gregorygarver.com

linkus86 · Joined: 04 Oct 2003 Posts: 4

Evolution does not preclude creation. It is quite possible that matter is and has followed a path towards a logical conclusion. That conclusion in my opinion would be to reflect its maker in greater and greater ways with each step. For example, when you paint a picture it reflects your view of you much more than you might understand. You are in fact showing creative thought processes. Are you a reflection of higher consciousness or of a set of incalculable circumstances?I can not provide scientifically irrefutable evidence that our universe and all of its structure is evidence of a creator but, I will offer you one very simple problem that currently is scientifically unexplained. Your "Brain" is a huge problem for science to replicate. I will be using an author’s words first and then I will ask my questions that lean towards an argument for design and thus a designer.In his book "wider than the sky the phenomenal gift of consciousness" author Gerald M. Edelman, M.D., Ph. D, winner of the Noble Prize and current director of the Neurosciences Institute for more info please go to; http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1972/edelman-bio.htmlwrote the following to conclude his book on pages 147 and 148 (His words and spellings);"In line with these reflections, I have previously suggested that there are two main modes of thought--logic and selectionism (or pattern recognition). Both are powerful, but it is pattern recognition that can lead to creation, for example, in the choice of axioms in mathematics. While logic can prove theorems when embedded in compututers, it cannot choose axioms. Even if it cannot create axioms, it is useful in tamming the excesses of creative pattern making. Because the brain can function by pattern recognition even prior to language, brain activity can yield what might be called "pre-metaphorical" capabilities. The power of such analogical abilities, particularly when ultimately translated into language, rests in the associativity that results from the degeneracy of the neural networks. The products of the ensuing metaphorical abilities, while necessarily ambiguous, can be richly creative. As I have stressed, logic can be used to tame the excesses of those products, but cannot itself be creative to the same degree. If selectionism is the mistress of our thoughts, logic is their housekeeper. A balance between these two modes of thought and the endless riches of their underlying neural substrates can be sampled through conscious experience. Even if, SOMEDAY, we are able to embed both of these modes in the construction of a conscious artifact and thus further extend our comprehension, the particular forms of consciousness that we possess as humans will not be reproducible and will continue to be our greatest gift."My question to you is this:Where did this gift come from? And to you that will say evolution ask yourself this question. How could natural selection produce a biological product that is beyond its own that biological products comprehension? Is natural selection as a process capable of producing this level of complexity and more specifically diversity among humans as a whole in anatomic structure and function? If it can produce this diversity and yet common function, Human Consciousness, does that imply intelligence or design? If it does it do you leave open the possibility that this intelligence or designer may have a specific locust?yes this is a revised question that was killed by some one that did not like the tenor of my first attempt at this line of logic and reason.Gene - I am not against it thanks for showing your true colors by not reading my question but still wanting to comment negativelySkeptic - Human Consciousness is a problem. I understand the brain is not a problem for evolution. specifically demonstrated in animal brains in general however, they do not show evidence of our level of consciousness.Great answers everyone. thanks

rhood151 · Joined: 05 Feb 2005 Posts: 5

I didn't read your novel, but why are religious people so against evolution? Why can't you incorporate it into your religion? How do you know that evolution ISN'T intelligent design?

LIGER20498 · Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 7

Why bring God into it now? If God does not have the power to create life in 7 days, who's to say He has enough power to create anything? I Am that I Am. This is His name. The Egyptians did not believe in Him either. They instead worshiped their strange gods. There will come a time when the god of Evolution will also be shown to all to lack any power. The level of faith Evolutionists shows dwarfs ours as Christians. The only reason the theory is easy to believe is because of it's general acceptance. But if you base your hope on scientific evidence and discoveries, then a person becomes pretty disillusioned with Darwin very quickly.

kenerestu · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 6

Natural selection does not preclude design. The catch is that there is absolutely no evidence for design, whatsoever. This is why it is not science.Your question about design precludes a creator, not evolution.Evolution simply requires a mechanism of accrual on information, and the property has been observed in action in yeast. There is nothing in human consciousness that would require a creator, for if there were, that creator would require a creator, and so on add infinitum.Evolution -- extensive evidence.Intelligent Design -- no evidence and an intrinsically flawed hypothesis.

Nicki · Joined: 12 May 2005 Posts: 7

The brain is not a problem for evolution. Remember, natural selection acts on the variation produced in organisms. If organisms are produced that have larger than necessary brains, and those do not hinder the individual, they will be preserved.The brain is a flexible tool that can be adopted for things it was not originally used for such as logic. It did not "come from" anywhere other than genes that told brain tissue to continue growing during the development of the organism.It is no more evidence of a creator than a fast gazelle.EDIT: Consciousness is a product of the brain. Current cognitive science agrees with this. All functions of the human brain have their precursors in other animals (especially the great apes). Why do you think consciousness is a problem for evolution?

CJ0718 · Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 4

intelligent design and evolution are obviously part of creation,What isn't part of creation is creator and created.These give a noun form time space continum to something that is non manafest in time/space.Along with intelligent and evolving I would have to add paradoxical,ironic and down right funny!

Homeslice · Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 7

Something tells me that Gerald Edelman would disagree that natural consciousness requires supernatural consciousness to explain it. Most if not all Nobel laureates have zero respect for intelligent design, so don't use Edelman as an authority.

CHARITYG · Joined: 05 Jul 2002 Posts: 9

Our genetic link to the great apes has already been illustrated by Ken R. Miller and associates and proven by Hillier et al. We SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR AND DID NOT COME FROM (emphasis only not yelling) them. This research has been verified by scientists around the world. Have to love those supercomputers for mapping out genomes. In lay terms, we are “cousins”.Apes have 48 chromosomes; humans 46. Within our genetic make-up is a FUSED pair of primate chromosomes which accounts for the difference.The genetic marker is on Human chromosome number 2, site base 114,455,823 to 114,455,838. “Generation and Annotation of the DNA sequences of Human Chromosomes 2 and 4.” Hillier et al; Nature 434, 724-731 7 (April 2005)There's nothing supernatural about evolution.

lost_in_transit326 · Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 8

Old Guy, I couldn't make it through the entire diatribe. My apologies. I stopped when it was clear you were working on a "god of the gaps" argument. Unanswered questions do not create "problems" for evolution. They stand alone as unanswered questions. Simple. They need to be researched further. More importantly, unanswered questions NEVER imply an answer (e.g. Creation). To claim otherwise creates an impossible paradox.Just because Creationists and ID proponents refuse to adhere to the scientific method doesn't make it any less valid. All scientific knowledge starts with a question. Unfortunately this is where creationism stops.

Spockrhp9315 · Joined: 31 Aug 2003 Posts: 5

Dude you asked the same question twice. I'm going to answer your question with a question. Okay here goes. Would you be willing to consider that GOD created the universe using an intelligent design but once the working were set into motion HE no longer had any control over the events to occur? Think about it. It may not be an accident that the Bible says that GOD created us in his own image. What if GOD is carrying out experiments about things he really doesn't have a complete understanding of and therefore has not control/idea/recourse when faced with the consequences just like us? I mean did we know that by inventing the electric light that we would eventually destroy the spawning routes of salmon? Not before we had already done it. Did we know that by inventing the T.V. that close to 1/4 of the people in America would be plagued with obesity, diabetes and heart disease due to increased periods of physical inactivity? Not until after it happened. What is to say that GOD didn't know that as a result of creating the "Big Bang" that millions of stars, planets and such would form eventually leading up to the birth of life? We really don't know that now do we. If you think about it a while though I believe you will discover within your obvious intellect that this is a very possible, even very probable answer.