A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Slammy1]

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2011/12/1.jpg

Not everyone gets the rock-star start of the magician from Galilee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcpQSetMgI

 

[sandorski]

I ask that you please provide evidence to the contrary.

Fossils.
Archeology.
Geological Strata.

 

[Retro Rob]

Just throwing this into the ring, from a signature here:

It's not like looking for a particular grain of sand.
You are that particular grain of sand, marveling at the fact that you exist, on a beach filled with sand.


The giant asterisk with that is the assumption that there are other grains of sand on the beach that are also coated with a thin film if living stuff.

The scientist in my sig was pointing out the absurdity of believing that we were not deliberately created given the astronomical odds against complex life 'just happeneing' here, and subsequent civilized intelligent life. I share that though-process.

I consider it to be well into the realm of absolute absurdity to think that we are the only place in the Universe where things meeting our definition of "life" exist. There are untold trillions of galaxies, each with many billions of stars, and it's looking more and more like most of them have planets in tow.

So what?

Billions of people believe in God, but that in and of itself doesn't mean he's real.

 

[alkemyst]

Creation scientists... oxymoron. Sort of strange that they feel they have to be able to "prove" the bible is true. I thought the whole point was to have faith in the face of the overwhelming evidence of its fictional ridiculousness?

There are many scientists that believe there was a Creator and that being was smart enough to have beings that evolve.

There are many scientific things that were said to be ridiculous and/or impossible that came to be.

You cannot disprove something.

 

[SlitheryDee]

The scientist in my sig was pointing out the absurdity of believing that we were not deliberately created given the astronomical odds against complex life 'just happeneing' here, and subsequent civilized intelligent life. I share that though-process.

It's selection bias. The anthropic principle takes care of that kind of reasoning.

 

[IronWing]

The scientist in my sig was pointing out the absurdity of believing that we were not deliberately created given the astronomical odds against complex life 'just happeneing' here, and subsequent civilized intelligent life. I share that though-process.

Complex life didn't "just happen". The rules of physics and chemistry as they exist in our universe were followed every step of the way. We could deny gravity and say "everything just happens to fall down."

 

[Retro Rob]

It's selection bias. The anthropic principle takes care of that kind of reasoning.

Complex life didn't "just happen". The rules of physics and chemistry as they exist in our universe were followed every step of the way. We could deny gravity and say "everything just happens to fall down."

By "just happened" I mean without Divine guidance, or God.

Secondly, the statement originated with the scientist I quoted...send him an email explaining why his reasoning is flawed.

I'm quite sure he's billions of times more educated on the subject than either of you are, and made a very well educated statement.

 

[Jeff7]

The scientist in my sig was pointing out the absurdity of believing that we were not deliberately created given the astronomical odds against complex life 'just happeneing' here, and subsequent civilized intelligent life. I share that though-process.

I know. And I was pointing out that that quote is just another instance of the puddle marveling at how its divot in the ground fits it so perfectly.
The divot was there first, and the physics of liquid water caused the puddle to fit it so well.
Likewise, the physics of the Universe permitted us to exist, yet many still marvel at how well the divot in the ground fits us. "Astronomical odds" were not required.
We find ourselves in a place which is quite suitable for life to form. There's nothing particularly amazing about that.
"Astronomical odds" would be if life like us developed in deep space, where the odds truly are against it happening.

I consider it to be well into the realm of absolute absurdity to think that we are the only place in the Universe where things meeting our definition of "life" exist. There are untold trillions of galaxies, each with many billions of stars, and it's looking more and more like most of them have planets in tow.

So what?

Billions of people believe in God, but that in and of itself doesn't mean he's real.

Billions upon billions of stars.
Billions upon billions of grains of sand.

We're living on one grain of sand with life on it, still scarcely able to even look at other grains of sand. That quote is stated as if from a perspective that is far beyond that grain of sand, somehow able to see all of them, and finding it to be amazing that we are the only one with life.
We are currently incapable of having that perspective, since we are currently confined to that particular grain of sand - and it's quite easy to find that grain when it's also your residence.

Complex life didn't "just happen". The rules of physics and chemistry as they exist in our universe were followed every step of the way. We could deny gravity and say "everything just happens to fall down."

In a way, I can still think of that as true.
Why does matter attract other matter? In this Universe, the laws of physics just happen to make it do that.
Maybe in other places, outside of our little bubble of spacetime, that doesn't happen, and all you've got is a lot of hydrogen atoms desperately trying to get away from each other.
(This is what comes to mind - keep digging down, and eventually you'll end up reaching "it just happens that way." )

 

[IEC]

There are two possibilities in (this) universe. We are alone out there amongst all the stars as the only intelligent life, or there is other intelligent life out there. Both prospects are equally terrifying.

 

[Retro Rob]

Billions upon billions of stars.
Billions upon billions of grains of sand.

We're living on one grain of sand with life on it, still scarcely able to even look at other grains of sand. That quote is stated as if from a perspective that is far beyond that grain of sand, somehow able to see all of them, and finding it to be amazing that we are the only one with life.
We are currently incapable of having that perspective, since we are currently confined to that particular grain of sand - and it's quite easy to find that grain when it's also your residence.

My point stands, and you're speculating.

I could conversely state that you're assuming that just because one planet has life, there HAS to me more that have life. That doesn't make it automatically true, and while I agree that we're just starting out our search for other planets, you raise an interesting Paradox:

If the Universe is supposedly teeming with life, why haven't we been contacted yet? After all, it's been nearly 14 Billion years, about 4.5 for our planet. I can also assume on those grounds that space is just as empty as our solar system.

And fwiw, you're overstating your point. We can't even begin to put a ball-park number on all the grains of sand on all the beaches on this earth, but we do put numbers to the amount of stars and possible planets.

 

[IronWing]

By "just happened" I mean without Divine guidance, or God.

Secondly, the statement originated with the scientist I quoted...send him an email explaining why his reasoning is flawed.

I'm quite sure he's billions of times more educated on the subject than either of you are, and made a very well educated statement.

Doesn't look like it. While I have no reason to question his expertise in mathematics, physics, or astronomy, his biology and understanding of evolution is wanting. Panspermia has not been observed and given the fossil record the hypothesis is unnecessary to describing the evolution of life. His courtroom declaration concerning archeopteryx does his credibility no good at all.

 

[Retro Rob]

Doesn't look like it. While I have no reason to question his expertise in mathematics, physics, or astronomy, his biology and understanding of evolution is wanting. Panspermia has not been observed and given the fossil record the hypothesis is unnecessary to describing the evolution of life. His courtroom declaration concerning archeopteryx does his credibility no good at all.

I'm not defending him...all I am saying is that we share a similar opinion. Just because someone doesn't fully understand evolution doesn't mean that that's why he believes in God, or assumes a Creator or what have you.

I would even argue that the more I learn about biology, the more I believe we were created. The human body is an amazing machine, IMO, and all machines I've come across are built.

 

[Jeff7]

My point stands, and you're speculating.

I could conversely state that you're assuming that just because one planet has life, there HAS to me more that have life. That doesn't make it automatically true...

Yes, it's speculating, to a degree.
My view is that, it happened once, here, on Earth, from cloud of dust to microorganisms in under 2 billion years, and from microorganisms to mutlicellulars in....I don't remember, let's say another 2 billion years.
One planet, among many, made out of ingredients that are common in stellar neighborhoods. (Look at what we're made out of: Mostly hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. What's our local environment made out of? It's also mostly hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. Ok, still no surprises. What can you find a lot of in star systems? Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen...the ingredients are all over the place.)

while I agree that we're just starting out our search for other planets, you raise an interesting Paradox:

If the Universe is supposedly teeming with life, why haven't we been contacted yet? After all, it's been nearly 14 Billion years, about 4.5 for our planet. I can also assume on those grounds that space is just as empty as our solar system.

1) This assumes that other life forms want to contact other life.
2) And that they're talking in our direction.
3) And that they're close enough that a signal would still retain adequate strength for us to receive it.
4) And that they happened to be trying to contact us in a cosmological speck in time.
5) And that they are capable of doing it in the first place. (A planet full of microbes probably won't be making any attempts.)
6) And that we are capable of receiving it.

Try to communicate with an ant. How do you do it? Our ideas are incompatible with their brains. Try to teach a dog about tau neutrinos. Have a conversation with a dolphin about the use of hand tools. Tell a tropical fish about life in the frozen deserts of Antarctica.
Those are just life forms living on our own planet. How do you convey our ideas to them, particularly concepts that are utterly foreign to them? Verbal communication? What if they lack vocal cords? Or ears?
Maybe use written language? What if they don't have the ability to decipher symbols, and assign meaning to them?

We have ancient writings from our own species that we cannot translate, even with the aid of some cultural artifacts.

An alien signal may have reached us already, perhaps even bathing the planet since the field of radio astronomy began, yet we assume it to be the baseline or background noise, not knowing any better. (And who says it has to be a form of electromagnetic radiation in the first place.)
It could easily be so foreign to us that it would not be perceived as a communication attempt by an alien life form, no moreso than if you were to lay down some distinct chemical trails to try to communicate to an ant. It would see some unexpected chemical trails, follow them awhile, and go about its life as if nothing unusual had ever happened.


Pass through those filters, and you're left with a very slim chance of humanity even existing when an alien signal arrives, and being capable of receiving it, and being capable of interpreting it as a communication attempt.
Imagine if some powerful entity decided to use gravitational waves to communicate.
"Wow, these things are great! They travel over immense distances, and are impossible to miss!"
Huh, darn, if only we had a reliable, high-resolution means of detecting them.

And fwiw, you're overstating your point. We can't even begin to put a ball-park number on all the grains of sand on all the beaches on this earth, but we do put numbers to the amount of stars and possible planets.

There's also a fair bit more effort going into understanding the cosmos than there is in determining the sand grain count on Earth.
It's also easier to see through several million light years of space than it is to see through a foot of sand. (At least in some wavelengths of light.)

I'm not defending him...all I am saying is that we share a similar opinion. Just because someone doesn't fully understand evolution doesn't mean that that's why he believes in God, or assumes a Creator or what have you.

I would even argue that the more I learn about biology, the more I believe we were created. The human body is an amazing machine, IMO, and all machines I've come across are built.

...created by an even more complex and amazing machine...one capable of creating not only a tiny planet with humans, but a Universe around it...?
:hmm:

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, it's speculating, to a degree.
My view is that, it happened once, here, on Earth, from cloud of dust to microorganisms in under 2 billion years, and from microorganisms to mutlicellulars in....I don't remember, let's say another 2 billion years.
One planet, among many, made out of ingredients that are common in stellar neighborhoods. (Look at what we're made out of: Mostly hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. What's our local environment made out of? It's also mostly hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. Ok, still no surprises. What can you find a lot of in star systems? Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen...the ingredients are all over the place.)

Right, but for me to believe that life could appear elsewhere, I think we need to reproduce this somehow...till this day, we haven't.

Unique events like the formation of this planet, and the appearance of life without the need for a Creator, we can't rule anything out. Even with the appearance of DNA (which needs both proteins and DNA and one CANNOT exist without the other) has us thinking it HAD to arrive here fully formed.

DNA and proteins had to have been formed/created at the same time.

1) This assumes that other life forms want to contact other life.
2) And that they're talking in our direction.
3) And that they're close enough that a signal would still retain adequate strength for us to receive it.
4) And that they happened to be trying to contact us in a cosmological speck in time.
5) And that they are capable of doing it in the first place. (A planet full of microbes probably won't be making any attempts.)
6) And that we are capable of receiving it.

The possibilities are endless, which is why I think its a bit foolish to assume that we are not alone by default. While I am personally open to the possibility, I am not putting the cart before the horse on this one.

After 14 billion years, I would be sure that life (intelligent life) appeared somewhere else if we are here by the means theorized.

Try to communicate with an ant. How do you do it? Our ideas are incompatible with their brains. Try to teach a dog about tau neutrinos. Have a conversation with a dolphin about the use of hand tools. Tell a tropical fish about life in the frozen deserts of Antarctica.
Those are just life forms living on our own planet. How do you convey our ideas to them, particularly concepts that are utterly foreign to them? Verbal communication? What if they lack vocal cords? Or ears?
Maybe use written language? What if they don't have the ability to decipher symbols, and assign meaning to them?

We have ancient writings from our own species that we cannot translate, even with the aid of some cultural artifacts.


An alien signal may have reached us already, perhaps even bathing the planet since the field of radio astronomy began, yet we assume it to be the baseline or background noise, not knowing any better. (And who says it has to be a form of electromagnetic radiation in the first place.)
It could easily be so foreign to us that it would not be perceived as a communication attempt by an alien life form, no moreso than if you were to lay down some distinct chemical trails to try to communicate to an ant. It would see some unexpected chemical trails, follow them awhile, and go about its life as if nothing unusual had ever happened.


Pass through those filters, and you're left with a very slim chance of humanity even existing when an alien signal arrives, and being capable of receiving it, and being capable of interpreting it as a communication attempt.
Imagine if some powerful entity decided to use gravitational waves to communicate.
"Wow, these things are great! They travel over immense distances, and are impossible to miss!"
Huh, darn, if only we had a reliable, high-resolution means of detecting them.

Agree to an extent, but this simply means that we don't know, IMO, and won't soon find out.

No disrespect, but it seems a convenient cop-out to say "well life probably does exist outside our solar system, but we will probably have no real means of determining that anytime soon".

Then I can confidently say we're alone in the Universe just as confidently as people say there is no God because there is no evidence.

...created by an even more complex and amazing machine...one capable of creating not only a tiny planet with humans, but a Universe around it...?
:hmm:

You don't have to be less complex to make something more complex. Case in point, this forum's software was written by a more complex being...a human.

 

[ichy]

Where us Christians and the Darwinists disagree is in macro-evolution.

No real scientist even uses that term. Also stop saying "Darwinsists" as if it were some kind of ideology. Plenty of Christians have no problems with Darwin's theories. My father was taught about evolution 40+ years ago in Catholic school. Only the fundy idiots have an issue with it.

 

[Aikouka]

I'm quite sure he's billions of times more educated on the subject than either of you are, and made a very well educated statement.

Since when is an unsubstantiated claim on chance occurrence a "well-educated statement"? Honestly, given he -- just like the rest of us -- has no idea how many grains of sand exist in the universe shows that it's nothing but hyperbole.

 

[Retro Rob]

Since when is an unsubstantiated claim on chance occurrence a "well-educated statement"? Honestly, given he -- just like the rest of us -- has no idea how many grains of sand exist in the universe shows that it's nothing but hyperbole.

Of course it's hyperbole. But his opinion likely wasn't based on religious dogma, however, I reckon it was based on his expertise in math, astronomy, etc.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I can accept that there may have been a creator who started life on this planet; we don't have any real answer as to where life came from, and this is just as likely as some other explanations. But it's a leap too far for me to say that because a God may exist and may have created life, or even us specifically, he expects certain things from us including worship. There's enough scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory that I believe it; our species has slowly evolved over a period of billions of years. Even if I accept that God started everything in motion knowing it would lead to us, how can anyone purport to know the desires of this metaphysical being that we can't interact with? Why is it any more likely that God wants me to worship him than it is that God wants me to divert spending away from churches and towards science so we can more fully understand the majesty of the Universe he created? We can't know.

I don't have a problem with God, nor with people who believe in God. But people who claim to know what God wants? Those people are charlatans and liars, manipulating others through fear of divine retribution. Those people I could do without.

 

[Markbnj]

There are many scientists that believe there was a Creator and that being was smart enough to have beings that evolve.

There are many scientific things that were said to be ridiculous and/or impossible that came to be.

You cannot disprove something.

I did not contest any of those points. I did say "Creation Scientists" is an oxymoron, and it is. There is nothing scientific about belief in creation. No hypotheses that can be tested, no evidence, no experimental strategy. It's faith, not science.

 

[Retro Rob]

I can accept that there may have been a creator who started life on this planet; we don't have any real answer as to where life came from, and this is just as likely as some other explanations. But it's a leap too far for me to say that because a God may exist and may have created life, or even us specifically, he expects certain things from us including worship. There's enough scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory that I believe it; our species has slowly evolved over a period of billions of years. Even if I accept that God started everything in motion knowing it would lead to us, how can anyone purport to know the desires of this metaphysical being that we can't interact with? Why is it any more likely that God wants me to worship him than it is that God wants me to divert spending away from churches and towards science so we can more fully understand the majesty of the Universe he created? We can't know.

I don't have a problem with God, nor with people who believe in God. But people who claim to know what God wants? Those people are charlatans and liars, manipulating others through fear of divine retribution. Those people I could do without.

But then this kinda begs the question: "if God did jump start life, why doesn't he want us to at least know he did it?".

I mean, any intelligent being takes and, quite frankly, deserves credit for his handiwork.

I don't subscribe to religion's teaching that we were created to just end up burning forever -- that's not a god worthy of my recognition.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

But then this kinda begs the question: "if God did jump start life, why doesn't he want us to at least know he did it?".

I mean, any intelligent being takes and, quite frankly, deserves credit for his handiwork.

I don't subscribe to religion's teaching that we were created to just end up burning forever -- that's not a god worthy of my recognition.

Meh. We're could just be bacteria on a petri dish. If we are, then said higher power probably wouldn't want knowledge of him to spoil the results

 

[surfsatwerk]

I don't discuss "faith" without a little help from my friend George.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0

 

[IronWing]

I don't discuss "faith" without a little help from my friend George.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0

Needs less George and more hot babes.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Needs less George and more hot babes.

Full disclosure: he's not really my friend.

 

[Slammy1]

I look at faith like this. We've convinced ourselves that we have thought and reason, why couldn't some other apparently animated complex chemical factory do likewise? On a large enough scale, couldn't that be what people would call God?

Then there's the principle of the unmoved mover. All motion is caused by other motion or energies. A billiard ball does not moves of its own volition. If you trace all movement back there has to be something that moved but was not itself moved. Some call that God.

I do not belittle people their beliefs, I m happy they are looking for answers (Satan, for example, is mine; what a great entity!). It shows they're really buying into this illusion of thought. Me, I think there's something more out there. Something that is greater and self aware, just not related to us.

Anyone who studies physics knows there's a higher order to existence. I see reality as projections onto space-time and believe without an observer none of it would exist. What's key is how we perceive these interactions of energies, how we evolved to perceive them and thus manipulate them. We are all Gods in a sense, from the simplest organism to the most complex.