An Explanation of the Big Bang and Evolution that doesn't exclude God.

A number of comments have been made about alleged soft tissue, blood cells, and haemoglobin in fossilized dinosaur bone. I would like to start by pointing out that even if such things were found they would not pose any problem for evolution. Evolution is not concerned with fossilization processes, and certainly does not predict any particular rate of fossilization or loss of chemical properties. Further, evolution does not predict that all dinosaurs went extinct at any particular time. Finding a living Tyranosaurus rex would be no problem for evolution.

As for the claims themselves, they are at the very least greatly exaggerated. As far as I have been able to determine, the ?soft tissue' was only soft after a chemical process removed minerals, leaving a fibrous material. This material was hard before treatment. It is not at all clear that blood cells were found, certainly the scientists who describe them do not claim that they are. Finally, intact haemoglobin was not found, rather fragments of what was probably haemoglobin were found. There is an excellent article about AiG's claims here: Dino-blood and the Young Earth (at No Answers in Genesis)

Peez

 

Isn't it a but of a logical leap to assume that just because every detail of evolution hasn't been documented yet, that implies that whatever religious dogma, you happened to be raised with is correct? And if your only answer is blind faith, how could that reasoning justify persecution of non-believers and entire nations going to war with each other for centuries?

And what am I doing in this thread?

 

There is an excellent article about AiG's claims here: Dino-blood and the Young Earth (at No Answers in Genesis)

Thanks peez. I also found this article, Dino blood redux, which follows your article in light of the latest publication about the dino blood.

 

ClonedEmperor:I believe it was actual cells, and I'll take Jediflyer's words at face value and tell you it needed a certain process to happen

Now I am interested. Could you please present the source that tells more about these _cells_?

 

Padme Bra:
Isn't it a but of a logical leap to assume that just because every detail of evolution hasn't been documented yet, that implies that whatever religious dogma, you happened to be raised with is correct?

Yes, at the very least.

And if your only answer is blind faith, how could that reasoning justify persecution of non-believers and entire nations going to war with each other for centuries?

Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius!

And what am I doing in this thread?

Sorry, you will have to work that out for yourself.

Peez

 

Darth Zykalis:
Thanks peez. I also found this article, Dino blood redux, which follows your article in light of the latest publication about the dino blood.

You are welcome, and thank you for that excellent link.

Peez

 

You'll have to ask Jediflyer, I only read ABOUT tyhe article, sorry

 

I just did a google news search on "dinosaur blood".

You should get some articles by the second page.

 

thanks

 

Let me get this straight, you once read of an article about cells in a dinosaur, but have never read the article itself?

 

Nice Thread.

Relevant links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ten.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/index.html

And this one is just for fun:

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/no_god.htm

 

Just bumping this since people in the homosexuality thread are talking about intelligent design.

And my views on that topic... as I see it (And if I am wrong please tell me), there are two kinds of ID. First is when it is just another word for Christianity. Most websites I have seen, especially the ones that go into depth about the topic, are just some flavor of Christian creationism. Whether it be YEC or some subjective (and IMO wrongly interpreted) old earth creationism, it is all derived and kept from being nonsense by other aspects of Christianity.

Basically if that is how you fee ID is, then please stop pretending it is a scientific theory. I will bet money that you only accept religion on faith (it is what is demanded by the bible), otherwise present your evidence/proof. There is also the fact that it should not matter to a Christian how God made the world. How will that help you in your relationship with God? What does it matter except to answer some childish questions about 'how did we get here?' Also, if you think that God can be put in a laboratory, can be made into a scientific law, and can be molded like any other piece of technology, then go right ahead and make religion scientific.

The other kind of ID I have heard is 'I do not accept any explanation about how life and the universe started, so I will say an intelligent designer did it.' (What I really find funny is when they say 'I do not accept evolution as how life formed so I believe in ID.' Evolution does not try to explain how life formed and it just betrays how ignorant people are of what is truly being said.)

First off, alone it is contradictory (where did the ID'er come from is a perfectly valid question) and when you start applying qualities that generally turn the ID'er into God (no one that I know of has pursued a different path) then you are just grasping for straws and it falls back to the first situation. My question is this. Aside from that one line, what else is there to that theory? What evidence? What logic? What understanding?

And that last question is the problem with both of them and why neither one is IMO a theory. A theory is supposed to explain something. The theory of evolution explains why there is diversity of species. It gives reasons and examples as to how and (for lack of a better word) why a species can and does change. We can observe these effects on a small scale and the only thing we cannot really prove (but if this bothers you then you should want everyone in jail to be freed) that it happened in the past since we were not there, although we have no reason to assume it was not.

Saying 'God/ID'er did it' is akin to me saying 'It is natural.' If you want ID to be taken seriously then you need to say 'The ID'er used its whatever to affect the world in this way to make the molecules of whatever to move into the form of life.' I do not just mean technobabble; that is not understandable. I mean a clear and full explanation that is backed up by evidence and logic.

In a way, evolution is just saying that it is natural for there to be diversity of species, but it goes into depth as to what aspects of nature work to that effect and gives us understanding of the world around us. There is nothing that I know of for ID that gives understanding or knowledge, and that makes them nothing in this debate.

 

The problem with the Evolution/Creation/Big Bang debates are that the people on all the sides are arguing completely different points.

Evolutionists argue that life has evolved from single-celled organisms. They do nothing to try to prove how this process got started.

Creationists, on the other hand, misinterpret evolutionists and think that evolutionists are trying to "come up" with a theory that doesn't require God. They think that evolutionists are claiming evolution as a source of origin.

Big Bang theorists attempt to explain an initial cause for evolution and do not take into account what caused the Big Bang.

 

Re-iteration of a post on another thread:

I've been thinking about the theory of evolution and I've come to the opinion that in fact, many people misinterpret it. Mainly because of a misunderstanding of how the term "evolution" is being used.

Most people take the term as a verb where there was/is either a conscious decision on the part of man to evolve, or that it is somehow 'inherent' in the genes of mankind or all life to, evolve.

This is not what the theory of evolution says, as I understand it.

What it says is that random mutations happen by sheer circumstance or accident. Life does not 'find' a way to evolve nor are the vital mutations assured to happen. That is, if we took the same conditions on Earth and put them on another planet, starting with the same microbes, the same life could die out by those key mutations never having been thrown out.

This sounds maybe an easy, rudimentry understanding of evolution but the fact is that I see people misenterpreting it every day, to the point it's done in Science already -- for instance, the social science research done on "human behavior" and if humans are intended to be monogomous or heterosexual. That men innately cheat because of a wish to spread thier seed and women seek out relationships because of an innate need to raise children and propogate the species.

There's NOTHING in evolution to support that sort of programming beyond sexual desire, and that most (and even then, not all) people have it for other members of the same species. Beyond that, all behavior, it seems to me, is conjecture. It's built not on what's somehow 'in our genes', but determined by our environment and politics of the moment. That is, the difference in sexual mores between men and women is more determined by the ever-present fact that men simply have more upper-body strength and women do not. While the upper-body strength is derived from genetics, all things stemming from it is not -- it's simply collary. That is, it will exist while that upper-body stength is valued.

By the same token, some argue that women seek out competitive mates so that they will pass on genes, that they seek out the most competitive subject in terms of wealth and career success and that it's built into thier DNA. That's MALARKY. That's like saying "Car" to a computer and expecting the computer to make sense of it. Your genes do not have a small 'inner brain'. Your genes do not understand the concept of "money" or "career", which means that it is NOT built into women to seek out the most successful mate. In fact in this respect they're probably exactly like males and seek out what is attractive to them, and if it seems males value attractiveness more than females it's really not the case as in fact they value attractiveness every bit as much as men -- instead females simply have ANOTHER value that is more important than physical looks and that is security: not for some "propogation of the species", but for themselves. That is, it's a cruel world out there and they want to survive it which has nothing to do with genes but how the world and society is set up.

In other words, no wonder people are arguing over intelligent design as if the absence of proof of one theory makes another just as valid. Even just taken on its own, people mis-apply the theory of evolution to answer sociological questions that simply have no application in the theory. How a lot of us interact is not based on evolution, it's how we work out the power struggle based on where evolution has left us, which is an ENTIRELY seperate issue.

 

Evolutionists argue that life has evolved from single-celled organisms. They do nothing to try to prove how this process got started.

Creationists, on the other hand, misinterpret evolutionists and think that evolutionists are trying to "come up" with a theory that doesn't require God. They think that evolutionists are claiming evolution as a source of origin.

Sort of. In terms of life on Earth, Evolution has been adequate to explain life as it came ot Earth since the 1980s or so when experiments were done on showing how life can independantly spring from otherwise inanimate objects that have access to energy when placed within a vaccuum. There is no longer debate on that area -- it's now all on the origin of the UNIVERSE, since its been proven that life on Earth for the past millions of years is adequately explained without delving into God.

Thing is, intelligent design props up by essentially asking "well, what are the CHANCES life would develop like this?" I would think if anything discovering life independantly on Mars shows that life is actually not all as rare as science once thought and that the chances of our development, given how large the universe is, is not unthinkable.

 

In a way, evolution is just saying that it is natural for there to be diversity of species, but it goes into depth as to what aspects of nature work to that effect and gives us understanding of the world around us.

Enforcer, I apologize for picking on you but this is also what I'm talking about as a mis-application of Evolution in itself, while at the same time trying to irnoically set about what Evolution says. I know you're trying to say that Evolution does not try to explain WHY we evolved as we did, and you're right, but I see a warning sign in your paragraph: "nature" or the concept of "natural".

Evolution does not say anything is "natural". In fact it says quite the opposite. It is perhaps "likely" for thier to be diversity in species, but when we say "natural" it sort of gives a connotation of "God without God", so to speak. Of a sort of "Fate without mysticism" and even that is in fact wrong. Evolution does posit what is natural or give us a concept that nature even exists at all. The only nature it really gives, int hat respect, is everything set forward in other sciences: that gravity accelerates at 9.8 meters a second on Earth, the elemental table, etc.

All evolution really does is say -- to provide an analogy -- is that Earth, by virtue of constants proven in other sciences, is a function. Life is essentially data put through that function and the current species on Earth are the result. At best it explains the result based on what the parameters of the function happen to be, but it acknowledges them as arbitrary. Random mutations are not natural but exactly as the word says, "random". In discussing evolution it is best we be VERY careful of the word "natural" and what is "natural" because that is really the area of intelligent design. ID does not claim God did that or the other thing but it does have a concept of "nature" and an innate concept of "this is how its supposed to be" that is not necessarily religious. But Evolution does not even have allowance for the concept of nature. In Evolution an environment of trees and squirrels and deer is technically just as valid as an environment of buildings and smog and pollution.

 

Gonk

I see what you are saying, and please understand that I did not mean "God without God." Maybe a better word would have been normal. What I basically mean is that if left alone and without any extraordinary circumstances (or intelligent intervention), a group of life forms will evolve. That is how I used the word natural. I also think of nature as a world unaffected by known intelligence. I do NOT mean that there is some sort of will behind nature pushing evolution. Not at all.

I would say that evolution is inherent in the system, and (except with humans interfering [breading plants to get bigger fruits for example]) there is no real direction or intent behind evolution.

I think I know what you are saying, and I am not just replacing God with something else. If I ever clearly do that then I hope someone catches it and tells me.

Also, to reply to some things you said; evolution is not based only on random mutations. I think that individual variations are more of a factor in evolution. Just an example; some people have more/thicker hair over their bodies than other people. If the world would suddenly get colder (say a nuclear winter for fun), those people would survive better and it is likely that the human race would become a race with more/thicker hair.

I would say that behavior can evolve, but it is not as clear cut and strong as biological evolution. In general, people will raise their kids as their parents raised them. Although since it won't be exactly the same, things will be different and hopefully things will be improved. This obviously can have a will behind it unlike regular evolution, and there can also be big changes (like an abused kid swearing to never hurt his kid [and being true to that]) whereas with biological evolution is live with what you get.

I disagree with a lot of what you say about behavior not being genetic. Before I really start questioning it though I want to understand your view a little more. What is behavior determined by? Are you saying that except for some very small and basic things, genes have nothing to do with it?

I am not saying that every bit of our behavior is in our genes. Personally I feel that it is a little more than I think you say there is.

 

True. Evolutionary theory says nothing on how it all got started, but why the constant research in abiogenesis? I think that is "something". Most people will connect the two fields. I wouldn't.

They would if it were scientifically possible. Sadly, this isn't the case, yet.

 

This is more to Gonk, but anyone who wants to reply in a serious manor, please do.

Sort of on the same line about replacing god with something in science is understanding what our laws of physics/nature/science really are.

Simply put, the things that fall into the laws of science are not how the world works. The universe does not obey the laws of physics; our laws of physics obey the universe. For example, if an objects acceleration under gravity was based on a value cubed (instead of a value squared), then that is what our laws would say.

All math and probably all theories and scientific laws is just our minds simplifying things so that we can have some mental grasp of the world around us. Even basic counting; I count 5 speakers around my computer. This is not some universal truth or absolute fact (or even if it was it would not matter), it is just me using this abstract language of numbers to understand something in front of me. There are not five speakers on my desk because I counted five; I counted five because there are five there.

The universe is as it is, we are just trying to understand it.

Things like counting 'evolved' and grew in complexity when we found that things like numbers can have things done to them like combined (added), broken apart (subtracted), and so on, it just grew to the point where we have several years of calculus in colleges.

Also, there is a question of what intelligence is? To me, it is trying to understand something. To do that, we must filter out details that don't matter to that something we are trying to understand. A simple (but imperfect) example, putting together a jigsaw puzzle. You do not just start in a corner and go across the rows like a typewriter, you filter the pieces into smaller segments. You try to find all of the could pieces, all of the door pieces, and get some idea from that.

But intelligence is more than just understanding something; it is also building it back up after we understand it. Like putting the whole puzzle together.

Things like evolution and the big bang theory need to be understood in reference to those concepts. With evolution, we look what remains of the world from the past and try to understand it. We filter details, organize them in ways that make some sense (by age, location, fossil type, etc), and then try to put it all together. We notice patterns and we make a theory based on those patterns. The 'tree' of life does not obey the rules imposed by evolution, evolution obeys the evidence found.

I hope that someone understands what I am saying, because rereading it I notice some parts seem very choppy; it is just hard to put some of this stuff into words.