dachs

last cosmo' book read was a kid's one (grand daughter's) and I confess I understood more than the times I have gone to sleep trying to read Hawking, good as he is.

Regards monkeys I thought our human time line was a tiny shrew like critter not an ape, directly.

Regards ages, eons etc, I though Carbon Dating etc fairly well proven and reliable (not the word fairly) and that lots of observable geology now hangs together. Doesn't mean it's right, just so far, a good working hypothesis.

Regards what we know, a very very few brains begin to grasp umpteen dimensions, bosons, string theory. I don't, but I am happy to believe they are beavering away to find the 'truth'

Regards the 'truth' - somehow I have to guess the entire educated Human Race have about 1% of the Universe under their comprehension belt.

And at no stage would I belittle anyone else's beliefs, particularly faiths, based on a 1% knowledge. But I do hold that steady scientific open minded study to interlock all knowledge in logical ways is PROBABLY the best way to get one more step forward in understanding.

Lastly don't forget Darwin was a devout Christian and saw God's hand in all he was trying to unravel, the faiths and science are not exclusive.

mericando Loc: NASHVILLE TN

Isn't funny how all of you who do not believe in God, think you have all the answers, and those of us who do are fools, ignorant, etc. You have your right to your opinion and we to ours. I don't see any of the believers using crude language or calling you all stupid or fools. But I will say this, to me it is more believable to believe in God as the Creator of this earth, than to think a bunch of junk came together and evolved into every spiecies on earth, every tree, plant, flower, veggie, fruit, grain, salt water, fresh water, males having one set of organs and female another on and on. So, I ask myself-Maybe I'm not as ignorant as you all think I am. I really believe some one has to have their head in la la land, and just don't want to believe there is a loving God who created this earth and them. So, say what you want, this is a free country and we can agree to disagree. But I really resent those of you who do not respect an opposing view. I suggest you read the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, a former atheist- on a quest to disprove the Bible and the God as Creator. He also wrote the Case for Christ - Might give you scientific insight as to why this earth could not have been brought about by the "big bang" theory. And remember in technical terms both evolution and creation are theories-Neither one can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Both are a matter of faith -

And remember I said technical terms because I have no doubt there is a God, I've seen Him work in too many people's lives, mine especially and felt His presence. But that can only be proven if one is a believer.

Bazamac Loc: Manchester, UK

Oh dear. Here we go again. Evolution is "just a theory" is it? It can't be proven, can it? So, after 150 years of study of fossil records, supported more recently by evidence from DNA, not one bit of credible evidence has come to light which disproves the fundamental notion that life on earth has evolved over 100s of millions of years. Not one. Do I reay have to explain again that 'theory' actually means something like 'explanatory model supported by a body of evidence', not some sort of vague guess. And yes, it can change as new evidence deepens our understanding, and sometimes scientific hypotheses are disproven and new ones developed, which are in turn tested against the evidence. Darwin's (and Wallace's) original theoretical ideas were supported by a mass of observations and data and, as I have said above, their validity has been demonstrated again and again. Creationism and young earth 'theories' start from the point that some writings by Iron Age people produced thousands of years ago are true, and sets out to 'prove' that. From the examples I have see they fail miserably.
I have no problem whatsoever with respecting others as people and their right to believe whatever they like. But - four points. One, that doesn't mean I have to show any respect for the beliefs themselves, some of which are plain bonkers. Two, a belief or set of beliefs doesn't deserve more respect simply because it is labelled 'religious' - in fact, to the extent that they reflect a reliance on 'faith' or conviction in the face of evidence, they may deserve less. Three, those who believe in 'young earth' and/or the literal truth of the bible, with its fairy stories about magical trees, talking snakes, people who live hundreds of years and magic floating zoos (to say nothing of the horror stories about war, persecution and genocide) really ARE rather delusional and it's hard for a rational person to be always respectful. Four, once someone starts quoting that "the fool saith in his heart" bollocks, the gloves come off!

Gnslngr

This is well said. Those that would deny evolution (or global warming, for that matter) are simply unaware of how science works. Once you understand that every scientist thinks it is his job to disprove a new theory, you have respect for those theories scientists agree on.

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

And with this you show you have absolutely no understanding of what a scientific theory is and why no scientific theory is ever proven correct, only falsified.

It is the reason why creationism is not now, nor has it ever been, a scientific theory. There is no theory of creationism. It's a simple religious belief not supported by the universe in which we live.

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

Nicely stated, my hat's off to you.

dachs

Nicely stated, my hat's off to you.[/quote]

nicely stated; we're tired this has been done to death;

respect to all, believers or no, no-one here ever suggested a belief or faith wasn't the mark of a good person, no-one here I hope suggests a scientist is a witch.

Either you see, on either side, or you don't, let's leave this tired old topic at that. Most plainly didn't read my earlier post so I will never bother again.

All the very best everyone.

mericando Loc: NASHVILLE TN

I said I wasn't going into this any further - but I will respond to you who say we are simply unaware of how science works. So, let me give you some quotes from those that are scientist that continue to prove life evolved from non-living factors--More and more scientist who continue to prove Darwin's and other evolution theories have found "the case for evolution begins to unravel upon closer examination. New discoveries during the 30 years have prompted a number of scientist to contradict Dawin by concluding there was an Intelligent Designer behind creation and development of life"
Now for life to happen, you have to have a cell,which is made up of a highly technical system being put together in a very specific way over and over again. Start with 80 different kinds of amino acids, of which there are only 20 found in anything living. They then have to be linked together in the right sequence to produce protein molecules -oh, one other slight thing that has to be right-amino acids are right handed and left handed and only the left handed ones are in living things. Then you have to have some "glue" or in scientific language peptide bonds in the correct palces in order for the protein to fold in a specific 3D way and all the while keeping all the unwanted acids and molecules from attaching to the one that brings life. Then you have to have 100 of life amino acids to make a protein molecule. Then you have to have about 200 protein molecules with just the right function to get a living cell. Whew, lot of work to be done by chance huh? How many cells are in a human or the tiniest of ants? And that is not all that has to happen-space nor your patience allow me to go into the what goes into the development of DNA that then has to go into a living cell. With all the advances in this area since Darwin spouted his theory, more and more scienctists are leaning toward Intelligent Design. The debate re the orgin of life in the scientific world"is not about religion vs science but science vs science. More and more biologists,biochemists and other researchers - not just Christians-have raised serious objections to evolutionary theory in recent years claiming that its broad inferences are sometimes base on flimsy, incomplete or flawed data"

So, poor little "delusional, bonkers, nonrational"(your words) me.

Ahhh but my fairy tale ends with and I lived happily ever after with my God and Savior Jesus Christ
And for your reading pleasure, here are some words from non-biased scientist - whose life work is to find out the orgin of life and if can be recreated by science.

Biochemist Michael Behe said "The result of cumulative efforts to investigate the cell, to investigate live at the molecular level is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design. The conclusion if intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from scared books or sectarian beliefs...The reluctance of science to embrace the concluson of design had no justifiable foundation. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientist just don't want there to be anything beyond nature"

In 1979 David Raup, curator of the Field Museum on Natural History in Chicago said "We are now about 150 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have 250 million fossil species but the situation hasn't expanded much. We have fewer example of evoluntionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." What the fossil record does show is that in rocks dating back some 570 million years ago, there is a sudden appearance of animal phyla and "they appear fully formed without a trace of the evoluntionary ancestors that Darwinist require"

The complexity of 1 living cell is so great that Behe said
"the probability of linking together just 100 amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance, would be the same as a blindfolded man finding 1 marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert, not just once but 3 different times"
Sir Frederick Hoyle put it this way "is about as likely as a tornado whirling though a junkyard and accidently assembling a fully functional Boeing 747"


Walter Bradley, PH.D, in materials science, an expert on polymers and thermodynamics, both are critically important on the life-origin debate,Fellow for the Discovery Institute Center and a Fellow for the American Scientific Affilation said
"In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That's why even though some people who aren't educated in this field, still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simply don't believe it anymore."

James Tour, nanoscientist, PH.D in Organic Chemisty, Prof. at Rice Dept.of Chemistry and Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, post-doctoral work at Stanford said at a conference:
I build molecules for a living. I can't begin to tell you how difficult that job is... I stand in awe of God because of what He has done through Hi creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." This statement was made during a speech re the latest High tech work to store enormous amounts of info on a microscopic scale replacing silicon chips March of 2000 - On the next post look at the credentials of Dr. Tour. He is a very "uneducated, bonkers, deluded" guy


As I said b4, the origin of this thread was Mormon vs Christian so we have really strayed away. But anytime someone throws in the debate of whether God exists, or the world is not His creation, or His Son didn't die for us, I just have to put my "uneducated,stupid, bonkers" self into the mix and stand up for what I and millions of others believe. Hopefully, you can see, that I can read, I am not uneducated and I have studied this matter in secular material as well as my Bible. The bottom line is when Moses asked God who should he say sent him to rescue the Israelites from slavery,God said to Moses,
“I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” I AM was one of the ways the Israelites referred to God.

mericando Loc: NASHVILLE TN

Just 1 "pedigree" of the scientists I quoted in my post.
Dr. James Tour list below

======================================
Final thoughts As they said in Hee Haw I'm all through now! Probably not changed anyone's mind but at least I have shown you that educated, scienctist and those in the field of discovering the truth, either accept God as Creator, or disallow evolution as it speaks to creation and accept an Intelligent Design

Many many books and article have been written regarding the validity of non-living matter evolving and creating life. Do some homework - educate yourself before you just assume something because you don't want to accept any other way. And I hope my little essay above shows you that we are not stupid, unintelligent, or deluded- and you will stop saying that about believers--just agree to disagree and stop deluding yourself that you are the only one that is right in this discussion. Blessing to all on the forum-been very informative but I really am though now. Unless I get called stupid or deluded again- Oh well, me and my prince charming are riding off to our castle and live happily until we go on vacation in 2 weeks and see some more awesome things God created
====================================================

James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science. Tour’s scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, chemical self-assembly, flame retarding polymer additives, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which include molecular motors and nanocars, use of the NanoKids concept for K-12 education in nanoscale science, Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero science educational package development for middle school education, and methods for retarding chemical terrorist attacks.
Tour has over 450 research publications and over 50 patents, with an H-index = 77, average citations per paper = 72, total citations = 30,000, averaging more than 2500 citations per year for each of the years 2006 to 2011. Tour was awarded the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, Rice University; won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, 2012; was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2011 and was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2009. Tour was ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009; won the Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009 and the Houston Technology Center’s Nanotechnology Award in 2009. He won the Feynman Prize in Experimental Nanotechnology in 2008, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers and the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007. Tour was the recipient of the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching in 2007. He also won the Small Times magazine’s Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Innovator Award in 2006, the Alan Berman Research Publication Award, Department of the Navy in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from the American Chemical Society in 2005 and The Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005. Tour’s paper on Nanocars was the most highly accessed journal article of all American Chemical Society articles in 2005, and it was listed by LiveScience as the second most influential paper in all of science in 2005. Tour has won several other national awards including the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry.
Tour is a co-founder of NanoComposites, Inc. which specializes in nanotube-based composites and he is a co-founder of RJAC-10, LLC, makers of the JAC line of corrosion inhibitor coatings. He also is the founder and principal of NanoJtech Consultants, LLC, performing technology assessments for the prospective investor. He serves on the Board of Directors of Ariel Ministries. He has served as a visiting scholar at Harvard University, on the Chemical Reviews Editorial Advisory Board, the Governor’s Mathematics and Science Advisory Board for South Carolina, the Defense Science Study Group through the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Defense Science Board Chem/Nano Study Section, the Department of Commerce Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee and the MD Anderson Cancer Research Center’s Competitive Grant Renewal Board. He has been active in consulting on several national defense-related topics, in addition to numerous other professional committees and panels.

Bazamac Loc: Manchester, UK

Yes, you do seem to have read around the subject. Rather selectively by the look of it though. And, eminent tho the people you quote may be, they are clearly starting from the point of creator first, try and reconcile the facts last. They may be scientists, but that simply isn't a scientific approach.
I didn't refer to anyone as stupid or uneducated. Nor did I describe anyone as 'bonkers' - I said some - that's some - of their beliefs are bonkers. Nothing you have written suggests otherwise. I did describe some people as delusional - specifically those who subscribe to the young earth 'hypothesis' - if it can be dignified as such - and bible literalists. I'm not going to apologise for that. To believe in those things in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is plainly delusional. I suspect from your comments about the fossil record that you don't subscribe to those beliefs, so I don't think I called you that either.
And in response to your earlier comment about no-one claiming that "a belief or faith wasn't the mark of a good person", I'm afraid I'm going to have to dispute that one too - the perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition, the Taliban, the Ku Klux Klan, the Dutch Reformed Church in apartheid South Africa, the Magdalen Sisters in Ireland, priests who abuse children, Popes who cover it up, people who fly aeroplanes into buildings and the Phelps family are all plainly people of faith or belief. I wouldn't say any of them could ever be described as 'good'.

dachs

I am an idiot, (a great many subscribers will attest) but one last try; ease up folks, open thine ears.

we are in a particular physical Universe model: the only one of an infinite number that allows that we could exist. We think, we are told, so far, allegedly.

We are (allegedly) made of the substance of the umpteenth generation of stars.

Smacks (so far) of design of an unbelievably high level, ho yes.

Can we all not just accept that;

a) it's marvellous and doesn't preclude a Deity, rather it points towards one?
b) We don't know it all, by no means, we still research.
c) We have many rich and varied faith histories, of desert songs and allegory transcribed over generations as poetry, from the Hindi to the Oz Aborigines, which all stack up against each other (loosely of course) but have time-lines that have been compressed by the telling and have ended up in faiths ranging from the clap-happy to the occult.

d) It is extremely doubtful that science (in the general sense) is 100% 'right' and 'all-inclusive'. It is even less probable that the literal reading of Egyptian or Israeli scrolls correctly describes the London tube rail system (though listening to Bob Crowe, maybe I'm wrong here). It is way more probable that we're on a journey of discovery which may never be finished?

e) You, nor me, not even Stephen Hawking, cannot grasp all the science available, it is too complex, and equally a proper study of every religion, faith and philosophy in the World would take several lifetimes. One person cannot now get a balanced view. So, an open mind and open ears would be good, huh?

I am getting at the idea that we rub along together and each tries to open the horizons as best they can, to the betterment of Humankind.

My personal view at odds with this, is we are are virus on the World and the sooner we kill ourselves off the better, but I sling that in just to shew that any viewpoint is possible but not necessarily correct.

As dave Allen (bless 'im) used to say on UK TV, 'May your Gods go with you'

Bazamac Loc: Manchester, UK

Ok, I give in. There is a god. There is a creator. There is a designer. Now please tell me who designed her?

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? I said YOU are unaware of what a scientific theory is and you haven't posted anything - other than a ton of quotes - that shows me the situation is not the same.

As soon as you start talking about "proven" in regards to a scientific theory, it's obvious you are unaware of the philosophical underpinnings of science.

If you think there is a theory of creationism, present it.

dachs

Aaaah! so 'we' have opened 'our' minds and ears to the betterment of universal understanding at all levels, from the highest to the lowest level of intellect. 'We' have tried hard to understand 'our' point of view and in a spirit of human friendship and the widening of all 'our' understanding, 'we' have entered a reasoned, steady, amiable discussion - the sort of points of view that could be nodded at over a pipe and and a roaring fire, and a shake of hands as we finish at midnight and wend our way ruminatively up to bed.....

Well that's good, though I must say the language and rhetoric used very nearly loses the point, but no matter, the argument may still rage on. Reminds me of the Harrison clock debacle in an odd way.

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

Yeah, but Harrison got his 20,000 quid... eventually. Young Earthers will not be in the lineup for a Nobel or two.