Quote:
Like the guy on this video says, evolution is a way of taking God out of the equation.

No it is not.

Even the Bible says that God created Adam by mud(inorganic matter), and then he blew(sp?) the spirit on him. Now, are we going to take this literally too? Like, God took his two hands, pick up some mud,made Adam, then blew some air out of his two lungs and gave him life? In the Bible, the creation is described using images that draw parallels to already common concepts from everyday life. But God is not a human. If he were to design the species, he wouldn't actually have to "craft" them himself the same way a human crafts a machine. What exactly is it about evolution that takes God out of the equation?

Evolution says that species evolve through random mutations and natural selection. Now, about "random". Nothing is truly random. Organisms are made out of protons,electrons and neutrons, like everything else. Those particles all behaving according to the same physical laws. The phenomena(heat,weather,evolution,what-have-you) we observe in macroscopic level and classify in different scientific fields(chemistry,physics,biology) is just the sum of the behaviour of these particles. When a mutation happens, it happens for a reason. An enzyme copies the DNA. At that particular time, the surrounding particles, the temperature, the molecule structure, the forces applied to molecules just happen to be just right so that they make the enzyme make a mistake, just like sometimes you shoot the basketball and make a score, and sometimes you don't. That's a mutation.

Now, what caused those conditions to be the way they are and cause the enzyme to make a mistake(or you miss the shot)? The previous conditions. And the ones before those. And so on, until we trace back to the initial conditions at the birth of the universe. Now, why God, as an omnipotent and all-knowing creature couldn't set the initial conditions exactly right so as to cause the exactly right mutations at the exactly right times,billions of years afterwards, so as to result into man evolving exactly the way God intended to? There's nothing wrong with that picture. If anything, that's way more impressive than the image creationist have for God.

There's nothing wrong with believing in God and evolution. I'm sure the bible have some verses where it says that God "throws" thunders. Even creationists don't believe that God is actually inside the clouds throwing thunders with his hands. They'll just say that he moves the clouds in a way that, according to phycical laws, will cause thunders. Why then can you not take this thought in the next level. As that guy in that video said, nothing occurs to God. There's no new ideas for him. He knows what will happen from the beginning. So there's no reason to interfere with nature, like saying "oh! I better move that cloud and cause a thunder" like he hadn't thought of that until that moment. He could have set the initial conditions of the universe just right so that, everything he wanted to happen(including evolution), happens at the right time without him needing to raise a finger again and break any physical laws.

Quote:Original post by Assemblor
The Bible talks about sin entering the world, and I believe this is why there are harmful mutations.

I personally think it has to do with physics: ionizing radiation, molecular bond energies... that kind of thing. It is more in line with what I have experimentally witnessed during physics and chemistry labs.

Quote:

Quote:
Notice, again, that the information for the resistance must already exist in nature before it can be passed on. There is no evidence of anything totally new arising which was not there before. This is information transfer, not information creation.

There is still no evidence of NEW information.

From the viewpoint of the bacteria that acquired the gene, it is new information. Additionally, the line of bacteria that transmitted that gene sill possesses it. You seem to think that there is only a single bacterium that carries any given gene. This is incorrect.

Let's start with one kind of bacteria, let's call it Foo, carrying the gene A.
One of the Foo bacteria mutates, turning its A gene into a gene B.

Now, according to your views, this is "information loss". That is, again, incorrect. A new gene has been created. New information. And there still are Foo bacteria with their intact A gene, so nothing has been lost. Sure, the individual bacterium has lost its A gene, but from the viewpoint of the Foo kind, no loss occured.

Let's assume the mutation is not lethal -- if it were, well, the mutant bacterium just dies. Bacteria die all the time, so it's nothing special. So now, our mutant bacterium starts to divide, passing on its B gene to its progeny.

Now we have a new kind of bacteria, Bar, which carries a B instead of an A. How different they are from Foo bacteria matters little. They carry a different gene that Foo do not have.

At some point, a Foo and a Bar may interact, and either of them could acquire genes from the other, becoming a FooBar which has both the A and the B gene. A net gain in genetic information, which can again be passed on to the bacterium's progeny.

The B gene didn't exist at the beginning of the process. New information has been created via mutation, and has then been integrated into the original line by exchange.

The key insight is that losses are individual, but gains are collective. An individual with a lethal mutation just dies off, it doesn't take down its whole species with itself. On the other hand, if its survives, its mutation can be passed on, possibly in such a way that both the original and the mutated gene coexist.

Quote:When I said "Evolution does not fit in with what the Bible says.", I was simply explaining to Diodor why Christians do not believe in evolution.

And that is part of the problem. They reject both theories and evidence that disagree with their beliefs. The Bible does have historical, social and ethical value, but it is sorely lacking in the astronomical, biological, physical and geological departments.

Would you believe that the sky really is yellow rather than blue just because the Bible says so?

Quote:You can't say that these people do not know what they are talking about, when it features many articles from people who are qualified scientists who have worked in their respective fields for many years.

But are they telling you what they know, or what they want to believe, what you want to hear? It's not the first time that politics taint the scientific discourse (global warming, the Earth being flat, etc...). And yes, religion is politics. It has always been. "Us against Them". "Follow me, not him". The Bible is filled with that kind of things.

Andy what do you make of those equally qualified scientists who hold a different opinion? Don't they also know about what they're talking?

Quote:OK I am off to bed now - but will talk more about it if you want in the morning.

Good night. [smile]

Quote:
This should demonstrate the flaw in the Creationist argument that if evolution were true, then apes and monkeys should be be having human babies every now and then.

Yeah, I mean, by the same token, if the fact that I was born 24 years ago is true, then women should be having mikeman babies every now and then. Since that doesn't happen, and will never happen again, I guess I was never born. Bummer. That's what I get for believing in evolution.

Quote:Original post by Assemblor
The way the Bible describes creation does not contradict science.

It does if you take it literally. In order to believe in literal biblical creation, you have to ignore massive chunks of extremely well established scientific knowledge. Not just in biology, but in geology, physics and astrophysics. Not to mention common sense.

Quote:
Sandman - You can't say that these people do not know what they are talking about, when it features many articles from people who are qualified scientists who have worked in their respective fields for many years.

I can actually, because if they knew what they were talking about they wouldn't be arguing for creationism.

This might sound a bit unfair, but I don't think it is. The vast majority of the time, these people aren't arguing against the theory of evolution; they're arguing against some bizarre parody of the theory of evolution that they've invented by themselves.

Much of the time these 'qualified scientists' are people like Kent Hovind who's qualifications are completely bogus. Either that, or they've qualified in some completely unrelated area but nonetheless feel qualified to opine on a subject they have very little understanding on. The remainders are whackos like Michael Behe who, while he may be well qualified as a biologist, has made his flawed understanding of what science actually is perfectly clear in the recent Dover trials when he announced that he believed Astrology qualified as science.

I stand by my suggestion: Stop getting your information about evolution from a creationists, because they will fill you with a flawed understanding of the subject. You can't sensibly argue against something you don't actually understand.

Quote:Original post by Sandman
I stand by my suggestion: Stop getting your information about evolution from a creationists, because they will fill you with a flawed understanding of the subject. You can't sensibly argue against something you don't actually understand.

Yeah, it's worse than getting medical advice from Gamedev: here, some of us will tell you to go see a doctor.