View Full Version : EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM


Pages : [1] 2

xvenomousx
06-25-01, 10:10 AM
c'mon lets slug it out.
please only good arguements and debate, no hitting below the belt, try to be factual and clear and not overly emotional.

Fossils?
Age fo the universe?
Geological evidence to the age of the planet?
Why create a universe to appear as if its 12 billion years old?
Why create all of life on earth to appear to be part of a large evolutionary genetic family tree?
Why can evolution be proven to happen at all yet isn't how we got here?
Why, if the universe was created do we have entropy and change?
Why does all life on earth share alot of the the same basic chemical structure?
Explain Junk DNA?
Blood types?
Genetic abnormalities? (don't try the work of god answer, that doesn't stand up, as we can SEE what goes wrong in the DNA)
Aren't we surposed to be perfect?
Does the universe NEED a god to exist?

Why is science always so right? I mean, my cathode ray TV works.. my processor crashes if I overclock it... I throw a ball and it curves in a arc.. the scientific laws of the universe do seem to be true?

On the other side of the argument

Things need to come from somewhere, we don't know where the universe came from or why it is here and we'll probably never know from studying it... of course we may never know for sure if there is a god.. but the first argument implies there philosphically must be... ?
... And thus the act of creation by a external divine force is a neat answer to everything. Moreover a answer to why we are hear on earth...
If the world was created 6002 years ago, then we wouldn't be able to disprove it, it just appears to have a different origin.. thats impossible to disprove...

Tiassa
06-26-01, 02:39 PM
xVenemousx

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=2563

To be honest, if nobody's responding there might be a couple of reasons. First, the above link is to the first page of a mighty debate; this Evolution vs. Creationism topic ran 271 posts over 19 display pages. Some of the posters, such as Boris, who dominated the prior topic, have had their say on the subject, and await new territory to cover--in this case, as you've covered pretty much the fundamental objections by Creationists against evolution, I would venture the guess that some of our evolutionist posters feel the matter settled, of sorts; judging from your points of argument, there's not much that the Creationists can say that hasn't been said and dealt with appropriately already.

Please don't take me as discouraging this topic. To be honest, I'm always up to discuss this one, but since you'll find me largely, if not entirely, in agreement with you, I can't well debate without being farcical.

One other thing greatly affecting this thread:
please only good arguements and debate, no hitting below the belt, try to be factual and clear and not overly emotional. It would seem that, by these words, you have eliminated the greater portion of the Creationist debate; there's not much left for the Creationist to carry into the arena.

So if I might toss a half-penny's worth of advice in your direction, I would advise that you pick a particular Creationist argument to refute. For instance, a couple of personal favorites of mine:

* That God made the Earth 6,000 years ago, placed the dinosaurs, and then caused a massive flood to restratify the earth and make it look older by putting the dinosaur bones millions of years into the strata. This was taught to a close friend of mine in her youth Sabbath-school lessons among the Seventh-Day Adventists. For comparison, we might hold this up alongside the declaration that the Pope is the Devil (something about the numerical value of vicar angus dei), and the notion that soon enough the United Nations will come across the face of the US and arrest all the Sabbatarian Christians and execute them in the electric chair for worshipping on Saturday ("National Sunday Law"). My friend learned both of these as a child, and believed them until her mid-20's.

* Where did the Universe come from? Well, where did God come from? Apparently, the question is moot, since God is both Alpha and Omega, and therefore no need exists to establish the advent of God itself. Aside from this creating the circumstance by which the passing of time is illusory at best, wholly fictional at worst, and all of the implications against an active, transitory Universe, I suppose it's a comfortable myth.

For instance, I pulled this from http://www.creationism.org/heinze/b1_bang.htm :
The sun is burning up. It is putting out so much heat that it looses 6,000,000 tons a second. Has it done that for all eternity? If so, there must have been a time when it was infinitely big and filled all of spaceöbut the same would have to be true for every star! If they did not start out infinitely large, the sun and all the stars would already have finished burning up all of whatever keeps them hot, and would now be cold and dead.Creationists frequently accuse scientists of "assumption". Some of this assumption is legitimately assumption. To these assumptions I would note that they have a purpose different from the assumptions of religion: they are to be verified instead of assumed as fact. Thus, to assume that a celestial process must work this way is concluded from reviews of other data, and appears, in the statistical model, to be the most likely result. So then the scientist builds the data around the assumption to form a working hypothesis, tests it. I would estimate that somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% of all scientific experiments conducted today will fail in the sense that the result will be different from the specifics of the assumption. Thus, the assumption is re-written, relevant data re-examined, and a revised working hypothesis is formed and tested. And so on, until the hypothesis is reflected in the results.

For instance, determining the rate of gravity. If I assert that gravitational acceleration equals 10 newtons, that hypothesis might stand for a while. But the numbers will always reflect a huge standard deviation, and eventually, our observational techniques will show why: because 10 newtons is the wrong number. But it's not 9, because the data is blatantly wrong. So what about 9.5? Existing data says the probability is good, so you run the experiment whereby N=9.5 (m/s/s). Yet this is wrong still, so you run it again at 9.7, and keep refining the adjustment until you reach the number 9.8 meters per second per second. (No, that is not a typo.) So, yeah ... the hypotheses were wrong until they were right. It's how science works.

Yet we see on the other hand the assumptions of religion, which operate in a manner similar to the above citation from Creationism.org.

My one question to the Creationists: Where does the energy go?

As a last note, I wanted to include a link to the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html

It's the conclusion of a study of creationary ideas, and I find the ideas within a workable place to start. If I may, I would like to cite a portion from this page, and leave the rest to those that wish to read it:
The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

Thank you kindly, Venemous. Welcome to Sciforums, and we do hope to see your name around for a while.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
06-26-01, 05:58 PM
Oh goody! Creationism! My favorite Topic!!!

I don't have alot of time to post, so I won't be able to write anything like a comprehensive manifesto on Creationism (unfortunately :( ) but I'll try to respond to a few points.

<i>Why is science always so right?... the scientific laws of the universe do seem to be true?

On the other side of the argument

Things need to come from somewhere, we don't know where the universe came from or why it is here...</i>

These are not two conflicting sides of the argument. They are both obvious truisms. In fact, they both fit well in the Creation scheme. Point one, because if God created the regular laws of nature, it only seems right that things would follow these laws.

Since science studies these laws, of course science is right (when it sticks to what is known, like physics and chemistry, and not to what must be interpretted)

Evolutionism, on the other hand, has a little difficulty with both points, but especially number two. Where did the universe come from? The Big Bang? Where did that come from?

And if the laws of nature are just random, chaotic results of the big bang, why should they always hold true (that's more of a philosophical question, however, and not one that I'm asking anyone to defend scientifically -- It's a weak point in the first place)

<i>
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
</i>

To a point I would definately have to agree to that. Creationism is no more science than evolutionism -- or any other theory of origins, for that matter. None of them are testable methods of science -- they all deal with the past, which cannot be experimented on or reproduced, only observed. <i>Micro</i>evolution (aka adaption) - where a species diversifies and adapts to its environment - is certainly a prooven fact of biology, but <i>Macro</i>evolution -- where an entire species becomes an entirely new species -- has never been observed in the present. The only <i>possible</i> data for that comes from the fossil record. And fossils are just data. Namely, they have to be interpretted by scientists who are (1)biased, (2)do not want to believe in God, (3)try to uphold the status quo of evolution (no one wants to go against the flow after all), and (4)are trying to procure research grant money from an organisation who is expecting their results to conform to evolution. In actuality, however, not a single <i>definitive</i> case of transitional fossils have been found. For that matter, there is no way to <i>proove</i> that any given fossil even is a transition -- which loops around to my first point, that neither creation nor evolution are pure sciences. They are "derived", if you will, from data, and are nothing more than schemes of interpretation.

<i>Where did the Universe come from? Well, where did God come from? Apparently, the question is moot, since God is both Alpha and Omega, and therefore no need exists to establish the advent of God itself.</i>

What part of everlasting don't you understand? :) The point is, you can't discredit Supernatural Creationism because a supernatural being does not follow the laws of nature. That's the whole point of being <i>super</i>natural in the first place. Besides, making that argument weakens your case as well, since it still doesn't explain where the universe comes from. This is an insubstantial argument, and is, infact, a logical fallacy.

<i>please only good arguements and debate, no hitting below the belt, try to be factual and clear and not overly emotional....

It would seem that, by these words, you have eliminated the greater portion of the Creationist debate; there's not much left for the Creationist to carry into the arena.</i>

Ouch. That hurt, it really did. So much for being factual! It is a popular myth that Creationists are not scientific, and this is simply not true!!! There are mountains of evidence (including the mountains themselves :D ) that either suppot Creationism, or refute Evolutionism. I look forward to explaining these points in future posts, but for now, I really must go. I have to ride the bike home before it gets dark, and hopefully before dinnertime.

cya latter
~Caleb

Tiassa
06-26-01, 09:39 PM
Well, Caleb, it's a fine place to start. I shall attempt to go in the order of your post:
These are not two conflicting sides of the argument. They are both obvious truisms. In fact, they both fit well in the Creation scheme. Point one, because if God created the regular laws of nature, it only seems right that things would follow these laws. I would respond with multiple points.

* That we know not exactly how the Universe began does not hinder science. Such quandaries are its purpose. Its purpose is to know the answer. Knowledge is an attainment. Were you born with the knowledge of how the Universe began? Something a little more mundane? Were you born with the knowledge of what fire does? Or why you can't breathe under water?

Here we see an interesting parallel. Even the least educated folk can answer, "Because if you breathe under water, you die." To employ a direct analogy to such questions as we are addressing in general:

1) The Religionist (analogously the Creationist) will claim that you cannot breathe under water because you will die if you do so, and that's the way God made it, and that is good enough since we don't wish to endanger our souls by questioning the ways of God.

2) The Scientist (analogously the Scientist) will note that you die when you try to breathe under water, and wonder why this is. Even if the Scientist doesn't know yet what oxygen is, there is still the concept of "air", which we must breathe, and the lack thereof in the water. If there is no air to breathe under water, one cannot breathe under water. Observational refinements along the lines of what we built as a human race in the twentieth century allow the Scientists greater and greater definitions, including observational records of how cells asphyxiate. Even before we had atomic microscopes, the Scientist had had the Bohr model, a theory of an atom which, for all our purposes at the time, held up under scrutiny. As our observational methods became even more detailed, we took the data from the successful experiments and "proven" hypotheses and attempted to form new hypotheses. Thus far, we're hitting pretty steadily, and fixing this or that theory when we find it failing, or throwing it out altogether. (I'm telling you, Cosmology is a fabulous thing to be watching right now; it's academic upheaval as new numbers are calling on Scientists to fill in certain gaps and modify certain models.)

A link on the Bohr model: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/bohr.html Please note two things about this page: First, it was made with a Mac ;) Perhaps more importantly, it links out to a page which shows what we accomplished with the Bohr model, and why that new theory is the accepted theory instead of the Bohr model. It isn't that the Bohr model was wrong, but that the theory of quantum mechanics is more precise, and describes what the Bohr model cannot.

Okay ... 118 elements ... how many quantum particles? What kind of molecular diversity can the Scientists incite? (Start by counting the number of plastic objects on the computer in front of you ... ) And all this knowledge and ability ... what would have happened if the idea of the four elements of nature was given to the same inflexibility as certain religious dogma? What if nobody ever looked in the first place, because it would be questioning God? (Of course, this, too, is a legitimate issue, as history well demonstrates.) No medicines? Just the rosy burning of fires and the smelling of posies? Is it possible that what really happened is that Jesus figured out CPR? A kiss and a laying on of hands, and presto! the dead rise?

Instead of trumping the miracle and calling for the end of learning, the Scientist would try to reproduce the effect based on observation. (Okay, steady ... now, that Jesus guy kissed him and exhaled, and then struck him like this!) I should probably move on since I'm now bleeding the idea to death. But it's a matter of whether or not you're allowed to be wrong. And since people have decided that God can't be wrong, nothing new has been figured out about God for quite a while. The quest for that knowledge has stopped. Interpretation among religionists is largely superstitious, and therefore subject to individual fancy; this is, of course, why Christians can't agree on much about God, and also why Muslims in the Middle East have resorted to such hideous violence.
Since science studies these laws, of course science is right (when it sticks to what is known, like physics and chemistry, and not to what must be interpretted) Which ends up being a nice lead in regarding interpretation. I'm going to assume that you're writing of subjective interpretation, whereby the perception of the material being interpreted is subject to preexisting assumptions held by the interpreter. Yes, this does make life exceptionally subjective, but that's the point of it. In that case I should concur at least insofar as scientific scruitiny toward subjective interpretation is bad for the habit. It shows why subjective interpretation is prone to error. Did you ever receive news that was so terrible to you personally that you did not want to believe it true? Consider the late Mr McVeigh. When I saw the images on TV, and learned what was happening, I most definitely did not want to believe it. This does not change the fact that many, many people died that morning. But what if I never accepted it? I would be paranoid and armed right now. "Timothy McVeigh did not kill those people, because such a thing just isn't possible. And now my government has put him to death. They have declared war on We the People." And all based on my subjective opinion that human beings are better than that. Essentially, I'm afraid to be wrong in my assumption, yet how wrong I was.

Subjective interpretation is fine by me, though let me specifically point out the emptiness of approving of something that is inherent in being human. I mean, who am I to approve or not of what is a natural human condition?
Evolutionism, on the other hand, has a little difficulty with both points, but especially number two. Where did the universe come from? The Big Bang? Where did that come from?Well, insofar as I've explained, the answer is to stay tuned for the answer. So we get to whence comes the Big Bang. Well, we're ... frankly I think within microseconds or even tighter of having that answer. And then we get to work out the riddle of why it occurred, which allows us to project the state of what came before. Whether or not we can reproduce such conditions in this Universe is, well, to be seen.

But yeah, stay tuned. I know it's a cheap answer to some, but it's a Hell of a lot better than the Alpha/Omega excuse. The only thing that one accomplishes is the nullification of time, and leaves us with an unchanging state, whereby I could not even type these words; the Universe would never have gotten so far as to occur. So, stay tuned. The Scientists are working on it.
And if the laws of nature are just random, chaotic results of the big bang, why should they always hold true (that's more of a philosophical question, however, and not one that I'm asking anyone to defend scientifically -- It's a weak point in the first place) Consider for a moment that the Universe is like a firecracker flash. Given accurate readings of environmental conditions, and the condition of the firecracker itself, one might possibly be able to predict fairly accurately the behavior of the firecracker's explosive event. Whether your prediction is right or not, once that event is over, it is over, and it could not have occurred any other way. The event occurred in response to certain conditions. While this does not sound random, consider whether or not life could exist on Earth if the Sun was a G-4 star instead of a G-2. The only reason the sun is here in its present form is because it must be. After the first few microseconds of the Bang, the Universe was pretty much set. Everything in the Universe is energy, even the matter, so to speak. Once the Universe event began, its initial properties no longer existed, but the telltale signature of those properties made all the difference to what the outcome will look like.

If we ever achieve the answer of why the Universe occurred, it might take some of that randomness away.
Creationism is no more science than evolutionism -- or any other theory of origins, for that matter. None of them are testable methods of science -- they all deal with the past, which cannot be experimented on or reproduced, only observed.Okay ... this is a matter of definition as far as I'm concerned. You don't seem to think that evolution is testable. Yeah. I'm going to let that one pass on the grounds that you seem to be thinking I should be able to clap my hands and change an alligator into a moose. We'll get to a couple of problems with your perspective on this issue as we go.
Macroevolution -- where an entire species becomes an entirely new species -- has never been observed in the present. Well, instead of humanity, let's take something we can observe in a lifetime: microorganisms. We have to leave viruses out because they're mutating RNA combinations, but what do you expect? That streptococci will turn to pneumococci before your eyes? Most likely, it will be recognized as a new form of strep. If it evolves altogether, and becomes something wholly removed ... such as Afarensis, Habilis, tiger ... well, we're going to call it what it is ... in this case, a tiger. You know, it was probably ten thousand generations after our gills began reducing and our lungs began developing that our gills became useless. And shortly thereafter, perhaps only a thousand generations thereafter, even the lines where once there were gills will be gone (and I'll go so far as to assert a longer period for "generation" once we're on the land, insofar as perhaps 2,500 generations of our non-mutated ancestors in the water). Are you a fish? I don't think so. But the likelihood that part of your DNA was developed while the rest of its code required gills is quite high. Are you a monkey? Well, I would say yes, but it seems that the humor of this goes right by people, so it's up to you. An opposable thumb like we have is useless in a canopy mammal. That is, leaping from tree to tree, grabbing onto branches, an opposable thumb like yours or mine will get broken. Watch a gymnast on the uneven bars, where s/he puts the thumbs. They are not wrapped around opposite, but grouped with the other fingers. Thus, opposable thumbs would suck if you lived in the trees. But what about when you came down to the ground? I am more than willing to wager sums of money that in the genaeology of your DNA, your ancestors did not have opposing thumbs. I'm more sure of this than I am of the gills. So what you're asking for is a full-blown demonstration of a millennia-long process within the course of, say, eighty years. Want to see it faster? Take up microbiology or entomology.
The only possible data for that comes from the fossil record. And fossils are just data. Namely, they have to be interpretted by scientists who are (1)biased, (2)do not want to believe in God, (3)try to uphold the status quo of evolution (no one wants to go against the flow after all), and (4)are trying to procure research grant money from an organisation who is expecting their results to conform to evolution.Okay, the problem I have with this is that it goes both ways:

1) Biased: the Creationist faithful believe they have a stake that goes beyond this lifetime; the correctness of their theology is at stake. History demonstrates that religionists have rarely, if ever, achieved objectivity in Western society.

2) Do not want to believe in God: Well, talk to ilgwamh about that (hi, Vinnie). On the other hand, the Creationist faithful are such that they do not want to believe that their image of what God is could possibly be wrong.

3) Try to uphold the status quo of evolution: Um ... the critical fault there is that evolution, like any other scientific concept, has no true status quo. To engage a scientific concept objectively involves a tremendous adventure of learning. It engages the intellect, something which Christians, according to Aquinas (I think; might have been Anselm--it was one of the famous "A's") sacrifice unto God.

4) Grant money: This is the lowest of your accusations. To the other, the core of what you accuse: Greed ... What's more valuable to a Christian than the soul? There is an aspect of greed evident in Creationism.

Now, to try them again, from a calmer point of view:

1) Bias: This is an assumption of your own. Certes, there are scientists who are biased, and many of them in favor of their own devisings. But by and large, the work of these scientists does not stand up to scrutiny.

2) Do not want to believe in God: Again, talk to Vinnie about that. Such a blanket statement finds no merit.

3) Uphold the status quo: I reassert my above argument, less the stab about the sacrifice of the intellect.

4) Grant money: There are unscrupulous scientists just as there are unscrupulous Christians, unscrupulous salesmen ... unscrupulous people. Look any doctor in the eye and tell him you think he won't cure your friend's cancer because he wants to make better money providing symptomatic treatment. A lack of scruples in this manner rarely finds acceptance in the scientific field. Such work, like that of exceptional bias, does not stand up to proper scrutiny.
In actuality, however, not a single definitive case of transitional fossils have been found.Would you like a homocameoleopard? Perhaps a homonunculus? In this case, I shall let others make the case. Why? Because they're more qualified:
the very recent Pleistocene has the best record of all, with the most precisely known lineages and most of the known species-to-species transitions. For instance, of the 111 modern mammal species that appeared in Europe during the Pleistocene, at least 25 can be linked to earlier European ancestors by species-to-species transitional morphologies* http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

* http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/trans-fossils.html addrsses the claim against transitional fossils directly:
This article addresses one of the unfortunate failings of "creation science" that has turned into an eternally repeated mantra by creationists, despite being quite directly wrong. That is the mantra that "here are no transitional fossils"; it simply is not true. This oft-repeated fallacy does not agree with what paleontologists actually know. * There is also http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/transitional.html
Godfrey, p. 223:**"We have yet [as of 1983] to observe older sediments being deposited on top of younger sediments, and for this to occur numerous physical laws would have to be violated... Never has a single fossil been found out of stratigraphic sequence (of course, reworking and disturbance of strata by thrusting or overturning of beds do cause fossils to be found out of their proper vertical sequence, but these are well-understood phenomena that can be rationally explained and do not legitimately enter into out theoretical discussion)." and also something relating to an earlier point of mine:
Wallace's first point is "that one's interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one's presuppositions." He is absolutely correct. Any historical science will be subject to interpretation because we can only test theories in the present, not the past. Wallace cites two references covering this topic (West and Kitts). What West and Kitts point out is that we must use a natural law, or a universal statement, coupled with a current, testable scientific theory to explain the fossil record. So in this case we use evolutionary theory coupled with uniformitarianism to explain the fossil record. Kitts suggests other theories explain the fossil record adequately. However, these other theories fail to describe nature in the present as well as evolution does, so we reject them on this basis. And even an interesting thought which you might find encouraging:
The fossil record does not, in the strict sense, provide evidence for evolution. However, the question is, "Are there any transitional fossils?" We can answer this question in the affirmative using biostratigraphy to the exclusion of evolutionary theory (Godfrey, Ch. 12).

*****Note: The Kitts reference used by Wallace is not a research article. It is a book review. Grassé, the author of the book, claims you can base a theory on the fossil record. He puts forth such a theory in the book. Kitts is simply pointing out in the review exactly what I have said above. * And one more, just to make sure I'm making it clear: http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm
* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/transit.htm is a rather amusing little tantrum against evolution that includes an uncited quotation, and a number of logical statements such as the following:
One wonders what the evolutionists would make of the Duck-billed platypus (ornithorhynchus). It lays and hatches eggs like a reptile and a bird, but the suckles the young like a mammal, but it does not have teats; the young feed through numerous tiny openings in the skin of the mother’s belly. It is covered in fur and is warm blooded like a mammal. It has web-fingered legs and an absence of teeth. Oh yes, it has a bill like a duck.Well, for such a prestigious argument, I'd try Google.

* The platypus has both reptile and mammal qualities and descends from the period in which reptiles started to evolve to mammals, about 150 million years ago.**
The animal is found only in Australia, where its order is orde endemic. http://www.museon.nl/objecten.eng/552.html

* http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html does the job.

But I wanted to throw in a Creationist argument just for balance. A lot of the web's Creationists seem to fixate on transitional fossils and the platypus; it's kind of scary, since they're simply looking past the data.
For that matter, there is no way to proove that any given fossil even is a transition -- which loops around to my first point, that neither creation nor evolution are pure sciences. They are "derived", if you will, from data, and are nothing more than schemes of interpretation. Which invites again my point: Stay tuned; there are answers coming as more work is done. To the other, what does Creationism hold? Adherence to stale superstitions long demonstrated untrue? It seems to me that you are inflating evolutionary concepts in order to object to them; you are manufacturing an image of science so that you might debunk it.
What part of everlasting don't you understand? My point exactly. It's a mighty comfortable assumption you get to sit on your haunches and congratulate yourself for. Makes learning real easy, eh? This is why Christianity has described itself as the sacrifice of the intellect. (And this is not the jab it was above. I'm serious this time: you are telling me you would rather assume than learn. Fine with me, but since we're debating ideas of learning about the world and Universe around us ... well? What's your excuse?
The point is, you can't discredit Supernatural Creationism because a supernatural being does not follow the laws of nature. That's the whole point of being supernatural in the first place.Comfortable, convenient, and cutesy. Hello?! Great. Now demonstrate it. You're the one with the problem with evolutionary evidence and demonstration. Now--justify your reliance on the supernatural else it equals only rhetorical laziness.
Besides, making that argument weakens your case as well, since it still doesn't explain where the universe comes from. This is an insubstantial argument, and is, infact, a logical fallacy.Right. That's why it's in there. You are discrediting an idea that you refuse to apply Universally. It is therefore a selective and specialized idea designed to pursue a particular target. By limiting the arena, you have the effect of exercising some control over it. Unfortunately, the manner in which Creationist arguments are engineered have a demonstrable crash-and-burn rate: 100%.

As a Creationist: "Evolution is not true because you cannot show where the process started (e.g. Universe, planet, Life)."

Evolutionist response: "We're working on that. However, you realize that your own assertion makes the Creator God impossible. Whence comes God?"

Creationist: "God has always been, with no beginning and no end."

Evolutionist: "Can you demonstrate this at all?"

Creationist: "Of course not. That's the point of being God."

Hell-o?! Is there anybody out there? It seems that you have to rely on a glaring assumption made a priori, and clung to not only despite a lack of evidence, but also in the face of growing evidence to any of a number of results to the contrary.
It is a popular myth that Creationists are not scientific, and this is simply not true!!! There are mountains of evidence (including the mountains themselves ) that either suppot Creationism, or refute Evolutionism.

* Creation science relies on unobservable, undemonstrable assumptions. The meticulous Catholic philosophers did excellent work, but started from an assumed square one, undermining their whole theology so badly that one of the principal players (Satan) cannot exist as the theology describes without omitting critical portions of said theology. The assumed square one of Creationism is the presence of God. (Okay, it was the first assumption of the Catholic philosophers, too, but that's beside the point for the moment.) A syllogistic method may be proper, but if it asserts a priori that A=B when such a condition is not true, the result will be erroneous.

From my prior citation of the National Academy of Sciences:
[b]Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

I didn't need NAS to tell me this. I learned that scientific hypotheses must be testable when I was 10. Furthermore, since I'm recalling myself as a child, it seems to me that the only time I ever wanted to say something was there that was not observable was when I was being dishonest and trying to fit in with a crowd. Such is the nature of a priori. There's a clear reason one starts with an assumption; for what reason would someone not want to start with something true and observable?

And the guests file in ... I must be along for now.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
06-27-01, 10:47 AM
At this rate, I'll never get to the actuall arguments <i>for</i> Creation if I have to keep backing up and repeating what I've already said.

First of all, I am not saying that Creationists are less biased than Evolutionists are. Obviously, Creationists assume there is a God. That is their "filter" if you will when they view science. That much is obvious and does not need to be established. What I am asserting, is that Evolutionists have a similar filter. They start by assuming that there is no God (OK: to be more presise, that God -- if he exists -- didn't create the universe or anything therein). That is their filter. It is just as much of a pre-conceived notion as the Creationist's assumption that God did create the universe.

Creationist: God created the universe. Look at all the scientific data that supports that claim...

Evolutionist: You're data is obviously wrong. Our own data supports the idea that the universe evolved.

Creationist: From what? Where? How?

Evolutionist: We're, er..., still trying to figure that part out. <b>But we know that God didn't do it!!!</b>

<i>Hell-o?! Is there anybody out there? It seems that you have to rely on a glaring assumption made a priori, and clung to not only despite a lack of evidence, but also in the face of growing evidence to any of a number of results to the contrary.</i>

(Sound familiar???)

My point is that <u>all</u> scientific assumtions on origins -- be they Creationist or Evolutionist -- have to rely on a priori assumtions. God did it, or he didn't.

====================
Secondly, let me debunk the myth that Creationsts (or any "religionists") are inherently un-scientific.

I will admit that during the dark ages, the institution they called "Church" certainly hindered progress in science. But then again, what do expect from an over-sized, mystical, superstitious, power-hungry institution that was based 50% on pagan ritualism? (Sorry to Catholics, but my view of Catholicism isn't very rosy. No one is denying that the Catholic church hindered progress. But Scientific Creationism is not like them. They DO look at the facts. They believe that God set the universe in motion under a set of fixed laws that are very precise, and that the goal of science is to discover those lows, and facts and data, and "think God's thoughts after him" in a sense. The assumption that God started it all does not affect our scientific view of the here and now. One only needs to look to the period after the Reformation to see the effects of this non-superstitios form of scientific religion. Examples such as Galileo and Newton who question the4 status quo of the superstitious institution of the Catholic Church, and discovered all sort of wonderfull things about true science. Gravity, heliocentricity, Calculus, laws of motion, and optics, just to name a few. The list goes on and on. And guess what? These men were Christians, seeking to discover God's laws. No one can deny the greatness of what they did, yet they did it as a "religionist." Either they got extremely lucky or it IS possible for startiling scientific discoveries to be made by "Christians."

For this reason, I do not discriminate between "Religionists" and "Scientists." I rather distinguish betwen "Creationists" and "Evolutionists." With the understanding that some evolutionists might be religious in addition to being scientific, and the understading that creationists are scientific in addition to being religious (since that is possible).

==================================
Now, rather than arguing broad overarching points of vague philosophy and theology, let me concentrate on the science.

I only have time for one argument at the moment, so I'll start with one of the most common (and admittedly, perhaps the strongest) argument for an old-aged universe. Starlight and the distance (hence age) of the satrs.

As it turns out, there are three good ways of explaining this.

The first (and admitedly weakest) is the classical Creationist viewpoint that God created the light in between the stars, "in transit." Obviously, while God could have done it this way, it is very unsatisfactory among Creationists and Theologians, since it implies that all sorts of things that we've seen in the heavens have never really happened, such as novas. And its not really apparent why God would do something like that. In general, this theory is closer to tasting like superstition than most things that the creationists devise. While it's possible, it should be placed on the back burner -- or better yet behind the stove. Sort of a last stand. After all, there are two much better theories to explain the observed phenomenon.

The first of these is Setterfeild's c-decay theory. Namely, the speed of light was once much much greater than it is today. Alas, the evidence for this is difficult to show, and is heavily based on less accurate readings from long ago. This doesn't disproove the possibility that the speed of light might have decayed. Nor is this theory a laughable attempt that can't possibly be reconciled with modern cosmology. A recently-published article in Scientific American (either January or June of 2001) contains a suggestion <b>by evolutionary cosmologists</b> that inflationary theory cannot explain the uniformity of the universe. They propose a "plan B" for the universe that says the speed of light may have been billions of times faster in the past, and they are working to reconcile the notion with relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently, it is possible. I'm content to let them do the work for us :)

My personal favorite theory, however (suggested by a creationist with a PhD -- these things are not rare, you know) is a completely new system of cosmology. I explain the theory on the Astronomy board as a flat, finite cosmology. basically, if the universe is flat and bounded, it has a definite center of mass, and therefore, a definite gravitational potential field, which decreases with distance from the center. Objects near the center would experience a gravitational time dialation, and in the past, a smaller universe (before it expanded) would have implied a greater factor of time dialation. The theory even goes so far as to say that, during the Creation week, there was a white hole, the event horizon of which the still-unfinished Earth was near to (or even at). This would cause extremely large amounts of time dialation to expire in the blink of an eye. Hence, the universe itself, really could be billions of years old, with ample light-travel time, while the earth is only a few thousand years old. The nice thing about this theory, is that it is a <i>natural result</i> of Einstein's equations if you plug in a flat space-time (which most scientists now believe is the case due to CMB), a finite-sized universe, and an expanding universe. Time dialation is the natural result. Its a neat theory because it is an entire framework of evidence that fits the known facts, and even allows the outer limits of universe to have existed billions of years (in there time frame). It also explains why scientists could so easily claim their was a big bang -- a universe expanding from a white hole would look similar. It's such an elegant theory, I wish I had come up with it! :D

Anyway, I've typed far too long, I really need to go for now. next time, I hope to dig into geology (assuming I don't have to back up and re-explain this all over again)

~Caleb

Tiassa
06-27-01, 02:38 PM
Caleb:

Aside from trying to usurp definitons of words ...?
They start by assuming that there is no God (OK: to be more presise, that God -- if he exists -- didn't create the universe or anything therein). This is incorrect. The proper context is that the Evolutionists, respecting science cannot justify the presence of God in the system because God is an unobservable, undemonstrable fact. I'll back up and post a third time that which you have not responded to, despite the fact that it serves as a counterpoint to your argument:
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. One cannot observe God; nor can one test any hypothesis about God. What of the justifications demonstrating that God cannot, by nature, be demonstrated? Therein lies the fault of another of your arguments. In the present context, that justificaton demonstrating that God cannot be demonstrated is nested so wholly within a priori assumptions that said justifications fall apart when its methods are applied to the rest of religion. One must always subject perception of fact to a number of assumptions which, conveniently, it is morally wrong to demonstrate.
It is just as much of a pre-conceived notion as the Creationist's assumption that God did create the universe.I tend to think there's something different between the processes. On the one hand, a scientist records what is observed, interprets the data, and forecasts future results. To the other, the religionists (including the creationists, regardless of what classifications one wishes to draw) assume that something exists, and then claim to know the process whereby that assumed something operates. And it is somehow wrong to explain, demonstrate, or test that assumption? Right now you're demonstrating the sacrifice of the intellect: Creationism is not science because it does not respect the process that is science. Your idea of preconceived notions: start with the idea of an apple falling. Look at gravitational theory. Now ... look at any distant celestial body--something way out like a pulsar. It's a long way out there, right? But there's an equation that will tell you exactly how much gravity your body is asserting against it. And I'll tell you something about mathematics: it's a simple enough formula that if the relationship between you and a mass on the far end of the Universe is incorrectly described, then so is the relationship between the Earth and the moon, and also between you and the Earth. This is based on myriad tests verifying the hypothesis. And it started with something you can't see--gravity--and required only observations of its effects. Really, if the written definition of gravity is simply a preconceived notion, then please demonstrate.
Creationist: God created the universe. Look at all the scientific data that supports that claim...

Evolutionist: You're data is obviously wrong. Our own data supports the idea that the universe evolved.

Creationist: From what? Where? How?

Evolutionist: We're, er..., still trying to figure that part out. But we know that God didn't do it!!! On the other hand, the Evolutionist is still working at it, instead of sitting smugly on his haunches and asserting that Truth is to be found in that which cannot be found. It's far better than stretching out and confidently reminding the world that you know the Truth but you can't tell anyone until they decide first to believe it word for word, without question. It's the difference between discovering what the Universe has to offer and waiting around for God to come and take you home.
Hell-o?! Is there anybody out there? It seems that you have to rely on a glaring assumption made a priori, and clung to not only despite a lack of evidence, but also in the face of growing evidence to any of a number of results to the contrary.

(Sound familiar???) Yeah, it does. Are you repeating my words just to be annoying? You're implying there's new evidence concerning God? It would be the first in 2,000 years according to Christians. As far as I can tell, what is known about God was known when Christ finished up, and the rest is just the Devil's work distracting poor, defenseless, pathetic humankind. This is, of course, the best I can figure from the Christian/Creationist pseudoscientific cacophony.
My point is that all scientific assumtions on origins -- be they Creationist or Evolutionist -- have to rely on a priori assumtions. God did it, or he didn't. Right ... but the assumptions a priori made about God are so structured that they cannot be changed. This is not a problem with the scientific process. The point of an experiment is partially to prove or disprove those scientific assumptions; what's the Christian excuse?
Secondly, let me debunk the myth that Creationsts (or any "religionists") are inherently un-scientific.And yet again:
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.Address it, or stop pushing this line that Creationism is science.
These men were Christians, seeking to discover God's laws. Okay ...first of all, what does history demonstrate when scientific knowledge comes in conflict with religious belief? Well, I think this very debate is evidence. Historically, though, it has cost the scientists everything from a headache to their life.

Secondly: These men were Christians, seeking to discover God's laws. Right. Seeking to discover God's laws. That is inherently a priori, assuming directly that God must exist and set the laws.
They DO look at the facts. They believe that God set the universe in motion under a set of fixed laws that are very precise, and that the goal of science is to discover those lows, and facts and data, and "think God's thoughts after him" in a sense. 1) The Creationists look at a limited selection of facts; that's why I included the bit about the platypus. There's also the claim about transitional fossils that seems bunko. What facts are they looking at?

2) The belief that God set the Universe in motion under a set of fixed laws ... &c, indicates again a preexisting, non-scientific bias: the assumption of God. Indicates? Sorry, manifests.
For this reason, I do not discriminate between "Religionists" and "Scientists." I rather distinguish betwen "Creationists" and "Evolutionists." With the understanding that some evolutionists might be religious in addition to being scientific, and the understading that creationists are scientific in addition to being religious (since that is possible).I can only agree with the boldfaced portion. I refer you yet again to the text from NAS. For all the claims you make, you don't address that direct counterpoint. Try it. See how thin Creationism runs.
Namely, the speed of light was once much much greater than it is today. Alas, the evidence for this is difficult to show, and is heavily based on less accurate readings from long ago. This doesn't disproove the possibility that the speed of light might have decayed. If "c" slows, so does everything in the Universe. From a perspective independent of the Universe, "c" can fluctuate all it wants; we, being subject to those fluctuations, won't notice. If "c", so do the atomic and quantum processes in our bodies. It doesn't matter; atomic decay slows; biological processes slow ... everything will slow down in relation to "c". We won't sense it, though, so time will pass to our perceptions, measurable against anything within the Universe, normally.
They propose a "plan B" for the universe that says the speed of light may have been billions of times faster in the past, and they are working to reconcile the notion with relativity and quantum mechanics.They're still working to make Superstring and Steady State theories conform to new data. In the case of the latter, it won't happen. In the case of the former, it still might but is unlikely.

I can only comment that I disagree with a finite Universe. I've heard the latest cosmology that says flat Universe, but if there's a center of Gravity, where is it? The Universe does not behave as such. A "finite" Universe is something I'm not averse to, in the sense that the Universe will continue to expand until it disappates, much like a firecracker expolsion. Raisin-cake is still valid as far as I know, good Caleb. And that's a puzzler for a theory describing a gravitational center.

I should mention, though, that you're welcome to repeat yourself until you're blue in the face: It does nothing to prove Creationism, and it does nothing to change the fact that Creationism is unscientific.

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
06-27-01, 05:48 PM
WARNING: The following is excerpted from a live account of an evolutionist-turned-creationist. If you place faith in the theory of evolution as being a scientific system, this article may be hazardous to your faith. All emphasis are added by me, and any personal notes will be placed in square brackets (except the first set of square brackets which is the editor's note). The entire article (I don't leave out much) is found at http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-049.htm



<h3>IMPACT No. 49</h3>

<h2>FROM EVOLUTION TO CREATION:
A PERSONAL TESTIMONY</h2>

by Dr. Gary Parker

<i>[Ed. Note: The following is condensed from four radio talks, now available in booklet form through Creation-Life Publishers. Dr.
Parker, member of Phi Beta Kappa and recipient of two nationally competitive fellowship awards, received his doctorate in biology
with a cognate in geology in 1973. A recent addition to the staffs of ICR and Christian Heritage College, Dr. Parker chairs the new
Life Science Department for the college, which offers a major in biology including courses in genetics, anatomy and physiology,
ecology, biosystematics, microbiology, cell biology and biochemistry, and strong support courses in physical sciences.]
</i>

Moderator: "Dr. Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist."

Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was <i>very satisfying</i> to me. It gave me <i>a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe</i>
continually progressing toward grander things. <u>Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life
view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged.</u>

As a <i>religion</i>, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at least did no more than make
the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed. "Sin" was only the result of animal instincts that had outlived
their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest, and perhaps one day the benefits of
genetic engineering.

With no God to answer to, no God with a purpose for mankind, I saw our destiny in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable
evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.

"Did your faith in evolution affect your classroom teaching?"

It surely did. In my early years of teaching at both the high school and college levels, <i>I worked hard to convince my students that
evolution was true.</i> I even had students crying in class. I <i>thought</i> I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very
consciously <i>trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution</i>. In fact, a discussion with high school teachers in a
graduate class I was assisting included just that goal: encouraging students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!

"I thought you weren't supposed to teach religion in the public school system."

Well, maybe you can't teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all in teaching <b>the evolutionary religion</b>. I've done it
myself, and I've watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person's thought and life. Of course, I once thought that effect
was good, <i>"liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion",</i> and making a person's own opinions supreme.

"Since you found evolution such a satisfying religion and enjoyed teaching it to others, what made you change your mind?"

I've often marvelled that God could change anyone as content as I was, especially with so many <i>religious leaders</i> (including two
members of the Bible department where I once taught!) actually <i>supporting evolution over creation</i>. But through a Bible study group
my wife and I joined at first for purely social reasons, God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other
human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths. It is a blessed experience that gives me an
absolute reference point and a truly mindstretching eternal perspective.

"Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?"

<b>No</b>, at least not at first. Like so many before and since, I simply combined my new-found Christian religion with the "facts" of science
and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist. I thought the Bible told me who created, and that evolution told
me how.

But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part, and theological problems with the theistic part. I still have a
good many friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I finally had to give it up.

"What theological problems did you find with theistic evolution?"
...[for brevity, I skip this section, since we are not arguing theology, but rather science]...

"With the Scriptures so plain throughout, are there still many Christians who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation?"

Yes, there am. Of course, I can't speak for all of them, but I can tell you the problems I had to overcome before I could give up theistic
evolution myself. First, I really hate to argue or take sides. When I was a theistic evolutionist I didn't have to argue with anybody. I just
chimed in smiling at the end of an argument with something like, <i>"Well, the important thing is to remember that God did it."</i>

Then there is the matter of <b>intellectual pride</b>. <i>Creationists are often looked down upon as <u>ignorant throw-backs to the nineteenth
century or worse</u></i>, and I began to think of all the academic honors I had, and to tell you the truth, I didn't want to face that academic
ridicule.

Finally, I, like many Christians, was honestly confused about the Biblical issues. As I told you, I first became a creationist while
teaching at a Christian college. Believe it or not, <i>I got into big trouble with the Bible Department. As soon as I started teaching
creation instead of evolution, the Bible Department people challenged me to a debate. <u>The Bible Department defended evolution,</u> and
two <u>other scientists and I defended creation</u>!</i> [LOL!!! :D Remember, earlier he said that they were the evolutionary kind of Christians]

That debate pointed out <i>how religious evolution really is</i>, and the willingness of leaders to speak out in favor of evolution makes it
harder for the average Christian to take a strong stand on creation. To tell you the truth, <i>I don't think I would have had the courage,</i>
especially as a professor of biology, to give up evolution or theistic evolution without finding out that <u>the <b>bulk</b> of scientific data
actually argues <b>against</b> evolution.</u>

"In that sense, then, it was really the <b>scientific data</b> that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution and
progressive creation to Biblical, scientific creationism?"

Yes, it was. At first I was embarrassed to be both a creationist and a science professor, and I wasn't really sure what to do with the
so-called <i>"mountains of evidence"</i> for evolution. A colleague in biology, Allen Davis, introduced me to Morris' and Whitcomb's
famous book, The Genesis Flood. At first I reacted strongly against the book, using all the evolutionist arguments I knew so well. But
at that crucial time, the Lord provided me with a splendid Science Faculty Fellowship award from the N.S.F., so I resolved to pursue
<b>doctoral studies in biology</b>, while also adding a <b>cognate in geology</b> to check out some of the creationist arguments first hand. To my
surprise, and eventually to my delight, <i>just about every course I took was full of more and more problems in evolution, and more and
more support for the basic points of Biblical creationism</i> outlined in The Genesis Flood and Morris' later book, Scientific
Creationism.

"Can you give us some examples?"

Yes indeed. One of the tensest moments for me came when we started discussing uranium-lead and other <u>radiometric methods</u> for
estimating the age of the earth. I just <i>knew</i> all the creationists' arguments would be shot down and crumbled, but <i>just the opposite
happened.</i>

In one graduate class, the professor told us <i>we didn't have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too
<b>uncertain and conflicting</b>.</i> Then in geophysics we went over all of the <u>assumptions</u> that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the
<i>professor</i> said something like this, <i><u>"If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make <b>havoc</b> out of the radiometric dating
system. So, <b>keep the faith.</b>"</i></u> That's what he told us, "<b><u>keep the faith.</b></u>" If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I
preferred to keep.

"Are there other examples like that?"

<b>Lots of them</b>. One concerns the word <u>paraconformity</u>. In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by
evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with <i>no evidence of erosion or overthrusting</i>. My heart really started
pounding when paraconformities and other unconformities came up in geology class. What did the professor say? Essentially the same
thing as Morris and Whitcomb. <i>He presented paraconformities as a <u>real mystery</u> and something <u>very difficult to explain</u> in
evolutionary or uniformitarian terms.</i> We even had a field trip to study paraconformities that emphasized the point.

So again, instead of <i>challenging</i> my creationist ideas, all the geology I was learning in graduate school was <i>supporting</i> it. I even
discussed a creationist interpretation of paraconformities with the professor, and I finally found myself discussing further evidence of
creation with fellow graduate students and others.

"What do you mean by `evidence of creation?'"

All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures, or just a Coke bottle. Because the pattern of
relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance, and natural physical processes would produce, we know an
outside creative agent was involved. I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major
interest, molecular biology.

All living things depend upon a working relationship between inheritable nucleic acid molecules, like DNA, and proteins, the chief
structural and functional molecules. To make proteins, living creatures use a sequence of DNA bases to line up a sequence of amino
acid Rgroups. But the normal reactions between DNA and proteins are the "wrong" ones, and act with time and chance to disrupt
living systems. Just as phosphorus, glass, and copper will work together in a television set only if properly arranged by human engineers,
so DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative agent.

<i>I presented the biochemical details of this DNA-protein argument to a group of graduate students and professors, including my
professor of molecular biology.</i> At the end of the talk, my professor <u>offered <b>no</b> criticism of the biology or biochemistry I had presented.</u>
She just said that she <i>didn't <b>believe</b> it because <u>she didn't believe there was anything out there to create life</u>.</i> But if your faith <u>permits</u>
belief in a Creator you can see the evidence of creation in the things that have been made (as Paul implies in Rom. 1:18-20).

Tiassa
06-27-01, 08:25 PM
Caleb--

Owing to software difficulties limited expressly to Gatesian software running on OSX, you will get a detailed reply tomorrow. In the meantime, let me advise that the gist of my original post centered on Dr Parker's obsession with dominion, sin, and redemption, and other symptoms of Christianity that appear to predate his conversion--and, indeed, his career as a teacher--and the damage this invited to his credibility. His primary arguments centered around his own interpretation of evolution, which I think we can fairly conclude is and was mistaken.

But the moral for today, kiddies, is this: Always write in your text editor.

--Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
06-28-01, 09:10 AM
Don't Bother. You've already made your point. You are unwilling to accept Creation as science, hence when the facts <i>do</i> support Creationism, you yell and scream till your blue in the face that Creationism can't be science. If you've already made your decision, than I can't change your mind. However, In the vein of the original purpose of this post:

<i>please only good arguements and debate, no hitting below the belt, try to be factual and clear and not overly emotional.</i>

I will continue to provide the scientific facts that support Creationism.

You can deny that Creationism is good science and say "the sky is fuschia!" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is <i>blue</i>!

For instance, let me add to my partial list of great scientists who were Christians and Creationists (and in some cases, simultaneously theologians or clergy). And notice how many of them use science as a tool to <i>debunk</i> myth and superstition or found a whole new branch of science!

Galileo -- like Kepler, helped to debunk geocentricity and anticipated the laws of motion. THough censured by the Church, he remained a firm believer and felt the Bible supported his claims.

Johann Kepler -- Father of astronomy and celestial mechanics. Conclusively debunked the old geocentric idea. Is thought to have coined the phrase "thinking God's thoughts after him"

Francis Bacon -- Formulated the "Scientific Method" stressing use of experimentation and induction from data rather than Greek philosophy as the basis for science. Concluded that maggots did not spontaneously generate from rotten meat. Wrote that there were two books before us to study -- the Bible, and the Creation.

Blaise Pascal -- Father of hydrostatics and laid the way for hydrodynamics, genius mathematician. Argued that if you become a Christian, you have nothing to loose if you are wrong and everything to gain if you are right (known as Pascal's Wager).

Robert Boyle -- founded Royal Society of London, and was father of modern chemistry, as opposed to alchemy. Discovered Boyle's Law in gas dynamics. One of the greatest scientists of his generation. Devoted much of his money to Bible Translation efforts, and his will provided for Christian apologetic lectures to take place.

John Ray -- father of English natural history. authority in zoology and botany. Strong Creationist, wrote <i>The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation</i>

Nicolaus Steno -- father of stratigraphy (studying strata). Debunked myth that fossils were merely "figured stones" but claimed they were actually the remains of dead plants and animals that lived during The Flood. Interpreted strata as proof of The Flood. Later became a Bishop.

Thomas Burnet (geologist and clergyman), Athanasius Kircher (Jesuit who wrote on the scientific aspects of Noah's Ark and the effect of the Flood, and anticipated germ theory before it was discovered), John Wilkins (clergy and scientist), Walter Charleton (President of the Royal College of Physics, defended Creation and the Flood), Sir William Petty(Statistics and economics, wrote papers showing God's design in Creation), Issac Barrow (math prof. @ Cambridge, taught math to Newton, and resigned to go into ministry), Increase Mather (Cotton's father, clergyman, and astronomer who studied comets and was one of Harvards first Presidents), Nehemiah Grew (medical doctor, botanist, studied plant anatomy, wrote extensively on evidence for unique design in Creation).

Then there were more who were Christians, at least theistically, such as Robert Hooke (physicist and geologist), William Harvey (discovered blood circulation), Christian Huygens, Tycho Brahe, and Nicolas Copernicus.

And I haven't even reache dthe time of Newton yet. I'll see if I can get there later today.

That's all for now,
~Caleb

Tiassa
06-28-01, 11:22 AM
Don't Bother. You've already made your point. You are unwilling to accept Creation as science, hence when the facts do support Creationism, you yell and scream till your blue in the face that Creationism can't be science. If you've already made your decision, than I can't change your mind. However, In the vein of the original purpose of this post:

please only good arguements and debate, no hitting below the belt, try to be factual and clear and not overly emotional.

I will continue to provide the scientific facts that support Creationism.

You can deny that Creationism is good science and say "the sky is fuschia!" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue! Good enough. But I noticed you still refuse to address the points discussed on the National Academy of Sciences page.

I still look forward to your thoughts on that.

--Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
06-28-01, 02:31 PM
I don't suppose that will take too long...

First of all, the NAS quote you posted is little more than an opinion. It gives little data to back up its claims, and most of what it says is either wrong or interpreted wrongly.

<i>Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief.</i>

I already dealt with this. Creationism is no more or less testable than evolution They are interpretative (sp?) sciences rather than pure science.

<i>Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates.</i>

Of course this often (but not always) tends to be true, just as evolutionists cite the publications of their advocates. So what? That doesn't proove that it is or isn't science. Actually, as I tried to demonstrate in the above article, when Parker was in an evolutionist school, studying evolution in evolutionist text-books under evolutionary professors, he still came to the conclusion -- based on scientific evidence -- that Creation was right. Things such as paraconformities, assumptions involved in dating methods, and the evidence for design in microbiology -- even when taught from the evolutionary perspective -- still supported Creationism.

<i>These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.</i>

Again, this is false, as I've demonstrated with the issue of starlight, theories change to fit the data, from a first, cop-out answer that has little basis in the data, to a better theory that tries to explain the data, to a whole system of cosmology that has recently been developed, and is still in its infancy (the white whole theory I mentioned). Creationists do not stick to one theory. Other examples are found in feilds such as geology, climatoloy, meteorology, and astronomy. For example, I read a recently-published book by a Creationist that develops a new method of dating the age of a layer in an ice core using mathematical techniques, and assuming that ice-accumulation rates have not been constant. When the accumulation-rates expected in a world-wide flood are fed into the equation, the readings from the ice-core pan out to show that there was a single ice age that occured after the flood. The ice core itself does not proove that there age is millions (or more) years old. It is only the a priori assumption that accumulation-levels have remained constant that makes them seem old. Another example of a revised theory is the view of what dinosaurs were. The first scientists (Christian and secular) thought that they were ancient rhinos and lizards and the like. But now creationists (like others) realize that dinosaurs are a distinct class of animals, similar to reptiles. They do not start with the a priori assumption that dinos turned into birds, and they don't find evidence that this happened when they look. Yet another example is the vapor-canopy. Fossil evidence supports the idea that the past world was alot warmer and wetter. The vapor-canopy supports this notion. However, recent research (both linguistic in Bible translation, and in tandem with the w.h. cosmology) suggests that the "waters above the heaven" may refer to interstellar water, hydrogen, and oxygen molecules, either in the stars or in an ice-shell surrounding the universe. Climatology models show that higher pressure, greater %'s of CO2, less axial tilt, and other factors may have caused the temperatures to be so warm.

The doctrines that we do cling to are broad ideas that God created the world in 6 days, about 6 to 8 (maybe 10) thousand years ago, and that lifeforms do not evolve into others. Evidence seems to verify these claims. These are broad assumptions, and allow alot of room for change in theory, depending on fact.

~Caleb

(<i>Hmmm... took longer than I thought. Perhaps I need to be more concise in the future... </i>)

Tiassa
06-28-01, 08:31 PM
I don't understand how someone so desperate to show Creationism as legitimate science can so openly decry the scientific process. Really, I don't.

Fix the key a priori for me: Prove that God exists.

That is what is necessary to make Creationism a science. And here we have the unique fortune of identifying the underlying assumption without which Creationism evaporates.

Demonstrate the Creator.

In the meantime, I remind you to remember what you're reading. That is a conclusion to a book, at the NAS site.

* http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/index.html If you would like the detail, by all means check out the rest of the site.

(Edit: So I went and implied that the whole book was on the site; whoops. My bad.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
06-29-01, 09:03 AM
I do not need to prove that the God of the Bible exists to support a Creationist view any more than the evolutionist needs to prove that he does not exist. Especially since the facts of science imply intelligent, supernatural design. That this designer happens to be God is the view of Creationists. That this designer is mere chance and chaos is the view of evolution. Science cannot peove that there is or isn't a designer, but it can imply. If we can argue the scientific facts without arguing the underlying philosophy, I will try to show you that the facts support an intelligent, supernatural designer.

<h4>Geology</h4>
(I'll finally try to get this started.)

To begin let me point out the underlying assumptions for both viewpoints.

Uniformitarianism -- The idea that all physical processes have remained relatively equal throughout a long period of time, gradually changing things, with no substantial disasters throwing records off.

Catastrophism -- The idea that major disasters may have taken place and that we cannot neccessarily extrapolate current history from geology and known rates of change. These rates may have been extremely different in the past.

There are many problems with a uniformitarian view, which imply that a major catastrophe has taken place. For example, the paraconformities mentioned earlier do not lend themselves easily to a uniformitarian explanation. There is no hint of overthrusting or any other natural mechanism, as Parker's professors noted, "they are a mystery."

Then there are fossils in erratic shapes and other anomolies. Huge fossil "graveyards exist worldwide, where hundred and thousands of animals are all fossilized together at once. Similar events, on a smaller scale, occur when rivers flood (there is even a branch of science that studies the movement of dead animal carcasses). This implies a huge flood that killed these animals all at once and washed their bones all together for later fossilization. Also, large numers of species known in the fossil records are extinct. It is thought, even among evolutionists, that these extinctions (which usually occur in mass) were the result of some world-wide disaster. Thus, when faced with the facts, even evolutionists must temporarily abandon the uniformitarian interpretation and allow some catastrophes to have occured. The evidence is just too strong. Upside-down tree trunk fosils imply that the entire length of strata along their trunk was deposited very quickly. Fossilized imprints of raindrops and wind ridges also imply that fossilization can occur quite rapidly. Fossilized human footprints have also been found in tandem with dinosaur prints at the Palauxi site in Texas. The large amount of strata (something like 90% of all rocks, if I remember) implys that there was an awful large amount of water and mud at one time or another throughout history. Compare it to sedimentation that takes place during major yearly floods (I live near the Mississippi) The huge formations that were cut into the strata (ie Grand Canyon, etc) can easily be explained if the rock was still relatively soft (or even muddy) and huge amounts of runnoff water came whooshing by. In fact, the erosion could be greater than normal, since in large floods with turbulent flows, a well known event takes place known as cavitation. This is where small vacuum-bubbles form in the water and pop, greatly aiding in erosional forces. And then, alot of sedimentary rocks are found on mountains too, implying they were under water level when the sediments were deposited (either the mountains were lower, or the sea level was higher, or more likely both).

Every day, I see two very distinct evidences of Creation and the Flood (in addition to the existence of the entire universe and everything therein).

Before I get on the Metrolink (a public transit rail system) I look into a tunnel that goes under a road in Saint Louis and see literally dozens -- maybe even hundreds of stalactites. I know that they don't take millions of years to form 'cause Saint Louis (and the Metrolink for that matter) isn't anywhere near that old. Some of them are quite substantial in size, too. I also see a few at the Botanical Gardens (St.L is famous for them), in the greenhouse region under the waterfall (feel free to come look for yourselves) The larger scale of stalactites seen in limestone caves implys that possibly the water flow was much more rapid and mineral-laden in the past.

Then, on my way to lunch every day, I walk past a recent construction site. The grass is still young, and the soft ground in the area contains multiple water runoff channels -- they look <i>just</i> like the canyons and mesas seen in the Southwest, but on a much smaller scale. They substantially grow in size during a good rain (although the grass is beginning to prevent that). The huge size of the corolating features around the world imply <i>huge</i> amounts of water and mud (or soft rock).

Can this erosional effect be scaled up and produce the same results? YES! The eruption at mount Saint Helens produced similar circumstances and flooding. When a temporary dam broke, a whole region of new deposits was eroded producing a full-scale canyon (I think it was something like 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, but I could be wrong)

Therefore, it is easy to see that with the large amounts of sediments and erosional features and their world-wide distribution, akward fossil anomolies, mass extinctions, the formation of stalactites, and more, a truly disastorous flood-like event may have occured, effecting the entire world. Looking to historical sources, I find in the Bible a mention of a worldwide flood with 8 survivors. Looking to other cultures I find similar stories of cataclysmic floods. Scientific, historical, and cultural data seem to indicate that such an event occured, why shouldn't I believe that it did?

The fact that the flood was apparently worldwide (basd on the evidence) is no big shocker. Evololutionists need to explain world-wide mass extintion events. The popular theory is a metorite impact every once in a while created a world-wide disaster that led to these extinctions. However, a flood could easily explain the same results, while additionally explaining the other factors explained above. If the sea beds were higher, the mountains lower, and the icecaps melted, there is certainly enough water in the world to completely cover it. In fact, it is possible that the evolutionists were partially right. One or more metorite impacts may very well be associated with the flood, initially breaking open huge underground aquifers, allowing large amounts of water to escape to the surface. Please note that the Bible does not say there was a meteoroid. I am merely saying that, based on scientific evidence, it is likely that one or more of them may have been involved in beginning the Flood that the geology so clearly implies.

Sometime soon, I'd like to adress Radiometric and Radiocarbon dating systems. Or maybe human-ape transition forms.

~Caleb

Tiassa
06-29-01, 02:56 PM
Caleb:

I'm going a little out of order, but mostly for impact. I can, however, start at the beginning of the post:
I do not need to prove that the God of the Bible exists to support a Creationist view any more than the evolutionist needs to prove that he does not exist. Especially since the facts of science imply intelligent, supernatural design. That this designer happens to be God is the view of Creationists.1) Yes, you do need to establish the God of the Bible. Okay, not necessarily the Bible, but there's other points to consider there. In the case of the assertion itself, where it errs is quite simple: Science records and interprets what can be observed and tested. A creator--any creator, much less the Christian Creator--must be demonstrated in order to validate the process in question as an act by that Creator.

2) I'm calling you on the blue-tinted phrase above, that the creator is the Biblical God, according to Creationists. The reason for this is simple: if not the Biblical God, then who is it that Christian Creationists assert made the world? Is your God, then, subordinate to the Ultimate Creator?

Simply put: science need not make the assertion that God does not exist. The truth of the matter is that unless something is observable, it cannot be included in the theory. Certainly we see particle physicists occasionally assert the existence of a particle undiscovered, but I seem to recall that we just completed the quark set earlier this year, which demonstrates my repeated claim that the so-called assumptions of science are, in fact, goals to be achieved. I don't see this same process in place regarding the Creator. In fact, it seems to me that the religion driving Creationism proudly touts that God cannot be observed, demonstrated, tested, or proven. This bodes poorly for the establishment of Creationism as a science.
Then there are fossils in erratic shapes and other anomolies. Huge fossil "graveyards exist worldwide, where hundred and thousands of animals are all fossilized together at once. Any number of possibilities exist; the planet does take the occasional comet in the noggin, you know. But you mentioned this somewhere, and went so far as to ignore the potential of a meteorite or comet causing a flood. There is evidence suggesting that something caused a glacier to quickly melt and flood what is now the Pacific northwestern US and SW Canada, Including Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and parts of Canada. This could easily be caused by an extraterrestrial impact.
It is thought, even among evolutionists, that these extinctions (which usually occur in mass) were the result of some world-wide disaster. Yeah, comets can do that. A meteorite bombardment, such as crater evidence implies, can definitely do that. Consider global warming for a second: When environmentalists assert that the world is warming too quickly, I can guarantee you that their data ignores volcanic eruptions. Pinatubo, St Helens, and others are considered, for the purposes of the early-90's global-warming study, to be anomalies, and are exscinded from the data. Extended periods of 3 degrees-centigrade cooling are omitted. The result is that warming rate appears to be over 1.5 C for the period, while the truth of it is that the planet is warming somewhere around 0.5 C. What I'm after there is that when the atmosphere gets filled with junk, bad things happen. A comet of reasonable size would have filled the entire atmosphere with dust; a meteorite bombardment riddling the planet with craters would do the same. Mass extinction can take place under these circumstances; there's hog cholera, you know. What about dinosaurs? Are we imagining that these beasts were immune to microorganisms? Wandering through a dying forest among the rotting remains of your brethren is not healthy, no matter what you are. All I'm after here is that your reliance on a world-wide flood is too heavy a load for such a thin assertion.
Thus, when faced with the facts, even evolutionists must temporarily abandon the uniformitarian interpretation and allow some catastrophes to have occured. You know, I thought this kind of Uniformitarianism had gone the way of the dinosaur. Consider ilgwamh's citation of Hoyle reinforcing the notion of a Universal designer (it was his signature for a while, at least). Great, so Hoyle thinks he sees evidence of a designer in the Universal model. However, Hoyle's chosen model--steady-state--is almost dust in the pine box: he was looking at the wrong model, and this undermines his claim. The only time I ever heard of Uniformitarianism when learning about evolution is from Christian Creationist critics. So if you want to criticize Uniformitarianism, sure ... go for it. But I've learned all my life that cataclysms play an important role in life's changing mosaic.
The evidence is just too strong.For a disaster? We're all aware of that.
Fossilized imprints of raindrops and wind ridges also imply that fossilization can occur quite rapidly.So when I walk along a ridge, and see the shape of its edge, and the wind is blowing and I can't see chunks of the ridge falling off--it's fossilized? And yes, fossilization can indeed occur quite rapidly, depending on the environment.
Fossilized human footprints have also been found in tandem with dinosaur prints at the Palauxi site in TexasI've covered this elsewhere, but .... Now, isn't this site near, oh, a river?

Do rivers stay in their banks?

Imagine: Dinosaur tromps through, leaving footprints. Dinosaur dies somewhere ... doesn't matter where. Footprints remain, conditions change to preserve them. Over time, sediment covers the hardened footprints. Also, over time, the nearby river repeatedly floods its banks, washing away that newer sediment, so that when humans come tromping through, their footprints go in what dirt remains after the flooding river. It's not that hard to envision if one pays attention to the physical world at all.
Can this erosional effect be scaled up and produce the same results? YES! The eruption at mount Saint Helens produced similar circumstances and flooding. When a temporary dam broke, a whole region of new deposits was eroded producing a full-scale canyon (I think it was something like 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, but I could be wrong)So 1/40 as long, 1/40 as high, and 1/40 as wide. Okay. My desktop calculator puts those factors together and gives me a ratio equal to 64,000. Or are you speaking of the whole volume? Now then, what kind of material did the St Helens canyon cut from? Silt? Little different than the Grand Canyon. Where is the volcano at the Grand Canyon, and what evidence have you to support its eruption? (Really, I would love to know; I've never heard this before, that there is a volcano at the Canyon.)
Therefore, it is easy to see that with the large amounts of sediments and erosional features and their world-wide distribution, akward fossil anomolies, mass extinctions, the formation of stalactites, and more, a truly disastorous flood-like event may have occured, effecting the entire world. There is evidence of disparate large floods: Turkey, PNW United States, &c. But nobody has yet provided evidence of a worldwide flood. Rumors of a worldwide flood come from a crude assembly of flood locations, a general disregard for flood dates and periods, and lastly a loose extrapolation to apply said floods to the whole surface of the earth.
Looking to historical sources, I find in the Bible a mention of a worldwide flood with 8 survivors. Looking to other cultures I find similar stories of cataclysmic floods. Yes, and the flood is a particularly noxious plagiarism. But Christians who insist that the world is less than billions of years old miss out on the fun realization that, for a period, it appears that the entire surface of the Earth was, in fact, water. North America, for instance, appears to have risen and spread from a volcanic rift under the sea. And this does not conflict with Pangaea (Gondwanaland), which it seems to me you mentioned in an earlier post; something about topography. But the ubercontinent is only important if you choose to make it so. But before the continent, there was a hell of a lot of water.
Before I get on the Metrolink (a public transit rail system) I look into a tunnel that goes under a road in Saint Louis and see literally dozens -- maybe even hundreds of stalactites. I know that they don't take millions of years to form 'cause Saint Louis (and the Metrolink for that matter) isn't anywhere near that old. Some of them are quite substantial in size, too. I also see a few at the Botanical Gardens (St.L is famous for them), in the greenhouse region under the waterfall (feel free to come look for yourselves) The larger scale of stalactites seen in limestone caves implys that possibly the water flow was much more rapid and mineral-laden in the past.Yes, the water-flow does fluctuate; we've all seen the Mississippi flood. But I would invite you to either find or produce the data describing the formation of these stalactites. Since you see them often, and they so affect your perspective, why not find out what data exists and see how that evidence stands? Increased water flow in the Mississippi basin means only that: increased water flow in the Mississippi basin; for those of us who accept the Ice Age--well, the melting water had to go somewhere.
Then, on my way to lunch every day, I walk past a recent construction site. The grass is still young, and the soft ground in the area contains multiple water runoff channels -- they look just like the canyons and mesas seen in the Southwest, but on a much smaller scale. They substantially grow in size during a good rain (although the grass is beginning to prevent that). The huge size of the corolating features around the world imply huge amounts of water and mud (or soft rock).Yeah, I'm familiar with the process, too. I can create it on a sandy beach with a 5-gallon bucket and some water. I have not made the Grand Canyon, and would not care to try. I'm thinking of something about your sense of scale, but I can't put my finger on it. It seems to be your sense of proportion: a larger canyon means more water is needed to continue erosion. The rate of topsoil erosion in a heavy rain, or under the force of a pressure nozzle speaks little toward geology in the context we're approaching it.
The huge size of the corolating features around the world imply huge amounts of water and mud (or soft rock).Well, 3/4 of the world is covered in water, and much of it deep; all of that water has at one time fallen from the sky. What more would you like for a huge amount of water than all of it on planet Earth?
Scientific, historical, and cultural data seem to indicate that such an event occured, why shouldn't I believe that it did?There is no reason to believe against floods, but I think your perception of the scientific data is colored by your need to find theological justification. As a side note: Dr Barry Fell, researching the presence of European-originated alphabets in the Americas noted the possibility that the ships of Tarsus, which the Psalms declare smashed against the rocks in God's wrath, or some such, may actually have landed in North America at some point, based on stylistic similarities. What this is provided for, in our current debate, is merely to remind that our Hebrew recorders of the Bible may have had a slightly limited view of just how big the world was. A major flood in the Fertile Crescent may have constituted the whole world to these poets. (Reminder, the Biblical tradition was oral first, and written second.)
The fact that the flood was apparently worldwide (basd on the evidence) is no big shocker. You're right: It's a knee-slapper, a seam-splitter, and a gut-buster. The evidence does not stand up to scientific scrutiny; there are simply too many assumptions of process to declare that a worldwide flood happened in the manner you're attempting to construct.
One or more metorite impacts may very well be associated with the flood, initially breaking open huge underground aquifers, allowing large amounts of water to escape to the surface. Or, the heat of the blast could have put that much water vapor into the mix, and it all rained out for years and years and years until the climate equalized again. You're reaching too far to find your connections, which is another symptom of poor science.

There's too much assumption involved in Creationism that is not testable. Our scientists will, however, work out the gaps in their data. It is unacceptable to science to rest on such assumptions as the presence of an untestable, unobservable Creator. And that's the key. You can describe any set of processes you wish, and if they prove to be true, then they're true; but they won't prove Creationism without first demonstrating the Creator. And that cannot be done.

And what will science do with a Creator? Throw it into the equation and see what happens. It's what science does.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
06-29-01, 04:59 PM
I wish I had time to respond to everything you said at the moment, unfortunately, I don't have the time. I'll try to work on a response over the weekend, but I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to post it before Monday. At any rate, I'll try.

Allow me to leave you with this quote from a creationist paper:



"The creation model of geology is basically a flood model, that is, the antediluvian world was totally obliterated by the flood to the extent that virtually all geological features that we see today
were formed in the flood and its aftermath. The wealth of geological data available to us has made it possible for several competing flood models to be developed. The oldest and perhaps the
most familiar is the hydraulic model propounded by Price early in this century and again by Morris in recent decades. This theory attempted to explain the general fossil sequence found in the
geologic column (GC) by the tendency of objects to be sorted according to size, shape and density by hydraulic action while suspended in a fluid. In recent years several other models have
been proposed to incorporate the apparent success of plate tectonics over the past three decades. Two of these models popular in the United States are the hydroplate theory (HPT) of Brown
[12] and the catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) theory [58]. Some would like to place the flood boundary much lower in the GC, making many strata post-flood, while others seem to doubt the
reality of the GC itself. This is contrary to the position of Morris, who maintains that virtually no strata have been deposited in the post flood world. Such disagreements are encouraging in that
they are evidence of the maturing of creation science. Creationists are often criticized for having rigid preconceptions that do not permit reevaluation of our ideas. Anyone making this point has
obviously not considered the case of creationist geology."

~Caleb

Tiassa
06-30-01, 03:03 PM
Creationists are often criticized for having rigid preconceptions that do not permit reevaluation of our ideas.Such as the preconception that there is an unobservable, undemonstrable, untestable Creator?

--Tiassa :cool:

Radical
06-30-01, 07:13 PM
the "facts" of both sides

WHY SUPPORTERS OF
EVOLUTION AND CREATION SCIENCE
BELIEVE AS THEY DO
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

RESOLVING THE EVOLUTION
vs.
CREATION SCIENCE CONFLICT
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_resol.htm

18 INDICATORS OF AN "OLD EARTH"
(About 4.5 billion years old)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm

THE THREE THEORIES OF ORIGINS:
NATURALISTIC EVOLUTION,
CREATION SCIENCE, AND
THEISTIC EVOLUTION

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Tiassa
06-30-01, 11:46 PM
Thanx much, Radical.

--Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
07-01-01, 11:17 PM
That this designer happens to be God is the view of Creationists.

Is your God, then, subordinate to the ultimate Creator?

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. In Creationism, we assert God <i>is</i> the ultimate Creator/Designer/Builder (whatever you want to call Him)

I was being general in my statement to acknowledge that there may be other viewpoints. Some may seem the design in the universe as an alien's experiment, or they may attribute it to some vague "universal soul", "mother earth", a pantheon of naturalistic dieties, or a giant egg that cracked open.

Even many evolutionists comment on the remarkable amount of order in the universe. They usually assert that the master Designer is (as I've already said) blind chance, randomness, and forces of nature.

So the Creationist viewpoint is that this order is attributed to the God of the Bible, as opposed to a giant egg, a pantheon, an alien, mother earth, or blind chance. God cannot be proven to exist anymore than the blind chance can be proven to account for the presence of my two eyes.

Though God is not observable in nature, the order and design of nature <i>is</i>. This is the key to your philosophical argument.

(regarding metorites)

But you mentioned this somewhere, and went so far as to ignore the potential of a metorite or comet causing a flood.

On the contrary, I acknowledged such possibility. A metrorite (used here non-technically to refer to any extra-terrestrial object bombarding the earth, including a comet) is thought, among Creationists, to be a quite possible initiator for tectonic activity and the flood.

Speaking of tectonic plates, did you know that one of the first people to propose tectonic plate motion was a flood geologist, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, who published a little-known paper on it in the same year Darwin published <i>Origin of the Species</i>. Looking at the fit between continents, he proposed that there were these rigid plates in the Earth's crust that rapidly moved apart during Noah's flood, a theory that, with some modifications, many Creationists still hold to be valid. Snider was one of the last proponents of Flood geology and catastrophism (Catst.) before uniformitarianism (Unif) came about. When he proposed that these tectonic plates existed, and were moving, it was the Unif's who were initialy unwilling to believe the evidence that the plates had slid. Instead, they felt that the crust was fixed. (BTW, this is another example of a time where creationists incorporate evidence into their theories, even before the evolutionists are willing to do so)


I thought this king of Uniformitarianism had gone the way of the dinosaur

No pun intended, I hope :)

Seriously, though, you're mistaken. Though they seem to not use the word (perhaps it implies that their theories are merely based on assumption of uniformity, but since they see this assumtion as being a fundamental fact, they don't even bother to give it a name. Afterall, the only time you need to give it a name is when you're contrasting it with other viewpoints, which they don't seem to do all that often -- which is poor science), in general it is still the basis for the majority of their research. Another term for it would be gradualism. True, they admit events such as ice ages and greenhouses, but these are typically seen as being on the order of 20,000 or 100,000 years or so, if I'm not mistaken, and they appear and dissapear gradually -- just a cycle the forces of nature acting gradually over hundreds of thousands of years. Sediments are slowly deposited, a grain of sand errodes here and is deposited there, with an occaisional local flood or disaster, but nothing large-scale, earth-shattering. At least until recently when they proposed the meteorite impact theory, that is.


fossilization can indeed occur quite rapidly...

I'm glad we agree.

(Regarding Palauxi)

Imagine:...

I would have to, since there's not much science behind your scenario.

To be preserved for millions of years, the dinosaur footprints would have had to be lithified (the process where sediments turn into solid rock). If they had not been lithified, they would cruble, or be disturbed by the overlying sediment. Then they stay buried, lithified, and undisturbed, despite countless floods on the river (which by the way, happens to run through the area for the whole time, right, since sediments are continuing to be deposited) for at least 60-65 million years (likely more, but who's counting?) and then they are uncovered de-lithified (by the way, I don't think anyone's ever observed de-lithification associated with a flood. Usually rocks just errode, not turn back into mud) just in time for someone to walk over this path of mud that has these unusuall holes in it. Then, these footprints have to re-lithify very quickly once again, before they can be disturbed (Footprints usually have eroded within several days). The very presevation of fossilized footprints is hard enough to accomplish, but to have the same area preserve two set of footprints at completely different times, after some unknown mechanism de-lithifies a slab of rock that had been sitting happily as a rock for countless millions of years.

(Sorry, I got a bit passionate there, didn't I? Actually, please note: it has recently come to my attention that even most Creation Scientists regard the Palauxi site as being inconclusive at best, based on the following summary of evidence article I found:

<i>Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order. We stand committed to truth, and will gladly modify or abandon our previous interpretation of the Paluxy data as the facts dictate.</i>

Nevertheless, the ridiculous scenario that you give demonstrates that Evolutionists are at least as willing to "twist" or "reinterpret" the data to fit their viewpoint as Creationists are. Anyway, on to other matters...)


Where is the volcano at the Grand Canyon?

Um, you sort of missed the entire set of events. I'm not implying there was a volcano at the Grand Canyon (or any other canyon). Duh! It wasn't the erruption that caused the canyon, it was just the waster and mud.

At Mt. St. Helen:
Volcano causes flood.
Flood erodes mud/ silt/ soft sediments.
Sediments lithify.
Viola` - a canyon.

In the Flood:
There is a worldwide flood creating and depositing huge amonuts of sediments
Huge Flood erodes large amounts of sediments.
Sediments lithify.
Viola` - a much larger canyon.


Yeah, I'm familiar with that process, too. I can create it on a sandy beach with a 5-gallon bucket and some water. I have not made the Grand Canyon yet, and would not care to try.

I sure hope not! It would take a flood of, well, Biblical proportions to do that. :D Kinda like what happened at Mt. St. Helen's, except on an planetary scale.


I'm thinking of something about your sense of scale, but I can't put my finger on it

Let me give you a hint:


1/40th as long, 1/40th as high, 1/40th aswide. Okay. My desktop calculateor...gives me a ratio equal to 64,000

(I hope you didn't seriously need a calculator to do that :) )

Anyway, now compare that ratio to the ratio of water rushing around in the Mt. St. Helen's erosion to the ratio of water rushing around in the Southwest during a world-wide flood. I expect the ratio to be at least as large, probably alot larger. So saying that the Helen's erruption doesn't demonstrate that a flood may have been the mechanism that created the Grand Canyon because it's to small is a little bit, well, wrong. Plainly, a world-wide flood would have more than enough water to duplicate the effect on pretty much any scale.


It seems to be your sense of proportion: a larger canyon means more water is needed to continue erosion.

Well, the converse was definitely proved true at Mt. St. Helens. More water (floodwater, not rainwater, btw) means a larger canyon is formed.


The rate of topsoil erosion in a heavy rain, or under the force of a pressure nozzle speaks little towards geology in the context we're approaching

Perhaps not at first glance, but again, the rate of silt erosion under the force of a brocken lava-dam @ St. Helen's certainly does.


Or, the heat of the blast could have put that much vapor into the mix, and it all rained out for years and years...

Actually, 40 days and nights of continuous world-wide raining to be precise.


...for those of us that accept the Ice Age--well, all that water had to go somewhere.

I accept the Ice Age as well. This Creationist named Larry Vardiman did a study of ice layers from Greenland core drillings and developed a mathematical model that was intended to calculate the age of an ice layer as a function of the layer's depth according to the Flood geology. Using this depth-to-age corelation, he plotted the d_18_O ratio (oxygen isotope 18) against time. Both Evolutionists and Creationists agree that d_18_O ratios may give a rough estimate of temperatures at the time they were deposited. The evolutionists use their mathematical models (which assume a slow but steady rate of deposition) to show that their were several Ice Ages in the past lasting thousands of years. However, when the data was re-plotted to the new model (which assumes deposition was not constant, but peaked to enormous values during or just after the Flood), it gave a different picture completely. Instead of showing cycles of Ice Ages lasting for long periods of time, it showed a single Ice Age occuring just after the Flood, and lasting from 500 - 1,000 years, and taking about 50 to 100 more years to end. The same scientist later later conducted a similar research project regarding deep-sea sediment drillings and a similar mathematical model, to form a view of sea-temperature variations after the flood. (It is generally thought among Creationists that the oceans immediatly following the flood were quite warm due to the large amounts of energy that had been released, facillitating rapid evaporation and consequently, rapid precipitation in polar glaciers)


(Reminder: the Biblical tradition was oral first and written second)

The Divine Inspiration of the Bible is a completely seperate topic, but I suppose I could touch on it breifly.

That's not neccessarily true in most cases. First, I hope you're not implying that these ancient people could not write. Even as long ago as Moses -- the first author of the Bible with the probable exception of Job -- writting was commonplace. The Egyptians used papyrus. Job, if he did come before Moses, was also familiar with writting: "Job 19:23 Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!"

Of the five books that Moses wrote, only Genesis (and the very beginning of Exodus - but that can be easily explained) came before Moses was actually around. Furthermore, he did not neccessarily rely on oral tradition -- let me demonstrate. The first use of the word "book" in the Bible actually occurs in Genesis. Not even near the end, but near the beginning. Chapter 5 to be presise. "This is the <b>book</b> of the generations of Adam" It is quite possible that Moses was compiling a list of pre-existing written records. Also, if he did get his stories from "oral" sources, then he got them straight from the author's lips!

Reminder: The Biblical account is <i>inspired by God</i> first, and written second (or simultaneously).


You can describe any set of processes you wish, and if they prove to be true, then they're true; but they won't prove Creationism without first demonstrating the Creator. And that cannot be done.

I thought we went over this already. Neither Creationism or Evolutionism can be "proven." They are both untestable. The evidence merely lends weight to one view or the other (or both depending on how one interprets it). So, I'll get on with the evidence.

~Caleb

Tiassa
07-02-01, 02:10 AM
I thought we went over this already. Neither Creationism or Evolutionism can be "proven." They are both untestable. The evidence merely lends weight to one view or the other (or both depending on how one interprets it). So, I'll get on with the evidence.Look ... stop resorting to what you perceive as the faults of another system in order to justify your own theory. Your theory should stand on its merits. Among the merits of the scientific process is its ability to achieve in the future data not immediately possessed. Scientists do not perceive instabilities in evolutionary theory, but rather data which must eventually be verified. This is directly opposite the Creationist assumption of a Creator, a necessary element of the theory which cannot be tested--ever. That is all the difference in the world. If you see what you think is a weakness in evolutionary theory, you can devise a test of the principle and present your findings to your scientific peers, who will either accept the principle or point out its flaws insofar as further testing would be required to verify the principle. This is impossible for the absolute key to Creationism: you cannot verify a Creator, only assume that your results indicate one.
Instead, they felt that the crust was fixed. I truly wonder where this science comes from: at no time in my twenty-eight years on this planet have I ever heard that the crust of the Earth was fixed. Not once. Not ever. Really.

Of meteorite impact, though, there comes about a living apocalypse in a myriad of methods: floods in certain areas, to be certain, and nobody will deny this. But there is also the possibility of long-term greenhousing from the sediment kicked into the air. The water supply goes bad: pollutants falling from the sky, and the sickness of dead animals up and down the river. Tromping through the decay, enduring shocking climate changes, facing a dwindling food supply and a septic environment.

But you'll have to correlate the data to demonstrate the worldwide flood. There's a scientific task: perhaps it could be done, but I would also suggest that had any prior attempts endured scientific scrutiny, our conversation might read much differently.
To be preserved for millions of years, the dinosaur footprints would have had to be lithified (the process where sediments turn into solid rock). If they had not been lithified, they would cruble, or be disturbed by the overlying sediment. Then they stay buried, lithified, and undisturbed, despite countless floods on the river (which by the way, happens to run through the area for the whole time, right, since sediments are continuing to be deposited) for at least 60-65 million years (likely more, but who's counting?) One of the disadvantages that I've observed of operating by a Creationist perspective is the tendency to forget about the overall effects of erosion. By the theories I accept, the river wasn't always right exactly there, but had to grow and erode the earth around it to become so local to the site; constant flooding cannot be guaranteed; the erosion of a number of feet of sediment in exponentially less time than it took to accumulate can pretty much be demonstrated by observation in nature.
At Mt. St. Helen: To be honest, as one who lived within relevant distance to the mountain's wrath, I have to say that this Creationist focus on Mount St Helens surprises me; it's only been in these last months that it's been mentioned at Sciforums that I've even heard of this. To the other, Radical provided links that include perspectives on this.

To the other, you have posited a process; can you devise a test to demonstrate it? Can you assemble the statistics to show it without exscinding relevant data? Mind you: I'm not about to go out and do the measurements, so I don't expect you, personally to. But I would be surprised if the internet, at least, couldn't provide enough data to form the rudimentary theory. But I've never heard such a theory in any cohesive form, so I can't point you in any good direction.
Anyway, now compare that ratio to the ratio of water rushing around in the Mt. St. Helen's erosion to the ratio of water rushing around in the Southwest during a world-wide flood. I expect the ratio to be at least as large, probably alot larger. So saying that the Helen's erruption doesn't demonstrate that a flood may have been the mechanism that created the Grand Canyon because it's to small is a little bit, well, wrong. Plainly, a world-wide flood would have more than enough water to duplicate the effect on pretty much any scale. First mechanical issue: why there? By this I mean simply why did the flood carve away that earth? What was there before that made that ground more favorable to erosion? And how did that circumstance come about?

First key issue: demonstrate that flood, and what caused it. Even with catastrophic worldwide rains, one still encounters the problems touched on elsewhere with where the water comes from, and justifying that theory. And once that is worked out, one can begin engaging the myriad mechanical problems, one of which I've included above. The process of lithification of the Grand Canyon is also a mechanical issue, but one which will share much in common with the question of location and conditions.
The Biblical account is inspired by God first, and written second (or simultaneously). This is a faith statement, and presently undemonstrable as fact.

But there's a place to start: can the geology be demonstrated? Good luck.

--Tiassa :cool:

Lawdog
07-02-01, 09:02 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by xvenomousx
[B]c'mon lets slug it out.
please only good arguements and debate, no hitting below the belt, try to be factual and clear and not overly emotional.

Fossils?
Evidence for the Flood and other catastrophies
Age fo the universe?
Could be anywhere from 6000BC-60,000BC
Geological evidence to the age of the planet?
Totally based on radioactive dating, an imprecise science.
Why create a universe to appear as if its 12 billion years old?
It does not appear to be 12 billion years old. You have merely convinced yourself that it is in order to PROP UP evolutionary theory, which is not a TRUE scientific theory.
Why create all of life on earth to appear to be part of a large evolutionary genetic family tree?
PROOF of a single designer
Why, if the universe was created do we have entropy and change?
God also created the laws of the cosmos
Why does all life on earth share alot of the the same basic chemical structure?
MORE Proof of a single designer
Explain Junk DNA? NOTHING God creates is JUNK
Blood types? GOD LOVES VARIETY
Genetic abnormalities? (don't try the work of god answer, that doesn't stand up, as we can SEE what goes wrong in the DNA)
GOD"S MYSTERIOUS WILL, TEST OF FAITH
Aren't we surposed to be perfect? YOU BETTER GET STARTED
Does the universe NEED a god to exist? GOD SUPPORTS AND SUSTAINS ALL REALITY.

Why is science always so right? I mean, my cathode ray TV works.. my processor crashes if I overclock it... I throw a ball and it curves in a arc.. the scientific laws of the universe do seem to be true?
YOU ARE BUYING INTO THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF SCIENCE VS RELIGION>
SCIENCE IS RIGHT BECAUSE ITS CORRECT. CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS RIGHT BECAUSE ITS CORRECT. BOTH ARE PRODUCTIVE OF GOOD THINGS FOR MAN: CHRISTIANITY TEACHES MAN MORAL TRUTH AND LEADS TO HAPPINESS AND STABILITY OF FAMILY, AND THE GOAL OF HUMAN LIFE: UNION WITH GOD. SCIENCE TEACHES MAN PRACTICAL TRUTHS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WORLD WHOSE BEAUTY AND COMPLEXITY ILLUSTRATE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

BOTH ARE INVOLVED IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, THUS BOTH MAY BE WRONGLY USED BY FALLEN HUMANITY. PROOF ITSELF OF THE FALL IS INQUISITIONS AND THE A BOMB.

RELIGION GOES WRONG WHEN DIVORCED FROM RIGHT REASON AND OBEDIENCE TO RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

SCIENCE GOES WRONG WHEN DIVORCED FROM LEGITIMATE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY'S ADVICE AND WARNINGS.

TO SAY THAT RELIGION IS A PERSONAL CHOICE IS TO ABUSE THE FREEDOM OF THE HUMAN SOUL. ALL CARS LOOK DIFFERENT IN SOME WAYS AND ARE DOING DIFFERENT THINGS, YET THEY ALL REQUIRE GOOD MAINTANENCE. THE SAME IS TRUE WITH HUMAN SOULS. TAKING YOUR SOUL TO BE REPAIRED BY OTHER PHILOSOPHIES AND RELIGIONS IS LIKE TAKING YOUR CAR TO FAKE OR POORLY TRAINED MAINTANENCE MEN.

TO SAY THAT SCIENCE HAS THE FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING IS TO BE GRAVELY MISTAKEN AND PROMOTE SUCH IDEAS AS VIVISECTION AND HITLERIAN EXPERIMENTS, ABORTION, AnD MANY OTHER HORRORS.

Caleb
07-02-01, 09:59 AM
Obviously, not being a research scientist, without free access to data and equipment needed in research, I can not personally demonstrate these things, however, the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research can.

they are located at www.icr.org

Here is an article from their site dealing with the rapid erosion at Mount Saint Helens:

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r04.htm

it mentions, for instance:

Badlands-type topography containing gullies up to 50 feet deep, that evolutionists would require to form in centuries formed in just five days, and without water erosion.

A one-hundred foot canyon (which is what I was thinking of) that eroded in under four years (and the bulk of it probably erroded within a few days). It is mature, and would appear (by evolutionary standards) to have taken long ages of time to have formed.

The fact that similar mass-erosion events have been located elsewhere, such as Alaska and Louisiana.

You may have only heard of Mt. St. Helens recently, but creationists have been using it as an example of rapid erosion since the 80's. It seems that, like with the Evolutionists as well, there is a time lag between new theories, and their arrival to the public. This isn't a problem so much for evolutionists, since they have the mass media on their side, nevertheless, it does occur in pulling back theories. For instance, how many know that the recently dicovered "transition form" between dinosaurs and birds from Asia was later shown to be a hoax. I remember seeing Peter Jennings (or maybe it was another anchor) getting up and apologizing for National Geographic, and stating that the fossil had been a hoax. The whole story took about 30 seconds. Or, for instance, the evidence that many evolutionists don't accept Lucy as being our ancestor, since an older, "more human" ancestor was found. Or, for example, my error in the fact that the Paluxi site is no longer accepted by the ICR scientists as being conclusive data. There seems to be a definite lag between theory and public knowledge.

Why did the Grand canyon erode only where it is, (and same thing for other canyons, too?) Because most of this erosion occured later, after the Flood proper was over, and while the waters were receeding from the newly-raised mountain ranges and filling the newly-depressed sea basins (and being precipitated in the newly formed ice sheets that created the "ice age"). The common belief is that a temporary lava or rock dam of some sort burst and flooded out the region, which was still relatively soft. You can read a technical article on the process here:

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm

Apparently, even evolutionists feel that lava dam formation and later breaking was involved in the erosion of the Grand Canyon. But they differ on the time scale. Consequently, this article seems to include a nice discussion of radiometric dating. Another article dealing with this topic in regards to Mt. St. Helens can be found at:

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm

Using radiometric dating methods, newly formed lava flows at Mt. St. Helens date to around 350,000 years old!!! :eek: LOL! And we are supposed to <i>believe</i> these claims??? If the method fails when it <i>can</i> be experimentally verified, how can we trust it when it cannot be verified.

~Caleb

Caleb
07-03-01, 07:38 AM
Read the responses of some of the evolutionists to their own theory.


<DIV></DIV>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<H1 align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=5>IMPACT No. 136</FONT></H1>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT></P>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<H3 align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=4><B>EVOLUTION: THE CHANGING SCENE</B></FONT></H3>
<P align=center>By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.</FONT></P>
<P align=center>Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA
92021<BR>Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469</FONT></P>
<P align=center>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" October 1984<BR>Copyright ©
1984 All Rights Reserved</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT></P>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Prof. Derek Ager of
the University at Swansea, Wales, in <I>Proc. Geol.</I> Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132
(1976) has stated</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I
learned as a student, from Trueman's<I> Ostrea/Gryphea</I> to Carruther's
<I>Raphrentis delanouei</I>, have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own
experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among
the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>This admission by
Prof. Ager (no friend of creationists) fits in very well with the title of this
article—a significant part of the changing scene in evolutionary circles is the
changing attitude of evolutionists concerning the fossil record—more and more
are now admitting that the missing links are still missing, that they have
little or no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>In his article in
<I>Natural History </I>86:22 (1977) entitled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters,"
Stephen J. Gould, leading spokesman for evolutionists in the U.S. today, said
that</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support
for gradual change…. "</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are
characteristically abrupt."</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>From an article
published in Paleobiology, Vol. 3 (1977) by S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge we
find the following on p. 147:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it
remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth
intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in
thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil
record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." In his review of
Steven Stanley's book <I>Macroevolution </I>by D.S. Woodruff (Science 208:716
(1980)), Woodruff says (I believe he is quoting Stanley):</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their
history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant
transition."</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The clatter has
become so loud that even the popular press has picked it up. <I>Newsweek </I>in
an article entitled "Is Man a Subtle Accident?" published Nov. 3, 1980,
stated</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has
comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the
most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures .... The more
scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species,
the more they have been frustrated."</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Some evolutionists
have come to realize that the fossil record is so bad relative to evolution
theory that they want to avoid it entirely as support for evolution. Mark
Ridley, a British evolutionist, tells us in his article published in <I>New
Scientist </I>90:832 (1981) that</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses
the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed
to special creation."</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>One might
immediately wonder, then, where does Ridley believe we find all the marvelous
evidence for the "fact of evolution?" Why, from the "observed evolution of
species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy,"
Ridley tells us. He apparently disagrees with his fellow evolutionist and the
most distinguished of all French zoologists, Pierre Grasse', who states in his
book <I>Evolution of Living Organisms</I> (English translation, Academic Press,
New York, 1977, p. 4)</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is
revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore,
a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of
evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of
present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for
paleontological documents."</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>What Grasse' says
in his book is that biology offers us no help in our attempt to understand the
mechanism of evolution. He says that evolution is a mystery about which little
is, and perhaps can be, known. He says certainly mutations and natural selection
cannot possibly provide that mechanism.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Many others in more
recent times, in view of the growing knowledge that the fossil record produces
no evidence for gradual change and that the gaps in the fossil record,
particularly at the level of the higher categories, are systematic and almost
always large, are now abandoning the neo-Darwinian theory of slow gradual
change. Gould has said that as a general principle, neo-Darwinism is dead,
although it is still textbook orthodoxy.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>In his comments on
a new mechanism for evolution postulated by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks,
Roger Lewin (<I>Science</I> 217:1239-1240, 1982) says</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is allowed
for in Brooks and Wiley's theory, but only as a minor influence. 'It can
affect survivorship' says Brooks. 'It can weed out some of the complexity and
so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. It may have a
stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative
force as many people have suggested."' </BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Let me point out
first of all that all of this sounds familiar—it is the source that is
astounding. The view just stated is precisely what has been said by creationists
ever since Edward Blyth in 1830. Natural selection is a stabilizing force. It is
not a creative force, the driving mechanism of evolution, which has been
responsible for the conversion of one organism into another, all the way from
amoeba to man. But now, notice who is saying this—evolutionists!</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Even more, they are
saying that natural selection is not only not the mechanism for evolution, it
actually retards the evolutionary process. They say. that natural selection
slows down the information decay that results in speciation. That statement is
absolutely astounding on two points.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>First of all, their
admission that natural selection not only is not the mechanism of evolution but
actually acts contrary to evolution is most revealing. Secondly, that
speciation, and thus evolution, occurs by the decay of information. Now that is
really startling! We creationists have long pressed the point that the random
processes supposedly at work in evolution cannot possibly account for the origin
of new information required for increase in complexity and the generation of new
functions and organs required by evolution. Evolutionists have, on the contrary,
insisted that this was possible.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Now Wiley and
Brooks are claiming that all of us were wrong, both creationists and
evolutionists. Evolution, from the primordial single-celled organisms to the
millions of present-day organisms, including man with his 30 trillion cells of
over 200 varieties, including a three-pound human brain with twelve billion
brain cells and 120 trillion connections, is the result of the decay of
information!</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Whatever anyone
might think of that theory, certainly we can all recognize that they are
rejecting Darwinism. As I have said earlier, many others are doing the same.
<I>Science Digest </I>(Sept.-Oct. 1980, p. 55) had an article entitled "Was
Darwin Wrong.?" The British Broadcasting Company produced a television program a
year or two ago entitled "Did Darwin Get It Wrong?" Stephen J. Gould, Niles
Eldredge, Steven Stanley and others have abandoned neo-Darwinism for what they
call "punctuated equilibrium." They suggest that what we see in the fossil
record is that species abruptly appear, fully-formed. They remain virtually
unchanged for the duration of their existence, up to ten million years or even
more, and they then abruptly disappear and are replaced by other species that
also abruptly appear fully formed with no evidence of transitional
forms.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>They suggest that
the evolutionary transitions occur somewhere out in an isolated area on the
periphery of the main population and that the transitions occur very rapidly in
small populations. The change is so rapid and the numbers are so small, we are
told, that there are no opportunities for fossilization of the transitional
forms.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Let me point out,
first of all, that this notion of punctuated equilibrium is no mechanism at all.
It is simply a new scenario. They are saying that since we don't find
transitional forms, evolution could not have occurred slowly and gradually, so
obviously, then, it must have occurred rapidly. How and why evolution occurs so
rapidly, no one knows. As a matter of fact, the idea that multiplied millions of
rapid bursts of evolution have occurred is contrary to the science of modern
genetics. The genetic apparatus of a lizard, for example, is totally devoted to
producing another lizard. The idea that by some random evolutionary process the
genetic apparatus of a lizard could be rapidly reorganized to produce something
really significantly different is clearly contrary to everything we know.
Evolutionists simply have no mechanism for evolution.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Secondly, the
notion of punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve the really serious problem
evolutionists have with the fossil record. In fact, it doesn't even address that
problem. The idea of punctuated equilibrium was invented to explain the lack of
transitional forms between species. But that is not the real problem. The really
serious problem is the absence of transitional forms between the higher
categories, that is, between families, orders, classes and phyla. The total
absence, for example, of transitional forms between invertebrates and the
fishes, a vast gulf supposedly spanning 100 million years. We have no
transitional forms between basic morphological designs, or what creationists
call the created kinds.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Evolutionists find
themselves in a most embarrassing position today. They can find neither the
transitional forms in the fossil record that their theory demands nor can they
find a mechanism to explain how the evolutionary process supposedly occurred. I
am reminded of what Owl said in the Pogo comic strip. He said, "If we had some
ham, we could have ham and eggs for breakfast—if we had some eggs!"</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Certainly we are
witnessing a changing scene in evolutionary circles today. They are finally
admitting that the fossil record shows little or no evidence for gradual change
(which is precisely what we must predict on the basis of creation). Many are now
rejecting Darwinism and are suggesting radical new theories concerning the
evolutionary process. But, almost all chorus in unison—evolution is a
fact!</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Isn't that amazing!
One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin the missing links are still missing,
and that wonderful, marvelous Darwinian mechanism that was responsible for
swinging the majority of scientists over to evolution is now becoming rapidly
discredited. Yet, somehow, we are told, everyone knows that evolution is a fact!
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
said in a talk he gave at the American Museum of Natural History, November 5,
1981, that he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from science
into faith. In a recent BBC program Dr. Patterson stated that all we really have
of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree are the tips of the branches. All else—the
filling in of the trunk and of the branches—is simply story telling of one kind
or another.</FONT></P>

<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<DIV></DIV>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<H1 align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=5>IMPACT No. 194</FONT></H1>
<P>
<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<H3 align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=4><B>EVOLUTION—A HOUSE DIVIDED</B></FONT></H3>
<P align=center>by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*</FONT></P>
<P align=center>Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA
92021<BR>Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469</FONT></P>
<P align=center>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" August 1989<BR>Copyright ©
1989 All Rights Reserved</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><I>"If a house be
divided against itself, that house cannot stand" </I>(Mark 3:25). Evolutionists
ardently defend their house against outsiders, but squabble vigorously with each
other inside the house. In this article we present a collage of recent quotes
from evolutionists attacking different aspects of their own basic theory. Lest
we be accused of out-of-context quoting, we emphasize that each person quoted is
a committed evolutionist, even though his remarks may make him sound like a
creationist.</FONT></P>
<P align=center><B>COSMIC EVOLUTION</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The standard
evolutionary concept for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory, but
many eminent astronomers flatly reject it.</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Both the 'Big
Bang' model and the theoretical side of elementary particle physics rely on
numerous highly speculative assumptions.<SUP>1</SUP> But if there was no Big
Bang, how and when did the universe begin? ... (Hannes) Alfven replies: "It is
only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being....<SUP>
2</SUP></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>One argument for
the Big Bang is the "red shift," but Halton Arp and other leading astronomers
say "no."</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>(Arp) maintains
that quasars, for example, whose large red shifts suggest they are the most
distant objects in the universe, are actually no more distant than
galaxies….<SUP>3</SUP></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P align=center><B>EVOLUTION OF LIFE FROM NON-LIFE</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>It is commonly
asserted that life evolved from non-living chemicals by purely naturalistic
processes. However, a leading scientist in this field says:</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>At present all
discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in
stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.... The problem is that the
principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have
not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under
which these processes occurred are not
known.<SUP>4</SUP></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P align=center><B>EVOLUTION OF SPECIES</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The standard
Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories of evolution argue that new species are
developed by natural selection of random variations to fit changing
environments. Many evolutionists today, however, are rejecting Darwinism, even
though they still cling to evolution. One such scientist is Kenneth
Hsu.</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The law of
natural selection is not, I will maintain, science. It is an ideology, and a
wicked one, and it has as much interfered with our ability to perceive the
history of life with clarity as it has interfered with our ability to see one
another with tolerance.... The law of the survival of the fittest may be,
therefore, a tautology in which fitness is defined by the fact of survival,
not by independent criteria that would form the basis for
prediction.<SUP>5</SUP></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P align=center><B>EVOLUTION OF HUMAN LIFE</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Much ado has been
made about the Laetoli fossil footprints in Tanzania, dated at 3.5 million years
ago, supposedly proving that the australopithecine ancestors of man walked
erect.</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>But the first
detailed study of the gaits and footprints of modern people who walk
barefooted indicated the Laetoli prints are much like those of <I>Homo sapiens
</I>and were probably not produced by Lucy's relatives, reports Russell H.
Tuttle of the University of Chicago.<SUP>6</SUP> It should be obvious that
these footprints were made by true human beings; the only reason for rejecting
this fact is the assumed 3.5-million year age, a time long before man is
supposed to have evolved.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P align=center><B>THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The fossil record
has traditionally been considered the best evidence for evolution, but the utter
absence of true transitional forms continues to be an embarrassment.</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between
higher taxa, it would be in the rocks of late Precambrian to Ordovician times,
when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet transitional
alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing
then.<SUP>7</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"We conclude that ... neither of the contending theories of
evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated
equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body
plans.<SUP>8</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P align=center><B>EXTINCTION VERSUS SPECIATION</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Evolutionists seem
unable to realize the anomaly in the slow rate of speciation versus the high
rate of species extinction.</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Today's rate (of extinction) can be estimated through various
analytical techniques to be a minimum of 1000, and possibly several thousand
species per year .... It normally takes tens of thousands of years for a new
terrestrial vertebrate or a new plant species to emerge fully, and even
species with rapid turnover rates, notably insects, usually require centuries,
if not millennia, to generate a new species.<SUP>9</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>So far as
ever observed, <I>no new species </I>are now being formed. It seems that
evolution, if there is such a thing, is going in the wrong direction!
<P align=center><B>UNIFORMITARIANISM</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Although the
history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian
maxim, "the present is the key to the past," more and more geologists are
returning to catastrophism.</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Our science is too encumbered with uniformitarian concepts that
project the modern Earth/Life system as the primary model for interpretation
of evolution and extinction patterns in ancient ecosystems. Detailed
paleoenvironmental data tell us that the past is the key to the present, not
vice versa.<SUP>10</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>One of the key
evidences for great age is the uniformitarian interpretation of "evaporites,"
but this very term is misleading.</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>In referring to "evaporite" … the term begs the question as it
implies desiccation. For clarity, geology needs a new term; namely
"precipitate," rock created by precipitation. Hence rocks of the evaporitic
facies could be … precipitites, deposited by precipitation from a
supersaturated solution.<SUP>11</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Precipitation is,
of course, a much more rapid process than evaporation.</FONT></P>
<P align=center><B>SOCIAL HARMFULNESS OF EVOLUTION</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Evolutionists
strongly complain when creationists point out the historically evil influence of
evolutionism. Many evolutionists, however, do recognize this fact.</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>... we were victims of a cruel social ideology that assumes that
competition among individuals, classes, nations or races is the natural
condition of life, and that it is also natural for the superior to dispossess
the inferior. For the last century and more this ideology has been thought to
be a natural law of science, the mechanism of evolution which was formulated
most powerfully by Charles Darwin in 1859.... <SUP>12</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>(Robert Proctor)
shows how the major German societies of physical anthropologists collaborated
with the SS program of race hygiene, helping to make racial policy .... Eugene
Fischer, the most distinguished of German physical anthropologists, regarded by
many as the founder of human genetics, was particularly helpful in these efforts
.... But surely American physical anthropologists spoke out clearly against the
Nazi perversion of their science? They did not.<SUP>13</SUP></FONT></P>
<P align=center><B>SCIENTIFIC BIGOTRY</B></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Creationists are
not the only ones who find it difficult to get a hearing from the scientific
establishment. Even evolutionists who do not conform to the majority viewpoint
in evolutionary dogma at a given time encounter this same bigotry, through the
so-called "peer review" process. One of the most distinguished modern
astronomers is Nobel prizewinner Hannes Alfven, who espouses an alternative
cosmology to the Big Bang. Here is his testimony (even Nobel laureates must
defer to the scientific establishment!).</FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>... it has given me a serious disadvantage. When I describe the
phenomena according to this formalism, most referees do not understand what I
say and turn down my papers. <SUP>14</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>But the argument "all knowledgeable people agree that…." (with the
tacit addition that by not agreeing you demonstrate that you are a crank) is
not a valid argument in science. If scientific issues always were decided by
Gallup polls and not by scientific arguments, science will very soon be
petrified forever.<SUP>15</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>For reasons of
space, these quotes have been somewhat abbreviated, but they do represent quite
fairly (if incompletely) the opinions of the respective authors. It is obvious
that evolutionists argue vigorously among themselves, even though they present a
solid front when arguing against creationists. Just possibly, the combination of
outside attack by creationists with the in-fighting among evolutionists will
eventually cause the collapse of the straw house of evolution itself. After all,
no one has ever seen real evolution in action, and no one knows how it works, so
its foundation is very weak. One day it will be said: " … the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it" (Matthew
7:27).</FONT></P>
<P align=center><B>REFERENCES</B></FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>
<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>
&nbsp;&nbsp;1. R.L Oldershaw, "The continuing Case for a Hierarchial Cosmology," <I>Astrophysics
and Space</I> (v. 92, 1983), p. 354.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;2. E.J. Lerner, "The Big
Bang Never Happened," <I>Discover</I> (v. 9, June 1988), p. 78. Swedish
astronomer Alfven, who has a Nobel Prize in Physics, maintains the universe
has always been essentially the same.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;3. John Horgan, "Big-Bang
Bashers," <I>Scientific American</I> (v. 257, September 1987), p.
22.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Dose, Prof. Dr. Klaus, "The Origin of Life; More
Questions than Answers," <I>Interdisciplinary Science Reviews </I>(v. 13, no.
4, 1988), p. 348. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Gutenberg
University, West Germany.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Kenneth J. Hsu, "Is Darwinism
Science?" <I>Earthwatch</I> (March 1989), p. 17. Hsu is Earth Science Head at
the Swiss Institute of Earth Sciences.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Bruce Bower, "A Walk
Back through Evolution," <I>Science</I> <I>News </I>(v. 135, April 22, 1989),
p. 251.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;7. J.W. Valentine and D.H. Erwin, "The Fossil Record,"
in <I>Development as an Evolutionary Process</I> (Uas, 1987), p.
84.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;8. <I>Ibid</I>, p. 96. Valentine is a geologist at U.C.
Santa Barbara, Erwin at Michigan State.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Norman Myers,
"Extinction Rates Past and Present," <I>Bioscience</I> (v. 39, January 1989),
p. 39.<BR>10. Eric Kauffman, "The Uniformitarian Albatross," <I>Palaios</I>
(v. 2, no. 6, 1987), p. 531.<BR>11. Robert S. Dietz and Mitchell Woodhouse,
"Mediterranean Theory May Be All Wet," <I>Geotimes</I> (v. 33, May 1988), p.
4.<BR>12. Kenneth J. Hsu, <I>op cit</I>, p. 15.<BR>13. Matt Cartmill,
"Misdeeds in Anthropology," Review of <I>Bones, Bodies, Behavior: Essays</I>
<I>on Physical Anthropology</I> (Wisconsin University Press, 1988). Science
(v. 244, May 19, 1989), P. 858.<BR>14. Hannes Alfven, "Memoirs of a Dissident
Scientist," <I>American</I> <I>Scientist </I>(v. 76, May-June 1988), P.
250.<BR>15. <I>Ibid</I>, p. 251.</FONT> </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>
<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>* Dr. Morris is President
of the Institute for Creation Research.</FONT> </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

Tiassa
07-03-01, 02:37 PM
I'll certainly do it this way, too. It's easier, isn't it, to cite entire articles. Starting with your first article:
EVOLUTION: THE CHANGING SCENE


By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/spin-doctor.html

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html

3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-response.html

Gish is not credible. I think the above links show much of Dr Gish's approach. And that's just off one site; Gish-related web-sites fall under two categories: criticisms of Gish's scientific and rhetorical methods (evolutionists), and reaffirmations of how bad Gish kicked some evolutionist's butt in a debate (creationists, namely ICR).

Hey, Caleb, weren't you talking about evil subcultures, swaying of students' minds, and other hostilities committed by evolutionists in the classroom?
Books published throughout the 1920's ignored evolutionary biology. New editions of older volumes deleted the word "evolution" and "Darwin". The overall teaching of evolution declined after 1925. Between 1922 and 1929, forty-six pieces of legislation were aimed at not teaching evolution. Three of those passed, the others were considered unconstitutional (Nelkin 1982: 33).Oh, yeah ... a source. That's helpful: http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

And from that same source, some compelling insight:
Creationists believe that all basic types of living beings, including man, were made by the acts of God during the creation week as explained in the Book of Genesis of the Bible. They argue that the Bible is literal and is an alternative scientific hypothesis. These groups who believe this and who fight for fairness and academic freedom are known as "scientific creationists".

The emergence of this group of individuals are concerned with the morals and values of American society. They feel that belief in evolution results in evil, immoral values, especially in children. Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses say the evolution theory is the reason for worsening of crime, delinquency, immorality, and war. They say that evolution paved the way for increase in agnostic and atheism and was an open door for communism (Nelkin 1982:32). For many Creationists, then, we see that the discrediting of evolution and advancement of Divine Creation Theory carries a greater, more subjective stake. That stake is even better defined a couple of paragraphs later:
The American Scientific Affiliation(ASA), formed in 1941, is an evangelical organization of men and women of science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and to Christian faith. It was formed by five scientists who investigate problems regarding the relation between Christian faith and science. There are over 3,000 members and they believe the evolutionary concepts are misleading and have serious moral and social implications (Nelkin 1987:77). Problems between faith and science: the traditional Christian approach to these problems largely involves reaffirmation of existing faith. Since God cannot be wrong, the scientific theory must be. This sounds like an exaggeration, but it isn't. We're talking about one's faith in God, and the fear of an afterlife.
The Creation Research Society, formed in Michigan in 1963 has an objective of publishing research evidence supporting the thesis that the material universe, including plants, animals, and men are the result of direct creative acts by a personal God. To be a voting member, one must have a postgraduate degree in science and believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Applicants for membership must sign a statement of this belief.The sum problem, then, that we seem to be encountering is that Creationists seek not a valid scientific hypothesis, but rather a supportable hypothesis of immediate concern to numb the frustrations of being unable to justify their larger assumption. By signing the declaration mentioned, a scientist revokes his adherence to the scientific method, assuming certain conclusions that cannot be demonstrated before beginning a field experiment. This is bad science tantamount to marketing research.

And here we find your citation source: Institute for Creation Research--
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), is a research division of Christian Heritage College founded in 1970 and sponsored by the Scott Memorial Baptist Church. In 1972, the church purchased a monastery on 30 acres of land east of San Diego in order to build a parochial high school and college (Nelkin 1982:80).

The college has over 400 undergraduate and graduate students. Most of the courses pertain to the study of Christian evidence and scientific creation. The faculty openly campaigns against evolutionary theory. At appointment of every teacher, they must agree that all things in the universe were created by God in the six days of creation described in the Book of Genesis. Many of the faculty and staff members who work at the schools or the center are related.

The ICR have written over fifty books, produce a monthly magazine, and organize conferences and radio programs. Some of their projects include expeditions in finding geological evidence that supports the theory that the earth is young. The science faculty are all members of the ICR.

The ICR claims to be a nonpolitical, non religious scientific organization. However, the Institute requires a statement of faith from all members on the fixity of created species, the universality of the Flood, and the historical reality of the Genesis creation (Nelkin 1982:80-81). Wow ... they really are that bad of scientists.

Seriously ... ICR, the authors of the material you provide, research selectively and focus only on the evidence they consider helpful to their cause--in other words, don't consider all the evidence at hand. Furthermore, to be part of ICR, one must take an oath declaring faith to Genesis Creationism. This is not a scientific approach to science.

I thought it would be tougher, more tedious. After all, I figured on having to go line-by-line, repeating the litany of what is wrong with the ICR's sense of assumption, but it looks like someone beat me to it.

One last quote, though, from the Hokaj link:
No laws ever passed saying that evolution had to be taught in biology courses. The prestige of evolutionary theory has been built by its impact on the thousands of biologists who learned its power and usefulness in the study of living things (Ruse 1982:109). And also this, from the same link, for comparison:
In 1981, Arkansas and Louisiana passed legislation requiring that creationist account of the origin of life be taught as a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.Even with the force of law behind Creationism, it cannot muster the scientific validity to present itself as a viable scientific theory.

And I'll give y'all a hint: Demonstrate the Creator!

Proper science has no subjective, undemonstrable prerequisites. This is why Creationism is not a science, and why the quest of Creationists to demonstrate scientific credibility--much less equality to evolution--will continue to fail.

--Tiassa :cool:

xvenomousx
07-04-01, 08:41 AM
I would like to present some evidence against creationism and some food for thought.

Correct me if I'm wrong but earth was surposedly created 6000-8000 years ago, and global floods raged 4000 years ago, according to creationist theory.

If this is correct, there should be no trees on earth older than 4000 years. Or to be specific, have no more than 4000 growth rings.

In the White-Inyo mountain range of California there are many trees that are older than 4500 years, one living bristlecone pine tree dates back to 2726 BC, centuries before the date that Christians assign to the global flood.
The patterns in tree rings have been matched with those of dead trees, showing the dead trees to have germinated about 6000 BC, which predates the year 4004 BC by 2 millennia!!!

But there is an even better example, and it sits in the dining room of my family's home. I counted the growth rings on my familiys Kauri dining table, which was cut from a solid slab. No I didn't really count each one but I estimated, it was roughly 5000 rings across. The original tree trunk had well over 7000 growth rings. This tree was NOT living when it was found. This is swamp kauri - in the 1960s the log was found preserved in a swamp where it had lain for over 8000 years!

That tree germinated 15000 years ago, or 13000 BC.

This is not the only example of 15,000+ year old swamp Kauri wood around, there is quite a market for it.

Even if the length of time it was in a swamp is inaccurate the tree itself still predates creation and the great flood.

Thought for the day:
If the universe was created around the times assigned by christians to the creation event, then the tree would have been created dead, and at the bottom of a bog. Why would god create a dead tree?

xvenomousx
07-04-01, 08:59 AM
Some thoughts on the great flood too....
40 days and 40 nights of rain:
If the earth was covered in water deep enough to cover mount arrat (5000 metres or 15,000 feet), rain would have fallen at a rate of 5 metres per hour. That rain would be so heavy that within minutes, a massive
torent of water would be raging off the continents into the oceans more like tsunami than a flood. Stripping all the soil from the land right down to bedrock.
That is such dense rainfall that it would not have fallen steadily but whip up massive vortexes and currents (rather like how a waterfall makes a breeze) this is really the heat and kinetic energy released from the gravitation potential energy of falling rain. This would drive massive storms world wide that could possibly have supersonic wind speeds. The oceans salinity would be diluted such that all salt water marine animal and plant life would die.
After all that where did 1.44x10^9 cubic kilometres of water go?
(note that is the size of a small moon!)

Caleb
07-04-01, 11:37 AM
Some thoughts on the great flood too....

I think you're beginning to get a picture of the scale of this thing! But allow me correct you on a few issues.


If the earth was covered in water deep enough to cover mount arrat (5000 metres or 15,000 feet)...

I'll start by saying a word about the pre-Flood world. It is believed that before the Flood, mountains were substantially lower, and possibly seas were more shallow. It is also believed that rapid continental drift occured during and/or relatively soon after the flood, meaning that before the Flood, the Earth may have been more like "Pangea" or "Gondwanaland." Also, a little known fact is that rain wasn't the only source of water during those 40 days and nights. Underground aquifers (there are believed to have been more of them back then) were bust open, releasing huge amounts of water.

"<i>the same day were all the <i>fountains of the great deep broken up</i>, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
</i>"

These factors (less topography to cover and less of the total water being due to rain) will significantly affect your measurements of rainfall and water volume.


within minutes, a massive torent of water would be raging off the continents into the oceans more like tsunami than a flood.

Maybe not within minutes (or maybe), but that's exactly why this viewpoint is called "Catastrophism"


Stripping all the soil from the land right down to bedrock.

Bingo! And then, as the floodwaters receeded, all these sediments would have been deposited and erroded and lithified. And all while plate tectonics and increased volcano activity was forcing mountains to rise and sea basins to collapse.


this is really the heat and kinetic energy released from the gravitation potential energy of falling rain.

Yes, there was alot of heat and energy left over in the oceans after the flood, increasing evaporation rates. The still-unstable wind patterns carried the majority of the precipitation to the poles, were they created expanding polar caps, leading to an "ice age."


After all that where did 1.44x10^9 cubic kilometres of water go?


Well, I as I said earlier, this number is probably to large. The majority of what was left over either drained of the rising continents into the newly-enlarged ocean basins, or became trapped in the polar ice caps.

================================================== =========

Correct me if I'm wrong but... global floods raged 4000 years ago, according to creationist theory.

Well, technically, at least around 4500, possibly more, which makes your 2726 tree not seem that badly out of date.

Let me put up some quotes from creationists articles regarding sequoia's and bristlecones. The entire articles can be found (and should be read) at:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-134.htm
(1984)
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm
(1994)


When we examine the writings of eminent dendrochronologists, we find that the life span of the giant sequoia is over 3200 years ... with many authorities estimating its age much greater. Richard J. Hartesveldt says, "At this writing," (1975) "3200 years of age is the oldest count on record. The stump count was made by A.E. Douglass, the well known dendrochronologist, before 1920. Some hold to much older figures for the greatest age, and a recent author claims one specimen to be 6000 years old."1 In a previous paragraph he had said, "Schmeckbier (1912) states that sequoias never fail to add an annual ring, a statement later refuted by Gillette (1930) who found missing rings in a large specimen.



Bristlecones grow in other similar areas and were already the focus of much speculation when Schulman arrived on the scene in 1953. A reported 4900-year-old tree in the Snake Ridge region of Nevada was actually discovered to be only 3000 years old. [1] Schulman quickly found a tree in the White Mountains dating back about 4300 years and named it Pine Alpha, the first found anywhere with an absolute date older than 4000 years. [2] During his last season of research the summer of 1957 he discovered "Methuselah," a tree dating back 4600 years. [5] No older tree has been discovered since then, and the Methuselah tree is not marked so as to protect it from souvenir hunters.[4]


~Caleb

Cris
07-04-01, 01:22 PM
Caleb, tiassa, and co,

Here is an interesting link. It will load a JAVA applet. Drag your mouse across the map and see how tectonic plates drifted across the planet surface over the past 200 million years.

Click here to view the animation. (http://www.scotese.com/pangeanim.htm)

The site has a number of other animated maps that cover earlier periods, and others that project into the future.

The research that went into the studies of plate tectonics are far reaching and include independent work from universities across the world. The results shown at the above web site represent just a drop in the ocean. Other research covering the history of the planet is incredibly extensive leaving very little doubt as to the true age of the planet, its features and their development, the creatures that existed millions of years ago and the rise of mankind some several million years ago.

Click here for a family tree of human origins. (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html) Click on elements in the chart for more details. Our ancestors date back some 5 million years and the earliest fossil records of homo sapiens are dated at around 130,000 years ago.

In terms of volume of current scientific knowledge covering the history of the world, creation stories are a minute fraction in comparison, and can only realistically represent a joke. This really leaves any discussion on “Creation Theory?” as irrelevant and largely a waste of time. However, I know tiassa just loves any debate, and it is a pleasure to read his rebuttals. But I really can’t take the subject seriously, and it seems incredulous that apparent intelligent people might even consider that the stories have any truth to them – but then that is the nature of religious thinking – irrationality.

Cris

Tiassa
07-04-01, 02:39 PM
Cris:

Awesome links. I want to cover an expected response from Creationism, which is to point out the big red question marks. Anyone who considers those missing-link question marks to be evidence of a priori in science must necessarily remember that those question marks become the next research goal, whereas the key a priori of Creationism--that is, a Creator--cannot ever elevate itself beyond the status of primary assumption because that Creator cannot be measured, tested, or observed.

* http://www.gly.fsu.edu/~kish/dynamic/review3.htm appear to be notes for Professor Kish's geology class at Florida State University; please note the section on Plate Tectonics:

Plate Tectonics

Alfred Wegener, Pangaea,Gondwanaland, geologic evidence for continental drift, paleomagnetism, Curie point, geomagnetic reversals, magnetic "striping" of the ocean crust, mid-oceanic ridges, oceanic trenches, island arcs, rift zones, hot spots, astenosphere, sea-floor spreading, lithospheric plates, divergent plate boundaries, convergent plate boundaries, transform plate
boundaries, Benioff zones, subduction zones, [be sure to know examples of these features e.g. hot spot -- Hawaiian Islands]; the "driving force" of plate tectonics -- mantle convectionSo I wanted to throw in this link: http://www.sfu.ca/earth-sciences/courses/317/Chap3/3-PastPlateMotions.htm which has a good deal regarding planetary magnetism, magnetic stripes and how those lend evidence toward an older Earth than Creationism allows. This is a remarkable page, especially if you're a beginning physics student at University, but also here for our present debate. This page will be a pain in the ass, though, for a 56k modem.

How important is Pangaea? The following excellent lecture notes are from a 400-level Zoology class, and provide us better insight into the nature of Pangaea (Univ. of British Columbia, I believe.) http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~etaylor/413www/contin_drift.html
The basaltic rocks of the ocean floor contain large amounts of the magnetic mineral, magnetite. Through the use of "magnetometers", geologists are able to measure the magnetic polarity of rock bearing magnetic material (including continental rock formations). "Normal" polarity means that the polarity of the magnetite is the same as the current day earth’s magnetic field (i.e. the magnetite crystals act like tiny magnets that whole poles line up in a North-South orientation). "Reversed" polarity means the poles of the magnetite are opposite to that of the earth today (i.e. South lines up with the earth’s magnetic North). Reversals in the polarity of the earth’s magnetic field are a natural, if not completely understood, phenomenon, that take place (on average every million years or so). These polar reversals are revealed because as molten rock (magma) cools, the orientation of the magnetite is "locked in" as the rock solidifies. Mapping of the ocean floor demonstrated that: (a) there were regular patterns of alternating polarity in the rock as one moved out from the oceanic ridges, (b) the alternating patterns were symmetrical on either side of the ridges, and (c) that the age of different strips increased as one moved away from the ridge crestsBottom line: I think magnetic striping is an excellent bit of evidence pertaining to the age of the earth. Pangaea's clocked at 280 ma. It would seem that to accelerate seafloor spreading to any rate acceptable to Creationist time-frames would destroy most theories of physics with such widespread implications. Since physics describes something so fundamental in the Universe, we could expect different performance results from observational experimentation, and it wouldn't have taken World Wars to wipe out carrier pigeons: they would have starved trying to find their way. This page, too, will be a pain in the ass for a dial-up connection.
This really leaves any discussion on “Creation Theory?” as irrelevant and largely a waste of time. However, I know tiassa just loves any debate, and it is a pleasure to read his rebuttals. But I really can’t take the subject seriously, and it seems incredulous that apparent intelligent people might even consider that the stories have any truth to them – but then that is the nature of religious thinking – irrationality.An excellent insight. In fact, one I can offer a little perspective on, if'n y'all don't mind.
*The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation. *http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html

I've posted this link before. But this is essentially the key to it. On the surface, I could care less what people believe. In the end, whatever helps you be a positive factor in life. However, Creationism fits in with a religious paradigm that, as I have countlessly asserted here, poses in its historical and modern forms a detriment to humanity. I still maintain that the potential for a positive mass impact exists, but there is no evidence that it is coming to be anytime soon. So the problem becomes this:

* That if we should treat Creationism as science and award it the respect a science deserves in a science classroom, we shall be educating children with undemonstrable facts, lending credibility to the decision-making processes based on affinity and paradigm instead of one based on observable considerations and factors. It leads to a mentality whereby people feel compelled to demand political accommodation for their personal affinities, and suddenly the educating of the young--that is, the preparation of the future of humanity--becomes subject to superstitious politics. Creationism must either provide scientific merit for its Creator, or else back off and let society progress for once. It may be a Creationist's right to believe in the Divine Creation, but it is not any person's right to impose superstition as science and thus drag the world back into the intellectual flatline that seems to foster warfare for lack of anything better. Creationism undemonstrated poses a long-term threat to the survival capabilities of humanity on Earth. And here I want to note that Christianity--the driving force of Creationism--has no dedication to the survival of humanity on Earth: they are waiting for God to come down and put an end to all of this living silliness. Hello? Why don't we educate students to rush headlong toward the abyss of mortal death? That's what you're asking when you demand equity of superstition to science.

To be honest, though, I've found that as long as you let Creationists run off at the mouth, they injure their own position. Take Caleb and I: on the one hand, we're talking about the notion of "Creation Science", yet repeated links to back that alleged science decry, deny, or belie the scientific aspirations of Creationism. The NAS document (cited yet again, in this posting) is not a political declaration against Creationism. That conclusion page merely restates the nature of science and why Creationism is of a different nature. Yet even when presented with this, the simplest of explanations regarding why an idea is or isn't science, Creationists continue to assert their, uh, creative science ... whereby a priori declarations need no sustaining evidence or further investigation. I love reading those PhD's decrying the actual scientific process, but that's the problem with basing your theory on archaic, fixed assumptions. No amount of data can reshape the working hypothesis. And that's why the experiment fails.

Thanx much for the links, though, Cris. I hope those I've provided can be of some value, as well. Sorry to ramble on; originally I was just after magnetic striping. Have yourself a kind, sunny day. Happy Boom-Boom Day, God save the Flag (don't Americans sing "God Save the Queen" for something? I can't remember what; shows you the state of my patriotism, I suppose ...) and all the wonderful jazz that comes with a hot summer day on which you're supposed to blow things up. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Cris
07-04-01, 05:11 PM
Hi tiassa,

Thanks for your comments. Actually I was looking for references to the plants and animals that had appeared to be indigenous to both Brazil and western Africa and which could only be explained if both the continents were at one time connected. I believe it was those discoveries that sparked off much of the early investigations into plate tectonics. Instead I found the animations site – oh well, good enough I think.

I didn’t see the missing link issue as a problem. The links between Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens are accepted. This shows that Homo sapiens evolved from lower and earlier forms, and that is sufficient to debunk the creationist view that we were created as an individual and special species. And that whole link series goes back 1.9 million years, and Homo sapiens fossils goes back 130,000 years, all of which destroys the 4000-6000 years of creationist nonsense for a creation event. But even the missing links should not present a problem for the theory, it is much like a jigsaw puzzle where we can see most of the picture and have all the borders, but some of the pieces have been dropped on the floor, so we have a short delay while we find them. But we know what the pieces must look like.

I also tried to see if there are any creationist groups in Europe and the UK, but my search engines didn’t find anything. And with all my years living in the UK I have never come across such a pressure group. It looks like this idiosyncrasy of religious obstinacy is a purely USA aberration. I read your link that described much of the creationist’s background and their attempts to pervert the teaching of science in schools – holy cow what a mess. It is again another evil perpetrated by Christianity that so many children have left the US school system without a strong basic understanding of one of the most important and fundamental scientific theories in the history of mankind. The teachings appear to have been omitted altogether or have been severely diluted. Unforgivable. When oh when will we be rid of this parasitic regime?

I’ve included a couple of quotes below that I encountered during my searches. They are not entirely relevant to the subject but I thought you might enjoy them anyway.

A possible definition of Christianity-
An idea is able to gain and retain the aura of essential truth through telling and retelling. This process endows a cherished notion with more veracity than a library of facts. Documentation plays only a small role in contrast to the act of re-conformation by each generation of scholars. In addition, the further removed one gets from the period in question, the greater is the strength of the conviction. Initial incredulousness is soon converted into belief in a probability and eventually smug assurance.
- W. Arens, The Man-Eating Myth[/b]

And a way to escape the shackles of religious indoctrination –
...when we had finished [our bedtime prayers] I climbed on father's chair to kiss him good night. He asked quizzically, "What was that you were saying about bread?"
"Why, that was in the Lord's Prayer, 'Give us this day our daily bread'"
"Who were you talking to?"
"To God."
"Is God a baker?"
I was shocked. Nevertheless, I rallied to the attack and replied as best I could... "No, of course not. It means the rain, the sunshine, and all the things to make the wheat, which makes the bread."
"Well, well," he replied, "so that's the idea. Then why don't you say so? Always say what you mean, my daughter, it is much better."
Thereafter I began to question what I had previously taken for granted and to reason for myself. It was not pleasant, but father had taught me to think...
- Margaret Sanger
Click here to read a story of one very courageous free thinking woman (http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Sanger/Information.html)


And I wish you a happy noisy evening as well.
Cris

Cris
07-04-01, 05:44 PM
tiassa,

Awright - just finished reading your zoology link - that was what I was looking for earlier. Thanks.

Cris

Sir. Loone
07-05-01, 07:06 PM
No contest! Evolution is only a 'theory', Creation is a fact that has to be caught up on by scientist that are feed up with the googolplex peacing together of life origins!:D GOD WORD is triumphant!
You shell soon see!:D

Tiassa
07-05-01, 07:07 PM
Didn't think so.

H-kon
07-06-01, 06:19 AM
This question simply cannot be answered until we can define what or who God is.

I have a theory though, but it is kinda wild although simple.

Cris
07-06-01, 09:50 AM
Loone,


No contest! Evolution is only a 'theory'

A formal scientific theory has significant evidence for its support. For example the existence of the atom is also only a theory, but based on that theory an atomic bomb managed to kill many thousands of people. That is real. Scientists call this a credible theory. Evolution theory is viewed in the same light.

In comparison, your God does not qualify even as a theory, since the concept of his existence resides purely in the imaginations of people like yourself. For him to obtain even a tiny fraction of any credible support compared to evolution then you must be able to show at least that fraction as believable evidence.

No one in the entire history of mankind has managed to provide any scrap of credible evidence to show that a god exists. Since the whole of creation ‘theory’ (a misuse of the word) rests on the existence of a god and since even this basic requirement has no supporting evidence then the entire creation concept has similarly zero credibility.

Cris

Sir. Loone
07-08-01, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by tiassa
Didn't think so. Don't think so Tiassa? Well Evolution is only theory and has many flaws and will through out your life time and the kid's kids, have had will have seen many many changes! It's still a theory!

The Word of GOD is true! And Science has a long way to catch upon many of it's truths! Many already have been found to be true!

Sir. Loone
07-08-01, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Cris
Loone,



A formal scientific theory has significant evidence for its support. For example the existence of the atom is also only a theory, but based on that theory an atomic bomb managed to kill many thousands of people. That is real. Scientists call this a credible theory. Evolution theory is viewed in the same light.

In comparison, your God does not qualify even as a theory, since the concept of his existence resides purely in the imaginations of people like yourself. For him to obtain even a tiny fraction of any credible support compared to evolution then you must be able to show at least that fraction as believable evidence.

No one in the entire history of mankind has managed to provide any scrap of credible evidence to show that a god exists. Since the whole of creation ‘theory’ (a misuse of the word) rests on the existence of a god and since even this basic requirement has no supporting evidence then the entire creation concept has similarly zero credibility.

Cris
Cris; The atom bomb is fact not theory, and the atom theory was then fact when it was split and used in as a weapon, and many died fact but there is a difference from solid facts from theory!
Evolution is only theory and has a long long way to go to be fact!

God exist! He's far above time and space and mere science can not even touch Him! But His creation, [the whole universe] Man can ponder at! And see the fingerprints of God [so to say]!:cool:

Porfiry
07-08-01, 06:20 PM
The atom bomb is fact not theory, and the atom theory was then fact when it was split and used in as a weapon, and many died fact but there is a difference from solid facts from theory!
Evolution is only theory and has a long long way to go to be fact!

The rise of new strains of bacteria (eg. antibiotic resitant strains and species) has been well studied, documented, and analyzed over the past 100 years. The emergence of previously nonexistant organisms has been confirmed on the genetic level.

This shows that the biological (genetic) composition of the world is not the same as it was 100 years ago. This is a fact among many that makes evolution a credible theory, just as the atom bomb makes the atomic physics a credible theory. Indeed, the measurable impact of ever-changing organisms (in the arbitrary and rather silly quantity of human lives) is likely greater than that of the atomic bomb.

Cris
07-08-01, 07:42 PM
Loone,


The atom bomb is fact not theory, and the atom theory was then fact when it was split and used in as a weapon, and many died fact but there is a difference from solid facts from theory! When an event occurs and is clearly observable then there can be little doubt that it is fact – i.e. there is considerable proof. It is such proofs that establish a fact.

Atomic theory is still very current and represents the leading edge of physics research. The discovery of more subatomic particles and their behavior forms the basis for most of this work, together with behavior of the atom itself – e.g. wave theory. Much of the structure of the atom has now been established but much more is still under investigation. As the atomic structure is studied more knowledge is gained which enables further theories to be developed. In other words we do not yet have the full story of the nature of the atom, i.e. it is not yet fact, it is still at the theoretical stage.

The physicists during WWII did not have full knowledge of the nature of the atom; they worked purely on theory. But the theory was sufficiently well established for them to create a practical use. At that time quarks, and other subatomic particles were unknown, but that didn’t prevent scientists using the available evidence.

In a similar manner Evolution theory is also not yet complete, and is also not officially fully fact. But much of the theory has been well defined and significant research has shown that reality fits the theory in numerous cases. Like atomic theory we know more about the Evolutionary process than we do not. This substantial quantity of evidence is sufficient for us to proceed as if Evolution is fact, as we do with the atom (and as you have done with your understandable erroneous assumption). Those scientists who built the atomic bomb took the same approach – they didn’t know everything but they knew enough.

The evolutionary process is sufficiently well established and defined that it makes little sense to ignore the research and propose radically different and conflicting hypotheses. Rather, we need to accept what has been demonstrated as true and move on with other more important matters. Even the Pope has accepted this obvious scenario.


Evolution is only theory and has a long long way to go to be fact! We disagree only in the degree of the remaining work to be completed.


God exist!There is still no evidence for this claim. At best we can only conclude that such an hypothesis has as yet no evidential support.


He's far above time and space and mere science can not even touch Him! If science cannot touch him then neither you nor anyone else can make any claims to his existence or his nature and abilities.

Everything we know on this planet and throughout the history of mankind has been established by science. The entire purpose of science is to establish knowledge. While we currently use formal processes that have clearly not been available throughout history, nevertheless, scientific processes have been unwittingly used throughout time, although they were certainly not as efficient as they are today. Those that were able to reason were able to detect that some events always occurred after a given cause. This ability to observe and reason formed the early basis for modern scientific principles.

But if your god is undetectable by science, which is clearly the current situation, and which you assert (he is above science) then you do not have any other alternative means to show that he exists or has any particular abilities. Without any such scientific evidence your claims are vacuous, i.e. they have no credible support.


But His creation, [the whole universe] Man can ponder at! And see the fingerprints of God [so to say]! Just more vacuous unsupportable claims.

However, have fun whenever you can.
Cris

Sir. Loone
07-09-01, 06:42 PM
Cris:

Well the atom may have some facts of it's nature and existence and others that are still unknown about them is still theory, science at least know that it is real pliable. Evolution is still mostly theory and is in constant change. Some whole theories have been thrown out since the 1800's and 1900's, some even laughable, some was a total shame; something about a pigs tooth was found and they have said that they have, and can reconstruct a 'missing-link' from a single tooth. And other missing -links where found to be just some extinct form of an ape, not of Mankind. The 'Arptioptorics ? or dinosaur bird thought evolved from dinosaurs was later found out to be older then the dinosaurs. And there are many more changes that I can't list, and I got to find that web site that shows most of the errors and mistakes made in interpreting the fossil record. Still say they are mostly theories of the fossil record and we will see many changes and revisions through out our lives.

And Cris, I can touch Him in the Spirit of GOD in side of me! Because in Jesus Christ, all things are posible to those who believeth on Him! And you can to if you only believe with your heart and confess with your mouth, and even you or any of you can see the light!:)

Tiassa
07-09-01, 07:10 PM
Evolution is still mostly theory and is in constant change. Some whole theories have been thrown out since the 1800's and 1900's, some even laughable, some was a total shame;Loone, you have just described a good number of sciences. Should we distress that chemistry found much of its basis in the odd quest to change lead into gold? That Bohr was breaking a clod of dirt, and not an atom, in his hand when he developed his atomic model is grounds enough to discredit it? It seems to me that what you're decrying here is the scientific process; yes, some theories are laughable when you see the result. But read up on the properties of the aether in between worlds, from the last couple of centuries. Or the old humors of the body. Even the most superstitious sciences reflect observable reality: consider the four elements of nature.

Consider the audience you approach. These are objective minds requesting and requiring objective demonstration of assertions. If your commission in any way includes bringing these people to God--since, after all, they're all unfit sinners by your reckoning--it would seem that you have an obligation to figure out how to communicate to that audience. This concession is not unheard of in the Christian realm. Concessions to paganism compel Christians to believe that Christ was born on December 25th, and accounting for the astronomical concept of precession, that places it squarely on the Yule some 1600-2000 years ago. (Precession indicates that we "gain" a day approximately every four-hundred years, as marked by the advancing of the solstices and equinoxes toward the earlier portion of the calendar.) Thus, it seems convenient that Christ is born on the pagan Yule, and even moreso to consider that Christ's birthday has some historical troubles, even in those early days. In fact, what just cracks me up is that a celestial event did, according to astronomers, occur in the sky in such a location that it could have appeared to be over Bethlehem; unfortunately this event occurred somewhere around July 2 of that year, and did not persist into the winter. Easter? Hey, there' s a few problems with that. Roving calendars are part of what early Christians criticized of the Jews in Rome. Yet here is Easter as unfixed as it can be. So why these concessions? Because, perhaps, it was easier to work one myth into another in order to accommodate the stresses of the pagan targets and to demonstrate that the gods were one and the same? Did it work? It seems to have worked, but social science has yet to draw that conclusion because it's hard to pick social data out of the economic data of that many swords and broken bodies given to the glory of God.

The saddest thing is that if you started building an objective basis for Christian faith, by the time you got around to the existence of God, it would, as in Sufism, be a moot question.

--Tiassa :cool:

Sir. Loone
07-09-01, 07:48 PM
Tiassa:

Talking about the 'theory' of 'evolution' and that it has many theories thrown out and some even make a flip flop in fossil records that at many times makes less and less since! That is things don't always run or fit together the way science would have the fossil record to run. And so many quantum leaps and bounds and missing peaces, still putting the wrong head on the wrong animal or person can be confusing peacing this colossal jigsaw puzzle, will often run into many a 'train wreak' and rearrangements to satisfy someone's theorems. Theories in the making and have an awful long way to go to be solid facts of history.

What are you listening to? Rap music?:)

Tiassa
07-10-01, 01:56 AM
Just got back from seeing Wellwater Conspiracy, since you asked. Nonetheless, that changes not the fact that what you are decrying is the scientific process itself. It's better to believe, apparently, that a book tells you that it tells you everything you need to know, than to find out what's actually there.

Were you born knowing everything you know about the world now?

--Tiassa :cool:

Sir. Loone
07-10-01, 07:03 PM
Tiassa:

Evolution is still and only theories and not all facts, mostly guess work. Could be many generations before it to be really found to be fact!

The Devil have deceived you! You know not all there is, but God does!:D

Cris
07-10-01, 09:36 PM
Loone,


Evolution is still and only theories and not all facts, mostly guess work.

I will re-write highlighting the key phrases –

Evolution
is still and only theories
and not all facts
mostly guess work

You have stated ‘not all facts’. The phrase ‘not all’ can be replaced by the logical construct ‘some’. You are agreeing that ‘some’ of evolution is factual.

But you also say ‘still and only theories’. This is a direct contradiction to your ‘and not all facts’ clause. If something is ‘only theories’ then it cannot be anything else, i.e. there cannot also be some facts. These two clauses cancel each other.

But you have also stated ‘mostly guess work’. ‘Mostly guesswork’ implies ‘not all guesswork’ which as we have shown is the same as ‘some guesswork’. If not all the work has been guesswork then some must be the opposite of ‘some guesswork’, which is ‘some facts’.

But that again contradicts with your first clause of ‘only theories’, so we must also eliminate ‘mostly guesswork’. We can now re-write your sentence without the paradoxical clauses to obtain –

Evolution.

With your very confused mind you have effectively said nothing whatsoever about the subject.

Cris

Cris
07-10-01, 09:42 PM
Loone,


Could be many generations before it to be really found to be fact!Thanks Loone. That really is the end of the debate. I’ll wait the few generations for it to be fact. Since you have admitted that it will just be a matter of time before it is fully fact then that must also mean that the creation story must be false.

Cris

Caleb
07-11-01, 09:23 AM
I am surprised by how often secular scientific "discoveries" inadvertantly agree with creationism.

For example, some of you may have seen the recent "Nightline" article on ABC, wherein an archeologist discovered that these ancient "cavemen" didn't really go around in bear skins spearing mammoths, but actually wove their own clothes! These "primitive" people turn out to be more intelligent than scientists had originally thought. I had known that all along, since they were descendants of Noah and his son's, and they were obviously smart enough (with God's help) to design this really huge boat (although it did take them 120 yrs to do it -- no automated machinery, you know :) )

Another example is Neanderthals. Most scientists use to consider them missing links, while Creationists have always said that they were merely a divergent race of humans. According to Scientific American, even though some scientists still see Neanderthals as seperate, a growing number of them are coming to their senses and realizing that Neanderthals were just a variant of humans, subject to genetic drift from living in an isolated group. They've even uncovered a "Human-Neanderthal hybrid" child's skeleton, that supposedly lived "thousands of years" after the traditional disappearence of Neanderthals, yet another fact that screws up their previous theories.

Take the Archeopteryx. It use to be thought that it was a transitional form. Now most scientists consider it the first "true" bird. However, more "recent" (in terms of the Geological Column) discoveries have found dinosaurs in China that that they think are more transitional. Of course one of these turned out to be a hoax in the National Geographic. Others are likely displaying (according to an evolutionist) nothing more then tendons and tissue fibers, not fethers, since they're not at all like modern feathers. But some scientists think they are the "first (ie primitive) feathers" Only problem is, the Archeopteryx (which has fully formed feathers) supposedly came millions of years before them. ?!?!? Yet the evolutionists still think the later fossils are showing the first feathers :confused: I also think that I've heard other reports of even more bird-like fossils from before Archeopteryx (let me look that one up). It would appear from the evidence, then, that the dromeasaurs evolved from birds, not the other way around!!!!!:D I even read about at least one scientist who's proposing that. Another scientist believes that birds and dinosaurs evolved seperately, but that tdinosaurs start to look similar to birds by "convergent evolution" even though they're not related.

These kinds of stories go on and on.

~Caleb

Tiassa
07-11-01, 10:24 AM
Cris:
With your very confused mind you have effectively said nothing whatsoever about the subject.I thought it worth sticking my nose in long enough to point out a growing, nearly slayer irony. Loone has never said much about any subject. I recall, once, in one of my Believeth threads, I finally had to ask Tony1 if he had a point relevant to the topic, whereupon he admitted that no, he didn't, and proceeded in the digression, though at that point the digression was the primary theme of the running thread. I look at Loone almost the same way. He has nothing to say that qualifies as objective, and thus finds his best expressions in the form of his To God be the Glory topic, whereby he merely regurgitates sound-bite theology without any sense of concordance or index. If you look at the God is Scientifically Real debate, you'll be hard-pressed to find any science in Loone's advocacy of God's scientific reality. This is, in fact, different from the science question relating to Creationism; for instance, Caleb and I merely have to settle the issue of "Creation Science" before we can make progress there; whether or not something can be a science if it rests wholly in undemonstrable assumptions seems to me a clear-cut issue, but there remains some finer distinction to illuminate before the point is communicated--aside from those assumptons, Caleb is working hard to assemble and move through the data. (Filters acknowledged universally.)

But such an effort is absent in Loone's post. One wonders if he ever says anything about anything. To the one hand, preaching and embarrassing yourself that way is just fine if you declare an unresolvable topic of affinity, such as the To God be the Glory thread. What can be said there, except, It's nice you believe that, Honey ... would you like a cookie?

Examining Loone's performance in various topics, it seems he is unable to emerge from the realm of purely subjective, internal theology. He is so obsessed with his theology that its goal (salvation) has, perhaps, obscured his ability to learn new things. Something about the nature of his faith declarations strikes me as ... well, creepy seems to be the word that comes to mind most often. Kind of an American Gothic on cheap MDMA, or something. The Addams Family Florists? Argh ....

But all of this comes down to one simple observation: Loone says very little about anything unless the topic is having nothing important to say. Perhaps this is a natural result of the theology he's applying. Who knows? Perhaps we should take up a relief fund for him.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
07-12-01, 10:32 AM
...aside from those assumptons, Caleb is working hard to assemble and move through the data.

Um... Thanks... I think. :)

~Caleb

Cris
07-12-01, 11:33 AM
Caleb,

I agree with tiassa. While I disagree with your conclusions you are indeed debating based on, at least, perceived evidence.

Cris

Sir. Loone
07-12-01, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Cris
Loone,

Thanks Loone. That really is the end of the debate. I’ll wait the few generations for it to be fact. Since you have admitted that it will just be a matter of time before it is fully fact then that must also mean that the creation story must be false.

Cris

Cris: It is not the end of the debate, realistically, and when they think they have come to an conclusion about it, something else will be found wrong with there theories, and may come closer to the truth, that there was a Supreme Intelligence behind creation, by then if not sooner, Jesus would return and the truth will be before all to see!:D

Well it's not over till it's over Cris!:)

Sir. Loone
07-12-01, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by tiassa
Cris:I thought it worth sticking my nose in long enough to point out a growing, nearly slayer irony. Loone has never said much about any subject. I recall, once, in one of my Believeth threads, I finally had to ask Tony1 if he had a point relevant to the topic, whereupon he admitted that no, he didn't, and proceeded in the digression, though at that point the digression was the primary theme of the running thread. I look at Loone almost the same way. He has nothing to say that qualifies as objective, and thus finds his best expressions in the form of his To God be the Glory topic, whereby he merely regurgitates sound-bite theology without any sense of concordance or index. If you look at the God is Scientifically Real debate, you'll be hard-pressed to find any science in Loone's advocacy of God's scientific reality. This is, in fact, different from the science question relating to Creationism; for instance, Caleb and I merely have to settle the issue of "Creation Science" before we can make progress there; whether or not something can be a science if it rests wholly in undemonstrable assumptions seems to me a clear-cut issue, but there remains some finer distinction to illuminate before the point is communicated--aside from those assumptons, Caleb is working hard to assemble and move through the data. (Filters acknowledged universally.)

But such an effort is absent in Loone's post. One wonders if he ever says anything about anything. To the one hand, preaching and embarrassing yourself that way is just fine if you declare an unresolvable topic of affinity, such as the To God be the Glory thread. What can be said there, except, It's nice you believe that, Honey ... would you like a cookie?

Examining Loone's performance in various topics, it seems he is unable to emerge from the realm of purely subjective, internal theology. He is so obsessed with his theology that its goal (salvation) has, perhaps, obscured his ability to learn new things. Something about the nature of his faith declarations strikes me as ... well, creepy seems to be the word that comes to mind most often. Kind of an American Gothic on cheap MDMA, or something. The Addams Family Florists? Argh ....

But all of this comes down to one simple observation: Loone says very little about anything unless the topic is having nothing important to say. Perhaps this is a natural result of the theology he's applying. Who knows? Perhaps we should take up a relief fund for him.

thanx, GOD
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, there is nothing but Satanic rhetoric about the truth, and that even some scientist really believe that the Darwinian theory is just a theory and to have faith in it, is like unto some obscure religion of humanism! :o :)
The truth is in GOD's Word, and science will be ever pondering the natural, but everything that exist does have that supernatural connection, - It's GOD the Almighty's creation!

Tiassa: "Woe to those who are wise in there own eyes, and clever in there own sight." (Isaiah 5:21) NIV

The truth shell ultimitley triumph over thy lies!
Drugs and deception kills!:eek: :)

Cris
07-12-01, 07:44 PM
Loone,


Cris: It is not the end of the debate Aw shucks, I really thought you had agreed that proof for evolution was inevitable. I am very surprised that you have changed your mind.


… when they think they have come to an conclusion about it, something else will be found wrong with there theories… Ah, I see, you have become a prophet now, or are you a clairvoyant? You now claim to be able to see the future, or do you just use your private line to ummm, whatsisname; sorry I’ve forgotten whom you talk about so much. Don’t worry it’ll come back to me soon.


Well it's not over till it's over Cris!:) Mmm, I see you have been delving into some philosophy books. Very impressive.

Cris.

PS. Try not to forget your medication again, I think you must have forgotten today.

Tiassa
07-13-01, 01:40 AM
there is nothing but Satanic rhetoric about the truthYou're making even less sense than usual.

Hang on ... hang on.
The truth is in GOD's WordOkay. We're going to take your assertions and construct what is called a syllogism. Just so we're clear on what that is, here's the definition from http://www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster):
1 : a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion (as in "every virtue is laudable; kindness is a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable")For your ammunition, there are three definitions listed, including subtle and crafty argument and deductive reasoning. There is nothing subtle about this particular syllogism, though, because the difficulty you've encountered making yourself clear is naked. However ... and this is what you have created by your very own arguments:

* If there is nothing but Satanic rhetoric about the truth,

AND

* If The truth is inGOD's Word,

THEN

* There is nothing about GOD's Word but Satanic rhetoric.Do you even remember what you're arguing for? The contradiction will keep me smiling for days.

thanx much for the grins,
Tiassa :cool:

dan1123
07-13-01, 03:57 PM
I really hate evolution/creation debates because each side has it so wrong and they are so set in whatever their beliefs are that they won't budge no matter what. But everyone seems to want to have their say in this so I'm not going to be left out.

The real problem I have with the majority of the proponents of evolution is that they have far more of a political agenda than a scientific one. The political agenda makes it so that the two aren't looked at for their factual merits and everyone holds such extreme stances that science and logic are pushed out of the way.

Creationist extreme stance: The earth must be X-thousand years old because the Bible says it was created in six days and everything had to come after that--everything else is explained with "God can do anything" no matter how illogical that would be.

Evolutionist extreme stance: All aspects of life have to be able to be explained through a random ordering impersonal process, no matter how complex the system or how strange or illogical the outcome actually is.

<b><i>Think people!</i></b> None of you understand your basis (creationists don't understand the Bible and Evolutionists don't understand the process of life at a mechanical level) so don't be high and mighty in your stances.

And <I>NO ONE</I> should be shoving your ideas down children's throats in public school. That is particularly to you extremist evolutionists.

Tiassa
07-13-01, 06:02 PM
Whatever you say.
None of you understand your basis (creationists don't understand the Bible and Evolutionists don't understand the process of life at a mechanical level) so don't be high and mighty in your stances. On the one hand, Evolution is a continuing scientific investigation. To the other, the Bible is pretty much set in stone. This leads to another point of yours:
And NO ONE should be shoving your ideas down children's throats in public school. That is particularly to you extremist evolutionists.I was wondering if you took the time to read any of the links offered by the posters in this thread. I, myself, have repeatedly offered the simplest possible explanation of the difference between evoluton and Creationism as relates to public schools. Evolution can be taught as a science. Now, I'm all happy to include Biblical Creationism in schools as part of the social studies course alongside similar myths from other cultures, including Buddhism, Native American shamanism, and so forth. Go for it. Give the Bible its equality alongside the other religions who don't mind not being preached in the schools. If this is unacceptable to Christians--as it is to some--then there's not much to be done to satisfy them. The simple explanation I've offered is in the form of a link to the National Academy of Sciences, on the occasion that this subject was undertaken. As noted by NAS, Creationism is not a science, and thus should not be taught as one. In the public schools, this is actually the issue. Creationists seem to desire that Creationism be given equal scientific credibility alongside evolution. This should not be, for Creationism is not a science for the very simple reason that its most critical foundations are untestable and undemonstrable. As soon as a Creationist shows demonstrable proof of God itself, we can start treating Creationism as a science. Scientific credibility for an untested, untestable thesis is the issue, and if you think believers in evolution are "shoving ideas down children's throats", perhaps you'd better think again.

What good are we going to do humanity by dismantling the scientific process? For this is essentially what Creationists ask: a redefinition of a word in order to legitimize a conclusion accepted a priori with no means of demonstration.

The center of the Creation/Evolution debate centers around scientific credibility. It seems many people are willing to accept Creationism in schools, but not by the terms the Creationists demand, because that would undermine the rest of scientific education.

It seems to me that Creationists ought to stop demanding that children be taught as a science the myths of one religion.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

dan1123
07-13-01, 10:15 PM
The things I don't want being taught in schools is junk science motivated by a political cause. Plenty teachers taken in by environmentalist nuts have shoved on children false ideas about how our planet is going to die and it's all our fault. And the focus is so much on measuring acid rain or seeing how much garbage is on a beach or endangered species, that a lot of good science gets glossed over. Meanwhile you have another group wanting to teach unfounded theories that everything came from a single celled ancient creature that arose from the prebiotic soup that focuses on life being so simple it could organize itself instead of teaching all the complexities that make an organism work. Instead of looking at the fossil record objectively, stuff like the Cambrian Explosion is swept aside as something that doesn't mesh with what evolutionists want to believe. Many fossils were hidden away in the Smithsonian because they showed life coming about much more swiftly that one scientist desired so that it would fit his preconceived notion about evolution.

We should teach what we do know, and with a philosophy that considers us amazing, complex, and special organisms--not just a speck in a vast universe of other specks. I don't want alien theory SETI garbage taught (an offshoot of evolutionary theory), which is so unlikely that it might as well be impossible to find another planet that is even habitable for humans or any life whatsoever (without massive technology).

What <B><I>you</I></B> should be worried about is the fact that so much pseudoscience is taught and shown in the media, that there has been a jump in supersticious belief in America in the last ten years. I'm talking about energy crystals, ghosts, etc. that any person who had any scientific background could see are just rouses or outright false.

Don't go so much out for your beliefs that the truth escapes you--as is currently happening. Be on guard.

xvenomousx
07-15-01, 08:01 AM
I agree with your statement that there is a lot of good science out there that gets glossed over.

Evolutionists agree that for 2 billlion years all that existed was basic anerobic bacteria, then came photosynthesising plants, only in the last 500 million years has life crawled onto land. Quite suddenly. But this is no scientific mystery, its only since then that the earth has become more geologically stable, and life has managed to stablise the ecosystem.
Evolution is not unfounded, it is very highly proven. I'd like to see anyone come up with any scientific evidence to suggest the universe was created as it is 6000 years ago. Something that points to the universe being that age not things matching references in text.


Originally posted by dan1123
The things I don't want being taught in schools is junk science motivated by a political cause. Plenty teachers taken in by environmentalist nuts have shoved on children false ideas about how our planet is going to die and it's all our fault. And the focus is so much on measuring acid rain or seeing how much garbage is on a beach or endangered species, that a lot of good science gets glossed over. Meanwhile you have another group wanting to teach unfounded theories that everything came from a single celled ancient creature that arose from the prebiotic soup that focuses on life being so simple it could organize itself instead of teaching all the complexities that make an organism work. Instead of looking at the fossil record objectively, stuff like the Cambrian Explosion is swept aside as something that doesn't mesh with what evolutionists want to believe. Many fossils were hidden away in the Smithsonian because they showed life coming about much more swiftly that one scientist desired so that it would fit his preconceived notion about evolution.


Well there are lots of anomalous fossils, just like the ones surposedly hidden away at the Smithsonian. Discoverys such as the coalaceth fish, which is almost identical to fossils many millions of years old. Which at first would seem to disprove evolution, so would the Tuatara and other such "living" fossils. But only to people who take what they read literally :}



We should teach what we do know, and with a philosophy that considers us amazing, complex, and special organisms--not just a speck in a vast universe of other specks. I don't want alien theory SETI garbage taught (an offshoot of evolutionary theory), which is so unlikely that it might as well be impossible to find another planet that is even habitable for humans or any life whatsoever (without massive technology).


Alien theory has nothing to do with evolution theory. Before you go slamming the possiblity of extraterrestrial life consider, we also used to think earth is the centre of the universe.

Amazing, complex, special organisms, compared to what? We are somewhat less complex than many organisms on earth, our bodies are certainly weak and vunerable without our technology. We are certainly not as wonderfull as we could be. Soon (In 20 years) we'll have computers more complex than our own brains.

Well we are specs in a ridiculously huge universe that is impossible for the mind to comprehend (small minds are worse off it seems). There is zero evidence that life can't exist else where in the universe, and there is nothing about the universe that suggests it either.
For example if life COULDN'T exist on its own without the hand of some almighty god, then life wouldn't work without some magical unknown factor. Which has never been discovered.



What <B><I>you</I></B> should be worried about is the fact that so much pseudoscience is taught and shown in the media, that there has been a jump in supersticious belief in America in the last ten years. I'm talking about energy crystals, ghosts, etc. that any person who had any scientific background could see are just rouses or outright false.

Don't go so much out for your beliefs that the truth escapes you--as is currently happening. Be on guard.

Yes there has been a jump in superstitious crap in america the last years, and some states aren't allowed to teach evolution in schools. I'd consider Creation is psuedoscience. They actually teach creation theory as a scientific theory in some school, which is perversion of science and what it stands for.
America is the only country this happens in, the only country to have any legislation relating to the CENSORING of education in schools.
I'm sorry, I don't see energy crystals and ghosts being any different than crosses and the great flood.

xvenomousx
07-15-01, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by dan1123

And <I>NO ONE</I> should be shoving your ideas down children's throats in public school. That is particularly to you extremist evolutionists.

This disturbs me. You've labeled valid scientific theory as a belief, and implied that evolutionists treat what they know as a belief. Yes there are extremist evolutionists, but they are only provoked by extremist creationists. Mostly normal people of learning who when provoked in chatrooms have a few laughs debunking creationist zealots, then carry on with their lives.
Should we also not shove Physics and Algebra down children's throats in public school?
At no time, in any science class anywhere are children forced or coerced to believe evolution, at no time are they scaremongered with threats of going to hell after they die. Instead they are told its a theory, as all things are in science, as science is not about shoving ideas down peoples throats like religion is.

dan1123
07-15-01, 03:20 PM
Yes there are extremist evolutionists, but they are only provoked by extremist creationists.


Watch me laugh: HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Darwin <i><b>invented</b></i> evolution out of his hatred for Christianity. And the <i>philosophy</i> of evolution (which is what I've been talking about from the beginning) has been used to justify and promote slavery and social injustice throughout the world. It takes away from the way people value life by assuming it is simpler than it actually is (Darwin believed cells were little bags of water) and assuming life is just some sort of cosmic accident.



Evolution is not unfounded, it is very highly proven. I'd like to see anyone come up with any scientific evidence to suggest the universe was created as it is 6000 years ago. Something that points to the universe being that age not things matching references in text.


You know, this is what I railed against creationists for in my first post here, and I'm pretty suprised no creationist has argued with me about it. I don't care about the science--and it is a theory or we would learn about the mechanisms of evolution, and what limits there are to its process. To keep increasing a theory when the evidence makes it more and more improbable (through the study of biochemistry) is dishonest. There eventually needs to become a realization that instead of placing more and more wild ideas into a theory (punctuated equilibrium and panspermia anyone?), that something new has to be thought up.

Timeframes themselves are dumb to begin with. Relativity makes it impossible to reconcile timeframes without the earth existing. So a timeframe created before the earth will not mesh with a timeframe using the earth as its reference. What is most valuable about the Bible, is that the <i>order</i> is the same as cosmology, paleontology, and archeology have dsicovered. Nothing else comes close. Even scientists themselves before Hubble were real sticks in the mud about the universe always existing.

Tiassa
07-15-01, 03:40 PM
Wow, Dan ... check in on history:
And the philosophy of evolution (which is what I've been talking about from the beginning) has been used to justify and promote slavery and social injustice throughout the world. As if God hasn't? Encomienda, prayer towns ... hell, Dan, there's a topic on salvation I've posted that includes notions on God being a Lord and we humans his serfs. I'm pretty sure it wasn't evolutionists in the prohibition clubs pushing laws to make it illegal to sell liquor to Native Americans in Tacoma. I see very few atheist-evolutionists persecuting Jews. People will wreck anything to suit their undereducated needs, and that's the point. But the very best your point can be for you is the grub calling the maggot white.
It takes away from the way people value life by assuming it is simpler than it actually is (Darwin believed cells were little bags of water) and assuming life is just some sort of cosmic accident. You know, 97% of your body is water, so technically Darwin was right, but just not in an applicable sense. It's a better shot than spirits, humors, and incubi. And I'm going to boldface this so you have it absolutely, positively clear:

* Evolution does not assume Life as a cosmic accident. Specifically, from what we can tell of our Universe, the odds of Life developing indicate a probable statistic necessity for the arrival of humanity in the Universe.

A cosmic accident is a bitter assumption of disillusioned faithful not wanting to accept that they aren't the center of God's attention 24-6. (Gotta keep that Sabbath, y'know.)
To keep increasing a theory when the evidence makes it more and more improbable (through the study of biochemistry) is dishonest. * Demonstrate that dishonesty.

* Why do Creationists always decry the transience of the scientific process? I wonder about your fixed faith in God, if maybe the idea of living transition escapes the faithful?
that something new has to be thought up.I'm always up for new theories; it keeps us from backsliding into religious quagmires.
What is most valuable about the Bible, is that the order is the same as cosmology, paleontology, and archeology have dsicovered. Nothing else comes close. Sounds to me like you think you've got a demonstrable assertion here ... construct your thesis. And for the time being, I'll even grant you the a priori that God exists, since I'd love to see what theory you can offer without worrying about the fact that it cant get off the ground for its undemonstrable a priori.
Even scientists themselves before Hubble were real sticks in the mud about the universe always existing.In Hubble's day, the Mandelbrot hadn't been realized yet. What that is intended to demonstrate is that much has changed about what we can observe, postulate, and demonstrate about the Universe. Old descriptions such as raisin-cake still suffice for 100-level University physics surveys, but it was cutting edge then. It has to do with observational methods, and, yes, occasinally something gets thrown out and replaced: it's called learning. Were you born with everything you needed to know about living already in your brain? Were you fully cognizent and functional upon our arrival on the planet? If you were born and abandoned in the woods, you could get right up, walk back to civilization, and maybe kill yourself a b'ar on the way back to town?

Learning ... remember that?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

dan1123
07-15-01, 05:21 PM
I'm not talking about not learning. I'm talking about rejecting something out of hand because of what you believe to be true.

I don't care how many idiots you point out in Christianity because I can point out just as many acting out of secularist beliefs that you have demonstrated you yourself hold.

One question before I go into the order of the six days: If life was not a cosmic accident, and the entire universe is tuned to coming out to us as an eventuality, than who was the tuner? (and don't say that it just happened by chance or that there were a billion other universes that didn't make it because those are more unfounded than the existence of God).

Science:
So consider us at the Big Bang. We have a dark clutter of pre-subatomic particles because photons cannot even exist yet. Quark confinement has not yet been reached. And then it is reached. So much light is released that there is not one dark spot over the entire (very small at this point) universe. After a time, the universe expanded and the light emitting substances separated into what would become future galaxies.

Bible:
Genesis1:2 Now the earth was[1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Science:
Galaxies, solar systems, and planets have formed, and one planet which has just the right conditions is encircling one star which is also just the right size and brightness. This planet is too hot for liquid water though, so it is covered in a permanent cloud layer like Venus, but this planet is cooling, and the first condensation occurs causing the first rain.

Bible:
Genesis1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

Science:
There was so much water that the earth was entirely covered. There wasn't enough cooling to form the polar ice caps, and not enough tectonic activity to form huge mountain ranges to jut above the water yet. But that was happening, and the water began to freeze in the ice caps, and the sea level dropped to reveal continents.

Bible:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Science:
At this time since the oceans had stopped boiling, bacterial and simple plantlife could begin to exist, and prepare the way for animal life. And it did start with a myriad of different plants that even began to populate the newly exposed land.

Bible:
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

Science:
The sun at this time needed to increase in strength (by 30%). The greenhouse effect of its early planethood was reducing and would soon cause a global ice-age unless something else stared heating up. The greenhouse effect ending meant the clouds would finally part, and when they did, a full sky of sun, moon, and stars would be revealed for the first time.

Bible:
Genesis 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

Science:
The Cambrian Explosion happens now. The oceans suddenly fill with all sorts of creatures, and insects fill the air.

Bible:
20
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds [more accurately <i>winged creatures</i>] fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird [creature] according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds [winged creatures] increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.

Science:
After a few hundred million years land animals begin to appear. First reptiles and early mammals, then finally early humans.

Bible:
Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,[2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

The order matches with only slight explanation (mainly due to our distance from the culture and time it was written). This is <b>way</b> beyond what any other ancient document could hope for in terms of accuracy. All the others have incorrect underlying assumptions which make it impossible to reconcile with what we <i>know</i> to be true through science today. So were the people (or person) who wrote this simply a genius who could figure out the history of the planet, and universe (as well as particle physics) using 5,500 year old technology? Or was this person simply lucky?

Cris
07-15-01, 05:23 PM
Dan,

Darwin was a somewhat devout Christian and he was quite upset when he was accused of being against God after he published his book. He remained a strong Christian right up to his death. As a thorough scientist he could not ignore the evidence that he collected, but he did not see any conflict between Christianity and how species had evolved, at least in the sense that a god remained the originator or creator of the process. And most Christians around the world as well as the Pope accept this approach without any real trouble. It does of course mean that some early parts of the bible need to be interpreted differently and not quite so literally, and I hope you would agree that some parts of the bible are indeed intended as symbolic or instructive as opposed to factual. You seem to have some knowledge of biblical Hebrew in which case you will know that the Hebrew for Adam means ‘man’ as in mankind and did not refer to an individual. Here the symbology indicates that God created mankind, and that it was mankind that chose to be disobedient. I don’t think that genesis has to be taken so literally to be able to satisfy the Christian faith. An evolutionary process created by God that led to mankind would still satisfy the fundamentals of Christianity.

Darwin’s original theory was quite rudimentary and has now progressed far beyond those early times. It is no longer meaningful to call current evolution theory as belonging to Darwin. And I think he would be very dismayed at the small group of radical Americans who are insisting on an alternative literal interpretation of the bible. The world has moved on as have the vast majority of Christians.

The principle and proofs for evolutionary processes have been well established, and here I am not talking about THE theory of evolution. Many scientists in many fields can see how such processes cause adaptations, improvements, and massive changes over time. In the non-bio world we can see how the power of the computer chip has been evolving over time. Now you would argue that this has been under the control of intelligent direction. That is true and also explains why the progress has been extremely rapid. Non-directed evolutionary processes tend to take many thousands and millions of years. But there have been other bioprocesses that have evolved in our lifetime. The issues of mosquitoes and their adaptive resistance to toxins for eradicating malaria for example, and we know of numerous forms of bacteria that have evolved and adapted to our war on them using antibiotics, and we are in danger of losing that war.

Scientists know that mutations within DNA structures occur like clockwork. This is fact. We know that DNA forms a map for every living organism – this is fact. The DNA in every human has an identical structure to every living thing and differs only in size. This is fact. We know that mutations in DNA can cause serious harm to its host, and this is very common. Most mutations seem to have a null effect while others result in a positive benefit. These again are established facts of which you should not dispute. From here the next step is very obvious: The harmful mutations usually result in a less able organism and usually death, the positive mutations result in increased capability and greater ability to survive. This is very simply the survival of the fittest, and remains the underpinning of evolutionary processes.

There can be no doubt that evolutionary processes are acting upon every living organism; human, animal, plants, insects, etc., as well as many aspects of our social lives including technology, housing, transportation, etc.

We can safely assume that the human race in the past had to be different from us because their DNA would have had fewer mutations. As we go further back in the past then the differences would have been more pronounced. Going back even further then we begin to see so many differences as to constitute a different species. There can be no doubt of this since mutations do and have occurred, and are still occurring in humans.

Extraction of human DNA from tissues dating back many thousands of years has revealed an interesting pattern in human diversity. Sometime before 80,000 years ago the diversity was very large, e.g. DNA patterns were very different. During the period 80K and 70K years this diversity dwindled to almost nothing. This is being referred to as a DNA bottleneck period. If you search the web you should be able to find numerous variations on these findings. This link attributes this change to Volcanic eruption. (http://www.geocities.com/archaeogeo/paleo/bottleneck.html) The Toba volcano is thought to have erupted at around 75000 years ago, but this was a massive eruption that would represent a near extinction event. It is estimated that the human population was reduced to around 10,000 people only. This would explain the very small DNA diversity from samples for that period. Diversity has now increased since then.

Major near extinction events have been occurring for millions of years, the dinosaurs most probably became extinct from one of them and we nearly disappeared as well. It is certain that others will follow in the future. Our continued survival appears to depend on how fast we can evolve to discover methods for predicting such events or being able to survive them. These are natural events and attributing one of these to a supernatural cause has no basis in fact.

Time to stop rambling for a while.
Cris

dan1123
07-15-01, 05:43 PM
Um, I have heard differently about Darwin, but that was an aside anyway.

With the majority of what you said... well... why do I care? The earth is a few billion years old, the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old. Life adapts. It has to. What does that matter to philosophy? What matters is the uniqueness and sanctity of human life. What I'm against is the <i><b>philosophy</b></i> of evolution which removes both the uniqueness and sanctity of human life and tries to promote itself through the science of evolution and adaptation.

By the way, first of all, I am a computer engineering major. I have designed a microprocessor from the gates up. I have studied the most recent fare from AMD (sledgehammer). There is nowhere near the complexity in these as the brain of a slug. currently computers have the brainpower of a few mosquitos. We are so many orders of magnitude away from making a computer with the processing power that a common squirrel has that it's ridiculous. Those who believe we have computers as complex as the human brain severely underestimated the brain.

Cris
07-15-01, 06:23 PM
Dan,

Your hypothesis that the genesis story is supported by science can also be purely coincidental. Consider those living at the time that genesis was written and the extent of their knowledge.

Shamanism, superstition, polytheism, were all rife. Out of this we can surmise the creation of a monotheist concept where the deity was responsible for everything. This would have been seen as both simple and elegant and quite appealing. So how would these early philosophers have constructed a creation story for this single deity?

Simple observations of the major features of the world present the most obvious starting points. Clearly the earth had to have been created. The heavens had to be there because that is where one goes after death – the basis for every religion, but of course, to be consistent the deity would have to create heaven as well. Then they knew there was day and night and could easily surmise that before there was any light everything would have been dark so the deity would have had to have created the light and separate it from the darkness. They would have been able to see that there were many animals of all types and many forms of plant life. So of course the deity would have to create these. But what did the god look like? Without any concept of aliens but knowing that humans were clearly more advanced than any stupid animal then why shouldn’t the deity look like humans, and without any other frame of reference this would seem an easy and obvious choice, why even all the polytheist gods had human images. And a destructive flood? We have major floods today and they cause massive destruction. In those early times with poor house construction major floods would have been devastating. These early people also had a narrow view of the known world; it wasn’t very big at that time. Major floods stretching for many miles would have seemed like the whole world was covered. So adding in a flood scenario where many if not nearly all died was another easy construct, and of course the deity was responsible for everything including floods.

And people, of course, had to come from somewhere. They had a pretty good grasp that it took two people to create a third and they could easily surmise that at some point there must have been an original two. They did have mathematics at that time and weren’t stupid. What they lacked was any notion of evolutionary processes, so it was inevitable that their only possible conclusion was that the human race started from an original two and of course the deity would have to have created them.

All those early bible stories can easily be seen as imaginative myths created by individuals of the time who were intelligent but had no knowledge of modern scientific principles and processes such as evolution. With no other knowledge to guide them as to how the world was created and with gods being a familiar belief then it was inevitable that such myths would have been created.

Had there been any true knowledge in the bible then it might have begun something like this –

In the beginning there was a void and God created the Big Bang. In the second period and within this maelstrom he created matter and energy. In the third period he created galaxies. In the forth period he created planets including the earth. In the fifth period he created life. In the sixth period he saw that life had evolved into mankind. In the seventh period he rested and watched mankind evolve into a super-intelligent race that eventually transformed itself into a single individual and became his equal and thus his new eternal companion.

Have fun
Cris

dan1123
07-15-01, 07:19 PM
Uh, huh... coincidental... if it is coincidental then why are there <i><B>no other</i></B> religions or ancient origin stories that assume the creation of the universe? It is far easier to imagine multiple, more human-like gods with faults and who battle rather than the elegance of a singular God who requires so much of His people.



In the beginning there was a void and God created the Big Bang. In the second period and within this maelstrom he created matter and energy. In the third period he created galaxies. In the forth period he created planets including the earth. In the fifth period he created life. In the sixth period he saw that life had evolved into mankind. In the seventh period he rested and watched mankind evolve into a super-intelligent race that eventually transformed itself into a single individual and became his equal and thus his new eternal companion.


1) There was no such concept about the Big Bang until recently. Words have to come from concepts, and the words used in the Bible are kept to a minimum so that it could be preserved in the millenia before information could be copied mechanically.

2) The concepts in physics of matter and energy as generic terms had no conceptual match until last century.

3) It was not God's place to reveal what we could find through scientific discovery. If God did not want us to discover things on our own, then why would He make so much to discover and give us the desire and pleasure in discovering things?

4) Other vocabulary you use represents concepts that rest on centuries of discovery and technology. The concepts need to exist before words do.

Don't be so arrogant. Genesis has an adequate description that was not obvious at all as evidenced by the religions and stories coming out at the time. Considering the audience it spoke to, I believe it did an excellent job.

Cris
07-15-01, 08:05 PM
Dan,

You have missed my point by quite a margin. And lighten up a little bit; my fictional proposed new beginning story was meant as humor. But I’ll add some smilies next time. I’m not being combative here, just debating.

The genesis story was written based on the perceptions and knowledge of the people of the time, as you have also indicated. And as you also point out and which I am demonstrating is that they couldn’t know how life came into existence because they had no knowledge of evolution. Their ignorance meant that they wrote a fictional story about Adam and Eve since they could not deduce that we evolved from simpler forms, but that was the best they could do.


.. why are there no other religions or ancient origin stories that assume the creation of the universe? I’m not sure that there aren’t any others. Read ‘A History of God by Karen Armstrong’. She shows that there were a number of early religions who supported monotheism, long before polytheism arrived. The most common of these religions had a Sky God or Sun God, and each God was responsible for the creation and control of everything. Parts of these early mythologies continued for a long time and we can trace most of the Christian mythologies to these earlier myths.

But look at your logic: You seem to be implying that since the bible stories were the first to describe a monotheistic creator then that uniqueness must make the story true. I can use the same logic to state that since Darwin was the first to propose a new evolution theory then that theory must be true.

Yes I suspect the genesis story was considered very good when it was introduced. But even if it was a unique concept, that does not contribute to its validity.

Cris

Cris
07-15-01, 08:44 PM
Dan,


What matters is the uniqueness and sanctity of human life. What I'm against is the <i><b>philosophy</b></i> of evolution which removes both the uniqueness and sanctity of human life and tries to promote itself through the science of evolution and adaptation. OK I understand.

But you have to be wrong in your conclusion. You are assuming that since God created man then man has not changed and he will not change in the future. I base this on the Christian assertion that man was created in the image of God and God is immutable (does not change), hence man cannot change.

But we know as fact that DNA, all DNA, human and otherwise mutates. As we proceed into the future man has no option but to have his DNA continue to mutate. He has no choice but to change. Disregarding new technologies and medical science for the moment, in say 50,000 years time man is likely to have mutated into a different species as compared to today. This is inevitable. However, if we add in technology and medical science then we can see that we can intelligently control our own DNA and change ourselves very rapidly. I.e. Human evolution ceases to be random but becomes intelligently directed.


By the way, first of all, I am a computer engineering major. I have designed a microprocessor from the gates up. I have studied the most recent fare from AMD (sledgehammer). There is nowhere near the complexity in these as the brain of a slug. currently computers have the brainpower of a few mosquitos. We are so many orders of magnitude away from making a computer with the processing power that a common squirrel has that it's ridiculous. Those who believe we have computers as complex as the human brain severely underestimated the brain. Good for you. Hmm, oh well what the heck – I built my first logic circuits at age 13, using discrete components (1965), there were no chips then. A few years later I designed a unique 4 bit ALU. I was in heaven with TTL. I currently manage a department of senior designers at Compaq. We are now transforming our high end MIPs based and Alpha based systems to use the Intel Itanium family. Let me know when you have your PhD and I’ll give you an interview.:D

As for machine intelligence you should read some of my posts in the Intelligence and Machines forum. You are right that current computing power just about equals that of an insect. To equal the human brain I estimate we would need the computing power of about 100,000,000 1GHz CPUs. If Moore’s law holds then that power should be available in a single chip around 2030. I know, I know there are a few technology barriers to break through first, but see the work being done at Carnegie Melon and the papers written by Hans Moravec, these are not insurmountable. Intel also has a 50-year roadmap – nice.

But, the point is that evolutionary processes exist everywhere. In computing, despite its current primitive state, we have progressed from vacuum tube based flip-flops for simple arithmetic to the intelligence of an insect in 50 years. Moore’s law has been maintained for that entire period. Human brain equivalent processing power is very likely to be with us within the next 100 years, and there is every indication it will be very much sooner. If you would like to dispute this or take this further then we should continue this in the IM forum.

Cris

dan1123
07-15-01, 09:31 PM
To equal the human brain I estimate we would need the computing power of about 100,000,000 1GHz CPUs. If Moore’s law holds then that power should be available in a single chip around 2030.


You should know that the main power that the brain has over the current computing and microprocessor concept (instruction sets are a small matter in this topic) is the <i>interconnectedness</i> of the brain. The power to connect so many paths and <i>change</i> their connections is far beyond what we have in silicon. It may be that in order to achieve this power that the brain posesses we need to make something little different from the brain we posess.

But even if we can make something as complex as ourselves, it just shows that an intelligent being can make a complex machine. We know that. What you need to try and prove is that <I>natural</I> processes can bring about a complex machine. What I would like to see in a lab is a unicellular organism evolve into a new species of multicellular organism. If that can be done, and the process explained (so it isn't a hoax or fluke) then I'll take another look at the science. Biologists right now understand so little that it's best to look at other things, and not get mired down in speculative philosophy.

Cris
07-15-01, 10:28 PM
Dan,

A single silicon chip for brain equivalence? Yes most unlikely, the physics won’t allow it. But the brain is massively parallel; so many high power interconnected silicon chips might do the job. The Itanium for example has greater effective power than the Pentium 4 but the clock speed is lower, the Itanium has increased on-chip parallelism. This is the direction for Intel where SMPs are not so vital. Dual SMP capable Itanium will not be far away. However, this is a digression, even though interesting.


But even if we can make something as complex as ourselves, it just shows that an intelligent being can make a complex machine. We know that. What you need to try and prove is that <I>natural</I> processes can bring about a complex machine. Yup I agree.


What I would like to see in a lab is a unicellular organism evolve into a new species of multicellular organism. If that can be done, and the process explained (so it isn't a hoax or fluke) then I'll take another look at the science. I don’t know that that hasn’t been done. I’ll have to look. But otherwise I agree with the test.

Perhaps more importantly I would like to see scientists create the original conditions in the lab that gave rise to the first life form, and then show it can be done without a supernatural cause. Until that is achieved we are left with an unknown – we do not know how life started, anything we say is conjecture, and I am including religion here.


Biologists right now understand so little that it's best to look at other things, and not get mired down in speculative philosophy. OK but it is science that provides us with facts. We can look elsewhere but without factual evidence we will be left with nothing other than hypotheses. Perhaps we should just be patient – ah but human nature doesn’t like being patient, does it?

Cris

dan1123
07-16-01, 06:38 PM
OK but it is science that provides us with facts. We can look elsewhere but without factual evidence we will be left with nothing other than hypotheses.


True, but the scientific method begins with a hypothesis, and out presuppositions create the hypothesis.

Therefore my interest in the philosophy of evolution.

By the way, TTL is too power-hungry. Everyone's interested in CMOS and its derivatives now.

Tiassa
07-17-01, 01:26 PM
Dan, I propose a simple experiment which you can perform:

* Go find the tallest building in your town and jump off.

Hypothesis: I assert that when you leap from the building, you will descend toward the Earth accellerating in accord with gravitational law at 9.8 m/s/s until you reach your terminal velocity or strike the ground first. This experiment, unfortunately, will likely injure, maim, or even kill you.

But we cannot be sure, for after all, 'tis only a hypothesis. Just because gravitational accelleration is demonstrable on paper doesn't mean it will hold up in reality, right? Who's to say you won't fly off to Neptune and share hookah hits with Zoogs?

It is my presupposition that you will plummet to your injury or death. It is not my presupposition that you will fly off to Neptune. Now, we can observe and demonstrate the legitimacy of those presuppositions which rest on other principles.

Anything you see in science as a presupposition can be tested; in the meantime, if it seems that pure a presupposition, take a look at the concepts it rests on. It might be that nobody's built the machine to test it; the supercolliders of the 1980's gave us the data to theorize things we saw in the '90s, but the technology isn't quite there to test the next round of theses. Ooh, so we have to wait a couple of years. But when scientists set out after a theoretical particle, they're fairly confident because without something to occupy this proposed spot in nature, the rest would not function properly.

I rest on my presupposition that you would plummet to your injury or death if you leapt from the tallest building in town on the observation that if gravitational accelleration was not well-documented and functionally accurate, well, baseball would look a lot different; so would hopscotch.

But the presuppositions are demonstrable, and carry the credibility of validation among the scientific community; remember Cold Fusion? Why don't we have cold fusion generators everywhere? Because nobody could reproduce the effect, and the result was deemed either erroneous by method or fraudulent by intent. I do not recall hearing much from that scientific team lately, either. So I wouldn't worry too much about presuppositions until they can't be demonstrated. You know, things like All dark-skinned people are oversexed, drug-addicted thieves, or God created the Universe in six days. I can produce books to claim either, but neither can be demonstrated in the present, and neither can be demonstrated in history or science without a massive exscinding of selected data.

Presuppositions are meant to be resolved. Unless, of course, they are specifically designed to never be resolved. But that's the problem of the person holding the presupposition.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

dan1123
07-17-01, 02:05 PM
I have a posit for you. Kill yourself. If you meet God, then you can tell Him "hi".

Your extremist statement that if I don't accept that all the universe just happened by chance, then I have rejected all of science shows just how much dogma you are into. I'm drawing the most obvious conclusion from the generally accepted notions of science that the universe was prepared for life in the way that we are. To try and say that there must exist some huge number of universes outside of ours is at least as convoluted and undemonstrable as an intelligent being outside the universe creating it all.

Tiassa
07-17-01, 02:37 PM
Your extremist statement that if I don't accept that all the universe just happened by chance, then I have rejected all of science shows just how much dogma you are into. Please support your assertion, specifically the part I've boldfaced above.
I have a posit for you. Kill yourself. If you meet God, then you can tell Him "hi".There's no working thesis there. It's just sarcasm. Something about science?
I'm drawing the most obvious conclusion from the generally accepted notions of science that the universe was prepared for life in the way that we are. The most obvious conclusion, then, being that since you can't figure it out, there must be a God behind it? I just don't understand why humans have to be the center of the Universe, or of God's attention, or whatever. "Prepared for life in the way that we are," though, is functionally correct. We have evolved as we must according to the conditions of the Universe. Don't worry, you can still believe that God made man in "His own image" if you like, and it won't actually get in the way of anything scientific, unless you're out to pick a bone with women since "His own image" implies a male, and therefore contributory living element. The most obvious conclusion, then, is that there is a factor undemonstrable and therefore not included that makes the whole theory work the way you suppose it should? That's not science, it's superstition.
To try and say that there must exist some huge number of universes outside of ours is at least as convoluted and undemonstrable as an intelligent being outside the universe creating it all.I admit the multiuniverse model is attractive from a philosophical point of view, but this seems ... a little irrelevant to the present debate? I don't recall speculating on the multiuniverse anytime recently. Please, fill me in.

In the meantime, take your bitterness and can it. Think about the things you're saying. Your zeal to turn a phrase cleverly leaves you sounding embittered and pathetic. As I see it, the Creationist theories generally rail against scientific concepts for their sense of speculation: well, we can formulate gravity and say it must work this way, but with more complex formulae, you must keep in mind that the developing minds aren't going to find a billion dollars in construction and testing money unless each principle leading up to the hypothesis has a certain sense of credibility, such as we award gravitational theory. If you're upset about presuppositions that can be tested, test them. Hence, the gravity example. But since you seem to find it unpalatable, I don't know what to tell you. I've offered you a test of a presupposition based on prior observation and record, and all you've done is gotten all hissy about it. Calm down, and have faith in God to prove your righteousness before all of Creation.

--Tiassa :cool:

Sir. Loone
07-17-01, 05:12 PM
The thing on the sill is your 'familiar', and it can hurt you and others, so be careful Tiassa! There is none here, but the Lord is my rock fortress in a weird-weary land of the 'confused.'

Better to be created in the image of the Almighty and Loving caring GOD, then to be a chance through back of some anthropoid that was an extinct ape from the primordial ooze! You 'OOZE' you lose! 'The truth ye shell meet and it isn't very sweet!' (someone said other then me)

dan1123
07-17-01, 05:27 PM
[quote]
But we cannot be sure, for after all, 'tis only a hypothesis. Just because gravitational accelleration is demonstrable on paper doesn't mean it will hold up in reality, right? Who's to say you won't fly off to Neptune and share hookah hits with Zoogs?
[quote]

This is your condescending sarcasm that I was responding to. It's the extremist statement that shows how much you're into atheist egoistic dogma.

I bought out the multiverse theory because that is the only way that you can have your probability work in a system where there is only one roll of the dice. Shoveling another load of "it all just happened by chance" onto the rest of the chances within the universe looks far more desparate to me than an intelligent being forming the entire thing (and then telling people how it happened far before they had the science to discover it for themselves)

So take <i>your</i> condescention and can it. Or if you can't take the heat--get out of the kitchen and go back to your sheltered world of atheists patting each other on the back.

Caleb
07-19-01, 09:55 AM
Now, now, lets all try to not criticize each other too much. Since this thread is kinda long already and seems to be quickly degrading into a fire-fight, I've started a new thread "You want Evidence? How's this?"

Enjoy.

~Caleb

Tiassa
07-19-01, 02:51 PM
Loone,

Tiassa's signature quote:...there's a hungry thing waiting on the sill; it wants to know who to kill ....


The thing on the sill is your 'familiar', and it can hurt you and others, so be careful Tiassa! (Sir Loone, 7/17/2001) You're partway right, but not entirely. It is not my familiar, for you have demonstrated no knowledge whatsoever of familiars. But that thing is, indeed, familiar to me. That hungry thing on the sill is the shadow of the Christian spirit.

Whence comes the peace so boldly promised in the lore? Quoth the Shadow, Nevermore.

--Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa
07-19-01, 03:06 PM
Whatever you say, Dan. After all, you believe in Jesus, so you can't be wrong, right? :rolleyes:

Tell me, Dan, what is sarcastic about the scientific assertion that when you jump off the top of the tallest building in your town, you will most likely--based upon prior observational and formulaic work--plummet to your death? Seems rather sound to me. It's also fair enough to say, based upon prior observational and formulaic work, that you will not be smoking hits with Zoogs after leaping from the building.

It seems you've missed the point, Dan. Consider your own complaint, Dan, about science: True, but the scientific method begins with a hypothesis, and out presuppositions create the hypothesis.

All I have done is presented you with a hypothesis based on presuppositions derived from prior observation and formulaic endeavor.
I bought out the multiverse theory because that is the only way that you can have your probability work in a system where there is only one roll of the dice. Shoveling another load of "it all just happened by chance" onto the rest of the chances within the universe looks far more desparate to me than an intelligent being forming the entire thing (and then telling people how it happened far before they had the science to discover it for themselves)So you invented a windmill to tilt because you cannot understand the notion of infinity? Ah, wait ... that's right, you can't imagine infinity and call it an assumption, though I wonder what it means for your God to be finite. Do I assert that the Living Endeavor happened by chance? I believe I call the Living Endeavor a statistical necessity, which does not indicate a high degree of "chance". And I respect your advisement that it's too hard for you to view the world without superstition: it's okay if you need God to make it make sense, that's what God was invented for.
So take your condescention and can it. Or if you can't take the heat--get out of the kitchen and go back to your sheltered world of atheists patting each other on the back.Testy, testy ... it seems to me you're the one bemoaning your own lack of perception. Quit your whining or take your own advice. Just because you have no legitimate response to the issues at hand does not mean that you can simply invent a perspective and place it upon your opponent in order to pat your own self on the back for your rhetorical brilliance.

Condescending ... ha! I'm not the one compelled by fancy to go around declaring people unfit to exist as God made them. So I guess you're not being condescending either, for how can you be condescending toward God? Your questioning of his judgement, though, seems haughty and designed to reinforce your own flagging self-esteem. Just because you see yourself as a sinner in need of a miracle does not mean that it's a good idea for everyone to hamstring themselves this way. We might as well just drink the Kool-Aid, then.

--Tiassa :cool:

dan1123
07-19-01, 03:23 PM
it's okay if you need God to make it make sense, that's what God was invented for.


hmm, then do <a href="http://www.jps.net/bygrace/apologetics/quotes.html">these people</a> need God as a crutch? Or to turn it the other way, why would they even consider God if science has such a great possibility of explaining everything without Him?

Name one thing that scientists consider infinite today. This universe did not exist forever, there are no new galaxies being created so that it will last forever. Its size has been mapped out, and the galaxies at its edges have been found. We have reached limits in how small things can be, how cold things can get, how fast things can go, so where are all your infinities? Face it. We are in a finite universe where upper and lower limits abound.

Tiassa
07-20-01, 08:28 AM
Show me the end of the Universe or a current valid cosmology describing a finite Universe. The Universe has practical infinity: we haven't found the end and it appears to be perpetually growing. Even in a constantly expanding Universe with finite boundaries, this growth increases the odds daily that Life must necessarily come about.

If you add x+1, and beside that you add x-squared +1, which will reach infinity first? Estimates of the Universe run between 11 and 20 billion years old, generally. Perhaps the seeming improbability you maintain of Life's occurrence is the dictating factor of why Life is only four billion years old in this neighborhood instead of six. Life will eventually occur in conditions such as those the Universe seems to offer.
] then do these people need God as a crutch? Or to turn it the other way, why would they even consider God if science has such a great possibility of explaining everything without Him?I would say that "crutch" is an excellent way of looking at this religion. Why consider God with the possibilities of science? Because we are a superstitious race that teaches our children to fear God before they know what fear is. God is among our first sources of recognizable fear. My grandmother bought my brother and I goofy God-related things like Gaither albums and storybooks about how small I am in the world before my education explained the scientific method. Personally, I never had any problem specifically related to the two, but many people have, and that comes from the superstitions of religion. Did you learn how to say your prayers first or form a working hypothesis?

In other words, what do most people learn first, objectivity or superstition?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
07-20-01, 09:30 AM
There is a valid model for a finite cosmology. I explained it on the Astronomy board in a thread entitled "Flat Finite Cosmology"

Also, the fact that the universe is growing does not increase the odds for life -- it decreases them. Why? 1) There is no new matter being created, so there are not new places for life to evolve (sure there may be newly-forming planets, but that doesn't have anything to do with the universe expanding) 2) If the universe is expanding, it's constant amount of mass and energy must be spread out further and diluted. THus the universe is cooling (not to mention the Laws of Thermodnamics that state entropy always increases). Therefore energy (alot of which would be required to start life) is decreasing <i>and</i> "thinning out" as the universe increases. This will surely put a damper on the already impossible odds of life forming.

~Caleb

xvenomousx
07-21-01, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Caleb
There is a valid model for a finite cosmology. I explained it on the Astronomy board in a thread entitled "Flat Finite Cosmology"

Also, the fact that the universe is growing does not increase the odds for life -- it decreases them. Why? 1) There is no new matter being created, so there are not new places for life to evolve (sure there may be newly-forming planets, but that doesn't have anything to do with the universe expanding) 2) If the universe is expanding, it's constant amount of mass and energy must be spread out further and diluted. THus the universe is cooling (not to mention the Laws of Thermodnamics that state entropy always increases). Therefore energy (alot of which would be required to start life) is decreasing <i>and</i> "thinning out" as the universe increases. This will surely put a damper on the already impossible odds of life forming.

~Caleb

So the odds of life forming are impossible? That would suggest life doesn't exist?

Yes energy in the universe is "thinning out" over all, but it tends to clump in galaxies, stars etc. For now there is plenty of suitable stars and volatile elements for life. Perhaps in 30 billion years life would start to have a problem.

We do know that life exists in this universe, we know what it needs to form. So there should be life everywhere. Why aren't we seeing it? We've only just started looking. We haven't found any earthlike planets because they are too small to see with present techniques, perhaps in 10 years time we'll be able to define earth-size planets around stars.

xvenomousx
07-21-01, 08:48 PM
Tiassa: reccently they've narrowed the age of the universe to approxomatley 15 billion years.

kmguru
07-21-01, 10:44 PM
EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM ?

Should not this be Evolution Vs Christianity? It is like Italy doing a Miss world pageant without any one from other countries! No other people believe in Creationism except a few Christians. And there are a lot of people out there on this planet!

Caleb
07-21-01, 10:59 PM
reccently they've narrowed the age of the universe to approxomatley 15 billion years.

+/- 50 billion. Just kidding. :)

And yet there are objects in the univesrse that are far older than that. A colleague that I work with (I'm a student researcher for the Mathematics department) has just graduated with a double major in Math and Physics (He's going on to persue a higher degree at Washington University). The other day, he was telling me how in one of his upper-level Physics/Astronmy courses his professor (who was certainly <i>not</i> a Creationist) didn't even believe in the Big Bang. One of the things they had to do on a test in that class was calculate the age of a recently discovered galaxy super-cluster that would have taken at least twice the age of the universe to form. I asked him what his professor did believe, if not in a Big Band, and he told me that the professor wasn't really sure, but he knew that it couldn't have been a Big Bang because of the evidence. He had said that modern cosmology is based on the premises of a few early cosmologists (such as Hubble and others) who came up with this Big Bang idea, and scientists are unwilling to consider alternatives because if these 5-or-6 early scientists came up with this Big Bang idea, it had to be true, despite whatever new evidence might surface. Anyway enough rambling about the Big Bang.


Even in a constantly expanding Universe with finite boundaries, this growth increases the odds daily that Life must necessarily come about.
...

Yes energy in the universe is "thinning out" over all, but it tends to clump... For now there is plenty of suitable stars... Perhaps in 30 billion years life would start to have a problem.
Yes, but this problem would come about from the universe expanding and "thining out". And yet you state that the expansion increases growth. So I'm a bit confused on which you are truly saying. But anyway, that's a side issue because:


So the odds of life forming are impossible?
Well, that's not exactly what I said (I said the odds were decreasing), but to be perfectly honest, <b>YES!</b> That's called <u>abiogenesis</u> and it was a myth popularly held in the Dark Ages until some scientist (who was a Christian in his free time, by the way) came along and preformed this famous experiment by isolating meat in a sealed environment, and noting that it didn't turn into maggots.

First consider the facts that

>evolutionists don't even know <i>how</i> life formed,

>and the fact that any amino acids that would have been necessary are extremely unstable and would have broken down before having the chance to react.

>And the fact that it is impossible for these amino acids to form at random anyway.

>and the fact that for the chemical reactions necessary for life to form, the atmosphere would have had to have been oxygen-free, but this would mean no ozone, which would expose the new chemicals to lethal doses of UV radiation. This is a catch-22 that scientists have been unable to explain.

>and the fact that DNA contains information, and in information theory, information cannot rise out of randomness -- only noise can do that. Besides that is the fact that DNA is a "language" of sorts, and requires encoding and decoding, which makes the issue even more complex.

>and the fact that there is no geological record of the primordial chemical soup that is supposed to have existed (although there should be)

>It would have violated the laws of Thermodynamics, since it would require a large decrease in entropy.

Anyway, aside from all of these utter <u><i>impossibilities</i></u>, the chance of life has been calculated at something like 1 out of 10<sup>19,813</sup> (I can't find the website were I read this number, and I'm alittle unsure of the second digit, but the answer was certainly larger than 10<sup>11,000</sup>). And, yep, that's a one with over ten-thousand zeroes behind it!!! This number is well below the statistically accepted value of "impossible." Now, even the number of seconds in the universe pales in comparison to this. Even assuming the universe is a 100 billion years old (which is apparently WAY too much), there would still only be about 3^16. Now, Sixteen is a long way from ten-thousand, even on a linear scale, but this isn't linear, it is <b>exponential</b>!!!!!!

So yes, abiogenesis is impossible.


That would suggest life doesn't exist?
No. It would suggest that life didn't form (i.e. from non-life) Which would further suggest that something (or someone) formed it. I won't say more than that, because science can't tell us <i>what</i> (or who) formed life, it just tells us that life can't form on its own.


We do know that life exists in this universe
Actually, we only know that for Earth, and even that's debatable ;)


we know what it needs to form.
You're right. We just found out that it needs Someone or Something to create it.


So there should be life everywhere.
Not with a 1 to 10<sup>19,000</sup> chance. I think a snowball has a better chance in you-know-where.

~Caleb

Sir. Loone
07-22-01, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Cris
Loone,

Thanks Loone. That really is the end of the debate. I’ll wait the few generations for it to be fact. Since you have admitted that it will just be a matter of time before it is fully fact then that must also mean that the creation story must be false.

Cris
Not so the "end of the debate", :) it will at the time they would want to call it 'all facts,'.. they will run into the ultimate truth of 'creation'! And as mortal men and women we will simply not know all there is to know scientifically about the universe and that of the beyond natural cope of reasoning ! There will be far too much left UNKNOWN to truly come to a conclusion about 'evolution' and our very own existence apart from the 'truth', the ultimate 'truth', that all was created! And by the Creator! (GOD) [who is not an 'it', nor a 'force', but a real and living and loving 'person', a 'triune-being', GOD the Father, GOD the Son, and GOD the Holy Spirit, the tree are ONE, and one in the same! ] (The Supreme Being)

Evolution, is man's theory (scientific) of the origin of life.
Creation, is GOD's revelation of where life truly came from. 'Him'.

FA_Q2
07-22-01, 03:54 PM
"evolutionists don't even know how life formed"

That is the point of science. Don't forget science once did not know what lightning was and hence Thor and Zeus were the ancient causes. Nothing natural and divine help could do what lighting did.

" And the fact that it is impossible for these amino acids to form at random anyway. "

And where did you find that one out fact man.

" It would have violated the laws of Thermodynamics, since it would require a large decrease in entropy. "

This is the problem with stating a law. Entropy, as you have stated is a law of THERMODYNAMICS. It has nothing to do with life at all. It is like sighting a traffic law and using that to explain why life cannot be.

" Anyway, aside from all of these utter impossibilities, the chance of life has been calculated at something like 1 out of 10^19,813 (I can't find the website were I read this number, and I'm alittle unsure of the second digit, but the answer was certainly larger than 10^11,000). And, yep, that's a one with over ten-thousand zeroes behind it!!! This number is well below the statistically accepted value of "impossible." Now, even the number of seconds in the universe pales in comparison to this. Even assuming the universe is a 100 billion years old (which is apparently WAY too much), there would still only be about 3^16. Now, Sixteen is a long way from ten-thousand, even on a linear scale, but this isn't linear, it is exponential!!!!!! "

First of all you cannot calculate the chances of life. All who do make extremely biased calculations. I've seen calculations that say there is a good chance there is millions of intelligent species out there, not just life but smart life, to guesses like the one you have cited. None are truly based in fact. They are based in assumption.

Tiassa
07-23-01, 02:27 AM
FA_Q2 ....


"evolutionists don't even know how life formed"

That is the point of science. Don't forget science once did not know what lightning was and hence Thor and Zeus were the ancient causes. Nothing natural and divine help could do what lighting did. Didn't you know that Christian babies don't breast feed? Immediately after they're born, they hunch down and start a fire, build a weapon, hunt down an animal for food, and then set about building a shelter. It's amazing! I swear! ;)

Were we born knowing everything in the Universe? No. Thank you for pointing out something very obvious ... if humanity arrived on the Earth knowing everything in the Universe, what would be left to learn?

You know, I think the Creationists are right ... I live in a perfect society .....

Hey, don't look at me ... I just went a weekend without smoking pot. I almost wish I was as high as a kite; some of the things I saw ... I would prefer that they were drug-laden perceptions. ;)

But you have a very important point indeed.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
07-23-01, 08:57 AM
My point in saying that scientists don't even know how life forms was more of a rebuttal against Tiassa's statement that We know what it [life] needs to form. Scientist's aren't even close to knowing. That isn't to say that they shouldn't try to find out how it might have happened. If they think life arose from chance, let them try to reproduce it in a lab. That's the scientific maethod, after all, and I'm all for that. The point is, though, that they've been trying since the time of Darwin (probably since the time of the ancient Greeks, but never mind that) to figure out how life could come from no life. And rather than being closer to an answer, we're just as far -- actually further -- from an answer now than we were back then. We now know about the impossibly marvelous genetic code, and the difficulty over whether or not oxygen was in the atmosphere, etc (I'm not going to repeat my earlier post). Anyway, if life had evolved from non-life, you think one of those experiments somewhere along the way would have succeded. But, if scientists really have the kind of faith in unseen events like that, then sure, let them go ahead and try to prove it in the lab.

In other words, in one post we are saying that scientists know all about how life formed, in the next you are agreeing that scientist's haven't a clue, but that sciece will tell us. That sounds like faith to me -- a belief in something for which there is no evidence? So scientists are basing there theories on a belief? <i>Gasp!</i> And this isn't just any theory that they are putting faith in. This is the principle for which they derive their entire worldview. And it's merely a faith, without scientific evidence (yet)? <i>Gasp!</i>

Of course, I don't mind that so much -- we creationists do the same thing. I guess it all just depends on where you put your faith right? An unseen chemical soup in which chenmical reations that are very nearly impossible, and have not (yet) been evidenced in any lab, gave rise to life, or a supernatural God who has revealed His Word to us that we might know Him, and that He loves us. Hmm... tough choice. But then, they both require faith in something unseen.

btw, tiassa, we creationists don't think society is perfect. Far from it. We believe in the Fall of mankind, etc...(but that's another topic, and don't know how that fits into the abiogenesis question).

~Caleb

Caleb
07-23-01, 09:04 AM
And now come all the posts about how science isn't a religion, and how science doesn't require faith, and how science can't be a religion because it doesn't have a God who contradicts himself and gives us sets of stupid, pointless laws and <i>blah, blah, blah, etc,etc,etc...</i>.

But we just showed that it is a faith. A belief in something (so far) unobserved. We could even discuss their faith in the presence of transitional forms, although none have been shown to exist. But that's another topic as well.

~Caleb

Tiassa
07-23-01, 02:36 PM
But we just showed that it is a faith. A belief in something (so far) unobserved. We could even discuss their faith in the presence of transitional forms, although none have been shown to exist. But that's another topic as well. You obviously missed notes on transitional fossils. I think they're even in this thread; I shall endeavor to find them at Sciforums and provide them for you, but I'm unsure why it didn't take the first time.

In the meantime--"so far unobserved": Caleb, what bugs me about this is that you sit around hypocritically patting yourself on the back for getting nothing done. So far? Again, I ask--and this time I want an answer: Were you born knowing everything in the Universe? Are you telling me that straight from the womb there was nothing to learn to help you ensure your own survival? From an evolutionary standpoint, the same question is an issue: Did humanity evolve with complete knowledge of the Universe? No, it did not. You seem upset that science hasn't gone far enough for your own wishes.

To the other: Demonstrate the Creator!

Quit picking on what you think is wrong with other people's theories merely to demonstrate your own. It doesn't work that way. Heads or tails, sure, but there are more than two ideas here. The best you seem to do is say, "I'm right because I think everyone else is wrong, and I don't have to show what's right about my theory." Sure, you might disprove this or that theory eventually, but without being scientifically testable, the theory you offer in its place is merely religious balderdash.
we creationists don't think society is perfectI know. And God created children to starve to death in this or that third world because he loves them. Touching. :rolleyes:

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Sir. Loone
07-23-01, 03:21 PM
It means that it takes far more 'faith' in 'evolution' then it takes for one to believe in 'Creation'!

Evolution; so many man-made theories and scientific facts, and speculations.
Creation; in the Word of GOD. And that there has to be a 'Creator' of this universe with it's many complex life forms on Earth, and very little evidence of life (intelligent [ET] terrestrial) any where else!

Find and Read: Tornado in a Junkyard. (evolution)

kmguru
07-23-01, 03:44 PM
GOD created the universe and its associated rules and laws including Time...which in turn resulted where we are today....plant a seed and you get a living plant....

FA_Q2
07-24-01, 08:28 AM
" My point in saying that scientists don't even know how life forms was more of a rebuttal against Tiassa's statement that We know what it [life] needs to form. Scientist's aren't even close to knowing. If they think life arose from chance, let them try to reproduce it in a lab. That's the scientific maethod, after all, and I'm all for that. ......
The point is, though, that they've been trying since the time of Darwin (probably since the time of the ancient Greeks, but never mind that) to figure out how life could come from no life. And rather than being closer to an answer, we're just as far -- actually further -- from an answer now than we were back then. "

They are not clueless as you have assumed but are working closer daily. What makes you think we are further from the answer? Yes we have been trying to figure life out since Darwin but it took life 10 billion years to figure out what to do itself, we haven't been trying all that long. Also life is not going to be reproducible in a lab until we have a few billion years and a lab the size of earth. The scientific method does not require a test in a lab but rather a theory that can hold up to scrutiny. We have never tested the theory of relativity in a lab but have tested it other ways. Evolution is constantly going through refinements and is now a very valid theory. It still needs more refinements but we are progressing.

" Anyway, if life had evolved from non-life, you think one of those experiments somewhere along the way would have succeded."

What experiments?

" In other words, in one post we are saying that scientists know all about how life formed, in the next you are agreeing that scientist's haven't a clue, but that sciece will tell us."

No, we are saying that we are working towards a viable description, never did I say they had no clue and nether did anyone else.

" But we just showed that it is a faith "

Where?

Tiassa
07-24-01, 11:38 AM
Yes we have been trying to figure life out since Darwin but it took life 10 billion years to figure out what to do itself, we haven't been trying all that long. I say give the formal evolutionary theory 2,000 years to progress, and compare what it does in the world to Chrisitanity's two-millennia history. In addition to the volumes of laboratory data and field data collected and analyzed in that time, I think the introduction of such knowledge will actually bring a sense of peace to the human spirit in the specific sense that many superstitions will disappear. The social pressures of enacting those superstitions will disappear. The detriments of those social pressures will disappear.

Knowledge--education--benefits society. Superstition destroys it. This, I feel, is objectively demonstrated in history.

But what will we know by then? The objective data reward of two millennia spent learning about the Universe instead of fearing and hating it should hopefully be sufficient enough to drive superstition back to shadows. And the comfort of understanding our living partners in this human endeavor will bring great rewards of its own.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Caleb
07-24-01, 04:02 PM
You seem to have forgotten what we've already covered -- i.e. that the majority of the great founding fathers of modern scientific method were Creationists or at the very lest, Christians. Even the "discoverer" of the scientific method was a Creationist!!! Remember all those names, like Issac Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Steno, Pascal, Boyle, <i>et all.</i> ? They are the ones that started our departure from superstitions, remember? And I never even got around to finishing my list because you wanted to hear the scientific facts. Now that you are sick and tired of hearing those, you revert back to bashing and character assasination, and the assumption that Christians are inherently non-scientific. Yet Christians formed the large majority of the foundation for modern science, abondoning myths and fables. This is objectively demonstrated in history. And by the way, your welcome. :D

~Caleb

Tiassa
07-24-01, 04:42 PM
i.e. that the majority of the great founding fathers of modern scientific method were Creationists or at the very lest, Christians.And no Creationist making points about Christian scientists has ever answered questions about where that scientist's fidelity lies. Like that PhD you cited in those ICR posts: some "scientist", eh? He decries the scientific method because it makes him uncomfortable.

Jack Cady, in The American Writer, when discussing the crack-up of Puritanism, made a point relevant to us: that centuries ago, without electricity to chase away the scary shadows of the world and power the technology of discovery, people seemed to hold the Devil to be as real as Cris or I might agree that an Oldsmobile is real. I would assert that when these scientists made their discoveries, they were predisposed to Christian fidelity, and thus attempted to conform their theories to their religious standards. Incidentally, Karen Armstron notes in A History of God that modern atheism, when aimed at Judeo-Christianity, seems to address the faults of the "Newtonian" God, or the God who created the laws that Newton documented. Gravity yes, but that God image seems to have failed. We can't blame Newton, per se, except where he attempted to conform his findings to his predisposition toward the assumption of God. Did thse scientists you mention find their theory, and lead conclusively to God, or did they find their theory, and apply it to what they already assumed is true?
Even the "discoverer" of the scientific method was a Creationist!!!Your point being? I'm quite sure it's difficult to obtain objectivity when certain objective questions are disallowed. Even into the twentieth century, there were parts of the civilized world where it was illegal to be an atheist: in South Carolina, one cannot hold elected public office without first confessing faith in God.
Remember all those names, like Issac Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Steno, Pascal, Boyle, et all. ? They are the ones that started our departure from superstitions, remember? Yes, and the problem with your assumptions comes back to the idea that these people did not know all there was in the Universe. We cannot fault them for not having enough time on Earth to find all the answers they sought. It seems only Creationists can do that, and I base that solely on your wrath aimed at the fact that science doesn't have all the answers that religion assumes.
And I never even got around to finishing my list because you wanted to hear the scientific facts. Now that you are sick and tired of hearing those, you revert back to bashing and character assasination, and the assumption that Christians are inherently non-scientific. * Demonstrate character assassination.

* Demonstrate bashing.

* Christians inherently non-scientific: You still cannot demonstrate the Creator. God is an untestable hypothesis at present, and thus remains outside the realm of science.

* What I'm sick and tired of is your petty assumption that scientific fact is a dualism: I don't like your theory, says the Creationist. So, says the Creationist, I assume your theory's wrong. Furthermore, says the Creationist, because your theory is wrong, mine is definitely right, and I don't need to test, prove, or demonstrate anything.

When you learn your station in the Universe, instead of assume it, you'll find that God is merely that much more accessible to you.
Yet Christians formed the large majority of the foundation for modern science, abondoning myths and fables.To the one hand, they couldn't have done a lot of it without Islam ... Christians did not invent abstract mathematics. To the other, I think the abandoning of myths and fables is important. It's just that y'all have a few left that you insist on clinging to, despite your desire to be taken seriously--said desire being hampered only by your own refusal to approach the subject seriously.
This is objectively demonstrated in history. You won't find any argument from me about the quality of science done by Christians in the past. The immorality of what Christians did with their discoveries is also demonstrated objectively in history. And that's the problem with bending your results to a presupposed superstition.

Notice also of Christians who are scientists: they defy God when they must, and worry later about how it fits together--the artificial heart valve was invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist who worried not that he was usurping God's judgement of when your time to go is. I can justify this leap of faith with Sufism, but I'm pretty sure the good doctor thought primarily in terms of saving human life. I agree with his defiance of God's Will in this context, and see no conflict whatsoever in the Sufi context.

But please do get back to me on character assassination and bashing, complete with your best contextual analysis.

And we're always waiting for that objective demonstration of the Creator.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

dan1123
07-24-01, 08:36 PM
Christians inherently non-scientific: You still cannot demonstrate the Creator. God is an untestable hypothesis at present, and thus remains outside the realm of science.


Most of this thread looks insane to me, and I'm tempted to just leave it alone except for the quote above. I would argue that in the philosophical basis of the nature of God, that God would necessarily not be able to be objectively tested. If He could, He forces Himself upon us without our ability to choose Him or not. Some Christians go way overboard and try to convince others that the earth is some thousand years old and that God is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt in scientific discovery. I think this comes from a myopic view of the Bible. Some overzealous scientists say that science has proven the nonexistence of God. This is an over-optimism of our understanding of the universe. The most science can do is show that God would be unnecessary to explain the happenings in the universe. God being unnecessary to explain how things exist does not mean God does not exist. And further that does not mean God is unnecessary to people.

However, there is something in the way scientific predictions are made that use certain assumptions corresponding to Gods nature in the Bible that are <i>useful</i> to science. The most ready example of this is Kepler's discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets. The current astronomical theory was that everything in space moved in perfect circles. The evidence had made the theory bogged down in circular paths going along other circular paths to make up for the errors in the theory. Then Kepler thought that God would not make such a ridiculous and inelegant system, so he though of something that would fall more along his understanding of God's nature. Elliptical orbits turned out to be right, and the rest is history (actually all of it is history). But this illustrates how an understanding of God's nature is useful to scientific discovery.

Tiassa
07-24-01, 08:41 PM
Then Kepler thought that God would not make such a ridiculous and inelegant system, so he though of something that would fall more along his understanding of God's nature.Okay, so here's the thing: at this point God is an information filter, and I have no objection to using religion in this fashion; it composes the most part of my own theism. It's a compelling interest, since any correct answer must necessarily be God's nature. In this sense, it's still a faith assumption, but whatever works to gather knowledge ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

dan1123
07-24-01, 08:53 PM
at this point God is an information filter


Actually this has two good sides to it. First, God is not imposing Himself into the scientific discovery He made us enjoy. Second, by filtering based on an accurate understanding of God's nature, we do not get mired down in useless and overly complex theory.

Man is what creates useless complexity. Just look at the legal system :D

Tiassa
07-24-01, 09:17 PM
Man is what creates useless complexity. Just look at the legal system Or, as another example, the interpretive diversity of God's definitive law on the planet: y'all are so unified in your faith, and without disagreements that I can see the evidence of God's nobility. ;)

Let me know when someone gets an accurate understanding of God's nature. I'll do The Wave.
First, God is not imposing Himself into the scientific discovery He made us enjoy. Right, by forcing you to enjoy it, he is not imposing his Will, Presence, or Authority?

Right. Please try again on that one. Or not, if you don't mind. You know, if a nation that claimed to be a Christian majority happened to behave this way on a governmental and institutional scale, what would the result be? I am reminded here of the Trail of Tears, in which we ran many tribes onto pathetic land and stole their homes, and did it because it was, uh, good for them. Elsewhere in this country and alon gthe same lines, our cavalry chased the Nez Perce across two states and into Canada with the sentiment that the only good Injun is a dead one, because people thought it was good for the tribe.

I offer that example, sir, to demonstrate what happens if you seriously think that concept you've offered works.

Well, it works okay if you're armed and doing the chasing. But otherwise, it's just bad psychology, and bad for any culture.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Sir. Loone
07-28-01, 04:49 PM
Evolution: from the minds of 'finite man'!
Creation: of GOD the Creator of all life, visible and invisible, known and unknown! And His wisdom is 'infinite' and is of the Supreme Intelligence!

Evolution is mostly theories. (Man made) [Man is no ways 'god'!] Darwin was only a man, and he was not preasent at the "dawn of creation!"

Creation is Reality! That it is of the truth of the WORD of GOD!:D And the Creator GOD was always in existance, and forever will be the Creator and the Sustainer of life!

Tiassa
07-28-01, 05:14 PM
Loone--

You do so much by your posts in the way of giving aid and comfort to those you have declared as enemies that I felt I owe you thanks. Your living demonstration of the benefit of Christianity makes me smile. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Sir. Loone
07-29-01, 01:45 PM
Tiassa:
Digging up 'funky old bones' will not disprove GOD's existence!
But will only help to understand something about the history of the Earth, but much is still only theories. :D

Archeology can help prove the Bible's historical accuracy!

tony1
08-04-01, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by tiassa
When you learn your station in the Universe, instead of assume it, you'll find that God is merely that much more accessible to you.
We have learned it, therefore we have assumed it.

What President feels like the President the first day he is elected?
He assumes the Presidency when he is elected.


Right, by forcing you to enjoy it, he is not imposing his Will, Presence, or Authority?
"made" does not necessarily mean "forced." It also means "created."

Besides, why aren't you on a tirade against your parents?
You aren't here of your own choice, anyway.

Gregp507
03-09-08, 12:51 PM
c'mon lets slug it out.
please only good arguements and debate, no hitting below the belt, try to be factual and clear and not overly emotional.

You can slug it out until the cows come home with "evidence vs. evidence." The problem is in the two different approaches to evidence.

The scientific approach is to refrain from making conclusions until all available evidence is examined. And even when such hypotheses lead to theories, they are not asserted as "absolute truths," but falsifiable theories, that forever hold out the possibility of being wrong.

Religion and creationism use a very different approach to evidence. The conclusion comes first, and it is usually based on some sort of underlying certitude, such as bible text or other untested conclusion. The evidence is not recognized unless it fits the conclusion, and if it appears to contradict the conclusion, its "disproved" by cherry-picking some special criteria.

The problem with placing the conclusion in front of the evidence, is that it tends to filter the evidence to favor the conclusion. After all, if a belief is an unquestioned certitude, all evidence must either fit that conclusion or be rejected.

I suppose it could be forgiven that a scientific approach, based on skepticism and admits to the possibiity of being wrong would appear similar to a lack of resolve to the religious mind. This "lack of resolve" (a.k.a. skepticism) is a far more powerful force than religion, and has given us much good to take for granted. The religious approach has given us very little, except a great deal of misery.

Saquist
03-09-08, 02:50 PM
I say give the formal evolutionary theory 2,000 years to progress, and compare what it does in the world to Chrisitanity's two-millennia history. In addition to the volumes of laboratory data and field data collected and analyzed in that time, I think the introduction of such knowledge will actually bring a sense of peace to the human spirit in the specific sense that many superstitions will disappear. The social pressures of enacting those superstitions will disappear. The detriments of those social pressures will disappear.

Knowledge--education--benefits society. Superstition destroys it. This, I feel, is objectively demonstrated in history.

But what will we know by then? The objective data reward of two millennia spent learning about the Universe instead of fearing and hating it should hopefully be sufficient enough to drive superstition back to shadows. And the comfort of understanding our living partners in this human endeavor will bring great rewards of its own.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

While there are many that have superstitious attitude with there religion there are those who are not. While many religions are manifestation of superstition Chrisitianty is a bit different. It's established on events of the past that are not all symbolic. While science will continue to expand with knowledge religion such as christianity will remain...logicaly static. It has no reason to change as history and testimony should say ONE thing not alternating over time. Science and Religion are not the same. But they are frequently put iin the same basket as far as ideologies go.

If science is discovery and questioning
Religion is testimony and preservation of the past knowledge.

Whether you trust that information requires study of the details for that particular religion.

Creationism is highly speculative because of it's Six day proposal. There is a problem with fitting the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures in the time we've known. In this way religion refuse to budge it's understanding assuming that their understanding of the original testimony was correct. Details reveal there is an agreement between the testimony of the scriptures and science.

From there many confusing tenants are eliminated.

Myles
03-09-08, 04:35 PM
While there are many that have superstitious attitude with there religion there are those who are not. While many religions are manifestation of superstition Chrisitianty is a bit different. It's established on events of the past that are not all symbolic. While science will continue to expand with knowledge religion such as christianity will remain...logicaly static. It has no reason to change as history and testimony should say ONE thing not alternating over time. Science and Religion are not the same. But they are frequently put iin the same basket as far as ideologies go.

If science is discovery and questioning
Religion is testimony and preservation of the past knowledge.

Whether you trust that information requires study of the details for that particular religion.

Creationism is highly speculative because of it's Six day proposal. There is a problem with fitting the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures in the time we've known. In this way religion refuse to budge it's understanding assuming that their understanding of the original testimony was correct. Details reveal there is an agreement between the testimony of the scriptures and science.

From there many confusing tenants are eliminated.

A simple question. Based on your study of the bible, what is the age of the earth ? Please supply chapter and verse so we can check your interpretation

Norsefire
03-09-08, 05:07 PM
Evolution is bullshit, Creationism is obviously correct and what should be taught.

Michael
03-09-08, 06:27 PM
Who dragged up this old thread???

Norsefire, evolution is a fact. The process of evolution is still being studied.

Michael

Vkothii
03-09-08, 06:35 PM
OK. how about biochemical evolution? What about biology?
All those universities, books, seminars, and biologists? What are they all going to do now?

Myles
03-09-08, 06:36 PM
Evolution is bullshit, Creationism is obviously correct and what should be taught.

Why is evolution bullshit ? Can you give me some reasons ?

Kadark
03-09-08, 06:44 PM
It's pointless to engage in this debate because the evolution crowd has embedded in their heads that no alter theory is plausible or worth investigating. It's as if modern day scientists have become perfectly content with the evolutionary theory, and see no reason or purpose in exploring other ideas. Whenever something contrary to the teachings of their theory is established, no matter what the beliefs are of those of those who raise the questions, they violently deny it, and call the perpetrators mindless creationists. Are we so bland as to be stuck with two groups of characterization, as in evolution and intelligent design? Surely there's some leeway.

Myles
03-09-08, 07:23 PM
It's pointless to engage in this debate because the evolution crowd has embedded in their heads that no alter theory is plausible or worth investigating. It's as if modern day scientists have become perfectly content with the evolutionary theory, and see no reason or purpose in exploring other ideas. Whenever something contrary to the teachings of their theory is established, no matter what the beliefs are of those of those who raise the questions, they violently deny it, and call the perpetrators mindless creationists. Are we so bland as to be stuck with two groups of characterization, as in evolution and intelligent design? Surely there's some leeway.

I ask for reasons and you reply with a tirade. It's clear that you cannot pick holes in evolutionary theory because you do not understand it. Just voicing disagreement will earn you no respect.

You say ceationism should be taught and at the same time express the view that there ought to be some leeway between evolution and creationism. You have fallen between two stools. Why not give your reasons for denying evolution. What faults have you found with the theory ?

Kadark
03-09-08, 07:26 PM
I ask for reasons and you reply with a tirade. It's clear that you cannot pick holes in evolutionary theory because you do not understand it. Just voicing disagreement will earn you no respect

Actually, I didn't even read your post. I just read the title of the thread and posted my sentiments.

Saquist
03-09-08, 07:27 PM
Evolution is bullshit, Creationism is obviously correct and what should be taught.

While creation is the obvious conclusion Creationism it'self is a ...misunderstanding of the bible. The problems of prehistoric fossils is a clue that many Christian's persception of the bible needs some adjusting.

They have to be willing to not only jump into reasearch of the bible but of science aswell.
There's also no need to be dogmatic

Michael
03-09-08, 07:28 PM
There is no evolutionary theory Kadark, Evolution as a process is a fact not a theory. HOW the process of evolution occurs is still being studied.

Creationism on the other hand is a myth. In one myth people are created from the vagina of a lizard, in another life is from the tear of a Goddesses in anther life started as a kangaroo's dream, in another life came from a middle eastern desert God named Allah from another life started on the island of Japan etc...

These myths served their purpose back when we were primitive people heating out food with camel poop and lived in a tent and revered the guy over there in the big tent because he said he can hear God's voice in his head. Now we live in the age of genetics, atoms, electricity, moon landing, Internet, etc... we now know as a fact that a processes called evolution takes place and we debate exactly how the process is taking place. That's the Theory part - not that the processes is not taking place - that's the fact part.

triplelite
03-09-08, 07:35 PM
Evolution isn't a fact, its a theory that is supported by many evidence that the majority accept. The stuff with electrons and neutrons and protons are still just theory that is very strongly supported. Like Einstein said, it takes many evidence to support one thing and takes just one to blow it all away.

Norsefire
03-09-08, 07:45 PM
There is no evolutionary theory Kadark, Evolution as a process is a fact not a theory. HOW the process of evolution occurs is still being studied.

Creationism on the other hand is a myth. In one myth people are created from the vagina of a lizard, in another life is from the tear of a Goddesses in anther life started as a kangaroo's dream, in another life came from a middle eastern desert God named Allah from another life started on the island of Japan etc...

These myths served their purpose back when we were primitive people heating out food with camel poop and lived in a tent and revered the guy over there in the big tent because he said he can hear God's voice in his head. Now we live in the age of genetics, atoms, electricity, moon landing, Internet, etc... we now know as a fact that a processes called evolution takes place and we debate exactly how the process is taking place. That's the Theory part - not that the processes is not taking place - that's the fact part.

How do you know God didn't create the Universe with a set of laws (laws of physics and such ) and the universe, and us, simply evolved, but there was still a Creator?

spidergoat
03-09-08, 07:51 PM
Evolution isn't a fact, its a theory that is supported by many evidence that the majority accept. The stuff with electrons and neutrons and protons are still just theory that is very strongly supported. Like Einstein said, it takes many evidence to support one thing and takes just one to blow it all away.

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution describes how it occurs, but it is also very well supported. All fossil evidence fits with the model.

Michael
03-09-08, 07:57 PM
Evolution isn't a fact, its a theory that is supported by many evidence that the majority accept. The stuff with electrons and neutrons and protons are still just theory that is very strongly supported. Like Einstein said, it takes many evidence to support one thing and takes just one to blow it all away.Evolution is a fact. How evolution occurs is still being studied.


How do you know God didn't create the Universe with a set of laws (laws of physics and such ) and the universe, and us, simply evolved, but there was still a Creator?You are correct. There could be a creator, or two, or this could be a dream, or you're brain could be in a jar and we're all actually in a room looking at your brain typing questions directly into your cortex and you're brain interprets this as you sitting in from of a computer reading them, or maybe Xenu the .....

So yes, any of those situations could be true.

Evolution is still a fact.
The process of evolution is being debated.

Bare in mind, abiogenesis, life from non-life, is not evolution. Evolution is a process that occurs in systems with living organisms.

Saquist
03-09-08, 08:01 PM
I'm afraid Evolution is not a fact.
If the process is debated then it hasn't been observed thus it is a theory.

spidergoat
03-09-08, 08:07 PM
It has been observed.

Michael
03-09-08, 08:11 PM
I'm afraid Evolution is not a fact.
If the process is debated then it hasn't been observed thus it is a theory.I'm afraid it has been observed and is a fact.

Norsefire
03-09-08, 08:49 PM
Evolution is a theory not a fact. Besides, Creationism is far more logical and reasonable.

spidergoat
03-09-08, 08:55 PM
How do you know God didn't create the Universe with a set of laws (laws of physics and such ) and the universe, and us, simply evolved, but there was still a Creator?

If that was all religion was, I think few people would have a problem with it. However, theistic creation myths do say alot about the nature of that creation event. Faith leads people to think, for instance, that women came from the rib of a man.

Saquist
03-09-08, 09:10 PM
It has been observed.


I'm afraid it has been observed and is a fact.

In fact i hasn't.
What you have observed is adaptation but the non sequitor we're hanging on to which you haven't observed is the change potential to complete change one creature into another.

We all know this hasn't been observed.
Logically then evolution is still theory. So adaptation is fact by what adaptation leads to is not. It's speculation and that is theory. Which means...

Yes, that's right evolution is not a fact.
I'm just speaking in all litteral terms no in relation to the beliefs we tend to hold onto.

Vkothii
03-09-08, 10:06 PM
the non sequitor we're hanging on to which you haven't observed is the change potential to complete change one creature into another.Sorry, but this misses the boat entirely.

How many bacteria have "speciated" in the last couple of centuries (or decades)? Why do viruses keep "emerging", with different infectious "capability"? What about GM?

Or are you hinting at something like a fish becoming a bird, or a dog becoming an otter then a whale, or somesuch?

spidergoat
03-09-08, 10:11 PM
In fact i hasn't.
What you have observed is adaptation but the non sequitor we're hanging on to which you haven't observed is the change potential to complete change one creature into another.

We all know this hasn't been observed.
Logically then evolution is still theory. So adaptation is fact by what adaptation leads to is not. It's speculation and that is theory. Which means...

Yes, that's right evolution is not a fact.
I'm just speaking in all litteral terms no in relation to the beliefs we tend to hold onto.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Adaptation through natural selection is a fact. Adaptation is change. The more time beings have to adapt, the less they will resemble their ancestors. This has been observed in the fossil evidence.

Saquist
03-09-08, 10:38 PM
That's not proven.
You're showing you have faith in it.
The Fossil evidence is static the progress you see is speculation.
So speculation is not fact. There is no proof on the planet that is direct evidence to the progress of actually events.
That would be the logical fallacy behind evolution.
I've come to understand uniformitarianis. It's a gradual this is a slow that...It's intresting. sometimes it's true but there is no way to confirm it.
Let me ask you spider...is it a fact or is it that you think there is no other choice but to accept it as fact.

I'm pretty open ended.
If any such evidence were to ever occur I'd have no choice but to accept evolution but I'm afraid there is about a 250,000 years of history who knows what happend. The most reasonable expression is..."we don't know".

For right now I must conclude creation is the only viable option.

spidergoat
03-09-08, 10:50 PM
It is proven. We even know which animal is related to the very first animal.

We do know that all the present broad classifications of organisms first occurred during the Cambrian period. We can see the branching out of species, for instance the rise of bipedal apes from those that walked on all fours, the rise of large-brained bipedal apes out of the small-brained ancestors. There is massive evidence for this, and you are just in denial because you want to believe in a cherished myth.

Fraggle Rocker
03-09-08, 11:00 PM
That's not proven. You're showing you have faith in it. The Fossil evidence is static, the progress you see is speculation.This is not speculation. It is a hypothesis derived from evidence by logical reasoning, which has been undergoing testing and peer review for more than a century without being falsified. That is much different from speculation. Our evidence for evolution is of roughly the same grade as our evidence for the entire science of astronomy, which is based on images of distant stars as they were tens of thousands of years ago, and of distant galaxies as they were tens of billions of years ago. Yet no one has challenged the theories of astronomy since the end of the Dark Ages; no one says that astronomy is based on "faith" that those galaxies are now where we calculate them to be.

Kadark
03-09-08, 11:01 PM
As a mathematician, I cannot wrap my head around the probability of protein evolution occurring. You guys can argue your biological mumbo jumbo to yourselves, but to me, the numbers alone are an astounding turnoff.

spidergoat
03-09-08, 11:05 PM
What numbers? Creationists usually talk about how unlikely it would be for a protein to evolve, but this is a misunderstanding. Evolution proceeds in small steps from simpler beginnings. There was a precursor to the proteins we see now.

Kadark
03-09-08, 11:06 PM
These numbers.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html

Have fun.

Vkothii
03-09-08, 11:09 PM
But proteins didn't evolve separately, then make a cell.
Somehow these things all got together, lined up in formation.

That's "in-formation"; which is mathematical.
Life isn't only structure, it's the function within the structure.

Admittedly, common descent has to have started somewhere, like cosmic expansion.
But Darwinism doesn't deal with ab initio.

Kadark
03-09-08, 11:11 PM
But proteins didn't evolve separately, then make a cell.
Somehow these things all got together, lined up in formation.

That's "in-formation"; which is mathematical.
Life isn't only structure, it's the function within the structure.

Admittedly, common descent has to have started somewhere, like cosmic expansion.
But Darwinism doesn't deal with ab initio.

Uh huh.

Norsefire
03-09-08, 11:13 PM
I think the proof that the Universe or Universes, or basically existence, was Created is that it must have been. It would not be logical to assume it was "always there" because that simply does not make sense, it's impossible, it's illogical, and it leads to an overwhelming conclusion that originally, existence was created.

Myles
03-09-08, 11:13 PM
While creation is the obvious conclusion Creationism it'self is a ...misunderstanding of the bible. The problems of prehistoric fossils is a clue that many Christian's persception of the bible needs some adjusting.

They have to be willing to not only jump into reasearch of the bible but of science aswell.
There's also no need to be dogmatic

Creationism is the obvious cnclusion of those who accept the bible, studied or not, as the word of god and therefore true. It cannot stand comparison with evolution as a theory.

On what grounds do you disagree with evolution, allowing for the fact that you have shown little understanding of it elsewhere. It's easy to make statements, as is your wont, but isn't it time that you provided some evidence and had a proper debate. A number of us have asked the same of you but you appear to be long on statements and short on facts.

So tell us some of your objections and we can discuss our differences !

Myles
03-09-08, 11:16 PM
I think the proof that the Universe or Universes, or basically existence, was Created is that it must have been. It would not be logical to assume it was "always there" because that simply does not make sense, it's impossible, it's illogical, and it leads to an overwhelming conclusion that originally, existence was created.

So, if it does not make sense that the universe always existed - i don't necessarily disagree with you - does it make sense to say that whatever created it always existed ?

Myles
03-09-08, 11:26 PM
Uh huh.

Is that to be taken as a mathematical answer ? On your own admission you cannot get your head round the numbers. That's because you don't understand whta numbers you should be looking at. In short, you do not understand evolution.

Can I take it that you cannot also get your head round infinity ?

Kadark
03-09-08, 11:29 PM
Is that to be taken as a mathematical answer ? On your own admission you cannot get your head round the numbers. That's because you don't understand whta numbers you should be looking at. In short, you do not understand evolution.

Can I take it that you cannot also get your head round infinity ?

I said I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. Of course I understand the calculations, which is precisely why it casts doubt on the evolutionary theory for me.

spidergoat
03-09-08, 11:30 PM
I think the proof that the Universe or Universes, or basically existence, was Created is that it must have been. It would not be logical to assume it was "always there" because that simply does not make sense, it's impossible, it's illogical, and it leads to an overwhelming conclusion that originally, existence was created.

So what created the creator? If that was "always there", why isn't that equally illogical?

spidergoat
03-09-08, 11:31 PM
I said I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. Of course I understand the calculations, which is precisely why it casts doubt on the evolutionary theory for me.

I've got a book for you, "Climbing Mt. Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.

Kadark
03-09-08, 11:33 PM
I've got a book for you, "Climbing Mt. Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.

I don't read books written by evangelicals.

Norsefire
03-09-08, 11:37 PM
So what created the creator? If that was "always there", why isn't that equally illogical?

Because such a creator is beyond our realm, therefore not bound by our physical laws.

Norsefire
03-09-08, 11:37 PM
So what created the creator? If that was "always there", why isn't that equally illogical?

Also, sorry for the double post, but that would also mean existence in itself is an impossibility. And yet, here we are.

Vkothii
03-09-08, 11:44 PM
I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. Of course I understand the calculations, which is precisely why it casts doubt on the evolutionary theory for me.Can you at least see irony, in your incredulity, at your evolved mammalian brain reaching the conclusion that it can't understand how it got to that conclusion?

Michael
03-09-08, 11:45 PM
I think the proof that the Universe or Universes, or basically existence, was Created is that it must have been. It would not be logical to assume it was "always there" because that simply does not make sense, it's impossible, it's illogical, and it leads to an overwhelming conclusion that originally, existence was created.Norsefire, come on, it is not more logical. All you do is add a God in and say God did it. Then who created God? Oh, well that's easy, God has always been there.

Please, the simpler answer is to cut out the God/Gods/Goddesses/etc.. variable.


Evolution is concerned with living things that are already here, with proteins, with DNA, etc...

Kadark
03-09-08, 11:48 PM
Can you at least see irony, in your incredulity, at your evolved mammalian brain reaching the conclusion that it can't understand how it got to that conclusion?

*Ponders*

No.

Myles
03-09-08, 11:51 PM
I said I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. Of course I understand the calculations, which is precisely why it casts doubt on the evolutionary theory for me.

Well, it seems you have a problem that scientists world wide do not have. Why not write a paper setting out your reasoning. Your name will go down in history if your objections are accepted.

Myles
03-09-08, 11:56 PM
Because such a creator is beyond our realm, therefore not bound by our physical laws.

Maybe evolution is beyond your understanding also, i.e., beyond your personal realm.

You assume a creator which, in turn, forces you to put it beyond our realm because you cannot support your argument in any other way. Not very convincing when you think about it.

Norsefire
03-09-08, 11:58 PM
Norsefire, come on, it is not more logical. All you do is add a God in and say God did it. Then who created God? Oh, well that's easy, God has always been there.

Please, the simpler answer is to cut out the God/Gods/Goddesses/etc.. variable.


Evolution is concerned with living things that are already here, with proteins, with DNA, etc...

If there was a Creator (a God), obviously he would not be on the same plane of existence, the same realm, we are in and therefore our rules of nature would not apply.

However, as to the universe, again how is it logical that there is a universe if there was no creator? What is existence? What is something? Why is there anything? Where did existence come from? How do you know we exist? Where did something originate? Why do we exist? The only logical conclusion is a Creator.

Saquist
03-10-08, 12:22 AM
It is proven. We even know which animal is related to the very first animal.

We do know that all the present broad classifications of organisms first occurred during the Cambrian period. We can see the branching out of species, for instance the rise of bipedal apes from those that walked on all fours, the rise of large-brained bipedal apes out of the small-brained ancestors. There is massive evidence for this, and you are just in denial because you want to believe in a cherished myth.

Proven as in "found to be true"
It is not beyond a shadow of doubt For we have no seen the ultimate results.
Nor have we've been able to reproduce them on that ultimate scale.



This is not speculation. It is a hypothesis derived from evidence by logical reasoning, which has been undergoing testing and peer review for more than a century without being falsified. That is much different from speculation. Our evidence for evolution is of roughly the same grade as our evidence for the entire science of astronomy, which is based on images of distant stars as they were tens of thousands of years ago, and of distant galaxies as they were tens of billions of years ago. Yet no one has challenged the theories of astronomy since the end of the Dark Ages; no one says that astronomy is based on "faith" that those galaxies are now where we calculate them to be.

A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations? I concur it is indeed a hypothesis. But that does not make it proven. Linking the facts and evidence is speculation. It's frequently done just so in a court of law in which a prosecution proposes a hypothesis based on motive, opportunity, links to the crime scene, etc. Once those figures are in place a reasonable and logical hypothesis is derived...
Is the hypothesis always right? Logically, No.

And just to make sure I'm not using colloquialisms.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing

Speculation: guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

FraggleRocker you identified evolution as a hypothesis which is an educated guess and it can be reliably said that we do not have all the information regarding life in the past. It's made evident by the back and forth in the biology thread currently.

I'm sorry I'm not intrested in dogma or tradition. It's almost as bad in science as it is in religion....Well not really. Truely only in this case, I believe. Nonetheless the similarities are the same. The "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" attitude on evolution as a fact has become tradition. Something to be past down.

Since there is no need to prosecute anyone...to come to conclusion expidently it remains a theory untill it may one day be linked to it's ultimate end. Declaring it fact as of now is an opinion we are entitled to but not factual, not logical, not proven.

Michael
03-10-08, 12:55 AM
If there was a Creator (a God), obviously he would not be on the same plane of existence, the same realm, we are in and therefore our rules of nature would not apply.

However, as to the universe, again how is it logical that there is a universe if there was no creator? What is existence? What is something? Why is there anything? Where did existence come from? How do you know we exist? Where did something originate? Why do we exist? The only logical conclusion is a Creator.Again, all you are doing is compounding the problem.

Who are/is the creator(s)?
Where did they come from?
How do we know they exist?
Where did they originate?
Why do they exist?

The only logical conclusion is a set of Creators for the Creators...

Who are these NEW creator(s)?
Where did they come from?
How do we know they exist?
Where did they originate?
Why do they exist?


See?

The fact is there is no evidence for any "Creators". So why postulate their existence as a means of answering the question?

Think of it like this. A long time ago people living on an Island asked: Why are the rocks along the beach lined up so perfectly? Rocks and shells of about the same size formed lines along the beach. The obvious answer was a Water God. Once people in Greece asked why lightening shot down from the sky. The obvious answer was a God named Zeus.

Will we ever understand the origin of the Universe? Maybe not. Or, maybe we will. When we do I am sure that the answer will not be based on Gods just as lightening and rock-orientation wasn't either.


That said, this topic is on evolution - which is a fact. Evolution is a process that takes place in things that are already here and alive. Like animals, plants, bacteria, etc...


As to the WHY am I here? That's a question everyone asks (or should) and I personally think only one individual can answer it - and answer only for themselves.

Michael

Saquist
03-10-08, 01:10 AM
Why is "creators" a logical conclusions?

iceaura
03-10-08, 01:22 AM
I said I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. They show nothing. They are based on silly assumptions, and whatever they turn out to be is no more relevant to evolution than the square root of the number of electrons in the nearest asteroid.

Cris
03-10-08, 01:27 AM
Saquist,


I'm afraid Evolution is not a fact.
If the process is debated then it hasn't been observed thus it is a theory.No. As Darwin stated in his book - he was proud of two things - establishing the fact of evolution and proposing the theory of how things evolve.

Norsefire,


Evolution is a theory not a fact. Similar answer to you. Any basic study of biology reveals the fact of evolution. It is astonishing that anyone still wants to deny these basics.

Michael
03-10-08, 01:34 AM
Why is "creators" a logical conclusions?Obviously the question then becomes who (or whom) created the Creator. Who created that creator... ad infinitum

OR, perhaps you would like to stop at the first Creator, for which we have no evidence for? I mean, really, this IS the predominate mythological tale. One or One Set of Creators (I'm thinking Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto the Japanese Creator). Not to many people bother to question their origin - it's a given.

All was a chaos, unimaginably limitless and without definite shape or form. Eon followed eon: then, lo! out of this boundless, shapeless mass something light and transparent rose up and formed the heaven. This was the Plain of High Heaven, in which materialized a deity called Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto (the Deity-of-the-August-Center-of-Heaven). Next the heavens gave birth to a deity named Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the High-August-Producing-Wondrous-Deity), followed by a third called Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity). These three divine beings are called the Three Creating Deities.


So, why not just stop at the This is the Universe page? No need to compound things by adding three creators huh? Wouldn't you agree?

Also, the Universe can be eternal.
The Universe may have exited in a different form and what we see as a "beginning" is simply the beginning of the Universe as it is now.

Michael

Michael
03-10-08, 01:36 AM
Lastly, none of this has to do with the FACT of the process of evolution.

Cris
03-10-08, 01:37 AM
Norsefire,


However, as to the universe, again how is it logical that there is a universe if there was no creator? Using your attempt at logic ask the next question. How is it logical that there is a creator if there is no creator of the creator. Your premise is that everything must have an origin and propsoe the cretor concept as a solution but you can't have it both ways. If everything must have an origin then that includes creators, and that leads us to an impossible infinite regression.


Where did existence come from? Why must it have come from anywhere?


How do you know we exist? I think, therefore I am. The question was answered centuries ago.


Where did something originate?Why must everything have an origin. From physics we see that nothing is created or destroyed. Why suggest otherwise?


Why do we exist? The only logical conclusion is a Creator.Non sequitur. The creator concept answers nothing.

Saquist
03-10-08, 01:47 AM
Obviously the question then becomes who (or whom) created the Creator. Who created that creator... ad infinitum

OR, perhaps you would like to stop at the first Creator, for which we have no evidence for? I mean, really, this IS the predominate mythological tale. One or One Set of Creators (I'm thinking Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto the Japanese Creator). Not to many people bother to question their origin - it's a given.

All was a chaos, unimaginably limitless and without definite shape or form. Eon followed eon: then, lo! out of this boundless, shapeless mass something light and transparent rose up and formed the heaven. This was the Plain of High Heaven, in which materialized a deity called Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto (the Deity-of-the-August-Center-of-Heaven). Next the heavens gave birth to a deity named Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the High-August-Producing-Wondrous-Deity), followed by a third called Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity). These three divine beings are called the Three Creating Deities.


So, why not just stop at the This is the Universe page? No need to compound things by adding three creators huh? Wouldn't you agree?

Also, the Universe can be eternal.
The Universe may have exited in a different form and what we see as a "beginning" is simply the beginning of the Universe as it is now.

Michael

I see. The creator's creator.
Why is the assumption that the creator has a creator more logical than a creator with out a creator?

just my perspective of course
When speaking of Origin it seems logical to postulate we are speaking in terms of one. Infinite origins does not seem to be...the object of the search.

Cause and effect is universal but this turns out to be a radical assumption when speaking of that which is not of this universe.

Ohwell...Thank you for the response.

Michael
03-10-08, 02:26 AM
- the postulation was that to make sense of reality there needs to be a creator.
- my point is this doesn't do anything accept move the question now, from something real that we have evidence for, namely the universe, to a creator - which we have no evidence for.
- now I ask, how did the creator come to be?
Typical response:
A) it was created.
B) it always existed.

So
If it was created, who created it's creator.
If it always existed
a) Suppose it did create the Universe - My next question is - Does it now need to exist? as there is no evidence for it's existence do we agree it doesn't exist now? Perhaps in this theory the "creator" made the universe and then, itself, ceased to exist.
b) If one is perfectly happy to live with the notion of something always existing, then lets not move from the realm of reality and agree that reality has always exited. done. again, no need of a present creator.

Michael

Saquist
03-10-08, 03:08 AM
"Suppose it did create the Universe"
"does it now need to exist?"
"as there is no evidence for it's existence do we agree it doesn't exist now?

I don't understand. What does evidence have to do with God?

Why would it want to cease to exist?

"lets not move from the realm of reality and agree that reality ahs always "existed"

What does this mean? "Let's not move from the realm of reality"
I think you're making unnecessary paradoxes.

Myles
03-10-08, 05:04 AM
Saquist,

For whatever reason, you reject evolution in favour of creationism. You have said as much in an earlier post (117 ) on this thread. Given the wealth of evidence to support evolution, what can you offer to support creationism ? Try looking at the problem this way.

There are three choices, not two. We can believe in evolution, we can believe in creationism or we can say we do not know. As you reject evolution , why have you opted for creationism as opposed to "don't know"?

Logically, you should opt for don't know unless you have a weight of evidence to support creationism, at least as compelling as that in favour of evolution. So, what evidence can you adduce to support creation ?

Myles
03-10-08, 05:28 AM
Why must a creator have a creator and why it is logical to say so.

The notion that the universe must have had a beginning and that this entails the existence of a creator is a fallacy. It's based on the notion that nothing can exist that has not been created.It is then said to follow that there must be a creator

As the argument is based on the premise that everything that exists was created, so the logical conclusion must be that the creator must have a creator. This leads to an infinite regress. An attempt to avoid this is to say that the creator must always have existed but that makes no more sense than to say that the universe has always existed.

Why not settle for, the question has yet to be answered. This strikes me as the only intelligent position.

Sarkus
03-10-08, 06:51 AM
For those who fail to distinguish between the FACT of evolution and the many THEORIES of the evolutionary process (Saquist and others)... consider this...

A car is seen at point A.
The next day it is seen at point B.
This is the FACT of movement (the car has moved from point A to point B, and neither the end point nor the start point can be disputed).

Noone is yet sure how it moved from A to B.
This is the THEORY of movement. (It could have rolled on its wheels, it could have teleported etc...)


Likewise with evolution...

We know there was a species A and no species B.
We know there is now a species B that shares similar traits to species A (neither the end nor start point can be disputed).
This is the FACT of evolution.

We do not yet know HOW the species A gave rise to species B.
The HOW relates to the THEORY of evolution.


Now... do you see the difference between what is the FACT of evolution, and what are the THEORIES of evolution.
Do not confuse the two.

Sarkus
03-10-08, 06:54 AM
I don't understand. What does evidence have to do with God?What indeed. :rolleyes:

clusteringflux
03-10-08, 09:46 AM
Why not settle for, the question has yet to be answered. This strikes me as the only intelligent position.
Because everyone has a their own model that they are testing against everyone else's.
I think that you have touched on something very important about this debate and that is that no matter which side you're on, claiming with total confidence that yours is the correct opinion just disqualifies you among people who know it is a question yet without an answer.

Some sciences have set out to disprove God but it seems to be having the reverse effect on the population that is not easily lead. I would say the same for fundamental theists.

Yorda
03-10-08, 10:58 AM
As the argument is based on the premise that everything that exists was created, so the logical conclusion must be that the creator must have a creator. This leads to an infinite regress.

the reason that god can have existed forever is that god is not material. the universe has to be created because it is an effect, and every effect needs a cause. god is not an effect, he is the cause, so he doesn't need to be caused.


Why not settle for, the question has yet to be answered.

a question can't really be answered because every answer creates a new question.


Logically, you should opt for don't know unless you have a weight of evidence to support creationism,

i don't know, so i invented the magical entity god who created everything... and the problem was solved.


Where did existence come from?

existence doesn't need to be created because even if nothing exists, something exists.


Where did something originate?

from nothing.


Obviously the question then becomes who (or whom) created the Creator. Who created that creator... ad infinitum

by definition, the creator of everything can't have a creator, otherwise it would not BE the creator of everything.


No need to compound things by adding three creators huh? Wouldn't you agree?

if you know what the trinity is, you know that it is real.


Once people in Greece asked why lightening shot down from the sky. The obvious answer was a God named Zeus.

and after many thousand years later we still don't know what causes it.


Will we ever understand the origin of the Universe?

the people who wrote the ancient myths understood it long ago.

read their answer in blue text here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1779601&postcount=160


I think, therefore I am. The question was answered centuries ago.

i eat pie, therefore i am... maybe you only think you think.

Myles
03-10-08, 11:17 AM
and after many thousand years later we still don't know what causes it.



the people who wrote the ancient myths understood it long ago.

read their answer in blue text here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1779601&postcount=160



the reason that god can have existed forever is that god is not material. the universe has to be created because it is an effect, and every effect needs a cause. god is not an effect, he is the cause, so he doesn't need to be caused.



a question can't really be answered because every answer creates a new question.



i don't know, so i invented the magical entity god who created everything... and the problem was solved.



existence doesn't need to be created because even if nothing exists, something exists.



from nothing.



by definition, the creator of everything can't have a creator, otherwise it would not BE the creator of everything.



if you know what the trinity is, you know that it is real.



i eat pie, therefore i am... maybe you only think you think.

I have not said some of the things you have attributed to me.To say we don't know the cause of lightening shows you have no understanding of science whatever. This explains you willingness to involve yourelf in bigger issues; it's because you don't know what we are talking about.

You posit the existence of a creator on no better grounds than your inabilityto imagine a universe existing without one. Having commited yourself to the view that everything must have been created, you claim the creator is an exception . Why ? Because it suits your purpose. You can offer no evidence, so why not agree that we do not know ?

Saquist
03-10-08, 02:43 PM
For those who fail to distinguish between the FACT of evolution and the many THEORIES of the evolutionary process (Saquist and others)... consider this...

A car is seen at point A.
The next day it is seen at point B.
This is the FACT of movement (the car has moved from point A to point B, and neither the end point nor the start point can be disputed).

Noone is yet sure how it moved from A to B.
This is the THEORY of movement. (It could have rolled on its wheels, it could have teleported etc...)


Likewise with evolution...

We know there was a species A and no species B.
We know there is now a species B that shares similar traits to species A (neither the end nor start point can be disputed).
This is the FACT of evolution.

We do not yet know HOW the species A gave rise to species B.
The HOW relates to the THEORY of evolution.


Now... do you see the difference between what is the FACT of evolution, and what are the THEORIES of evolution.
Do not confuse the two.

Logically If I see a car (item one) at point "A"
And then the next day I see (item one) at point "B"
Yes that is movement.
We don't know how it moved but it's new position is obvious..

HOWEVER.

Logically If I see a car (item one) at point "A"
And then the next day I see a truck (item two) at point "B"
One can not logicaly conclude (item B) was previously (item A) moved to point "B"

Logicaly untill you've observed the change you've seen on the generational level transform a creature from A to Z then the premise is theoretical and only theoretical.

I can understand if you think it's a "fact" but untill direct observation confirms the theory it remains speculatioin. Nothing will change that except an experiment which induces such a transformation or viewing it's natural occurence. Otherwise we're skipping a critical step in the Scientific Method.





What indeed. :rolleyes:

That fits my understanding spatialy.
There is no physical connection to follow or track God. No bloodhound or private eye or scientific revelation is going to be able to isolate evidence of his existence. A creator by nature would have zero connection to the creation except for one all important connection. Communication. If the Bible represents that communication then it is the only tangible evidence to his existence.

So I mean what I say. What does evidence have to do with God? It's a fallacy of reasoning to presume the same rules and laws apply outside this universe. As humans we're pretty stubborn on the whole cause and effect issue. This would be one of those issues from where ignorance or even stupidity is invovled because some make illogical assumptions.

spidergoat
03-10-08, 02:48 PM
Direct observation of the fossil evidence, taking into account the accuracy of modern dating techniques, proves that new species come from older ones. This is confirmed by the taxonomy of fossil skeletons. Although one would have to acknowledge a small degree of uncertainty, the general principle is so likely that to discount evolution would be illogical.

iceaura
03-10-08, 02:56 PM
Well, there is a series of events recorded in the rocks - where some kinds of animals were around, and then they weren't and other kinds were, in patterns repeated all over the world.

And then there is a distribution of living beings, where certain kinds are found in certain places and not in others, and certain kinds are associated by feature and correlated with distribution, and not others, in patterns repeated all over the world.

And these patterns are the record of the fact of evolution, but that was not recognised for a long time. One reason it was not recognised is that it represented a dramatic change in the description of the factual reality of the world. Such a change is difficult to accept, and without a theory to explain it a fact can be denied more easily by those sufficiently motivated.

Ever since Darwin, the fact of evolution has been much harder to deny and much easier to recognise from its record, because there has been a theory to account for it and explain it. The theory and the fact it explains are not the same, but they are closely associated in history and human thought.

Saquist
03-10-08, 03:41 PM
Direct observation of the fossil evidence, taking into account the accuracy of modern dating techniques, proves that new species come from older ones. This is confirmed by the taxonomy of fossil skeletons. Although one would have to acknowledge a small degree of uncertainty, the general principle is so likely that to discount evolution would be illogical.

I can not agree.
such a visual inspection is flawed and has frequently lead to misconception even today assuming that visual appearence ares marks of relation. DNA shows that very very often animals may look alike but have distant genetic similarity. You can put your bones in that baske but that is not proof. It's specuations which is what evolution is frankly mostly based on. A little observation and ALOT speculation.

I admit some of the experiments have been impressive yet...they've also shown for some reason this process is beyond our ability to manipulate effectively if it's real and that's the clue that there are boundaries in effect that the evolutionary theory doesn't recongnize. Rather than recognize hose difficulties they persist with the theory instead of using the continual failure to revise their perception. That's not surprising if you're assuming that the theory is right and there are no other choices and everyone has been taught to think in such a way instead of out side the box.

spidergoat
03-10-08, 03:59 PM
The proper term is not speculation, but deduction. Animals may look alike, but the bones don't lie. This is because evolution doesn't make anything new, it can only alter what went before. There is no alternative theory with the same kind of evidence to support it. Certainly creationism is not supported by the fossil record.

Norsefire
03-10-08, 04:18 PM
Norsefire,

Using your attempt at logic ask the next question. How is it logical that there is a creator if there is no creator of the creator. Your premise is that everything must have an origin and propsoe the cretor concept as a solution but you can't have it both ways. If everything must have an origin then that includes creators, and that leads us to an impossible infinite regression.

Why must it have come from anywhere?

I think, therefore I am. The question was answered centuries ago.

Why must everything have an origin. From physics we see that nothing is created or destroyed. Why suggest otherwise?

Non sequitur. The creator concept answers nothing.

That is illogical. Why is there existence, then, in the middle of nothingness, universes, what are universes? How do we measure existence? If it was always there, WHY? What the hell is this? What is a mind? Why can I comprehend this? Does it exist?

These questions cannot be answered except through a creator


As for "who created the Creator", the Creator would obviously not be on the same plane of existence as we Humans are, and therefore it is plausible that He has His ways.

Now, even if, it still is simply amazing that we have existence, because it just doesn't make sense. Why is there existence?

Saquist
03-10-08, 04:47 PM
synonyms asides it's not fool proof. In fact it's fool prone. Things have been proven over and over and over again that things are not always what they seem especially when it comes to genetics.

I don't know about creationism
But the fossil record supports creation far better than it supports evolution.



-Prediction of the Creation Model
Life comes only from previous: Which has a creator.

- Fossils should show:
1: complex forms suddently appearing in great variety
2 gaps separating maor kinds life: no linking forms.

-No new kinds gradulaly appearing: no incomplete bones or organs, but all parts completely formed

-Mutations are harmful

-Civilization
related with man and inherently complex

-Language
related with man and inherently complex

-Man appears 6,000 years ago


The Real World
Life comes from life

Fossils show sudden appearances of complex life in great variety
each new kind seperate from previous kinds no linking forms

New kinds gradualy appearing.

Mutations harmful

Civilization shows up with that of Man
same with Lanauage

and the oldest writings are about 5,000 years old.

Now you'll debate mutations despite the reality that they rarely do anything good at all.
You'll debate what the fossil record says and redifine what a transisitional fossils is...even to those that say EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. Yet the truth is the idea of creation fits easily with what we're observing in the Earth today.

And the debate that the DNA's 99.9 percent replication is not a limitation to adaptation.

If you don't recognize the limits then of course you think adapation has a green light. If you don't recognize the limits of course you'll continue to argue on the process of evolution...of course experimentation sucess to manipulate this pliability will meet with little sucess.

The idea of uniformitarianism is a dogmatic ideology that has impacted everything from geology, biology and climate study. If you assume that everything happend a long time ago and gradualy you're not making room for the impact of cataclysmic events on the Earth. Slowly uniformitarianist have been accepting that there is evidence of large scale change on the Earth but they distance it into the millions and hundreds of thousands of years.

Cris
03-10-08, 05:26 PM
Norsefire,


Why is there existence, Why must there be a reason?


How do we measure existence? Self awareness is sufficient to note that existence is real.


If it was always there, WHY? Why must there be a reason?


What is a mind? A group of intricate cooperative neural networks.


Why can I comprehend this? Your neural networks have that capability.


Does it exist?Yes as a label for those neural networks that make it possible.


These questions cannot be answered except through a creatorOnly if we assume there has to be a purpose to everything and there is no reason to assert that anything needs a purpose and hence no reason to reach a conclusion that a creator is a necessity.

As far as we can see the universe serves no purpose, it simply IS.


As for "who created the Creator", the Creator would obviously not be on the same plane of existence as we Humans are, and therefore it is plausible that He has His ways.A fantasy to explain a fantasy, and answers nothing.


Now, even if, it still is simply amazing that we have existence, because it just doesn't make sense. Why is there existence?Why must there be a reason?

Vkothii
03-10-08, 05:27 PM
Why is there existence, then, in the middle of nothingness, universes, what are universes? How do we measure existence?Existence exists, undeniably.
If you exist, and the world exists, that's all there is to it. Why does it need explaining?
Measuring existence (experience), is straightforward, if you have senses to experience it with.

Of course, as Rene Descartes figured, it could all be some illusion created by demons projecting visual, auditory, etc information at you.

But so what, if that's the case? What can you do about the fact that you experience the world that way? Why does the world require a beginning? Because you or someone else says so?

The universe isn't in "the middle of nothing". The universe, by definition, is everything. There's no "nothing" that it's in the middle of...?

Myles
03-10-08, 05:33 PM
Saquist,

Why could life not have arisen spontaneously ?

Are you saying that all mutations are harmful ?

Why must there have been a creator? What evidence supports this view ?

Language "related with man and inherently complex ". What point are you making ?

Same question for civilization

Man appears 6, 000 years ago. This is contradicted by the fossil record. What alternative explanation can you offer ?

Civilization and man. What is your point here ?

Oldest writings are 5, 000 years old ? Check out cave paintings which precede writing but which show images of man and animals. Are you saying these are only 6,000 years old ?

Mutations rarely do anything at all. In a recent post you claimed they did nothing. It is true that some mutations have no survival value but others do. What do you mean by saying that they hardly do anything at all ? What is it they hardly do ?

The idea of creation fits easily with those who do not understand evolutionary theory. Creation is a simplistic notion.

Let us have something better than speculation

spidergoat
03-10-08, 05:35 PM
No, you are completely wrong. Although I recognize that some evolutionary processes were relatively fast, and some slow, it did occur, for the following reasons.

Transitional fossils have been found in abundance.

No new features occur that cannot have been formed through adaptation of previous features. Even the transition from land creature to sea creature (whales) is accompanied by adaptation of the same bones. The whale has vestigal hip bones, something that no creator would include if designing from scratch.

Helpful mutations are rare, but evolution has been found to protect certain areas of the genome, thereby promoting mutation in others. This is the evolution of evolvability.

Mankind is at least 2 million years old, with older bipedal forms revealing a transition from tree-dwellers to ground-walkers coinciding with climate change in Africa that turned forests into plains.

The fossil of possibly the first land creature has been found in the Burgess Shale. It has most of the features of a fish, but it has the same number of bones in it's "hand" that all later quadrupeds share.

Saquist
03-10-08, 08:04 PM
I don't agree spidergoat.
My reascher shows a complete reversal in the 1980's of what was considered a transistional fossil. I have a number of quotes from the time and when compared today logic it reveals that very little actuall new discoveries have added to that "abundance" of transitional fossils. Instead they change what they termed a transitional fossil.

Like the fellow who posted that every fossil is a transitional fossil. I found that hilarious.
these kids are being fed the religious equal of doctrine. Why doesn't science tell it like it is...let the past dictate...why are they changing and adapting the evidence to fit the theory?


Who knows....

Vkothii
03-10-08, 08:21 PM
Seeing and reading what you want to see and read. That's called solecism.

Those with more open-minded viewpoints see compelling evidence of common ancestry in the fossil record, and in the genetic record.
Transitional fossils are a bit of a red-herring, but there are examples of shared anatomical details, and the range of fossil teeth or dentition has a lot of shared "evolution"; it's a bit narrow to conclude there isn't any evidence of transition.

What's the problem with concluding that dinosaurs were transitional between fish and birds? Or Pakicetus was, or whales are transitional? Everything's still evolving, so it's still transitional, isn't it?

I mean, can you accurately define what a "transitional fossil" actually is?

Norsefire
03-10-08, 08:31 PM
Is it not possible that a God DID create our universe, but with the universe having its own set of laws and therefore, even if it was created 13.7 billion years ago, it was nonetheless created by a Creator.

For instance, it doesn't have to be a God in Abrahamic terms, but how do you know we are not simply in some massive spherical petri dish? And God is not just a scientist studying an experiment?

Therefore, our laws of nature, as well as things like evolution, would be plausible and the reason we exist would be explained. Likely? Perhaps not. Possible? I think so.

The reason I do think, however, that we were created is simply because we exist. Again, it is necessary to figure out HOW we exist ( as in, define existence and our place in it, our realm), WHY we exist (why is everything as it is, why is there a universe, why anything?), and WHEN did we begin to exist? Not we as in Mankind, but we as in Existence. What is a universe?


The problem with scientists is that they'll tell you all about the universe: stars, galaxies, light, clusters, movements, gravity, electomagnetism.......but they won't (can't) tell you why it is there........they cannot tell you how it exists.


Again, what is existence? Why is there existence? Is it possible to imagine nonexistence?

The mere point of that, in my opinion, proves that SOMETHING was responsible for the creation of our universe.


But then that brings up another problem. Assuming there is a Creator (whether Abrahamic God or a man in a lab coat), why does he exist? On what plain of existence does he exist on? And what created him?

It creates a loop that renders existence itself to be IMPOSSIBLE. Existence does not exist.

Norsefire
03-10-08, 08:33 PM
Norsefire,

Why must there be a reason?
Not a reason as in a spiritual reason or philosphical reason, just a scientific reason. Why do we exist?

[/QUOTE]

spidergoat
03-10-08, 08:36 PM
According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.[wikipedia]

I find your lack of scientific literacy troubling, but your final statement reveals your true bias. The evidence did not change. The theory hasn't changed too much, except we now know that species do alot of branching, so being able to say definitively if a particular fossil is an actual ancestor of a later species is impossible without DNA testing.

Norsefire
03-10-08, 08:39 PM
According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.[wikipedia]

I find your lack of scientific literacy troubling, but your final statement reveals your true bias. The evidence did not change. The theory hasn't changed too much, except we now know that species do alot of branching, so being able to say definitively if a particular fossil is an actual ancestor of a later species is impossible without DNA testing.

Me?

Enmos
03-10-08, 08:40 PM
Me?

No, Saquist.. but I think he could include you as well :p

Norsefire
03-10-08, 08:46 PM
No, Saquist.. but I think he could include you as well :p

I think not considering I have not yet touched on the topic of evolution.

My question is not whether or not Humanity was created via evolution or creationism, but rather, where did the universe, existence, and all that we know come from? How does it exist? And importantly as well, how can we measure existence and does existence cease to exist if we are dead?

Enmos
03-10-08, 09:03 PM
I think not considering I have not yet touched on the topic of evolution.

My question is not whether or not Humanity was created via evolution or creationism, but rather, where did the universe, existence, and all that we know come from? How does it exist? And importantly as well, how can we measure existence and does existence cease to exist if we are dead?

where did the universe, existence, and all that we know come from?
> No one knows. But I think it didn't come from anywhere, that it simply always was in some form or another.

How does it exist?
> You mean like what is the supporting mechanism for the universe ? lol
The universe is ALL there is.

how can we measure existence
>We can't.. I don't know how you imagined doing that..

does existence cease to exist if we are dead?
>No. This is really your arrogance showing. Don't worry, it's seems almost inherent in humans..

Yorda
03-10-08, 09:17 PM
To say we don't know the cause of lightening shows you have no understanding of science whatever.

a cause can't be known because then you have to explain what caused the cause ("what created the creator?"). infinite regression. science uses observation to find "causes", but everything that can be observed is an effect...


You posit the existence of a creator on no better grounds than your inabilityto imagine a universe existing without one.

it might be hard for you to imagine, but i can imagine it better than you can imagine.


Having commited yourself to the view that everything must have been created, you claim the creator is an exception . Why ?

it's true that EVERYTHING must have been created, but that doesn't include nothing (the creator). effects (like the universe) need a cause in order to exist, but nothing is not an effect.


Why is there existence, then, in the middle of nothingness, universes, what are universes? How do we measure existence? If it was always there, WHY?

non-existence is something that needs no cause to exist, that's why it has always existed. and because nothing is all that exists (everything, duality, mind) in the "beginning", it ALWAYS has to create everything.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78422

when nothing exists, no laws exist either, so there are infinite possibilities. there is no law that says that nothing has to be nothing forever. it can be everything and something too.


Why is there existence?

because non-existence does not exist.


The mere point of that, in my opinion, proves that SOMETHING was responsible for the creation of our universe.

something can't be responsible for the creation of the universe, only nothing can.


does existence cease to exist if we are dead?

you are this being that you call existence (life). everything is. and it can never cease to be, because it's made of indestructible emptiness.

James R
03-10-08, 09:27 PM
Evolution is bullshit, Creationism is obviously correct and what should be taught.

How do you expect to convince people with such piffle?

Creationism is quite clearly not "obviously correct". If it was, then nobody would dispute it. But the fact is that the entire biological scientific community says Creationism is bunk.

Turn on your brain for a moment.


Evolution is a theory not a fact. Besides, Creationism is far more logical and reasonable.

Yes. Evolution is a theory just like Newton's law of gravitation is a theory.

When things fall up instead of down, then maybe we'll have a reason to accept Creationism. Who knows?



It's pointless to engage in this debate because the evolution crowd has embedded in their heads that no alter theory is plausible or worth investigating.

Which alternate theory do you believe is worth investigating? Noah and his ark?

Vkothii
03-10-08, 09:37 PM
non-existence is something that needs no cause to exist, that's why it has always existed...
because non-existence does not exist.I dunno, I can see a bit of a logic gap in there.
I thought nothing, by definition, doesn't exist? If it exists, then by definition it's something, not nothing...?

spidergoat
03-10-08, 09:40 PM
Why do people laugh at creationists? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY)

Be sure to catch all 19 parts.

PsychoticEpisode
03-10-08, 10:04 PM
Thanks spidey, made my day.

Enmos
03-10-08, 10:38 PM
Why do people laugh at creationists? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY)

Be sure to catch all 19 parts.

Awesome :D

Saquist
03-10-08, 10:49 PM
According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.[wikipedia]

I find your lack of scientific literacy troubling, but your final statement reveals your true bias. The evidence did not change. The theory hasn't changed too much, except we now know that species do alot of branching, so being able to say definitively if a particular fossil is an actual ancestor of a later species is impossible without DNA testing.


Hmmm.
Intresting. I'm biased but you didn't ask for that evidence.
So be it..I'm biased. We'll just rename what you're doing, huh. Like those transitional forms.

spidergoat
03-10-08, 11:45 PM
Evidence that the evidence changed? Did they alter the fossils, reconstruct them in a different way?

Cris
03-10-08, 11:50 PM
Norsefire,


Not a reason as in a spiritual reason or philosphical reason, just a scientific reason. Why do we exist?It looks like we evolved. All the available evidence points to that. There is nothing to indicate anything supernatural.

Saquist
03-11-08, 12:44 AM
Evidence that the evidence changed? Did they alter the fossils, reconstruct them in a different way?

It does appear that their approach as to just what was a transitional fossil changed and it appears from the books, research and encyclopedia's from 1960 to 80' had a much different perspective about what these fossils exemplified. I've been trying to understand the switch up for sometime now.

Did not Darwin say that the transitional forms must be innumerable?
Well aren't there some 2 billion fossils on file? That number didn't change significantly between the 6o's 80's and today...so why are there many on this forum that say that every fossil is transitional?

spidergoat
03-11-08, 01:12 AM
Because there are no permanent species. There are periods of relative stablity. One of the biggest driving forces for speciation is ecological disruption, so the adaptation to a new environment can happen rather quickly, after which the species may not appear to change very much. There are transitional fossils for many of these relatively stable and successful forms.


The evolution of the horse involves the gradual development of the modern horse from the fox-sized, forest-dwelling Hyracotherium. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's evolutionary lineage than that of any other animal.[wiki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Saquist
03-11-08, 01:50 AM
So how long is that stability compared to the change?

James R
03-11-08, 02:32 AM
Species can stay stable for a long time, as long as their environment doesn't go through radical changes.

For example, crocodiles haven't changed much since the time of the dinosaurs.

In contrast, bacteria and virus change very rapidly indeed. That's why we get new strains of the cold virus coming through every year. People become immune to the "old" viruses, and so the virus species are forced to adapt and change.

iceaura
03-11-08, 02:35 AM
Did not Darwin say that the transitional forms must be innumerable? No one cares what Darwin said about something like that. It's only religious people who spend lots of time quoting authorities about factual and theoretical matters.

Arguments from authority carry no weight, in such matters. If Darwin had said that transitional fossils have to be everywhere for every transition, and absence of them disproved his theory, he would have been wrong, is all.

Gustav
03-11-08, 02:39 AM
fits and spurts aka alien intervention

Saquist
03-11-08, 03:01 AM
No one cares what Darwin said about something like that. It's only religious people who spend lots of time quoting authorities about factual and theoretical matters.

Arguments from authority carry no weight, in such matters. If Darwin had said that transitional fossils have to be everywhere for every transition, and absence of them disproved his theory, he would have been wrong, is all.

Then feel free to steer clear of the discussion.
I promise I won't take it personally.


Species can stay stable for a long time, as long as their environment doesn't go through radical changes.

For example, crocodiles haven't changed much since the time of the dinosaurs.

.

But for how long? That's the question. The comparison to the period of change is equally important. Explanations are wonderful and abundant in scientific circles because their born from speculation. But where is the comparison?


Should there not be an analysis that attempts to log the point of change and see if it truely is coinciding wiith other specimens which may lead to the discovery of a comman evolutionary inducer at a specific time.? I would be intrested in seeing that. That would be some convincing corraborative information. To pin down an event as the point of change.

So how long are the periods os change?
How long is the period of stability?
Are they're any correlations across multiple species in the same enviorment?

Myles
03-11-08, 04:56 AM
Saquist,

Can I make the following observations with regard to what you said a few posts ago.

You show an almost complete ignorance of the scientific method. Unlike creationists, who are not willing to think beyond what appears in a book of doubtful provenance, scientists do not claim to have all the answers. At any time they offer what they regard as the best possible explanations that fit the observed evidence knowing that new evisdence may cause a rethink. As far as evolution is concerned, the evidence has become more and more convincing as time goes by.

You see a willingness to offer a better explanation as a weakness, whereas it is a sign that scientists are open minded with regard to possible change. The history of science shows this process at work.

What you wrote above concerning th case for creation is abysmal. A schoolboy could do better. I know you won't answer but for the benefit of young people who visit this site, and who may be misled by your nonsense. I will make just one point.

You claim man appeared 6,000 years. apparently because this is what it says in the bible. Having commited yourself to that figure you attempt to support it by telling us that writing first appeared 5, 000 years ago. This is a good example of how you fail to think things through and the weakness of your position when you rely on the bible for all your answers.

You have overlooked or are ignorant of a number of sites where cave paintings have been found depicting man, animals and hunting scenes. How old do you think these are ? Unlike the scientists you criticize, you will not change your outlook whatever evidence is presented to the contrary. Your mind is closed.

iceaura
03-11-08, 06:19 AM
Should there not be an analysis that attempts to log the point of change Not unless there is some reason to think such a point exists. The people who understand the theory they are working with know that accoridng to that theory there is no such thing as "the point of change" necessarily (it would be a very unusual and unnecessary event), and looking for one is a waste of time under normal circumstances.

You have had this pointed out to you many times. Arguing against a theory is one thing, refusing to bother to comprehend the basics of the theory you pretend to argue against is another matter entirely.


So how long are the periods os change? Varies. Bacteria in a test tube - a few days. Bison in Beringia - a few thousand years.

How long is the period of stability? Varies. Trilobites, couple hundred million years. Neandertal hominids, couple hundred thousand.

Are they're any correlations across multiple species in the same enviorment? Between every species and its parasites, for starters. Across all the plants as the climate changes. What are you asking for specifically ?

Myles
03-11-08, 07:41 AM
JUST A THOUGHT

When there were fears that avian flu might might infect humans, President Bush spoke of the possibility of scientists finding a way of protecting us. There was no outcry from those that reject evolution that it would be a waste of taxpayers' dollars because god had not created such a flu virus. They passively accepted the notion of mutation, while continuing to deny evolution. Such is the level of ignorance.

spidergoat
03-11-08, 12:25 PM
Stability in terms of evolution is measured by the number of fossils you can find of a recognizable species in layers of known ages. There was an explosion of speciation in the Cambrian period, and no one is completely sure why that was. Of course, the classification of a particular fossil as a specific species is difficult, since similar looking creatures can be different species.

Many transitional species can be seen today. There are lizards in the process of losing their legs. Some, like skinks, still use small functional legs, others have tiny vestigal legs that resemble flaps, some lizards have lost their legs, and some have gone even further and become snakes.

Yorda
03-11-08, 02:45 PM
there is no god. look it up on google. in this modern age everything is controlled by natural laws so there's no need for fairies and gods anymore. god was invented just because people didn't understand how the world worked. but now we do. it was a natural law that created the universe, not god.

spidergoat
03-11-08, 03:07 PM
Google is God.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html

Enmos
03-11-08, 03:20 PM
there is no god. look it up on google. in this modern age everything is controlled by natural laws so there's no need for fairies and gods anymore. god was invented just because people didn't understand how the world worked. but now we do. it was a natural law that created the universe, not god.

in this modern age everything is controlled by natural laws
I assure you that it has always been that way, not only in this modern age.

it was a natural law that created the universe
What natural law was that ?

Yorda
03-11-08, 05:31 PM
I assure you that it has always been that way, not only in this modern age.

yeah, what i mean is that people used to call natural laws gods because they didn't know how they worked.


What natural law was that ?

a random quantum fluctuation.

Enmos
03-11-08, 05:52 PM
yeah, what i mean is that people used to call natural laws gods because they didn't know how they worked.
Ok, fair enough.


a random quantum fluctuation.
But where did it come from ? Afterall, there was no before.
Also I don't think you can call a random quantum fluctuation a natural law, especially since there has to be a universe first for the natural law to exist in..

Saquist
03-11-08, 07:07 PM
Not unless there is some reason to think such a point exists. The people who understand the theory they are working with know that accoridng to that theory there is no such thing as "the point of change" necessarily (it would be a very unusual and unnecessary event), and looking for one is a waste of time under normal circumstances.

So you're saying there is no enviromental stilumlie to be found?
Intresting.


You have had this pointed out to you many times. Arguing against a theory is one thing, refusing to bother to comprehend the basics of the theory you pretend to argue against is another matter entirely.

What do you mean?




Stability in terms of evolution is measured by the number of fossils you can find of a recognizable species in layers of known ages. There was an explosion of speciation in the Cambrian period, and no one is completely sure why that was. Of course, the classification of a particular fossil as a specific species is difficult, since similar looking creatures can be different species.

Let's say I were to favor evolution
It would make sense to me, the more of a similar type of fossil I found the more stable the creature was, which in some small way tell us how stable the eniviroment was. Would you agree with this or is it too presumptuous?

spidergoat
03-11-08, 07:27 PM
Yes, I think that's right.

Vkothii
03-11-08, 07:33 PM
the more of a similar type of fossil I found the more stable the creature was, which in some small way tell us how stable the eniviroment was.: have you looked at the foramenifera or diatoms?

Some external calciferous shells, the shapes have persisted for hundreds of millions of years, so they found a stable form early on, and haven't changed much. The pelagic ocean environments haven't either.

James R
03-11-08, 09:47 PM
Saquist:


But for how long? That's the question. The comparison to the period of change is equally important.

Why is that comparison important to you?


Should there not be an analysis that attempts to log the point of change and see if it truely is coinciding wiith other specimens which may lead to the discovery of a comman evolutionary inducer at a specific time.? I would be intrested in seeing that. That would be some convincing corraborative information. To pin down an event as the point of change.

Ok. Take a simple one: the extinction of the dinosaurs and emergence of large mammals. Common evolutionary inducer: a rather large meteor.

That large meteor hit the Earth about 65 million years ago. Far from every dinosaur was killed in the initial impact, but the climate change caused by the event made it impossible for large dinosaurs to survive. At the same time, the extinction of dinosaurs left an ecological gap open for exploitation by mammals. Over the last 65 million years, mammals have become the most dominant of the large animals on the planet.


So how long are the periods os change?

They vary, depending on what change you're talking about.


How long is the period of stability?

As long as the environment remains relatively stable, as I said before.


Are they're any correlations across multiple species in the same enviorment?

Thousands. Take, for example, the evolution of mammals following the dinosaur extinction I mentioned above.

Myles
03-11-08, 10:26 PM
Saquist,

Remember the cave paintings I referred to ? The earliest have been dated to about 32, 000 years ago which is a bit longer that the 6,000 you claim for man's first appearance.

Don't worry about evolution. All you need to do now is deny the accuracy of the scientific method of dating. That should be easy enough for someone of your mentality. There are lots of other things you could deny if only you knew about them.

Saquist
03-12-08, 03:55 AM
Yes, I think that's right.

Okay so the Cambrian period was obviously not a stable enviroment according to evolution
Something happend in the enviorment that change those creatures.
Now normally when we're dealing with wide spread change...we're talking about ELE but in this case...it appears to be the exact opposite. something was a motivator...an inducer.

Isn't it important to isolate what happend here? Is not the Cambrian period the best opportunity to explor the details of evolution? And wouldn't making those comparisons betwen this explosion of life lead to a greater understanding of what happend in the enviroment compared to other eras?

So no one ever explored this?
I love comparisons...I don't get it. That would be one of the first things I'd do.

spidergoat
03-12-08, 11:48 AM
It's one of the central questions in evolutionary studies. The environment also includes other life forms. Perhaps genomes were less established back then, maybe there was some mutagen present like radiation, maybe it's just that few ecological niches were filled. It seems evolution doesn't always act the same way.

Saquist
03-12-08, 04:33 PM
Okay...I'm lost here on " Perhaps genomes were less established then" What does that mean firstly.

But we know radiation DEFFINTELY doesn't cause a positive reaction on DNA unless there is something I don't know. One percent of all mutations being adverse is not what I would call a motivator no matter how much time we're talking about let alone within 52 million years. That's just plants. and less than 1&#37; for animals.

Looking from that stand point there is obviously an evolutionary inducer (motivator) that we don't know about about. Or adaptation and natural selection are much much stronger and the mutation and errors that occur hold down that rate of change amazing well.

spidergoat
03-12-08, 04:46 PM
Radiation might harm most individual DNA, but mutagens could assist diversity in the long run.

My money is on the environment just being relatively empty. Few ecological niches were filled, and that led to a great spreading out, which drove the geographical separation that drives diversity. Maybe not. There is obviously something not completely understood.

Saquist
03-12-08, 05:16 PM
from what I've read on mutation and the one observation I've seen on mutation diveresity suggest that that diveresity is far from infinite..

But what did you mean by "Perhaps genomes were less established then."?

I can actually see niches filling up proving to be a buffer of some point. I think that's about the interaction between those niches.

(And congradulations on 19,000)

James R
03-12-08, 09:35 PM
Okay so the Cambrian period was obviously not a stable enviroment according to evolution

Obviously not.

I fact, it appears that the Cambrian period was one in which there were a lot of environmental niches ripe for new exploitation.

Gustav
03-12-08, 10:09 PM
see?
james endorses, as i do, mutation thru insidious alien infiltration.

"ripe for new exploitation"

ja
we owe everything
i repeat
everything
to anal probes
and whatnot

Vkothii
03-12-08, 10:21 PM
Aha, the "purposeful probe" did it?

I'll be buggered...

Gustav
03-12-08, 10:49 PM
nice

Saquist
03-13-08, 12:23 AM
Obviously not.

I fact, it appears that the Cambrian period was one in which there were a lot of environmental niches ripe for new exploitation.


But the question is...how were those niches filled?
Why so rapidly?
Further, after ELE that have been postulated were equal "explosions" observed?

If so this could be useful for a base line comparison of other areas in the geologic record.

iceaura
03-13-08, 12:33 AM
You have had this pointed out to you many times. Arguing against a theory is one thing, refusing to bother to comprehend the basics of the theory you pretend to argue against is another matter entirely. ”

What do you mean? For one example, you keep asking for things like the "moment of change", the specific time when such and so appeared, etc.

You regard the inability of people to provide you with the specific ancestor of the first bird, or the transitional fossils between frogs and dogs, and several other matters, as points against evolutionary theory. That means you haven't come to grips with the basics of evolutionary theory.

All of the replies to you, and to the other creationists here, have been at bottom variously adept or awkward attempts to describe or explain evolutionary theory. They haven't been arguments, in the standard sense of two sides each presenting their cases.

Okay so the Cambrian period was obviously not a stable enviroment according to evolution
Something happend in the enviorment that change those creatures. One prime candidate was the emergence of significant quantities of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

But whatever - and it may have been simply an extraordinary, once in a billion years in all the world's oceans, chance genetic event with legs (literally) - it's a matter of great interest. It's not something evolutionary theorists have been ignoring.

Saquist
03-13-08, 12:57 AM
I believe you are taking it upon your self to misrepresent me iceaura.
I do not recall such statements within any of my previous post.

James R
03-13-08, 02:22 AM
But the question is...how were those niches filled?
Why so rapidly?

Have you asked a biologist?


Further, after ELE that have been postulated were equal "explosions" observed?

What's ELE?


If so this could be useful for a base line comparison of other areas in the geologic record.

In what way?

Saquist
03-13-08, 03:12 AM
I've read a massive list of books given too me by an evolutionist named Sedistix on the File Front Gaming Forums in an effort to learn more. I found them highly speculative and even contradictory to each other on some issues. Actually on many issues. The reasoning were diverse and reminded me of the thread on going in the biology forum.

When I finished Einstien's Universe I didn't think I could be more confused by sciencetific terminology untill I finished that first book on his list. I'll obviously have to read them all again one day if I hope to be able to relate it propperly.

ELE stands for Extinction Level Event.

Biology is still a mystery despite it being right in front of us. They must be missing something.... The Cambrian period was at a point as Iceaura said where there should have been an excess of oxygen in the atmosphere. I've read that somethings enlargen in pure oxygen enviroments. They're maybe something to it...But I've also read that an oxygen atmosphere is causes matter to break down...oxidizes faster...I'm not sure if that was related to only non living things. I do know such an atmosphere would be neutral and that's not viable for organic development so I don't think the high oxygen content was an evolutionary motivator.

Vkothii
03-13-08, 03:32 AM
The oxygen that got into the atmosphere was produced by photosynthesis, which converts CO2 and H2O into glucose, and releases O2.

The newly oxidising atmosphere was a new selection pressure, which organisms had to "deal with". Obviously, they learned how to (during the Cambrian).

Saquist
03-13-08, 03:43 AM
That runs opposite to the understanding that the high oxygen content is neutral an not conducive to biological chemistry. You don't just learn how to deal with it. It's not the the instigator of change I'm looking for.

Vkothii
03-13-08, 04:31 AM
Oxygen isn't neutral, it's oxidising and toxic.
It was something that organisms learned to deal with by evolving an oxidative metabolic cycle, which reverses the photosynthesis of glucose, consumes O2 and releases CO2 and H2O. And of course, energy.

This all dates back to well before the Cambrian, btw. During the Cambrian, eukaryotes diverged and radiated quickly, into new ecological niches, but there were complex eukaryotes before the Cambrian. Oxidative metabolism is believed to date back to ~2.5b years.

Saquist
03-13-08, 08:40 AM
I'm just telling you what I've read.

Gustav
03-13-08, 11:06 PM
weak


You say "divine" and I say "alien"
You say "divine" I say "alien"
"divine" "divine", "alien" "alien"
Let's call the whole thing off
You say "god," I say "martian"
You say "lord", I say "grey"
Oh, let's call the whole thing off
Oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part and oh
If we ever part, that would break my heart

Norsefire
03-14-08, 12:20 AM
As for existence itself, atheists fall short. Saying the universe came together randomly is like saying you could put all the pieces of a computer inside a large box and they will eventually make a computer.

Firstly, of course, you need the pieces. Yet again, the scientist can only speak of what he perceives, not of WHY or HOW he perceives.

Vkothii
03-14-08, 03:15 AM
We don't know how the universe got started, but logically if it's expanding, then it must have been smaller and denser at some time in the past.

It does appear to be expanding...

iceaura
03-14-08, 03:27 AM
Saying the universe came together randomly is like saying you could put all the pieces of a computer inside a large box and they will eventually make a computer. No it isn't.

iceaura
03-14-08, 03:41 AM
That runs opposite to the understanding that the high oxygen content is neutral an not conducive to biological chemistry. Oxidation can release a great deal of energy quickly - example: campfires.

Lots of free oxygen provided a large source of energy for any organism that learned to tap it - a source that could support fast moving, large bodied, complex, energetically expensive animals. It created a selective advantage for any such organisms that happened to occur.

So the guess is that the evolutionary boom filled a new niche - big fast complex expensive being -that formerly was not available. Or, to look at it another way, the oxygen removed important selection pressures against size, complexity, and high metabolic rate.

So that's one guess that fits what we know.

Even today the animals that are adapted to anoxic metabolism tend to be comparatively small and slow and simple.

Sarkus
03-14-08, 03:46 AM
As for existence itself, atheists fall short. Saying the universe came together randomly is like saying you could put all the pieces of a computer inside a large box and they will eventually make a computer.

Firstly, of course, you need the pieces. Yet again, the scientist can only speak of what he perceives, not of WHY or HOW he perceives.Right....

"God did it!"

Now we know and are happy.
Any reason to keep asking questions? - apparently not.
"God did it" answers them all.


So where did the pieces for "God" come from?
Who put "God" together?

Enmos
03-14-08, 06:21 AM
Right....

"God did it!"

Now we know and are happy.
Any reason to keep asking questions? - apparently not.
"God did it" answers them all.


So where did the pieces for "God" come from?
Who put "God" together?

God doesn't seem all that together to me though :D

Yorda
03-14-08, 10:52 AM
As for existence itself, atheists fall short. Saying the universe came together randomly is like saying you could put all the pieces of a computer inside a large box and they will eventually make a computer.
the universe isn't random. it's governed by natural laws. natural laws made all planets and creatures and today nature has even managed to make computers, through us humans.

why are the natural laws the way they are? well... when the universe began, it (nothing) randomly chose some natural laws, and usually because the natural laws were wrong, the universe just imploded back to nothingness... but eventually after 5000 billion trillion years it got the right natural laws so that a universe and life could emerge and evolve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

the anthropic principle explains why the universe exists with circular logic. it basically says that the universe exists because it exists.


Firstly, of course, you need the pieces.

according to science, matter is 99% space, so it's probably 100% space, and that explains how the universe could come from nothing: it didn't come from nothing, because it IS nothing, illusion.


Any reason to keep asking questions? - apparently not.
"God did it" answers them all.
it's true that god is the answer to everything. but it's still useful to know exactly HOW god does everything.

Myles
03-14-08, 01:56 PM
As for existence itself, atheists fall short. Saying the universe came together randomly is like saying you could put all the pieces of a computer inside a large box and they will eventually make a computer.

Firstly, of course, you need the pieces. Yet again, the scientist can only speak of what he perceives, not of WHY or HOW he perceives.

You are using what is known as the argument from design, which was used in Darwin's time. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now, Each generation discovers this argument anew; a little education would rectify the situation but, sadly, many people would rather talk than think or inform themselves.

Norsefire
03-14-08, 05:39 PM
You guys are telling me how the universe was formed but not WHERE THE SPACE, TIME, MATTER, ENERGY, ETC CAME FROM TO FORM IT!

Therefore, even while our universe may be governed by natural laws, I believe it was still Created (the Creation of the Universe) by God.