Have you received my email? Just haven't heard from you, and wondered if it got through...:) Your email is johnflux with just one x - unlike your handle with two???
I meant more to generalise to science vs supernatural, than evolution vs. genesis specifically.
So what has the supernatural done to help in the advancement of natural science? Not much in the realm of broader scientific communal acceptance (that's for sure) - but it has helped shape the Intelligent Design worldview, and aided in providing solutions for evolutionary arguments contrary to it. It may be of interest, I'm currently subscribed to a magazine entitled "TJ" - formerly "Technical Journal" - from Answers in Genesis. It's basically one of the few places in the world that creation scientists can have their articles submitted and published without ridicule. A lot of interesting research being done out there - just need to know where to look!
"The broader philosophical implications were, ironically, ignored and swept under the carpet."
Perhaps Chuck was referring to the initial proposal? Or the general public? IDK - I haven't really read a whole lot on Quantum Physics, so you've got the edge on me in that respect.;) From what I've read, though, it really is intriguing...
"Particle physicists today have also concluded that we live in ten dimensions."
I do not know that this has been concluded.
I seem to remember (more vividly) a Popular Science article to that effect, among other publications. (A "10 Dimensions" search in Google seems to bring up quite a few results...) Although I suppose there is quite a bridge between proposed and concluded...
Also this whole "the other 6 are spiritual"? Come on... what does if mean to be supernatural anyway?
Well, just what does it mean to be supernatural? That is the question, now isn't it? From my understanding of the Bible, there are three 'heavens.' The first is from the earth to the atmosphere, the second is from the atmosphere to the ends of the universe, and the third is all around us - commonly referred to as the supernatural realm. The third sounds closer to another dimension that anything else. Who's to say the other dimensions don't contain angels and demons (though now I may sound crazy)?
Proposal: if we were only two dimensional, what would we make of a three-dimensional being? For example, would a third dimension be referred to as "curled?" As to that three-dimensional being, we could only see him/her one two-dimensional slice at a time - or several - or none at all (think geometrically)! Quite mind-boggling for a flat-ling, IMO. The parallels seem numerous. More dimensions might solve some physical problems like electric fields, but might they also explain the metaphysical? And, of course, this is all just speculation - it's certainly not proven, but as I said, I at least find it an interesting proposition.
If it turns out that there are 11 dimensions, would you denounce the bible, or say that the 10-dimension-dude read Genesis wrong?
Well, you see, I never did like those "if" questions about faith. Not all "if" questions, mind you: just those like "what would you do if the Bible turned out to be false?" You see, the way I view religious faith, is it shouldn't just be some sort of wishy-washy made up beliefs or wishful thinking (just as you called it). It should be more concrete than that: I believe there is an absolute truth we should always be lining up our faith to, just as there is an absolute truth we are continually lining up our science to. Sure, my faith journey started out on faith, but after a while I started testing out principals, assertations, and ideas in the Bible by observing the world, asking questions, and seeing whether or not the Bible was true. Like, among other things, part of Proverbs 30:33 - "the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood:" -
"whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense)."
So, what is supernatural then? Can you give an example of something supernatural that you think might one day be proven by science?
Was hoping you'd ask.:) Actually, what I was referring to here was the First Law of Thermodynamics. It says that no matter (or energy) can be created or destroyed in any natural process, but can only be converted into another form. How do we apply this to origins? The way I see it, according to this law, everything can't be created from nothing naturally, therefore I conclude that it was something unnatural, or supernatural, if you will, which created everything. Nothing else seems to line up with this law.
As for something supernatural that can be proven by science, it is actually recorded in history that a 12th century Hebrew sage by the name of Nachmonides, after an intense study of Genesis chapter 1, concluded that we all live in ten dimensions - the same conclusion our particle physicists are making today. http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/19980701- 62.html
Nachmonides categorized the first four dimensions as "knowable," meaning that we could experience/detect them, and he listed the last six as "not knowable" - meaning they were beyond the realm of our experience. Some have suggested that these six other dimensions are what we commonly refer to as the 'supernatural.' Now, whether or not that is true cannot be conclusively said, but I do believe that it is an interesting proposition.
Ruling out the the supernatural has been the way mankind has gone forward in the last thousand years. "Why is there lightning? Oh it's supernatural - God is angry." Imagine leaving it there.
I see evolutionists coming up with a better understand on humans and animals, leading to medicines and so on. What advancements have the supernaturalists made? It's not useful to consider the supernatural side - nothing has come of it for the last several thousand years.
Well, that's an unfair statement. Was it the idea of evolution that allowed the Chinese to invent gunpowder? Was it evolution that led to the invention of the watch? Did evolution contribute to the design and operation of the steam engine? Howabout the first airplane? The transistor? The microchip? The computer? The spaceship? The satelite? Evolutionary understanding has undergirded none of these inventions. Just because a collection of the people who made same of these items believed in evolution does not therefore mean that the same discovery could not have been made by a Christian. Ingenuity does not limit itself to philosophical understanding. This is a cause and effect fallacy. It would be like saying because the sun happens to rise while the rooster crows, that the rooster causes the sun to rise. This is simply not the case.
Books like the bible can be shown to show and predict anything - after the fact. But are useless are saying anything in advance.
Look at Nostradamus's work.
The Bible is different from Nostradamus and any other prophet in that the prophecies in the Bible are not vague digressive monstrosities laden with loopholes galore - they are specific, and every one has been fulfilled to the T. For example, Ezekiel predicted that many nations would come up against Tyre (Eze. 26:3), that Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar would be the first to attack it (Eze. 26:7), the walls and towers of Tyre would be broken down (Eze. 26:4,9), that the stones, timbers, and debris of that great city would be thrown into the sea (Eze. 26:12), that its location would become a bare rock and a place for the drying of fishermens' nets (Eze. 26:4-5, 14), and finally, that the city of Tyre would never be rebuilt (Eze. 26:14). Doesn't soun
The reason I make that difference is because it is pivotal. We have always seen microevolution (variation within a kind), but we have never, ever witnessed macroevolution. Dogs have always produced dogs, cats have always produced cats, fish have always produced fish, and there's no evidence to the contrary. Regarding your cute little naket Chihuahua, to the best of my knowledge, no scientist even disputes the fact that dogs came from wolves.;) http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/ 01/01/html/ft_20020101.1.html
As the above site states, "At the molecular level not much changed at all: The DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical." However, the case with humans and apes is very different. The human genome contains 3 billion DNA base pairs, while the genome of monkeys is shorter. Even if it were the same length, though, the oft-cited 1% difference between human and ape DNA would translate out to 30 million base pair differences, or the equivalent to ten 500 page books worth of coded DNA information's difference! Hardly something to sneeze at - yet all of this was supposed to evolve randomly? Just look at the devastating effects of sickle-cell anemia if you wish to contemplate the consequences of randomly changing DNA base pairs: instead of glutamate, one amino acid has been changed to valine, resulting in malformed red blood cells that cause improper clotting and other disruptions to the healthy operation of the human body.
...I do strongly suspect that we have more in common with chimps, anatomicly and socially, than little 'rat'-dogs with wolves.
Actually, a couple different interesting things you may not know. Neglecting size for each category, dogs and wolves have more in common with each other than do apes and humans on both counts you mentioned.
Anatomically, dogs and wolves are exactly alike, except for a few aesthetic details (ie snout length, hair length and color, leg length, etc), whereas between humans and apes: for one thing we can touch our thumb to the rest of our fingers... apes cannot. Apes have a tail; we do not (it's only called a tailbone because that's what the scientists decided to call it). Ground-borne apes are knuckle-walkers while we walk with our toes outright (not a learned trait). (Among other things that aren't merely aesthetic in nature.)
Socially, dogs and wolves communicate basically the same way. Howling, barking, sniffing, yowling, yelping, and any other dog verb we want to mention. In the human and ape case, while we can teach apes to communicate through sign language, we cannot have true mental communion with them, in that it has been documented that apes never ask questions. They simply don't seem to be able to understand the concept. Because of this lack, ape communication will never be able to reach the level which we as human beings posses. Think about it: just by creating differently shaped lines, or by creating a series of complex gutteral noises I can causing complex precise new ideas to form in your head - an ability no other animal on this planet has yet shown an aptitude for. It is because of this and many other such differences (and the embarrassing lack of proof for evolution) that I believe, yes, we were created.
"Simplifying takes intelligence - it doesn't just happen by accident."
Of course simplifying doesn't take intelligence. For one, the simplified version could require less energy, or take less space, or any thing else that gives an advantage.
My fault - let me append my statement. Simplifying while retaining the original function takes intelligence. Merely simplifying takes no intelligence at all. I could take a hatchet right now and "simplify" my monitor: however, the end result would be neither beneficial nor functional. I could, however, through much forethought and planning, given enough time, convert my CRT monitor to an LCD display. This unfortunately requires intelligence that I don't have (but intelligence nonetheless). Function-retentive simplification just doesn't happen without intelligence - and I would contest to see an example to the contrary.
Most evolutionists stick to that things can't be made more complex.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the entire underpinnings of evolution relied heavily upon the very notion of randomly-achieved complexity. The Big Bang constitutes the theory of everything (complex) out of nothing (simple). Chemical evolution then has all chemicals (complex) forming from Helium and Hydrogen (simple, comparatively). Stellar evolution forms stars (c) from the basic elements (s). Current theory presents the planets (c) forming from dust (s). Next ensues primordial soup (s) turning into "simple" cells (c). Then amoeba (s) to ape (c), and from ape (s) to man (c). Catch my drift?
Just because my thoughts arrive from randomness, doesn't mean that my thoughts are random. This is clearly false. Snowflakes have clear structure but arrive from randomness. Hurricans have structure and arrive from randomness.
Logic is formally defined. I doubt there is anyone that is even half respected that argues against logic.
This is more of a philosophical question. Here is what I'm getting at: what is logic? How do you define truth, personally? If you define truth as what lines up with reality, or what is "real," then how do you define that: what is real? This is where most Creationists and Evolutionists differ. Evolutionists will reply that what is real is all that can be experienced materially, whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense).
Here is my point: when seeking the answer to the origin of man, if one rules out a possible solution (the supernatural), even before the initial hypothesis is made, a truly scientific investigation cannot ensue. Only when all possibilities are considered and all evidence is brought to the table can one say that they truly sought out the answer without bias, wherever the facts may lead. And I believe when a full analysis is undertaken, creation as outlined in the Bible comes out the winner without contest (and I believe there is a lot more science in the Bible than most people give it credit for, anyway).
It's seems that almost all religious debates come down to one thing. Religious people doing proof-by-wishing. It's always "My life would be pointless without X, therefore X is true".
That's why religion and science will never be compatible.
Well, my life would be pointless without Jesus, but my point here is not to escape the imposing philosophical specter of nihilism - it's to seek the truth, wherever it may lead. And I agree, the above logic you presented does not follow suit. However, the facts come down to this: I believe that religion and science are more than compatible - they're inseparable!
As far as religion goes, why should I believe in something if it can't be proven true? And as far as science goes... well... science wouldn't be here if it weren't for religion! Pagan pop-culture of the Middle Ages said that time went in
No, I don't believe that I would use the word 'species' - that term has too vague a meaning, even among scientists. I do believe dogs are of the same 'kind' as wolves, however: meaning that they shared a common ancestor - probably something like a wolf.
The above is simply an example of microevolution, variation within a kind - a far cry from the ape-to-man theory that is being promulgated out there. Microevolution is scientific. Macroevolution has not been observed, tested, or proven to be true (nor can it be: as Sir Arthur Keith said in the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable.")(See previous post for micro/macro defs). The change from an ape into a human being would require an increase in genetic information, whereas the change from a wolf into a dog, would only require a decrease in information: a Mendellian distribution of already existing attributes resulting in a species (or kind) with less DNA for the parents to distribute to their children, and therefore rendering this example useless as a "proof" for ape-to-man evolution.
Since when did evolution get in the business of simplifying (irreducible complexity's opposing argument). Simplifying takes intelligence - it doesn't just happen by accident. (Take splatter paintings vs the Mona Lisa for example.)
Einstein himself said "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
So, even irreducible complexity's opposing argument still implies design.
BTW: if evolution is true, that means your thoughts are just the consummation of a chain of interconnected random events, resulting in the chance collision of chemicals in your brain forming what you now call a "logical thought process." If that is true, how do you define logic? Do your thoughts really matter?
To start off, it is incorrect to say that creationism was beaten off by overwhelming evidence. If there were any "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, there wouldn't be a debate right now...
The phenomenon of creationism's lag in decades past was due to overwhelming propaganda - not sheer scientific reasoning. All of the evolutionary evidence of yesteryear that students were nursed off of has now fallen by the wayside. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man. Java Man. Heidelburg Man. Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been shown to be relics of the past - composed of scattered fragments of skeletons: sadly some even hoaxes (Heidelburg Man was 'scientifically' constructed from an extinct pig's tooth). Carbon dating has been shown to be way off - even in known cases (Live penguins at 900 years old). Ernst Heckel's embryonic drawings were faked (even his contemporaries knew this - and he got in trouble for it). The Miller experiment no longer holds up when under scrutiny (the gasses he used are no longer believed to be present in earth's early atmosphere, and when 'correct' gasses are used, the experiment yields cyanide and formaldehyde: key elements in embalming fluid.) Even Archaeopteryx is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil. As Alan Feduccia, the world's leading expert on birds, said: "[Archaeopteryx] is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that." So to say that overwhelming evidence drove creationism away is to be intellectually dishonest. The 'science' part of science just happens to be catching up, that's all.
Secondly, a demonstrable difference between microevolution and macroevolution can be shown. In fact, there are actually six definitions of evolution, to be precise. They are:
Cosmic- Big Bang Chemical- all elements evolve from H and He Stellar- stars form Organic- primordial soup Macro- ape changes to man Micro- slight variations within a kind
Only the very last, microevolution, is scientific by definition. The rest are theories that cannot be tested or proven in normal laboratory science. They are part of what is know as Origins Science - the study of today's universe as to determine what has happened in the past to cause us to be here.
Finally, as to the eye article, the fact that the mechanisms for light-sensitive cells exist in worms does not therefore mean we evolved from worms. The latter is simply the evolutionary interpretation of the facts. In truth, this data could also be interpreted as common design. Just as GMC puts the same lug-nuts on several vehicles which did not necessarily evolve from each other, an Intelligent Designer could have created different creatures using the same mechanisms to perform the same function. You see, there's a difference between the fact, and the interpretation of the facts, based on one's worldview. The latter is simply the creationist interpretation.
What the scientists did not do is solve once and for all evolution's problem with the eye. They may have found similar structures, but they have yet to propose how such a system could have arisen by chance. The fact is, the eye is nearly an irreducibly complex system - if any of its parts are missing, it is useless. The challenge is to explain how something like that - a complex network of interlocking systems - could evolve via Darwinian evolution. For anyone who doubts the biochemical complexity of the human eye, I would highly recommend Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The fact is, the conceptual evolution of how the human eye might have evolved is plausible. The actual physical process of getting there is much more difficult.
As to the posts about the nonexistence of good creationist literature and argumentation out there, I humbly point you to:
To start off, it is incorrect to say that creationism was beaten off by overwhelming evidence. If there were any "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, there wouldn't be a debate right now...
The phenomenon of creationism's lag in decades past was due to overwhelming propaganda - not sheer scientific reasoning. All of the evolutionary evidence of yesteryear that students were nursed off of has now fallen by the wayside. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man. Java Man. Heidelburg Man. Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been shown to be relics of the past - composed of scattered fragments of skeletons: sadly some even hoaxes (Heidelburg Man was 'scientifically' constructed from an extinct pig's tooth). Carbon dating has been shown to be way off - even in known cases (Live penguins at 900 years old). Ernst Heckel's embryonic drawings were faked (even his contemporaries knew this - and he got in trouble for it). The Miller experiment no longer holds up when under scrutiny (the gasses he used are no longer believed to be present in earth's early atmosphere, and when 'correct' gasses are used, the experiment yields cyanide and formaldehyde: key elements in embalming fluid.) Even Archaeopteryx is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil. As Alan Feduccia, the world's leading expert on birds, said: "[Archaeopteryx] is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that." So to say that overwhelming evidence drove creationism away is to be intellectually dishonest. The 'science' part of science just happens to be catching up, that's all.
Secondly, a demonstrable difference between microevolution and macroevolution can be shown. In fact, there are actually six definitions of evolution, to be precise. They are:
Cosmic- Big Bang Chemical- all elements evolve from H and He Stellar- stars form Organic- primordial soup Macro- ape changes to man Micro- slight variations within a kind
Only the very last, microevolution, is scientific by definition. The rest are theories that cannot be tested or proven in normal laboratory science. They are part of what is know as Origins Science - the study of today's universe as to determine what has happened in the past to cause us to be here.
Finally, as to the eye article, the fact that the mechanisms for light-sensitive cells exist in worms does not therefore mean we evolved from worms. The latter is simply the evolutionary interpretation of the facts. In truth, this data could also be interpreted as common design. Just as GMC puts the same lug-nuts on several vehicles which did not necessarily evolve from each other, an Intelligent Designer could have created different creatures using the same mechanisms to perform the same function. You see, there's a difference between the fact, and the interpretation of the facts, based on one's worldview. The latter is simply the creationist interpretation.
What the scientists did not do is solve once and for all evolution's problem with the eye. They may have found similar structures, but they have yet to propose how such a system could have arisen by chance. The fact is, the eye is nearly an irreducibly complex system - if any of its parts are missing, it is useless. The challenge is to explain how something like that - a complex network of interlocking systems - could evolve via Darwinian evolution. For anyone who doubts the biochemical complexity of the human eye, I would highly recommend Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The fact is, the conceptual evolution of how the human eye might have evolved is plausible. The actual physical process of getting there is much more difficult.
As to the posts about the nonexistence of good creationist literature and argumentation out there, I humbly point you to:
Slashdot Mirror
Have you received my email? Just haven't heard from you, and wondered if it got through... :) Your email is johnflux with just one x - unlike your handle with two???
My email is my handle (no caps) @wi.rr.com.
Quite enjoying it myself. :p
So what has the supernatural done to help in the advancement of natural science? Not much in the realm of broader scientific communal acceptance (that's for sure) - but it has helped shape the Intelligent Design worldview, and aided in providing solutions for evolutionary arguments contrary to it. It may be of interest, I'm currently subscribed to a magazine entitled "TJ" - formerly "Technical Journal" - from Answers in Genesis. It's basically one of the few places in the world that creation scientists can have their articles submitted and published without ridicule. A lot of interesting research being done out there - just need to know where to look!
Perhaps Chuck was referring to the initial proposal? Or the general public? IDK - I haven't really read a whole lot on Quantum Physics, so you've got the edge on me in that respect. ;) From what I've read, though, it really is intriguing...
I seem to remember (more vividly) a Popular Science article to that effect, among other publications. (A "10 Dimensions" search in Google seems to bring up quite a few results...) Although I suppose there is quite a bridge between proposed and concluded...
Well, just what does it mean to be supernatural? That is the question, now isn't it? From my understanding of the Bible, there are three 'heavens.' The first is from the earth to the atmosphere, the second is from the atmosphere to the ends of the universe, and the third is all around us - commonly referred to as the supernatural realm. The third sounds closer to another dimension that anything else. Who's to say the other dimensions don't contain angels and demons (though now I may sound crazy)?
Proposal: if we were only two dimensional, what would we make of a three-dimensional being? For example, would a third dimension be referred to as "curled?" As to that three-dimensional being, we could only see him/her one two-dimensional slice at a time - or several - or none at all (think geometrically)! Quite mind-boggling for a flat-ling, IMO. The parallels seem numerous. More dimensions might solve some physical problems like electric fields, but might they also explain the metaphysical? And, of course, this is all just speculation - it's certainly not proven, but as I said, I at least find it an interesting proposition.
Well, you see, I never did like those "if" questions about faith. Not all "if" questions, mind you: just those like "what would you do if the Bible turned out to be false?" You see, the way I view religious faith, is it shouldn't just be some sort of wishy-washy made up beliefs or wishful thinking (just as you called it). It should be more concrete than that: I believe there is an absolute truth we should always be lining up our faith to, just as there is an absolute truth we are continually lining up our science to. Sure, my faith journey started out on faith, but after a while I started testing out principals, assertations, and ideas in the Bible by observing the world, asking questions, and seeing whether or not the Bible was true. Like, among other things, part of Proverbs 30:33 - "the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood:" -
Was hoping you'd ask. :) Actually, what I was referring to here was the First Law of Thermodynamics. It says that no matter (or energy) can be created or destroyed in any natural process, but can only be converted into another form. How do we apply this to origins? The way I see it, according to this law, everything can't be created from nothing naturally, therefore I conclude that it was something unnatural, or supernatural, if you will, which created everything. Nothing else seems to line up with this law.
As for something supernatural that can be proven by science, it is actually recorded in history that a 12th century Hebrew sage by the name of Nachmonides, after an intense study of Genesis chapter 1, concluded that we all live in ten dimensions - the same conclusion our particle physicists are making today.
http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/19980701- 62.html
Nachmonides categorized the first four dimensions as "knowable," meaning that we could experience/detect them, and he listed the last six as "not knowable" - meaning they were beyond the realm of our experience. Some have suggested that these six other dimensions are what we commonly refer to as the 'supernatural.' Now, whether or not that is true cannot be conclusively said, but I do believe that it is an interesting proposition.
Well, that's an unfair statement. Was it the idea of evolution that allowed the Chinese to invent gunpowder? Was it evolution that led to the invention of the watch? Did evolution contribute to the design and operation of the steam engine? Howabout the first airplane? The transistor? The microchip? The computer? The spaceship? The satelite? Evolutionary understanding has undergirded none of these inventions. Just because a collection of the people who made same of these items believed in evolution does not therefore mean that the same discovery could not have been made by a Christian. Ingenuity does not limit itself to philosophical understanding. This is a cause and effect fallacy. It would be like saying because the sun happens to rise while the rooster crows, that the rooster causes the sun to rise. This is simply not the case.
The Bible is different from Nostradamus and any other prophet in that the prophecies in the Bible are not vague digressive monstrosities laden with loopholes galore - they are specific, and every one has been fulfilled to the T. For example, Ezekiel predicted that many nations would come up against Tyre (Eze. 26:3), that Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar would be the first to attack it (Eze. 26:7), the walls and towers of Tyre would be broken down (Eze. 26:4,9), that the stones, timbers, and debris of that great city would be thrown into the sea (Eze. 26:12), that its location would become a bare rock and a place for the drying of fishermens' nets (Eze. 26:4-5, 14), and finally, that the city of Tyre would never be rebuilt (Eze. 26:14). Doesn't soun
As the above site states, "At the molecular level not much changed at all: The DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical." However, the case with humans and apes is very different. The human genome contains 3 billion DNA base pairs, while the genome of monkeys is shorter. Even if it were the same length, though, the oft-cited 1% difference between human and ape DNA would translate out to 30 million base pair differences, or the equivalent to ten 500 page books worth of coded DNA information's difference! Hardly something to sneeze at - yet all of this was supposed to evolve randomly? Just look at the devastating effects of sickle-cell anemia if you wish to contemplate the consequences of randomly changing DNA base pairs: instead of glutamate, one amino acid has been changed to valine, resulting in malformed red blood cells that cause improper clotting and other disruptions to the healthy operation of the human body. Actually, a couple different interesting things you may not know. Neglecting size for each category, dogs and wolves have more in common with each other than do apes and humans on both counts you mentioned.
Anatomically, dogs and wolves are exactly alike, except for a few aesthetic details (ie snout length, hair length and color, leg length, etc), whereas between humans and apes: for one thing we can touch our thumb to the rest of our fingers... apes cannot. Apes have a tail; we do not (it's only called a tailbone because that's what the scientists decided to call it). Ground-borne apes are knuckle-walkers while we walk with our toes outright (not a learned trait). (Among other things that aren't merely aesthetic in nature.)
Socially, dogs and wolves communicate basically the same way. Howling, barking, sniffing, yowling, yelping, and any other dog verb we want to mention. In the human and ape case, while we can teach apes to communicate through sign language, we cannot have true mental communion with them, in that it has been documented that apes never ask questions. They simply don't seem to be able to understand the concept. Because of this lack, ape communication will never be able to reach the level which we as human beings posses. Think about it: just by creating differently shaped lines, or by creating a series of complex gutteral noises I can causing complex precise new ideas to form in your head - an ability no other animal on this planet has yet shown an aptitude for. It is because of this and many other such differences (and the embarrassing lack of proof for evolution) that I believe, yes, we were created.
My fault - let me append my statement. Simplifying while retaining the original function takes intelligence. Merely simplifying takes no intelligence at all. I could take a hatchet right now and "simplify" my monitor: however, the end result would be neither beneficial nor functional. I could, however, through much forethought and planning, given enough time, convert my CRT monitor to an LCD display. This unfortunately requires intelligence that I don't have (but intelligence nonetheless). Function-retentive simplification just doesn't happen without intelligence - and I would contest to see an example to the contrary.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the entire underpinnings of evolution relied heavily upon the very notion of randomly-achieved complexity. The Big Bang constitutes the theory of everything (complex) out of nothing (simple). Chemical evolution then has all chemicals (complex) forming from Helium and Hydrogen (simple, comparatively). Stellar evolution forms stars (c) from the basic elements (s). Current theory presents the planets (c) forming from dust (s). Next ensues primordial soup (s) turning into "simple" cells (c). Then amoeba (s) to ape (c), and from ape (s) to man (c). Catch my drift?
This is more of a philosophical question. Here is what I'm getting at: what is logic? How do you define truth, personally? If you define truth as what lines up with reality, or what is "real," then how do you define that: what is real? This is where most Creationists and Evolutionists differ. Evolutionists will reply that what is real is all that can be experienced materially, whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense).
Here is my point: when seeking the answer to the origin of man, if one rules out a possible solution (the supernatural), even before the initial hypothesis is made, a truly scientific investigation cannot ensue. Only when all possibilities are considered and all evidence is brought to the table can one say that they truly sought out the answer without bias, wherever the facts may lead. And I believe when a full analysis is undertaken, creation as outlined in the Bible comes out the winner without contest (and I believe there is a lot more science in the Bible than most people give it credit for, anyway).
Well, my life would be pointless without Jesus, but my point here is not to escape the imposing philosophical specter of nihilism - it's to seek the truth, wherever it may lead. And I agree, the above logic you presented does not follow suit. However, the facts come down to this: I believe that religion and science are more than compatible - they're inseparable!
As far as religion goes, why should I believe in something if it can't be proven true? And as far as science goes... well... science wouldn't be here if it weren't for religion! Pagan pop-culture of the Middle Ages said that time went in
No, I don't believe that I would use the word 'species' - that term has too vague a meaning, even among scientists. I do believe dogs are of the same 'kind' as wolves, however: meaning that they shared a common ancestor - probably something like a wolf.
The above is simply an example of microevolution, variation within a kind - a far cry from the ape-to-man theory that is being promulgated out there. Microevolution is scientific. Macroevolution has not been observed, tested, or proven to be true (nor can it be: as Sir Arthur Keith said in the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable.")(See previous post for micro/macro defs). The change from an ape into a human being would require an increase in genetic information, whereas the change from a wolf into a dog, would only require a decrease in information: a Mendellian distribution of already existing attributes resulting in a species (or kind) with less DNA for the parents to distribute to their children, and therefore rendering this example useless as a "proof" for ape-to-man evolution.
Since when did evolution get in the business of simplifying (irreducible complexity's opposing argument). Simplifying takes intelligence - it doesn't just happen by accident. (Take splatter paintings vs the Mona Lisa for example.)
Einstein himself said "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
So, even irreducible complexity's opposing argument still implies design.
BTW: if evolution is true, that means your thoughts are just the consummation of a chain of interconnected random events, resulting in the chance collision of chemicals in your brain forming what you now call a "logical thought process." If that is true, how do you define logic? Do your thoughts really matter?
To start off, it is incorrect to say that creationism was beaten off by overwhelming evidence. If there were any "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, there wouldn't be a debate right now...
The phenomenon of creationism's lag in decades past was due to overwhelming propaganda - not sheer scientific reasoning. All of the evolutionary evidence of yesteryear that students were nursed off of has now fallen by the wayside. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man. Java Man. Heidelburg Man. Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been shown to be relics of the past - composed of scattered fragments of skeletons: sadly some even hoaxes (Heidelburg Man was 'scientifically' constructed from an extinct pig's tooth). Carbon dating has been shown to be way off - even in known cases (Live penguins at 900 years old). Ernst Heckel's embryonic drawings were faked (even his contemporaries knew this - and he got in trouble for it). The Miller experiment no longer holds up when under scrutiny (the gasses he used are no longer believed to be present in earth's early atmosphere, and when 'correct' gasses are used, the experiment yields cyanide and formaldehyde: key elements in embalming fluid.) Even Archaeopteryx is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil. As Alan Feduccia, the world's leading expert on birds, said: "[Archaeopteryx] is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that." So to say that overwhelming evidence drove creationism away is to be intellectually dishonest. The 'science' part of science just happens to be catching up, that's all.
Secondly, a demonstrable difference between microevolution and macroevolution can be shown. In fact, there are actually six definitions of evolution, to be precise. They are:
Cosmic- Big Bang
Chemical- all elements evolve from H and He
Stellar- stars form
Organic- primordial soup
Macro- ape changes to man
Micro- slight variations within a kind
Only the very last, microevolution, is scientific by definition. The rest are theories that cannot be tested or proven in normal laboratory science. They are part of what is know as Origins Science - the study of today's universe as to determine what has happened in the past to cause us to be here.
Finally, as to the eye article, the fact that the mechanisms for light-sensitive cells exist in worms does not therefore mean we evolved from worms. The latter is simply the evolutionary interpretation of the facts. In truth, this data could also be interpreted as common design. Just as GMC puts the same lug-nuts on several vehicles which did not necessarily evolve from each other, an Intelligent Designer could have created different creatures using the same mechanisms to perform the same function. You see, there's a difference between the fact, and the interpretation of the facts, based on one's worldview. The latter is simply the creationist interpretation.
What the scientists did not do is solve once and for all evolution's problem with the eye. They may have found similar structures, but they have yet to propose how such a system could have arisen by chance. The fact is, the eye is nearly an irreducibly complex system - if any of its parts are missing, it is useless. The challenge is to explain how something like that - a complex network of interlocking systems - could evolve via Darwinian evolution. For anyone who doubts the biochemical complexity of the human eye, I would highly recommend Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The fact is, the conceptual evolution of how the human eye might have evolved is plausible. The actual physical process of getting there is much more difficult.
As to the posts about the nonexistence of good creationist literature and argumentation out there, I humbly point you to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ - Check out their Technical Journal (TJ)
To start off, it is incorrect to say that creationism was beaten off by overwhelming evidence. If there were any "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, there wouldn't be a debate right now...
The phenomenon of creationism's lag in decades past was due to overwhelming propaganda - not sheer scientific reasoning. All of the evolutionary evidence of yesteryear that students were nursed off of has now fallen by the wayside. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man. Java Man. Heidelburg Man. Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been shown to be relics of the past - composed of scattered fragments of skeletons: sadly some even hoaxes (Heidelburg Man was 'scientifically' constructed from an extinct pig's tooth). Carbon dating has been shown to be way off - even in known cases (Live penguins at 900 years old). Ernst Heckel's embryonic drawings were faked (even his contemporaries knew this - and he got in trouble for it). The Miller experiment no longer holds up when under scrutiny (the gasses he used are no longer believed to be present in earth's early atmosphere, and when 'correct' gasses are used, the experiment yields cyanide and formaldehyde: key elements in embalming fluid.) Even Archaeopteryx is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil. As Alan Feduccia, the world's leading expert on birds, said: "[Archaeopteryx] is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that." So to say that overwhelming evidence drove creationism away is to be intellectually dishonest. The 'science' part of science just happens to be catching up, that's all.
Secondly, a demonstrable difference between microevolution and macroevolution can be shown. In fact, there are actually six definitions of evolution, to be precise. They are:
Cosmic- Big Bang
Chemical- all elements evolve from H and He
Stellar- stars form
Organic- primordial soup
Macro- ape changes to man
Micro- slight variations within a kind
Only the very last, microevolution, is scientific by definition. The rest are theories that cannot be tested or proven in normal laboratory science. They are part of what is know as Origins Science - the study of today's universe as to determine what has happened in the past to cause us to be here.
Finally, as to the eye article, the fact that the mechanisms for light-sensitive cells exist in worms does not therefore mean we evolved from worms. The latter is simply the evolutionary interpretation of the facts. In truth, this data could also be interpreted as common design. Just as GMC puts the same lug-nuts on several vehicles which did not necessarily evolve from each other, an Intelligent Designer could have created different creatures using the same mechanisms to perform the same function. You see, there's a difference between the fact, and the interpretation of the facts, based on one's worldview. The latter is simply the creationist interpretation.
What the scientists did not do is solve once and for all evolution's problem with the eye. They may have found similar structures, but they have yet to propose how such a system could have arisen by chance. The fact is, the eye is nearly an irreducibly complex system - if any of its parts are missing, it is useless. The challenge is to explain how something like that - a complex network of interlocking systems - could evolve via Darwinian evolution. For anyone who doubts the biochemical complexity of the human eye, I would highly recommend Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The fact is, the conceptual evolution of how the human eye might have evolved is plausible. The actual physical process of getting there is much more difficult.
As to the posts about the nonexistence of good creationist literature and argumentation out there, I humbly point you to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ - Check out their Technical Journal (TJ)