
number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political –
contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully
aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.
While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and
expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the DevelopingWorld (TWAS)
68. The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

Godless Heathen

Edited by - davo on 31 Jul 2009 00:57:02
Go to Top of Page

Kevin
Commander

Australia
115 Posts

Posted - 31 Jul 2009 :  11:32:15  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by davo
[
After reading some of the creationscience link that kevin put forward, I can see that there is not so much evidence, than conjecture, most all of the book the whole site appears to come from, I can refute quite straight forward, and I am sure I will be asked to do so. [quote]
Davo, may I suggest you attend some of the lectures that C.M.I. have around the country through-out the year. There you can question/query and try to refute anything you may have on your mind.

I attend some of these meetings myself occasionally, and they give you an opportunity to put forward to them anything you may have on your mind. Try visiting their website again to find the venue/times and the topics that will be covered.

Hope this helps...

Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 31 Jul 2009 :  19:09:26  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hiya Kevin, that's an interesting possibility, thanks, but on the other hand, I don't think it is worth entertaining. These folk put themselves forward to those of faith as being scientific, when they do not hold themselves to science, and there are a lot of folk doing that from new age to astrology you name it. Giving people such as this a platform just in their eyes gives there findings credence.

What concerns me, is the misinformation .. basically saying that a lot of the stuff put forward is causing issues with scientific organisations, where actually it isn't.

For instance the bee discussion. You can read in the article the response of the scientific community to the finding. It is a great finding that proves with evidence that bees existed a lot earlier than first thought. There is no 'not confronting it' as put forward by this group, in fact, there are media releases and people stating it a wonderful finding.

I would really like to see some solid evidence that outweighs the immensity of evidence to the contrary. At the moment, these groups are just preying on people such as yourselves, that do not have even knowledge over how science works, and making claims that these things are issues in the scientific community, when they are not.

I am happy to discuss with folk here, but to go along to one? Not sure if I would bother going to the city for that. But I may get some folk together to come with me, maybe confront this stuff head on, I will have a talk with some folk, and get in touch with them and work out there next 'talk'.

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects © 2005 to 2018 forumsau.com Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.08 seconds.                        You must Register and Confirm your email, and then log in first before posting! Snitz Forums 2000