Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism
.......Since the topic came up on another thread......It probably doesnt come as a huge surprise to anyone that being an irreligious commy Brit I subscribe entirely to the one and eschew the other.....I would be intrigued to hear what the rest of you had to say on that subject......
As far as I can see, the evidence for Evolutionary science is thick on the ground, but the Creationist stance seems to be based mainly on faith with what scientific endeavour there is being crowbarred in to try and prove the existence of a creator God.......Or am I dismissing that idea too readily?
Is Creationsim merely a religious doctrine with science fitted into it or is it as valid as Evolutionary theory? Should it be taught in schools as equal in weight to Evolutionary science?
[COLOR=indigo]We've had this arguement (in this forum) before, and what it comes down to is that all the non-Christians summarily dismiss any hypothesis that would indicate evolution didn't happen (as if it's not a theory, as if it's fact), and all the Christians do is state their beliefs.
I have been (and continue to be) a non-believer in evolution. I simply don't see how it could have happened that way. I've read alot of books in favor of both theories, and I think that the answers in genesis site is the most scientific of all the Creationist view sites I've seen, meaning, out of all the sites I've been to, it uses the most scientific approach. No one will ever be able to PROVE that God created the earth, and LIKEWISE, no one will ever be able to PROVE that all life on earth started out as amino acids in a primordial soup.
Bottom line is, neither are provable.
My concern on the other thread is your criteria of what are "real" scientists and what aren't. It seems to me you think that the hypothesis itself determines what is "good" science. I disagree with that.
the aig website uses the same principles of science against the theory of evolution. AiG is a Christian site, no doubt, the name gives that away. But they use the SAME scientific methods, laws and structures, and they come up with completely different hypotheses. Doesn't that interest you? I'm not asking you to say, "Oh! well then, I'm a Christian now!" I'm just asking you to think about what it is they are saying and not dismiss it SOLELY because they are putting forth a view that is religious in nature.
Don't you think that it's worth more than an offhand, RELIGIOUSLY based dismissal?
Why is it that a non Belief in Christianity automatically makes many people close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and say lalalalalalala when presented with a scientific hypothesis that differs from evolution?
Edit: department of redundancy department[/COLOR]
[COLOR=indigo]From the AiG site:[/COLOR]
Although many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single
diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.
In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.
However, all of this has been so adequately documented — not only by creationist writers such as Dr Duane Gish (Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No) by also by leading evolutionists — that this is not the issue I wish to discuss here.
Archaeopteryx is a fossil creature with some reptilian and some bird features. Most leading evolutionary paleontologists today would not regard it as a transitional form because it has no transitional structures, and because fossils of true birds have been found in a supposedly earlier geological layer. Under the subheading Archaeopteryx and feathers the author says
‘Is it really impossible for scales to have evolved into feathers? Many birds, from chickens to ostriches, show a continuous gradation from scales on some parts of their bodies to feather elsewhere (Lucas and Stettenheim 1972; Dyck 1985). Moreover scales and feathers are identical in chemistry, molecular structure and mode of development (Spearman 1966). [However, see Editor’s Note 2]
‘Most significant of all is the fact that scales and feathers are interchangeable. Recent laboratory studies demonstrate that chicken embryos can be induced to transform their developing scales into feather, and their feathers into scales (e.g. Dhouailly, Hardy and Sengel 1980). In their structure and appearance such artificially induced feathers are indistinguishable from natural ones. Indeed, it now seems possible for scientists to transform scales to feathers, and vice versa, almost at will! Similar interchanges between scales and feathers are known to occur spontaneously in wild populations of birds. Does the transformation of scales into feathers require massive genetic engineering? The answer is no. The transformation is triggered by a single chemical — retinoic acid, which is probably better known as vitamin A.
‘Archaeopteryx is a splendid example of a transitional fossil, showing an undeniable mixture of reptile and bird characteristics. In every feature except its feathers Archaeopteryx is similar to theropod dinosaurs. That one distinguishing feature — feathers — represents the crucial dividing-line between reptiles and birds. And today, in the laboratory, it is possible to breach that dividing-line by using simple chemical treatment to transform scales into feathers.’
Simple Transformation?
One gets the impression that it is a fairly simple matter to transform scales into feathers with the addition of a single chemical. If so it would not be at all difficult to imagine how scales could have evolved into feathers by only a small genetic change. However, common sense shows the huge flaw in this argument.
First, let us look below at the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times (Photos courtesy of David Menton)
Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every structure or organ must be represented by information (written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the bird's DNA which is not present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David Menton).
At this stage we should be feeling uneasy about the idea that a simple chemical, containing a small amount of ‘information’, could cause such an ordered structure to arise. And here’s the catch, of course. The author himself has already told us that the experiment was done on chicken embryos, which already have the information coding for feather construction. The simple chemical is used as a ‘switch’ or ‘trigger’ during embryonic development.
That is, what we are witnessing is the fact that physicochemical manipulation of the developing embryo can cause a developmental pathway, which would normally result in scales, to result in feathers instead. But the information required to construct/assemble the structure of the feather is already there, and is simply being expressed at a different site. Genetically, there has been no evolutionary change — no information has been added to the organism’s ‘blueprint’ which was not already there.
So what has been achieved is that feathers have been induced to form in birds — although in locations at which they would not usually form. Equally, interference with the developmental machinery in fruit flies can cause a leg to grow where there would normally be an antenna. Such homoeotic mutations, as they are called, are not strictly analogous to the chicken example, but the point is the same, in that the genetic information for forming a leg was already in the embryo. Growing ectopic, or out of place, fur on mammals, or extra legs on flies or cows, demonstrates nothing about the origin of the information coding for fur or legs.
Thus, growing feathers on chickens cannot possibly have any value for the idea of evolution.
What if a researcher reported that vitamin A in a reptile embryo caused feathers to form? Now that indeed would be spectacular evidence for evolution. But no serious scientist would expect that such a thing were possible, for the simple reason that it would be a violation of the fundamental principles of entropy/information theory. The reptile does not contain the information for feather construction in its code. Vitamin A contains less ‘information’ in its chemistry than that required to code for a complex feather. The addition of a small amount of unrelated information cannot spontaneously cause a quantum leap towards information which was not there already.
Put simply, you cannot get something from nothing — this is why there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Exactly the same principle of science forbids reptile feathers as forbids perpetual motion machines.
If a clever genetic engineer were to splice out the information coding for feather construction from a chicken embryo, and splice it into a reptile embryo to cause it to grow feathers, this would confirm the point we are trying to make here — that is, such complex information cannot spontaneously arise — it has to be created or transferred from a preexisting source. And furthermore that an intelligent mind is required to conduct the experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed. notes:
See the sequel, The Strange Recurring Case of the Feathered Reptile — a refutation of an evolutionist who tried to answer this article.
After both the Skeptic book and this Creation magazine articles were written, we came across evidence that refutes this claim. For example, feather proteins (ö-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (á-keratins). A feather expert, Alan Brush, concludes:
‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.
[color=indigo]This is what I'm talking about. Allllll those "good scientists" that think Archeoptrix is a transitional form completely DISCOUNT any information that sheds doubt on their theory. Doesn't matter how right it is, or how many holes it punches in their arguments. So OTHER people "break their hypothoses" as you call it, but that doesn't make them discard the hypothesis, oh no. Either the "breaking" is ignored, or kept so quiet that no one sees it has been broken, and KEEPS putting it forth as truth, even when it's been disproven.
That is NOT good science.
And there are TONNES of other articles like this one. Not that say "we're right, so believe in God" (although some do...) but more importantly, say "There is a problem with your theory, here are the holes we can shoot in it using science."
And they are out of hand rejected because of WHO puts them forward, with no interest in the CONTENT of the material.
That is NOT good science.
[/color]
[COLOR=indigo]I also want to point this out, from Talk-Origins.[/COLOR]
2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false.)
[COLOR=indigo]And for every question like this, I would to response thusly:[/COLOR]
Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for Creationists, but is rather non-circular evidence for your theory. This includes geological column and/or fossil records. Remember that it is logically possible for both Creationism and your theory to be false.)
[COLOR=indigo]And regarding this paranthethical qualifier to the original question:[/COLOR]
An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution
[COLOR=indigo]So obviously, there ARE problems with at least portions of the theories they are espousing. But in refuting their hypothesis, it's not allowed to bring them up? What kind of scientific argument is this?
I want to be clear.
I don't know how we all got here. I don't believe my great(x infinite) ancestors were primordial bugs. I don't don't buy that. More importantly, they cannot PROVE it. Yet it's in every science and biology book printed. Now, I don't have a problem with biology. I don't have a problem with how a cell works, that has been proven. But don't try to tell me that over billions of years, information of such complexity and of different chemical components just HAPPENED to occur at JUST the right time and in JUST the right way.... no.
I can't tell you why things are the way they are. But at least I'm willing to keep an open mind and admit when I'm wrong.
I guess that makes me a "bad" scientist.
[/COLOR]
I think that God created everything...in a way similar to what is described in the evolution theory.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I'm just curious. I'm eclectic Wiccan myself, mostly Green, with a little bit of Greek, Roman, and Strega, for a little over ten years. I personally became Pagan because it just seemed like I finally found a belief system that matched the one I already held. Not to mention that it emphasizes personal responsibility, and I think the rituals are much more evocative than any church I've attended.
Anybody else wanna 'fess up?
Sidhe
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I think this should be in the "philosophy" forum, but this question has been asked repeatedly. Do some digging, you'll find[color=red] us[/color].[/COLOR]
appparently your split personalities have different religions. Do they argue a lot?
or do you think that god[color=red]S[/color] created everything?
I don't know much about a scientific argument FOR creationism. Its kind of an oxymoron isn;t it? I mean, God has magical powers right? so science wouldn;t have much to do with it. Poof! "here's a bunny rabbit!.....isn;t it cute?" no fossil record, no scientific evidence.
Here's a poser for you....the giant squid has an eyeball that is superior to ours in design. If we were created in God's likeness, why did he give us an eyeball with a blindspot in it? Does God have a blindspot in HIS eyeball? perhaps the squid has need of more acute vision than we do, so it friggin evolved that way.
COuld not the two theories coexist? maybe god created whatever went BANG at the beginning of time, but to think that he plunked Adam and freaking Eve down on this one planet amongst all of the infinite planets in the universe is just plain nuts.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
My concern on the other thread is your criteria of what are "real" scientists and what aren't. It seems to me you think that the hypothesis itself determines what is "good" science. I disagree with that.
the aig website uses the same principles of science against the theory of evolution. AiG is a Christian site, no doubt, the name gives that away. But they use the SAME scientific methods, laws and structures, and they come up with completely different hypotheses. Doesn't that interest you? I'm not asking you to say, "Oh! well then, I'm a Christian now!" I'm just asking you to think about what it is they are saying and not dismiss it SOLELY because they are putting forth a view that is religious in nature.
Don't you think that it's worth more than an offhand, RELIGIOUSLY based dismissal?
[/COLOR]
Point of order. You cannot argue science by making an inaccurate statement about how the scientific method works. A scientific hypothesis is the second step in the rigorous field of endeavor known as the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature.
A poor hypothesis makes for poor science. If you don't like this fact go debate about art or something, but don't expect scientists to take you seriously.
Although many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single
diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.
In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.
That's bullshit.
You're right, it's not good science. It's cherry picking evidence, skipping facts and pursuing a very narrow agenda. It's all I've ever seen from creationist 'science'. As stated on the other thread, it's more of a philosophy than a science, there is zero, precisely zero scientific evidence supporting it.
In terms of the links between reptiles and birds, you might want to research the following fossils/species. I think the reason that creationists picked this area is because feathers do not fossilize well, so getting accurate ideas of what species looked like has been particularly difficult.
Archaeopteryx lithographica
Sinosauropteryx
Confusciusornis
Protarchaeopteryx
Of course some of the other 'evidence' this idiot throws up is even worse, particularly the claims there is no evolutionary advantage to feathers. Proposed reasons include insulation, water resistance, particle filtration, sexual displays, buoyancy and protective coloring.
Of course that doesn't fit so nicely with the wankings of a bunch of blind idiots cherry picking evidence to suit their theory. Every time I come across one of these examples of why clearly god made everything or evolution doesn't work they pic some very small detail and attempt to blow it all out of proportion. The last one I heard which really made me laugh was that the banana was proof that god exists because it's a perfect food for us....
Good page
here on all this.
I've never really seen a great disparity between evolution and creationism.
The gods can create things any way they want to, after all, and make adjustments along the way as the design either proves itself or flubs.
Creationism is yet another topic that pushes my "asshole button"
I'm so aghast that anyone with in IQ over 80 would buy that fairy tale type explanation for how things became how they are now that I lose a little hope for the human race each time I encounter it. In fact, that's it. I've had enough. Stop the world. I wanna get off!
pagans:
is there a specific "creator god"? Could creationism coincide with paganism?
I have said before that i am a pickandchoosist. One of the things I like about paganism is that they see god in the many aspects of nature. They choose to identify them individually and worship them to suit. I also firmly believe in evolution.
Of the individual Pagan Gods, which of them is responsible for the beings that christianity subjugates to man? ... the flowers, birds, crickets, sheep, etc? Gaia? do pagans believe that gaia's womb produced all living things whole in their current state? What do the other religions say? Is creationism a mainly Christian belief? Judaism too, I guess? and is Islam a derivitave of those two? does it have the same stance on this? How about Hinduism and Bhuddism?
There are as many answers to that question as there are pagans.
Some paths honor a single creator god, and consider other gods and goddess as aspects of that One.
Others follow a goddess and a god, recognizing the duality of creation. Some assign different names, faces, and duties to a variety of goddess and gods.
Some see the inherent divinity in all things, beings, creatures, plants, landforms, rocks, etc.
Some make things up as they go along and don't give these kinds of questions all that much thought.
That is, what we are witnessing is the fact that physicochemical manipulation of the developing embryo can cause a developmental pathway, which would normally result in scales, to result in feathers instead. But the information required to construct/assemble the structure of the feather is already there, and is simply being expressed at a different site. Genetically, there has been no evolutionary change — no information has been added to the organism’s ‘blueprint’ which was not already there.
So what has been achieved is that feathers have been induced to form in birds — although in locations at which they would not usually form. Equally, interference with the developmental machinery in fruit flies can cause a leg to grow where there would normally be an antenna. Such homoerotic mutations, as they are called, are not strictly analogous to the chicken example, but the point is the same, in that the genetic information for forming a leg was already in the embryo. Growing ectopic, or out of place, fur on mammals, or extra legs on flies or cows, demonstrates nothing about the origin of the information coding for fur or legs.
Thus, growing feathers on chickens cannot possibly have any value for the idea of evolution.
We've proven that the blueprints for creating scales and for creating feathers are very similar. We've demonstrated a plausible way to make simple changes in life forms. However, we have not seen an experiment in which a process which takes millions of year can be seen to occur from beginning to end before our very eyes.
No, evolution is not provable in the way that "diamond is harder than charcoal" is provable. Neither are: the dinosaurs, the Flood, the existence of black holes, the existance of subatomic particles, the existance of God, the composition of stars, or the
age of the Earth.
Would the histories of wheat, strawberries and antibiotics or the work of Gregor Mendel be enough to satisfy your demands for evidence of evolution? Upon which facet of evolution do you focus your vitriol?
I think the main problem Onyx Cougar had was my out of hand dismissal of the creationist "science" on that site. ....In that she wa sfair enough....I did dismiss it out of hand and without more than a cursory glance at the site and its contents.
I have now had a chance to read a little more thoroughly and I stand by my original opinion, to whit, Creatinist science is pseudo science masqeurading as the real deal. Just because someone uses scientific sounding phraseology and tone doesnt make them a scientist. I have heard equally "scientific" sounding "scholars" give their evidence for Flat Earth Theory and the Bible code. As soon as you examine any of the data in detail their theories do not stand up to scrutiny.
Man invented creationism to answer the questions which scientists weren ot yet able to answer. The need for such fanciful explanations has now been superceded by scientific endeavour.
Originally posted by lumberjim
I don't know much about a scientific argument FOR creationism. Its kind of an oxymoron isn;t it?
I think that just about sums it up. The two perspectives are so disparate that one cannot prove or disprove the other via application of the other's fundamental building blocks to validate the hypothesis. You wouldn't attempt to verify evolution by quoting the bible, would you?
......wouldnt put it past some folks:alien: :angel: :shotgun:
I have heard some very strange attempts to rationalise scientific theories of evolution with the creation myth as found in Genesis...
Takes all sorts... leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss - and they wouldn't understand the truth if it hit them in the face anyway.:rolleyes:
leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss
On a personal level I agree, I hate getting into arguments about such things as they get no where, however DanaC brought up the issue of what to teach in schools.
Not many creationists will believe this but good science is without an agenda, it is amoral, it is process. Scientific progress should be made with out supposition to the result, many advancements have been made where the originator of the hypothesis himself disagreed or disliked the conclusion, Darwin himself sat on evolution for 14 years before publishing because he was very uncomfortable about his own conclusions. As such evolution fits soundly in the mainstream of scientic process, it is required teaching for anyone who wishes to study biology, it has many uses outside biology, e.g computional science. Learning of the process of evolution is important to understand our modern world and should be required of all high school level students.
Creationist science starts with a conclusion, hides a religious agenda in scientific language that is attractive to those with little scientific knowledge and should be considered religious instruction. Whether religious instruction should be thought in state funded schools is another matter, I attended a school run by a religious order and as such believe all religion should be kept out of all schools, save the mental indoctrination to after school hours, schools should stick to the facts and to moral codes that all society agrees on.
The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.
While children are undoubtedly highly impressionable and susceptible to religious instruction (the main argument for not teaching some of the more obscure, contraversial religions in schools), it is important also not to underestimate their decision making capabilities and power to filter in and out things and theories they may or may not agree with. My schooling had a religious element that I have subsequently (and indeed at the time) rejected. On this basis I think it is essential children are taught as wide a variety of religions and philosophies as time and cognitive ability allows.
Yelof "save the mental indoctrination to after school hours"
It is a sad thing that it should happen at any hour.
Creation Science isn't.
It's wrong on two differing levels.
1) it doesn't follow the scientific method,
2) why try to prove something you have faith in? Contradictory, paradoxical.
and,
3) it's a load of bollocks.
Creationism is yet another topic that pushes my "asshole button"
I'm so aghast that anyone with in IQ over 80 would buy that fairy tale type explanation for how things became how they are now that I lose a little hope for the human race each time I encounter it. In fact, that's it. I've had enough. Stop the world. I wanna get off!
Here Here!!!
I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.
There is no proof in science. Only support for or against a hypothesis.
Evolution has its issues, but it has a lot more support than creationism.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar from AIG websiteAlthough many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.
The problem with claiming that there are "gaps" in the fossil record is that whenever something is found that goes in a gap, two more gaps are created. So, even with more information available, there are more gaps for creationists to complain about. Unless every single historical animal is found and documented, there will always be gaps.
In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.
I haven't read the book that this article is critiquing, so I can't speak to what is or isn't in it, but it's simply not true that there are no transitional forms (as defined here) known.
Here's a list.
Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every structure or organ must be represented by information (written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the bird's DNA which is not present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David Menton).
This seems to be primarily picking apart a poorly written section of a sceptic's book. Which is precisely what I'm doing here, but I'm not claiming that what I'm doing is science.
As for the content, it seems to parallel the
eye problem, saying that feathers are too different from scales to have suddenly mutated. Of course they are. It didn't happen that way. The feathers slowly evolved, and there are currently tons of different types of feathers, of varying complexity. A kiwi's feathers are much simpler than those described in the article - they have no hook and barb system, and hang loose.
Originally posted by Pete
I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.
How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.
Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.
And even the few 'laws' are just theories that have survived so many attacks that it is generally accepted.
Originally posted by glatt
How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.
Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.
[COLOR=indigo]I don't have a problem with science. I don't claim to be a scientist. What I have a problem with is that, as Pete pointed out here (and I pointed out in the other thread on this topic) Evolutionary theory is still just a theory. Just like Creationism is just a theory. Biology is observable. Astronomy is observable. Geology is observable. That's science. Theories regarding Origins is completely UNPROVABLE. Any origins. Sure, some people have ideas that sound good, but then someone else comes along and shows the problem in that theory.
At no time did I intend any one to be converted to Christianity just because they visited a website. But as Dana correctly stated, I was irritated that it was dismissed out of hand, without really looking at it. It was the closemindedness that I had a problem with.
And Jim, as I've said before, I argue for or against a subject at will, so stop trying to categorize and label me as a "Pagan" or a "Christian". Why is that so important to you?[/COLOR]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
And Jim, as I've said before, I argue for or against a subject at will, so stop trying to categorize and label me as a "Pagan" or a "Christian". Why is that so important to you?
In this case, your religion could suggest bias.
OC, i don;t care if you're pagan, christian, mormon, satanic, or anything. It just strikes me as odd that you will argue both sides of an issue depending on who you're arguing with. Maybe you are undecided in your own mind. that's fine too. I meant the split personality thing as a joke, so please don;t think that I seriously think you're skitzo. I'd say you're more of a sociopath. :)
The evolutionary process is observable, and has been many times in populations of fruitflies microbes etc
An example experiment
Whether evolutionary process accounts for the diversity of living species on the planet it a theory, and perhaps an unprovable theory as it postulates what has already happened.
The original origin of life is a seperate matter. There are theories that would postulate for the spontanous occurance of self replicating organisms/chemicals but this is a seperate matter from the theory of species diversity through evolutionary process and each must be review seperatly on it's own merits
As Yelof has said, evolution is observable. There is also a large body of evidence supporting evolution in terms of species development here on earth. There is no solid evidence that contradicts it. There is sweet fuck all supporting creationism, just attempts to find weak spots in the fossil record. If someone finds evidence that something else caused animals to adapt and can back it up with solid science I'm confident the scientific community and most people here will lsiten with open ears, creationism does neither of these and is used as a vehicle by people that know their true beliefs are rooted in religion but don't want to admit it.
I think my basic problem with that Onyx, is that I dont consider the two theories to be of equal validity. Regardless of what the topic at hand is, there is nothing inherently equal about theories. Some theories are based on evidence, imperical data and peer review ...some theories are based on the flights of fancy of an individual ( Runway of the Gods etc) ...The fact that both are theories does not mean we should automatically award validity to both in equal measure.
Originally posted by lumberjim
appparently your split personalities have different religions. Do they argue a lot?
or do you think that god[color=red]S[/color] created everything?
I don't know much about a scientific argument FOR creationism. Its kind of an oxymoron isn;t it? I mean, God has magical powers right? so science wouldn;t have much to do with it. Poof! "here's a bunny rabbit!.....isn;t it cute?" no fossil record, no scientific evidence.
Here's a poser for you....the giant squid has an eyeball that is superior to ours in design. If we were created in God's likeness, why did he give us an eyeball with a blindspot in it? Does God have a blindspot in HIS eyeball? perhaps the squid has need of more acute vision than we do, so it friggin evolved that way.
COuld not the two theories coexist? maybe god created whatever went BANG at the beginning of time, but to think that he plunked Adam and freaking Eve down on this one planet amongst all of the infinite planets in the universe is just plain nuts.
once again i arrive late to the good discussions...
i'm kinda with LJ here, i don't see why these two ideas have to be so mutually exclusive. evolution is a stone cold scientific fact, species change over time. as with any theory there are some gaps but i think darwin was onto something when he came to the conclusion that a species will naturally evolve over time to continually optimize its relationship with its environment. that's not to say all life on earth necessarily came from one common ancestor, but at the least establishes this as a possibility worth exploring. eventhough what exactly we as humans originally came from is up to some debate, it's easy to dismiss the idea that we are all here because two people abruptly came into existence. a biological approach would insist that abrupt scenario to be unlikely but not necessarily impossible. on the other hand science has no ground to deny the spiritual truths that are represented by a religious creation narrative. to each it's proper place.
it seems to me that if evolution and creationism are kept in their proper context they are able to better represent their respective truths. if i remember correctly kant himself warned against tainting scientific ideas with metaphysical (and by suggestion spiritual) ideas that are simply logically incompatible.
i for one don't have a problem with creation narratives as long as they are kept in their proper religious/spiritual framework. if the teachings of a specific belief set are recognized as having the purpose of communicating spiritual truths as opposed to being an alternate "creation theory" to a legitimate scientific study of evolution everybody wins. i have a pronounced aversion to "scientific creationists" who approach science with a biblical prejudice. if you set out to "prove" something with enough bias your theories, observations, analysis, conclusions etc. all have the very likely possibility of being tainted with the initial mindset. of course no science is purely objective but in my opinion using science to "prove" religious beliefs ultimately leads to a mockery of both.
Here is a specific, observable example of evolution in action. During the time of the industrial revolution in England when the number of coal burning factories suddenly increased and soot was being spit out everywhere, a strange thing happened to the Pepper Moth (Biston betularia for all you nomenclature buffs out there). The moth which had always been white, suddenly began to turn black. After observing this phenomenon the hypothesis was made that this was a response on the part of the moths to predation by birds. The white moths stood out clearly against the soot covered tree limbs and trunks, making them an easy target for hungry birds.
A scientist named Kettlewell decided to test this hypothesis. He released an equal number of white and black moths into both polluted and non-polluted areas. After 24 hours he recaptured the moths by attracting them to bright lights. In polluted areas, a significant percentage of dark moths over white ones returned. The opposite was true in non-polluted areas.
This is a simple experiment and anyone who repeats it using the same techniques will get the same results.
Now you can either decide that this is an example of natural selection in action, or you can decide that God looked down from heaven and decided to fling vast handfuls of black moths down in Manchester, England. If He did so, no one observed him doing this. It is an irreproducible theory and belongs in that honored scientific publication, The Journal of Irreproducible Results. You can observe the same thing Kettlewell did, however.
(I swear to Buddha, I don't understand what has happened to the creationists' grasp of logic and simple common sense.)
Originally posted by marichiko
(I swear to Buddha, I don't understand what has happened to the creationists' grasp of logic and simple common sense.)
i share your frustrations...
Actually, that was a fraudulent experiment. I'm still on board with evolution though.
may have spoke too soon looking for citation
Originally posted by Griff
Actually, that was a fraudulent experiment. I'm still on board with evolution though.
Not really, Kettlewell also observed predation in action. The postulate has been made that birds have different vision, using infra-red, but no one has proved that they use this exclusively.
me too. it's a simple, provable theory. i don't understand why the fundies take such offense to it.
Originally posted by Griff
may have spoke too soon looking for citation
shit happens...
I'm still digging but what I remember was that the moths didn't actually alight on the limbs and branches of trees where this change would help them avoid birds.
That moth story reminds me of strain improvement programs that occur all the time, all around the world.
You take a bunch of bacteria that manufactures something you want, like an antibiotic.
You start irradiating some, and spraying chemicals on others, until you end up with a strain that produces even more of the antibotic you like. Then you breed those bacteria. And do the same with them.
Pretty soon, after several generations, you have a mutant of the original bacteria that has been artificially selected to produce huge quantities of your antibiotic.
Sure, this process is artificial, but the bacteria don't know that. They are reacting in exactly the same way that they would if they were naturally selected. It's evolution in a petri dish, and it's real. Just ask the multibillion dollar corporations that do it every day.
Sure. Folks do it with livestock all the time. If you look at how gigantic these simental cattle are now compared to the little herefords they used to run, the difference is amazing and documented in breeders books.
[COLOR=indigo]Peppered Moths was a hoax. Here's a reference from AiG with references.[/COLOR]
Goodbye, peppered moths
A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck
by Carl Wieland
The ‘textbook story’ of England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).
The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now ‘stood out,’ and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.
The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.
The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’1
Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.
Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’
However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day.
Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:
‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. … In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’2
The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).3
And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree.4 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’5,6
Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!7
University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5
Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8
References
H. Kettlewell (1959), ‘Darwin’s missing evidence’ in Evolution and the fossil record, readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, p. 23, 1978. Return to text.
C.A. Clarke, G.S. Mani and G. Wynne, Evolution in reverse: clean air and the peppered moth, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189–199, 1985; quote on p. 197. Return to text.
Calgary Herald, p. D3, 21 March 1999. Return to text.
D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975. Return to text.
J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36. Return to text.
The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999. Return to text.
D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, ref. 4. Return to text.
Unfettered by evolutionary ‘just so’ stories, researchers can now look for the real causes of these population shifts. Might the dark form actually have a function, like absorbing more warmth? Could it reflect conditions in the caterpillar stage? In a different nocturnal moth species, Sargent has found that the plants eaten by the larvae may induce or repress the expression of such ‘melanism’ in adult moths (see Sargent T.R. et al. in M.K. Hecht et al, Evolutionary Biology 30:299–322, Plenum Press, New York, 1998).
[COLOR=indigo]Micro Evolution is observable. No argument. However, Macro evolution, that is, the theory that all life on earth began from a primordial soup with amino acids in it, is the Theory that I am arguing here.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by sycamore
In this case, your religion could suggest bias.
[COLOR=indigo]I firmly believe that the people who buy into Evolution as the Origin of Life are in the Evolutionary Theory religion. *shrug*[/COLOR]
Macro evolution has been categorically disproven, people. Just look
here. Middle School level, First place.
QED. And Pwn3d.
That link leads to an online survey scheme
Ok the creationists TRY a come back and we get the first signs that this discussion is inevitably going nowhere.
Macro evolution, that is, the theory that all life on earth began from a primordial soup with amino acids in it
Macro evolution vs Micro evolution.
Micro evolution is normally defined as the shift due to selective pressure of a gene or group of genes in a population of living organisms.
Macro evolution is normally defined as the formation of new species or taxinomic groups due to selective pressure.
As I explained earlier and as a few of us have been at pains to point out evolutionary theory doesn't gives us much clue on how the whole thing got started, however creationists keep banging on the point claiming it a weak point to the theory it is not a part of.
Demonstrating macro-evolution runs into difficulties as there is no accepted concept of a species at current, however it is accepted in scientific circles that extending proof of micro-evolution to explain the diversity of life is the most parsimonious solution.
More about observed Macro-evolution
Btw Perth why the link to the Polish radio site?
On edit sorry defined micro evolution twice!! duh
I firmly believe that the people who buy into Evolution as the Origin of Life are in the Evolutionary Theory religion. *shrug*
Evolution Theory religion? aheh. Ok. Bags I the role of High Priestess. I bet I could come up with a set of doctrines and dogma that'd make as much sense as Genesis. 'T isnt as if I would have to offer anything but the scantest nod in the direction of evidence in order for bunches of people to "buy" into it. "Buy"being the operative word. Have y'all noticed how many of the creationist sites are selling books/magazines/lesson profiles/etc/etc/etc ? I'd b interested in seeing the demographics on that....Which social grouping is more likely to buy into Creationist myth and which social groupiing is most likely to sell it to them?
Hunh what now? This is what I see when I click that link:
Tried it in IE and Firefox. Works for me on both counts.
Incidentally. Anyone who has an interest in this who hasnt read any Dawkins, his book Climbing Mount Improbable ( improbability? ) is excellent....I cannot claim to remember much of it, its quite heavy going. But really does put some interesting stuff on the table.
Perth I get sent to an advert for Surveys
Hahahah I love that tag that can just be seen where someone has proved their uncle is not a monkey hahahaha
I guess God doesn't want us to see the truth ;)
and instead wants me to listen to Polish radio???
guess he truely works in mysterious ways
Weird. Even so, there's the image, for all the world to see, :p
Originally posted by DanaC
Perth I get sent to an advert for Surveys
Hahahah I love that tag that can just be seen where someone has proved their uncle is not a monkey hahahaha
Try manually typing the URL, maybe. That site is a riot.
Dawkins is my hero.
He doesn't take no crap from any
theistI know aint he great? seriously....sexy too. I mean...I would.....*sparks a joint and pours a glass of wine* did I say that out loud?.....
Perth try pinging objective.jesussave.us
I get
66.28.153.39
I get the same thing. Weird.
we must live in parallel universes but somehow the internet has enabled a gateway to be opened to allow us to communicate..
or we could look for a rational explaination..
nah why bother, people are bound to prefer the exciting one ;)
Originally posted by Yelof
As I explained earlier and as a few of us have been at pains to point out evolutionary theory doesn't gives us much clue on how the whole thing got started, however creationists keep banging on the point claiming it a weak point to the theory it is not a part of.
well said. evolution theory makes no direct claims as to the actual creation of life on earth, simply how and why it has changed in certain ways.
Newton was a fraud! The theory of gravity is just a theory and no school should teach it as fact -- or, at least, they should provide competing theories.
After all, no one really knows how or why two massive objects have a tendency to want to snuggle up with each other. Maybe it's interplanetary romance. Perhaps, when the dinosaurs were killed off, the Earth was just looking for love.
Small changes accumulate over time.
Oh my God perth, that site was freaking hysterical.
"This is also the first year that Muslim students from the Al-Jannah Islamic school have been invited to participate; two of their students presented a project on human anatomy entitled "Allah (SWT) Created Me" which, while it was found ineligible for a prize due to a number of Biblical inconsistencies, did win a special Interfaith Outreach ribbon."
I especially liked the middle school "experiments:"
"Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes."
"Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets... social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker."
I mean come on, at least the high school kids tried... I thought the "Maximum Packing of Rodentia" project was kind of cool.
Oh, don't miss the "4 Kidz" section, linked on the left. Out-fucking-standing stuff there. Especially Mr. Gruff.
Anyone want to contribute to their collection of
artwork?
After all, no one really knows how or why two massive objects have a tendency to want to snuggle up with each other.
umm....I think physicists do actually...
Originally posted by DanaC
umm....I think physicists do actually...
the "how" part yes, but ultimately there is a dearth of answers to the "why" questions.
If you mean why as in what caused it fine, but if it's why as in what ultimate reason or purpose was there in this happening....I dont really think there is a why to look at. It happened because it happened. It happened because various events caused other events to happen resulting in a chain of events....there was no purpose behind it.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I firmly believe that the people who buy into Evolution as the Origin of Life are in the Evolutionary Theory religion. *shrug*
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Hey, if you wanna believe in something even though you're wrong, knock yourself out.
Originally posted by DanaC
umm....I think physicists do actually...
Wikipedia:
It's important to understand that while Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was not comfortable with it because he never, in his words, "assigned the cause of this power." In all other cases, he used the phenomenon of motion to explain the origin of various forces acting on bodies, but in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that produces the force of gravity. Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science.
...
If science is eventually able to discover the cause of the gravitational force, Newton's wish could eventually be fullfiled as well.
Originally posted by DanaC
If you mean why as in what caused it fine, but if it's why as in what ultimate reason or purpose was there in this happening....I dont really think there is a why to look at. It happened because it happened. It happened because various events caused other events to happen resulting in a chain of events....there was no purpose behind it.
there may or may not be purpose, who is to say for sure? the point i am making is that the why questions can quickly end up outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Well...as I understand it ( and forgive me if this is inaccurate as i am not a physicist) Physics has moved on since Newton was writing. He has provided some of the basics....but it didnt all just end there.
Originally posted by beavis
there may or may not be purpose, who is to say for sure? the point i am making is that the why questions can quickly end up outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Good. That's what I was advocating. The Why question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry
Originally posted by Torrere
[quote]Wikipedia:
If science is eventually able to discover the cause of the gravitational force...
[/QUOTE]
I suspect that creationists who "accept microevolution but deny macroevolution" still haven't gotten over the idea that life has been around on the Earth for more than ~6000 years.
"" from sciencenet.org
Einstein went on to show that light would bend in a gravitational field.
Since light had no mass Newton’s theory could not explain this bending. Einstein’s great contribution was to show that spacetime actually curved due to mass. Like a bowling ball sitting on a rubber sheet, space would curve near the mass but remain reasonably flat farther away. Only if light passed close to the large mass would its path be appreciably deviated. Experiments have now been performed which show that light really does bend near a mass due to the curvature of spacetime.
But this is not the final answer to what gravity is. General relativity cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics and there is a lot of ongoing research in this field. Gravity is only one of four fundamental forces which are all equally mysterious. The four forces are gravitation, related to mass, electromagnetic, related to the charge of a particle, the strong force and the weak force which are both related to properties of particles in the nucleus. The reason why these forces are linked to certain particles properties is not very well understood. The most promising theory is superstring theory. But until a full theory a quantum gravity is devised the question “what is gravity?’” will remain unanswered."
Fair enough. We dont know ultimately what gravity is.
i lost track of this thread, and have not yet taken the time to catch up, but.....
i wanted to drop this little gem into the pot:
I heard an argument for creationism that trumps all arguments against it:
when god created the heavens and the earth, and all of space and time, he created it complete with already ancient fossils and extinct creatures. Even if faced with irrefutable proof of evolution, their faith muscle is so strong, that their grip on their belief will not waver.
i can only express my frustration with it, because they have every right to believe in Genesis. And obviously nothing I say can change their minds.
whatever.
Yet another reason for me not to be a Christian. C'mon, a deity that plants red herrings, and then fucks you over if you buy his little diversions?
Let's look at this objectively...if you met a person who needed constant praise, someone who would, say, let some poor fucker all but kill his own son in order to prove his loyalty and obedience;someone who would, in fact, procreate, knowing full well that his progeny would be tortured to death; someone who believes that freedom of choice only includes two possible ultimate choices; someone who insists that you do not like anyone better than them...
Wouldn't you avoid this person like the plague because they were [SIZE=3]*FUCKING INSANE??!!*[/SIZE]
Originally posted by sycamore
Hey, if you wanna believe in something even though you're wrong, knock yourself out.
[COLOR=indigo]Tell that to the Evolutionists! :D[/COLOR]
[COLOR=indigo]Questions for Evoutionists. (I don't expect an answer to these, this is rhetorical.)
[/color]
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?
What's your point?
oh and
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Itself
If they're rhetorical, then why post them and direct them at Evolutionists?
Good question Syc! ......Or was that rhetorical?:blunt:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Questions for Evoutionists. (I don't expect an answer to these, this is rhetorical.)
Well, you're going to get one anyway.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
Nobody knows.
NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.
I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Nobody knows.
NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.
I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Nobody knows.
NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.
I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
1) You are presupposing that there is a desire on the part of the plant as well as the ability to judge its own survival needs.
2) Nobody knows.
NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.
I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
It creates improved varieties by producing a variant member of the species with traits that differ from the norm. In theory, beneficial traits improve the survivablility of the variants with the mutation.
As to the letter analogy, that variation is only applicable within a species (or language). Those mutations may give us new words that are more useful. Mutation will not turn a dog into a cat.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Possible? Yes, but there is no evidence of any sort to point to that.
Which raises another question. Why does everyone presume a christian creation myth. Wouldn't it make more sense that an older religion would have more accurate information about creation since it was closer?
Similarities brought about by environmental needs at least make sense.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Change occurs over time, mutation as well as evolution. As mutations occur, benign or malign, complexity increases. If a malign mutation occurs, evolution may occur to compensate, increasing complexity. As the environment changes, evolution occurs to compensate, increasing complexity.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
Nobody knows.
NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.
I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Nobody knows.
NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.
I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?
Nobody knows.
NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.
I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.
All that being said, no one espousing a religious first cause for anything cannot say so with any authority at all, other than what they derive from inside themselves.
Without evidence of any sort it is simply fiction.
Edit: fixed a typo
I have no problem reconciling evolution with creationism. If Deity wants to create the world through evolution, who's to say S/He can't? Seems logical to me. Stir up the soup and see what happens. A science project on the cosmic scale.
Evolution is proven, and in fact, we see it happening even now. I don't believe in all that Six Days of Creation BS. How long is six days to Deity? 60 million years?
We can't prove that Deity exists, but neither can we prove that deity does not exist. We CAN prove evolution, despite the Fundies.
Sidhe
We can't prove that Deity exists, but neither can we prove that deity does not exist. We CAN prove evolution, despite the Fundies.
Agreed
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
We can't prove that Deity exists, but neither can we prove that deity does not exist. We CAN prove evolution, despite the Fundies.
[COLOR=indigo]You can prove speciation. Micro evolution.
Again, that's different than the amino-man chain.
Cuz, Sidhe, if *you* can prove macro-evolution, you have done what no other scientist in the world can do. (As evidenced in TS's redundant reply.)
**edit:
I was rhetorical because it illustrated that those things can't be proven. That is why I didn't expect a reply. I understand many of the dwellars are not Christian, but that doesn't justify the sarcasm. Keep it friendly, please.[/COLOR]
"10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?"
Some of these have answers. Mutations that are beneficial come from oopsies. We can use the moth example. I don't remember the specific details such as the name of the town, but:
In this town, the moths all tended to be white with gray speckles, and matched the trees, and were thus camoflauged and had a better chance of surviving. The moths that were black were easily seen against the trees, and eaten. When coal power, and the resulting ash, came to the town, the trees ended up with a layer of soot on them, which made the white moths stand out. The black (mutated) moths survived and outbred the white moths.
Mutation can either be an oopsie that generally kills the organism, or it can be brought about by environmental situations that favor the mutation, such as with the black moths. Mutations that help the organism survive continue to be bred into the offspring. Those that do not help the organism survive are bred out, because these organisms die before they are able to pass on the mutation.
The similarities only serve to prove evolution to me. I'm not quoting this as scientific fact, so don't take it that way, but it seems to me that as organisms begin to branch out more and more (for instance, the Mudhopper, a fish that has both gills and lungs, and can spend a significant time out of the water) that the ones who have certain traits will tend to do better, and thus branch out even MORE, and those who are best suited to survive in the new environment will breed that suitability into their offspring, which is what evolution is all about. I think that would answer #12, also.
The first example, of the moths, is the only actual scientific observation that I can say with certainty. The other two are just my educated opinions.
But then again, like I said before...I have no problem reconciling evolution with creationism. I believe in a Deity, and I believe that Deity gave the space dust the first shove in the right direction, then just sat back and let it go on its merry little way.
Here are some interesting links:
http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/darwin's_finches.htm
Sidhe
edit: addition of links
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Questions for Evoutionists. (I don't expect an answer to these, this is rhetorical.)
[/color]
Too bad. ;)
6) It didn't. It came from nonliving matter. How? Unknown.
7) It didn't 'learn' anything. Crystals reproduce themselves easily. Life reproduces itself in a more complicated, but also more adaptible method. When, where, why, and how are unknown.
8) (I'm making this up, not speaking from research. It's just one possibility.) The first non-asexual reproduction was bisexual - two critters swapped DNA, neither was male or female (DNA swapping has an adaptability advantage). Amid the random variation, one variety developed a tendency to go after another variety. A symbiotic relationship developed, with the two varieties dependent upon each other.
9) Want doesn't enter into it. Non-reproductive strains die out. There is no "drive to survive", as you use the term. Species which were more suited to continue, did continue. In the case of some of the more complicated animals, a mental "drive to survive" in the individual might increase the chance of replication.
10) But mutations in binary code can change Shakespeare to Sun Tsu. DNA is much closer to binary code (actually it's base 4) than it is to English.
11) Yes, but evidence suggests otherwise. And no evidence suggests a creator. That's why faith is necessary for such a belief.
12) Random mutations cause more complicated and less complicated results. The less complicated ones are often more successful - bacteria don't end up on the endangered species list - but all that is needed is for a species to be successful enough to survive. If a bug with a horn can fight off enough bugs without horns to successfully mate, that's enough. It is primarily our perspective that makes it seem like complexity is increasing - most life is still single cell. But for any complicated life to exist at all is what takes millennia.
13) Two and three-celled life forms are unlikely (I'm not ruling it out, though. You never know.) Much more likely is a mutation that a) prevented a cell division from fully completing, and b) did not cause death. From then on, it would continue to grow, each division making it bigger. Slime mold is an example. Such a colony needs to have a certain shape, or some members won't get food. Or, perhaps, the members that don't get food die, providing a conduit for their neighbors to get food, which ends up producing a structure. A sponge, perhaps. I provided a link a while back that discusses the various transitions between fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc.
14) a) probably from a hippo-like creature.
b) I don't know.
c) probably from something resembling a flying squirrel
d)
See here.
e) Ears are just flesh ridges around vibration sensors, and vibrations are probably the very first sense evolved. (perhaps after temperature, doesn't matter either way).
f) On a colony of critters as mentioned in 13), the outermost layer probably evolved to be the most hardy - I'm not saying it was a different species, just that exposure to the 'outside' caused it to be more defensive. Thus, perhaps, the origin of skin. Everything after that is based on the environment it found itself in.
15) These are all questions that can be answered with very little imagination needed.
a)Food came first - plants. Then animals which ate plants. Then animals which ate animals. "Ability to find" started off as "random bumping into", then as senses and mobility improved, became hunting. Digestive juices increased in potency just behind stomach lining resistance.
b) Ability came before desire. Desire is the mechanism by which creatures with consciousness are governed. Simpler creatures react simply by stimulus-response.
c) Simple lungs, then mucous. The throat is just the hole from the outside to the lungs. The air was already there. It wasn't "the perfect mixture", it was what was available. Critters that could use it did so.
d) I don't remember enough about DNA/RNA interaction. But as I recall, there are very simple critters with just RNA, so I guess RNA probably came first.
e) Flagella predate termites. But I expect that cellulose digestion is something that slowly built up, providing proto-termites with wider and wider variety of potential food sources. Wood turned out to be resistant to predators, so it was preferred.
f) Plants first, generally reproducing by wind. Insects started eating plants, but also spreading pollen more efficiently than wind. Plants that attracted more insects reproduced better. Plants that attracted insects, and provided them with food that was undamaging to the plant (nectar) survived longer.
g) blood first - food source for cell colonies. Then muscles. See squid, octopi, slugs, etc. Bones provide structure and make animals less appetizing. Ligaments and tendons are increase efficiency of muscle movement.
h) I don't know enough.
i) The need, of course.
The only puzzle for most of these is assuming that one part of an animal evolved to its complete modern state completely separately from another part. In fact, the parts evolve together.
Originally posted by DanaC
The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.
I'm 33 years old, and I've never been taught creationism in school. When people try to teach creationism, it generally goes to court and gets thrown out.
Sidhe
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]You can prove speciation. Micro evolution.
Again, that's different than the amino-man chain.
Cuz, Sidhe, if *you* can prove macro-evolution, you have done what no other scientist in the world can do. (As evidenced in TS's redundant reply.)
**edit:
I was rhetorical because it illustrated that those things can't be proven. That is why I didn't expect a reply. I understand many of the dwellars are not Christian, but that doesn't justify the sarcasm. Keep it friendly, please.[/COLOR]
I really wasn't being sarcastic. I was just posting my opinion.
Sidhe
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?)[/color]
Single celled organisms grouped together (like flocks and herds) into colonies such as
[COLOR=green]Volvox[/COLOR] (which so happens to be the name of my Linux box).
[COLOR=green]Volvox[/COLOR] are massive colonies of thousands of flagellate single cells organisms. They reproduce by forming daughter colonies within the colony, which grow for a while inside the parent colony before being released into the wild. They're also very
pretty (and my Linux box is named
[COLOR=green]volvox[/COLOR] ).
I hope, after all these replies, in detail, to your silly questions and sillier arguments you can see how arguing for creationism from a scientific basis is frankly, stupid. If you want to believe some wonderful deity made everything that's cute, but don't pretend there is any science whatsoever in any form backing you up. The fact that around half your 'unanswerable' questions can be answered says more than enough about the scientific ineptitude of the entire school of 'thought' you champion.
What shits me about creationists is that despite any supporting evidence whatsoever (the scant and weak evidence against evolution is exactly that and provides no support to creationism more than any other crackpot theory) they seem to feel that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools and is somehow equal in scientific stature. Each and every one of those people is personally contributing to the dumbing down of society and the education system and should hang their heads in shame. religion is not science, teaching it as such is lying to kids.
That's why I won't keep it friendly*. Because fuckwits who believe absolutely in a badly translated book want their ideas taught like legitimate science and that I find repugnant in the extreme.
* This applies to all groups that pursue agendas by attempting to hijack the school system, political (RIAA, anti-drug), religious or otherwise.
Originally posted by jaguar
[B}
What shits me about creationists is that...(snip) they seem to feel that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools and is somehow equal in scientific stature.(snip)... religion is not science, teaching it as such is lying to kids.
That's why I won't keep it friendly*. Because fuckwits who believe absolutely in a badly translated book want their ideas taught like legitimate science and that I find repugnant in the extreme.
* This applies to all groups that pursue agendas by attempting to hijack the school system, political (RIAA, anti-drug), religious or otherwise. [/B]
I agree with your basic ideas here. While I do believe in a Deity, albeit not the "christian" one, and believe that a Deity gave the first shove to the primordial soup, I would probably classify myself as an "Pagan Evolutionist." Science has proven evolution, and it seems to me that the only reason that religious groups insist upon creationism is that they don't like the idea that they may have evolved from lower organisms.
Religion is NOT science. Science is much more objective, and doesn't tend to have an agenda as religion does. Religion is based on faith, not logic or facts. There's nothing wrong with having faith in a Deity...however, it shouldn't be taught in schools, especially not as science.
Religion is for church. We don't teach the three R's in sunday school, so they should keep their noses out of our classrooms. One has nothing to do with the other.
If a religious parent wishes to teach creationism to their child, then that's their perogative. Do it at home. There's no proof for it. Whether you or I believe in the intervention of a Deity makes no difference. There is no proof for it, whereas there is scientific proof for evolution.
Religion sticking its nose in education has led to beliefs such as the idea that the earth is the center of the universe--Copernicus got into all kinds of trouble with the church when he said that the sun was the center, remember? The theory behind the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was this: Heaven was furthest from the center. Everything towards the center was increasingly more evil and sinful. Hell was in the center of the earth, being the most sinful and evil and thus the furthest away from heaven. But the church felt that earth's sinfulness and evilness was just a step above Hell, so it was the "center," furthest away from heaven.
That's not science. And it's wrong. This is why religion should not have influence on school teaching. There are no facts and no scientific method in the religious worldview, only faith, and that doesn't work when it comes to secular education.
I don't think that anything other than education should be taught in school--what I mean by that is: no religion (unless one chooses to take a religion class), no pushing sexuality on people (such as "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" for fifth graders)--Sex Ed is one thing--advocating a particular form of sexuality, straight or otherwise, is not. Religion and sexualityare two subjects that, while interesting if one chooses to take classes concerning them, should not be FORCED upon students. Those subjects are best taught at home, because they have no usefulness in the classroom beyond the fact that they can be interesting.
Sidhe
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
no pushing sexuality on people (such as "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" for fifth graders)--Sex Ed is one thing--advocating a particular form of sexuality, straight or otherwise, is not.
A minor note - those two books don't "advocate" any form of sexuality. Most obviously, there is no sexuality in the books of any kind. Also, you can't advocate having two parents of the same sex - there's nothing the kid can do about it either way. You might as well "advocate" having interracial parents or immigrant parents.
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
A minor note - those two books don't "advocate" any form of sexuality. Most obviously, there is no sexuality in the books of any kind. Also, you can't advocate having two parents of the same sex - there's nothing the kid can do about it either way. You might as well "advocate" having interracial parents or immigrant parents.
I disagree on that. I have no problem, personally, with homosexuality, or with gays adopting or having children. I think that what should concern folks is the quality of life the child has with the parents, straight or gay, not the sexuality of the parents.
However, those two books were REQUIRED reading for fifth-graders in New York about five years ago. I don't know if they still are, because of the big to-do that resulted.
Some parents don't want their young children taught about sexuality at school, and that's valid. Sexuality, like religion, is something that is the parent's responsibility to teach, not the school's. Those books shouldn't be required reading any more than the bible should be required reading, and for the same reason: it serves to promote a non-educational viewpoint. If you want to assign it as extra credit, fine. If you put it on a book list for the parents to review and approve or disapprove, that's fine. But to make it a requirement is wrong. The purpose of school is to teach skills and facts, not promote particular social viewpoints.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Sidhe
Er, I can't find this word. Just a minute...
Originally posted by jaguar
I hope, after all these replies, in detail, to your silly questions and sillier arguments you can see how arguing for creationism from a scientific basis is frankly, stupid.
Huh? I had thought that Onyx was playing the devil's advocate, or maybe trolling.
Some of her points are well founded: if we accept evolution without thinking critically about it, then what difference is there (to the lay man) between science and religion? The scientists, sure, many of them are thinking critically about the basic concepts they hold dear, and they test them experimentally, with controlled testing and reviewed critically by their peers. The person that does not understand evolution and how it works, who cannot test it, who cannot do the math -- they have to take it on faith.
Unfortunately, many people do not understand even how the scientific community operates. I have occasionally visited a Hare Krishna cafe down the street, and the most inflammatory line that I've ever read in their literature went along the lines of: "I have met scientists who did not accept evolution. The scientists disagree amongst themselves, but they project a (falsely) unified front. However, all of the cultists that I've brainwashed believe wholly in the idea that all life came from our God. There is no dissent among us. Therefore, because every one of us agrees, we must be right."
Unfortunately, most of the debate over whether or not evolution is valid takes place at the behest of the religious loyalists of the old model, who believe that an superman formed of absolutes -- knowing everthing, capable of anything and everything, etc -- simply placed us here. Most of the examples used in the debate are ones picked up by the faithful after they saw that the scientists had already disproven them. Please, please, stop trotting out the fucking moths! Most of the debate is based in the narrowness of minds and our concept of time. Can we accept that slight changes, over thousands to millions of years and over millions to billions of iterations, can accumulate into substantial and significant changes? Most of the debate is based on the nobility of our origins. Can we accept that In The Beginning, instead of paradise, instead of the good old days, instead of a rib and a snake, there was pond scum being thrown against the rocks by the crashing waves?
March 24,004.
By:Joseph B Verrengia.Associated Press,science writer.
Igniting a scientific furor,scientist say that thay may have found the genetic mutation that first seperated the earliest humans from there apelike ansestors.
(Do you have a link? Because without it, the point isn't worth much.)
was provided in the article but it should make thinking people think.
Iff you realy are interested,see iff you can find an Associated press link.
Originally posted by Perry5
was provided in the article but it should make thinking people think.
Not really. Watch this:
May 21, 2004
By:Mike Hawksred.Associated Press,science writer.
Igniting a scientific furor, scientists say that they have found irrefutable proof of God's existence.
See how I've provided no credible proof of the above statement, making it absoutely worthless in this or any other context? You can't make a statement or provide a quote like this without backing it up and expect to be taken seriously.
Means nothing more than change,if you do not look the same today as you did the day that you were born then you have evolved to what ever it is that you see when you look into your miror.
Evolution is just the change in alleles over time, and that is quite factual work. Why must everyone decide to altercate about such impossible subjects. Too many people will believe what they state no matter how much irrefutable evidence the other side uses. So everyone is a winner. :o
A mind altering substance for mindles people.
Originally posted by Perry5
A mind altering substance for mindles people.
It is good that you stick a Pot thread in the middle of an evolutionary science vs. Creationism thread, because that makes perfect sense. But hey-maybe you are high. I guess that alochol and tobacco would be mind altering substances for
mindless people because there is not much of a difference-by your logic.
Does tobacco count as mind-altering? I have never really thought of it as such. And Kite, don't try using logic with him, it won't work. Call him names instead.
I should have said nicotine because that is what I meant. Since it is addictive it is mind altering. Also it changes your blood pressure and heart rate. It does move through your bloodstream to your brain, so I would considier it psychoactive and therefore mind-altering.
Central and south american natives use nicotine as a mind altering drug because their tobacco has almost twenty times the nicotine.
Imagine one whole cigarette in each drag...
Central and south american natives use nicotine as a mind altering drug because their tobacco has almost twenty times the nicotine.
Imagine one whole cigarette in each drag...
*sobs quietly and rolls a joint with no tobacco in it*
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Imagine one whole cigarette in each drag...
Cool.
Ok the creationists TRY a come back and we get the first signs that this discussion is inevitably going nowhere.
Macro evolution vs Micro evolution.
Micro evolution is normally defined as the shift due to selective pressure of a gene or group of genes in a population of living organisms.
Macro evolution is normally defined as the formation of new species or taxinomic groups due to selective pressure.
As I explained earlier and as a few of us have been at pains to point out evolutionary theory doesn't gives us much clue on how the whole thing got started, however creationists keep banging on the point claiming it a weak point to the theory it is not a part of.
This is of what I speak:
Evolution
Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today. Chapter 9 on ‘Design’ shows how encyclopedic this information is.
So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurate—errors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. In summary, evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection—the neo-Darwinian theory.
Would this, in and of itself, be a correct assertion?
The idea that God used evolution as an engine of creation (progressive creationsim) doesn't work, for the following reasons:
Evolution teaches that the sun came before the earth.
The bible teaches the earth came before the sun.
Evolution teaches that death, disease, and natural selection preceded mankind.
The bible teaches that the reason there is sin and death is because of Adam's rebellion against God. Also, if there was death and disease, God wouldn't think "it was good."
Progressive Creationism teaches that when the bible says "day" it could mean "millions of years".
In the bible, the Hebrew word for day, yôm, as it is used, can only mean a single, 24 hour period. In addition, when God says to keep the Sabbath Day, does he mean the Sabbath "millions of years"? It's the same contextual word in the Hebrew.
Before we had people telling us what the book meant (and we just read the book for ourselves), a day meant a day. Then Darwin showed up and suddenly, "day" meant millions of years. That is compromising your position.
And for those who say, "Yeah, but what about Second Peter, where it says a day is as a thousand years?" Please see
this reply.
Evolution teaches that information is ADDED to the genes as generations progressed.
The bible says it was created whole, through God's word. In addition, the mutation, or speciations we OBSERVE have a LOSS of information, the opposite of what the Evolutionists say is required to go from amoebas to man.
So "Progressive Creationism" doesn't, IMO, make sense. I can see being an evolutionist, I can see being a creationist, but it's a one side or the other deal.
Also, submitted to those who advance the story of Jesus is copycatted from other religions:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
For your perusal ;)
The idea that God used evolution as an engine of creation (progressive creationsim) doesn't work, for the following reasons:
(various literalist issues)
That's only true for literalists, who do not comprise all Christians. There are any number of complicated natural processes that are not fully described in the Bible, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Evolution teaches that information is ADDED to the genes as generations progressed.
The bible says it was created whole, through God's word. In addition, the mutation, or speciations we OBSERVE have a LOSS of information, the opposite of what the Evolutionists say is required to go from amoebas to man.
What we see in mutations is a
change in information. Things one could term "losses" are more likely because things one could term "gains" are less likely to be advantageous. But loss and gain of information is an imprecise terminology anyway.
Ok, to clarify.
I believe that the process of evolution is sufficiently proven to be an accepted theory.
I believe that there is no evidence of any sort pointing to a first cause for creation.
I believe that there is no evidence for a first cause for evolution.
I believe that creation may have occured, but as with evolution, there is no evidence for a first cause.
I know that I exist, I know that I am the *queue Architect's office scene* the result of a series of both genetic responses to environmental factors over a long time of biological evolution as well as a progressive evolution of thinking over a long period of time as well.
That is the closest thing that anyone knows.
Faith is not knowledge, it is acceptance, it does not stand up to empiricism, it cannot do so by definition.
That doesn't make it wrong either. Just unprovable.
I accept that there is the possibility that Xtians are right, but I also assert that they are no more likely to be right than any other religion as they all turn on the same axis, faith.
The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself.
Would this, in and of itself, be a correct assertion?
Yes, but the first self-reproducing organism would be long after the first self-reproducing molecules.
You know, I'm going to write a science textbook that advances the theory that gravity is actually caused by tiny invisible angels holding everything down. I could probably sell 2 million in Texas alone.
Sorta the antithesis of Maxwell's Friction Demons?
Central and south american natives use nicotine as a mind altering drug because their tobacco has almost twenty times the nicotine.
Considering that stuff was once upon a time a rather effective posion I hate to think what that's doing to them.
...don't you smoke, jag? :confused:
Ok, to clarify.
I believe that the process of evolution is sufficiently proven to be an accepted theory.
I believe that there is no evidence of any sort pointing to a first cause for creation.
I believe that there is no evidence for a first cause for evolution.
I believe that creation may have occured, but as with evolution, there is no evidence for a first cause.
I know that I exist, I know that I am the *queue Architect's office scene* the result of a series of both genetic responses to environmental factors over a long time of biological evolution as well as a progressive evolution of thinking over a long period of time as well.
That is the closest thing that anyone knows.
Faith is not knowledge, it is acceptance, it does not stand up to empiricism, it cannot do so by definition.
That doesn't make it wrong either. Just unprovable.
I accept that there is the possibility that Xtians are right, but I also assert that they are no more likely to be right than any other religion as they all turn on the same axis, faith.
I agree with the essence of your statement. :) At last! Common ground!
...don't you smoke, jag? :confused:
That would be the righteousness of the reformed talking ...
...don't you smoke, jag?
Very rarely cigarettes but the occasional cigar or joint. The nicotine/posion thing had nothing to do with that however.
I know that I exist, I know that I am the *queue Architect's office scene* the result of a series of both genetic responses to environmental factors over a long time of biological evolution as well as a progressive evolution of thinking over a long period of time as well.
I'm the result of a bottle of bourbon (Old Grand Dad) and a Steak dinner. :doit:
I'm the result of a bottle of bourbon (Old Grand Dad) and a Steak dinner. :doit:
Only one bottle?
I guess agnostic would best desribe me. I do not claim to even have a scientific mind. However, I do study Philosophy. If Interested there is a book
by James A. Gould called Classical Philosophical Questions. In this book, There are chapters such as The Ontological Argumet,The Cosmological Argument,etc... "Most intellectual people do not believe in God, But they fear him just the same." - William Reich I found that statement thought provoking.
There is always evolution evolving in each and every life process.
the world is funny like that.. hey! why don't we get this mighty braintrust together and take a stab at the religious/scientific/philosophical boogeyman.. THE UNIFIED THEORY!!!
there are so many holes that can be punched in both/all theories, they all involve an element of 'faith'... we don't know.. we will never know.. (not that that's not a reason to keep thinking about it.. somewhere in the middle ground i think there is the truth...) and i've speculated from everything from god(s) to alien intervention.. and I still don't know nor do I ever expect to (well when I die I hope there is atleast a nice information paphmlet available 'the facts, and how to deal with them' or something to that effect.. anyway It's time for sleep perchance to dream
they all involve an element of 'faith'
No, they don't. That's the point of scientific discovery - best theory till another one comes along, no faith needed, just study of the evidence. I'm yet to see a hole in evolution as it stands, only missing parts.
the "how" part yes, but ultimately there is a dearth of answers to the "why" questions.
I do not think "why" can or will be answered by philosophers, intellectuals, scientist or anyone else. I feel it is the ultimate question; that know matter the dearth of answers that mankind determines will always be completly
undertermined.
No, they don't. That's the point of scientific discovery - best theory till another one comes along, no faith needed, just study of the evidence. I'm yet to see a hole in evolution as it stands, only missing parts.
Jag, I'm really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I would like you make sure we're talking about the same thing.
When I say "Theory of Evolution", I mean the idea that millions of years ago and by phenomenal randomness, suddenly, from no life whatsoever came life, and from that life all the species of the planet, including humans "evolved". This is sometimes shortened to "Molecules to Man".
In this sense, "evolution" is NOT the same as "mutation" or "speciation". Mutation is observable fact, and it happens and it's very scientific. I don't have a problem with observable, duplicatable results.
Science, to me, means you can PROVE and DUPLICATE your results. If Scientist A has a theory, they advance their theory, and scientists B C and D take that theory and can DUPLICATE the tests and obtain the very same results, then yes, that is a valid theory. That is science.
The big bang can't be duplicated. A primordial soup with no life in it suddenly having life in it can't be duplicated. There are no transitionary forms in nature. There is no duplicatable evidence for origins, Jag, and therefore origins is not science.
Origins does not effect how the world works. It doesn't effect seismic theory or volcanology or virology, or gravity, or how cells divide or any other real science. Origins is a completely separate field, and it's NOT science, merely speculation.
Origins does not effect how the world works. It doesn't effect seismic theory or volcanology or virology, or gravity, or how cells divide or any other real science. Origins is a completely separate field, and it's NOT science, merely speculation.
Oh, wow. I've been missing out on some serious fun in this thread. Attention, paleontologists and historians specializing in works before 500AD -- your work is no longer needed.
In this sense, "evolution" is NOT the same as "mutation" or "speciation". Mutation is observable fact, and it happens and it's very scientific. I don't have a problem with observable, duplicatable results.
So you're saying that scientists cannot examine the fossil record and draw conclusions based upon their findings? You're saying that we cannot use particle accelerators to understand how energy and matter are interchanged and then use our findings to describe the dark matter and cosmic background radiation that we observe in space? And that we cannot take those generated theories and to generate a computer simulated model of how the universe began, how it will expand, and then how it could possibly contract?
Some things in science cannot be contained or duplicated in a laboratory and are, instead, held to tests in simulations and mathematical descriptions of the event. Nuclear testing is now done this way, high energy experiments are now conducted in this manner, and just because we cannot recreate a blackhole in a chemistry lab or observe one in space does not mean that we cannot postulate what creates them, how they will progress, and how they will end. Its a way of working with things greater than can be handled or reproduced and its been done long before computers ever made complex simulations possible. Oppenheimer may have successfully exploded an atomic bomb, but it wasn't possible without using observations to formulate a theory to do something that no one had ever done before.
So you're saying that scientists cannot examine the fossil record and draw conclusions based upon their findings?
They can examine the fossil record all they want. It's the "draw conclusions based upon thier findings" part I have a problem with. All you know based upon the fossil record is that something died. You can't prove that thing reproduced or in most cases, even died at that location. The rest is pure speculation. And speculation isn't science.
You're saying that we cannot use particle accelerators to understand how energy and matter are interchanged and then use our findings to describe the dark matter and cosmic background radiation that we observe in space?
Sure we can. That's reproducable, observable science. I have no problem with science.
And that we cannot take those generated theories and to generate a computer simulated model of how the universe began, how it will expand, and then how it could possibly contract?
No. Well, people CAN, and they have, but to me, that is not reproduable, observable science. You can have all the guesses you want, it's not science, regardless of the terms you use. I can guess that the sun won't come up tomorrow, and it's not science. You can guess your great grandparents were apes, but that's not science either.
Some things in science cannot be contained or duplicated in a laboratory and are, instead, held to tests in simulations and mathematical descriptions of the event. Nuclear testing is now done this way, high energy experiments are now conducted in this manner, and just because we cannot recreate a blackhole in a chemistry lab or observe one in space does not mean that we cannot postulate what creates them, how they will progress, and how they will end.
Postulate all you want. That doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science.
Its a way of working with things greater than can be handled or reproduced and its been done long before computers ever made complex simulations possible. Oppenheimer may have successfully exploded an atomic bomb, but it wasn't possible without using observations to formulate a theory to do something that no one had ever done before.
But an atomic bomb is reproducable and observable, isn't it?
But an atomic bomb is reproducable and observable, isn't it?
The effect of our most powerful nuclear weapons is theoreticlally reproducible and observable, but not practically. They are based purely on theory, prediction, and simulation. Hopefully, there will never be any observable proof of their power.
You can't prove that thing reproduced or in most cases, even died at that location. The rest is pure speculation.
Actually you CAN prove they reproduced, using fossil DNA.
The plot of
Jurassic Park was that scientists were able to clone dinosaurs from the DNA of the blood of ancient mosquitos trapped in amber. That was science fiction... but based on science fact. In fact scientists have extracted DNA from fossils trapped in amber. (Just not in the living condition they'd have to be in, in order to clone.)
The presence of DNA absolutely proves that the same mechanisms for reproduction, and the passing along of genetic material, was happening in these beasts from long ago.
The effect of our most powerful nuclear weapons is theoreticlally reproducible and observable, but not practically. They are based purely on theory, prediction, and simulation. Hopefully, there will never be any observable proof of their power.
All of the parts, fission/fusion, physics and chemistry, etc ARE reproducable and observable. And at a most basic level, the bomb itself is reproducable and observable. And I 100% agree, it's not something I WANT to reproduce or to observe. But it is science.
Actually you CAN prove they reproduced, using fossil DNA.
[snip]
The presence of DNA absolutely proves that the same mechanisms for reproduction, and the passing along of genetic material, was happening in these beasts from long ago.
You can prove they were capable of reproduction. That does not prove the animal in question reproduced before it died.
In fact scientists have extracted DNA from fossils trapped in amber. (Just not in the living condition they'd have to be in, in order to clone.)
Amber, and
salt.
Wha -- why would you need to prove that?? You know that its parents did!!
*I* don't need to prove it, but LOTS of scientists speculate lots of things from the fossil record that they shouldn't. Read any article critically, just like you do a political article, and you'll see what I mean.
Interestingly, scientists date the strata by what fossils are contained in that layer, and they date the fossils by which layer they are in. That is a fact.
Also, there has never been a whole "geologic column" found anywhere but a textbook. That is a fact.
Yet they continue to base whole theories upon speculation regarding fossils and geologic strata being millions of years old.
So... you think they haven't considered that? Do they overlook it every single time, or just every other time? Did they overlook it the first time? Are there other principles at work that you can't see because you're not, you know, intimately involved in the process and are just trying to poke holes in it as an outsider with a desperate desire for a certain outcome?
The rest is pure speculation. And speculation isn't science.
Just because an atomic device had not been detonated in 1939 did not make the theories and hard work any less "science" than the research in the field was after 1945. Relativity was not properly tested until just several years ago with the LAGEOS 1 and 2 satellites, but that does not mean the theory should not have been included in texts before 2002. We'll probably never be able to create or touch a black hole, but that doesn't mean we cannot have the math behind it that can describe them to the best of our abilities. You seem to fully expect that something can not be considered "science" until it is duplicated in a laboratory and that is simply not how the field works. Many fields in the sciences deal with energy, matter, and systems well outside of our physical grasp because of size, time, and dangers. That does not make them any less "science".
Generate a sun in a laboratory. Touch the sun with your own hands. You can't. All we know of the sun and the burning hydrogen mass are its after effects, a full eight minutes after they have been occured. We can measure the heat once it strikes our planet, we can measure the residual radio waves, and we can view the spectrum coming off of it. Until relatively recently we had never seen a star die out or one be born, but that never did, nor should it have ever, prevented mankind from predicting and modeling what they thought had happened and would happen. Our universe is much like this -- we didn't see it begin, we won't see it end, but we can measure the energy, content, and how it interacts. Based on what we know from measurements done in a lab with these particles, we can form a theory of how it all came to be and how it might all end. There is nothing wrong with that, there is nothing "un-science" about that. It is just as I can observe changes in the fossil record and hypothesize about how life changes. Just because I will never see it change before my eyes because of my short life span does not make my theory any less "science".
I can guess that the sun won't come up tomorrow, and it's not science.
Pulling a guess out of a, uh, black hole isn't science -- you are correct. But formulating a theory based on research, measurements, and observations is exactly how the entire field works. You seem to imply that you think evolution and the "big bang" theory are founded on nothing more than wild imagination.
People that have issues with theories seem to be unhappy that they cannot get hard, physical evidence that they can see with their own eyes. In truth, science doesn't have a lot of truths, but it does have a lot of theories. We've never seen the electron clouds of an atom and we cannot measure the speed and location of many particles to get an exact model. Currently science seems certain we never will, but we can develop good theories that fit our needs. Theories are not facts, theories can be changed, theories can be modified, theories can be challenged. They are all works in progress, most of them destined to never be completed or accepted as "fact". Yet, none of these aspects remove these studies from the sciences or make them any less important.
If you want an easy answer that you aren't permitted to question, change, or update, please look to your bible. But do not suggest that just because you can't see it with your own eyes it isn't science. If you remove the theories that cannot be directly observed, you're removing a massive amount of important information that is crucial to our current understanding of how our world and how the universe works.
First, I'm not desperate for a different outcome. I am 100% certain that people are not decended from animals. As to other people's level of desperateness, well, I can't speak for them. I'm sure that thousands of people ARE desperate to advance one agenda or another. Like people who advance a theory that has tons of holes in it.
Secondly, why do "scientists" continually advance a theory they SEE has holes in it? I thought that if a hypothesis has big glaring mistakes that scientists were supposed to trash it and start over?
There are LOTS of holes in their theory but they continue to advance it LIKE ITS A FACT. It's NOT a fact. When ANY science programme starts talking about millions of years I cringe. They don't KNOW that. They just assume it is so, and present it like it's so, and people are buying into it like it is truth. It's NOT truth, it's PURE speculation.
I guess I'm more upset that people don't look as critically at the subject of evolution as they do George Bush's policies in the middle east.
OC, what about carbon-dating? The decay rate of carbon is scientifically known and observable, and all tests ever performed on things with known ages have matched up exactly. So if carbon-dating says something is millions of years old, why is that not scientific fact?
Secondly, why do "scientists" continually advance a theory they SEE has holes in it? I thought that if a hypothesis has big glaring mistakes that scientists were supposed to trash it and start over?
Because thats how it works. Theories aren't intended to be perfect, nor will they ever be.
There are LOTS of holes in their theory but they continue to advance it LIKE ITS A FACT.
Stop that! Researchers do not advance them like facts. Every theory is open to peer review and challenges.
When ANY science programme starts talking about millions of years I cringe. They don't KNOW that. They just assume it is so, and present it like it's so, and people are buying into it like it is truth.
Ahhh... the marketing of "science" on your friendly Discovery channel. Warning: what you see and hear on television is not a true representation of the work being done by the research communities. I see the problem you are experiencing, now. To correct this, please return to school. Please read books. Do not pass "go", do not collect $200.
First, I'm not desperate for a different outcome. I am 100% certain...
100% certainty is one of the worst errors you can commit.
You seem to fully expect that something can not be considered "science" until it is duplicated in a laboratory and that is simply not how the field works.
NOAA website glossary (bold emphasis mine)
science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways
Yes, that is the way it works.
Many fields in the sciences deal with energy, matter, and systems well outside of our physical grasp because of size, time, and dangers. That does not make them any less "science".
That is wholly dependant upon what we're talking about. I'm not going to make that broad of stroke.
Generate a sun in a laboratory. Touch the sun with your own hands. You can't. All we know of the sun and the burning hydrogen mass are its after effects, a full eight minutes after they have been occured. We can measure the heat once it strikes our planet, we can measure the residual radio waves, and we can view the spectrum coming off of it.
Yes. We can. These are observable, measurable quantities.
Our universe is much like this -- we didn't see it begin, we won't see it end, but we can measure the energy, content, and how it interacts.
Absolutely right! That's science!
Based on what we know from measurements done in a lab with these particles, we can form a theory of how it all came to be and how it might all end. There is nothing wrong with that, there is nothing "un-science" about that.
Absolutely right. Forming theories from observed facts is scientific.
It is just as I can observe changes in the fossil record and hypothesize about how life changes.
Here's where we hit shaky ground. The "fossil record" does not change. It is a bunch of bones lying in layers of dirt. They don't move. They don't change. They also do NOT prove anything except they died. And maybe not even at that spot. Somehow, though, scientists want me to believe that we can prove evolution by bones in the dirt. Sorry. Not buying it.
Just because I will never see it change before my eyes because of my short life span does not make my theory any less "science".
Sure it does. If you can't OBSERVE it, if you can't MEASURE it, if you can't DUPLICATE it, it's NOT science. Let's check that definition again: science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes
making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those
observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and
reliable ways.
Pulling a guess out of a, uh, black hole isn't science -- you are correct. But formulating a theory based on research, measurements, and observations is exactly how the entire field works. You seem to imply that you think evolution and the "big bang" theory are founded on nothing more than wild imagination.
That's exactly what it's founded on.
People that have issues with theories seem to be unhappy that they cannot get hard, physical evidence that they can see with their own eyes. In truth, science doesn't have a lot of truths, but it does have a lot of theories. We've never seen the electron clouds of an atom and we cannot measure the speed and location of many particles to get an exact model. Currently science seems certain we never will, but we can develop good theories that fit our needs. Theories are not facts, theories can be changed, theories can be modified, theories can be challenged. They are all works in progress, most of them destined to never be completed or accepted as "fact". Yet, none of these aspects remove these studies from the sciences or make them any less important.
But you see, scientists believe evolution is a fact, based on this theory. Remember the post someone made about the different portions of the brain named after different animal types? People all over the world are being told that evolution happened. Period. In fact, scientists can't prove any of it happened. It is JUST as much of a "theory" as the "theory" that a God named Yahweh created the world is 6 literal days. It is equally as good of a theory that we're in the Matrix, all part of a computer program.
Neither side can conclusively prove they are right and the other wrong. Try to teach the bible or Matrix theory in school as "just a theory" alongside evolution and watch the flames. Why is that?
Why is it ok to advance one theory and call it science but advance a different theory with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE and call it religion?? Aren't they BOTH religion? Both are unprovable. Both are simply theories. Right?
If you want an easy answer that you aren't permitted to question, change, or update, please look to your bible.
Obviously you haven't studied this issue very deeply. The churches around the world take different stances regarding the creation/evolution debate. This debate has more ramifications within the church than it does in the secular world. This has everything to do with the fallibility of God and the bible itself.
But do not suggest that just because you can't see it with your own eyes it isn't science.
I don't suggest it, the definition of science itself does.
If you remove the theories that cannot be directly observed, you're removing a massive amount of important information that is crucial to our current understanding of how our world and how the universe works.
You mean how some people THINK it MAY work. Theories are NOT facts, Kitsune. That statement alone shows how much people (including yourself)simply accept some (if not all) of these theories as FACT, and THAT is what I have a problem with.
OC, what about carbon-dating? The decay rate of carbon is scientifically known and observable, and all tests ever performed on things with known ages have matched up exactly. So if carbon-dating says something is millions of years old, why is that not scientific fact?
The main page regarding Radiometric Dating is
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
and here is a series of quotes:
People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric1 dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years.
[snip of religious stuff to get to the science stuff]
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4
Go to the link, there is TONS of stuff there.
Ahhh... the marketing of "science" on your friendly Discovery channel. Warning: what you see and hear on television is not a true representation of the work being done by the research communities. I see the problem you are experiencing, now. To correct this, please return to school. Please read books. Do not pass "go", do not collect $200.
I don't particularly care for your tone, so I'll let it ride for now.
I happen to read alot of books, and go to school. Unfortunetly, I cannot send my children to private school, so am forced to send them to public school, where they are being taught the theory of evolution is a FACT.
If you haven't seen a public school textbook, go look. It is presented as fact. It's not just the way the discovery channel presents it, it's how every single person who believes it presents it. LOOK AROUND YOU. LISTEN to how information is presented. You'll hear "millions of years ago" and "descended from" thrown around AS FACT.
100% certainty is one of the worst errors you can commit.
I'm not a scientist. I'm an average schmo and from my reading and my research into both sides of the arguement, that's my personal belief. I never asked anyone to agree with me, I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not saying I'm close minded, I'm not. But everything I have seen leads me to be 100% certain that the "Theory of Evolution" is a bunch of crap.
Fair enough, OC -- I'll agree with most of what you say. I still take issue with this:
scientists believe evolution is a fact, based on this theory
I think they only give the impression of that when you hear them speak or when they use it to generate other theories. The evolutionary theory is still a theory, it is still challenged to this day, it is still revised and updated to this day, and [hopefully] that is something all scientists understand. What a theory is, how they are generated, how they are published, how they are changed, and how they are reviewed is taught in the most basic of classes. Evolutionary theory still isn't fact, just as the theory of gravity isn't a fact just at relativity isn't a fact.
Remember the post someone made about the different portions of the brain named after different animal types? People all over the world are being told that evolution happened. Period.
This is just terminology that people are misreading. If people are accidentally getting that much out of these basic terms for functional parts of the brain, thats their problem. Just as there is no funny "bone", simple reading about it would clear up the issue very quickly.
I'll round up some quotes for you, Kitsune. This is way more pervasive than I think you (and alot of other people) realize.
OC, have you ever - in your life - been "100% certain" about something, only to learn that you were wrong?
I don't particularly care for your tone, so I'll let it ride for now.
Yeah -- please ignore that. I'm being cranky at work, today, and the holidays are crushing me. I appreciate you not holding me to that remark, because you certainly didn't deserve it.
You'll hear "millions of years ago" and "descended from" thrown around AS FACT.
I've always seen things headed under a textbook with "Evolutionary Theory". To me, it never needed to be stated after that -- the word "theory", as in "its only a theory", was enough. I never understood the need for the new warning stickers they've had to add to public school textbooks.
But you do not subscribe to the theory that the Earth is millions of years old? This, I understand, is certainly something that is pretty much accepted these days.
If you haven't seen a public school textbook, go look.
No, thats okay. I was quite unhappy with the state of textbooks when I attended public school. I'm sure I don't want to see them, today.
This is snipped from talkorigins.org, one of the major evolutionist websites. My commentary is in italics.
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.
Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too.
I'd love to see this "evidence". Too bad they can't provide it.
However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.
Note the lack of words like "we think" or "how it could have".
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context.
A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty.
However, the phrase "general propositions" doesn't imply absolute knowledge.
Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.
Observations is science. I agree with that.
(Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
This is not true. There are lots of predictions about what we expect to find, because science is science. What you're trying to prove has nothing to do with it, as long as you're using science to do it, it's scientific. Nutjob.
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either.
According to who?
On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris.
Agreed. But not "on the contrary." I love how they try to word this stuff.
Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be.
Uh.... huh? I have a problem with that statement.
Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.
OK, this is getting weird. So this guy is saying nothing has ever been proven, and we're dealing with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. um...ok... And they call Fundies nutcases!
The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? And let me see if I got this straight...we've never proven anything in the real world, but we can say it's a fact, because we're pretty dog-gone sure. Riiiiiiiight....
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.
Those observations in and of themselves do NOT point as evidence of evolution. Show me proof life came from non-life. Don't guess. Recreate it. I wanna see it in the lab. Until then, you can't say it happened with 100% certainty.
If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
No, what I must show is that the "evidence" proposed can be interpreted another way using the same science. This makes the "evidence" irrelevant to the theory, and thus the theory falls apart.
Conclusion
These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.
But I'm sure you'll try to discredit as much as possible with your convoluted "it has never been proven but it's a fact" arguements.
But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution.
Actually, we know for a fact many people, like Darwin, didn't set out to explain how God did things. How God did things is in the bible, Genesis, chapter 1. What they set out to do is discredit, disprove and undermine the authority of God. Darwin admitted that numerous times.
Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune.
That is a lie. There are KNOWN cases where really good (and smart) scientists poke holes in the established theory and get railroaded, grants taken away, fired and pressured. You get rewarded if you try to further evolution's hold on society. This guy obviously not a scientist or he would know that. He was talking out his ass there.
Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.
So...the theory changes, sometimes radically, and yet still is supposed to be a fact? Facts don't change. Facts are facts. How can it be a fact if it's changing?
Oh yeah...it can't.....
This is just ONE article I found off the top, kitsune. Yes, people DO think it's a fact, and they are trying to convince everyone else it is a fact.
Is anyone else getting from this ....
That's is okay to be 100% certain about the biblical notion of creation, but totally not okay to accept with a high degree of certainty the theory of evolution?
Well, there's this way to go about it then.
Evidence of evolution: tons and tons
Evidence of humanity created by a Xtian god: a bunch of stories written a long time ago
Check.
This is snipped from talkorigins.org
Talkorigins.org appears to just be an archive of a usenet newsgroup -- it is not a scientific journal or publication and isn't really any different than The Cellar. Their FAQ entry on why they keep referring to the evolutionary theory as a fact is based on the broken logic that because something is so overwhelming with evidence that is must be 100% correct. This isn't the way theories work.
Is anyone else getting from this ....
That's is okay to be 100% certain about the biblical notion of creation, but totally not okay to accept with a high degree of certainty the theory of evolution?
Anyone can be 100% certain of their own beliefs. Who says it's not okay?
Well, there's this way to go about it then.
Evidence of evolution: tons and tons
Evidence of humanity created by a Xtian god: a bunch of stories written a long time ago
Check.
Please show me your evidence for evolution, UT.
This is snipped from talkorigins.org
Talkorigins.org appears to just be an archive of a usenet newsgroup -- it is not a scientific journal or publication and isn't really any different than The Cellar. Their FAQ entry on why they keep referring to the evolutionary theory as a fact is based on the broken logic that because something is so overwhelming with evidence that is must be 100% correct. This isn't the way theories work.
I agree, Kit. My point in bringing this one up first was that whenever there are debates regarding E/C, the Christians bring up AiG and ICR, and the Evolutionists bring up talkorigins. This illustrates thinking on the topic. It's that kind of reasoning we're dealing with.
Like Wolf's post. NO WHERE did I say it's not ok to believe in Evolution, yet she implies it in her post. What's her belief about the subject? How sure is she? Why did she come to that conclusion? What evidence suggests I'm wrong?
I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks. I really would. I'd love to explore this concept with intellectual people without the sarcasm. Like Clodfobble's post. He/She brought up a point, and I responded with information. That was great! Let's do more of that!!
I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to reveal that perhaps the issue isn't so cut and dried as some of the evo's think it is.
I found this:
we must remember that origin-science of whatever flavour is inherently different from operation science (how the universe presently works—gravity, physics, chemistry, etc.) because we can’t directly test or observe stories about the past.
I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks.
And you came to an internet forum? :biggrin:
I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks. I really would. I'd love to explore this concept with intellectual people without the sarcasm.
I think The Cellar is about the closest place you're going to get it. Of course, its all just armchair tactics -- I don't think anyone here is an expert on any of this.
I'll have to return, later, and describe what theory I subscribe to and why I've come to believe it more than the others I've heard. (Note: it is not Darwin's.)
And you came to an internet forum? :biggrin:
Of course. Most of the people here I think of as extended family. I'm comfortable here. I've opened up here. Why wouldn't I talk to friends about this?
I think The Cellar is about the closest place you're going to get it. Of course, its all just armchair tactics -- I don't think anyone here is an expert on any of this.
Agreed. But I'm not looking to debate Hawking.
I'll have to return, later, and describe what theory I subscribe to and why I've come to believe it more than the others I've heard. (Note: it is not Darwin's.)
I can't wait :)
That is a lie. There are KNOWN cases where really good (and smart) scientists poke holes in the established theory and get railroaded, grants taken away, fired and pressured. You get rewarded if you try to further evolution's hold on society. This guy obviously not a scientist or he would know that. He was talking out his ass there.
Talk about snide pompous assholes, you're quoting one here. Rather than refute with these known cases he browbeats with "This guy obviously not a scientist or he would know that." Wow, that gives him lots of credibility...not. :eyebrow:
Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be.
Uh.... huh? I have a problem with that statement.
Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.
OK, this is getting weird. So this guy is saying nothing has ever been proven, and we're dealing with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. um...ok... And they call Fundies nutcases!
The guy is right. Nothing has ever been proven, with the possible exception of "Cogito, ergo sum", though some think that that is just a grammar trick. Everything else could be wrong. Science is only the sum total of the current best explanations. ALL of science has levels of certainty less than 1.0. Not just evolution.
Textbooks for kids treat the latest science as fact in the same sort of shorthand as kids' history textbooks say "the Civil War was about slavery" and "the American Revolution was about tea taxes". If they put every detail about every intricacy of every theory, there wouldn't be room in the kids' backpacks. The chapter on Newton doesn't go into special relativity.
Evolution is not special in that regard just because certain religious groups still view it with the same suspicion Galileo once attracted.
The ACLU is suing the school district that mandated teaching intelligent design.
Interesting how the ACLU will trample free speech in it's quest to see to it's interpretation of the freedom of religion ...
A public school system is not free to teach religion in science class.
You teach the theory of evolution in science class.
You teach intelligent design in a comparative religion class.
It's not terribly complicated.
Intelligent design isn't a theory because it cannot be tested.
You would also have to teach all of the intelligent design "theories", pagan, hindu, xtian, etc, before I would even accept it as a true intelligent design concept.
I’m not the most eloquent person in the world so bear with me if you please . . .
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn’t it be that God did make people from primordial ooze? Did He carve Adam out of rock or sculpt him from clay? It makes more sense to me that a higher power would have prompted it to grow with a mere thought or will to make it so. Does God have hands? Why would he? ‘In his own form’, so it says . . . but then, his own form would have needed air and food to survive just as we do. If He doesn’t need it, then why do we breathe and eat? Is it ‘in his own form, only not as spiffy?’
It says it is so in the bible, and therefore that’s the way it is. Would it be too much of a stretch that pehaps the bible had been simplified to understandable terms for the mindset of the peoples thousands of years ago? Just like schoolbooks are simplified to make it so that children can grasp the concepts, and then move on to make their own decisions and understand more deeply.<b> School is not the end-all be-all of education, and seeing as the bible is a tool of religious education, isn't there room for your own questions or conclusions? </b>Or do you have to read it and accept it just as it is worded [SIZE=1](translated? How many times? To mean how many different things?)[/SIZE] and not question?
To be perfectly honest, I find it difficult to believe any one theory. People’s minds and their souls are so very complicated that it is rather difficult to think that it was completely and purely evolutionary, and yet, to have God just decide to and proceed to slap together what is now ‘human’ and make everything just the way it is now, and just plunk them down onto a fertile ground seems kind of hokey to me as well.
The fact that different people view God differently tells me that there’s more than one way to believe and to have faith. The bible is not the only way, and therefore it doesn’t belong in school. The teaching of religion belongs in your house or your church.
Something scares me about teaching creationism in the classroom. It begs children not to question. No? I was taught evolutionism. No one ever brought me to church and told me “this is what you need to think” – or even “This is what we believe”. I was taught that science is just that, ‘science’ – studying, assuming, testing, drawing conclusions and linking things together in a way that makes sense. And yet still I believe in <i>a</i> god. it’s just not necessarily <I>your</I> God. Or, rather, not the <i>same way</i> you think of Him. I think it would be comforting to close you eyes and imagine that God looks familiar.
It seems so much easier to <i>know</i> wholly and completely that your belief is correct.
…
Wow, this got a lot wordier than I had intended. Must be off for now, work to do and all that rot.
Very eloquent, elf. :thumbsup:
Since this got dredged up from the dark, horrible recesses of the Cellar, I feel I must add my opinions. I don't necessarily buy evolution part and parcel, but I see it as a much stronger jumping off point than "God made the world as it is today and it has not changed at all ever". Darwinian competition ("Survival of the Fittest") can be observed in the world today, with the evolution (yes, whether you believe evolution started it all or not, you cannot deny that it is happening today) of such things as antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the commonly cited case of Peppered Moths in Britain. For those of you unfamiliar with the moths, the basic idea is thus: there are moths in England that tend to gather on a tree with white bark. These moths varied in color from almost pure white to pure black. A pure black moth is easy for predators to spot, so the population tended to include very few pure or mostly black moths, with the dominance of color leaning toward the white moths. Around the time of the industrial revolution, however, a shift occurred. Coal smoke from nearby factories blackened the trees, suddenly making white moths very visible and black moths quite well hidden. Thus, obviously, the population swung toward black moths. Now, it has been argued that since no new genetic information was created, that evolution did not occur, and this is true. The moths are simply an example of natural selection, the driving force, the keystone if you will, behind evolution. If an omniscient, omnipotent being created all the creatures of Earth, why do things like this have to change? Creatures needn't adapt, because they were created in perfect balance by a perfect being. One might also note Albert's Squirrel on one side of the Grand Canyon versus the Kaibab Squirrel on the other side. The two are almost perfect genetic matches, with minor physical variations, and cannot interbreed. New genetic material and a new species were both created, theoretically by the Grand Canyon forming and splitting the populations. There we have proof that evolution does happen, though it will be impossible without some interesting manipulations of the fourth dimension to prove that it *did* happen. Never has it been observed that God plopped a new species onto the Earth, though if Creationism is correct in its assumptions, he wouldn't have to. There will also always be gaps in the fossil record, because we must note that it is an extremely rare occurence for an animal to be fossilized after death. Even in extremely successful species with millions in population at one time (and, we must assume, an exponentially greater number of deaths), there are not terribly many preserved fossils, especially those of full bodies of a single organism, which would prove infinitely more useful than single or small groups of bones, which could easily be attributed to the animal before or after the transitional species. Transitional species are just that, transitional. They exist for a short time as one archetype moves toward another. There are not nearly as many of them as there are of successful archetypes, and they do not exist for as long a time (hence, fewer bodies and exponentially fewer fossils).
On another note, one of the more common arguments for intelligent design is what I refer to as the automobile theory, essentially that evolution is just as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a complete, running automobile. The problem with this theory is that it assumes one junkyard, one planet on which life could possibly have evolved. Given that the universe is infinite (space is nothingness, nothingness can extend onward indefinitely, therefore the universe must be infinite in size), and that there are an absolutely mindblowingly large number of planets in the universe (a number large enough that it can be considered, for practical purposes, infinite), what is the likelihood that there is *not* a planet on which life could evolve? Essentially, given 1 junkyard and one tornado, the chances of assembling an automobile are infintessimally small, but given an infinite number of junkyards and an infinite number of tornados blowing through each of them, it is almost a guarantee that, at least once, the parts will come together by chance and form a running automobile. This is the same theory I present to people who don't believe that intelligent life exists off of the planet Earth: given an infinite number of attempts over time, even at infintessimally small odds, Earth cannot be the only place in the universe that fell within that precise range on the bell curve that permits intelligent life to develop. In fact, it is safe to assume that there are a vast multitude of civilzations throughout the universe.
Also, as a sidenote for intelligent design theorists who wish to argue, "your theory is wrong" != "my theory is right". Simply poking holes in evolution does not mean that there is a God. Come up with scientifically backed data that withstands scrutiny and provides mechanisms to explain the changes in organisms that we have observed, and you will begin to actually prove your theory.
Good summary alph! Good work by you!
The junkyard thing is just a dumb analogy; there are plenty of junkyards right here on this planet, given that you have billions upon billions of years to wait and every day is another combination of the primordial soup.
More importantly, it only looks like a tornado because we experience things in such a short burst of time. We experience a split-second in our lifetimes, of all the time that we could be aware of. We have but a moment to make sense of it all. It's like the whole thing was set up all day and we wake up at 11:59:59 PM and only have until midnight to figure out the previous 24 hours.
Agreed -- some very nice takes on various sides in here, recently.
One thing that bugs me about Creationists is that they "cannot believe that we evolved from apes". Even though this is a poor (and incorrect) simplification of a very complex theory, there is one aspect about this that bugs me: many creationists, in argument, indicate that humans are so vastly different from other species in the animal kingdom that we should be effectively removed from the catagory entirely. Why is this? The accomplishments of civilization aside, we really aren't much different when you get down to it. We bleed, we eat, we reproduce, we die.
And our DNA is 98% identical to a chimpanzee's.
Very eloquent, elf. :thumbsup:
:blush: Thankee.
alphageek31337 had me nodding in agreement more than once. . . I wanted to mention something about the transitional species, but I couldn't find the right words. So thanks, Alph, for saying what I wanted to.
Given that the universe is infinite (space is nothingness, nothingness can extend onward indefinitely, therefore the universe must be infinite in size)
Space is not nothingness… it is a description of the geometry of the universe. The universe may indeed be finite, and therefore space is finite as well. Sorry, off topic.
On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point). I would think that students should be encouraged to test everything that is taught to them. As long as students realize that the only thing human beings can do is provide descriptions of reality, is there really any harm in teaching anything?
On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point). I would think that students should be encouraged to test everything that is taught to them. As long as students realize that the only thing human beings can do is provide descriptions of reality, is there really any harm in teaching anything?
Evolution is theory presented as theory because it is constantly being tested, creationism is presented as fact because it is an assertion based on no testing of any sort.
On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point).
In science, there are no facts. No theory is certain enough to be a "fact" in the philosophical sense. The closest thing in science to a literal fact is what science calls "data", but any step in the collection and/or interpretation of the data is enough to strip it of literal facthood.
Therefore, whenever the word fact is used (if it is) in science, it is shorthand for "we're pretty damn sure".
Evolution is theory presented as theory because it is constantly being tested, creationism is presented as fact because it is an assertion based on no testing of any sort.
But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it. As people assimilate more information, they will incorporate this into what they believe to be facts. Creationism, though, is a very simple theory and isn’t dependent upon many observations (at the simplest level, only one observation is needed: people exist). The point is that I can test this. The presentation of the theory is independent of this. The distinction is subtle, but what I am trying to get at is that it is not the presenter’s (be that the teacher, school, government, etc.) responsibility to “classify” arguments into “facts” and “theory”; therefore, I tend not to see the teaching of creationism as crossing the barrier of church / state. Creationism isn’t a “religious” theory; it is a description of reality, like any other, though relatively simple. Perhaps it is better to leave the evaluation of the theories up to the students (hopefully with some guidance from their parents).
"It was magic" is not a scientific theory. It is a religious assertion. It belongs in a comparative religions class, not a science class.
Therefore, whenever the word fact is used (if it is) in science, it is shorthand for "we're pretty damn sure".
Under that definition, a fact is a theory that has reached some arbitrary level of acceptance. I'm not saying this is incorrect, I'm just using it to illustrate a point; most everyone treats the definition of “fact” as an absolute. However, most people also agree that there are various degrees to certainty, especially with reasonably complicated issues. The complication (for me) comes in when the two are mixed. No description of reality can be presented as an absolute fact (mathematics doesn’t count, it is a language, not a description of reality).
But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it.
No, it isn't. You don't test the Word of God(tm). By definition it should exist regardless of what we determine by study.
"It was magic" is not a scientific theory. It is a religious assertion. It belongs in a comparative religions class, not a science class.
Actually, that statement is a theory. Taken literally, it might be rephrased as “this event had no cause”. I always liked that one, because I have heard the argument many times that such a statement does not qualify as a theory because it is fundamentally not testable (since it ignores causality, which all theories rely on). However, I would point out that the statement *is* testable; give that, in essence, one is simply trying to determine if causality is required. If one is to observe other non-causal events, then one might conclude that such events do happen, and therefore “magic” does exist. Most people don’t do this, though we observe many non-causal events every day (I mean in the strict sense that the actions that led to the state of the event were not observed by us). Usually, we possess other descriptions of reality that would lead us to believe that the event was indeed caused by something else (though we didn’t observe it). However, one that did not have such a background may indeed believe that the event was caused by “magic”.
That made way more sense in my head then it does on paper.
No, it isn't. You don't test the Word of God(tm). By definition it should exist regardless of what we determine by study.
B
Bingo. There’s the distinction I was looking for. The idea that something should not be tested is religion; it is not the statement in itself that is “religious.” That’s where the line is crossed. Theories are not religion; believing that one possesses “facts” is.
In one or more of these evolution debates I've declared myself amongs the intelligent designers ... I don't see why the scientific and the religious views can't co-exist. it's only when one requires the exclusion of the other that we get into these pages-long debates that go nowhere.
Actually, they aren't debates, since rarely does anyone make a change of opinion based upon the information presented. It's opinion-spouting, sometimes backed by facts, sometimes by sheer passion.
And there are indeed lots of Christians who take an ever-so-slightly less literal interpretation of Genesis. They might even be considered to be an (even more) silent majority of the silent majority.
In one or more of these evolution debates I've declared myself amongs the intelligent designers ... I don't see why the scientific and the religious views can't co-exist. it's only when one requires the exclusion of the other that we get into these pages-long debates that go nowhere.
Actually, they aren't debates, since rarely does anyone make a change of opinion based upon the information presented. It's opinion-spouting, sometimes backed by facts, sometimes by sheer passion.
It has never been my assertion that creationism is wrong, only that it isn't science. The only real debate as to creationism is which creationism is the right one?
It's hard to prove something has no evidence indicating which deity is responsible...
...
That made way more sense in my head then it does on paper.
You have no idea how many posts I have deleted just for that very exact reason. There's things that are so very clear in your head, and then when you try to enunciate them, they all of a sudden seem muddled up.
However, you did make plenty of sense to me. At least, if you meant something along the lines of what I tell my son: "If there's absolutely no reasonable explanation for it, it must be magic." To which he asked, "but, what IS magic? I told him, "Science we haven't figured out yet."
Queen of simplification? y/n?
"If there's absolutely no reasonable explanation for it, it must be magic." To which he asked, "but, what IS magic? I told him, "Science we haven't figured out yet."
Queen of simplification? y/n?
Sort of. Think of it this way – I walk outside to get in my car and leave (fully expecting my car to be there), only to discover my car isn’t where I parked it. I now need to develop a theory to explain what has happened to it. I might surmise that it was stolen. This would be reasonable, since I have prior experience with such events. However, I might also conclude that my car was transported to neverland. So I decide to test both theories; I call the police, report my car stolen, and sure enough, they tell me it has been found miles away. My theory is, therefore, adequately confirmed. Now I want to test the other theory. How do I do this? Most would say that I can’t, since there is nothing to test. However, what am I really testing? I am really trying to see if events that occur without explanation are reasonable. Since I encounter events like this numerous times every day (since most of what occurs I do not observe directly), I might conclude that such an explanation is reasonable. In fact, I would argue that all people who believe in what is generally described as “religious fundamentalism” most conclude that the aforementioned hypothesis is reasonable. I am not trying to put anyone down; the validity of one’s beliefs is none of my business. However, such an assertion is not, at its base “religious”. It is merely a judgment call on how much information is needed to validate a theory. Religion comes in when one believes that no justification is required or allowed.
The main point of all this is that a common argument for not teaching creationistic theories in public school is that such theories are “religious”. When pressed, people will sometimes say that since creationist theories are akin to magic, they are fundamentally not testable, and therefore should not be taught. My assertion is that they are testable; easily, in fact. Even a child should be able to recognize the weakness of the theories easily.
I think that if my child asked me a similar question, I might well reply in the same manner as you. Of course, I might try to explain what I meant as I did above, which would very likely be futile. Then I would buy us both ice cream.
: )
(maybe I'm being thickheaded)
D'you mean that an easily recognizeable weakness in a thoery disproves it?
While your example is obviously true, I'm not grasping your reasoning because I'm sure that there's going to be discoveries in the future that would be just ridiculous to think of now, i.e.: you couldn't convince people a few centuries ago that the world was round because they walk on the flat thing all the time.
You know what I'm getting at?
Like I said, perhaps I'm just being dunderheaded.
-and I gotta leave work soon, won't have internet connection till monday. El Sucketh. But I'll catch up with this then.
(maybe I'm being thickheaded)
No, not at all. I’m just not explaining it very well. The root of the issue is what is appropriate to be taught in school. In the U.S., it is generally accepted that religious ideals are not to be taught in public schools. Most would group creationism into this category. What I have tried to show is that the argument that most people use to keep such theories out of public classrooms is not valid; such theories are not un-testable… they are just very simplistic.
I was also attempting to show that there is no difference in believing in creationism on religious grounds and believing in evolution because it is accepted; the two paths are the same. For most people, creationism is easy to reject as a plausible theory of human existence; evolution is much more difficult to reject, perhaps because it is more complicated, or possibly, because it is a better description of reality.
When we dismiss ideas out of hand without attempting to validate them, we are engaging in the exact same behavior that religious fundamentalists do. I do not see the harm in teaching creationism. If a student cannot reject it on his or her own, how does not teaching it improve the situation?
I don't see why the scientific and the religious views can't co-exist. it's only when one requires the exclusion of the other that we get into these pages-long debates that go nowhere.
I only require the exclusion of magic from science classes. And I fully expect that many Sunday School classes will exclude science. And I have no problem with that. You don't go to a science class to learn about magic, and you don't go to Mass to learn about science. It's real easy.
My assertion is that they are testable; easily, in fact. Even a child should be able to recognize the weakness of the theories easily.
No, they are not testable. If you spot a problem in a religious assertion, they can say "God is omnipotent and inscrutable, and He made it that way", and presto! The hole is gone.
I only require the exclusion of magic from science classes. And I fully expect that many Sunday School classes will exclude science. And I have no problem with that. You don't go to a science class to learn about magic, and you don't go to Mass to learn about science. It's real easy.
It's easy for me and it's easy for you but it's not going to be easy for the kids that are going to have the fundie adgenda shoved down their throats. Especially the non-christian kids. :(
If a student cannot reject it on his or her own, how does not teaching it improve the situation?
Basically what I mean is this:
Evolutionism=question, study, theorize, test.
Creationism= here it is. That's it, move along.
To pseudo-paraphrase Happy Monkey, with creationism, you can fill in gaps just by saying "that's the way God made it!"
<b>That</b> is where the harm in it starts.
Since this got dredged up from the dark, horrible recesses of the Cellar, I feel I must add my opinions. I don't necessarily buy evolution part and parcel, but I see it as a much stronger jumping off point than "God made the world as it is today and it has not changed at all ever".
Taking up the Creationist Science side, no one in Creation Science thinks "God made the world as it is today and it has not changed at all ever". Of course it has changed. Of course speciation and mutations occur. That is observable. It happens.
Darwinian competition ("Survival of the Fittest") can be observed in the world today, with the evolution (yes, whether you believe evolution started it all or not, you cannot deny that it is happening today) of such things as antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the commonly cited case of Peppered Moths in Britain.
What you are describing is speciation, or mutation, which are one of the 6 definitions of evolution. Again, speciation and mutation happens. No question of that.
For those of you unfamiliar with the moths, the basic idea is thus: there are moths in England that tend to gather on a tree with white bark. These moths varied in color from almost pure white to pure black. A pure black moth is easy for predators to spot, so the population tended to include very few pure or mostly black moths, with the dominance of color leaning toward the white moths. Around the time of the industrial revolution, however, a shift occurred. Coal smoke from nearby factories blackened the trees, suddenly making white moths very visible and black moths quite well hidden. Thus, obviously, the population swung toward black moths.
Actually, the peppered moth experiment was proven to be a hoax. They glued the moths to the trees. I cited the many references in this or a another EvC thread here on the cellar, but it's not hard to find if you google it.
Now, it has been argued that since no new genetic information was created, that evolution did not occur, and this is true.
Exactly so. Evolution in the "molecules to man" sense means a GAIN of information. Which we NEVER see. All we can see (and prove) is a LOSS of information.
The moths are simply an example of natural selection, the driving force, the keystone if you will, behind evolution.
Evolution in the "mutation or speciation" sense, absolutely.
If an omniscient, omnipotent being created all the creatures of Earth, why do things like this have to change? Creatures needn't adapt, because they were created in perfect balance by a perfect being.
You are correct. God did make a perfect world. Then Adam and Eve ate the apple, and God told them, in effect, that's it, you've screwed it up for everyone now, and things began to deteriorate and change. In the bible, everything, every animal and person, were vegetarian. After the fall, it was open season, and animals began eating each other, and God made the first clothes from animal skins.
One might also note Albert's Squirrel on one side of the Grand Canyon versus the Kaibab Squirrel on the other side. The two are almost perfect genetic matches, with minor physical variations, and cannot interbreed. New genetic material and a new species were both created, theoretically by the Grand Canyon forming and splitting the populations. There we have proof that evolution does happen, though it will be impossible without some interesting manipulations of the fourth dimension to prove that it *did* happen.
No, we have proof speciation and mutations happen. Not proof that man evolved from a primordial soup billions of years ago.
Never has it been observed that God plopped a new species onto the Earth, though if Creationism is correct in its assumptions, he wouldn't have to. There will also always be gaps in the fossil record, because we must note that it is an extremely rare occurence for an animal to be fossilized after death. Even in extremely successful species with millions in population at one time (and, we must assume, an exponentially greater number of deaths), there are not terribly many preserved fossils, especially those of full bodies of a single organism, which would prove infinitely more useful than single or small groups of bones, which could easily be attributed to the animal before or after the transitional species. Transitional species are just that, transitional. They exist for a short time as one archetype moves toward another. There are not nearly as many of them as there are of successful archetypes, and they do not exist for as long a time (hence, fewer bodies and exponentially fewer fossils).
Agreed, and more "evidence" that we can't prove transitional species even existed. They may have, but we don't have proof. And isn't observable and/or recreatable proof what science is based upon?
On another note, one of the more common arguments for intelligent design is what I refer to as the automobile theory, essentially that evolution is just as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a complete, running automobile. The problem with this theory is that it assumes one junkyard, one planet on which life could possibly have evolved. Given that the universe is infinite (space is nothingness, nothingness can extend onward indefinitely, therefore the universe must be infinite in size), and that there are an absolutely mindblowingly large number of planets in the universe (a number large enough that it can be considered, for practical purposes, infinite), what is the likelihood that there is *not* a planet on which life could evolve? Essentially, given 1 junkyard and one tornado, the chances of assembling an automobile are infintessimally small, but given an infinite number of junkyards and an infinite number of tornados blowing through each of them, it is almost a guarantee that, at least once, the parts will come together by chance and form a running automobile. This is the same theory I present to people who don't believe that intelligent life exists off of the planet Earth: given an infinite number of attempts over time, even at infintessimally small odds, Earth cannot be the only place in the universe that fell within that precise range on the bell curve that permits intelligent life to develop. In fact, it is safe to assume that there are a vast multitude of civilzations throughout the universe.
I don't buy the "intelligent design" theory as put forth as "God used evolution". In my opinion, that is a cop out theory that tries to fit man's theory of evolution into a biblical framework. I'm a literal creationist. God did it like he said he did it in the bible. Trying to fit man's theories into that framework doesn't work for me. That is mostly because if I accept that God was lying when he said "DAY" (yom) and "he saw it was good", then what else is he lying about?
That is why this issue is so important to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Also, as a sidenote for intelligent design theorists who wish to argue, "your theory is wrong" != "my theory is right". Simply poking holes in evolution does not mean that there is a God. Come up with scientifically backed data that withstands scrutiny and provides mechanisms to explain the changes in organisms that we have observed, and you will begin to actually prove your theory.
www.answersingenesis.org
Pokes holes in evolutionary theory AND puts forth new SCIENTIFIC theories that prove a young earth could have happened just as easily as an old earth.
A public school system is not free to teach religion in science class.
And therefore the ORIGIN OF MAN has no place in a science class.
You teach the theory of evolution in science class.
You teach intelligent design in a comparative religion class.
It's not terribly complicated.
Intelligent design isn't a theory because it cannot be tested.
You would also have to teach all of the intelligent design "theories", pagan, hindu, xtian, etc, before I would even accept it as a true intelligent design concept.
Evolution Theory as it relates to origin of man cannot be tested either.
OC, have you ever - in your life - been "100% certain" about something, only to learn that you were wrong?
Yes, I have been. Again, I'm open minded. And it is possible that I'm completely wrong on this. And if you can PROVE to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that human beings evolved from a primordial ooze, then I will admit I am wrong.
Until then, I choose to believe 100% that evolution as it relates of origin of man didn't happen the way most scientists (who are proven wrong more often than right) try to force feed me it did.
IOW, until you have personal understanding and proof of the nature of the last billion years, you'll believe that all this was set up by an invisible man.
I’m not the most eloquent person in the world so bear with me if you please . . .
I'm far from eloquent myself, so join the club!
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn’t it be that God did make people from primordial ooze? Did He carve Adam out of rock or sculpt him from clay? It makes more sense to me that a higher power would have prompted it to grow with a mere thought or will to make it so.
Well, there are lots of different "theories" out there, but I'm one of those silly literalists, meaning I believe God did it the way he said he did it in Genesis. That makes the earth about 6,000 years old, all of creation formed in 6 literal 24 hour days, it makes the earth formed before the sun, and it makes the evolutionist's idea that man showed up on the scene after millions of years of death and carnage completely wrong, because there was no death before Adam ate the apple.
Some other people (Hugh Ross and his intelligence design folks) try to fit millions of years of history into the bible, but the language and grammer of the old testament are pretty clear that day means day, not undetermined period of time.
Does God have hands? Why would he? ‘In his own form’, so it says . . . but then, his own form would have needed air and food to survive just as we do. If He doesn’t need it, then why do we breathe and eat? Is it ‘in his own form, only not as spiffy?’
It says it is so in the bible, and therefore that’s the way it is. Would it be too much of a stretch that pehaps the bible had been simplified to understandable terms for the mindset of the peoples thousands of years ago?
Actually, if you take the bible literally, and Man has been around as long as everything else, that means that all of the technology and knowledge known to the egyptians and babylonians and alexandrians came handed down from Noah and his 3 sons. Remember how long people lived in the bible? 900 + years is a long time to learn stuff and memorize it and hand it down to your kids (and their kids and their kids...) God wouldn't need to simplify anything.
Time was (within the last couple thousand years) when people could read and believed the book
as it was written. If you read the book as literal, without ANY presuppositions or assumptions, you would have absolutely NO clue from the text about millions of years. It's just NOT there. Why are you trying to fit man's fallible ideas into an infallible book and then calling the book wrong?? Read it as it's written.
Just like schoolbooks are simplified to make it so that children can grasp the concepts, and then move on to make their own decisions and understand more deeply.<b> School is not the end-all be-all of education, and seeing as the bible is a tool of religious education, isn't there room for your own questions or conclusions? </b>Or do you have to read it and accept it just as it is worded [SIZE=1](translated? How many times? To mean how many different things?)[/SIZE] and not question?
If you're an omnipotent God, and this is your rule book, and your primary basis of communicating your wants and requirements to your believers, aren't you going to make sure it's right? I don't know what kind of diety you may worship (if any), but the one I believe in can make sure the books and verses he wants in the book stay in the book.
Which brings me to another point: The Creator I believe in can do it right the first time, but simply willing something into existance, without needing millions of years and death and destruction to do it. Another reason I have a problem with the ID theorists.
To be perfectly honest, I find it difficult to believe any one theory. People’s minds and their souls are so very complicated that it is rather difficult to think that it was completely and purely evolutionary, and yet, to have God just decide to and proceed to slap together what is now ‘human’ and make everything just the way it is now, and just plunk them down onto a fertile ground seems kind of hokey to me as well.
But see, he DIDN'T make it as it is now. He made it perfect about 6,000 years ago. Then the serpent came and since he was miserable and wanted to make everyone miserable with him, he lied to Eve, told her that God was wrong, don't believe him when he says "if you eat off this tree you'll die". She didn't trust what God said, and CHOSE to believe the serpent instead, and now everything has gone to shit over the last 6,000 years or so. God didn't make it like this. He made a perfect world and humans screwed it up for everybody. Now the serpent is using men to try to convince people that God is wrong (again) about what he said (In the beginning God created...), and people are choosing to believe the serpent instead. Same story, same species, just a different lie.
The fact that different people view God differently tells me that there’s more than one way to believe and to have faith. The bible is not the only way, and therefore it doesn’t belong in school. The teaching of religion belongs in your house or your church.
I absolutely and totally agree. However...evolution as taught as origin of man is a religion too. And my children shouldn't have to learn it in school, either.
Something scares me about teaching creationism in the classroom. It begs children not to question. No? I was taught evolutionism. No one ever brought me to church and told me “this is what you need to think” – or even “This is what we believe”. I was taught that science is just that, ‘science’ – studying, assuming, testing, drawing conclusions and linking things together in a way that makes sense.
Science is science. and it is studying, testing, drawing conclusions and then testing those conclusions, then having OTHER people test the same conclusions in the same way and getting the same answer, every time. (Assumption is not science.)
Evolutionary theory as it relates to origin of man is NOT science. It is all about assumption and guessing. You can't prove any of it. It's not science.
And yet still I believe in <i>a</i> god. it’s just not necessarily <I>your</I> God. Or, rather, not the <i>same way</i> you think of Him. I think it would be comforting to close you eyes and imagine that God looks familiar.
It seems so much easier to <i>know</i> wholly and completely that your belief is correct.
…
Wow, this got a lot wordier than I had intended. Must be off for now, work to do and all that rot.
I agree. My Creator may not be the same as your God. And he/she might not be the same as Elspode's Creator God, or the Hindu God, or the Egyption Dieties.
And I don't think Creationism or Intelligent Design or Evolution as it relates to origin of man need to be taught in school with my tax money.
I'm a literal creationist. God did it like he said he did it in the bible.
Which one?
Which one?The Creator I believe in can do it right the first time,
The thing that always gets me is the difference between the vertebrate and the cephalopod eye. Why would the creator have created the eye 2 different ways? Why would squids have a superior eye if man was created in gods image? :confused:
IOW, until you have personal understanding and proof of the nature of the last billion years, you'll believe that all this was set up by an invisible man.
No, I'll believe that an Omnipotent Creator God that believes that Free Will and Personal Responsiblity are the keys to returning to a perfect world one day made the heavens and the earth in 6 sets of 24-hour periods called days.
I believe that there is an opposing force to this Creator God, a Destroying force, and that he is a liar and a cheat and well, a destroyer. He tricks people into turning away from the Creator God, and he's using this made up bogus fake theory that all humans simply spontaneously generated from a non-living soup of acid, and that we're all just animals, and that one "race" of humans are more evolved than another, and that there is no Creator God at all, and everything is random chance, there's no after life, you're just here for a miserable so many years, and then you're gone.
Well I don't believe the Liar, and I think that all the science that some people use to "prove" millions of years can be reinterpreted to "prove" a young earth of about 6000 years or so.
And I believe that no one has to agree with me or my interpretation of my beliefs.
I believe that my children should NOT have to listen to some schmuck with a 4 year teaching degree (in some cases less) tell them that they came from acidic muck billions of years ago when NO ONE can prove that ANY MORE than they can prove my Creator God exists.
The thing that always gets me is the difference between the vertebrate and the cephalopod eye. Why would the creator have created the eye 2 different ways? Why would squids have a superior eye if man was created in gods image? :confused:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp
Talks all about the eyes.
And our DNA is 98% identical to a chimpanzee's.
And that means what?
many creationists, in argument, indicate that humans are so vastly different from other species in the animal kingdom that we should be effectively removed from the catagory entirely. Why is this? The accomplishments of civilization aside, we really aren't much different when you get down to it. We bleed, we eat, we reproduce, we die.
Well, I can't speak for all creationists, (there are differing opinions even within the Creationist circles) but Genesis tells us that Adam actually named all the animals and was given dominion over all the animals. (The hebrew verbage is important here, specifically, the word
nephesh, which indicates an animal with a soul, ie NOT insects.) This gets rather complex, so I'll refer you to the AIG site I go to alot when I think about stuff like that.
http://www.answersingenesis.orghttp://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp
Talks all about the eyes.
So they're saying that the blind spot isn't that big of a deal for most people most of the time, and because we have flashlights and microscopes, our eyes are just as good as they need to be. Huh. :3_eyes:
Which one?
Which one?
The hebrew text of the old testament and the (mostly) greek text of the new. Yes, there are some minor changes between different translations, and when they differ completely in mean from one to another, I consult the hebrew text and dictionaries, and use the translation most closely matching that.
OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.
OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.
:D :thumbsup:
So they're saying that the blind spot isn't that big of a deal for most people most of the time, and because we have flashlights and microscopes, our eyes are just as good as they need to be. Huh. :3_eyes:
ok, here is a better link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter7.asp
The first one was more focused on retinal photoreceptors, this one is more general.
The highlights: (with snippage)
Kenneth Miller, the Roman Catholic evolutionist who is featured prominently on PBS 1, claims that the eye has ‘profound optical imperfections,’ so is proof of ‘tinkering’ and ‘blind’ natural selection.
Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said:
The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.
He explained that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because that space is reserved for the choroid, which provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat. So it is necessary for the nerves to go in front instead. The claim on the program that they interfere with the image is blatantly false, because the nerves are virtually transparent because of their small size and also having about the same refractive index as the surrounding vitreous humor. In fact, what limits the eye’s resolution is the diffraction of light waves at the pupil (proportional to the wavelength and inversely proportional to the pupil’s size), so alleged improvements of the retina would make no difference.
It’s important to note that the ‘superior’ design of Miller with the (virtually transparent) nerves behind the photoreceptors would require either:
The choroid in front of the retina—but the choroid is opaque because of all the red blood cells, so this design would be as useless as an eye with a hemorrhage!
Photoreceptors not in contact with the RPE and choroid at all—but the photoreceptors would be slow to regenerate, so it would probably take months before we could drive after we were photographed with a flashbulb.
Some evolutionists claim that the cephalopod eye is somehow ‘right,’ i.e., with nerves behind the receptor, and the program showed photographs of these creatures (e.g., octopus, squid) during this segment. But no one who has actually bothered to study these eyes could make such claims with integrity. In fact, cephalopods don’t see as well as humans, and the octopus eye structure is totally different and much simpler. It’s more like ‘a compound eye with a single lens.’
The program also alleges that the retina is badly designed because it can detach and cause blindness. But this doesn’t happen with the vast majority of people, indicating that the design is pretty good. In fact, retinal detachment is more due to the vitreous (‘glassy’) humor liquefying from its normally fairly rigid gel state with advancing age. Then the remaining gel pulls away from the retina, leaving tiny holes, so the other liquefied humor can lift off the retina. So one recently devised treatment is draining the liquid and injecting magnetized silicone gel, which can be moved into place with a magnetic field, to push the retina back and block the holes.3 The occasional failures in the eye with increasing age reflect the fact that we live in a fallen world—so what we observe today may have deteriorated from the original physically perfect state, where, for example, deterioration with age didn’t occur.
Related evolutionary arguments are used to attack so-called vestigial organs (see appendix), the panda’s thumb, and so-called ‘junk’ DNA.
More than that, Kent Hovind (
www.drdino.com) has a segment in his downloadable seminars that has to do with this very question, (and is quite a bit simpler about it), and basically, if the human's eye was constructed like the squid's eyes, we'd all be blind within a very short period of time, because of the inverted nature of the anatomy in the human eyes block certain light waves that underwater creatures dont need to worry about. Thus, the cephalopod eye was made just right for underwater life, and humans eyes were made just right for land dwelling.
I wish I had a more detailed answer on this, but I just don't know enough about it, other than topical information.
But why are there 2 designs? If the creator created it right the first time - why the need for a new design, regardless of which one is "right"?
OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.
Although I recognize you're trying to be funny, no, not "one invisible man, but two". No men. Men have nothing to do with it. Omnipotent Creator and to a lesser extent, Destroyer.
Not men.
But why are there 2 designs? If the creator created it right the first time - why the need for a new design, regardless of which one is "right"?
Because one type lives underwater, and would REQUIRE a different anatomy than the other, who lives above water?
Edit:
Just like respiratory systems. One type "breathes" water, while the other "breathes" air. Same thing.
I don't understand your confusion on this?
Invisible is the more operative word; you don't require any proof of your story at all, right?
I only require the exclusion of magic from science classes. And I fully expect that many Sunday School classes will exclude science. And I have no problem with that. You don't go to a science class to learn about magic, and you don't go to Mass to learn about science. It's real easy.
Monkey, it comes down to this:
You can postulate that God (et al) made it like the bible says he did. You have no proof of that.
and
You can postulate that by happy random chance, non-life spontaneously erupted into primitive life, and from that life, all different life forms mutated and speciated and added a bunch of genetic information and split and over billions of years, the human race, as we know it, evolved. You have no proof of that either.
So why teach either in public school? Leave it out and teach SCIENCE.
Invisible is the more operative word; you don't require any proof of your story at all, right?
Wrong.
Could it have happened the way the bible says it did? Is it possible the earth is only about 6,000 years old?
Yes.
OK, prove it.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class!
Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
You can't tell a kid "A higher power made people" and not explain who - at which point your kid's teacher just became a preacher. Ohhhh, not good. Therefore, it doesn't belong in school.
Bottom line as far as I can tell is thus:
Evolutionism is based on tremendous amounts of science: question, study, theorize, test. To the best of many brilliant minds' understanding, this is the way things have happened. 1+1=2. It makes sense.
Creationism is based on tremendous amounts of faith in a book, written forever ago by people who had no idea that the human body is made up of cells and that you catch a cold by coming into contact with the germs.
I'm much too tempted start in with the "If God made us in His own image, then what's <i>He </i>standing on?" questions. But that's not what this whole thing is about, so I think I am going to back out of this discussion now.
Because one type lives underwater, and would REQUIRE a different anatomy than the other, who lives above water?
Edit:
Just like respiratory systems. One type "breathes" water, while the other "breathes" air. Same thing.
I don't understand your confusion on this?
One breathes oxygen from water, another breathes oxygen from air - all eyes see with light. Cetaceans have inverted retinae.
But that's not what this whole thing is about, so I think I am going to back out of this discussion now.
I concur.
You can't tell a kid "A higher power made people" and not explain who - at which point your kid's teacher just became a preacher. Ohhhh, not good. Therefore, it doesn't belong in school.
OK, I'm going to say this one more time, in BOLD and CAPITAL letters, so maybe someone will read it this time.
I DON'T ADVOCATE TEACHING BIBLICAL OR ANY OTHER CREATIONIST THEORY IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. NOR SHOULD PUBLIC SCHOOLTEACHERS ADVOCATE OR TEACH THE EVOLUTIONIST ORIGIN OF MAN.
Did you get it this time?
Bottom line as far as I can tell is thus:
Evolutionism is based on tremendous amounts of science: question, study, theorize, test. To the best of many brilliant minds' understanding, this is the way things have happened. 1+1=2. It makes sense.
Read previous post about presuppositions. Darwin's origin of man is GUESSWORK. If it was science that life came from non-life, you'd be able to make life come from non-life in a test tube. Since that can't be done, you have NO PROOF!! Just like *gasp* creationist theories!!
Creationism is based on tremendous amounts of faith in a book, written forever ago by people who had no idea that the human body is made up of cells and that you catch a cold by coming into contact with the germs.
Uh, actually, it's been posited that the bible (in the clean/unclean and the "put her away for a week" etc portions) were actually a great idea for the time, and is the FIRST evidence of quarantine as a way to curb contagious diseases. Seems like SOMEONE understood germs way back in the first 5 books of the bible.
I'm much too tempted start in with the "If God made us in His own image, then what's <i>He </i>standing on?" questions. But that's not what this whole thing is about, so I think I am going to back out of this discussion now.
You're right, it's not what this discussion is about, that's a WHOLE other thread. :) This isn't about why a person belives in one diety or another (or none at all).
One breathes oxygen from water, another breathes oxygen from air - all eyes see with light. Cetaceans have inverted retinae.
You're right.
But the process by which those occur is different. They are each suited for their environments.
I'm sorry, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.
I'm sorry, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.
I don't know where I lost you OC, I'm just discussing one of the reasons why "the creator created it right the first time" doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't seem likely to me that an omnipotent/scient god would create 2 different designs for the same purpose. Slight variations of a design depending on environment I can understand... aquatic animals need a longer eyeball to focus an image in front of the retina instead of behind it etc. that makes sense (but again, why does the squid have one type of eye, and the whale another if they are both underwater as you explained?).
If you're looking for a concrete point, a "I'm 100% certain that...", I'm sorry, I don't have one. I'm just asking questions because I'm interested in the answers.
Ah, I see. Well, I'm not sure that squids and whales have different eyes. I know that squids and humans do, but not about squids and whales. This is why I was posting comparisons to squids and humans, not squids and whales. My fault. Entirely.
I don't know why they have different eyes. Perhaps it's because their nervous systems are completely different, so the way the optic nerve handles information is different? Again, I have no clue, that's just a guess.
My best suggestion is to submit that question to AiG and see what they say. Smart bunch of folks, and lots of them are scientists, like marine biologists, etc. That would be the place to get your questions answered. I'm hardly a scientist of any discipline.
Edit to add:
IIUC, squids do not have contact with the air AT ALL, while whales need air to breathe...so perhaps the eye was formed in the whale differently from the squid because it DOES have contact with the air?? Shamu et all sure spend alot of time above water... ?? I dunno...just something I thought of....
a PDF on Whale eyes (appears to be a children's textbook):
relevant info is on page 3 and 4
http://www.destinationcinema.com/our_films/whales/documents/v3_3.pdf
quote from page 3:
The vertebrate eye is like a camera that forms a
picture. The visual system transmits the image
in biochemical code to the brain via the optic
nerves. The human eye is similar to the eyes of
other mammals, whales included.
and a really good explaination of the differences between squid and human eyes:
In humans (and in fact in all vertebrates) the inner layer of the optic cup forms the retina. This means the retina is actually "reversed", with the light-sensitive portion (the rods and cones) on the outside. IOW, incoming light has to pass through all of the layers before it reaches the rods and cones.
This is where the idea that the layers provide protection against certain types of light from frying the rods and cones.
In squid (and octopi and other molluscs), however, the eye is somewhat different. The light sensitive portion is on the inside surface, facing the incoming light. Light strikes the rods and cones before the other parts. This means that squid eyes have substantially greater light sensitivity than humans. The nerve fibers of the squid eye don't have to pass through the retina to enter the visual cortex of the brain, they are already on that side of it. By contrast, the neural elements of the vertebrate eye must pass through, and that's what makes the blind spot. Squid eyes have no blind spot.
In addition, squid eyes have a different focussing mechanism (using the lens rather than the cornea) that allows significantly greater function underwater by reducing refraction and eliminating the problems humans have with astigmatism, etc. Squid don't have to wear glasses...
Does that help?
You can postulate that by happy random chance, non-life spontaneously erupted into primitive life, and from that life, all different life forms mutated and speciated and added a bunch of genetic information and split and over billions of years, the human race, as we know it, evolved. You have no proof of that either.
There is no proof of any theory.
Your refusal to understand the
evidence supporting evolution doesn't negate it. Just as my refusal to accept Biblical literalism doesn't lead me to ask that it be removed from Sunday School classes.
The thing that always gets me is the difference between the vertebrate and the cephalopod eye. Why would the creator have created the eye 2 different ways? Why would squids have a superior eye if man was created in gods image?
Because God is inscrutible.
There is no proof of any theory.
As there is no proof in science.
There is no proof of any theory.
Your refusal to understand the evidence supporting evolution doesn't negate it. Just as my refusal to accept Biblical literalism doesn't lead me to ask that it be removed from Sunday School classes.
The difference here Monkey is that if you don't want your child taught Creationism, don't send your child to Sunday School.
All children are taught an equally non-provable theory in public school, whether I like it or not. How is that equal?
They are not equal. Evolution is science, whether you choose to understand it or not. Creationism is religion, whatever pseudoscientific trappings they try to dress it in. Science has a place in science classes, and religion does not.
Evolution is one of the most profound and important scientific discoveries in history. Pretending it doesn't exist in science class would be a major disservice to the students. The only thing separating evolution from other sciences is the continual effort by religious groups making distinctions without a difference. If the same groups worked with the same fervor to highlight any holes in Einstein, and promote scientists who disagree with relativity, they could make a website just as extensive as AnswersInGenesis. (And I suspect they actually would go after astronomy next, if they succeeded with evolution.) All science is incomplete. There are always more twists and details to discover. That's just the way science works.
Ok, the root of the argument here appears to be not whether mutation and speciation occur but what is the First Cause of man, correct?
That being the case, I believe that the argument dies when we realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is putting the pieces of evidence together to create a theory as to the most likely cause of our current state of evolution and that the bible says "God says it happened this way."
Science deals in trends and degrees of likelihood, the *insert appropriate religious text here* says with 100% certainty it happened this way.
As to how either of those is presented in a school environment, I can see where a teacher, or even the text, would gloss over the topic of evolution and just say that "scientists say that this is how it happened." That is not a failing of the scientist or the theory, but of the teacher or the publisher.
Again, evolution, when presented correctly, is science, and creationism, no matter how you present it, is religion.
So mote it be...
The hebrew verbage is important here, specifically, the word nephesh, which indicates an animal with a soul, ie NOT insects.
Does this mean that cats go to Heaven?
Not according to the Council of Nicea, I believe. Women just barely got souls, animals lost.
Catholic Version Pope John Paul II now says that animals do have souls. He is infallible, therefore they must.
Protestant Version - No
Islamic View - No, but the author would like them to, based on personal experience.
The Methodists - Succinct, to the point, no.
Evolution is science, whether you choose to understand it or not. Creationism is religion, whatever pseudoscientific trappings they try to dress it in. Science has a place in science classes, and religion does not.
Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science. Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools. Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. How to create facts was not understood back when the bible was written. In the meantime, science has move forward beyond the bible - using new tools that did not exist 2000 years ago.
Demonstrated in this discussion is a 'denial of facts' - from those who give the bible way too much credit and credibility.
The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.
And so we arrive at the real definition of religion. Early attempts at learning how the world works is worshipped by people who fear change. Worshipped by people who fear to learn from god's newest disciples.
OnyxCougar has a problem. All facts were written a few thousand years ago? There are no more prophets because only the bible can be correct? We call such people anti-innovative.
Reality. Name more of god's prophets. Einstein. Newton. Hilbert. Gauss. Franklin. DaVinci. Keppler. Sigmund Freud. These too are god's prophets. They all discovered more of gods laws. They used god's laws from previous prophets to learn more god's laws. They innovated.
Today we hold god's prophets to higher standards because our newest bibles are chock full of more "god's laws" including new tools such as scientific challenge. God's prophets must prove their discoveries of what god teaches. As we learn more of god's tools, we even use them to discover which of god's prophets better understood god.
Science demonstrates a god that Onyxcougar worships is really nothing more than a pagan. No wonder god must appear in human form. God in that time was the best that man could comprehend. Today we know many of those prophets could have easily been Capt Kirk from a starship named Enterprize. No wonder her god is so pathetically limited as to have will, opinons, and love. No wonder her god has his chosen people - and president. All characteristics of gods found in every pagan religion. To worship her pagan god, she needs a science book that says nothing more need be learned. She calls it the bible.
Why do religious extremists deny science such as evolution? It means their one and only book has been obsoleted. Parables that were revised as we have learned more of gods laws. We study the bible to better learn our history. How things did and did not work. Parables on how man could be so mistaken as to destroy and how man can advance by learning more of gods laws. We learn science to move forward - to better understand god. Notice that this god is truly supreme. Not so limited with human emotions as the bible's god. Our books are constantly being updated and revised as god's prophets discover more of god's laws.
Christianity provided principles on which we have developed the sciences of law, civil rights, chemistry, psychology, physics, and other sciences. Bible was but an early attempt. And like all early sciences, it is chock full of errors, myths, fallacies, and misinterpretations. For example, the bible was written by humans who did not yet have one important tool (to exist, a fact must have both underlying theory and experimental evidence). Early prophets did what they could with so many limited tools. They used parables - one of the most powerful tools of learning during that time.
God's prophets today use new tools of science - such as what a fact really is - to teach us all more of gods laws. When was the last time interpreters of the bible told us that 8% of all species are gay? Those who cannot learn (worship the bible) even promote hate of gays. How do they promote hate and yet call themselves god's choosen people? Probably for the same reason that god told George Jr to 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq. He too is god's choosen president - if one blindly worships a pagan god.
Ok, the root of the argument here appears to be not whether mutation and speciation occur but what is the First Cause of man, correct?
Yes. Finally. Someone read the phrase "evolution as it relates to the origin of man" that I posted so many times.
That being the case, I believe that the argument dies when we realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is putting the pieces of evidence together to create a theory as to the most likely cause of our current state of evolution and that the bible says "God says it happened this way."
Science deals in trends and degrees of likelihood, the *insert appropriate religious text here* says with 100% certainty it happened this way.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
As to how either of those is presented in a school environment, I can see where a teacher, or even the text, would gloss over the topic of evolution and just say that "scientists say that this is how it happened." That is not a failing of the scientist or the theory, but of the teacher or the publisher.
And my contention is that since ORIGINS is completely unprovable, leave it out entirely.
Again, evolution, when presented correctly, is science, and creationism, no matter how you present it, is religion.
So mote it be...
No, ORIGINS is not science. Any way you try to slice it. ORIGINS is religion, by whatever means you try to explain it.
Does this mean that cats go to Heaven?
Let me check on
nephesh and get back to you.
Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.
Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science.
Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.
Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools.
You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.
Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. How to create facts was not understood back when the bible was written.
Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?
In the meantime, science has move forward beyond the bible - using new tools that did not exist 2000 years ago.
Demonstrated in this discussion is a 'denial of facts' - from those who give the bible way too much credit and credibility.
You are incorrect. I'm not denying ANY facts. I'm denying a specific set of interpretations based on the facts. It is my belief that a different set of interpretations of the same facts can explain creationism JUST AS WELL as the interpretation posited by evolutionist origins.
The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.
I don't know who views the bible as a book of science. Again, there are ideas of science in the bible, but it is hardly a science text. Your premise is flawed.
And so we arrive at the real definition of religion. Early attempts at learning how the world works is worshipped by people who fear change. Worshipped by people who fear to learn from god's newest disciples.
Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...
OnyxCougar has a problem. All facts were written a few thousand years ago?
Huh? Who said that? I thought you said there were no facts a few thousand years ago? You're contradicting yourself....
There are no more prophets because only the bible can be correct? We call such people anti-innovative.
Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? Who said only the bible can be correct? Don't put words in my mouth that I never said and then tell me I'm wrong.
Reality. Name more of god's prophets. Einstein. Newton. Hilbert. Gauss. Franklin. DaVinci. Keppler. Sigmund Freud. These too are god's prophets. They all discovered more of gods laws. They used god's laws from previous prophets to learn more god's laws. They innovated.
Although I'm not sure of your usage of the word "prophet" here, I can agree with the idea here.
Today we hold god's prophets to higher standards because our newest bibles are chock full of more "god's laws" including new tools such as scientific challenge.
Newest bibles? Last I checked there was a group of writings that was agreed upon a couple hundred years or so ago, and that was then termed "the Bible". Full stop. Your statement is based upon the flawed premise that the Bible is a textbook of science, which (for the third time) it's not.
God's prophets must prove their discoveries of what god teaches. As we learn more of god's tools, we even use them to discover which of god's prophets better understood god.
More metaphor based on flawed premise.
Science demonstrates a god that Onyxcougar worships is really nothing more than a pagan. No wonder god must appear in human form. God in that time was the best that man could comprehend.
huh? You lost me here....
Today we know many of those prophets could have easily been Capt Kirk from a starship named Enterprize.
If you're going to use pop culture references, at least spell them correctly. That's
Enterprise.
No wonder her god is so pathetically limited as to have will, opinons, and love.
? Please explain how having will, opinions and love is pathetic or limited.
No wonder her god has his chosen people - and president.
I don't believe my God chose George Bush. Bush may think that, some fundies may think that, I don't. So please refrain from linking me to your religio-political overgeneralizations.
All characteristics of gods found in every pagan religion. To worship her pagan god, she needs a science book that says nothing more need be learned. She calls it the bible.
Again (4th time) the bible is not a science book. That's YOUR straw man. Also, the bible doesn't say "nothing more need be learned". So please, stop making these ridiculous statements.
Why do religious extremists deny science such as evolution?
I'm hardly a religious extremist. And evolution as it relates to origion of man is not science. It's guesswork. And it shouldn't be taught in school any more than creationist origins should.
It means their one and only book has been obsoleted.
I disagree. First, the bible (specifically the old testament) is the cornerstone and foundation of Christian, Judaism and Islamic faiths. Within it are timeless concepts that will never be obsolete, as much as you wish they were. Granted, there are some things (like stoning people) that western society considers obsolete now, but the western justice system was based off of Christian laws and punishments within the bible. We don't stone people now, we imprison them. And as we have seen, imprisonment isnt much of a deterrant, is it? But that's another thread entirely....
Parables that were revised as we have learned more of gods laws. We study the bible to better learn our history.
So you agree it's also got history in it. History that has never been DISproven. We may not be able to prove all the history, but what secular history we can verify time and time again agrees with biblical history. So since it hasn't been DISproven, why not believe it all? Again, another thread, but definitely a product of the EvCvID debate.
How things did and did not work. Parables on how man could be so mistaken as to destroy and how man can advance by learning more of gods laws. We learn science to move forward - to better understand god.
Perhaps back in the day that was true. Now, many scientists learn science in an attempt to prove god doesn't exist, and to get other people to doubt god as well. What's the best way to do this? "Prove" that the primary and fundamental statement "In the beginning God created" is wrong, by advancing this UNPROVABLE notion that man evolved from primordial soup. If the Bible is wrong, then you can't trust any of it, and therefore, the foundation of 3 of the world's major religions is GONE. That's why this is such an important issue to Christians, indeed, it should be a major issue to Muslims and Jews. The theory of Evolution as it relates to origin of man is completely opposite of the bible. And you have to take a stand. Do you believe in the word of God or fallible man? Both theories are equally unprovable, and therefore, religious in nature, and should NOT be taught in school.
Notice that this god is truly supreme. Not so limited with human emotions as the bible's god.
Tee, you are the ONLY person who I've ever met (virtually or otherwise) that thinks emotion is a bad thing, or limiting, or pathetic.
Our books are constantly being updated and revised as god's prophets discover more of god's laws.
Again, I'm not so sure of your use of "prophets" here.
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prophete, from Old French, from Latin propheta, from Greek prophEtEs, from pro for + phanai to speak -- more at FOR, BAN
1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations; specifically often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
A scientist could be called a prophet, by def. 4, but I would say that "god's prophets" would be more apt to lift god up, so to speak, as opposed to many scientists, who try to tear him down.
Christianity provided principles on which we have developed the sciences of law, civil rights, chemistry, psychology, physics, and other sciences.
Not just Christianity, but all 3 major OT based belief sets.
Bible was but an early attempt. And like all early sciences, it is chock full of errors, myths, fallacies, and misinterpretations.
Depends on the interpretation. Strictly exegetical, no it's not.
For example, the bible was written by humans who did not yet have one important tool (to exist, a fact must have both underlying theory and experimental evidence).
But just a little while ago you said they had facts... stick with one story Mr. Kerry!
Early prophets did what they could with so many limited tools. They used parables - one of the most powerful tools of learning during that time.
Jesus used parables. And it was obvious when he used them because the style of writing changed and he SAID he was using a parable.
God's prophets today use new tools of science - such as what a fact really is - to teach us all more of gods laws.
You need to define what a fact is and figure out if a fact is a fact all the time, or if a fact is a fact only after a certain time. Please be consistant on when a fact is a fact. Until then, I'm ignoring your Kerry-ish argument about facts.
When was the last time interpreters of the bible told us that 8% of all species are gay?
Those who cannot learn (worship the bible) even promote hate of gays.
Firstly, "worship the bible" is not something that people are supposed to be doing. Those who use the bible as a foundation for their faith are supposed to "worship" God (by whatever name each faith might use).
Secondly, I reject that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn. And I do NOT promote hate of gays. I don't promote hate of anyone. That was a completely out of hand and inflammatory statement. And made to ilicit an emotional response. Be careful, Tee.
How do they promote hate and yet call themselves god's choosen people?
Last I checked, gods chosen people are the Israelites. And those are Jews. So you're saying Jews promote hate? huh?
Probably for the same reason that god told George Jr to 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq.
Prove that.
He too is god's choosen president - if one blindly worships a pagan god.
A nonsense statement.
EDIT: changed exegisial to exegetical. Yeah. I can spell.
Not according to the Council of Nicea, I believe. Women just barely got souls, animals lost.
Catholic Version Pope John Paul II now says that animals do have souls. He is infallible, therefore they must.
Protestant Version - No
Islamic View - No, but the author would like them to, based on personal experience.
The Methodists - Succinct, to the point, no.
This is one reason why I'm trying to learn hebrew and greek. I want to see what the text says and read it in an exegetical context, so that I can interpret it, instead of somebody interpreting it for me.
And I don't even want to go into catholicism.
You never answered my question, OC (although it was awhile back and I think it may have ended up in a different thread...):
No molecules-to-man, ok. But if you agree that speciation happens, is there a reason you can't accept the possibility of apes-to-man (other than the fact that the Bible says they were created at the same time?)
This is the first time I have viewed this thread and have only one thing to say:
OnyxCougar's fingers have got to be getting tired. :)
You never answered my question, OC (although it was awhile back and I think it may have ended up in a different thread...):
No molecules-to-man, ok. But if you agree that speciation happens, is there a reason you can't accept the possibility of apes-to-man (other than the fact that the Bible says they were created at the same time?)
Sorry, clod, didn't see it.
Yes, even with mutation and speciation, which is observable and experimental (and can thus be proven), I do not believe molecules to man (I'll shorten Molecules to Man theory to evolution in this post) happened. Let's examine some of the principle portions of the theory and counter with creationism (please understand I'm not a scientist, and this is really dumbed down becuase I'm not one of those technical type people. If you want a technical answer go to AiG's website....they have molecular biologists and people who are WAY smarter than me that can answer your question:
1. Evolutionary Theory posits that the "big bang" occured (life from non-life), and that the stars (and sun) were created BEFORE the earth and the planets.
1. Creationists posit that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was made first, with the sun being made after, to separate the night from the day.
2. Evolutionary Theory posits that on the primordial earth, there was a mixture of chemicals and compounds in the waters and air of the earth and somehow (no one quite knows) life spontaneously occured, and the first cells appeared. (Here's HM's "magic".)
2. Creationists believe that God made all the flora and fauna and they were all vegetarians...no animal ate any other. He looked around and "saw that it was good".
3. ET says that one magic cellular organism (the one that spontaneously appeared from non-life) then reproduced itself and then there were two magic life-forms. (How did a cell have all of the components to survive and reproduce if it spontaneously generated from non-life? Reproductive systems are incredibly complex, even asexual reproduction isn't easy... yet somehow this magic cell managed it...)
3. Creationists: See #2
4. So from this really smart cell that spontaneously burst onto the scene able to reproduce itself, ETists say that more cells came about and more and more and then for no reason at all, TWO cells went from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. They had cellular sex. Now HOW their "bodies" changed to have a "sperm" and an "egg" type of cell, no one knows. You're just supposed to buy this. No cells have EVER been seen to be able to spontaneously appear. No cells have EVER been seen that can come from an asexual reproduction and suddenly become sexual reproducers.
This form of evolution, "evolving up" means there must be an addition of information. Some how, some way, the cells HAD to learn to divide and/or go from asexual to sexual reproduction.
There has NEVER been any record of information GAIN in any life form scientists have studied. Mutation and Speciation happen, but these involve LOSS or CORRUPTION of EXISTING material.
In other words, all the genetic material is already there to start with, and speciation and mutation LOSE genetic variability as they "adapt" to their environment.
Evolution Theory posits that some how, some way, those single simple cells GAINED information to form multiple celled organisms, and those "evolved" to a HIGHER form of life.
But since what we actually observe is the OPPOSITE of this effect, the evolutionary theory cannot be proven.
Here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp is a AiG page on cellular origins and primordial soups.
Here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp is an AiG page on Information Theory.
If this doesn't answer your question, Clod, please forgive me, my brain is tired from Tee-Dub's post.
This is the first time I have viewed this thread and have only one thing to say:
OnyxCougar's fingers have got to be getting tired. :)
My fingers are fine, it's my brain that's tired.
I don't really believe I'm going to change anyone's mind, but I do hope I'm making them question the information they've been force fed.
If you do a thorough investigation and you really believe one non-provable theory over another, that's one thing. But research it a little, look at ALL arguements OBJECTIVELY, and then make your decision.
OC, I understand your position on molecules-to-man.
What I'm asking about is just speciation from apes to man, forgetting all the earlier steps for a moment.
In your mind, could a group of apes speciate to the degree that they became indistinguishable from humans?
Edit to add: I'm in no hurry, so feel free to take a break for awhile before getting back to me. I won't be back online to read it until 6AM tomorrow anyway. :)
OC, I understand your position on molecules-to-man.
What I'm asking about is just speciation from apes to man, forgetting all the earlier steps for a moment.
In your mind, could a group of apes speciate to the degree that they became indistinguishable from humans?
Edit to add: I'm in no hurry, so feel free to take a break for awhile before getting back to me. I won't be back online to read it until 6AM tomorrow anyway. :)
"speciation from apes to man" assumes man "evolved" from apes, that apes are our ancestors. It has a starting assumption I don't agree with. It's inseparable from the molecules to man idea, because it's just the last few steps on that tree.
To answer your question more directly, no, in my little mind, speciation from apes to man can't occur because there are things men can do that apes can't (sometimes called "higher functions") and that is information GAIN, while speciation is information LOSS.
But research it a little, look at ALL arguements OBJECTIVELY, and then make your decision.
This is one of those topics where you can really only look at things subjectively.
Therein lies the problem.
Now, folks, how's about this little tidbit ... showed up in my mailbox courtesy of one of my right-wing mailing lists.
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.
...
Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.
...
You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.
...
Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?
...
Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:
...
But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...
The bible as a tool of influence can easily be a source of 'good' or of 'evil'. The same parable is told in another story called Star Wars. Parables were powerful tools to justify an action or 'prove' the king was chosen by god. But in biblical days, that is how most of mankind knowledge was proven.
Still something happened in Greece long before - and yet was little understood since most people could not read let alone understand Greek. Socrates was using something radical called logic to prove things such as that the gods were simply nothing more than extensions of human traits. Socrates indeed taught things never before comprehended because he was using a new tool – logic. If – then …. For if gods choose people, practice jealously or disdain, and exercise personal will, then gods were not infinite. Even though so much of our early logic and even concepts of social order can be traced to the Greeks, still, people even 1000 years later had no knowledge of the concepts. The tools that so many had to perform 'advanced' thinking were parables from the bible.
It indeed was a good book in its time. And yet its concepts could also be used by (was it the Dominicans?) to massacre another French Catholic people (the Jesuits?). (Does anyone have this story - I cannot find it?) It justified the Crusades – even resulting in the ransacking of Constantinople in 1205. Therefore 'good' was just as easily turned into 'evil' - which means good and evil are based more on emotions - not necessarily on facts. But that is how the bible was used (manipulated) throughout history. We used an early social science to make mistakes - and learn more laws of nature - or god's laws if you will.
People such as DaVinci rescued, demonstrated, and performed logic in a time we call the Renaissance. In the days of Moses, one would only say something - and his credibility was enough? Tools of logical thought were that deficient. As science advanced, the procedures to establish facts have advanced. Currently we use things such as peer reviewed papers, bibliographic citations, and mathematical theory to demand far more before we accept something as fact. At least that is what one who is not a junk scientist does.
Things we call junk science were common in biblical times. Anyone who saw Capt Kirk transport to earth would indeed call him god. Today, we call those 'facts', at best, a parable. Did a burning bush talk to Moses? Ever see a speaker created from the flame of a bunsen burner? Was it god, some electronic wizardry, or just a fairy tale that Moses used to provide credibility to his ten rules of social order? Was Moses nothing more than a great 'innovator' who appreciated a need for better rules? Well we do call him a prophet.
The principles that Moses set forth are historically important and well proven principles. How the principles were created could have been a lie - so common with parables. But what those rules accomplished can be defined as the early principles of a science called law. Ten Commandments (and not necessary the story) are important facts in mankind history.
Principles of creation met the criteria for fact in biblical times. But man has advanced. We no longer believe the principles of spontaneous reproduction because our requirements for facts have made spontaneous reproduction nothing more than a myth. Same can be said of creationism. It too no longer meets the criteria as fact. It too has fallen to the rank of parable or nursery tale. A tale important to mankind's history. But not valid in a world of a constantly advancing science. There is no factual basis for creationism. Only a … we will get to that definition of religion later.
Currently mankind is in another struggle. We can no longer explain a universe that is four dimensional - length, width, height, and time. As we continue to advance, we may learn that this universe is 7 or 10 dimensional. IOW as our tools get better, we must now learn how a particle simultaneously in NYC and one in London are the same particle. What does the bible say about this? Real sciences - the principles that advance mankind - must continue long beyond what is found in the bible.
IOW we develop and then use better tools to learn more facts. Yes many things taken for fact in the first hundred years AD were nothing more than myths. The stars did not 'talk' to us. In the meantime, much great wisdom such as 500 BC Sze Tzu is still not understood even by (corrupt) leaders today who are getting and presenting the Freedom Metal …. because they were ignorant of well proven military science. Go figure. How do you explain that fact? Too much religious beliefs imposed on other people by a president who ‘believes he is god’s chosen one’ … reality and knowledge be damned. More examples of how a Christian religion imposed on others can cause the deaths of about 98,000 Iraqis.
There still are many mysteries (ie junk science proclamations) in the world such as WMDs and aluminum tubes. Even when science says otherwise, still many will believe myths. Mankind still has much to learn.
You may not know anyone who views the bible as an early book of science. And yet is that not what Moses brought down from the mountain? Does the bible say which foods of that time should not be eaten? Right there we have the science of law and the science of nutrition. Where else do biblical people learn how to advance mankind - the purpose of science? The Quran even teaches trade rules. Economics. Another science (although some might argue economics is black magic).
A definition of religion says
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Therein lies my point. In biblical times, the bible was some of the best science (other religions had similar principles and books). But the bible is now an obsolete book. Religious means believing in those old and now obsolete principles. IOW beliefs held with "ardor and faith" - as called emotions. Parables not based upon the newer tools of science such as logic. In Christian religion, god's prophet existed only in biblical times. In religion, god has sent no more prophets? Nonsense. That makes god nothing more than a super human. Or the creation of a good fiction writer.
Religion even in that definition implies no change - no advancement - no discovery - that things will always be the way less educated people believed - only because that was written back then. Religion must be based upon emotions such as “ardor and faith”? It requires “scrupulous conformity”? Any prophets that say otherwise must be wrong because only the bible is correct. Things based only upon emotion and not based upon what we now require as fact.
How trusting must a religious person be? Scam artists recognize the most religious among us are easiest to scam. They are the most trusting. Less likely to ask 'embarrassing' or probing questions. Most easily influenced by junk science reasoning. IOW people with less appreciation for science and most appreciation for the now obsoleted science are better defined as religious. It a trend - not a rule.
That pesky dictionary is not wrong. It also implies what one must do to choose religion over facts, logic, and other tools of science. Use emotion rather than facts.
[Continues in next post]
[Continued from previous post]
In the meantime, I am not putting words into any one person's mouth. Religious extremists are not Onyxcougar. But some religious peers of Onyxcougar would repeatedly and outrightly subvert other religions to promote the ‘power and glory’ of their righteous religion. Then they are called ‘good’? That other religion called ‘evil’? Again I must quote Pat Robertson on his 700 Club
A man who marries outside of his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law.
That promotes hate. That is how one religion must subvert another. It demands religious segregation. How evil as demonstrated in stories from Kahlil Gibran - the great religious poet and story teller of early 1900 Lebanon. Pat Robertson promotes principles contrary to what the United States is base upon and the stories of Gibran. And yet Pat Robertson represents what right wing religious extremists would attempt to do to America. No different than promoting racial hatred. Still Pat Robertson is considered a benchmark of ‘good’ religion?
There is no place for religion in politics, science, education, etc other than as a lesson of history. Why? The act of religion is and must remain a relationship between you and your god. No one else has any right to subvert or deny you the right to practice your religion. Furthermore, no one religion has the right to impose their beliefs on other people.
It is a new principle discovered by the science of law - 1000+ years after the bible was created. Religion has no place in law, astronomy, physics, psychology, mathematics, etc. If that religion is your religion, then it has rules by which you live. If the religion is credible, then it also does not impose itself on others not of that religion. IOW a true Christian would never have tried to force a Christian democracy on an Islamic people. Once we called the Crusades evil examples of a perverted religion. Religion should never tell a Buddhist that he could not drive on the Sabbath. Or that a woman can fly a plane but not drive a car. And yet many religions are so "scrupulous conformity" as to also impose themselves on other. That is simply not acceptable because mankind has learned so much more about religious principles since the bible.
One of "god's laws" that was discovered by more of god's prophets - including the founders of this nation - is the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means a relationship between you and your god unimpeded by any other AND that your religion and its beliefs are not imposed on others. Where in the bible are such principles taught? You can find concepts from which these principles are derived. This science of social order used principles even found in an early science book - such as the bible.
There is no soundbyte response to describe the principles of, relationships to others, and the evil justified by religion. Religion was a good science in its time. Since then, mankind has learned so much and moved on. So much that this posting had to be shortened – extensively.
Although I'm not sure of your usage of the word "prophet" here, I can agree with the idea here.
...
Newest bibles? Last I checked there was a group of writings that was agreed upon a couple hundred years or so ago, and that was then termed "the Bible". Full stop. Your statement is based upon the flawed premise that the Bible is a textbook of science, which (for the third time) it's not.
...
Please explain how having will, opinions and love is pathetic or limited.
...
I don't believe my God chose George Bush. Bush may think that, some fundies may think that, I don't. So please refrain from linking me to your religio-political overgeneralizations.
...
Again (4th time) the bible is not a science book. That's YOUR straw man. Also, the bible doesn't say "nothing more need be learned". So please, stop making these ridiculous statements.
...
I'm hardly a religious extremist. And evolution as it relates to origion of man is not science. It's guesswork. And it shouldn't be taught in school any more than creationist origins should.
...
I disagree. First, the bible (specifically the old testament) is the cornerstone and foundation of Christian, Judaism and Islamic faiths. Within it are timeless concepts that will never be obsolete, as much as you wish they were. Granted, there are some things (like stoning people) that western society considers obsolete now, but the western justice system was based off of Christian laws and punishments within the bible. We don't stone people now, we imprison them. And as we have seen, imprisonment isnt much of a deterrant, is it? But that's another thread entirely....
...
So you agree it's also got history in it. History that has never been DISproven. We may not be able to prove all the history, but what secular history we can verify time and time again agrees with biblical history. So since it hasn't been DISproven, why not believe it all? Again, another thread, but definitely a product of the EvCvID debate.
...
Perhaps back in the day that was true. Now, many scientists learn science in an attempt to prove god doesn't exist, and to get other people to doubt god as well. What's the best way to do this? "Prove" that the primary and fundamental statement "In the beginning God created" is wrong, by advancing this UNPROVABLE notion that man evolved from primordial soup. If the Bible is wrong, then you can't trust any of it, and therefore, the foundation of 3 of the world's major religions is GONE. That's why this is such an important issue to Christians, indeed, it should be a major issue to Muslims and Jews. The theory of Evolution as it relates to origin of man is completely opposite of the bible. And you have to take a stand. Do you believe in the word of God or fallible man? Both theories are equally unprovable, and therefore, religious in nature, and should NOT be taught in school.
...
Tee, you are the ONLY person who I've ever met (virtually or otherwise) that thinks emotion is a bad thing, or limiting, or pathetic.
...
Again, I'm not so sure of your use of "prophets" here.
...
A scientist could be called a prophet, by def. 4, but I would say that "god's prophets" would be more apt to lift god up, so to speak, as opposed to many scientists, who try to tear him down.
...
Jesus used parables. And it was obvious when he used them because the style of writing changed and he SAID he was using a parable.
...
You need to define what a fact is and figure out if a fact is a fact all the time, or if a fact is a fact only after a certain time. Please be consistant on when a fact is a fact. Until then, I'm ignoring your Kerry-ish argument about facts.
...
Firstly, "worship the bible" is not something that people are supposed to be doing. Those who use the bible as a foundation for their faith are supposed to "worship" God (by whatever name each faith might use).
Secondly, I reject that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn. And I do NOT promote hate of gays. I don't promote hate of anyone. That was a completely out of hand and inflammatory statement. And made to ilicit an emotional response. Be careful, Tee.
...
Last I checked, gods chosen people are the Israelites. And those are Jews. So you're saying Jews promote hate? huh?
First, not all whose religion is tightly tied to the bible are religious extremists. Furthermore, just because George Jr is 'god's chosen president' does not mean that it is the belief of all or any devout Christians. In fact George Jr is only god's chosen president because HE believes it. It is HIS religion and HIS religious belief. It demonstrates that George Jr worships a limited and flawed god. A god with gross human deficiencies such as choice and preference - and therefore a limited god - a pagan god.
Prophet - innovator. Someone who discovers more of god's laws. Someone who cannot exist hundreds of years later if only the bible is correct. Someone who advances mankind by adding or correcting principles long since expanded and corrected from the original bible.
It would be illogical to say that a flaw in the bible makes the entire bible flawed. It was a good book in its time just like all science books. We ignore what was wrong, use what works, write a new book, and advance mankind. From the bible have been spawned many new and better books such as geometry and Darwinism.
Despite what your religion may teach, mankind has been correcting, upgradings, and expanding on the bible and other early works; including the Quran. Using principles taught by the nuns with big sticks - they are all inspired words only from god? Nonsense. They are nothing more than men trying to understand a massive concept we call god. Conventional myopic religions fear to understand that mankind has long since moved beyond the original bible. We have learned more and wrote new versions. We have a whole Dewey Decimal system for corrections and updates that man has since made.
IOW the god as taught in those conventional and myopic religions is nothing more than an extension of human wants, need, and emotions. If a god has a chosen person (ie George Jr), then his god is a limited creation with human traits. And that god probably worships his god. That god would be as pagan as the Greek and Roman gods. After all, even those gods chose sides in war and had human emotions such as perference. Those gods had their favored 'good' people. Why did those gods not just eliminate the enemy themselves if those gods were so powerful? Damning logical question that Socrates asked.
A real god is far more infinite. He has no limits such as will, love, or 'choosen people'. Jesus was as much a son of god as is everyone else. Those who think otherwise need a pagan concept to comprehend something that is too infinite. BTW the concept of infinity also did not exist in biblical times.
No problem. Everyone must have some way of dealing with a concept so infinite. Just as long as they don't use beliefs to subvert other's lives. Again, a fundamental principle that made America so great. Religion is nothing more than a relationship between you and your god. It must not affect others against their will.
Bottom line - no matter what your religion says, mine has move long beyond its early and flawed "The Bible" - as we learn more of god's laws. My religion is not stagnant like fundamentalist Christians, conservative Jew, or 'Muslim Brotherhood' Muslim. Unlike those religions, mine promotes tolerance. Mine says god is something to keep learning more about. God does not 'talk' to choosen people. God is what science is about.
I have no problem with those who would worship the same old and flawed books. Religion in a most conservative and conventional sense is to believe something blindly as if nothing better, smarter, improved, or more accurate can exist. Fine. Just don't impose those religious beliefs on my life or my peers - as the previously quoted Pat Robertson would advocate to the destruction of America.
When I say 'worship the bible', it means blindly believe god as defined only in their 'perspective interpretation' of that bible. If they were worshipping god, then they knew the bible is nothing more than an early and flawed attempt to explain god. A limited god is created by 'worshipping the bible' rather than learning of a larger and more infinite god. Biblical word. Flawed. A good early attempt. Something quite limited using parables. If something so limited becomes the total foundation of a religion, then clearly that religion is just another pagan religion. Fundamental christians routinely discuss things that are too limited to be anything more than a pagan god. Damning fact. If a god has love, will, or his 'chosen people', then that god is limited - a classic pagan god with the same human traits (flaws) found in Greek and Roman gods.
Previously defined are examples of what a fact is. For example, to prove a fact, we must have both experimental evidence and underlying theory. Without both, a fact does not exist. This concept did not exist in biblical times as history teaches. A fact does not exist only because a lying president 'felt' there were weapons of mass destruction. Those who believed that 'feeling' to be fact were indeed using only emotion and easily subverted by propaganda. This same process is why many also believe 'their interpretation of the bible'.
[continued in following post]
[continued from previous post]
I spent time in christian college libraries. Do they reflect what is taught? For example, there are no calculus books. How will one learn the principles on which mankind advances without an appreciation of calculus. Calculus is not in the bible. Calculus was from a "god's prophet" that biblical scholars must deny - Newton. Therefore calculus is not necessary? Library is empty and devoid of basic science. You tell me. How can America advance - continue to do what made America so great - when we have decided to protect our students from basic scientific principles. We would even deny them basic science such as Darwinism? Therefore we must also deny them another science called fractals and chaos? How many more sciences do we deny them before it is safe enough for them to learn? (Sound like an FCC that fears what we might hear on the radio?)
Do you suspect a great clash of hate in our future? I do. Because so many are being brainwashed by only one book - the bible - rather than learning from the so many books that came afterwords and corrected the bible. They let their emotions make their decisions rather than logic.
I don't call emotion a negative thing, nor limiting, nor pathetic. Emotion is the basis for so much human strength as I personally proved many times on a wrestling mat. I used emotion to be stronger. It was a logical decision. And when in a championship bout, we almost came to blows, my decision was due to a logical mind still controlling my emotions - that were clearly causing quite a commotion on that mat. Emotion also described as the good side of the force. When emotion replaces logic in making decisions - then we have the dark side.
Demonstrated in Star Wars (exclude the magic) is not so difficult to understand. I never said emotion is a bad thing. How emotion is used - if it overrides logic - then the human would be (by your definition) 'evil'. Emotion is something used by and must be always controlled by logic. It is one reason a child takes so long to be a fully functional adult. Emotion takes that long and is that difficult to tame, contain, and carefully utilize. In fact, I am shock that conventional religions don't teach this. But then the most conservative are also not teaching tolerance.
People with limited knowledge make good cannon fodder. They have less potential to be god's prophets. They are groomed to become soldiers (cannon fodder) for another Crusade - or torturers of another Spanish Inquisition. After all, was it not inside this Christian administration (at the highest levels of the George Jr presdiency) that torture was authorized? Of course it was. Remember nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - a fundamenatal lesson from history about what blind religious beliefs can do. The Spanish Inquisition demonstrates the 'dark side' of emotion. Nobody thought religion could be the source of so much 'evil'. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. 'Evil' when the religion is too deeply rooted in emotion. Its called not learning anything beyond one flawed and early science book - the bible.
And yes, the bible was an early science book - because that was how limited science was in those days.
You may reject "that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn." Sure they can learn. But they are not even provided the facts TO learn. Where are basic science and math principles being taught in those christian colleges? What is the most advanced math being taught there? Business math. I asked farther of these future ministers being educated there. They are taught math to balance checkbooks, calculate interest rates, etc. You tell me. This is a college education? We learned this stuff in high school. This is not college material. To learn, first facts and underlying theories of science must be made available. The process of proving facts is not magically inherited - it must be taught. No wonder they believe creationism. They don't even have basic lab sciences to learn how facts are deduced and proven. Therefore they easily confuse emotion with logical thought. Perfect if your life ambition is to be a propagandist. Exactly what military academies don't want which is why they teach engineering - science grounded in reality. I fear christian colleges may be manufacturing cannon fodder for Armageddon - worst case.
Defined in every post are examples of how facts are created AND why those principles did not exist in biblical times. This demonstrates why we will not agree. What you call guesswork is how science continues to advance mankind AND why creationism has long since been discredited along with spontaneous regeneration. It is not guesswork if one better appreciates how facts are created and justified. Fact must be based on fundamental and well proven science theory AND must be demonstrated in experimental evidence - including numbers. These concepts did not exist among the biblical authors nor their targeted audience. They were righting the best science of its time.
Where is basic science taught in fundamentalist religion? It is not. The bible teaches nothing about science principles demonstrated even by Socrates and not widely appreciated until the last 100 years.
Holy shit. You just wrote three thousand, five hundred and twenty eight words in what was effectively one post. That is twenty thousand, eight hundred and nine characters and somewhere below 85 paragraphs.
I spent time in christian college libraries. There are no calculus books.
And, yuck. Was that in Alabama?
Now, folks, how's about this little tidbit ... showed up in my mailbox courtesy of one of my right-wing mailing lists.
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
He's 81, and he was an athiest.
1) It could very well be end of life desperation,
2) he was an athiest which requires just as much of a blind insistance in an absolute (religion) as any xtian, pagan, etc.
Where's the surprise?
Now, folks, how's about this little tidbit ... showed up in my mailbox courtesy of one of my right-wing mailing lists.
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
Reminds me of a few lines from China Doll;
Yesterday I begged you
before I hit the ground
All I leave behind me
is only what I found
William Camden, an antiquary and scholar who lived between 1551 and 1623, wrote in his Remains Concerning Britain:
[indent]Betwixt the stirrup and the ground, Mercy I ask'd; mercy I found. [/indent]These lines express the Christian concept that even in the split second as you fall dying from your horse, there is still time to repent, ask for mercy, and be given absolution.
I won't lie, I didn't even read TW's second set of posts. It's not that important to me.
I won't lie, I didn't even read TW's second set of posts. It's not that important to me.
It's worth the effort to copy and paste all of that stuff from other places but you won't read something that he actually took the time to compose and type?
I won't lie, I didn't even read TW's second set of posts. It's not that important to me.
I suspect that you fear that it will cause you to question.
TW makes a lot of good, interesting, coherent points (that is my non-christian Christmas gift to you, tw ... nice series of posts).
There has NEVER been any record of information GAIN in any life form scientists have studied. Mutation and Speciation happen, but these involve LOSS or CORRUPTION of EXISTING material.
However --
Information GAIN certainly does occur. One example is gene duplication: occasionally, when DNA is passed from generation to generation, sequences of DNA are duplicated. Usually the duplicate information immediately follows the original information, but sometimes it moves to an entirely different location. Gene duplication is widely acccepted, and has been examined for over 30 years now. According to
this article published in 2001 in Science,
Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years.
This page is a good starting point for looking into gene duplication and explains it reasonably well for the laity.
One of the interesting experiments concerned depriving cells which normally required glucose of glucose and providing them instead with another sugar, xylose.
Cells from the chemostat were analysed and found to have gained multiple copies of genes responsible for an early stage in glucose metabolism. These additional genes occured as tandem repeats, a section of DNA repeated a number of times over in sequence.
In this situation multiple copies were advantageous because the gene responsible for glucose break down was not 100% specific for glucose. The enzyme had a weak side specificity for xylose. By amplifying the gene, that is having multiple copies, enough of the enzyme was produced to metabolise xylose.
In case you require extra special evidence, this paper, entitled "
Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment" describes the preceding experiment (or a verification of it).
We analyzed a population of baker’s yeast that underwent 450 generations of glucose-limited growth. Relative to the strain used as the inoculum, the predominant cell type at the end of this experiment sustains growth at significantly lower steady-state glucose concentrations and
demonstrates markedly enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition.
Not only was information gained [information was duplicated and hence there was more overall information], but the extra information was an improvement over the information existing at the beginning of the experiment.
If we have all of these works from Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Xenophon, etc., guys who predate Jesus by hundreds of years, why are there no writings directly attributable to his own hand?
Don't we know Aristotle through Plato or am I misundermembering Philo 101.
Don't we know Aristotle through Plato or am I misundermembering Philo 101.
I just picked a few as they fell out of my head.
My question is in regards to them writing and being preserved over a time that goes back before the alleged Jesus and Jesus popping up and leaving nothing.
My point being that we only know the "alleged" Aristotle because Plato wrote his stuff down. There is really no doubt that Jesus existed. Everything else about him is open for debate.
My point being that we only know the "alleged" Aristotle because Plato wrote his stuff down. There is really no doubt that Jesus existed. Everything else about him is open for debate.
Oh, that, yeah, Plato wrote about Socrates. That's why he wasn't in the list.
:blush: oooppsss ya get the point though. Studying history we end up trusting somebody somewhere along the way, who to trust can be a problem. With enough sources we get a good idea whether or not someone existed but interpreting their life is difficult even with modern figures.
There is really no doubt that Jesus existed.
There are a lot of people that would disagree with you, bro...me included.
There are a lot of people that would disagree with you, bro...me included.
Yeah, I was leaving that one for someone else. :D
It's a question of
a jesus or
The Jesus(tm).
Speaking of Jesus, the headline of this
article made me laugh.
However --
Information GAIN certainly does occur. One example is gene duplication: occasionally, when DNA is passed from generation to generation, sequences of DNA are duplicated. Usually the duplicate information immediately follows the original information, but sometimes it moves to an entirely different location. Gene duplication is widely acccepted, and has been examined for over 30 years now.
Duplication is not adding new information. It's still the same info, just duplicated.
If I have cell A, B, C and D, and I duplicate C, I have A, B, C, C, and D. I don't have a gain of information. C was there to begin with. What I mean by gain of information is somehow getting an E from somewhere. That is what is required for the evolutionary theory to work (molecules to man).
According to this article published in 2001 in Science,
[quote]Whole quote of article referenced, my emphasis in bold
Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA. [email]mlynch@oregon.uoregon.edu[/email]
Gene duplication has generally been viewed as a necessary source of material for the origin of evolutionary novelties, but it is unclear how often gene duplicates arise and how frequently they evolve new functions. [/i] [So, basically, this theory really needs to work, but we aren't sure how or how often.] [i]Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicated genes experience a brief period of relaxed selection early in their history, with a moderate fraction of them evolving in an effectively neutral manner during this period. However, the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection. Although duplicate genes may only rarely evolve new functions, the stochastic silencing of such genes may play a significant role in the passive origin of new species.
There is so much wrong with that "story" that I'm surprised you bothered to link it. First, this is all guesswork based off of a computer simulation database. Second, they are guessing that the mutation/duplicate rates stay constant over time (or didn't account for the flux). Third, according to my (usually flawed) math, that's one duplicate gene every 100 million years. Most of those duplicated don't do any thing, and if they do, they don't do anything relating to new functions. This was a irrelevant story anyway, because gene duplication is not adding new information, which is required for molecules to man origins.
This page is a good starting point for looking into gene duplication and explains it reasonably well for the laity.
Well, I'm a laity, but I was still lost. Try here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp
In case you require extra special evidence, this paper, entitled "Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment" describes the preceding experiment (or a verification of it).
Not only was information gained [information was duplicated and hence there was more overall information], but the extra information was an improvement over the information existing at the beginning of the experiment.
But more overall information is not new information. I think the problem here is the way I described it (my fault). See above about ABC and D and the link I posted, that describes the 4 main genetic changes in regards to origins.
There are a lot of people that would disagree with you, bro...me included.
IIRC, Jesus as a person has been historically documented by at least three independant sources (other than the bible), one of which was the roman scribe to Pontious Pilate, Josephus.
Whether or not this person was or was not the Messiah [tm] is of course, speculative.
Duplication is not adding new information. It's still the same info, just duplicated.
Until it mutates.
If I have cell A, B, C and D, and I duplicate C, I have A, B, C, C, and D. I don't have a gain of information. C was there to begin with. What I mean by gain of information is somehow getting an E from somewhere. That is what is required for the evolutionary theory to work (molecules to man).
The second C will mutate differently from the first C. So you start with ABCD, go to ABCCD, and then A'B'C'C"D'.
Until it mutates.The second C will mutate differently from the first C. So you start with ABCD, go to ABCCD, and then A'B'C'C"D'.
Agreed. But that's not new information. That is mutation of the same information. Show me where we get an E and we'll talk about gain of information.
Having 3 legs is not the same as having 2 legs and wings.
This is from the link wolf posted:
Science is all about proof and testing. Scientific method entails coming up with a hypothesis to explain an event or process, then testing that hypothesis to see whether it works.
Agreed. But you can't test origins.
If it [the hypothesis] does [work], it becomes a theory -- a working explanation with the weight of evidence to support it.
Also agreed. But there is no evidence for origins. It isn't observable or testable. It's a bunch of guesses.
If you cannot disprove a theory, you may have discovered a fact. If the hypothesis can be disproved, it must be discarded and a new explanation postulated, and so on.
It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. There is alot of science out there, and a few ways to interpret the facts we can observe and duplicate.
And on a personal note, I don't buy the intelligent design theory any more than the evolutionary theory. And ID theory is NOT the same as creationist. Usually, when you say "creationist" you mean a person who believes in 6 literal days of creation. ID theorists generally believe that God did it in millions of years.
edit:
If you CAN prove it, then you destroy it -- it becomes fact. There's no longer any merit or moral benefit to belief in it, any more than there's a moral benefit to belief in gravity, or spiritual merit to the belief that airplanes can fly.
So since you can't prove origins, then even the evolutionary theory is faith.
Religion.
Interesting.
Found these, I thought some may find it interesting.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.(1)
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.(2)
(1) Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.
(2) D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.
more
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years. (3)
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. (4) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]
(3) Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092.
(4) Whipple, F.L., "Background of modern comet theory," Nature 263 (2 Sept 1976) 15.
If you CAN prove it, then you destroy it -- it becomes fact. There's no longer any merit or moral benefit to belief in it, any more than there's a moral benefit to belief in gravity, or spiritual merit to the belief that airplanes can fly.
This statement offends me deeply. Determining and believing in facts and structuring your life around them, helping others to determine facts and believe in facts and structure their life around them, is the MOST MORAL BEHAVIOUR that one can engage in.
This statement offends me deeply. Determining and believing in facts and structuring your life around them, helping others to determine facts and believe in facts and structure their life around them, is the MOST MORAL BEHAVIOUR that one can engage in.
Welcome to the world of scientific thought.
more
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. (5) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters. (6)
The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. (6) As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.
Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.
(5) Gordeyev, V.V. et al., ‘The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world’s rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams’, Dockl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980) 150.
(6) Hay, W.W., et al., ‘Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 December 1988) 14,933–14,940.
more
Every year, river (7) and other sources (9) dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. (8,9) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. (9) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. (9) Calculations (10) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
(7) Maybeck, M., ‘Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans’, Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215.
(8) Sayles, F.L. and P.C. Mangelsdorf, ‘Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) 767.
(9) Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) in press. Address, ref. 12.
(10) Austin, S.A., ‘Evolution: the oceans say no!’ ICR Impact No. 8 (Oct. 1973) Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 21.
You do realize that everything you're posting is just really bad science, right? Let's poke holes in theories we don't understand using half the information available?
Prove it's half the information. Provide evidence to support or disprove the statements made. Cite.
Edit to add:
Why do you call it "really bad science"?
The problem is not in the cites, it's in how they're used.
Your post #485, for example, uses cites to determine the nature of a small part of the entire big picture of geology, and then makes a massive, UNCITED leap in paragraph three.
That's not science, it's dumb people trying to understand things without looking at the overall picture because the overall picture doesn't fit their conclusions.
It's as if one took measurements of the rate of cars driving down the highway between 8 and 9am, and made a massive leap to say that more cars drive east than west which proves that there is a car deficit in the west.
So they say they have shown sediment of dirt rolling into the sea. Where, then, are their cites which show how other geologic processes create MOUNTAINS of dirt OUT of the sea?
Duh?
It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. If you throw away some of the evidence, or just prefer to ignore it, you can come to any conclusion you like. Probably the wrong one though.
ok, lets look at the post.
First two paragraphs gives rates of accumulation and subduction, which you said you don't have a problem with the cites, so we'll assume that's correct.
Third paragraph, first sentence lists a posit of the evolutionary theory.
If the first two paragraphs (with cites) are correct, and the rates stayed the same, then the referenced posit of the evolutionary theory cannot be correct.
Would you agree with that?
[SIZE=1]edited from:
then the evolutionary theory cannot be correct
to
then the referenced posit of the evolutionary theory cannot be correct.[/SIZE]
All theories face the same level of harsh judgement. If there isn't enough information given to prove one way, there isn't enough to prove the other way either.
I agree completely. I didn't mean the above posts to imply this "PROVES" creation, but instead, poke more holes in ET.
One of the posts before, from wolf's link, says that if you can disprove a theory, you have to throw that theory out and start over.
How many holes do people have to poke before we should say it's not a good theory?
Agreed. But that's not new information. That is mutation of the same information. Show me where we get an E and we'll talk about gain of information.
When C' and C" are eventually different enough, you can call one of them E.
All theories face the same level of harsh judgement. If there isn't enough information given to prove one way, there isn't enough to prove the other way either.
There are, however, methods of evaluating which theories are more likely to be correct, such as Occam's Razor, checking for internal consistency, review by third parties (harsh judgement), and logic.
I'm not sure whether Onyx accepts building evidence out of pre-existing evidence by 'doing the math'.
I just downloaded one of his videos and I'll post a review when I'm done.
http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp
Welcome to DrDino.com
Welcome to Creation Science Evangelism. Here at CSE, our goal is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not heard, and to strengthen your faith if you are already a believer. We do this by showing how Science actually gives glory to God by supporting the Biblical account of creation. Please enjoy our website as you learn, or shop in our online store.
Nice assortment. They have certainly expanded!
Nice Isis.
I just downloaded one of his videos and I'll post a review when I'm done.
http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp
Welcome to DrDino.com
Welcome to Creation Science Evangelism. Here at CSE, our goal is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not heard, and to strengthen your faith if you are already a believer. We do this by showing how Science actually gives glory to God by supporting the Biblical account of creation. Please enjoy our website as you learn, or shop in our online store.
I've heard of him. He has some "controversial" theories that many creationist disagree with, and AiG and Kent Hovind have gone a few rounds. I'm one of the people that stands firmly on the AiG side, because they have actual scientists and reasearchers, and Kent Hovind has a questionable honorary doctorate, and was a high school teacher.
In addition, Kent Hovind should wear the tin-foil hat in public. He gets rather political with his "new world order" ideas. In short, he has some good stuff mixed in with alot of bad stuff, and makes it harder for proponents of the good stuff.
I think that God created everything...in a way similar to what is described in the evolution theory.
Ok...not sure if this will cause the globe to wobble on its axis, but I agree with Sycamore. I believe in a creator, by whatever name one chooses to call him, her, or it, and I think that if that creator chose to create the world through evolution, who's to say no?
Evolution just seems logical to me, and considering the perfection in the way things are made, in how they fit together, etc. I know that if I were doing such an experiment, I'd start it off and then let it go to see what happened. Who's to say the creator didn't do the same?
For all we know, God's gonna get graded on this, and we're screwing up his Cosmic GPA with all our silliness and stupidity....
Sidhe
The problem is not in the cites, it's in how they're used.
Your post #485, for example, uses cites to determine the nature of a small part of the entire big picture of geology, and then makes a massive, UNCITED leap in paragraph three.
That's not science, it's dumb people trying to understand things without looking at the overall picture because the overall picture doesn't fit their conclusions.
It's as if one took measurements of the rate of cars driving down the highway between 8 and 9am, and made a massive leap to say that more cars drive east than west which proves that there is a car deficit in the west.
So they say they have shown sediment of dirt rolling into the sea. Where, then, are their cites which show how other geologic processes create MOUNTAINS of dirt OUT of the sea?
Duh?
It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. If you throw away some of the evidence, or just prefer to ignore it, you can come to any conclusion you like. Probably the wrong one though.
I find it hard to believe anyone involved in this post is actually "dumb". However, I'm not sure what you may consider dumb. An I.Q. of 90 or an opinion different from your own. I saw something humorous in one of the post about teaching fact was somehow providing morality. To me this is an oxymoron. Maybe I'm just a moron. Let's give this evolution vs. creationism a break. Maybe we could find out what some of the smarter people view as the facts concerning morality.........you may find the overall view does not fit mine or your conclusions.
Ok...not sure if this will cause the globe to wobble on its axis, but I agree with Sycamore. I believe in a creator, by whatever name one chooses to call him, her, or it, and I think that if that creator chose to create the world through evolution, who's to say no?
One of the best issued of The Economist is after they have taken a week off to eat well. In the 1 Jan 2005 issue is this stunning piece entitled "
It ain't necessarily so".
Why people of the book have such trouble with language, truth, and logic
Whatever meaning this well-known version of the Christmas story may have, it does not seem to be very accurate history. Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, a distinguished biblical scholar, lists the difficulties he sees. First, it is said elsewhere in the New Testament - and this is central to the story that Jesus was born in the last days of his would-be persecutor King Herod, who died in 4 BC. (The Christian system for dating Christ's birth was established at least three centuries later, so an error of a few years is not surprising.) But according to Josephus, a secular historian, the big census around that time (and the start of Cyrenius's governorship) took place in what Christians would call the "year of our Lord" 6 or, as today's secular historians now prefer, 6 CE (common era).
The problems do not stop there. For example, when the Romans counted their people, they insisted that everyone had to stay put, so a last-minute dash from one city to another seems unlikely. And as a protectorate under Herod, Palestine would not automatically have been included in an imperial census.
As a Dominican monk, whose views on some things, such as the virgin birth of Christ, are conservative, Father Jerome is unfazed by these contradictions. "The Gospels should be read spiritually, but with critical intelligence", he believes. Given that the two main accounts of Christ's birth - those of Matthew and Luke - are inconsistent, he prefers to rely mainly on the first, which moves from Christ's origins in Bethlehem to his upbringing, after an interlude in Egypt, in Nazareth. Moreover, in all the biblical material about Christ's beginnings, Father Jerome and other scholars see a deeper meaning: Christ is both a blue-blooded monarch from the royal city of Bethlehem, and a poor boy from the hardscrabble town of Nazareth from which nobody expected anything good. Even under the watchful eye of Pope John Paul II, who has reaffirmed the unchangeability of the truths maintained by the church, and the church's role as interpreter of the Bible, such bold readings of the New Testament are permissible. "What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth", says Father Jerome. If ordinary literal-minded worshippers said he was undermining their faith, he would conclude they were the victims of "bad preaching" and point out the impossibility of believing every word of an internally inconsistent text.
So how can a president so immoral be elected by those who call themselves moral - the evangelicals? Again from the article entitled "
It ain't necessarily so"
For the 70m or 80m people in the United States who call themselves evangelicals, the Bible is "the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God", according to a definition by America's National Association of Evangelicals. So whenever the Bible seems inconsistent with beliefs held on other grounds, the instinct of an evangelical is to insist that the contradiction must be apparent, rather than real. Either secular historians are mistaken, or there has been some simple and easily rectifiable mistake - such as the mistranslation of a word - in the reading of scripture. Somehow the information received from holy writ and the evidence from other sources must be made to fit; and if that cannot be done, then the non-scriptural information must be dismissed.
One product of such intellectual contortions is "creation science" and an insistence on the literal truth of the proposition that God took seven days to create the world, with the evidence from fossils as a kind of decorative, but confusing, extra. Even wackier, from the secular viewpoint, is America's "biblical astronomy" movement which insists, under the guidance of a Dutch-born astrophysicist, Gerardus Bouw, that the sun goes round the Earth.
No problem as long as these extremists don't do the math for manned space flights. Then they would be imposing their religion on others - the real and original sin.
Do you take the bible literally - or just in its early spiritual sense?
From a biblical astronomy site: (note the domain)
http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Biblical_Astronomy.htm
A highlight from each portion.
1-BIBLICAL FACTS ON ASTRONOMY NOW PROVEN TO BE TRUE
Throughout much of the world’s history, people thought that the world was flat. Yet thousands of years ago, the Bible showed it was round. The Bible was right, people were wrong.
Isa 40:22-IT IS HE THAT SITTETH UPON THE CIRCLE OF THE EARTH.
2-BIBLICAL FACTS ABOUT NATURE NOW PROVEN TO BE TRUE
(God’s established order)
It has recently been learned that the eagle could see very small objects from great distances. Yet thousands of years ago, the Bible told of this.
Job 39:27,29-THE EAGLE…SHE SEEKETH THE PREY, AND HER EYES BEHOLD AFAR OFF.
3-THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING:
THE AREA IT IS STRETCHING OUT TO IS EMPTY
Throughout much of the world’s history, people did not understand the universe is expanding and stretching out into empty space. Science, in recent years, has confirmed that this is true. The Bible told about this thousands of years ago. The Bible was right, people didn’t understand.
Job 26:7-HE STRETCHETH OUT THE NORTH OVER THE EMPTY PLACE.
4-OTHER ITEMS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE
One might ask, "How is it possible the Bible recorded thousands of years ago such things as the bands of Orion and other astronomical information?" The answer remains the same—there is a God, and the Bible is the Word of God. He has also told us the future in His Word. As every single prophecy in the Bible regarding the past has been fulfilled, likewise, every single prophecy of the future will come to pass.
Job 38:31-CANST THOU BIND THE SWEET INFLUENCES OF PLEIADES, OR LOOSE THE BANDS OF ORION?
5-INVENTIONS
Could this be the telephone?
Job 38:35-CANST THOU SEND LIGHTNINGS (or we might say, electrical currents), THAT THEY MAY GO, AND SAY UNTO THEE, HERE WE ARE?
6-INSIGHTS ON ASTRONOMY
Astronomers, with their huge optical telescopes, radio telescopes, space telescopes, satellites, and many new types of detection devices are trying to measure "space." It is evident—the more they learn, the more vast the universe seems to be. They have found that "space" seems to extend billions of light years, and the galaxies seem to be almost without number.
The Bible told of this thousands of years ago. The Bible was right, yet many still don’t understand.
Jere 31:37-THUS SAITH THE LORD; IF HEAVEN ABOVE CAN BE MEASURED, AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH SEARCHED OUT BENEATH, I WILL ALSO CAST OFF ALL THE SEED OF ISRAEL. Since we know God will never cast off His people, we know that indeed heaven cannot be measured!
7-SOME OTHER THINGS THAT THE WORLD’S WISDOM MAY NOT UNDERSTAND
Ps 32:9-AS THE HORSE, OR AS THE MULE, WHICH HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING: WHOSE MOUTH MUST BE HELD IN WITH BIT AND BRIDLE, LEST THEY COME NEAR UNTO THEE (or they will not come to you-NIV).
8-ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY JESUS CHRIST
As the previous things are true, so the following is true.
Col 1:16-FOR BY HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, THAT ARE IN HEAVEN, AND THAT ARE IN EARTH, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, WHETHER THEY BE THRONES, OR DOMINIONS, OR PRINCIPALITIES, OR POWERS: ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM, AND FOR HIM.
Well, Item 3 is wrong, at least. The empty space is expanding inside the universe.
[thinking really hard]but the size of the container cannot remain constant, unless there is some T.A.R.D.I.S. like effect to the edges of the universe ... [/head exploding]
There isn't a container. Imagine a 2-dimensional universe is the surface of a baloon, with a bunch of stars drawn on it. If the baloon is inflated, the stars get further apart, even though they aren't moving into empty space (remember, the air inside and outside the baloon aren't part of the 2d universe). Unlike ink on a baloon, matter has several forces stronger than the baloon holding it close together, so the stars themselves don't expand along with the empty space.
But the balloon gets bigger. That's what I meant. The stuff inside stays the same size and gets further apart, but the outside moves ...
No, the universe is the surface of the baloon, not the contents.
:confused:
But the images on the balloon's surface are two dimensions ... and the universe as it is expanding is a three dimensional construct isn't it?
(I missed a lot of science classes along the way. My university considered "computer science" a "science" and that's how I filled my requirement ... no bio, no physics. I did take chemistry though, and promptly forgot all of it. Except the things that exploded.)
Perhaps our 3d universe is expanding into another dimension, but that's not visible from the point of view of us 3d creatures, just as the air woudn't be visible to 2d creatures on the baloon.
Perhaps our 3d universe is expanding into another dimension, but that's not visible from the point of view of us 3d creatures, just as the air woudn't be visible to 2d creatures on the baloon.
Welcome to string theory.
One of the best issued of The Economist is after they have taken a week off to eat well. In the 1 Jan 2005 issue is this stunning piece entitled "It ain't necessarily so"...
etc., etc., etc......
According to some information I got a few years ago--and yes, I can probably find it if it's that big a deal--the census was taken in the spring...therefore, Jesus' birthday would be then, not on Dec. 25 (which was Mithra's birthday).
But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with creationism v. evolution.
And just to put in an extra two cents: no matter how it was done, whether by big bang, or an entity causing a big bang, or an entity slapping together some dust, we're here....believing in a creator doesn't hurt. Not believing in a creator doesn't hurt--unless you're talking to a bible-thumper who wants to save your soul, that is--we're here.
So what are we going to do about it?
Sidhe
But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with creationism v. evolution.
Again from the Dominican scholar
"What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth", says Father Jerome. If ordinary literal-minded worshippers said he was undermining their faith, he would conclude they were the victims of "bad preaching" and point out the impossibility of believing every word of an internally inconsistent text.
Believe in creationism as we do 'Santa Claus' or 'Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf'. It is the spirit that counts. In the meantime, religion has no place in science.
Creationism is religion. Religion is about a relationship only between you and your god; often taught in parables. Evolution is science - taught with scientific tools, logical proofs, and numbers. Creationism is only the "word of an internally inconsistent text." It was a good first attempt at 'science'. Long since displaced by other and better science. Creationism is nothing more than religion - something only between you and your god. A spiritual concept not to be taken literally.
It's worth the effort to copy and paste all of that stuff from other places but you won't read something that he actually took the time to compose and type?
No, and here's why:
Most of the things TW posts are long and I've had a tendency to disagree with.
And as to wolf's comment about basically, it would cause me to question my beliefs or be scared or whatever, no, it never occurred to me that anything TW had to say would be that impactful to me personally. Especially since I did answer the first incredibly long post, and I had to take it point by point, which TW seems to very much dislike. I fear if I would try to take those two very long posts point for point, he'd bust an artery.
Oh yeah, and because EVERY FREAKING TOPIC HE POSTS ON TURNS INTO GWB BASHING....
Not that I like GWB or agree with his policies or am "defending" him. I just don't think GWB has anything to do with this topic.
Federal judge rules evolution disclaimer stickers must be removed from Georgia, USA textbooks
U.S. District Judge, Clarence Cooper, ruled today (January 13) that the evolution disclaimer sticker placed in the front cover of some high-school biology textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia, USA, is unconstitutional and violates the so-called “separation between church and state.” As a result of the ruling, the sticker, which includes the following words, must be removed:
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
In 2002, Cobb County (near Atlanta) adopted a policy to place disclaimer stickers in the front of high-school biology textbooks that present evolutionary ideas, but caution the readers that evolution is “not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.” That decision by the school district was challenged in U.S. federal court by six parents of Cobb students and the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union, who argued that the sticker pushes creationism (note, however, that there is no mention of creationism or anything religious in the wording above) and discriminates against non-Christians and followers of a number of other religions.
No, and here's why:
Geez, give a guy chronological whiplash why don't you? :yelsick:
Sorry, TS. I don't check all the threads every day, and sometimes the posts build up on me. Damn dynamic Cellar!!
Come on people, how can anything concerning the reason for life be a scientific fact.
On the other hand, how can so many people believe in a story passed through generations. It appears to me, to be an intellectual battle going on. Give it a break, unless you can absolutely prove either theory, why not move on to other things. I watched the inaguaration today. When the President and his wife got out of that limousine, I was really afraid they would be shot. I will starting today try and worry more about what may happen today. Why is it so important to be right, when in your own minds, if your honest, you just believe a theory passed on by another human. Humans are not without flaw. I don't care how smart they are or how smart they think they are. If i could just live in the now.........
Evolution says nothing about the reason for life. That's a subject for philosophy, not science.
Evolution says nothing about the reason for life. That's a subject for philosophy, not science.
No, it's not about the reason for life, it's about origin of life.
It seems God does not exist; Because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be destroyed. However, the name God means infinite goodness. If therfore he did exist there would be no evil. There is evil in the world.
Larry King, CNN was very interesting on 1/31/05 when evolution and other issues related to evolution and religion were discussed.
It seems God does not exist; Because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be destroyed. However, the name God means infinite goodness. If therfore he did exist there would be no evil. There is evil in the world.
This makes no sense. Two infinites can exist at the same time. To visualize this graphically, think of a standard pie chart showing multiple slices. Now remove the outer edge of the pie chart and expand that outer edge to infinity. You still have the same number of slices, and each one is infinite in size.
You can have an infinite number of infinities.
This makes no sense.
Am I the only person to notice the correlation of 'Brown Thrasher' with 'Shit Stirrer'?
Am I the only person to notice the correlation of 'Brown Thrasher' with 'Shit Stirrer'?
Am I the only person to noticce the correlation of "Troubleshooter" with an egotistical know it all.....
Stirrer of shit.
Am I the only person to notice the correlation of 'Brown Thrasher' with 'Shit Stirrer'?
Oh I get it...the names sorta mean the same thing. Interesting to find out if that was intentional, or what his name really means.
I thought it was some sort of small bird, kind of like a warbler, only faster.
Guess I was wrong.
Am I the only person to noticce the correlation of "Troubleshooter" with an egotistical know it all.....
Stirrer of shit.
I picked my presence marker pretty carefully. I may not live up to the definitions of it, but, like yours, it seems to fit.
trou·ble·shoot·er also trou·ble-shoot·er Audio pronunciation of "troubleshooter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trbl-shtr)
n.
1. A worker whose job is to locate and eliminate sources of trouble, as in mechanical operations.
2. A mediator skilled in settling disputes especially of a diplomatic, political, or industrial nature.
Main Entry: mediator
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: negotiator
Synonyms: advocate, arbiter, arbitrator, broker, conciliator, fixer, go-between, interagent, interceder, intermediary, intermediator, judge, medium, middleman, moderator, negotiator, peacemaker, ref, referee, rent-a-judge, troubleshooter, umpire
I picked my presence marker pretty carefully. I may not live up to the definitions of it, but, like yours, it seems to fit.
trou·ble·shoot·er also trou·ble-shoot·er Audio pronunciation of "troubleshooter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trbl-shtr)
n.
1. A worker whose job is to locate and eliminate sources of trouble, as in mechanical operations.
2. A mediator skilled in settling disputes especially of a diplomatic, political, or industrial nature.
Main Entry: mediator
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: negotiator
Synonyms: advocate, arbiter, arbitrator, broker, conciliator, fixer, go-between, interagent, interceder, intermediary, intermediator, judge, medium, middleman, moderator, negotiator, peacemaker, ref, referee, rent-a-judge, troubleshooter, umpire
Exactly whar are you mediationg? I think we can do away with the peacemaker. I find it odd, when one makes deragatory names for other adults.
We are not in grammer school. This does not appear to be a mechanical problem that needs eliminating. I respect your views. However, I find it quite cumbersome at times. If your honor has time, I would like to kmow what you meant by my presence marker fitting me.
Main Entry: shit-stirrer
Definition: one who stirs shit
I want go into the synonyms, for I am sure you will be happy to do the research..........
Oh I get it...the names sorta mean the same thing. Interesting to find out if that was intentional, or what his name really means.
Know you don't get it at all. A shit- stirrer is one who stirs shit. A brown thrasher is a state bird. By the way garnet can be interpreted in many ways.
If you don't have a thesaraus you can borrow one at your local library. By the way, I'm sure you computer probably has the capability to find the meaning of most words. Have you ever wondered why people say things that make no sense. Usually the are condescending thinking this is a form of intelligence.
Know you don't get it at all. A shit- stirrer is one who stirs shit. A brown thrasher is a state bird. By the way garnet can be interpreted in many ways.
If you don't have a thesaraus you can borrow one at your local library. By the way, I'm sure you computer probably has the capability to find the meaning of most words. Have you ever wondered why people say things that make no sense. Usually the are condescending thinking this is a form of intelligence.
I was not being condescending--I simply didn't know what your name meant. Sorry, I know next to nothing about state birds, and you are obviously an expert, so I will therefore bow down to your wisdom on that subject.
And, yes, I know what a thesaurus is, as I have an M.A. in English and worked as a professional editor for eight years. You know, thrasher, I could use this opportunity to correct your consistently bad spelling and even worse grammar--so poor that most of your posts are unreadable. But I think I'll refrain from doing so at this point. Afterall, there's no point in drawing attention to the obvious, now is there?
And BTW, there's no "e" in "utopia." Sorry, can't help myself.
I find it odd[color=Red],[/color] when one makes der[color=Red]a[/color]gatory names for other adults.
We are not in gramm[color=Red]e[/color]r school.
and.....
at least one of us seems to have never even been there in the first place.
I thought a brown thrasher was a trout. now i see that it's a douchebag that likes to call people condescending ......condescendingly. my bad.
like this shit:
If you don't have a thes[color=Red]arau[/color]s you can borrow one at your local library. By the way, I'm sure [color=Red]you[/color] computer probably has the capability to find the meaning of most words. Have you ever wondered why people say things that make no sense. Usually [color=Red]the[/color] are condescendi[color=Red]ng thi[/color]nking this is a form of intelligence. ............................................................................[color=Red]^[/color]ly?
Know you don't get it at all. A shit- stirrer is one who stirs shit. A brown thrasher is a state bird. By the way garnet can be interpreted in many ways.
A thrasher. Isn't that the thing that goes round and round inside the round pool of a sewage treatment plant?
I was not being condescending--I simply didn't know what your name meant. Sorry, I know next to nothing about state birds, and you are obviously an expert, so I will therefore bow down to your wisdom on that subject.
And, yes, I know what a thesaurus is, as I have an M.A. in English and worked as a professional editor for eight years. You know, thrasher, I could use this opportunity to correct your consistently bad spelling and even worse grammar--so poor that most of your posts are unreadable. But I think I'll refrain from doing so at this point. Afterall, there's no point in drawing attention to the obvious, now is there?
And BTW, there's no "e" in "utopia." Sorry, can't help myself.
ifeel you are wromg. Most people do not take the time nor effort to correctly spell each word. Neither do they worry a great deal about grammar.
If you would like, I will get out my harbrace college handbook,to better suit your needs. If you have a hard time reading my post, I am sorry , for I feel most fifth graders would be able to do so without much trouble. However, I am sorry if I have offended your attention to detail. I am also sorry you have a hard time helping yourself.
A thrasher. Isn't that the thing that goes round and round inside the round pool of a sewage treatment plant?
I'm not aware of that definition. Do you happen to work in a sewage plant? Just wondering.....
and.....
at least one of us seems to have never even been there in the first place.
I thought a brown thrasher was a trout. now i see that it's a douchebag that likes to call people condescending ......condescendingly. my bad.
like this shit:
Sir, as our editor has reminded us of grammar; should we not capatalize our words at the beginning of a sentence. A pacifist fucking people up. Hurry call in the National Guard... I was there a long time ago. Hope you were speaking for yourself......
ifeel you are wromg.
Huh? :confused:
Most people do not take the time nor effort to correctly spell each word. Neither do they worry a great deal about grammar.
No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. Only people who are lazy, uneducated and/or stupid don't bother to worry about spelling and grammar.
If you have a hard time reading my post, I am sorry , for I feel most fifth graders would be able to do so without much trouble.
Yes, they could. Probably because your writing skills are about at a fifth-grade level.
Ya know, this is sort of fun! It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other. I sure do miss that...
shut up, ya big nosed slut!
Sir, as our editor has reminded us of grammar; should we not capatalize our words at the beginning of a sentence. A pacifist fucking people up. Hurry call in the National Guard... I was there a long time ago. Hope you were speaking for yourself......
you dumbass. that's a quote from a chilli peppers song. believe me when i tell you that I am NOT a pacifist.
wromg again.
shut up, ya big nosed slut!
Awwww, LJ. I adore you and your crooked yellow teeth... :love:
you dumbass. that's a quote from a chilli peppers song. believe me when i tell you that I am NOT a pacifist.
wromg again.
I'll bet you $50 he has no idea who the Chili Peppers are...
Do you happen to work in a sewage plant? Just wondering.....
I have. Never could get used to the smell in the short time I was there. When asked, the employees would say, "You get used to it". Maybe I was not there long enough - which is good.
Huh? :confused:
No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. Only people who are lazy, uneducated and/or stupid don't bother to worry about spelling and grammar.
Yes, they could. Probably because your writing skills are about at a fifth-grade level.
Ya know, this is sort of fun! It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other. I sure do miss that...
No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. I think you are calling the majority of the people using the celler lazy, uneducated and/or stupid. I don't feel i fit any of those categories. I took my four years of english and somehow managed to get out of college with a 3.5 gpa. I thought this was a philosophical site not an english tutorial. What exactly does this sentence mean." It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other." Who is "when"? Get a hold of yourself. You know superiority can sometimes be used to cover up inferior feelings about oneself.......
Huh? :confused:
No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. Only people who are lazy, uneducated and/or stupid don't bother to worry about spelling and grammar.
Yes, they could. Probably because your writing skills are about at a fifth-grade level.
Ya know, this is sort of fun! It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other. I sure do miss that...
No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. I think you are calling the majority of the people using the celler lazy, uneducated and/or stupid. I don't feel i fit any of those categories. I took my four years of english and somehow managed to get out of college with a 3.5 gpa. I thought this was a philosophical site not an english tutorial. What exactly does this sentence mean?" It reminds me of the good old days "when when" LJ would constantly insult each other." Who is "when"? Get a hold of yourself. You know superiority can sometimes be used to cover up inferior feelings about oneself.......
I'll bet you $50 he has no idea who the Chili Peppers are...
Your "wromg" again. I do know who the Chili peppers are. I'm more of an Allman Brothers, Led Zepplin, Frank Zappa fan however. I guess you lost your fifty dollars dumbass......... Get a life!!!!!!!!!
you dumbass. that's a quote from a chilli peppers song. believe me when i tell you that I am NOT a pacifist.
wromg again.
Your right, dumshit. I didn't know it was a qoute from a chilli pepper's song. Thank god your not a pacifist, for I dislike them greatly. Nor am I a pacifist, I am a hateful bastard. One thing you got right; was you definition of garnet.
I think you are calling the majority of the people using the celler lazy, uneducated and/or stupid.
No, in my opinion, the vast majority of regular posters here are extremely intelligent. Other than the occasional typo, their posts are well-written and easy to follow. I've never corrected anyone's spelling or grammar here, nor had any inclination to do so.
What exactly does this sentence mean." It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other." .
It's a reference to humorous posts when LumberJim and I would take jabs at eachother in jest. It was fun--but somehow I'm thinking you might need a dictionary to find out what "humorous" and "fun" mean. :yelsick:
Your right, dumshit. I didn't know it was a qoute from a chilli pepper's song. Thank god your not a pacifist, for I dislike them greatly. Nor am I a pacifist, I am a hateful bastard. One thing you got right; was you definition of garnet.
Aww, now that's not nice! I'm charming and adorable...right LJ? :biggrin:
No, in my opinion, the vast majority of regular posters here are extremely intelligent. Other than the occasional typo, their posts are well-written and easy to follow. I've never corrected anyone's spelling or grammar here, nor had any inclination to do so.
It's a reference to humorous posts when LumberJim and I would take jabs at eachother in jest. It was fun--but somehow I'm thinking you might need a dictionary to find out what "humorous" and "fun" mean. :yelsick:
The vast majority. I see you must not be speaking of yourself. If you were honest, which I doubt is possible, the reason for your correction of my typos was the anger you felt at feeling so superior. Which I assure you that you are not. I find you neither humorous or fun.... I do as a therapist find you having a hard time dealing with some kind of inferiority complex. Have you ever considered there is more to intelligence than correct spelling and grammar? I doubt it. You appear to be an uptight -itch with a purpose of offending others intelligence. I have a Boston Terrier who I would be willing to bet is more intelligent than you think you are......
Aww, now that's not nice! I'm charming and adorable...right LJ? :biggrin:
How intelligent could one be, to need affirmations from initials? If your charming and adorable, I'm B :blush: ob Doyle.........Aww, That's not nice! I'm charming and adorable.. right Boss? At least my dog has a name......
Hmmm, can we change the subject back to tw's experience at the sewage treatment plant, please? I'm sure that's far more interesting than listening to your yelling and name-calling... ;)
Actually, can we get back to Evolution Theory as it relates to origin of man versus Creationist Theory?
Actually, can we get back to Evolution Theory as it relates to origin of man versus Creationist Theory?
Actually , I tried to do that about thirty post ago.......... :3eye:
Hmmm, can we change the subject back to tw's experience at the sewage treatment plant, please? I'm sure that's far more interesting than listening to your yelling and name-calling... ;)
Actually, I think you started the irrational name calling. I thought this was a philosophy site not an english tutotrial. Agian, I think Your still having a problem with your superiority complex. Surely, you didn't evolve, nor were you created in a sewage plant. At least, I hope not........ If so, why don't you start a site on english and it's proper usage... I have definetly not heard anything you have had to say that remotely had anything to do with philososphy.
Garnet can not possibly be the first person to have ever corrected your bad spelling and grammar... why are you taking it so badly? You screwed up, get over it, move on... or if you take this much pride in it, maybe put a little more effort into it or something. Just a suggestion...
When somebody gets agressive in response to spelling correction, there's a pretty good chance they're trolling. If they keep it up, it's almost guaranteed.
Ahh.:litebulb: You know much that is hidden, O Tim.
Garnet can not possibly be the first person to have ever corrected your bad spelling and grammar... why are you taking it so badly? You screwed up, get over it, move on... or if you take this much pride in it, maybe put a little more effort into it or something. Just a suggestion...
no, your wrong. Scweing up. is when i screwed my 12th graDe ENGISh teacher. i got over it and moved on. However, I have a 24 year old daughter for that srew up. She's very bright. Must have been the witch that was trolling that she got that from. Just a suggestion for you, as your uptight friend. Get a life talk about the subject of the ORIGINAAlll postt. Again, hopefully youR educated and if so you had some basis psychology. Don't you know by trying to look smart; your actually sounding like a selfabsorbed idiot like your friend g something. If I haD any desire i would use proper captalizatioN, Pronunciation and spllllingg. bUT ASSHOLES THAT THINK THEY ARE BRITE BY LOOkING FOR SPELLING errrorS eTC...... ARE DEFINETLY OVERCOMPESATING FOR A LACK OF SOMETHING.........bY THE WAY, Your NOT oF THE MALE SPEcCIES ARE YOU?///////////// lOOK uP THE WORD PHILOSOPHY............. pUT A LITTLE MORE INTO IT. WILLYOU?
no, your wrong. Scweing up. is when i screwed my 12th graDe ENGISh teacher. i got over it and moved on. However, I have a 24 year old daughter for that srew up. She's very bright. Must have been the witch that was trolling that she got that from. Just a suggestion for you, as your uptight friend. Get a life talk about the subject of the ORIGINAAlll postt. Again, hopefully youR educated and if so you had some basis psychology. Don't you know by trying to look smart; your actually sounding like a selfabsorbed idiot like your friend g something. If I haD any desire i would use proper captalizatioN, Pronunciation and spllllingg. bUT ASSHOLES THAT THINK THEY ARE BRITE BY LOOkING FOR SPELLING errrorS eTC...... ARE DEFINETLY OVERCOMPESATING FOR A LACK OF SOMETHING.........bY THE WAY, Your NOT oF THE MALE SPEcCIES ARE YOU?///////////// lOOK uP THE WORD PHILOSOPHY............. pUT A LITTLE MORE INTO IT. WILLYOU?
Have you ever had C02 poisoning?
someone forgot their pills today.
Have you ever had C02 poisoning?
nO NOT tHAT i'M AWARE OF. hAVE YOU EVER HAD LEAD POIsONING? :3_eyes:
wow, i haven't popped into this thread in awhile. looks like i wasn't missing much... just mediocre trolling.
Yeah, it's pretty much been trashed.
Actually, it might be a useful case study for the thread. Did that evolve, or was it created by too much meth?
100% certainty is one of the worst errors you can commit.
That is the most intellegent comment I have heard on this post!!!!!!!
Evolution says nothing about the reason for life. That's a subject for philosophy, not science.
I may be wrong, but I thought this was a philosophy site. If this discussion is not based on philosophical thought, why not move it to a better suited scientific site. However, living in the 21st century, we cannot prove DNA 100% accurate, so why the argument on such a subjective subject?
You or I can say what we like about the reason for life. Evolution, being science, can not. It can only describe the mechanism, not the reason.
You or I can say what we like about the reason for life. Evolution, being science, can not. It can only describe the mechanism, not the reason.
Again, I did not think this was a scienctific site. However I guess a creationist would say the origin of life was to make a man in god's image. Maybe he was bored I don't know.... Evolution on the other hand, which has been argued now on over 360 post is a scientific theory. Creationist believe in the fundamentalism of the christian doctrine, where evolutionst believe in many different theories of the origin of life. Who cares???? When something is proven without a doubt concerning this topic, I will assure my undivided attention. Until then, let the sun shine in........
Again, I did not think this was a scienctific site.
This is a discussion site. All topics are valid.
I may be wrong, but I thought this was a philosophy site. If this discussion is not based on philosophical thought, why not move it to a better suited scientific site.
Religion is only a
science that became so introverted as to not advance itself. And that is the overall
philosophy.
Did I miss any important buzz words?
Religion is only a science that became so introverted as to not advance itself. And that is the overall philosophy.
Did I miss any important buzz words?
Pretty strong words. "When a speculative philosopher believes he has comprehended the world once and for all in his system, he is deceiving himself, he has merely comprehended himself and then naively projected that view upon the world." C.G. Jung
I can't believe that statement about religion being so intoverted as to not advance itself. I am neither religious nor atheisis. I consider myself agnostic.
However, the argument you presented is of shallow thought in my opinion.
Let me get this straight. religion is science and because of the introversion it is now philosophy..... Is that your qoute? I hope not. One of the problems with religion as I see it is the extroversion. Trying to get others to believe because you do...... You didn't miss any "buzz" words, I could reconize. However, I am still reeling over your statement......
Religion was the equivalent of science - an attempt to make an orderly description of the operation of the world - before science was invented.
Religion was the equivalent of science - an attempt to make an orderly description of the operation of the world - before science was invented.
If that's the case, why the continued argument on this subject. Probably because others have different views...... ;)
Conversation I had today:
"Why do people get so upset over evolution? It's just a theory."
"A scientific theory is basically equivalent to fact."
"No a theory is when you say 'I think this happens because...'"
"No that's a hypothesis."
"what? No that's a theory."
"No a scientific theory is an idea that can be tested in multiple ways and the results always jive with the idea."
"I don't believe you. I've never heard that before."
"Well why don't you look up 'scientific theory' and then get back to me."
"I'm not going to look in YOUR book!
If that's the case, why the continued argument on this subject. Probably because others have different views...... ;)
People hold different views because they were making it up as they went along. At least with science everyone should end up on the same page, or at least in the same book.
People hold different views because they were making it up as they went along. At least with science everyone should end up on the same page, or at least in the same book.
I agree. With science we should be in the same book. However, in my opinion no one will ever be on the same page. I still do not think you can equate philosophy with science. Over the ages, philiosopy has been an opposite of science. The closest philosophy comes to science is when talking about the mathmatical equations of logic, which in my opinion is subjective. If you look carefully, I think you will find scientific minds will differ quite often on what some would say is a objective scientific fact. I do not believe that makes most scientific platitudes as non-factual. However, in most situations, I believe you wil find both deductive as well as inductive arguments; in most every statement made concerning science as it relates to philosophy......l
Philosophy is necessary. I'd rather that there were exploration into the why's and how's of man's existance than just leaving it unstudied.
Philosophy is necessary. I'd rather that there were exploration into the why's and how's of man's existance than just leaving it unstudied.
Science is necessay. No doubt. I'ts been around just as long as other areas of thought. I have no doubt exploration will continue, but I'm sure there will never be a definitive answer; that society as a whole will agree upon........
As the cognitive, neurological, neurochemical, etc, sciences evolve and improve, the window of necessity that philosphy looks into will narrow, or maybe more accurately its focus will narrow.
As the cognitive, neurological, neurochemical, etc, sciences evolve and improve, the window of necessity that philosphy looks into will narrow, or maybe more accurately its focus will narrow.
I disagree. I think there has been a great deal of progress made in the areas you describe already. However, philosophy will continue, just as religion and science will continue to argue until the end of time. In my opinion, philosophical thought will continue to be as important as religious dogma and scientific theories for there will always be debate over the most basic questions.
This was the thread I was looking for when I posted the "Something from the SAB" thread....couldn't find it, though, so I started a new one. Sorry if it caused a repeat-thread inconvenience.
I disagree. I think there has been a great deal of progress made in the areas you describe already. However, philosophy will continue, just as religion and science will continue to argue until the end of time. In my opinion, philosophical thought will continue to be as important as religious dogma and scientific theories for there will always be debate over the most basic questions.
While I agree that there will always be a debate over the most basic questions, I don't think that philosophy will be able to "answer" those questions, due to it's basic nature, which is argumentative and subjective.
Science, on the other hand, is objective, and MAY be able to answer some of those basic questions, eventually, or at least put forth logical theories.
For instance, anthropology used to be an area of philosophy (Poor Jean-Jacques!); the philosophical arguments concerning anthropology (like Rousseau's "Noble Savage") turned out to be way off the mark.
Ideas of good and evil are subjective and change over time, so there will probably never be a consensus on it.
So I'd have to say that I'd tend to agree with TS in that I believe that philosophical questions will become more focused as science discovers more and more.
4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.
Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?
If there's a way for UT to delete the post I made: "Something from the SAB," I would ask that he do so, since this really belongs here. Thanks
Sidhe
Does the bible teach evolution?
It appears that way...
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. -- Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:24
(1:11-13) Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly.
Gen.1:20-21
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
God lets "the earth (and waters) bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong.
But both Luther and Calvin rejected any non-literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.
At the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour of the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural science. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier theologians he utterly rejected. "Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea."
We should take parts of the bible that attempt to explain scientific concepts allegorically because these people were trying to explain scientific concepts in and to a scientifically ignorant world. Plato used allegory in his cave story, and he wasn't talking about allegorical things.--Sidhe
Not less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation given in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view than his own, "basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them." He insists that all species of animals were created in six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is." As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation, he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment."
Man invented the 24-hour day, and the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. (1:3-5, 14-19) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?. Also, didn't God say that a day to Him was as a thousand years--or something to that effect? And new species appear all the time....Then, according to info in the Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe, the Universe is much older than Creationists claim it to be. --Sidhe
Then, of course, we have Gen.1:1 - 2:3. According to the SAB:
The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.
Not to mention different parts of Genesis that have man being created BEFORE plants and animals, conflicting with parts of Genesis that have man being created AFTER plants and animals (Animals--Gen.1:25-27 v. Gen.2:18-19; plants--Gen.1:11-13, 27-31 v. Gen.2:4-7)
4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.
Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?
Neither of those is actually implied. Science can find it's soul if it actually exists and philosophy is about defining or refining reason.
4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.
Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?
Maybe it just means that they each found their niche.
Philosophy is subjective. Science is objective. Trying to explain scientific phenomena using philosophy isn't really workable. Likewise, science doesn't really have a place in debating subjective realities and changing beliefs in morality and such.
Some might say that philosophy has divested itself of reason--but that's assuming that an individual's subjective take on reality and the argument they put forth is based on reason to begin with, if, by reason, you mean logic rather than emotion or faith. Emotion and faith really don't have much of a place in science, since they would tend to get in the way of necessary objectivity.
Pretty strong words. "When a speculative philosopher believes he has comprehended the world once and for all in his system, he is deceiving himself, he has merely comprehended himself and then naively projected that view upon the world." C.G. Jung
I can't believe that statement about religion being so intoverted as to not advance itself. ...
However, the argument you presented is of shallow thought in my opinion.
The statement - that religion does not advance itself - is based on upon extensive reasoning AND is well based upon current examples. Concepts were posted earlier, in
this and in following discussions. With many examples, religion is what happens when the status quo and dictatorial commandments only from learned people thousands of years ago have credibility. All good philosophies and science never stop advancing. Religion does just the opposite. Religion is based upon a concept that demands only prophets thousands of years ago had sufficient knowledge. Religion is ripe to be perverted by those whose 'charisma' becomes god's laws. Charisma as even Hitler used to blame the Jews. Charisma: propaganda to pervert those who don't use their brain and therefore blindly follow.
From
Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism
Posted 22 Dec 2004 in the Philosophy section:
... Evolution is science, whether you choose to understand it or not. Creationism is religion, whatever pseudoscientific trappings they try to dress it in. Science has a place in science classes, and religion does not.
Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science. Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools. Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. ...
The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.
If you assume that posted paragraph was based upon shallow thinking, then you have well over "three thousand, five hundred and twenty eight words" of reading to do.
I stand by my premise with vigor. Concepts based upon too many examples in history, current events, and logical thinking. Current religions are just another version of pagan religions promoted by the Greeks and Romans - with all the same philosophies based in human wants and desires. Any god that has human traits is nothing more than a human's own self serving creation - much like an invisible friend or the Oracle of Delphi. Religion not based upon the realities of our universe and what a real and powerful god must be. Religion is a classic example of what is created when mankind stops advancing - when man stops innovating - when people blindly worship some flawed text books. When the prophets decree everything only from what they knew at that time.
It cannot be said strong enough because religious extremism is a threat to the advancement of mankind. Religious extremism is about worshipping your fears (an emotion) rather than thinking logically (an essential factor in mankind's advancement).
Posted here is the respect that religion deserves.
Conversation I had today:
"Why do people get so upset over evolution? It's just a theory."
"A scientific theory is basically equivalent to fact."
"No a theory is when you say 'I think this happens because...'"
"No that's a hypothesis."
"what? No that's a theory."
"No a scientific theory is an idea that can be tested in multiple ways and the results always jive with the idea."
"I don't believe you. I've never heard that before."
"Well why don't you look up 'scientific theory' and then get back to me."
"I'm not going to look in YOUR book!
You have demonstrated why people waste good money on Listerene. Simple principles were taught in junior high school science. To have a fact, both underlying concepts AND experimental evidence are required. Without both, then one only has, at best, a theory. Without both concepts, then they have wild speculation, urban myth, or political rhetoric. To have both science concepts and experimental confirmation, then proven principles of science and the *numbers* are required.
Blind worshippers *feel* Listerene working in their mouth AND therefore *know* it must be doing something. If Listerene does anything effective, then a quarter teaspoon of Vodka does as much.
Religion is best described as wild speculation - or what mankind did many thousands of years ago when philosophy was the only science. When tools of science did not exist. To deny this, others must obfuscate, pervert, confuse, or use Rush Limbaugh propaganda techniques to promote religious rhetoric over logical thought. And yes, so many are so easily perverted by emotion - deny the facts - that 70% of us believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This is when those with numbers and experience were ignored as they reported contrarian facts - ie no uranium from Niger. Mythical weapons that just made no sense once we applied numbers to wild speculation.
One factor consistent among those who believe - facts be damned - is they avoid all numbers. Same applies to religious extremists, 'Harry Potter' witchcraft, teachings of the KKK, or "Psychic friends".
Rather surprising how many 20 year olds cannot read a map, believe the first thing they are told, AND still don't understand basic science concepts. It does not end with Listerene or worshipers of the Pond's Institute for 'age defying cream'. It is how Joseph Goebels could so easily promote Hitler's agenda. Get them to assume emotionally rather than think logically.
Paleobabe has simply posted another example of those who even deny what was demonstrated in junior high school science. These are people most easily recruited for tasks such as suicide bombers or cannon fodder for the military's front line.
"Religion is best described as wild speculation - or what mankind did many thousands of years ago when philosophy was the only science. When tools of science did not exist. To deny this, others must obfuscate, pervert, confuse, or use Rush Limbaugh propaganda techniques to promote religious rhetoric over logical thought. And yes, so many are so easily perverted by emotion."
I come from the deep south and have wandered SP almost over the world. I was raised baptist. Yuk. Your words would almost start a coffee shop fight in the south.
I talked to a man whom I thought to be above average, was a reporter and a nice smart man. No bs about him. He died a while back at 79. Anyway I asked him once did he think that the muslims were hell bound. He said"yes" because they didn't know the lord. To me that's bull Shit. So I never brought it up again.
I might be hell bound, if such a place exist. But
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: WOW... What a ride!!"
I'm pretty bummed that the Vatican hasn't slapped down the Cardinal who played the intelligent design card recently. The Church had pretty well pulled herself out of the middle ages but now... who knows?
If they slap him down it becomes a media issue and they have to take an overt stance on it.
If they ignore it, it fades into the background noise and they don't have to take an official stance on it.
Which is easier as well as more effective?
Which is easier as well as more effective?
(warning wandering mind)
Fine, if it works but there is a growing right wing nut movement in the Church that will only pull back if the Vatican says they are in error. If the Vatican remains silent, they forge ahead with an anti-modernist agenda that while not up to radical islam's standards isn't too enlightened. Some folks think we should harness the nuts for our east-west culture clash but I think the agendas are too similar, anti-science, anti-woman, anti-individualist, while not the last bastion of that kind of thinking (the left has their cluster as well) its really not a product of Western Civilization as I conceive it..
"That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books."
That's a rather good way of putting it.
It's also a way to have shock troops you can distance yourself from when they screw up.
All they have to do is compare themselves to the ultra radicals and say "look how extreme they were, we're ever so much more tolerant."
I'm pretty bummed that the Vatican hasn't slapped down the Cardinal who played the intelligent design card recently. The Church had pretty well pulled herself out of the middle ages but now... who knows?
If using a condom, one is condemned to sin - according to church doctrine. Medical people in Catholic hospitals cannot even tell a husband how to use a condom to protect himself from his wife who has AIDs. Condoms and their use violate all church doctrine. So when did the Catholic Church - an institution that protected pedophiles and banned "Voice of the Faithful" - ever really pull itself out of the middle ages?
If you donate a kidney to your ailing twin brother, you have committed original sin. Another church decree from the 1950s when this kidney transplant was first performed. Was the doctor's name Dr Galileo?
When Pope John XXIII was my pope, we were told something previously unheard of in the Catholic Church. We should no longer condemn living Jews for what their ancestors did the Jesus. Is that called pulling itself out of the Middle Ages?
Even if your husband beats you, it would be an original sin - for some reason sins get categorized - for you to divorce him. However if you pay the local diocese enough money, then somehow the sacrament of marriage - a sacrament only provided by some Holy Ghost creature - somehow that sacrament can now be annulled by a now wealthier Bishop.
Could the Holy Ghost also provide me with the answers to tests in school - if I offered him enough money? No. Only sacraments can be bought and sold with money.
What day has the Pope scheduled to end the Middle Ages? Still waiting to be excommunicated. And I want it on a big fancy document that I can frame. Even Galileo couldn't get one of those.
If born into an institution you cannot leave, isn't that called slavery? At least a slave could buy his freedom. I can't even get a documented excommunication.
Not to be picky, but I will be anyway ... I think the terms you're looking for are
mortal and
venial sin.
Isn't there only one
original one?
This explains everything. tw was brought up Catholic! No wonder he's so messed up! Welcome to the club, tw. I never took Catholicism seriously and I'm just fine. I think Els and wolf are recovering Catholics, too. They seem ok. You'll eventually get over it.
tw has been unclear about his religous upbringing. We don't really know if he hates Catholics from the inside or hates them from outside. All we know is the hate.
After a 3hour bike ride I think I was a little hard on tw here. I compare his rhetoric with radars. Both have core values that can be respected but neither communicates his positive values without going negative on other peoples respectable core values.
Both have core values that can be respected but neither communicates his positive values without going negative on other peoples respectable core values.
Did I post negative. Or did I post positive? You did not cite specific paragraphs for good reason. You were taking a personal perspective which means reading into the post some emotional aspect. Such emotion requires a personal bias.
Is there anything in my post that even implies an emotional bias or opinion on my part? If you think so, well, I may routinely use incendiary words just so that your emotions lie to you. And I don't care. Adults should never look for implied emotion in posts - especially mine.
The only way you can make a claim that I hate people: quote specific paragraphs as examples. Trying to read into my biases? Not possible because of the perspective I use to write - to intentionally confuse your emotions.
If I look only for the negative, then post specific examples. Without citing support facts and examples, the statement is no different from speculation. IOW I have a problem with Griff's last post because it does what I accuse Rush Limbaugh types of doing.
Bush Endorses Teaching Intelligent Design to Students
President Bush said today that he believes intelligent design should be taught in schools alongside evolution.
Well, he said it. What a maroon.
numerous google hits :( This isn't original with me -- but isn't a Creation that goes entirely of itself a pretty intelligent way to design it? Saves a lot of bother over busting a miracle for each and every species, doesn't it?
If you are a Creator with literally all the time in the universe, to Whom a thousand ages in Thy sight are as an evening gone, do you have any reason whatsoever not to take your time and do it right? The right way seems to be the one of fullest freedom. No constraints on the forms of life.
This isn't original with me -- but isn't a Creation that goes entirely of itself a pretty intelligent way to design it? Saves a lot of bother over busting a miracle for each and every species, doesn't it?
Indeed. And that's why Intelligent Design as the motive force behind evolution is the most reasonable of the religious Creation stories. The problems only arise when people try to put religious Creation stories into a science class.
There is no proof for the the existence of God. That's why they call it faith. Science deals with facts or theories for which there is evidence. Saying that there might be a creator based on the unsubstantiated beliefs of individuals has no place in a science class.
I heard the end of a very bad debate on O'Reilly. They picked some poor Phd with no debating skills who by comparison made Nixon's performance in the Kennedy debate look like a screaming success. I swear that they picked the guy because O'Reilly could roll right over him.
--snip--The problems only arise when people try to put religious Creation stories into a science class.
--snip--Science deals with facts or theories for which there is evidence. Saying that there might be a creator based on the unsubstantiated beliefs of individuals has no place in a science class.
Well put, gentlemen.
This is exactly my single greatest complaint about this administration in particular. It is the bald, brass, naked abuse of power expressed by choosing an idea and then calling it something else. Compassionate Conservatism. The Clean Skies Act. The Global War On Terror.
They choose what they want to do (as they should, to the winners the spoils), but then call it the very opposite sometimes! The manipulative hypocrisy of this style of leadership galls me, infuriates me. Intelligent design is a set of ideas that has it's own merits and flaws. But. It is **NOT** science. Calling it science, demanding in the name of fairness, in the spirit of discovery, that it be considered with equal weight, as though it were scientific, is sooooo wrong I am at a loss to articulate it.
What kind of argument flaw/style is this example: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" One that starts with false premises and restricts the choices to a list where they're mutually exclusive (yes versus no) and all wrong? That's how I feel when lured into a discussion about ID as an alternative scientific theory. It's an invalid question. Why not teach it in math class? Why not teach it in P.E.? It has the same relevance. But those comparisons don't reflect the same authority as "ID is competitve with Evolution."
Aaarrrrgh!
the origin of the universe is very simple. black holes exist in the universe yes? these are things that once you pass the event horizon, space and time reverse and the only future for matter after this point is the singularity in the centre (i wont go into the physics and mathematics but i can if you ask me to). no amount of energy can stop this. for this to exist there needs to be an opposite to a black hole. just like for negative there is positive and for matter there is antimatter, light and dark etc.... so there has to be something called a "white hole". these have not been found. but think about it. for a white hole to exist it would need to be something where the singularity can only exist in the past. starting to sound familiar? what is the only place in the universe where something has had the singularity exist only in the past?
the universe itself.
logic suggests that in order for black holes to exist there needs to be at least one white hole and the only possible outcome of this is to have a singularity at the beginning of time with matter that cannot return to this point. (if youre having trouble thinking of time having a zero point, just think of it like the absolute zero in temperature)
my point is there was no time before this and hence no chance for a god to decide to create the universe. the universe will either continue expanding forever or just come to a stop as it cannot return to the singularity.
Well, he said it. What a maroon.
numerous google hits :(
Though I am a firm Christian, I would have to agree with you. By teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom, we would be endorsing that way of thinking not as merely a choice as part of your religion, or lack thereof, but as a brute undenyable fact. And forcing that upon children is wrong. Faith is a choice and the government should stay the hell out of that choice.
Though I am a firm Christian, I would have to agree with you. By teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom, we would be endorsing that way of thinking not as merely a choice as part of your religion, or lack thereof, but as a brute undenyable fact. And forcing that upon children is wrong. Faith is a choice and the government should stay the hell out of that choice.
religion should stay the hell out of peoples choice too. it should be a right of passage of everyone that when they turn 16 they choose their own religion and not be thrown into one from just after birth
it should be a right of passage of everyone that when they turn 16 they choose their own religion and not be thrown into one from just after birth
Sorry, I thought that's what 16-year-olds already did.
Let us also cogitate on "Design" as evidenced: the design of the eye of the Chordata isn't at all the way an engineer would lay it out. The blood supply to the retina is between the light-sensitive cell array and the light it uses?? Developmental defects of the cornea leading to myopia being almost more common than not? The urethra goes through the prostate instead of around it? Sloppy-fit knee joints held together by ligamental straps and nothing much else? And how 'bout that vermiform appendix?
Dr. Pangloss might opine that this is all to cause men to invent better surgery. But then, Pangloss' views on spectacles is too often noted to need repeating here.
And it might help Kagen if he knew it's a rite of passage. Right of passage is more a thing of ships than of men, be they sixteen or older.
Homonym hell is an unnecessary embarrassment, for my money.
it mite help UG if he new th@ the english language can b ripped to shreds and ppl still no what u r talking about.
you know it was the most embarrasing thing in my life to realise i typed "right" instead of "rite", thankyou for going so easy on me though and just pointing it out rather than shooting me down. its so nice to have clever, intelligent people like you around to point out our little grammatical mistakes now and then. i know everyone else appriciates all the good things people like you do in the world. once again, thanks. do you have an address that i can mail you a thankyou card and flowers, maybe some chocolates too? mmm it just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing you'll be there to watch over me providing your free spell-checker service.
sorry, im still pissed off that i burnt my tongue on my coffee this morning.
Homonym hell is still unnecessary.
The best spellchecker is your wetware. I turn mechanical spellcheckers off and keep my English to a near-Buckleyan standard -- WFB is the only general writer of my acquaintance who regularly can send me to the dictionary. In the words of the metaphor, the man's a rifle, with one helluvan ammunition wagon.
I've not yet heard of a spellchecker with the entire wordlist of the OED in it -- has anyone else? The usual 75K-wordlist spellchecker is too cramped for what I do when writing.
my previous statement still stands, spelling is irrelevant if the meaning is understood. if someone doesnt understand what you are saying THEN spelling needs to be checked
Well, then it's not English, is it? And spelling error can thoroughly scramble the meaning of a sentence. Those who insist upon its irrelevance insist upon muddy, substandard, subintellectual thinking.
There are better hills to die on than this one.
Those who insist upon its irrelevance insist upon muddy, substandard, subintellectual thinking.
And I thought you liked to hang out with Republicans.
Can
you spell potatoe?
Well, then it's not English, is it? And spelling error can thoroughly scramble the meaning of a sentence. Those who insist upon its irrelevance insist upon muddy, substandard, subintellectual thinking.
i know, ive read 1984. man that thing was pretty close considering it was written in 1949. :worried:
[YOUTUBE]MO9ukxGzmkw[/YOUTUBE]
I am going to start wearing Oliver buttons.
Sorry, I thought that's what 16-year-olds already did.
Nope, most people don't tell their kids "this is what your mom and/or I believe, that is what some people believe, some other's believe that other thing, some don't believe in any religion and one day you will decide what to believe or not to for yourself"
like they should. Most try to brainwash their kids like tyrants. Cowards don't trust their kids to make the right decisions for themselves, no faith in what they state is the one "true path", imagine that?
Cowards don't trust their kids to make the right decisions for themselves,
Okay, I have to take exception to that. I'd say my views on religion are probably quite well known by some of the regulars, but for the record I am an atheist; I believe that religion is a negative force within the world and I hate the idea of children being indoctrinated into what I consider to be an enormous and damaging con-trick. That said.....the people who raise their children with a strong faith are generally (I believe) doing so out of a profound sense of responsibility to their offspring. Obviously within any one cohort of children raised within a faith, there will be some whose parents are so overbearing that they are damaged psychologically, but that's the case in any cohort of any, or no, faith. The vast majority of parents attempt to raise their children in such a way that they have the requisite tools and resources to be successful and/or happy adults. To suggest that someone who believes that toolkit should include a spiritual dimension is a coward for including it in their child's upbringing, is unfair.
If you fear God (and I use that term in its original sense, rather than the more modern usage) then surely you would be a poor parent if you did not prepare your child for adulthood in a world in which that God is manifest. If you believe in a less traditional and more personal spirituality then you would likely wish your child to discover their spirituality for themself. If, however, you believe in a God whose existence is defined and interpreted through the theological structures of an organised church, surely the sensible thing to do as a parent would be to introduce your child to that church and its structures from an early age. If you believe in the existence of Heaven and Hell, and that the way to the former is through acceptance of God's will or Christ's sacrifice, then surely the most loving thing to do as a parent is to ensure your child has access to the means of salvation.
On a much simpler level, and to be fair to parents of whatever faith, raising children is a difficult thing. You do not become a parent and suddenly slough off your own hang-ups, desires, cultural norms and perspectives. You do not suddenly become an objective outsider to that child's upbringing. You will therefore bring something of yourself to that child's raising. If religion is a large part of who you are, then you are likely to bring religion into that child's life.
We teach our children the concept of right and wrong, how to cross a road safely and whether to value education. For someone who considers religion to be an essential part of life, it would surely seem an abrogation of parental duty not to teach that too.
like they should
Once again, you are telling other people (or at least telling us) how other people should raise their kids.
Cowards don't trust other parents to make the right decisions for their families, no faith in what they state is the one "true path", imagine that?
Edited for establishment of irony. If what you believe (i.e., parents should "tell their kids 'this is what your mom and/or I believe,'" etc.) is truly the best way to raise children, then surely over time it will establish itself as the most successful cultural value, right? Or do you not trust most adults to make the right decisions for themselves?
My parents, both being atheist, sent me to church and catholic school until I was a junior and begged to go to public school. Whether they did this out of some sense of "a balanced world view" or to appease my mother's maniacally Catholic parents, I don't know. All I know is that I can't say it was the end of the world.
That said.....the people who raise their children with a strong faith are generally (I believe) doing so out of a profound sense of responsibility to their offspring.
I have pretty much identical views on religion as you, Dana, and this quote sums up why I can't get too pissed at people for sending their children to church. If you believe that people who don't go to church burn for all eternity in a giant oven, it would be pretty shitty to force your child into that state.
And it is for THAT reason that I will tell my child exactly what I think, and that what Mrs. Praise-Jesus down the street says is absurd for reasons A-D. And hopefully my child won't be duped by the guys standing on the corner with signs that say "God Hates ______".
Okay, I have to take exception to that. I'd say my views on religion are probably quite well known by some of the regulars, but for the record I am an atheist; I believe that religion is a negative force within the world and I hate the idea of children being indoctrinated into what I consider to be an enormous and damaging con-trick. That said.....the people who raise their children with a strong faith are generally (I believe) doing so out of a profound sense of responsibility to their offspring. Obviously within any one cohort of children raised within a faith, there will be some whose parents are so overbearing that they are damaged psychologically, but that's the case in any cohort of any, or no, faith. The vast majority of parents attempt to raise their children in such a way that they have the requisite tools and resources to be successful and/or happy adults. To suggest that someone who believes that toolkit should include a spiritual dimension is a coward for including it in their child's upbringing, is unfair.
If you fear God (and I use that term in its original sense, rather than the more modern usage) then surely you would be a poor parent if you did not prepare your child for adulthood in a world in which that God is manifest. If you believe in a less traditional and more personal spirituality then you would likely wish your child to discover their spirituality for themself. If, however, you believe in a God whose existence is defined and interpreted through the theological structures of an organised church, surely the sensible thing to do as a parent would be to introduce your child to that church and its structures from an early age. If you believe in the existence of Heaven and Hell, and that the way to the former is through acceptance of God's will or Christ's sacrifice, then surely the most loving thing to do as a parent is to ensure your child has access to the means of salvation.
On a much simpler level, and to be fair to parents of whatever faith, raising children is a difficult thing. You do not become a parent and suddenly slough off your own hang-ups, desires, cultural norms and perspectives. You do not suddenly become an objective outsider to that child's upbringing. You will therefore bring something of yourself to that child's raising. If religion is a large part of who you are, then you are likely to bring religion into that child's life.
We teach our children the concept of right and wrong, how to cross a road safely and whether to value education. For someone who considers religion to be an essential part of life, it would surely seem an abrogation of parental duty not to teach that too.
Telling a child how to behave morally, the golden rule, and teaching them religion have nothing to do with each other.
My wife is a theist and is not indoctrinating my son and feels no need to.
There is NO reason to.
In fact teaching a child that if they sin they will go to hell and be tortured for eternity is child abuse.
Tell me, if someone raised their kids with a bunch of false beliefs like cars could actually fly but they just didn't when she was looking at them for no real reason or that she would one day grow wings and be able to fly... no reason to criticize them right?
Just because a lot of people tell their kids something that no one can verify does not make it ok or any any less a lie especially when the book they use and want the kid to learn is full of mass murder, genocide, incest with those they are supposed to be looking UP TO, Jesus telling them to hate their families and much, MUCH more.
Sure, tell the kids about religion, I say all of it. Tell them about it, the good and bad and let them decide on their own when they are old enough to understand.
Why bother them with it when they are young? There is just no point.
H. R. Giger, eat your heart out! With
both sets of jaws.
heard it on npr this am... maxdoublepluscool/scary.
is it just me or does the profile of that creature's head resemble the nose/cockpit profile of the new
hondajet?Pharyngeal jaws is just what I'd expect from those sneaky Japs.
I can't believe spell-check didn't even blink at pharyngeal.
Another... drier, but good stuff.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea--Dan Dennet Talks Evolution
Professor Dennett is a prominent and highly respected American philosopher from Tufts University, where his research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. Professor Dennett is a prolific writer, producing countless academic papers and articles, and both academic and "popular" books. His popular books include Consciousness Explained (1992); Freedom Evolves (2003); and, Darwin Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of life (1996)—which he draws on heavily for this talk.
His most recent OUTSTADING book was, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006)—a "must read."
Professor Dennett is an outspoken non-believer. He is a high profile atheist, active skeptic, prominent secular-humanist, and an indefatigable advocate of the "Brights."
He is a true champion for the cause!
It is my hope that Professor Dennett's lecture will be both interesting, AND also help equip my fellow rational atheists and secular humanists, with addition conversational ammunition for use in debate with our deluded Judeo-Christian-Islamic creationist foes.
I will upload this talk in its entirety; however, due to YouTube© time restrictions, this talk will consist of eleven parts. For ease of viewing, I will upload each subsequent part as a video response to the previous.
Enjoy the lecture and the enlightenment!
This video lecture is available in full at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2393547403945995297&hl=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrLiVn4RGKc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTtM1A2PPsA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgz9J0I0Rmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11yS_w9487E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYdXmHgNx-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybXxuuivRc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIDZoVJjQFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17Vh8ucPmfc:fsm:
[youtube]CKA6KFhKwO8[/youtube]
[youtube]8knbBHxKE8U[/youtube]
Who remembers the Rain devil huh?? once upon atime when i sagged ur guts into red colred tributaries of vampire drains?? in those days died the blabber xoxoxbruce? remember bro?? so this is the standard you ppl have dawned over this "o once a great community". maybe you ppl can lend some of the teachings. that sounds cool? everybody for tutions please raise thier f*** hands!!
:eek: :headshake
A zombie! Kill it with fire, it's the only way to be sure!
are you freaking kidding me? this idiot is back? [SIZE="1"]i meant the poster above yours BigV, relax;) [/SIZE]
oh no. i cant still spell m-o-o-n moon but watever, fools dont die. like a pain in ur ass. muhaha
guess wat! i think fool gals r supposed to b a part of every society. mayhap god was a fool to start the fucking creation in the first place! sing halellujah!!
spell m-o-o-n moon
mayhap
Somebody has been watching "
The Stand."
M-o-o-n....that spells moron.
I am a "The Stand" fan. I think I like "The Shining" the best of all of King's movies (made for tv and otherwise). I sat through "The Langoliers" in pain recently.....
Somebody has been watching "The Stand."
Watching!?
God that was a crappy miniseries (big surprise a Steven King adaptation being crappy).
Pt 11
[YOUTUBE]ttnU8Tbwtd0[/YOUTUBE]
Blimey -I expected a difference between the UK and US, but not that big!
I am shamed by the UK's standing!
Blame the people available for surveying I say. Like me they are free during the day...
Umm why shamed sg?
Because we wasn't top o' course ;)
ahhhh I beg your pardon hon, of course that is shaming.
It was hard to decide whether to resurrect this thread, or
put this in the humor thread:
Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved in their pre-human state alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)."
:lol2:
I'm too lazy to search, was that posted here?
No, Roy Comfort is a creationist nutter. That's from his blog ( See the "put this" link).
Another tossup. This is just the first bit:
One of the many problems with Darwin's theory of evolution pertaining to mankind is that neither Charles Darwin nor his worshippers take into account extra-terrestrial life.
I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man from another planet.:rolleyes:
...when he shows me a man from another planet.:rolleyes:
And then explains how that man spontaneously appeared without prior iterations. As far as I know Darwin's theory does not specify location at all.
The creation is a birth of something that has a soul and I believe it is beyond any science to infuse the energy seed of life.
Your beliefs are your beliefs; they cannot be tested or validated.
That is both consolation and condemnation.
The creation is a birth of something that has a soul and I believe it is beyond any science to infuse the energy seed of life.
We are changing the subject here, since evolutionary science does not mean Darwin is creating animals from scratch in the back room. Your statement does raise some interesting questions though:
You talk about living things having a soul. Can you detect or otherwise prove the existence of a soul? I will go ahead and assume you cannot, feel free to correct me if I am assuming too much.
Given that you cannot prove the existence of a soul, it stands to reason that you could not detect the presence or absence of a soul. So, assuming that science did create a seemingly living animal it would be indistinguishable from that of a truly living animal by your reckoning. In fact, without the ability to observe or detect souls you have no reason to assume that all naturally occurring life has souls. One begins to wonder what could possibly justify such a belief in the first place.
Let's all have a though experiment at this point. The question is "Do I have a soul?" Why or why not?
And then explains how that man spontaneously appeared without prior iterations. As far as I know Darwin's theory does not specify location at all.
Reread what I said.
Reread what I said.
Nothing about what you said precludes the possibility of extraterrestrial apes.
I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man, or a fucking ape, from another planet. Happy? :rolleyes:
I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man, or a fucking ape, from another planet. Happy? :rolleyes:
What if they were reproducing asexually by splitting themselves in half? The devil's in the details, Bruce.
Who (what) reproduced asexually by splitting themselves in half?
Kocsis says man couldn't have evolved from apes, because that would leave no explanation for spacemen. I can't consider his argument because I've seen no spacemen... don't believe anyone else has either.
But even if someone produces a spaceman, that doesn't prove we didn't evolve from apes, only that spacemen developed somehow, somewhere, and bears investigation.
Sundae was referencing
the post before the spaceman post.
Roy Comfort? I'd already discarded him... completely.
...But even if someone produces a spaceman, that doesn't prove we didn't evolve from apes, only that spacemen developed somehow, somewhere, and bears investigation.
Exactly, and if that someone can also produce a space-ape then it lends credence to evolution since it apparently happened twice!
Not necessarily. If somebody produces a spaceman, I'd have to reconsider the position of the
very few, (read nutters) that have been saying that humans came from other worlds.
If someone produces a spaceman and spacemonkey, that introduces the possibility that;
1- we came from other worlds where we (and the spaceman) evolved from spacemonkeys.
2- we came from other worlds where we [and the spaceman] came about some other way.
3- we evolved from earth monkeys and the spaceman have evolved from spacemonkeys.
4- we evolved from earth monkeys and the spaceman came about some other way.
The spaceman and spacemonkey certainly present a myriad of possible scenarios.
BUT, until the spaceman, with or without spacemonkey, shows up, I'll stick with the preponderance of evidence that man evolved from apes... earth apes.
Which is what I said originally;
I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man from another planet.:rolleyes:
Funnily enough, there was an advert on this morning for a series of BBC programmes to celebrate the 150th anniversary of The Origin of the Species. It's called The Origin of Genuis. It's just accepted in this country - Darwin was right, end of. And the vast majority of Christians accept it too.
Then again, I suppose we have such a small population compared to America. The tiny percentage of those that reject the concept of evolution means less in terms of numbers.
Anyway, the first programme is called What Darwin Didn't Know. I'll be watching it.
Even in Darwin's native Britain, a majority of citizens no longer adheres to the theory of evolution, as a 2006 survey showed. Only 48 percent of Britons claimed to believe in it. More than 40 percent would like to see the Biblical story of creation taught in government-run schools -- and not just in religious studies, but also in biology class. One in four teachers on the government's payroll agree.
LINKNot all the 40% who would like to see the biblical story taught in schools actually adhere to that belief. There are a large number of people who accept evolution as the most likely answer, but who think we should teach both theories in school.
I have only met a handful of people over here who dismiss evolution entirely and subscribe to a non-evolutionary creation story. Most people over here either believe in evolution without God or believe in it with God. I would query their overall results. It doesn't match my own experience of this country: 52% don't believe in evolution at all? That doesn't fit to me.
The battle ground is the theory of evolution. The underlying theme of the battle is whether or not God is or God is not. Not wether or not evolution is a workable theory or not.
That question can not be answered by the theory of evolution. I think it is misguided to use things such as the theory of evolution to prove or disprove God.
God either is, or God is not. As far as I can tell this is a very personal matter. It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.
It doesn't match my own experience of this country: 52% don't believe in evolution at all? That doesn't fit to me.
I'm having trouble believing that also.
It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.
And vice versa.
God either is, or God is not.
Or god is but not as defined in fairy tales (parables) written in a bible. The bible may be how those without basic knowledge (similar to children) grasp a concept too far beyond them. Rather than ask whether god does or does not exist according to their definition, instead, ask what really is god.
When god is personified by human characteristics, then god is simply a false idol. If god has characteristics such as anger and other emotions, then god is only a man – not a god. Clearly, the god defined in a bible is only what naïve children (adults of that time) could comprehend. Time to move on from myths and speculation into, instead, asking what really would be a god. What is defined in the bible is best described as similar to the gods worshipped by the Romans and Greeks – humanized and therefore false idols. Time to ask what a god would really be - which is not what parables in a bible define. But then men were grasping the best they could at that time.
Therefore, tw, you must logically extend that god 'cares' nothing for humanity, since 'caring' is an anthropomorphization.
So, why do we care about god?
Therefore, tw, you must logically extend that god 'cares' nothing for humanity, since 'caring' is an anthropomorphization.
So, why do we care about god?
People don't care about God, they care about themselves. Think about it; would any religious person you know consider their god to be important if it didn't care about what they did? There is always either a reward or a penalty associated with behavior or mindset, and without any sort of interaction or consequence from belief the god is pointless. The common concept of an acceptable god even rules out non-earthly concerns. God never needs help with something beyond what humans can do, god never gets angry at things beyond human actions.
It is no surprise that a more advanced view of what God should be leads to logical inconsistencies. It is religion, it never makes any sense.
Logical inconsistencies can also be found in observations of experiments conducted at the subatomic level, what we call quantum mechanics. I don't hear many physisists saying "It's just science, it never makes any sense."
My point is this, there are many things in religion that do make sense, and yes there are logical inconsistencies. These also exist in the scientific world as we are able to observe it. Using one or the other to discount one or the other is useless.
Logical inconsistencies can also be found in observations of experiments conducted at the subatomic level, what we call quantum mechanics. I don't hear many physisists saying "It's just science, it never makes any sense."
Not true. Quantum mechanics can present confusing data and follow rules we don't fully understand. The interactions that go on may be counterintuitive but the discipline "makes sense"; scientists perform experiments, gather the data, and make theories and conclusions based on that data. Religion on the other hand makes theories and conclusions, fabricates data, and then forbid or decry experiments.
Suppose a scientist and a religious person were to observe something that appeared to be illogical, such as a chunk of metal hovering above the ground. The religious person could solve the illogical situation by concluding God did it, a conclusion that does not require evidence or a lot of effort. The scientist would have to study the situation in depth to see if it actually conformed to the principles he/she already knew about, just applied in an unexpected way. Failing that, they could add another principle to their knowledge. Just because seemingly illogical situations can occur in the world does not mean that everything is illogical, or that nothing can be illogical.
Perhaps I should explain my statement in more depth: "It is religion, it never makes any sense." A logically valid argument can be made for religion, just not a "sound" argument. The issue is that the premises of arguments for religion are either untrue, unproven, or impossible to prove. This is why religions are based on "faith", if anyone could provide sound premises to a logically valid argument for religion then it would be a science.
From a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul from damnation is a fairly sound premise. I guess this only counts if I have a soul.
Quantum mechanics does present confusing data, there most certainly are rules that we don't understand. The observations of quantum mechanics are by nature counter intuitive. What we are left with are not concrete answers to the the nature of the universe. We are only left with our interpretation of the observations. In my mind we are left with a deeper appreciation of our lack of understanding, even as we think we understand more. It can and should be humbling.
Richard Feynman described it best when he compared our knowledge of the universe to a game of chess. We may know the rules, how the pieces move. But to watch two masters play we will be lost to the depth of their moves. What seems logical to one of them, will seem counter intuitive to me the novice on the side line. I liked that analogy.
We have such sophisticated notions of who we are in these modern ages. Based on mountains of scientific observation. We use this mountain of observation and our sophisticated notion of who we think we are to disprove the existence of God? I think this is laughable.
I do think I should qualify a few things now. I am only participating in this discussion honestly. I do not think that anyone should believe the same things I believe. Nor do I feel compelled to save anyones, including my own everlasting soul. (the lawyer on my shoulder made me put that last statement in)
From a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul from damnation is a fairly sound premise. I guess this only counts if I have a soul.
I think you are confusing a conclusion with a premise. A premise is basically where you set up the ground rules for the argument. To steal an example, we have the argument: "Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal." The premises of the argument is that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal. This argument is both valid and sound.
Your conclusion is basically "Religion will save my everlasting soul from damnation." This requires many premises, one of which would be "I have an everlasting soul." Even one premise being false leads to the entire argument being unsound, and your conclusion is based on many extremely questionable premises.
We have such sophisticated notions of who we are in these modern ages. Based on mountains of scientific observation. We use this mountain of observation and our sophisticated notion of who we think we are to disprove the existence of God? I think this is laughable.
Science does not try to disprove the existence of God; scientists are acutely aware of their lack of all-encompassing data. Science simply requires a logical reason or empirical observation to support a belief. What puts religion and science at odds is that science is so darn SUCCESSFUL! Look around you at all the things you are thankful for, and even those you don't usually consider. Your family is healthy, you have plenty of food and shelter, and you have all these nifty gadgets. None of that came about by someone kneeling and praying to a god, or beamed down like mana from heaven. All of that, every single scrap, came from people going out, looking at the world, and figuring out how it works so it would work for them. The process is painstaking and difficult but it WORKS. What has religion given us?
My conclusion is certainly not that religion will save my everlasting soul, please read me exactly. I stand by the statement that from a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul is a sound place to start.
You are correct, science does not try to disprove God, people use science to back up their own beliefs. I don't think science supports the belief that God does not exist. I think that the sciences support the existence rather than the non-existence of God. That's just me. I can use science just as well as a non believer. I don't think scientific observation passes judgement on the matter. We do.
Your question about what religion has given us, is a good question. Religion is not God. I think there are some people within various religions who are, and aspire to be Godly, humble, unselfish, of service to their fellow man, quiet men and women. This is probably the best thing that religion has given us. The more important question in my mind, is what has God given us. To my thinking He has given us the desire, and ability to go out and make the nifty devices and live in the world by the various methods that we have, within the various social contexts that we have in the world.
I don't think that religion itself is a bad thing, though I'm not a religious man. Wars that people ascribe to religion more often then not have been power struggles. Power struggles between cultures, economies, societies. Religion has really been a motivating factor, or cover for the real reasons that wars have been fought.
My conclusion is certainly not that religion will save my everlasting soul, please read me exactly. I stand by the statement that from a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul is a sound place to start.
The idea behind making a premise is to choose something that the reader of the argument will agree is sound. Starting from a point too far into the argument where the reader does not agree with the premises does not mean the reader just has to respect your beliefs, it means you have a poorly crafted, unsound argument. As I said, your statement requires its own argument since it is not self-evident, and those premises should not be formed from whole cloth.
Only if you're selling something, or trying to convert someone, not if you're just stating personal beliefs and don't care if anyone agrees. Not everyone is combative.
The idea behind making a premise is to choose something that the reader of the argument will agree is sound. Starting from a point too far into the argument where the reader does not agree with the premises does not mean the reader just has to respect your beliefs, it means you have a poorly crafted, unsound argument. As I said, your statement requires its own argument since it is not self-evident, and those premises should not be formed from whole cloth.
I can only choose topics, put forth premises that you the reader think are sound?
I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. I'm not putting forth arguments that my premises will logically lead you to change your conclusions about anything.
I was thinking this was a friendly discussion of our beliefs and ideas about science and God. I understand that these ideas, beliefs and conclusions may be different based on life experiences.
Only if you're selling something, or trying to convert someone, not if you're just stating personal beliefs and don't care if anyone agrees. Not everyone is combative.
Or if you are trying to have a meaningful discussion. If you just want to post statements without soliciting replies you can do that with yourself and Notepad. Give yourself a high five whenever it is appropriate.
I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. I'm not putting forth arguments that my premises will logically lead you to change your conclusions about anything.
I was thinking this was a friendly discussion of our beliefs and ideas about science and God.
Exactly. A discussion implies an exchange of ideas, informal debate, "consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc." You seem to think everyone showing up and making statements which are not open to exploration is a discussion. I don't think that leads to a rewarding thread; there is nothing to gain other than kudos from those who agree with you.
Besides, joining a conversation just to give your opinion and then getting defensive when questioned is a little rude. How would you like it if someone gave you their opinion and then was like "I don't have to justify myself to you!" when you asked them about it? What are you here for then, to talk at me rather than with me?
I don't see where we have strayed from the informal debate yet. I've justified myself just fine up til now, I'm not sure if you are still talking about me. You must be, since the majority of posts up til now have been ours. In short, I'm confused as to why you are posting this. Is there something you would like me to justify?
Besides, joining a conversation just to give your opinion and then getting defensive when questioned is a little rude. How would you like it if someone gave you their opinion and then was like "I don't have to justify myself to you!" when you asked them about it? What are you here for then, to talk at me rather than with me?
HA! :bites tongue
not at you, Joe. Just in general.
Is there something you would like me to justify?
No, the discussion began and continues to be about logic and your misunderstanding of premises IMO. I am not asking you to justify your beliefs, I am simply pointing out that it appears you don't understand *how* to justify beliefs. Part of the motivation for this is less selfish than you may first assume; this misunderstanding means that you don't understand how I justify my own beliefs. After all, you likened quantum mechanics to your own tenuous suppositions about your eternal soul.
you are not asking me to justify my beliefs, understandable now that I know that you don't think I know how to justify my beliefs.
I have not likened quantum mechanics to my soul. I have only stated that there are logical inconsistencies in observations in the field of quantum mechanics. For instance, logical inconsistencies in observation lead us to see things like Bells Theorem as true/provable. Logical inconsistencies in observation lead us to ask questions and dig deeper into non-locality and try to find answers such as hidden variables. Although Bells Theorem seems to point to QM more then hidden variables. I assume you know these things. Your statement that It is no surprise that a more advanced view of what God should be leads to logical inconsistencies, made me think of quantum mechanics.
It is true that I believe that God exists, I base this belief on my experience in life. I don't ask anyone else to believe the same thing that I believe. The lens of my perception is indeed colored by this. I think I've made that abundantly clear up until now in our discussion. The lens of perception is also colored with my atheist friends. I personally believe that you don't like what I have to say here in this forum, and are trying to attack the form of my rhetoric, saying it is "poorly crafted". Yes it's true, I admit it, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. I have not been defensive, and I have not said anywhere in our discussion that what I say is not open to exploration or discussion. I have not likened my soul to quantum mechanics anywhere in our discussion. If you continue to make statements that are simply not true about our discussion I will assume that you have some other agenda in mind then honest discussion. As far as I'm concerned it will call into serious question your integrity.
I would be interested in hearing about those experiences in your life that contributed to your belief in God. I have my own theory about how this usually starts with people and tried to express it in another discussion, but was accused of attacking someones 'faith' when you got into the discussion. All you had to do was say that your life experiences led you to your faith and then the discussion was over. It shouldn't be that way, otherwise I could say something like 'my experiences have led me to believing that we really didn't land on the moon' and that would be that.
What is your theory about how this usually starts with people, what do you mean by this?
snip~ All you had to do was say that your life experiences led you to your faith and then the discussion was over. It shouldn't be that way, otherwise I could say something like 'my experiences have led me to believing that we really didn't land on the moon' and that would be that.
Yes, that would be that, unless one (or both) of the parties is trying to convince the other they are wrong, rather than just learning why they feel the way they do.
The Pope is infallible? Not according to actions of the current 'infallible' pope. From the NY Times of 24 Jan 2009:
Pope Reinstates Four Excommunicated Bishops
The four reinstated men are members of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by a French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, in 1970 as a protest against the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, also called Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre made the men bishops in unsanctioned consecrations in Switzerland in 1988, prompting the immediate excommunication of all five by Pope John Paul II.
Later that year, Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, sought to regularize the church’s relationship with the society. And as pope, he has made reinstating the Lefebvrists an important personal cause.
Appreciate the statements that caused these bishops to be excommunicated by an infallible pope.
Pope Benedict XVI, reaching out to the far-right of the Roman Catholic Church, revoked the excommunications of four schismatic bishops on Saturday, including one whose comments denying the Holocaust have provoked outrage. ...
Among the men reinstated Saturday was Richard Williamson, a British-born cleric who in an interview last week said he did not believe that six million Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers. He has also given interviews saying that the United States government staged the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. ...
Indeed, even though the Society has given no public signs that it would reverse its rejection of Vatican II, one Vatican official, speaking on condition of anonymity on Saturday because talks were continuing, said that the Vatican was willing to discuss making the group a personal prelature. Pope John Paul II did the same with another conservative group, Opus Dei.
In a public statement Saturday, the Vatican said that the pope would reconsider whether to formally affirm the four men as full bishops, but it referred to the men by that title. It said talks would seek to resolve the “open questions” in the church’s relationship with the society.
Either Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict is wrong. One was fallible. Religion's premise (that underpins that entire religion) is really speculation. Religion re-labels as theory what science defines as speculation - also called junk science. Religion's theory is even contradicted by experimental evidence: an infallible pope made a mistake.
There is no 'theory' of creationism. That speculation uses the same reasoning that says a pope is infallible. To have a theory, one must first have sufficient evidence that the theory even exists. Experimental evidence even suggests creationism is false.
Even the concept of a soul is nothing more than wild speculation. No different from the same logic that proved Saddam had WMDs. We feel Saddam had WMDs. Therefore that is a fact? We feel that god created woman from a man's rib. Therefore that is a fact? Hardly. It does not even meet the definition of theory.
The only man and only woman had two sons. So how did they have grandsons. Did Cain or Abel do their mother? Or did they do their unmentioned sisters? Or maybe religious 'facts' and 'theories' are really nothing more than parables or fairy tales?
Religion is full of beliefs that even contradict knowledge and reality – that even justified massacres. This is why religion is only a relationship between one man and his god(s). Nothing more. No wonder the fallible pope is somehow still infallible.
There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'. With this kind of rigid dogmatism mixed with realpolitik, picking up the worst of both worlds, they may be right.
Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer Holocaust survivors walking around with their numbers still tattooed on their arms to remind us. It's possible that people will forget, especially if the current pope chooses expediency and condones the denial of what happened. Considering the fact that he himself experienced the Holocaust from the other side, you would think he would be able to correct these idiots.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.aspAs Pico and ME noted:
I have my own theory about how this usually starts with people and tried to express it in another discussion, but was accused of attacking someones 'faith' when you got into the discussion.
Another fundamental problem with beliefs based only in speculation: the believer has no reason to justify (be confident in) their belief. A believer must fall back to emotional attachment and outbursts. A resulting emotional suspicion and cynicism redefines those questions, instead, as an attack. Why? Religion should only be a relationship between one and his god(s). Therefore anyone else's questions or doubts are completely irrelevant - harm no one - insult no one.
Does religion also not teach to turn the other cheek? Of course. One secure in his own religion is never threatened or insulted - if religion is really only about that man / god(s) relationship.
Religious beliefs don't meet the definition of 'theory'. Religious rhetoric (ie the pope is infallible or that virgins await martyrs) only meets the definition of wild speculation or junk science. And yet the religious will even violate their sixth commandment to ‘defend’ their religion from threats that only ask damning questions and that threaten no one.
"What is a god?" The question broke down into the inevitable problem - what is a fact and how do we know anything? Why would people confuse a 'theory' called evolution with 'wild speculation' called creationism? Creationism is defined by the same reasoning that also proved "The Force". No wonder religious leaders in the early days of Star Wars called it a pagan religion. “The Force” was a potential religion and therefore a threat. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed so that Luke Skywalker could save the universe.
There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'. With this kind of rigid dogmatism mixed with realpolitik, picking up the worst of both worlds, they may be right.
I've been easing away from the church for some time. For me Benedict is my last Pope. This obscenity just reinforces my decision.
"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason...It has always defined men, all men without distinction, as creatures and images of God, proclaiming for them...the same dignity. In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith....It was and is the merit of the Enlightenment to have again proposed these original values of Christianity and of having given back to reason its own voice... Today, this should be precisely [Christianity's] philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not other than a 'sub-product,' on occasion even harmful of its development—or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal...In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the Logos, from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational." -- Pope Benedict XVI
The Pope makes an interesting argument here, which has some interesting consequences to the original topic. Basically what he seems to be saying is that the widespread concept of rational thinking arose in Western society and so is of exclusively Christian origin. He goes on to say that it is important for Christians to maintain that reality is the way it is for a reason, rather than reason being a byproduct of existence. Thus, he concludes that Christians should be open to rational thought.
From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason. In my view the Pope is basically shooting the Catholic faith in the foot because faith is, by definition, unreasonable. Thoughts?
The Pope makes an interesting argument here, which has some interesting consequences to the original topic. Basically what he seems to be saying is that the widespread concept of rational thinking arose in Western society and so is of exclusively Christian origin. He goes on to say that it is important for Christians to maintain that reality is the way it is for a reason, rather than reason being a byproduct of existence. Thus, he concludes that Christians should be open to rational thought.
From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason. In my view the Pope is basically shooting the Catholic faith in the foot because faith is, by definition, unreasonable. Thoughts?
Rational thinking exclusively Christian origin? humph. What about the Greeks? Or the Egyptians? Or any other myriad ancient cultures that predate Christianity?
There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'.
Wow - just like Doctor Who!
There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'.
For me Benedict is my last Pope. This obscenity just reinforces my decision.
See. Elect a black man as president and the world comes to an end. Now to find proof in a bible.
Does religion also not teach to turn the other cheek?
Not all religions do, no.
From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason.
"Evolutionary Science" does not provide a reasonable explanation for how the universe explodes out of nothing, how life is created from non life, or how amoebas evolve into men.
The evidences that "Evolutionary Scientists" use can be reasonably proved to be at least open to question (the speed of light, carbon dating), fraudulent (Lucy) or outright wrong (gillslits in foetii, moth experiments).
Origins is a religious discussion, regardless of which side you're on.
"Evolutionary Science" does not provide a reasonable explanation for how the universe explodes out of nothing, how life is created from non life, or how amoebas evolve into men.
This is only partially correct. Evolutionary science provides a reasonable explanation for only the last thing you listed, "how amoebas evolve into men". It does not explain the other things you listed simply because it is not meant to explain such things. You are confusing religion which is designed to be an all-encompassing explanation with science which limits itself to explaining observations.
The evidences that "Evolutionary Scientists" use can be reasonably proved to be at least open to question (the speed of light, carbon dating), fraudulent (Lucy) or outright wrong (gillslits in foetii, moth experiments).
This is true; by the very nature of basing their findings on evidence scientists leave the foundations of their theories open to question. Evidence can be open to question, fraudulent, wrong... or even completely accurate. This is the strength of science and logic; we can examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not. This lends long-standing scientific principles significant credibility.
Compare this to religion which bases their beliefs on faith; faith is not open to question at all. Faith cannot be reasonably proved to be *anything* because it deliberately violates the requirements of reason. This is the fundamental weakness of religion; we cannot examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not. This lends long-standing religious principles significant doubt.
Origins is a religious discussion, regardless of which side you're on.
This is not correct. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the methods of thinking between religious and scientific people, so it may be that a discussion of origins between two such people becomes two different discussions altogether. However, origins can and is approached from a scientific angle frequently.
Evolutionary science provides a reasonable explanation for only the last thing you listed, "how amoebas evolve into men".
No, it doesn't.
It does not explain the other things you listed simply because it is not meant to explain such things.
How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed? It's ALL origins theory.
You are confusing religion which is designed to be an all-encompassing explanation with science which limits itself to explaining observations.
Ok, observations....like...current evolution? Like...the big bang? Like the fact no scientist has ever seen a star born? Like how a leg bone in the desert has been observed procreating and you can tell what color it's skin was and what it ate, based on a LEG bone???
True science limits itself to the scientific theory, which is observable, documentable, and repeatable. Therefore, any origins theory is NOT scientific since it does not qualify under any of those.
This is true; by the very nature of basing their findings on evidence scientists leave the foundations of their theories open to question.
Then tell me why this theory is CONSTANTLY treated as fact and MANY people have been blackballed for questioning it?
Evidence can be open to question, fraudulent, wrong... or even completely accurate. This is the strength of science and logic; we can examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not. This lends long-standing scientific principles significant credibility.
Unless these theories are proven wrong, but the ideas are still left in the textbooks and our children are indoctrinated in lies. When you attempt to point out that the idea in question is false, you're labeled as "one of those Creationist kooks" and not taken seriously.
Compare this to religion which bases their beliefs on faith;
I base my beliefs on a collection of manuscripts that have more fragments (over 25,000) that all say the same thing. It is historically and scientifically accurate, as far as anyone has been able to determine.
Because I was not there at the time those events occured, I have faith that those 25,000 fragments that have been compared to each other by the best scientific minds out there are true, accurate representations of the events as they occured. But I concede it's faith.
It is also faith to believe that the universe exploded from nothing, that non life arises from life, and that ANY life form can somehow magically evolve into another with all the interdependant working parts just happening to mutate all at once. That is faith too.
faith is not open to question at all.
Sure it is. Christians are called in the bible to have an answer for their faith.
Faith cannot be reasonably proved to be *anything* because it deliberately violates the requirements of reason. This is the fundamental weakness of religion; we cannot examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not.
Of course you can, and you should. You can have intellectual conversations about religions, and discuss all the different aspects of it. That's called philosophy. Determining correctness or "rightness" of these ideas is a matter of culture and perspective, but they can most certainly be discussed and not taken for granted.
This lends long-standing religious principles significant doubt.
I disagree (depending on the principles you would like to discuss).
This is not correct. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the methods of thinking between religious and scientific people
There are MANY scientists who were/are religious, and many of them are people that we hold up as "fathers" and "scholars" of their branches.
so it may be that a discussion of origins between two such people becomes two different discussions altogether.
Or, it can be that the evidence that we can observe can be interpreted in multiple ways that make reasonable sense, if you are willing to admit your interpretation could be wrong. It's all about your starting presuppositions.
However, origins can and is approached from a scientific angle frequently.
Not if one uses "observable, demonstratable and repeatable" as the basis of their theories.
The battle ground is the theory of evolution. The underlying theme of the battle is whether or not God is or God is not. Not wether or not evolution is a workable theory or not.
That question can not be answered by the theory of evolution. I think it is misguided to use things such as the theory of evolution to prove or disprove God.
God either is, or God is not. As far as I can tell this is a very personal matter. It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.
Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the heavens and the earth, all the water and land and plants and animals and humans, etc in 6 twenty four hour days. They get their information from one source: the Bible.
Progressive Creationists (and Intelligent Design folks) Think there is a desiger God who created the universe using the various scientific laws, and let those laws work to make all life, etc. They try to take man created ideas and mash them together with Biblical ideas so that everyone can be happy.
The battle is really this: Either Creation is true or it is not. Evolution as a stand alone idea (even if I wasn't one of those Creationist nutters) doesn't work when you examine it critically. But lets compare the two:
Creation:
God made the earth FOR humans, and He made all the animals and made humans stewards of the whole thing, to take care of.
He made the earth perfect.
He gave humans free will, and they screwed it all up
Screwing it all up was the first instance of sin, which is what brought death and decay to the world.
The dumbass people didn't learn, and a big flood came and wiped out everyone but a family on a big boat.
The dumbass people still didn't learn and so the Creator decided to come down to the Creation and walk about in their form, and show them how to do it, at the same time, creating a way for these dumbasses to hang out with him after their time here.
God Created the world, it's his, we're just (supposed be) taking care of it while we're here. He made it for us, specifically. We are unique.
Since he created it, (and us), he knows more than we do, and we are answerable to him.
How you live your live matters, because wherever you go after you die, you'll be there alot longer than you'll be here.
Man was prior to death.
There is an absolute right or wrong.
Evolution:
Something exploded out of nothing. It was only by an astronomically large number chance that even an amino acid simply popped into existance (in a soup that is death to amino acids, by the way.)
Millions of deaths (and years) later, another one (again, against astronomical odds) simply popped into existance in the toxic soup. Supposedly, this happened enough that those magical amino acids (all of which were spinning the wrong way) suddenly fused together in the soup and some how figured out how to make a working cell wall and mitochondrial cells and energy transporation routes. This continued for billions of years, against ALL odds and logical thought.
Nothing created anything, it's all random chance.
There could be billions of other intelligent life forms in the universe who all happened to have the same unfathomably small odds of evolving too.
Humans are answerable to no one. They are the top of the food chain. There is nothing, no power greater.
How you live your life doesn't matter, because this is all there is.
Death created man.
There are no absolutes. It's all random chance.
The two ideas are diametrically opposed in every way. The war is between God and the Devil, the human mind is the battleground, and the prize is our souls (look up Nephesh for who/what has a soul and who/what doesn't).
So, by your description, if we find life on other planets, this proves there is no god?
How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed?
Much more clearly and succinctly.
Just like you can explain "water to ice" without going back to the creation of oxygen molecules by fusion in stars, which then allows hydrogen to oxidize, creating water. That is interesting, and worthy of study in its own right, but it's not part of the freezing process.
Evolution:
Something exploded out of nothing. It was only by an astronomically large number chance that even an amino acid simply popped into existance (in a soup that is death to amino acids, by the way.)
Millions of deaths (and years) later, another one (again, against astronomical odds) simply popped into existance in the toxic soup. Supposedly, this happened enough that those magical amino acids (all of which were spinning the wrong way) suddenly fused together in the soup and some how figured out how to make a working cell wall and mitochondrial cells and energy transporation routes. This continued for billions of years, against ALL odds and logical thought.
Corrected:
Big Bang Theory:
Something exploded out of [unknown].
Abiogenesis:
Amino acids are created frequently. Amino acids are molecules, aren't alive, and therefore don't die. Amino acids don't spin, but this probably refers to chirality, in which case, there were amino acids of both chiralities. Amino acids aggregate naturally.
The path from amino acids to cells is a subject of research. There were probably some amino acid aggregations that became self replicating or self-expanding, similar to crystals. The most successful happened to be of a certain chirality, which became the chirality of life on Earth. The ocean would probably be full of this stuff , in countless varieties, long before anything resembling life evolved.
Evolution:
Once there is imperfect self-replication, more effective replicators willl tend to outproduce less effective replicators, becoming more dominant in the population.
I think my head just exploded.
I think somebody just got served :P
Shit Dana - you posted & I came back and reread the last few pages again - : headspinning
How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed? It's ALL origins theory.
Easily. Suppose you have a beer in the kitchen, and after you visit the bathroom it is now in the den. Can you explain this without explaining where the beer was packaged, where the ingredients of the beer were grown, and the entire process of getting to that technological point? Of course you can. Evolutionary theory explains simply how various traits were brought about through naturally selective breeding. It does not, nor does it have to, explain the origins of life itself.
Ok, observations....like...current evolution? Like...the big bang? Like the fact no scientist has ever seen a star born? Like how a leg bone in the desert has been observed procreating and you can tell what color it's skin was and what it ate, based on a LEG bone???
Exactly. Look at the modern chicken. It has been bred over generations to possess certain traits which humans desire. This is the core of the theory; if humans can select these traits then there will also be certain traits selected through natural events. The quail which are the best camouflaged live longest, and reproduce more often. Thus, quail become camouflaged rather than being white, or hot blue.
Scientists can see stars in every stage of formation. They can see the aftermath of the “Big Bang”. They can look at a leg bone and draw conclusions based on its similarity to other leg bones we have observed with skin attached. These are reasonable conclusions.
True science limits itself to the scientific theory, which is observable, documentable, and repeatable. Therefore, any origins theory is NOT scientific since it does not qualify under any of those.
There is evidence which can be observed and documented. Science does not require that you observe or be able to repeat the actual event.
Then tell me why this theory is CONSTANTLY treated as fact and MANY people have been blackballed for questioning it?
It is treated as fact because it has withstood many years of consideration, and I can only assume that those who were blackballed for criticizing it was because they didn’t do it very well.
Unless these theories are proven wrong, but the ideas are still left in the textbooks and our children are indoctrinated in lies. When you attempt to point out that the idea in question is false, you're labeled as "one of those Creationist kooks" and not taken seriously.
These theories have not been proven wrong, so your assumption that they are lies is premature. If you argue in a “kooky” manner, then expect that people will assume that you are a kook.
I base my beliefs on a collection of manuscripts that have more fragments (over 25,000) that all say the same thing. It is historically and scientifically accurate, as far as anyone has been able to determine.
Actually, I would argue that it is not scientifically accurate on the basis that many of the events that supposedly occurred are apparently impossible. However, I am not going to debate this topic as it usually leads to foaming mouths and general disarray.
I disagree (depending on the principles you would like to discuss).
I expected as much. The first and foremost principle would be the existence of a god.
Not if one uses "observable, demonstratable and repeatable" as the basis of their theories.
Where exactly are you getting that basis? Science involves observation and experimentation using empirical evidence, and subjecting those findings to reason. Scientific theories can definitely be developed about past events without repeating those events.
Something exploded out of nothing.
Wrong. The theory states that the same amount of energy has been constant since "before" the big bang.
This continued for billions of years, against ALL odds and logical thought.
Back this statement up. Also, many events we don't understand tend to go against ALL odds and logical thought. We see no patterns in quantum mechanics but that still exists as fact.
Nothing created anything, it's all random chance.
Chance plays a role but evolution occurs based on environmental conditions, which is not chance.
Evolution has withstood EVERY piece of evidence thrown against it. The only valid arguments against the theory goes into areas that science has no current knowledge or understanding of. Another great aspect of science is its dynamic nature. As of now, scientists gather as much evidence as possible and make conclusions of what happened based on that evidence. If new evidence is presented the conclusions will change until a testable theory is formed and that is perfected from thousands of scientific tests.
I read an interesting statistic in the paper today: If every creationist got shot, point-blank in the ƒucking face, then I would laugh my ass off.
Bruce...you can't believe everything you read.
Ya know what? it's all a mystery.
I always read this thread title as 'science-y'...like, "dude, you're bein' all science-y and stuff."
Easily. Suppose you have a beer in the kitchen, and after you visit the bathroom it is now in the den. Can you explain this without explaining where the beer was packaged, where the ingredients of the beer were grown, and the entire process of getting to that technological point? Of course you can. Evolutionary theory explains simply how various traits were brought about through naturally selective breeding. It does not, nor does it have to, explain the origins of life itself.
There are 6 uses of the word "evolution". One of those directly deals with how non-life becomes life.
Natural selection happens, but it does *not* explain how one kind becomes another kind, IE a bird becomes a reptile, or a monkey becomes a man.
A curved beaked finch and a pointy beaked finch are still finches. A zebra and a horse are still an equine kind. A baboon and a chimp are both monkey kind. None of that process explains how a monkey becomes a man.
This is the evolution I'm talking about.
Ya know what? it's all a mystery.
If you mean unprovable, I totally agree with you!
I propose we take it one step at a time, if we want to get into serious discussion about it. Let's start with Cosmic Evolution.
As a Harvard trained astrophysicist who currently directs the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts University, Eric Chaisson presented on evolutionary theory writ-large, aka cosmic evolution. Combining a spirited lecture with stunning visual presentations, Chaisson condensed the grand sweep of our cosmic heritage into a gripping 55-minute tour of the history of the entire universe from big bang to humankind.
Starting off with definitions, Chaisson defined cosmic evolution as "the study of the many varied developmental and generative changes among all radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe." Although the rate of change varies throughout the history of the universe, the fact of change is constant.
For purposes of this discussion I would restate Cosmic Evolution is the theory regarding the origins and subsequent progression of the Universe.
Summarizing the many years of work by observational physicists, Chaisson showed that sequentially there were particles first, then galaxies, then stars, then planets, then life. There is a continuous and irreversible thread of change in the universe. For example, so far as we can tell from our observations using the Hubble telescope, no more galaxies are forming today. There was a time in the universe’s early age when the seeds of galaxies, called quasars, were "planted" and none is observable in the present epoch. This indicates a clear trend over time. At one stage in the universe galaxy formation was possible, and then eventually, that window of opportunity closed.
There are two schools of thought here: one is that there was a big bang, and the other is that God created the Universe (heavens and earth) on day 1.
There are two schools of thought here: one is that there was a big bang, and the other is that God created the Universe (heavens and earth) on day 1.
So if I don't beleive in God then the answer is the Big Bang (which also not a cast iron fact but still the subjection of considerbale argument, refinment and debate)
also Creationism, I don't beleive in God so it can't work, end of discussion.
Whew, problem solved, time for another cup of tea.
Unless you're trying to emphatically prove the existence of God. :eyebrow:
Natural selection happens, but it does *not* explain how one kind becomes another kind, IE a bird becomes a reptile, or a monkey becomes a man.
Actually it's thought that birds evolved from dinosaur-era reptiles, and that man did not evolve from monkey but they had a common ancestor.
It's not hard to believe that (for example) once one species took to the skies, that they had a huge and immediate advantage and could branch off separately from that point forward. The
basic timeline from Wikipedia:
The basic timeline is a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:[LIST]
[*]3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
[*]3 billion years of photosynthesis,
[*]2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
[*]1 billion years of multicellular life,
[*]600 million years of simple animals,
[*]570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
[*]550 million years of complex animals
[*]500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
[*]475 million years of land plants,
[*]400 million years of insects and seeds,
[*]360 million years of amphibians,
[*]300 million years of reptiles
[*]200 million years of mammals,
[*]150 million years of birds,
[*]130 million years of flowers,
[*]65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
[*]2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
[*]200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today,
[*]25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.[/LIST]
A curved beaked finch and a pointy beaked finch are still finches. A zebra and a horse are still an equine kind. A baboon and a chimp are both monkey kind. None of that process explains how a monkey becomes a man.
Chimps aren't monkeys; they're apes. If monkeys and apes are the same "kind", then humans should be in the same group. But "kind" is an amorphous "god of the gaps"-style word that seems to mean "species that some creationists accept evolved from common ancestors, with no real criteria.
There is no difference in evolutionary terms between finches evolving different beaks, and the evolution of different "kinds", because "kind" has no scientific meaning.
There are two schools of thought here: one is that there was a big bang, and the other is that God created the Universe (heavens and earth) on day 1.
The first is a theory. The second is nothing more than wild speculation.
This is the evolution I'm talking about.
This site does a very good job at explaining the massive amounts of evidence for evolution. Look for transitional fossils (the second link).
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediatesThe
Evolution v Creation Forum claims to be neutral, but I haven't looked at it enough to figure out if that's true. They do seem to have some smart people involved in the discussions, and some interesting points.
[FONT=verdana, arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]The Creation/Evolution Debate: [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=verdana, arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue, the EvC Forum plays host to the ongoing debate.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] Study the details of the controversy in our Reference Library. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] Debate the issues in our Discussion Forums. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] See a list of topics currently under discussion in the Recent Topics List[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
<complaining>
There are problems with evolution that is why it is a theory not a law.
It is hard to question evolution and be religious without being dismissed.
If one believes God created everything believe, if one does not believe, don't believe.
And if one believes the former than the latter then science says is what God did.
Creationism ( as I understand it) isn't science, isn't religion and creationism is barely a philosophy additionally it hurts all three.
</complaining>
There are problems with evolution that is why it is a theory not a law.
The reason evolution is a theory instead of a law is that it can't be described in the form of a mathematical equation. The science behind all scientific laws is just as much theory as is evolution.
The Evolution v Creation Forum claims to be neutral, but I haven't looked at it enough to figure out if that's true. They do seem to have some smart people involved in the discussions, and some interesting points.
From looking at the forum they do have a lot of smart people involved, and because of that they are not very neutral. It looks like they have been around for a while, so how could they?
It is hard to question evolution and be religious without being dismissed.
And yet if you have a valid line of questioning scientists are required to consider it. You get dismissed because so many people have tried, and failed so badly that most consider it a waste of time to hear the same tired arguments over and over.
Besides, religion questioning science is dismissed with logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Science questioning religion is dismissed with hearsay from an unreliable source, and faulty reasoning. Is it really fair to complain about science?
Creationism ( as I understand it) isn't science, isn't religion and creationism is barely a philosophy additionally it hurts all three.
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but there are downsides to letting your fellow man believe falsehoods. From a macro view think of all the time and resources that are wasted on religion. No longer would people have to deal with the Sunday restrictions, wasting time and resources on religious observances or posturing. More importantly though, believing religion makes you make different choices. Skipping the whole holy war diatribe, a religious person often comes off as an extremely odd customer to a logical person.
For instance, if a scientist sees a pretty woman's face they might consider complimenting her, maybe even asking her out if they are not in a relationship. A religious person may well stone her to death in the street for not covering it. Oh sure, not every religious person does that, and certainly not the flavor we have over here. The problem is that each little sect has their own crazy quirks that you have to find out for yourself. Southern Baptists have roughly 80% (around here) believing that drinking alcohol is somehow sinful. Why would they think such a thing given that Jesus supposedly gave wine to his followers? Well, the story is this: Deacons were responsible for representing the faith to potential converts, and there was a widely held but false belief that drinking was a sin. Deacons were therefore sworn to not drink so that they could appear a better example to those new converts. The main body of followers didn't follow this line of thought, and eventually concluded that since Deacons were not allowed to drink it must be because it is sinful! I suppose you could make something of a theory of religious evolution from that example.
The point being, if a religious person makes decisions based on faulty premises then all else being equal they will make incorrect decisions more often than a logical, science-based person.
It was hard to decide whether to resurrect this thread, or put this in the humor thread:[QUOTE=Roy Comfort]
Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved in their pre-human state alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)."
[/quote]
:lol2:I'm too lazy to search, was that posted here?
No, Roy Comfort is a creationist nutter. That's from his blog ( See the "put this" link).
A follow up.
He wrote a book.
"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"
Wow! He's got me convinced. Where do I send the money?
Originally Posted by Roy Comfort
"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"
Shit, even I can answer that one.
Evolution, being a slow progressive process, means that changes that appear in a critter don't make it completely different from it's type. It can still mate with it's type and produce offspring of both sexes, and some of them will carry the change.
Are people really stumped by that question? :confused:
He only thinks they're stumped because he can't understand their answer.
For example:
Comfort replied, "I don't have the evident faith the professor has to believe in the theory of evolution, and so I am glad that he took the time to explain his beliefs as to why females had evolved along with males in every species in creation.
"Okay, I've got it," Comfort continued. "Your belief is that species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female. So, let's take it slowly for those of us stupid folk who like empirical evidence. We are looking at a contemporary male and a female elephant. They are part of a population of elephants. Let's go back to their elephant ancestors 10,000 years ago. They are still male and female elephants (they had to be because that's how elephants reproduce). Let's now go back one million years to what you called 'the populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females.' Obviously, they are still male and female way back then because that's how pre-elephants reproduced," Comfort said.
"Let's go back even further (100 million years ago) to pre-pre-elephants that also contained males and females. At what point of time in evolutionary history did the female evolve alongside the male? And why did she evolve? Then explain, if you would professor, why horses, giraffes, cattle, zebras, leopards, primates, antelopes, pigs, dogs, sheep, fish, goats, mice, squirrels, whales, chickens, dinosaurs, beavers, cats, human beings and rats also evolved with a female, at some point of time in evolutionary history. Professor, I know you believe, but please, give us who are healthy skeptics some empirical evidence. Remember, stupid people like me want good hard evidence before we, like you, become believers in Darwin's theory," Comfort said.
He's got it exactly backwards: male/female reproduction is precisely what permits serious evolution to take place. A creature could create its own progeny's DNA, but that DNA would be the same, wouldn't it? Or the changes that it would have would be random. But when two different sets of DNA come together, you have as xoB said, non-random traits that carry on, including recessive traits, which make certain progeny more likely to succeed and to continue to combine their DNA with others.
Witness the practice in plants, which Mr. Comfort does not mention. We have a male holly tree in our front yard. Oddly enough that means it has no berries. It's not that the male and the female trees fuck to have children. It's that having different sexes and combining their DNA is the best way for them to evolve.
I want to see this dickhead explain Fig wasps without referencing evolution for both the wasp and the fig in which it breeds.
He'd probably go with "kinds" and macroevolution vs microevolution, like
OnyxCougar. Or just say, "God did it."
Another amusing part of his misconception is the idea that it is the
female that is unexplained by evolution. I mean, it is theoretically possible for
females to self-clone, so even if evolutionaty theory worked the way Comfort claims, it should be the
male that is unexplained.
I may be wrong, my biology is a tad shaky, but don't fetuses start out female and then some develop into males ?
I'd also find his explanation for mitochondrial (sp) DNA interesting...
The zygote/fetus is male or female from the start due to presence of XX female or XY male chromosome.
Ah - must be a British educational issue, because although I learned that the sperm determines the sex of the foetus, I also learned all foetuses are essentially female. Explaining the nipples in a male (cat as well as human, as I know from Diz) and the clitoris inc hood (NOT known from Diz) which becomes the penis in the male.
I haven't googled it because I don't want to pretend to knowledge I don't have. But if someone could match up these two opposite strands of knowledge I'd be grateful.
I've heard that, too. Female-like physiology comes first, which develops differently for males. But for humans (all mammals), it actually "is" male or female based on genetics.
Some reptiles have the gender based on incubation temperature rather than genetics, though. I don't know if they also have the physiological female-to-male effect.
Ahhh, 'splains it, thanks. Female develops first, but can become male after.
Poor Diz cat - he occasionally gets static shocks from his otherwise redundant nipples when I stroke him. And some to the nose too. Must be my parents' choice of carpet!
Then again, his claws rip my skin when he is supposedly just playing... Frequently! Sod it, a few shocks to the nips don't count between friends. (Gitmo excepted).
Re male & female, I was shocked to learn it was the sperm that made the difference. Because even at a Catholic school we learned Henry VIII did what he did (divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived) because no woman could bear him a son. Oh, well, Jane, but she died and so did her son it doesn't count, okay?
That is why he did it SG. He just didn't know it was his own damn fault, women tended to have the blame heaped on them for any procreation issue: infertility, sex of child, deformities, ect.
