Quantum physics has taken us from assuming that order came from chaos to finding everything is as it should be. Even our thinking concerning space itself is found lacking in that space isn’t just a vacuum with nothing in it, but instead, space is a very active area filled with waves and particles which have an order and a sort of consciousness as it were. Preconceived notions based on macro and micro observations have given way to quantum level findings in that now we see that we need to go back the the basics and erase nearly everything we thought we knew and finally admit that our so called knowledge is, after all, near foolishness. (ref 1 Cor 3:18 For the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God) We’ve gone from believing that the sun rotated around the earth to finding a huge possibility that this universe is only one of perhaps thousands, maybe millions of universes. Even the “big bang” theory is slowly being eroded away by close investigation into that which seems, on the macro level, to be something out of chaos when in actuality it appears as though that that bang is only one of thousands of bangs which have a proper order to them. The bottom line here is that the scientist is asking the question more and more of how such harmony can exist from such chaos and they are slowing coming to the answer of......it can’t. It isn’t chaos after all. Edit: Just a thought. I think it’s interesting that we, as humans, have more chaos in our daily lives than the universe(s) have had in perhaps billions of years. (as though time is really relevant)
But admitting one was wrong is admirable All this unknown stuff reminds me of Rummy's comment.. "we don't know what we don't know"
What about the creation of life? One of the main arguments of most atheists (and I've had quite a few discussions with them in my career) is their "proof" of evolution. While this is far too complicated to delve deeply into here, I love to explore science and the latest discoveries that seem to me to defy this argument of evolution. Related to this is the concept of complicated processes evolving by small "minute progressions", such as how did the eyeball develop into an advanced system by small degrees. I have always been curious of life itself, and how a baby is born through the complicated process of biology, in particular of how the male sperm finds its way to the egg in the female. Recently I found an article of some of the latest discoveries of how this is possible. Without a successful journey of the male sperm, none of us would be here, so this seems to be an area where the atheist and the agnostic should be interested - for their belief is that this happened without a "designer" and happened through eons of "small changes". Frankly, I just can't accept their argument of atheists. Here is the latest information of how the process of birth is accomplished. Warning: this contains some high level mathematics, and unless you are trained in areas such as Markov chains, 3-d paths, gradients, Poisson processes, 3-d paths, (such as that of motion along a helix), integral calculus etc., may be a bit complicated (I made my living using math, and some of it was hard to follow for me) https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006109 As the article explains, the process is called chemotaxis, where the sperm follows helix-like (path along the surface of cylinder), The cells then increase the probability of finding the target by a chemotactic process signalling system which measures the concentration of chemoattractant along its swimming path, using this information to adjust the shape of flagellar bending waves [17]. This feedback loop enables cells to steer in a directed manner, by bending the direction of their helical paths towards the local gradient. The article uses he idea of “cellular sensing noise” in a few places, but did not explain it carefully. So, what propels the sperm – is it smell, chemical attraction, magnetism of what? They seem to imply “noise”. To me that is wild, what in the world is cellular noise? But in the paragraph below Fig. 1, 2nd sentence, they say that “In species with external fertilization, evolution presumably optimized the probability to find an egg..”, but they did not address internal fertilization, which is what this is. Why not? Its too complicated to have come about by evolution, that’s why. I invite the atheists to offer a counter-argumtent.
That article is incomprehensible to me. Most non-religious people here are going to be too intimidated to engage with you, with your math and scientific knowledge. .I don't have as much sense as they do, so I'll respond. Before I do though, I'd like to know just how fundamental.your beliefs are. How old do you think the earth is? Do you allow for local evolution, for instance that the wolf was the progenitor of all the dogs in the world over a period of perhaps 200,000 years, in an evolutionary ( not just a breeding ) process? Re: evolution of the eye, there are vestigial light sensing organs in some animals that might evolve.into more complex forms. Btw, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I don't think any person has enough information to be an atheist. I was a math and physics major in college but have forgotten it all.
Hugh, I've changed my mind about going into these issues with you. I have several reasons. 1) I have no background in biology, evolution or related fields. 2) These creation vs. evolution debates have gone on countless times. Everything either of us would say has been said before. 3) Not being an expert, in any issue I'd have to hunt down and site the argument of an evolution proponent. It would be their words and not mine. I probably wouldn't understand their argument. What's the point? 4) I don't wish to be shown as an idiot once again in this forum.LOL
The journal in the link is Computational Biology. These scientists are likely trying to explain part of a very complicated chemical/biological process by mathematical and probability modeling. Possibly to be used in computer modeling and simulation (see last sentence). I don't think understanding the mathematics is necessary to understanding the process. I'd go back to the chemical and biological explanations and ignore the math. But that's just my opinion.
I guess what I'm saying is simple. I don't accept Darwin's conclusions as applying to humans, though I do think it is true for the animals and birds. I do subscribe to what scientists say about the age of the earth, and the fact that evolution applies to rocks, plates, mountains, glaciers, fossils, and other geological objects. As one who believes the bible, I accept the Genesis statement: "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters". So, it could have been without form for millions of years, until God created it in the seven years as described. But, again, we do not have apes in our background - that I can't accept.
The Bible does not refer to creation as being completed in 7 years but rather, in 6 days and He rested on the 7th. That written, one could take issue with the literal term Yom or Day when one applies 2 Peter 3:8 to the mix: “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. If one does indeed believe that the thousand years applies to creation then we have 6 thousand years built into creation which some find more palatable in the war between creationism and evolution of whole species. I guess they figure God may have needed more time to do what He did. It doesn’t worry me either way. My salvation isn’t based on how God created the earth or how much time He took to do it but rather what Jesus Christ did on the cross.
@Hugh Manely I would expect that one as well-versed as yourself would be in a position to explain and dissect the process known as Apoptosis? Frank
No I can't. Biology is not my strong point (if I have any). I know that it is important to the study of the immune system. I try to stay educated in that area in relation to my wife's struggle for the past 35 yr. with rheumatoid arthritis (she undergoes infusions once per month). There is still a lot to be learned about the ailment, and a cure is yet to be discovered. But that is not the point of the discussion. I was addressing the issue of the advancement of science into the intricacies of the human anatomy, and the fact that I find it difficult to believe that these complicated processes came about by evolution. My point is that I realize that science supports the theory of natural selection posed by Darwin and evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology shows that this is true for fish, animals, birds, etc. I just don't accept that mankind came about this way. Humans are spiritual in nature, as opposed to non-humans, who have no soul, or capacity to contemplate a creator. As the bible states: "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." God created mankind- in His image- to possess this capacity, yet He also gave us free will, so that we have a choice to worship or not. This is only true for humans So, it seems to me that the atheist, who doesn't accept that God created man, has only one other choice. In the eons-long progress of life, where infinitely small modifications were attained through natural selection for the survival of the species (according to Darwin), something amazing happened somewhere in the process like this (somewhat with "tongue in cheek)) - one day a creature woke up and said "Hey guys, I've been thinking - we must have been created, so out there somewhere is a god who deserves to be worshipped." So the spiritual man was suddenly born. How could a "spiritual" humanoid come about by evolution? All I'm saying is that I have trouble with this. Also, I must say that I admire the atheist, for he/she has much more faith than I do, for to me it takes more faith to not believe than it does to believe.
I try to stay educated in that area in relation to my wife's struggle for the past 35 yr. with rheumatoid arthritis. It's rough. I had a severe case for 10 years connected with Lyme disease. The only relief I found was oxycontin. Tell your wife I wish her well.
I maintain that anyone who has looked into a dog's eyes must realize that humans are not the only creatures with souls. As an agnostic with plenty of questions and casting a doubtful eye on the teachings of biblical scholars, I believe the basis of modern religion is control. It is easier to control people by fear, and peoples' deepest fear is death. So by promising an afterlife if one "believes," it becomes a control method. I'm waiting on an "aha" moment to convince me, but so far modern religion isn't cutting it. I admire people with unwavering faith; I can't imagine what that is like.