Natural Noises?

[basildestiny]

Remember this? I have been reading "A Skeptics Search for God" by apologist Ralph Muncaster. Whoa! It's an incredible read. I would say it goes into heavy studies, but it really doesn't. It scratches the surface on microbiology and astrophysics.

I found it interesting and saddening at the same time (along with the author) to discover that evolution is statistically improbable. I was saddened that I was taught to believe in it so adamantly when it isn't based on any kind of facts. Just 150 year old "spontaneous generation" science. *sigh*

I need a miracle
~Bas

Comments

[green-and-warty.livejournal.com]

But....but... fossils?

[basildestiny]

Fossils are just old bones that people speculate about. It's not solid, hard proof of evolution. Or at least of macro-evolution. Obviously micro evolution/Darwin's evolution occurs. Within a species, certain colors, characteristics can become more prominent. But nothing as far as spontaneous life. Spontaneous organs, eyes, feathers. And no fish mating with frogs. It's all very weird that it's actually all old made up science. I was looking for scientific data. I didn't realize I'd discover that what I was taught wasn't based on anything. I should have known though.

[green-and-warty.livejournal.com]

Huh. I'm not sure I was taught about spontaneous evolution, but I'm really not sure.

[basildestiny]

You weren't taught that life just evolved from a tiny organism into the complex organism? Some kind of Big Bang theory? That's what I'm talking about is statistically not just improbable, but impossible.

[shagsthedustmop.livejournal.com]

Evolution does *NOT* attempt to explain the origins of life. It only explains origins of *species*. This is a common misconception. Evolution does not say "there is no creator that started the whole shebang" - that is an untestable theory. Evolution merely says that species evolve into different species as a result of environmental stimuli, and this *is* a testable hypothesis. While there are scientific hypotheses about the origins of life, evolution is not one of them.

In other words, it is perfectly possible to believe both in creation by a supernatural force and to believe in evolution. Many people in fact do believe this.

[basildestiny]

Of course they do. People believe a lot of things. That's not what I'm going for with this discussion.

What I was taught was that evolution explained the origins of life.

It may be a hypothesis, but it is unproven. We can see a species with a tail that walks on the land and say that it evolved from a fish. But we cannot prove that. There is no record of any species evolving from one into another. Just speculation based on fossil records. But nothing exists like a partial feather or a partial eye. It sounds probable until it is put to the test.

For example, what would drive part of a system to develop? If we look at fish from frogs or some species similar, then we're talking about a lung system spontaneously generating. Some kind of mutation that produced a working system of lungs and limbs and these would be superior to those of the fish swimming around.

It completely boggles my mind to even try to explain adequately. The simple example that Professor Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) used was of a mouse trap. It's easy to imagine a block of wood coming into existence. But it needs a spring or else it's useless. Even with a spring, it needs a latch. And energy to set off the trap, etc, etc. And without these, it is useless. Of course a mousetrap is very simple compared to an eye or the lung system. An eye is not going to be a random mutation that occurs in microevolution. So the statistics don't support evolution. And the fossil record doesn't do anything for evolution either. Macro evolution anyway.

[shagsthedustmop.livejournal.com]

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life. If that's what you were taught, you were taught incorrectly. That's the point I was trying to make. I'm not going to debate with you whether evolution is or is not true - but I will say you're defining it incorrectly.

And again, whether or not life was started by a creator is not a testable theory and so it is religion, not science. Both religion and science have a place. However, my reading of the recent analysis of Behe's work in Intelligent Design theory has convinced me that Intelligent Design is not science, and my previous study in the fields of geology and paleontology have convinced me that evolution does occur. Religion answers some questions, science answers others - and neither should be criticized for failing to answer questions more suited to the other.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[basildestiny]

I'm not reading Behe. But maybe that'll come in time. I have a backlog of reading material and viewing material. And cleaning things! But maybe I'll add him to the stack.

What's with the round about answers? What have you found? I'd like to know. I write these things so people will share information. Have you found fossils that prove evolution? Why hasn't that been published either? Satiate my curosity instead of piquing it and then say "Agree to disagree."

[shagsthedustmop.livejournal.com]

Not trying to be roundabout, just don't have the time at present to actually go dig up the studies (going out of town this afternoon and have lots of work first). One thing to start with is the references that were mentioned in the recent Dover Board of Education decision - the court had Behe as an expert witness as well as several scientists whose fields are involved with evolution and there were a number of studies cited there.

I have a PDF of that document if you have trouble finding it via google, I can email it to you if you want to send me an email address.

I'll try to dig up some more examples and studies when I get back.

[basildestiny]

Awesome! I'm definitely going to research into this. I find it all very fascinating. Behe was just briefly mentioned in the book I'm reading, but I thought his example was pretty succinct.

But definitely pointing me in the direction of what you've found would be really helpful. I've got a very long bibliography/reference list in this book as well.

Have a safe trip!

[basildestiny]

Maybe untestable as far as hard evidence in the affirmative. As in "This is God. Go ahead and shake his hand."

However there are a lot of statistical evidences out there that show that a Big Bang/spontaneous creation are equivalent to zero. Entry in which I give a few interesting numbers.

If you're interested in that, it seems to be a very fascinating subject. Maybe even check out the book I referenced. It's very interesting how Ralph Muncaster went about his experiments.