Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: GOD Period

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by bzrd on July 12, 1999 16:22:03 UTC

: : Hi Lee, Look up at the night sky..............then keep telling yourself.... it just happened...it just happened. : ---I can't argue with this. I understand your point and it is as good as any that has ever been made since Aristotle. This is not to say I do or don't believe it could have happened either way. The truth is, I don't know. I contemplate this very issue myself often. As yet I have reached no conclusion.

: Then look at the miraculous feat of engineering, your body....then keep telling yourself....my ancestors are pond scum.....my ancestors are pond scum.... : ---This is sort of the same point but not exactly. This is the "Evidence of design proves a Creator" argument. I certainly will not take issue with the fact that YOU believe this, but I would have to ask if you believe that God created man in his exact present form. The evidence is overwhelming that He did not. Since evolution is a fact, it becomes necessary to discover how it works. (The Theory of Evolution, as well as the fact of evolution.) If we discover that life began as "pond scum" (and we have no conclusive proof of this) then we have to accept that if God created life, he did so at the unicellular level and let evolution run its course. We have no proof it DID NOT happen this way either. On the other hand, if we discover that God created man instantly as the creature we are today, then God has a whole lot of explaining to do. First He can start with the fossil record that clearly shows the transition that Man and Apes have undergone from their common ancestor. The Horse evolution sequences, the Whale sequences, Pigs, Dogs, Birds and even the clear record of sequences from long extinct reptiles into placental mammals, while other reptiles stayed on the reptile path. (For example. There are many more.) In other words, if we were created intact, why did God give us all the evidence to the contrary.

: Then look at the car you drive........take it all apart....wait 3 billion years and see if it puts itself back together. : ---This one is a classic "Straw Man" argument in the most book example semantics of what the term Straw Man Argument means. For instance:

: From : : http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/falsarg.htm#straw man

: : we get this quote - : ------------- : "STRAW MAN

: Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack.

: Example: Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance.

: This is creating an inaccurate illusion of the scientific position which is easier to attack than what is really being asserted by science." : ---------------

: You can also find a complete dissertation on the Straw Man argument itself at:

: http://www.grapevine2.com/deafwatch/tsc1098.htm

: The point being that what you have done here is invent a scenario as if it were something I or science claim COULD occur when in fact I or science claim no such thing. I've seen it elsewhere involving a bicycle or some other mechanical contrivance of man's invention as if it proves some point regarding the "intelligence behind design" hypothesis.

: It would seem better to just stick with the second argument above regarding man since this one would have more relevance and less ambiguity.

: The world of computer software is full of programs that once executed go on their merry ways creating their own random numbers and then using these random numbers as the parameters for generating beautiful fractal images without any intervention from anyone. The point being that the mathematics of chance are indeed capable of generating quite complicated structures from physical matter, especially when charged with energy in the manner of say, organic structures and sunlight. Like a Rose, say.

: Richard Dawkins addresses this quite well in a book entitled "The Blind Watchmaker".

: You can get it from amazon.com

: Thank you for your comments.

I feel obliged to mention that evolution is a very broad term. Both sides of the creation/materialistic argument are guilty of its mis-use, at times. The only demonstratable portion of "evolution" is micro-evolution. Indeed, this is a well known fact of science. However, macro-evolution is not particularly well supported by empirical evidence (many would say not at all).

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins