No, its not absolute, its just overwhelmingly likely because of the evidence.

I said quite absolute, and I said within the realm of our knowledge.

That's really as good as it gets...

Contrary to what you seem to be arguing about here, I'm not pretending it's absolute.

@ Phemox:

ALL people rely on faith. And yes, science does too. You rely on faith when you loan a friend $20 (faith he will pay you back). A scientist relies on faith when doing experimental research (faith that the information from his peers is accurate). YOU rely on faith that the scientific theories you've heard about are true. You rely on faith that your spouse will not cheat on you. The examples are endless. Life is full of things we must put faith in and believe without physical proof. It's also funny that many atheists believe life exists on other planets, but then attempt to mock and belittle people with religious convictions. Yeah... You've missed the point by a long shot...

"Instead it is based on a lot more than the believe in thinking it's correct. It's based on laws, based on reproducible experiments, based on methods and basically based on actual proof as good as it can get."

Once again, way off... There are tons of scientific theories which are NOT reproducible, not possible to experiment with, and unproven; (i.e., evolution, big bang, string theory, etc). Scientists rely on faith that those theories are correct, based upon things we believe about the way the universe and physics work. And our theories change over and over. In 100 years, people will laugh at the ideas we hold so dear about life and the universe today. Just like century old ideas sound so comical today. You first say that science is based on proven facts, then turn around to say nothing is absolute... interesting...

"Having faith in a God often implies disbelieving certain essential discoveries of science too, which hardly makes sense if you combine the two. You'll get silly ideologies where people believe in evolution, but still hold on to their believe in Jesus as being a supernatural God on Earth.
"

That makes absolutely no sense. If evolution were proven, 100% beyond any doubt, tomorrow, that still doesn't negate the possibility that (a) God(s) exist. There's actually nothing in the Bible (or any other religious literature afaik), that says God(s) didn't design natural systems like evolution.

You're mistaking another main point about my initial post: It's NOT that I don't believe life can adapt and change over time to take radically different new forms. What I DON'T believe is the current, modern Theory of Evolution as a whole. In relies upon tons of unsubstantiated beliefs which have never been replicated in a lab, NEVER observed, and has no evidence to support them. For instance, no evidence life can "spontaneously generate" from raw element, and no evidence that any genome can be modified (naturally or artificially) far enough to explain the diversity of life on earth. It's just assumed. Once again, by faith...

"In a philosophical sense, science doesn't really deal with truths in an absolute sense at all, but only with relative knowledge."

....uhhh... no... And please stop saying "philosophical", lol.

"It's very ironic how on one hand you say you can't possibly believe that something this incredible has happened while it clearly has, yet on the other hand you strongly believe a magical God must exist and be responsible even though that's really even much more far fetched and seemingly impossible."

When you use the expression "on one hand... but on the other...", you're supposed to use to different, opposing, or contradictory ideas or thoughts that are in some way relevant. That entire block of text makes absolutely no sense. An example would be "On one hand, they claim to be certain we can put a man on Mars by 2012, but on the other, they aren't even sure how long the technologies will take to develop." I hope that helps...

"After all, regardless of what started it, we can all witness right here and now where evolution and so on has brought us."

So you *believe*. The only thing proven is adaptation via natural/artificial selection (we can observe and replicate it). That only accounts for diversity among a genus and sometimes our basic classifications (i.e., types of mammals, reptile, fish). There's not a single shred of evidence that single cell organisms just "magically" created themselves and eventually turned into us. It's purely hypothetical. Humans are primates. We have a fossil record that shows primates developing into different types of primates. So it is highly likely that man is a highly refined and adapted form of ape. We don't know this beyond all doubt, it's just very likely. However, we have no proof that it all started with single celled organisms. There's nothing in between. There are no fossils of transitional species between here and there. So you're relying on faith...

"It's neither unexplainable nor inconceivable, it's basically not more than a philosophical answer anyways and nothing concrete. It's more a gigantic sign of not wanting to admit that you do not have an answer.

Not having an answer is fine, but pretending to know anyway is just incredible silly and strange."

Plenty of things are unexplainable and inconceivable. For instance, the very origins of our universe! Any competent scientist will tell you that the very thought of how and why the universe actually exists is currently unexplainable and inconceivable. We do have things like the Big Bang theory, but that doesn't explain where the singularity came from that created everything. It doesn't address that nor the creation of dimensional reality, spacetime, and even gravity is unknown. We observe the effects of gravity, but no one is even sure where it comes from or why. One theory is that the mass of an object warps spacetime in all dimensions, like a fabric. We simply don't know. It's still totally inconceivable to us. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I'm just pointing out that no one does.

"The whole idea that things are too complex and unconceivable is just odd by definition, as it rules out future knowledge on beforehand.

So far, there's really absolutely no reason to assume Gods were either responsible for or present during the massive development of everything around us."

You might want to try to rephrase that, because you failed to make any significant point...

And please note, don't take any of this personal or insulting. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean to be insulting either. We're just debating ideas. So I hope there's no hard feelings or animosity just because we might disagree about something.

And thanks Joozey.

I've yet to find ANY work of literature that doesn't use expressions, metaphors, and the likes. And the Bible definitely isn't an exception. We also lose a LOT in translations, and then have different sects wildly misinterpret the things they read. I don't belong to ANY sect of Christianity. Not Catholic, not Baptist, not Mormon... I'm just a plain old Christian. I read the Bible for myself, and often look at literary research about how things were translated from Hebrew, to get a better idea of what the original authors really meant. It's stunning how different that can be from what we consider the "standard" English Bible. For instance, it's believed by many scholars now that the "Red Sea" God parted during the Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the real name, "Reed Sea". It was actually a large lake full of reeds, not a "sea" as we think of it. Lots of interesting things like that.

I also do not, and will not, attend any church. I gave up on that years ago. Every church I've seen tends to be strongly oriented towards money. They constantly preach about how it is your "God ordained duty" to "tithe/donate" to the church. Total BS. I also don't feel like I need another person or organization between me and God. I don't need another man to interpret the Bible or "God's Will" for me. And virtually every religious sect has teachings and doctrines which are totally counter-biblical, or have nothing to do with the Bible.

"Indeed, but as we keep trying to point out, science is not done yet! We've just started to understand the genes and mechanics within micro-organisms. How can you judge science so fast, while not giving a chance to prove itself? Wouldn't that be only fair? Or are you afraid that we might discover how it all works in the near future? There's no need to deny anything, just adapt the God theory again. Eventually we'll find the answer together."

I'm not "judging science". I actually love science. The thing I have a problem with is theories which are still totally unproven are taken to be absolute fact. Especially evolution in its entirety. Evolution is a few concrete facts that act as the base for total speculation. Yet far too many people deem it "almighty truth", and attempt to belittle people of religious convictions when they too are relying upon faith in their own unproven beliefs. I must give you credit for being reasonable and respectful though.

"Totally rejectable, a plastic digital alarm clock will never spontaneously be created just by loose elements present in the universe. It can not happen in an infinite amount of time UNLESS, unless some higher form creates it."

You've hit the nail on the head! That's the point I meant to convey. But even the simplest of living organisms are infinitely more complex than anything mechanical, electrical, or digital. Our bodies are incomprehensibly more complex than the computers we're communicating with. And that was my point. We have no evidence that any form of life can be created without outside influence of a conscious being. And crazy as it sounds, it is statistically more likely a mechanical object could be created naturally than a single celled organism. Weird, but true.

"You seem to be making no point out of this one. First, frogs do not mutate in a bird, because they are both from a different branch of evolution going way way way back. And yes, mutations CAN BE bad. Albinism isn't a nice thing. Yet it only emphatizes how nature is NOT perfect, thus another evidence how it is NOT created by a perfect God."

I know exactly how the theory of evolution is said to work. I've had to study it before. I was just demonstrating a concept with a rather extreme example, using a little dry humor. However, the idea that "since the world isn't perfect, God doesn't exist" is way off. There would be no point in God creating a "perfect" world or any sort of perfection in nature. What would be the point of existence? A good way to relate it to something else would be games, tv/movies, and books. Would you play a game that had no "struggle" or "plot"? Watch such a movie/show? Or read such a book? Of course not! Virtually every religion is based upon the concept that this world and this life is a test or trial. If anything was meant to be perfect, this world would not exist. We would just be in heaven now, lol. I think life is a wonderful gift, no matter where you think it came from. It's the imperfection and "struggle" in our existence which makes it beautiful. I feel that without knowing the imperfection and troubles of this world, we could never appreciate the absolute perfection of heaven. We would almost be like those spoiled rich kids that annoyed you in grade school, with no appreciation of how fortunate they are.

"A fish can not become a bird, correct. But one, a genome has no property named flexibility. And two, if sufficient proper genes are hit by radiation or miscopied RNA, the animal will transform into a slightly different being. And animals don't live near as long as we do. A salamander lives about 7 years. Let's see, 488 million years ago life has exploded onto land, let's assume an ancestor of our salamander lived back then. So, 14 million generations, let's say one on four has undergone a slight mutation, visible or not. Then, 3.5 million mutations are not enough to make a four legged Cambrian being look like the salamander as we know it now? Then I think you do not realise how fast evolution CAN handle, if forced."

Genomes certainly do have a "flexibility" property. It's all too evident to people who breed animals. For instance, the canis genome is far more flexible than that of a cow or horse. Look at the diversity among canines; wolves, coyotes, foxes, and thousands of breeds of dogs taking radically different sizes, shapes, and properties. With something like a cow, we really only have control over color, a tiny degree of control over their size, and some other extremely minute differences. This is because the canis genome is very "flexible", receptive to changes, while the cow's (don't know scientific name) is not.

And yes, a salamander CAN become a new type of salamander. Given enough time, a tiny lizard could adapt into a gigantic, dinosaur-like reptile, provided it is in some way beneficial to its survival, or we have the time to breed them that way. Some scientists are actually planning experiments through gene manipulation to do just that, in hopes they can learn more about dinosaurs. However, NO amount of time and developmental stages can turn that little lizard into a mammal. It may be possible to make it bird-like, but you can't even produce a real bird from a reptile. We have no evidence that reptiles/dinosaurs "evolved" into birds. Now some people are going to shout, "What about Archaeopteryx!!!". But it was a primitive bird, NOT a 1/2 dino, 1/2 bird creature. The similarities are there, and it MAY be possible (to some extent), but we have no proof. But no matter what, you'll just never get a mammal. Maybe someday we'll discover things that show us the truth, but we currently have no facts to back such theories to this extremity. That's my whole point here.

"Laboratory may have simulated hundreds of years of generations with fruitflies (millions of years don't make sense. A fruitfly lives between 37 and 110 days. So that'd be 27 thousand years of research) but a fruitfly is already quite advanced. A fly has not been evolved much since the dawn of insects. It could very well be that the fly simply can not change anymore."

The actual lifespan is not what's important, but the speed of the reproductive cycle. The "house fly" has an even shorter lifespan, only 10-25days, and is also used commonly in experimentation. Yes, millions of years have been simulated, because we are artificially accelerating the process exponentially. We're keeping them in a confined area and artificially applying the changes we want on a small scale, which could take hundreds to thousands of years naturally. We're also physically manipulating the genes outside of natural reproduction, and even forcing mutations that are impossible naturally. If the current consensus on evolution is correct, ANY organism can change/evolve. There would be no such thing as an organism that "can't change anymore". And we can't forget, such experimentation is carried out on all kinds of creatures. Single celled organisms like bacteria offer an even further increased rate of "evolutionary simulation". Many have a reproductive cycles measured in minutes or hours. But, we can't produce anything radically different; just slight variations from our starting point.

"You keep thinking that dogs evolve into monkeys and fishes, but that's not how evolution works."

I know, it's an example. I know of all the stages that are supposed to be between things like this, but it would be impractical for me to list every one of them and all of the respective branches. Especially considering the fact that most of these "branches" are hypothetical, and no evidence supports the idea that they ever existed.

And well, you can say the universe having a beginning is unproven and this is just a cycle, but even this series of cycles has to have a beginning if anything we know about physics is true. If it doesn't, practically all physics become untrue, and we know nothing.

"Nicely put smile I can settle with that. But why were you fiddling with the "how" in this whole post? Why not just be content that God exists, and that we're here for a reason, but the reason has yet to be found? And let science filter all the truths and lies... because like you said, science explains the "how"."

I'm not fiddling with the how. I'm simply pointing out that we accept many things today as unquestionable scientific truth that indeed are unproven and only hypothetical. Therefore I'm hoping to emphasize the fact that the animosity and even hatred between many atheists and religious people is totally unnecessary, for we are more similar than we might want to believe.

Hi Jaeger,


The essence of religion. Really nice to read this. Also good to read you admit the bad sides of religious organisations and people, like the un-biblical teachings (needless to say I'm sure they serve more good than bad, and surely are you). You have spoken to Phemox about faith in science, while that contradicts to most scientist believings, and this is only fair. To solve both matters, we are talking about the people here applying religion or science. And people misinterpretate. Essentially the concept of science is based on fact from the lower levels leading to speculation to higher levels, bottom-up (we're having a harder time to prove evolution and quantum physics because we can't go bottom-up here, than proving the workings of a star). The concept of religion is based on faith in higher levels arranging the lower levels, top-down. Gotta be a programmer to say it like that :p.

Yes fair enough.


And here I disagree with you. I have said why I think a mechanic object is more complex than a living body. It was build by a thought process of other complex beings. Without those, it wouldn't exist. In my philosophy, that makes the mechanical object more complex. The clock is perhaps not an object that eventually will reach diety status, it's a different kind of complexity. Just look what time definition, a totally made up concept, did to the world. The clock is the interface to the concept of time, and as a whole it's surely more complex than a living body.

I doubt you can reason me thinking otherwise. And I understand why you see mechanical things as less complex. It's exactly the same in programming, an often made mistake is going top-bottom in Object Oriented languages, thinking that the higher components should control the lower ones, but in Object Orientation it's kind of the other way around .

Yeah dry humor is dangerous in these discussions . I kinda misinterpreted your point of view, but the argumentation still applies. The lizard will not turn into a mammal because it's too complex. But look at this animal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opabinia
An animal living 530 millions years back. It has five eyes, a fan shaped tail, a segmented body and a proboscis. This could be the ancestor of the spider, the bird, the armadillo and the elephant. But not the lizard, the lizard goes even further back. The lizard will never morph into a mammal indeed. Its not-so-lizardly ancestor did.

I do not know enough about the experiments to judge. I still don't believe we have simulated millions of years of evolution on a single branch. Yes we can let a billion fruitflies reproduce for a while, but that doesn't make the generation of one branch longer. That just expands the variety you will eventually get. Anyhow, without references I can't take this as truth.


Well, I listed one, though not scientifically proven. Could be a branch leading to five splits even and it's far more likely than a monkey turning into a human . It surely exists, as it's a found fossile (20 fossiles of those creatures have been found in total).


If we know nothing when the universe exists infinitely long, then we do not know if the physics would become untrue. If we know the physics would become untrue, we would know something we ought not to know according to the very physics that would become untrue... (this is getting psychologic now, be afraid of my nomenclature :D).


I understand. And I agree again with you!

Well, thanks again Joozey!

It's truly been nice to speak to you. You definitely command respect, even if we disagree on certain points. Thus goes the epic of humanity. We will never all agree on anything, except maybe the peaceful agreement to disagree.

Always a pleasure to have a reasonable and peaceful discussion/debate with someone else. It would be nice to see everyone do this, but some people just have personalities of conflict, lol.

I'll probably come back time to time, but discussions like these do eat up lot's of work time! Shame on us! Lol!

Take care, and I'll be praying for you, if you don't mind (no Voodoo, I swear it!)! Heheh!

P.S.- Now I want to make a game where you are a young Opabinia, locked in a brutal struggle for survival in the primordial seas! Haha!