Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hmmm, ok however you are talking about an instance where two species come together to
create a third whereas I was talking about a single species giving birth to a second species.

And we may well get into arguments here about what does or does not constitute a different
species.

Biology as ever is complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy ...[text shortened]... given birth to a dolphin
or a crab.
Or other such ridiculous claims made by the creationists.

Creationists, such as myself, know that dogs do not give birth to any other
creature. Apes do not give birth to humans, either. That should be be enough
to convince any human of at least normal intelligence that the theory of
evolution is crap.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Creationists, such as myself, know that dogs do not give birth to any other
creature. Apes do not give birth to humans, either. That should be be enough
to convince any human of at least normal intelligence that the theory of
evolution is crap.

The theory of evolution does not say that members of one species will immediately give birth to members of a totally different species in the very next reproductive cycle.
With a possible few exceptions ( from such events as natural hybridisation and the more severe mutations that do sometimes happen ) macro-evolution generally occurs as a series of many small increments with a gradual seamless transition over many generations from one species to another with no single moment or generation where you can say that was the first generation of the new species or that was the first member of the species.
There would be many intermediate grey-area stages where it would be hard to decide which of the two species the individuals belong to regardless of which arbitrary criteria you choose to classify and distinguish the two species.

But, of course, you should already know this if you understood anything about the theory.
You display complete ignorance yet again.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Creationists, such as myself, know that dogs do not give birth to any other
creature. Apes do not give birth to humans, either. That should be be enough
to convince any human of at least normal intelligence that the theory of
evolution is crap.

Humans are apes.

Great apes to be specific, but...

We are also monkeys, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals.


But it is the fact that you claim that (say) gorillas would need to give birth to a human to
prove evolution that I was talking about when I was talking about the stupid claims made
by creationists.

I wasn't saying that you claim that such things happen, I was saying that you claim that that
is what evolutionary theory says should happen.

Which you just demonstrated nicely for me so thanks for that.

Originally posted by humy
The theory of evolution does not say that members of one species will immediately give birth to members of a totally different species in the very next reproductive cycle.
With a possible few exceptions ( from such events as natural hybridisation and the more severe mutations that do sometimes happen ) macro-evolution generally occurs as a series of many smal ...[text shortened]... now this if you understood anything about the theory.
You display complete ignorance yet again.

Humy, we all understand slow, minute, ever so gradual encremental transformations. Does making ape to man ever so slow and gradual erase the fact that at some point you leave ape and get a human ?

(I know man is classified as another kind of ape to some )

Gradualism does not remove the basic concept that a species change has to occur. Blurring the line makes the concept no less fantastic.

Originally posted by jaywill
Humy, we all understand slow, minute, ever so gradual encremental transformations. Does making ape to man ever so slow and gradual erase the fact that at some point you leave ape and get a human ?

(I know man is classified as another kind of ape to some )

Gradualism does not remove the basic concept that a species change has to occur. Blurring the line makes the concept no less fantastic.

No.
Man is classified as an ape.

Ape is a scientific classification.

If you use the term ape in the context of classifying a species or group of species then you
are using it in a scientific context and it includes humans.

There is "to some" about it.


And I don't think you do get it.

You have a spectrum with humans last common ancestor with our closest living relatives (chimps)
at one end and humans at the other and as you move along that spectrum from generation to
generation, you do not at any point get to say that the animal of one generation was one species
and the animal of the next was another.
In fact as you move along that spectrum (which in reality branched off into numerous different species
all of which are now extinct) you pass through a number of distinct species (transitional species if you like)
between us and our shared common ancestor with chimps.


At no stage has anything more 'fantastic' happened than tiny gradual change of the average group traits
due to natural selection acting on gene mutation and recombination.

All this is irrefutably backed up by evidence.

the fact that you don't understand this and find it fantastic doesn't mean that its wrong.

Arguing otherwise is simply the fallacies of argument from ignorance and argument from absurdity.

The fact that you don't comprehend evolution and think that the idea is absurd is not an argument that it is wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Humans are apes.

Great apes to be specific, but...

We are also monkeys, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals.


But it is the fact that you claim that (say) gorillas would need to give birth to a human to
prove evolution that I was talking about when I was talking about the stupid claims made
by creationists.

I wasn't saying that you c ...[text shortened]... ary theory says should happen.

Which you just demonstrated nicely for me so thanks for that.

So now you even admit that evolution does not happen. HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by jaywill
Gradualism does not remove the basic concept that a species change has to occur. Blurring the line makes the concept no less fantastic.

As I said earlier, 'species' is a man made classification. It is not a biological rule. To suggest that a species change cannot occur merely displays your ignorance of this fact.

A species changes with every birth or death of its members. Even you accept this. When the change is significant, we give it a new name. However, our classification system is based largely on currently living life forms and does not handle past life forms very well. We normally only give a new species name when the changes result in two distinct groups and even then we sometimes leave one of the groups with the parent species name even though it is different.

That very dramatic changes can, and do, occur is undeniable if you look at domestic species (both plant and animal).

Originally posted by RJHinds
So now you even admit that evolution does not happen. HalleluYah !!!

no, he basically said one species of ape can evolve into another species and we are just such a species.

Originally posted by jaywill
Humy, we all understand slow, minute, ever so gradual encremental transformations. Does making ape to man ever so slow and gradual erase the fact that at some point you leave ape and get a human ?

(I know man is classified as another kind of ape to some )

Gradualism does not remove the basic concept that a species change has to occur. Blurring the line makes the concept no less fantastic.

Humy, we all understand slow, minute, ever so gradual incremental transformations.

RJHinds didn't. Reminder: “...Creationists, such as myself, know that dogs do not give birth to any other
creature. ...” ( RJHinds quote )

Does making ape to man ever so slow and gradual erase the fact that at some POINT you leave ape and get a human ? (my emphasis)

this stupid question shows you also don't understand the meaning of “gradual incremental transformations” even through you just said you do.
The answer is “no”; there is no “ POINT” when the transfer suddenly happens because it is a gradual incremental transformation. This is very simple logic indeed and yet you still don't get it.

A person gradually transforms from being a 'young' person to being an 'old' person. So here is a stupid question:
at which POINT does he go from being 'young' to being 'old'? Which day does this happen?
-answer, there is NO specific day or 'point' in time when it happens because it is a gradually transformation.

Gradualism does not remove the basic concept that a species change has to occur.

so?

Blurring the line makes the concept no less fantastic.

actually it does make it less fantastic. Assuming no hybridisation etc, that "Blurring the line" consists of a series of many small perfectly credible incremental steps rather than just have one big incredible step.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think we have a Java programmer around here somewhere on the Forum. That is like Object Oriented Programming. There is CLASS and instanciation. There is class and subclass. There is classification and inheritance of class characteristics.

This speaks of intelligence. This speaks of looking ahead rather than groping blindly by trial and error.

I am a Java programmer. And no, it does not speak of intelligence, it speaks of inheritance which happens both in Java programming and evolution. The reason why all mammals give milk to their young is not because some intelligence thought it was a good idea, but rather because we all share a common ancestor that gave milk to its young.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even with my imperfect knowledge, it is obvious to me that God, Creator of the
heavens and the Earth, has greater knowledge than you and me. So if it is
possible to have perfect knowledge then God is the most likely candidate to
have this perfect knowledge. We certainly do not since we did not create
ourselves. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

Blimey this thread has got busy!

You are right that If it is possible to have perfect knowledge and if "God, Creator of the heavens and the Earth" exists then God would be more likely than us to possess this perfect knowledge.

But since there is no evidence that a god exists and lots of evidence that your god does not exist, arguing whether he has perfect knowledge is pointless.

Either way, it is irrelevant to the question of whether 'divine inspiration' can give us True knowledge. I have already pointed out that it can't.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] So the fact that different people believe and have faith in different creation stories can only be evidence that belief and faith cannot be relied upon to get to True knowledge.

The only method we have that might get to True knowledge is science since that demands testing any ideas against what appears to be reality. However, even if we do achiev ?

2.) If so HOW did you imploy the scientific method to arrive at that True knowledge ?

Fair enough, apology accepted. No probs.

In response to your point, you said
-----------------------------
Now, concerning this statement that you just wrote: " The only method we have that might get to True knowledge is science since that demands testing any ideas against what appears to be reality. "

1.) Is that statement a statement of True knowledge ?

2.) If so HOW did you imploy the scientific method to arrive at that True knowledge ?[/b]
-----------------------------

Well, I did qualify it by saying it is the only way that might get to True knowledge. I probably should have qualified it further by saying it is the only way we know of that might get to true knowledge.

Divine revelation as far as we can tell is a fictional concept. I suppose that if a God really did exist, then divine revelation from such a God might also be able to give True knowledge. However no such God has revealed himself and there is no way to distinguish between a personal revelation and a hallucination.

Even if a creator god did exist and revealed itself to us (maybe by re-arranging the stars to create readable messages in the sky), we still would have no way of knowing that the knowledge he gave us was actually True knowledge.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Fair enough, apology accepted. No probs.

In response to your point, you said
-----------------------------
[i]Now, concerning this statement that you just wrote: "[b] The only method we have that might get to True knowledge is science since that demands testing any ideas against what appears to be reality. "

1.) Is that statement a statement o ...[text shortened]... e no way of knowing that the knowledge he gave us was actually True knowledge.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Except by testing that 'knowledge' against the observable reality we live in...

Ie by doing science.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Except by testing that 'knowledge' against the observable reality we live in...

Ie by doing science.

Oh yes, we could obviously do science on the knowledge that 'divine revelation' gives us and that would reveal 'false' knowledge, since that is what science does: we test things we think we know against reality and this shows us where we are wrong. If our knowledge is not contradicted by reality then we conclude that we might be right and proceed on that provisional assumption.

What it won't do is categorically confirm when we are 'right'. Hence even if we do find some ultimate True knowledge, we will never know that it is really True.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Oh yes, we could obviously do science on the knowledge that 'divine revelation' gives us and that would reveal 'false' knowledge, since that is what science does: we test things we think we know against reality and this shows us where we are wrong. If our knowledge is not contradicted by reality then we conclude that we might be right and proceed on t ...[text shortened]... some ultimate True knowledge, we will never know that it is really True.

--- Penguin.

Indeed.