NAUTILUS SHELL: Designed or evolved?
Image: lAYNE KENNEDY Corbis
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Other resources for defending evolution
2574 Comments
Add CommentYes, well put. But argument with a creationist, even using this logic, is futile. For instance, the "micro vs. macro evolution" red herring is stymied by the clever creationist by simply disagreeing with what constitutes a new species. Two Finches, for instance, that can mate but ordinarily would not, cannot be two species, they contend. You cannot argue fact with someone that has so stridently dismissed it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI submit that science has moved beyond terms like "law" and "fact." In practice scientists deal exclusively with observations and the relationships (or theories) that attempt to relate observations to one another. No observation, no theory is beyond question. Thus, Newton's "Laws", which endured for two and a half centuries have been supplanted by Einstein's Special and General Relativity and by Quantum Mechanics. And even these are seen today as provisional or incomplete descriptions of Nature. Is any observation in modern science so irrefutable that it deserves elevation to the status of "fact"? I say, not one. The same applies to theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by ajhill at 11/28/2007 8:10 AM
--
Edited by ajhill at 11/28/2007 8:14 AM
It amuses me that creationists say things like 'Scientists think they know all the answers.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is tosh.
Science looks at the evidence then intelligently assesses it before coming up with, what creationists call 'theories'.
The scientific approach leaves room for changes and is not afraid of changes due to more information becoming known.
Creationists believe what they believe because an old book and a pastor tells them what to believe. There is absolutely no room for truth in any belief that does not adapt to new information.
I wonder what would happen if, next time a christian experienced legal problems a lawyer simply told them, 'it happened because God wants it that way. Just accept god's plan and go away. Don't ask questions or look for reasons or liability. They are irrelevant'.
I suggest they would not accept this response, even though the very same old book tells them god has planned and directs everything in their life.
Funny how they pick which bits of rubbish they follow.
The pushing of intelligent design in the science classroom is an admission of failure. The failure is simply not being able to create a decent argument for an intelligent and fair theology course in America's public schools. The concept of God, in any form, rests upon the concept of faith. The concept of faith is specifically not scientific. By teaching theology, creationists can include both creationism and intelligent design in the same course, rather than convoluting the scientific method that children, and our future scientists, need to understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> What is a "day" to God?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Do you supposed God to be standing on one point of
> the earth waiting to revolve to call it "a day".
> That's comical. Equally farsical is the presumption
> that the knowledge of evolution as observed
> scientifically somehow prohibits God from its
> orchestration.
Oh puleaze. Have you even bothered to read genesis. It is clearly refering to 24 hour days. Even the original hebrew words that were used, were used in other parts of the bible that meant a literal 24 hour day. There is no doubt that the genesis story was not written to be taken as allegory.
So we must either take it as a complete fable or a literal truth. We know that the earth is not 6000 years old, therefore we must conclude that it is a fable.
If you want to believe that a god had his hand in the creation of the first organisms and evolution, so be it, but to say that the genesis story is an actual allegorical parallel to reality is ridiculous and rather redundant.
How has evolution been proven? Explain... It does not hold water. No transitional fossils on record. That right there should be tangible proof. Science has disproven your belief many times over. I have to admit though, evolutionists have tried to make a case for Darwins hypothesis. Why don't you do some research on "Piltdown man", and Arthur Smith Woodward, and "Nebraska man". I think the culprit in that case was Henry Fairfield Osborne. See, your passion in presenting your case and attacking those who believe in God is wrong. Do some unbias research and you will see for yourself. Or could it be that the only and true alternative would require obedience. Also, your mistaken about the absence of God in the founding of this country. It is still woven into the very fabric of this country. I'd like to think that anyone who has kids in the public or private school system, would like to know the truth, not falsehood. Make an elective of the Creationist point of view in our schools. Let our children have the option of deciding which is right. I guarantee you that most would chose life vs. the death march of evolution anyday. May God bless you...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is your religion? It's evolution. Evolutionists have a fantasy that they believe in, that has no merit. You have faith in a dead religion."Evolution"... Hypothesis at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't make milk out of limestone just because both are white.
We were warned by God not to believe in false gods and idolize the creature. Look at what the evolutionist does and tell me if there is any difference. It comes down to obedience. If you wanted to obey, you would allow God to change your lives, but that requires sacrifice. Hope the believers in this fallacy get it before its to late... DON'T LET DARWIN LEAD YOU ON A DEATH MARCH. Do some unbias research and make sure you are sure. Did you know there are some famous poeple who were evolutionists: Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, and Mao. They were advid evolutionists that used "Natural Selection" as an excuse to terninate millions. It a dangerous game that you are playing with. Even the man that evolutionists hoist up on a pedestal was racist. Darwin!? Read "The Descent of Man". I don't know about you, but I have not seen a true Christian proven to be a racist. I not saying anyone is perfect, but you guys have some pretty bad guys on your side. Might want to think about, oh perhaps, changing sides... May God Bless you...
--
Edited by centurion68 at 12/19/2007 10:28 PM
One more quick one for ya... Evolution is not based in reality. No real scientific proof is there to support it. Science is observation and then applying a best guess to the subject being observed. Now if we make an observation and see that it is usable, we create. "Necessity is the mother of invention". Remember, evolution at best can be seen as a hypothesis. Darwin made a scientific observation which is a fiction that evolutionists cling to. Its great to like science fiction. I love science fiction. Very entertaining, but I don't try to live among the characters. May God Bless you...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. Answer this question: If evolution has taken place over so many millions to billions of years. Where is the evidence of a transitional fossil record? There would have to be many transitional forms of animals from one form to another. There must be proof for a theory to be tested. in this case there is none...
Whilst I'm not going to take the time to answer every point you made I would like to inform you that there [b]are[/b] transitional fossils - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html. I cannot understand why you would repeatedly suggest there are none. I would also love to know what you mean to when you refer to Darwin's "death march".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* How the invisible hand kills off "designer gods" **
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethodologically, whenever so-called "sacred" writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no "executive privilege" for God.
There are no longer any naive arguers from design. All of them died before 1901.
Since then they've all been liars.
>> The "Invisible Hand" writes its own script.
Complex systems can and do arise from simple events, including random events.
The first adequate theoretical "reduction" of earth-bound empirical complexity to simplicity comes (I think) from the Scottish economic philosopher, Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations (1776).
Smith's famous unintended "invisible hand", which is microeconomic capitalism, arises from simple economic exchanges in a market of fair competition among vendors. The market is an emergent (abstract) complex entity which arises from a sum-over of simple exchanges.
There is no need for a 'god of economics' to design the market -- under specified mechanisms of exchange, it forms itself.
>> Speciation by descent, not by essence.
Darwin solved a supposedly insuperable empirical puzzle for a very wide (not universal) set of events in the history of life: how do complex life forms arise from simpler ones.
He knew exactly what he had done and what deep ingratitude he would receive. In 1844, when Darwin put his mature ideas in writing with instructions to his wife that they be published should he die, natural theology was still intellectually respectable. By 1850, the fossil record and Lyell's concept of deep time had prepared an acute mind like Tennyson's to abandon Nature" as solace - - "Nature red in tooth and claw." ("In Memoriam." LVI 1850.)
Darwin knew how maligned, even shunned he would be by Society he was after all a bona fide gentleman quite aware of the perks of his class and the esteem earned by his vast and thoroughly "respectable" empirical research.
Forced to "come out" in 1858, Darwin did not refer to his view with the already suspect term "evolution" but as "descent with modification." What was so radical, so disturbing to his contemporaries? His mechanism for descent with modification which Darwin called "natural selection".
What makes natural selection so uncomfortable? In operation, it has no goal and achieves no purpose. Speciation is a random trial-and-error process dependent upon differential reproductive success -- in a determinate ecological setting. (Darwin proposed no account of the origin of life . . . as the title of his great work makes clear -- On the origin of species.)
>> The god of ID is a nothing . . . a zero
Life in its multitudinous complex forms requires no spiritual force, no élan vital, no teleological principle, no purpose, no design.
A designer for evolution is as superfluous as a designer for economics. And for exactly the same reason.
bipolar2
© 2007
15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific Americans Nonsense (By section)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2093
I've also heard creationists complain that there are no vestigial structures to be found in the human body.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I could never understand, is why people reject evolution just because they beleive in God. I don't believe in a god; however, evolution nor science can address whether there is or is not a supreme being. All evolution says is how life developed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing to add that hasn't already been said. I just wanted to LAUGH out loud at Centurion68 and his/her unbelievably limited worldview. In my experience, this irrational fear of change, or even of disagreement or debate, almost always stems from personal problems with self-confidence going back to childhood, and obvious parenting issues. These issues are now, of course, being passed down to this person's unfortunate offspring, who will not get the chance to think for themselves for many years, until adulthood, possibly never at all. Would that not be the real tragedy? (don't bother. I have better things to do in life than check back up on an article I've already read, goodbye)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've never understood why someone's religious beliefs are threatened by the facts of evolution. God, being omnipotent, would not use"pixie dust" to create life. The creation would reflect sophistication, awe, and pragmatism what withstood any level of examination or understanding. Knowing how electricity works (even in part) does not take away my appreciation for a light bulb, communications, or a computer. To my way of thinking, Evolution is a Grand, Intelligent Design. Every time I have a deeper understanding of science, it only supports, rather than disproves my appreciation for the miracle of Life and it's Infinite Wonder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo help undermine creationists' insidious manipulations of reality, why doesn't someone demonstrate the evolutionary purpose served by creationism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso... natural selection and think and make decisions?
I will say this... about your theories... they are intersting conversation makers... but to me... the GOD of the bible... is far, far, too complex for your simple elementary minds...to comprehend His Immeasurable Knowlege.!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAttacking Darwin as a man should have no bearing on the principle itself; it just reeks of poor argumentative skills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Newton was immoral in the traditional sense, or "recanted" on his deathbed, would that make Calculus any less "real" or useful?
evolution and creation are both theoretical models used to describe imperical (observable) evidence. both views on the world (world-views) are closely tied with views on the supernatural (ie, religeon?). each mandates a positive or negative position on the existence of god. *NOW* 2 points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. it takes a stronger blind belief to act on the assumption that god cant exist, than to act on the possibility that he does and considers your beliefs to be important. Logic.
2, the NATURAL LAWs of thermodynamics and conservation of matter DICTATE an exterior (outside of what falls under the law - outside the "natural" = SUPERNATURAL) influence in order for the universe to now exist within those laws.
3. there are no missing links (leaps of faith!) in creative.
Evolution happened. Like it or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes that's my belief, and it's based purely on observational science. It's not faith, it's common sense.
Here's another fact, which applies to many areas of life, including religious explanations for the natural world: When you're making something up, you are free to claim any wild idea that you want.
Mr. Rennie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that your goal was not to answer the creationist view of science but rather to put an end to it. The problem with your approach is that you provided the creationists responses rather than allowing them to. It only stimulates the debate which is apparent by the responses to the article. You may have better luck achieving your goal by accepting the offer made by Dr. Walt Brown to participate in a written debate that would be published in a professional work. If you truly believe your view of the scientific world is correct and the creationist view is crippling scientific advancement then you should be willing to defend that belief with a written debate with Dr. Brown in your magazine. The terms of the debate can be viewed at www.creationscience.com. Of course your superiors may not be willing to allow such a thing in the magazine. If that is the case then you should seek employment with someone who trusts you.
God says the heavens popped out of nowhere by his creation. Science says the heavens popped out of a big bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds the same to me. So what's all the argument about?
God says he created the earth and all the life in a matter of [God] days. Science says it evolved over millions/billions of [human years].
Sounds like a unit conversion problem to me.
God says he is everywhere and everything and created man in his image. Science says we came from primates, evolved through natural selection to become human.
Where is the conflict here? I fail to see it. If God really did create Adam and Eve then that sounds about as natural as the selection could be.
Really guys, why does this argument always come down to a science hating vs atheists debate?
Why can not God create everything while humans discover the processes used in that creation process? Both systems are subject to human interpretation and I fail to see how anyone can interpret God or Science correctly in its entirety.
This should be the only argument against creationism. Simply put, they are explaining how complex organism were created (us) by saying that a more complex organism (with magical powers no less) created us. Utterly ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can they not see that there logic creates this infinite loop. Their theory is simple; reduce all questions ever thought of to once answer. However, their explanation is a Pandora's box. The statistical probability of our existence was already astronomical, now throw in someone with magic, and the person with magic who created him and so on. So, it is an infinite impossibility, not an easy answer.
--
Edited by mattastic at 01/21/2008 4:30 AM
Here's the problem: Creationism and Darwin's Theory of Evolution are fundamentally disconnected. According to the Bible, the creation occurred in a series of miraculous acts originating in the supernatural. Since the acts of creation took time to accomplish, they occurred in our four-dimensional universe and physical processes were involved. What were those processes? The Creationists can't say because the Bible doesn't describe them. Therefore, we are left to our own devices to determine what happened based on what we see in this world today.
Darwin's theory and Big Bang theory are beginnings to this end. Both describe physical processes through which this universe might have developed. In the case of Evolution, the primary process is Natural Selection. Modern Biology adds disciplines like genetics and molecular biology.
Creationism's basic flaw is that it provides no alternative descriptions of the processes of creation. Instead, it attempts to prove the unprovable (that is, God's existence) by disproving the provable. Creationism's modern clone suffers from the same problem, namely, a gap between the hypothetical designer and the appearance of the designed objects in our universe.
Creationism, in my view, is more a political movement than a religious one. One goal of fundamentalist Christians is to break down the constitutional prohibition against state-sponsored religion. Getting their dogma into public school curricula would provide a foot in the door toward that end.
--
Edited by zbvhs01 at 01/25/2008 1:39 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
The Bible isn't a book of facts! It's a book about how and why people should live a good life and have some hope and purpose. The "facts" in the Bible worked well for people who lived 2000 years ago. There knowledge of nature and the universe were limited compared with ours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and reality is always evolving as we learm more. The Theory of Evolution is the best idea that we have that fits what we know. Maybe, as we learn more, another theory will better explain how life changes, just as Einstein improved upon Newton's work.
Creationist are very emotional about their beliefs. A scientific explaination of creation threatens their beliefs: if Genesis is false, then everything in the Bible must be false. That's crazy.
Well, people have to get out of this logical trap. The Bible is not less valid just because some of it isn't true or factual. People get hung up on stupid issues like that and are missing the point of the Bible. God just uses evolution? Why not?
to #5: after accusing scientists of being omniscient, you turn around and do the exact same thing based on a really, really old game of Telephone (the bible). at no point did they claim to know everything. if they do, you can bet the odds it's a creation scientist touting his unprovable hypothesis as solid, indisputable proof. sorry to be the one to break this to you, but that ISN'T science.
you don't seem to have a problem with science telling you that quantum mechanics is a provable phenomenon (or you'd not be using your computer), or that Relativity is a provable phenomenon (enjoy that cable tv). why the hostility toward evolution? what delicate sensibility does it offend to suggest you're a part of nature, and not separate from it?
to #11: tell that to the muslims or the hindus. why don't you believe in their holy writings?
to #14: what has disproved his "hypothesis"? some examples will suffice. please don't confuse your use of the word "theory" with what it means in the scientific sense. gravity? a theory. general relativity? yep, a theory. don't let your ignorance of the terms cloud the argument.
to #15: there are many examples of transition fossils. cetaceans, for one. avian theropods from non-avian theropods (think dinosaurs). jaw bones in synapsids. the examples are myriad. please don't use as excuse your tired thinking and inability to do research as a reason to declare your statement fact. as someone who has done no unbiased research, why do you recommend we do the same? the shroud of turin is a hoax, and yet you still believe. why is that?
to #16: the members of the inquisition believed in your god. george w. bush believes in your god. hitler actually believed in your god. the crusaders, etc, etc. i think it's safe to say that more people have died in the name of religion than have died because they didn't worship your ape-god.
and #17: the proof is there. a great example: the common flu shot.
#30: if he is far too complex, then he's violating his own rule of thermodynamics. the "do as i say, not as i do" argument doesn't hold water.
#34: you have some of that backwards.
1) the burden of proof is on the claimant, in this case, claiming that god exists. i suspect i'll be waiting for a while to see the proof. "look around!" does not constitute proof.
2) if these NATURAL laws dictate that, then this exterior force should measurable and able to be described. you can't have it both ways.
3) a literal 6 day creation (of which there are two accounts) isn't a leap of faith? again, i have to ask, why don't you believe the muslim account of creation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContinuing the above: Nothing in science can disprove the Bible. In the case of the historical texts (eg, I & II Kings), the worst Archaeology can do is to cite lack of evidence. Nothing in Evolutionary science disproves the miracles described in Genesis. The reason is that a formal, objective (ie,scientific) proof of God's existence cannot be written. Immanuel Kant said, quite correctly, "We can make no statement regarding the metaphysical (ie, supernatural) because we have no way of experiencing it." (Critique of Pure Reason) Such proofs are untestable. Belief in God and miracles arises out of subjective belief. These beliefs are not open to objective questioning because they cannot be proven one way or the other.
The best anyone can do is to write empirical proofs supporting a particular point of view. All of Richard Dawkins' books are nothing more than his empirical attempts to prove the ascendency of evolution over God. Acceptance or rejection of his ideas is dependent on his readers' a priori subjective beliefs. Some people believe firmly that the pyramids in Egypt were built by an alien super-race 10,000 or more years ago and no amount of objective argument can sway them from these beliefs. Einstein's Relativity, on the other hand, describes a collection of ideas that can be examined and tested by someone in China or on Mars for that matter. Darwin's Evolution is the same. Natural Selection is testable. Experiments in genetics can be repeated by anyone in the world.
Scientists are wrong, wrong, wrong when they claim that evolution or some other science disproves God's existence. Science simply cannot do that. Science can only deal with what we can see, touch, or measure in some way.
Creationists are likewise wrong when they put forward highly speculative hypotheses (the sliding continents theory, for example) without supporting observational or mathematical evidence. Michael Behe is correct in noting problems at the microbiology level that do yet not have evolutionary explanations. He departs from objectivity, however, when he posits a supernatural designer, especially without explaining how design became reality in our universe.
Creation v. Science is an apples-vs-oranges argument. People on both sides have been missing that point for 150 years. (But then, maybe it's more fun to argue.)
--
Edited by zbvhs01 at 01/25/2008 10:53 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
if god is super natural, then yes, by definition, s/he/it is outside being able to be known. that being said, the burden of proof is, as i said earlier, squarely on the claimant's shoulders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishowever, it would seem to me that if any god where to inject himself in nature/people's lives, which he seemed to be oh-so-fond of a long time ago, but is strangely quiet now, there would be some measurable effect.
to say "he's unknowable" in one breath, but "knowable in the next" just doesn't cut it.
as far as anyone claiming that a particular experiment or evidence proves there is no god, i don't think that's the case. it simply provides a natural explanation for a natural event. again, the burden is not on the unbeliever.
--
Edited by sarcosapien at 01/25/2008 1:28 PM
"Belief in God and miracles arises out of subjective belief. These beliefs are not open to objective"
_____________________
Please elaborate where these beliefs originates from. Beliefs are often passed through cultural inheritage. A belief in a god and miracles cannot derive from observation and if you discount the creationism argument (unless you only believe because you have no alternative argument to creationism), how can you become a believer other than to absorb it from your piers and cultural influences?
--
Edited by Vampattio at 01/27/2008 3:07 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reading this article is like listening to a child trying to explain a lie. There is absolutely no substance, but it is twisted to sound reasonable and truthful. This guy should be a politician. If it were not so sad, it would be comical. There is no evidence for evolution, NONE! Evolutionists are dropping like flies and this poor soul John Rennie is clinging to his evolutionist religion. It has to be a religion because it takes much more faith to believe the we evolved from nothing, then to believe that we were created by God for a purpose as the Bible explains. John Rennie is correct when is writes that no man was their to observe when life was created, but God was there and He gave us His word explaining it all in the Bible. Read The Case For Christ by former evolutionist, Lee Strobel. The Bible tells us there will be many that blind their eyes to Gods truth and seek to follow mans wisdom. It is funny that Mr. Rennie writes about "incomplete" eyes that might confer benefits such as helping creatures orient toward light. Unfortunately, he too falls into this category of having incomplete eyes, unable to see fully comprehend the Light of this world, which is God! God loves John Rennie and I will pray for him and the many others that are spiritually blind to Gods truth, following the false religion of evolution. Read the Bible John and ask for God to open your eyes and make they complete, and to give you wisdom so you will know the truth. The Bible says that God uses the simple things of this word to confuse the wise, but He also uses simple things to speak his truth. Case in point, when I opened this article to read Johns attack against Intelligent Design, there at the top of the web page was an advertisement for Sport Art Fitness Machines with the slogan Intelligent Design for Intelligent People . Yes, God has a sense of humor. You have two choices in this world, God always was or dirt always was&choose wisely!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by cooda02 at 01/31/2008 7:30 AM
Sorry, I hit the back button on my PC and my post posted again.
--
Edited by cooda02 at 01/31/2008 7:32 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
You are obviously a person who will never fray from the confines of their religion. No amount of logic, reason, science, common sense, etc. will ever make a difference in your beliefs. And this is fine, I don't have a problem with people believing in whatever they want. I have to agree with an earlier poster who said that you can't prove/disprove a belief.
What separates creationism from science is that science is not predetermined. Science is merely making conclusions based on observations. This is unlike creationism which selectively chooses loose observations to fit a predetermined conclusion.
I like your reasoning that we came from a god makes more sense than we came from nothing. But I could never, even as a child sitting in church, understand just where exactly this almighty magical god came from. Creationism tries to use scientific reasoning to say that a god makes more sense but they never look past our creation. How does it make "scientific" sense to say that complex organisms were created by an even more complex organism. That's like saying that we where put here by aliens. Ok, just as plausible as us coming from nothing I guess, but that still doesn't explain where the alien came from. Something somewhere at some time had to come from nothing. It is far more plausible that we came from nothing than it is that a magical being came from nothing and then created us. And as to those who would say that god was always there; this makes no sense. Why not just cut down on the complexity and just say we were always here, that the universe was always here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am curious about a few things....One, how did it happen that if we all evolved from the same single cell organism, that we ended up with the different species? Why didn't everything evolve into the human form? Why aren't we all the same?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow did we end up with different genders? Why did we evolve as male and female? Why would we have to evolve as male and female?
Did we evolve with the organs needed to reproduce, or did they appear magically overnight? I would think that if we evolved that we would be asexual and would not have the need to reproduce with each other...
With something like childbirth, did a woman evolve with the necessary body parts to sustain the life of a child? Wouldn't you think that if a woman didn't evolve with the ability to produce milk for a baby, that the offspring would die before any evolution would take place that would allow life to be sustained through that....
Childbirth in and of itself is amazing and it makes you realize that we would have to "evolve" with the need and means to reproduce...the ability to sustain the life that was "created"....
All your questions have been answered many times. Just pick up a book. It's painfully obvious with questions like this, that you do not understand the theory of evolution at all. I have spent my time reading both sides of the issue. I have read books like Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, which explores the creationist's point of view and I have read books like The God Delusion. Why don't you try picking up a book and reading it; read it in honest while putting aside your bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think about it, evolution is all around us. Humans are a perfect example. We begin as infants and begin to grow physically, intellectually, and spiritually, in response to our surroundings. We are not placed here fully formed; we evolve as persons in a random fashion essentially from nothing.
In Christian religious terms, churches evolve. They are not placed on this Earth fully formed. They begin with a few members and grow and develop in a random fashion, building as they go.
So, what's wrong with the idea of species development or evolution in response to changes in their environment through the mechanism of Natural Selection? We look for physical explanations of things and phenomena we see around us. Why not also the universe and ourselves within it?
These explanations do not threaten the belief that the universe was created through a series of extraordinary miracles. Theology cannot say what happened during those miraculous events. Science cannot prove that they didn't occur. So, theology and science really need each other for developing an understanding of this world and the changes we see happening around us.
This world is still our Eden. We still have the responsibility for protecting and caring for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article sucks, since he obviously can't write without bias and/or beating someone down to try to prove a point....there have been countless hours that have been used by people studying both sides and there is strong evidence on both sides....Science says that something can't come from nothing, yet there had to be something to get this all started...Particles from space? How did the space get here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow did God get here in the first place, I think that is more mind blowing that any evolution theory...
NO ONE has CONCRETE proof of anything...
I agree that neither side has a concrete answer. Although I consider myself atheist I can not completely discount the possibility that the whole thing started beyond that of what can be observed. As of yet, observations have shown us that everthing didn't appear all at once but was the product of billions of years. I do disagree with your statement that both sides have researched the topic thoroughly. We are talking about creationists here, not a religion. There is a difference. Again, you can't prove/disprove a belief. Creationists don't research because thier conclusions are already fixed. That is not research. Scientists may do experiments to try and prove a theory, but if the experiment's results are counter to what they would expect, they try to figure out why. This is how science has evolved so quickly. If science's conclusions didn't change we would still be bleeding ourselves to get the bad blood out, we would still think we are at the center of the universe, we would still think the mountains spontainiously shot out of the earth, we would be forever stuck in our own ignorance if we didn't let observations lead our conclusions instead of the other way around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would suggest for further thinking that if you want to watch a good video, go watch "Everything is Spiritual" by Rob Bell
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI watched a clip of the video you suggested. I then realized that debating this topic is really pointless. The real issue isn't trying to convince others of evolution over creationism. No amount of proof would convince a theist that the world is older than 6000 years and no amount of scripture would convince me that it isn't. The real issue is what we teach our children in school. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that how creationism got started. Law says that there can no be no religion in schools, so how about we call it creationism and put a scientific spin on it. I don't have a problem with religion but I have a problem with creationism and that's what this article is about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo prove creationism/or intelligent design, all that need be done is to prove that the Supreme Being could create an infinite universe with micro- and macro-complexity (solar birth/deat, crystalization, electromotive inductance, Planck's constant, et alia), yet was unable to extend this complexity beyond sponges -- in other words, a limited supreme being...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEither it all works, or none of it works; anything else is a false dichotomy.
Well that would just not be possible to prove. The root of the question is, did we come from something or nothing. I do not discount the possibility that we came about by the act of something else (god, aliens, spagetti monster). But then that something has to be explained. But what if that something was always there you say? That isn't a loophole around explaining the existance of that something. Even though religious people always say that as if it explains everything. At some point something had to come from nothing, that being said, it is far more likely that we came from nothing than a wizard coming from nothing and then creating everything. If anyone wants to take a stab at logically explaining how it is more probable that a wizard came from nothing first and then created a spagetti monster who then created a god please tell, I am listening. No cheating, "god was always there" is not an answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is no evidence for evolution"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat depends on what you mean by evolution. Part of the problem in these discussions is most people use the word evolution in a far too broad manner. Evolution, in the sense that lifeforms change with time, is a fact. Speciation is a fact, if you dont believe that explain what you think dog breeders are doing.
The terms micro and macroevolution are more definitive, but then we have a problem with the definition of macroevolution because not all evolutionists define it the same way, then they blame creationists for not understanding it. Go figure. I think what most creationists are complaining about when they say "there is no evidence for evolution", is the lack of evidence showing the gaps between, for example, reptiles and birds.
The lack of clarification in discussions most often leads to misunderstandings on both sides.
"What separates creationism from science is that science is not predetermined. Science is merely making conclusions based on observations. This is unlike creationism which selectively chooses loose observations to fit a predetermined conclusion."
It would be really nice if science were really as objective as it claims to be in regards to the naturalistic origin of life, evolution and creation. Few scientists are that objective. The claim that science is not predetermined is just plain false. Far too many scientists didn't believe in a creator before they became scientists, so how can they be objective?
Science cannot even begin to prove that life started naturally, however some scientists still swear that it must have happened because there cannot be a creator. Is that objective? Is that following the evidence wherever it leads?
Of course many evolutionists will cop out by saying evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, but macroevolution absolutely depends on it. If you cannot prove life began on its own, there is only one other alternative. Claiming life came from microbes in comets or asteroids, or was planted by aliens only shifts the problem to another location.
"It is far more plausible that we came from nothing than it is that a magical being came from nothing and then created us."
This is a very good display of predetermination. No explanation offered as to why it is more plausible, and then using the derogatory "magical" description as if the poster were talking about unicorns. There is no logical reason to deny the existence of a being before the universe came into existence. Tagging derogatory descriptors to the being to make it seem unbelievable is an example of a predetermined mindset.
"And as to those who would say that god was always there; this makes no sense. Why not just cut down on the complexity and just say we were always here, that the universe was always here."
Because the steady state theory (we were always here, that the universe was always here) has already been blown away by Einstein's theory of relativity and its prediction and subsequent discovery of the big bang. The existence of the universe can only be described by our understanding of Aristotelian space.
Our human arrogance makes us think that there was time before the universe began to exist, so we cannot understand where God came from. For that matter, no matter what cause one proposes for the beginning of the universe, where did that cause come from, how did it come to be, what came before that, and before that, and before that, ad infinitum?
This (the fact the universe had a beginning) was so disturbing to Einstein he had to concoct a new, and false, cosmological constant to save the steady state theory. The implication of the universe having a beginning was so devastating science was ready to do anything to kill the idea. It didn't work.
The universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Time and space did not exist before the universe began to exist. No matter what caused the universe to come into existence, the cause was outside of time and space. There can be no other way.
There is no way we can understand what was before time and space. Who, what, when, where, how, how long are completely meaningless.
"Did we evolve with the organs needed to reproduce, or did they appear magically overnight?"
Now we are getting into the realm of macroevolution. One of the dilemas of science is the evolution of sexual reproduction as the only means for a life form to reproduce. Was there only one critter that was a male or female? There had to be at least one of each, and they had to be in the same place at the same time or that would have been the end of sexual reproduction.
How did the first fully funtional sexual reproducing critter know what to do? Where did the genetic information come from? Random mutations? How many random, directionless, purposeless genetic mutations does it take to form a fully funtional sexual reproduction system in two different critters at the same time and in the same place? What are the odds (without using circular logic) of such random, directionless, purposeless genetic mutations happening at the same time and in the same place so the sexual pair could reproduce to continue the new trait in the next generation?
What evolved first, blood production, veins and arteries, or the heart? Explain how the immensely complex process of blood clotting evolved. The evolution of vision is nothing more than an article of faith. Why do eyes appear ion the fossil record at one time, in many species, all fully formed and fully functional?
"All your questions have been answered many times."
No.
"If you think about it, evolution is all around us. Humans are a perfect example. We begin as infants and begin to grow physically, intellectually, and spiritually, in response to our surroundings. We are not placed here fully formed; we evolve as persons in a random fashion essentially from nothing."
That is growth, not evolution.
"In Christian religious terms, churches evolve. They are not placed on this Earth fully formed. They begin with a few members and grow and develop in a random fashion, building as they go."
This is not evolution, except in a colloquial sense. Explain how genetic variation is involved here? (hint: think apples and oranges).
"So, what's wrong with the idea of species development or evolution in response to changes in their environment through the mechanism of Natural Selection?"
Probably nothing, again depending on what you mean by evolution.
"So, theology and science really need each other for developing an understanding of this world and the changes we see happening around us."
Atheist scientists dont think so. " Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is not a theistic statement.
"How did God get here in the first place, I think that is more mind blowing that any evolution theory..."
If you knew the answer to that what would it change? Some scientists claim the big bang was caused by a quantum fluctuation of energy. Where did the energy come from? HOw much energy was there? What caused the fluctuation? What was the state of the energy before the fluctuation- was it evenly distributed? If not, what caused the uneven distribution? In either case where did the cause of distribution come from?
Why does your argument presume to eliminate evolution if there is a creator? That only makes sense if you are using evolution (however you define it) as proof that a creator cannot exist. Evolution CANNOT by definition provide such proof.
The existence of a creator does not eliminate evolution (within the definition of microevolution anyway), nor does it eliminate science.
"As of yet, observations have shown us that everthing didn't appear all at once but was the product of billions of years."
Cambrian explosion anyone?
"No amount of proof would convince a theist that the world is older than 6000 years and no amount of scripture would convince me that it isn't."
That statement assumes all theists believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Not all believe that to be so. Your statement also ignores the fact that some theists have abandoned their faith as a result of what they consider to be proof, so your statement is false to fact. Conversely, many non-believers (including scientists) have found their faith as a result of what they consider to be proof of a creator, which was not limited to Scripture.
If there were proof outside of scripture would you be convinced?
"The real issue is what we teach our children in school. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that how creationism got started."
Consider yourself corrected.
"To prove creationism/or intelligent design, all that need be done is to prove that the Supreme Being could create an infinite universe with micro- and macro-complexity (solar birth/deat, crystalization, electromotive inductance, Planck's constant, et alia), yet was unable to extend this complexity beyond sponges -- in other words, a limited supreme being...
Either it all works, or none of it works; anything else is a false dichotomy."
I have no idea how sponges come into the determination of creation, but I assume this is along the lines of the "could God create a rock so large he could not lift it" paradox, or as I like to call it, the human arrogance paradox.
There are two parts to the answer for that paradox:
[1] Since time and space did not exist before the universe came into existence God, being the cause of the universe coming into existence, is outside of space and time. We cannot presume to understand how anything works outside of our knowledge of time and space.
[2] God created the universe with His Word, not his muscles. Assigning a human limitation (lifting- requiring physical strength) is arrogant.
"But then that something has to be explained. But what if that something was always there you say? That isn't a loophole around explaining the existance of that something."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which is a favorite quip of scientists. If it works for science...
"If anyone wants to take a stab at logically explaining how it is more probable that a wizard came from nothing first and then created a spagetti monster who then created a god please tell, I am listening. No cheating, "god was always there" is not an answer."
Great strawman. What creationist made the claim that a "wizard came from nothing first and then created a spagetti monster who then created a god"?
> I would like to inform you that there
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> [b]are[/b] transitional fossils -
What has been identified as a transitional prior to Archaeopteryx (Archie)? Alan Feduccia: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that."
Even if we are generous and consider Protoavis an ancester of Archaeopteryx, there is no evidence it had feathers even though it is drawn that way. Since no paleontologist in his right mind would consider Protoavis a bird, or even state it actually existed, what do you have before the fully feathered, modern feathered Archie? Nothing. Not one transitional fossil.
Like Gould said, critters appear fully formed, change very little, then disappear.
What the fossil record shows is speciation. It does not show birds evolving from reptiles, whales evolving from land dwelling dinosaurs, or humans from apes.
thank you scientific american. creationism is indeed nonsense!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> What I could never understand, is why people reject
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> evolution just because they beleive in God. I
> dont believe in a god; however, evolution nor
> science can address whether there is or is not a
> supreme being. All evolution says is how life
> developed.
Why are we limited to using only evolution or science? Look up historiography for a clue to other means.
> if god is super natural, then yes, by definition,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> s/he/it is outside being able to be known. that
> being said, the burden of proof is, as i said
> earlier, squarely on the claimant's shoulders.
>
however, it would seem to me
> that if any god where to inject himself in
> nature/peoples lives, which he seemed to be
> oh-so-fond of a long time ago, but is strangely quiet
> now, there would be some measurable effect.
He is strangely quite now (as you perceive it) because Christ fied for our sins and He is the only way to the Father. As for the measurable effect, it depends on what effect you are looking for and by what measure you use. You need to be more specific.
>
to say "hes unknowable" in one
> breath, but "knowable in the next" just
> doesnt cut it.
He is knowable in the sense of a personal relationship, but not knowable in a physical or tangible sense.
as far as anyone
> claiming that a particular experiment or evidence
> proves there is no god, i dont think thats
> the case. it simply provides a natural explanation
> for a natural event. again, the burden is not on the
> unbeliever.
When the experiment or evidence is used to claim there cannot be a Creator, the burden of proof is on the unbeliever to prove it.
>
> --
> Edited by sarcosapien at 01/25/2008 1:28 PM
"A belief in a god and miracles cannot derive from observation"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot true. Those who were with Christ and saw the miracles were observing them as they happened. We know them not due to word of mouth, but by the authentication of the written works of those who were there.
Very good arguments madscientist and very will thought out. I wanted to counter your counterarguments if I may. I tend to over exaggerate my statements to make a short point and that tends to sometimes erode my actual point of view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The claim that science is not predetermined is just plain false."
It is true that the scientific community can get stuck in ruts (theories) that may or may not be the best explanation. However, this does not mean that science is set in stone. This is undeniable; because if science didn’t change we would still be bleeding ourselves to get rid of the bad blood, we would still believe that mountain ranges shot up out of the ground spontaneously. Did the world change over night when Darwin’s theory was unleashed? No, it took time. Some day, a discovery (or multiple discoveries) may lead to a theory that completes the picture. Over time that theory will become the new rut. Well, if it is a perfect theory that explains everything it won’t be a “rutâ€, but you get my point.
“If you cannot prove life began on its own, there is only one other alternative.â€
1) Why is it that creationists don’t have to prove that there is a creator but we have to prove how life began on its own? In other words, why is it when we can’t prove it “there is no other alternativeâ€, yet that same logic doesn’t apply to you? 2) It wasn’t to long ago that religions shunned evolution all together. But now it’s just macro evolution. Over time we will fill in the gaps and macro evolution will become as clear as micro evolution. Yet again, history will repeat itself. By that I mean that man has always used god(s) to explain things we couldn’t explain. Over time we have been able to explain more and more. No longer do we believe in a sun god that must be angry during long droughts. Why is it that ancient polytheist religions are seen as mythology; we look at the ancients as perhaps ignorant in their beliefs, such as sacrificing people to a god in hopes that this year’s crops will fare better than last year’s.
“This is a very good display of predetermination. No explanation offered as to why it is more plausible, and then using the derogatory "magical" description as if the poster were talking about unicornsâ€
I’m sorry; sometimes I over state my opinion to get the point across. By my definition of magic I would have to call us coming from nothing magic too. However, I didn’t see how it needed further explaining. In one case something comes from nothing, in another someone else put us here. One requires one extraordinary thing to happen and the other requires one, but one that is more complex than the other. Because in the latter, that something would have to be outside our laws of physics and have the power to do everything you happen to believe he has power to do. Depending on who I am talking to that can range from just planting the seed of physics all the way to creating everything in the universe, all living creatures, and knowing what everyone is doing at all times knowing what you are thinking etc.
“That statement assumes all theists believe the earth is only 6000 years old.â€
From what you have said you would not be a theist, you would be a deist if I am not mistaken. If these people you speak of have abandoned their faith and just believe in a creator in general they certainly would not be theists.
“If there were proof outside of scripture would you be convinced?â€
Excellent question; different people have different ideas of proof. I really don’t think it is possible to prove but then again so is proving we came from nothing; see third to last paragraph.
“Great strawman. What creationist made the claim that a "wizard came from nothing first and then created a spagetti monster who then created a god"?â€
:) I was making a point in a question, which probably got lost. Same old point which I will use to wrap this up. (by the way spaghetti monster was a reference to a book by Richard Dawkins, now he is one arrogant guy, but he does make some good points)
Since the beginning of human kind we have been trying to explain how we came to be. I can’t image the wild ideas we must have had before documented history. Even looking at written history will show you man once believed in and is now looked upon as ignorant. Man has always been faced with seemingly impossible questions to answer and until recently we have always thought that someone/something else did it. Someone else made the earth, someone else made the stars, someone else made us, someone else controls the weather, some controls the seas etc. Now it’s, someone else planted the seed. As we continue to find answers to these questions religion is becoming more and more absent. We no longer believe that there is a god that controls the weather or a god that controls the sun or a god the controls _____ (fill in the blank), or one god that controls all.
With respect, if everyone took your point of view, then we would never advance science. Allow me to explain. Right now micro evolution is proven to a point where someone like you can accept it as fact. 150 years ago micro evolution would have been shunned altogether by someone like yourself (I would imagine). Micro evolution wasn’t “proven†over night. My point is, if we didn’t study something we can’t yet prove then we would never advance. We would forever be stuck in our own ignorance.
I was raised as a Christian. I went to church and Sunday school every Sunday. While in church I was always asking myself these questions, even at such a young age. I would ask questions like “where did god come from†in Sunday school. I never did like the answer. If a person’s beliefs where completely determined by nurture, then by all accounts I should be a Christian. I believe that genetics plays a fair roll in how our brains interpret the world around us. Some of us are not physically capable of “feeling god’s presence†or feeling spiritual. I am one of those. God just doesn’t seem logical to me. It seems fairly obvious to me that religion is nothing more than man’s ancient ideals that won’t go away. So that just leaves us with a “creator†perhaps. Just because it derives from ancient ignorance doesn’t mean it’s wrong. So I shouldn’t dismiss it altogether.
If EVERYONE was looking at this objectively then we would come to the conclusion that evolution as a whole could be plausible and needs further study. As for what planted the seed, that would be up in the air and both sides would need further study. (by seed I am referring to physics, the universe) I don’t think we will ever be able to see or comprehend how we came into existence. So all sarcasm aside, it could be possible we were “createdâ€. I don’t have a problem with that but I do have a problem with standing in the way of science because of an idea. And that is what the debate is about. Creationists are trying to influence what is taught to our children in school by pushing ignorant propaganda. I don’t have a problem with teaching our children the possibility of a creator as a theory of how the universe came to be. That’s about as far as I will go.
Congratulations that’s further than anyone has ever got be to budge in that direction. Good debate stirs one’s thoughts in an otherwise stagnant mind.
-Matt
"We know them not due to word of mouth, but by the authentication of the written works of those who were there."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you site the bible as "proof" you open up a whole can of worms. In order to use the bible as proof you would first have to prove what makes your bible the right one. You made some good arguments in your long post, but you will never be able to prove that one religion is better than another. (at least not to me) Polymorphic religions sound just as plausible to me as any Christian derived religion. Plus there are religions that predate the Old Testament. If I were forced to choose; at gun point, I would have to choose the oldest religion... or maybe the newest. With science you would automatically choose the most current [u]widely[/u] accepted theory if forced to guess but with religion perhaps it would be the oppisite, picking the most dated belief.
--
Edited by mattastic at 02/20/2008 6:54 PM
Feb 20, 2008 9:25 PM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismattastic wrote:
madscientitst wrote:
"The claim that science is not predetermined is just plain false."
mattastic wrote:
"It is true that the scientific community can get stuck in ruts (theories) that may or may not be the best explanation. However, this does not mean that science is set in stone. This is undeniable; because if science didn’t change we would still be bleeding ourselves to get rid of the bad blood, we would still believe that mountain ranges shot up out of the ground spontaneously. Did the world change over night when Darwin’s theory was unleashed? No, it took time."
A lot of time. Some modern textbooks still use Haeckels false embryo drawings, or use modified versions that still point to pharyngeal pouches in human embryos and title them "gill slits". That is beyond being in a rut, it is just plain ignorant. Some ruts are just too deep.
mattastic wrote:
"Some day, a discovery (or multiple discoveries) may lead to a theory that completes the picture. Over time that theory will become the new rut. Well, if it is a perfect theory that explains everything it won’t be a “rutâ€, but you get my point."
Darwin said the same thing 150 years ago. As Gould, and many other Christian and non-Christian scientists have said, the fossil record shows nothing more than long periods of stasis, some speciation, then in many cases extinction. We are no closer to proving that reptiles evolved into birds than Darwin was.
There is a 50-60 million year gap between protoavis (whose very existence is in serious doubt) and Archie, which is a bird with fully developed (modern) feathers covering its body. Most, if not all of the critters touted as bird ancestors today lived tens of millions of years after Archie and were not as modern.
Now after all of that, let me get back to my point. I think you misunderstood what I mean by predetermined. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say many scientists operate by their preconceptions. [1] life started naturally, [2] there cannot be a creator. [3] evolution disproves creation. Scientists are not immune from following there preconceptions now matter how objective they claim to be.
Science is supposed to be objective, but our culture makes it very difficult to make that true.
madscientitst wrote:
“If you cannot prove life began on its own, there is only one other alternative.â€
mattastic wrote:
"1) Why is it that creationists don’t have to prove that there is a creator"
I dont know, who said we dont have to prove it? The Bible teaches us that we ARE supposed to study the Word and have answers for those who have questions. It is reasonable to conclude that should also include studies outside of the Bible. I think it is safe to say you can dismiss any argument that makes the claim we dont have to prove there is a creator.
mattastic wrote:
"but we have to prove how life began on its own?"
When science makes the claim as a fact, then yes by its own definition it HAS to prove it.
mattastic wrote:
"In other words, why is it when we can’t prove it “there is no other alternativeâ€, yet that same logic doesn’t apply to you?"
Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
What evidence do we have that life started naturally? None.
All of the the experiments designed to prove it have failed completely. Getting a few amino acids to form in a test environment is not evidence. Scientists cannot determine the true nature of the early earth. Dozens of proposals have been offered, but all of the experiments have failed to provide evidence mainly because science cannot determine the true nature of the early earth 3-4 billion years ago. This is not a matter of not believing the evidence, the evidence truly does not exist.
What evidence do we have that God exists? Many things in science cannot be seen, directly detected, or touched in any way, such as Black holes for example. However they can be detected by their effects on their environment.
There are also numerous historical items that lack direct evidence, but are known from other sources. An example is Pontius Pilate. Until 1961 there was not one piece of physical evidence he existed, but his existence was established without that evidence by examining other historical references, both Biblical and extra-biblical.
Many of the historical references, both Biblical and extra-biblical, used by historians to establish Pilates existence are used by the same historians to establish the existence of Jesus. This is known as historiography which has been used to verify virtually every work of antiquity including Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Homer, Shakespeare, etc, etc. To deny that historiography can prove anything is to wipe away practically all of the works of antiquity and most history.
Archeological discoveries have verified so many of the historical references of both the OT and the NT that were once ridiculed for being fairy tale inventions, there is no longer any serious historian that will deny that fact.
There are 4 facts established by biblical and extra-biblical sources:
[1] Jesus lived
[2] Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
[3] Jesus was buried in a tomb
[4] Jesus arose from the dead 3 days later and appeared to over 500 people.
Some of the finer details in the accounts appear to be different, but none of those alter the 4 facts.
So stack up all of the evidence you have for abiogenesis and the evidence for a creator on both plates of a scale and tell me which way it will lean.
If one can set aside all preconceptions about there being, or not being a creator, and examine the evidence thoroughly and critically, there can be only one conclusion.
mattastic wrote:
"2) It wasn’t to long ago that religions shunned evolution all together. But now it’s just macro evolution."
So science can change as it learns but we cannot?
mattastic wrote:
"Over time we will fill in the gaps and macro evolution will become as clear as micro evolution. Yet again, history will repeat itself."
Sounds like a predetermined mindset since you are speaking of the future.
mattastic wrote:
"Why is it that ancient polytheist religions are seen as mythology;"
Because they cannot pass the historiography tests.
mattastic wrote:
"we look at the ancients as perhaps ignorant in their beliefs, such as sacrificing people to a god in hopes that this year’s crops will fare better than last year’s."
Which is not found in the Bible.
madscientist wrote:
“This is a very good display of predetermination. No explanation offered as to why it is more plausible, and then using the derogatory "magical" description as if the poster were talking about unicornsâ€
mattastic wrote:
"I’m sorry; sometimes I over state my opinion to get the point across. By my definition of magic I would have to call us coming from nothing magic too. However, I didn’t see how it needed further explaining."
If they are both magic I don't see the logic behind one being more plausible than the other.
mattastic wrote:
"In one case something comes from nothing, in another someone else put us here. One requires one extraordinary thing to happen and the other requires one, but one that is more complex than the other. Because in the latter, that something would have to be outside our laws of physics..."
Since time and space did not exist before the universe came into existence, how do we know "our laws of physics" came into play? What laws of physics were before time and space? There is no way to know.
mattastic wrote:
..."and have the power to do everything you happen to believe he has power to do. Depending on who I am talking to that can range from just planting the seed of physics all the way to creating everything in the universe, all living creatures, and knowing what everyone is doing at all times knowing what you are thinking etc."
The only reason one could doubt the Creator could not do all things is to apply our own limitations to His abilities, which would be pretty silly.
madscientist wrote:
“That statement assumes all theists believe the earth is only 6000 years old.â€
mattastic wrote:
"From what you have said you would not be a theist, you would be a deist if I am not mistaken. If these people you speak of have abandoned their faith and just believe in a creator in general they certainly would not be theists."
Actually, I dont believe my faith or salvation depends on how old I think the earth or the universe to be. Why would it? Some feel differently, but I cannot see any biblical support for it. Doctrine is so clearly defined that I am sure God would have made the age of the universe and or the earth perfectly clear.
I dont see how believing the earth is old is an abandonment of ones faith.
madscientist wrote:
“If there were proof outside of scripture would you be convinced?â€
mattastic wrote:
"Excellent question; different people have different ideas of proof. I really don’t think it is possible to prove but then again so is proving we came from nothing; see third to last paragraph."
The things I mentioned above as evidence of Gods existence is just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps your version of proof includes being able to see or talk to God. If that is the case, then I wonder how you can accept a natural beginning of the universe or of life without ANY evidence or proof. If you can be that open minded, it seems there must be something else causing you to believe God cannot be proven.
madscientist wrote:
“Great strawman. What creationist made the claim that a "wizard came from nothing first and then created a spagetti monster who then created a god"?â€
mattastic wrote:
"I was making a point in a question, which probably got lost. Same old point which I will use to wrap this up. (by the way spaghetti monster was a reference to a book by Richard Dawkins, now he is one arrogant guy, but he does make some good points)"
But do you see my point? Atheist evoltionists often refer to their side as normal, and refer to any other side as something ridiculous and far fetched. Creationists do this also, dont get me wrong, but one does not justify the other. Make your argument clearly without creating falsehoods "to make a point". Statements like the above just put people on the defensive, dont do much for your credibilty even among those who agree with you, and will always CAUSE the point to get lost. I was aware of the reference to the "spaghetti monster".
mattastic wrote:
"As we continue to find answers to these questions religion is becoming more and more absent."
Since you are not talking about the answers to the origin of the universe or life, you must be claiming that evolution is proof that God does not exist. That is a far cry from the popular mantra of scientists today which is that evolution cannot disprove the existence of God.
mattastic wrote:
"We no longer believe that there is...one god that controls all."
Who is "we"? Do you have a cite for that statement? Depending on the poll you read, somewhere between 87 and 93 percent of everyone in the US believes God either created everything or guided the natural development of life.
mattastic wrote:
"With respect, if everyone took your point of view, then we would never advance science."
Poppycock. Neither the belief in a creator, nor the existence of a creator would or should change anything about science, well except abiogenesis, but so what?
We still need to understand: how things change; how a virus works and how to fight it; how to fight infections and how thse things develop resistence to the drugs we use; how plants grow so we can develop plants to increase crops for a growing population, etc, etc, etc.
Why would any of that change just because we discover the definitive proof that God exists and created the universe?
That argument is just plain nonsense designed to put fear into people that scientists would all take their ball and go home so we could not find treatments for sicknesses.
If God came down and proved himself to the entire world and said "All of you evolutionists are wrong, birds dont come from reptiles, whales didnt come from land dwelling carnivors, and YOU didnt come from apes", what would change?
If that happened we might as well drop abiogenesis, but that would help us by putting a lot more geneticists and other scientists to work solving real problems; we might have a few less scientists digging up fossils, but I dont see why.
I can see more benefits to knowing than I can see detriments, and there is cedrtainly no reason whatsoever to think proving Gods existence would put an end to science.
mattastic wrote:
"My point is, if we didn’t study something we can’t yet prove then we would never advance. We would forever be stuck in our own ignorance."
Where did I ever say you should not study something you cannot prove? All I said was since a natural cause for the beginning of the universe or life cannot be determined there is only one other alternative. That does not mean you stop studying (although I must admit studying abiogenesis would be pretty pointless).
mattastic wrote:
"where did god come fromâ€
Why would it matter? If it was discovered God was created by someone or something else, even some unknown natural process, what would it change?
Would it mean He didnt create the universe we know? Would mean He isnt omnipotent or omniscient? Would it mean He didnt send Jesus to die for our sins?
What would it change?
mattastic wrote:
"I believe that genetics plays a fair roll in how our brains interpret the world around us."
Why?
mattastic wrote:
"Some of us are not physically capable of “feeling god’s presence†or feeling spiritual. I am one of those. God just doesn’t seem logical to me.
"Doesnt seem" is contradictory to "not physically capable". The former is a variable dependent on input, the latter is a complete barrier. It cant be both.
mattastic wrote:
"So all sarcasm aside, it could be possible we were “createdâ€. I don’t have a problem with that but I do have a problem with standing in the way of science because of an idea."
I really dont think creationists are trying to stand in the way of science. No one wants to see science stopped. There are basically two camps, God created everything and God started and directed the natural processes. The biggest problem is when some scientists claim evolution disproves the existence of God. Then they complain when creationists fight back.
mattastic wrote:
"And that is what the debate is about. Creationists are trying to influence what is taught to our children in school by pushing ignorant propaganda."
Since Christians are a huge majority of the public that pays for the schools, why shouldnt I have a say in how my tax dollars are spent no matter what some scientists may think? Sure, I could send my child to a private school (which I did her entire life) but I still had to pay the taxes to support the public schools. I dont mind paying the taxes because it helps all of society, but to tell me I dont have a voice in what or how things gets taught in the school is just plain wrong.
When creationists (even those with PhDs behind their names and a string of credentials as long as your arm) say something in disagreement with any evolutionist scientist, it is always "ignorant propaganda". If an evolutionist scientist disagrees with another evolutionist scientist, its good ol healthy "peer review". Remarks like that (ignorant propaganda) from either side is a display of fear and dishonesty. If someone on either side cannot make a case without resorting to such a weak minded display of schoolyard retorts, then that someone needs to bow out and let rational people take over.
Get the textbooks out of the classroom that still teach things debunked by science for over 100 years and you might have better luck. Human embryos with "gill slits" Sheesh!
Some still show the horse evolution fallacy that was removed from the museums years ago.
I dont see a problem with including a statement in textbooks to the effect: "The study of evolution does not and cannot prove or disprove any theistic belief".
Abiogenesis is quite another matter. There is absolutely ZERO evidence for the naturalistic beginning of life, but the textbooks teach "someday real soon" we will be able to prove it.
Evoltionists claim evolution is only concerned with how lifeforms change over time. Fine, but if you are going to cross the line by claiming anything else, especially in a tax supported school room, you better expect a fight.
mattastic wrote:
"I don’t have a problem with teaching our children the possibility of a creator as a theory of how the universe came to be. That’s about as far as I will go.
Progress.
mattastic wrote:
Congratulations that’s further than anyone has ever got be to budge in that direction. Good debate stirs one’s thoughts in an otherwise stagnant mind.
The what and how to teach things in the schools is a complex issue and I dont know if it will ever be resolved.
As to the evidence of God, I dont know where you are or have been in your study of the subject, but I suspect you have been given some very wrong answers to just enough questions to cause you to close your mind to the possibility of, and the continued search for sufficient evidence.
I hope you can keep your mind objectively open enough to critically explore everything there is to know today.
It's obvious that we could go back and forth for a very long time. We could both site examples where our side is more objective or where our side has a less predetermined mindset etc. So I will not do another two page rebuttal, however I will respond to a few; I just can’t help it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“"Doesnt seem" is contradictory to "not physically capable". The former is a variable dependent on input, the latter is a complete barrier. It cant be both.â€
Ok smart guy/girl(?), pick apart my syntax if you must. I will rephrase so that you can understand. Some of us are not physically capable of “feeling god’s presence†or feeling spiritual. Just like genetics has some hand in shaping personality traits along with nurture, I think genetics plays a role in how we perceive the world around us. Part of that perception could be that some people are more apt at seeing the world in a more “spiritual†sense and others are less capable of feeling spiritual. One small example is serotonin. If the body produces a lot of serotonin you will have a mystical “feeling of sacredness or awe, and deeply felt positive mood like joy, peace and loveâ€. Serotonin levels could just be small peace of the picture. Whatever the full picture is, I am not capable of having those feelings or less capable than most.
“Archeological discoveries have verified so many of the historical references of both the OT and the NT that were once ridiculed for being fairy tale inventions, there is no longer any serious historian that will deny that fact.â€
They have verified that some of the locations existed, and that some of the people existed. I don’t doubt that the OT and NT are based on actual events. However, I don’t think you can take the Bible as an unbiased historically accurate document. For example, if an earthquake happened in that period, a highly religious person of that time would probably describe it as an act of god and probably assume that god was angry for man’s sins or something to that effect. If a person of highly religious beliefs were to record what happened that day it would probably be a lot more descriptive than “there was an earthquake at 3:10pmâ€. Not because they are trying to embellish the truth, but because they actually believe full heartedly what they are saying.
You are right that I don’t know enough about religion or Christianity to make specific arguments. I would love to take some classes on the history of religion but I have been forced to spend my education dollars on subjects that make me money. I have tried to read the Bible but I have never made it past Genesis. I think the Bible is part history, part story, and part embellishment. It’s hard for me to read. I think it would be easier for me to read a book that is purely historical and describes the history of Christianity.
I have let Mormons into my house, not sure why, but the young man was so brain washed and in all seriousness he seemed to be high on serotonin or some happy drug. I think he would describe almost any event a lot different than I would. Even something as simple as bumping into each other at a store; coincidence, not in his mind. Mormonism and more recently scientology are good examples of how impressionable people are. Scientology is a good example of what would happen if the Bible was completely fictional (which it isn’t), it wouldn’t matter. It wouldn’t matter in the minds of religious people. No matter what religion you believe in faith is stronger than reality. Besides, we all know “the devil’s best trick is to persuade you that he doesn’t existâ€. You can’t argue against statements like these. I usually start a religious debate off by asking them how old they think the world is. If they think the world is less than 6000 years old I stop the debate right there. It would just be wasting my breath. No amount of proof or common sense will even make a dent in their beliefs. I’m going off on a rant so I will stop there.
Feb 22, 2008 12:02 PM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismattastic wrote:
"It's obvious that we could go back and forth for a very long time. We could both site examples where our side is more objective or where our side has a less predetermined mindset etc."
Such is the nature of discussion. It is, afterall, how science says we learn.
“"Doesnt seem" is contradictory to "not physically capable". The former is a variable dependent on input, the latter is a complete barrier. It cant be both.â€
mattastic wrote:
Ok smart guy/girl(?), pick apart my syntax if you must.
Words have meanings.
mattastic wrote:
"I will rephrase so that you can understand. Some of us are not physically capable of “feeling god’s presence†or feeling spiritual.
Is this an opinion or is there a scientific or medical reference describing this?
“Archeological discoveries have verified so many of the historical references of both the OT and the NT that were once ridiculed for being fairy tale inventions, there is no longer any serious historian that will deny that fact.â€
mattastic wrote:
"They have verified that some of the locations existed, and that some of the people existed. I don’t doubt that the OT and NT are based on actual events. However, I don’t think you can take the Bible as an unbiased historically accurate document."
The "some" is actually most. In the process of authenticating historical events it is not necessary to verify every detail. Of course it would be best, but when enough of the puzzle pieces have been verified, many others not yet verified fit in because they make sense.
mattastic wrote:
"You are right that I don’t know enough about religion or Christianity to make specific arguments."
Yet you have made specific arguments and specific statements throughout this thread.
mattastic wrote:
"I have tried to read the Bible but I have never made it past Genesis. I think the Bible is part history, part story, and part embellishment. It’s hard for me to read. I think it would be easier for me to read a book that is purely historical and describes the history of Christianity."
As you stated earlier: "Why don't you try picking up a book and reading it; read it in honest while putting aside your bias."
mattastic wrote:
"I would love to take some classes on the history of religion but I have been forced to spend my education dollars on subjects that make me money."
You dont need to spend money on college classes.
Perhaps you are trying to solve the question from a purely scientific perspective. You said you have read books from both sides of the scientific arguments, but also state you dont know enough about the Bible and the historical side to make specific arguments.
Perhaps if you pick up a book and read it in honest while putting aside your bias, you will find much to help yourself in making a decision. If you dont consider the historical accuracy and base you view point only on science, you are selling yourself short. A very good start is this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631
If, as some say, the Bible is just fiction written around some real people and events; and history has verified the Apostles were real people and did what is described in the Bible; why would 11 of the 12 Apostles suffer persecution and die (John was exiled to an island) for a story they knew to be a lie?
Do you know that 2 manuscripts of the book of Isaiah which were written just under 1000 years apart from each other are identical except for about 40 minor spelling errors? How many generations were required to copy Isaiah in 1000 years and how does one account for such a degree of accuracy? No literary work of antiquity, including the fictional, comes close to the accuracy of the extant OT and NT MSS.
If, as some say, the books af the NT were written more than 100 to 140 years after Jesus, why is it that none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?
If you investigate, without bias, the historical side of the events and people you will find that Occams chainsaw will rip apart the enormous leaps of logic required to arrive at the conclusion it is all, or mostly just fiction.
Since you admit you have not done that yet, I wonder if you can swallow the pill of your own subscription and do for yourself as you suggest to others?
Perhaps I will take my own advice as you suggest. I will probably not read that book though. I like to read the 3 star reviews on controversial subjects like this because they tend to be less bias. Many people, including a priest, have found the book to be bias and simplistic. The quote from one review below turned me off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have read the book several times thru (both old and new versions) and find some excellent source references but also must agree with some of the critics that the author relies on circular and emotional reasoning."
To be fare, any book on this subject on either side is going to be bias. As one of the reviewers suggested I went to religioustolerance.org which is supposedly an unbiased website for all religions and beliefs. I found a recommended book "The Battle for God" by Karen Armstrong, a former nun, but surprisingly most reviews claim it is a pretty unbiased look at monotheistic fundamentalism. One review claims it is 95% objective and 5% philosophy and interpretation. That's what I need. Even a one star reviewer said the book objective, one star because of some inaccuracies but the book you suggested had similar one star complaints.
The book brings up an interesting point, that the below quote from one reviewer sums up.
"It is interesting the way Karen Armstrong takes us through the various stages and roles that God has played in our lives throughout the ages. Each evolutionary period seemed to bring out a new definition of God, it is as though we created Him to suit our needs as our needs changed. And perhaps we did indeed. For those hard core religious folks, it brings to mind unsettling questions about God. If God is so changeable, if humans can make Him what they wish at any given time in history, then couldn't He just be what we create and not vice-versa?"
I think it is a completely reasonable conclusion that anyone looking at this objectively would come to. It's not presented as
"proof" in the book for any side, that's just one person's conclusion from reading the book.
Well, that is just one example, I will do some more digging before I buy one. I really don't think there could exist an unbiased book that's sole purpose is to lay out proof for one religion. That's like saying a book like Dawkin's "The God Delusion" can be unbiased.
Oh yeah...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is this an opinion or is there a scientific or medical reference describing this?"
Clearly indicated by the words “I believe…†that started the topic out, this was presented as an opinion. However, if you insist I go beyond just my personal opinion …
I am certainly not the first person to make this observation. In fact Darwin believed that religious beliefs were an adaptation that evolved; religion is tribalistic and this had advantages in our early evolutionary history. There are entire scientific fields that study this very thing. Psychology of religion, or more specifically evolutionary psychology of religion studies how genetics plays a role in religious beliefs. Sociobiology is more general but along the same lines. This science looks at how genetics play a role in behavior and to what degree. I’m sure you heard of twin studies that study behavior and intelligence traits of twins that were raised by different families. This is a real general statement for brevity; these studies typically find that genetics plays a 50% (more or less) role for behavioral traits and an 80% role in intelligence. I’m merely asserting that religious feelings such as spirituality and “feeling god’s presence†are just feelings that have some roots in genetics. As such, some people are not capable of having those feelings even if nurture would have facilitated such traits as in my case. Not having this ability could be a negative trait. Without god, meaning to life, beliefs of what’s beyond death, etc there is no reason to live. To paraphrase someone(?), the moment you are born you begin to die. There is nothing after that, you are just dead. I think most people need religion; life would be incredibly depressing without it. Watching your parents die, your friends, your spouse, knowing that there is nothing beyond your short life, and knowing you could die at any moment; these are depressing thoughts. I had a friend die in his sleep recently at the age of 24, 3 years younger than me. This brought about these thoughts and I realized how depressing life is and how nice it must be to be able to believe in god and an afterlife. Unfortunately, just because it would make life’s experiences less depressing, it doesn’t make it true. With all of man’s emotions, I think man as a whole needs religion to keep our sanity. I don’t think everyone could deal with what I believe to be true; on a day to day basis or in trying events such as a family member’s death.
Also, I have read the other side of the debate. Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box†was the second book I read on the subject. I haven’t read any books specifically on Christianity, so I have settled on “The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions†which covers the history of Daoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Ask you 5 years old child Are you an animal? He will respond No, I am a human . Ask 50 years old professor evolutionist, and he will say I am an ultimate animal, smart ape. Our kids are born with common senses of being something special in the universe. It is going to take 5 or more years of collage to train this kid to believe that he is an animal. It does not wonder me why our tanagers behave like animals. Build more prisons America for the new generation. I would like to get a bumper sticker saying my 5 years old is smarter than your honored professor . Please answer me someone, If men evolved from monkey, what happen with the tail? What evolved first, virus or bacteria? What evolved first DNA or RNA? If the solar system got formed from an explosion of the old Sun, how it happened all of the planets have different chemical content and some of the planets and moons have different spin direction with the Sun? Have anyone tried to heat a whole potato in a microwave and get some pieces of cake, onion and wood chips after an explosion. I have 5000 more questions about evolution and universe. Evolution is a religion built on believes and unproved clues. Why do we have it in our schools?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an interesting debate. I see everything I would expect to see--angry Christians typing all in caps, long, long back-and-forth posts, and the usual constant restatements and misunderstandings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing I can say that has not already been said, particularly by the author of this "15 Answers" article. The creationists here use the same attacks that he refutes. To be honest, I wasn't going to make any posts, but then I saw this:
"He is strangely quite now (as you perceive it) because Christ fied for our sins and He is the only way to the Father. As for the measurable effect, it depends on what effect you are looking for and by what measure you use. You need to be more specific."
Christ FIED for our sins. Thank you, madscientist, that absolutely made my day. I laughed so hard I almost choked. Poor guy. I don't know what fieing is, but it sounds painful. Still, I think that this creationist nonsense has fied, and it is fed. Fed as a doornail.
Vasyl1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour understanding of the english language is borderline middle-school level. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, however, I feel that you need to be clued in. Our children learn through their surroundings and consequently through feelings. A child does not need many years of college to learn that people are different from other people. Children connect, whether through bonds of hate or love - by the latter i mean of friendship, and thus form their own niche. It is in these niches that they become something of a conformed society. They learn the motions and start to finely tune their own skills. In addition, the word collage is different from college. College is a learning institute and collage is a type of art.
Microevolution happened to the tail of a monkey in the genus [i]Homo[/i]. Even in today's society we see a differing number of sacral vertebras that indicate a change of frequency in a populace. This change in frequency in a populace is known as evolution.
By the formation of our solar system by the explosion of the old sun, I am to conclude that you are referring to the big bang theory. I will not be able to go into much detail over the big bang theory due to my own limited understanding, however, I can explain the portion of nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion, in a very brief nutshell, is that two atoms of an element or elements collide at high energy which yields a larger atomic element. This allows for our periodic table and our known elements. Some of these elements are [i] man-made[/i], which proves that these sort of reactions can occur.
Now for your final statement, that evolution is built on unproven clues and beliefs. Evolution is not built on unproven clues. We can show the formation of nucleic acids and their interaction between other molecules. We can insert DNA and RNA into bacteria to form useful products. In fact, that is how much of the insulin is made today for diabetics. We can use carbon dating to give a fairly accurate dating scale of organic substances. We can even show that other galaxies exist and our solar system is not in the middle of the milky way galaxy. These are provable facts that government agencies, NGOs, and individuals spend time studying and challenging these ideas. This is why evolution is studied in schools.
> 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific Americans
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Nonsense (By section)
> by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
>
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2093
These "answers" are pretty much nothing beyond somewhat rehashed fallacies that have already been debunked many times over. But, I found it particularly amusing that they reacted with incredible indignation to the implication in section #5 that "all creationists" employ out of context quotes by evolutionary scientists to make points. They then went into great detail about their vetting process and the great lengths they go to ensure the accuracy of the quotes they use. Finishing the section with: "Mr. Rennie—it’s one thing to make the accusation of “out-of-context quotations.†It’s another thing to prove it. To accuse is not to convict. You’ll have to do better."
Yet, in section #8, they cite a quote by Richard Dawkins: "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designerâ€
Of course, the actual quote [b]in context[/b] is: "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.
"Darwin's theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist..."
Now, you could dispute the facts of his quote if you chose to, but it's pretty much impossible to dispute that the quote, in context has an entirely different meaning than the little snippet presented by the Apologetics Press.
Apparently, it's not that hard to prove that accusation. Pretty much just requires a 5 second Google search. Hardly seems like an honest mistake either, considering all the painstaking research they go through to ensure the accuracy of their quotes.
P.S. The quote itself also touches on another contention made within the replies posted to this article "supporting" creationism. That contention being that since we can't determine the actual origion of life via evolutionary theories, then the only other option is that there was a creator. Except that the same logic could be applied the other direction and we could say that since we can't actually prove the existence of a creator, then the only other option is that life must have evolved spontaneously. It's a circular arguement that proves and, conversely, disproves neither position and serves only to muddy the waters.
--
Edited by EYEAM4ANARCHY at 03/15/2008 7:50 PM
I feel sorry for all of you, that you dont have the love of Christ. I am sorry that when you die you will feel no comfort, knowing that he will be there to welcome you with open arms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me it is a sad exsistence. I am so happy that I have that comfort and that love in my life, and I pray that one day all of you will feel the same love and comfort.
Hang on,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have done a lot of research into the subject, and there are a hell of a lot more (and better) arguments that creationists make disputing the evolutionary theory. This being the case, it intrigues me that only those that are easy to refute are displayed here. And, even if these arguments are wrong (which i'm not yet saying), how would that prove evolution right?
Oh you religious people...the ones with STRONG beliefs...that's right BELIEFS...without ANY evidence...I feel so sorry for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour "Bible", the book that you use to PROVE everything is nothing more than any of the hundreds of other "religious books" that others have used to cite "their proof" too. Yours just happens to be the one that the current "world dominating peoples" hooked up with. Yours is no more right or wrong than any of the others.
Your Bible was written over hundreds of years by hundreds of people. It is based on stories...yes STORIES written long, long, ago. There are tens, no dozens of earlier stories that predate Genesis and are very similar.
As for this:
[1] Jesus lived
[2] Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
[3] Jesus was buried in a tomb
[4] Jesus arose from the dead 3 days later and appeared to over 500 people.
It's REALLY not true. There are NO Roman records of Jesus' trial, his crucification, or his rising. And the Romans were VERY good record keepers!
Jesus didn't write ANYTHING. Neither did his immediate followers. Don't you think that GOD would know that writing stuff down would turn out to be IMPORTANT? There is NOTHING written about Jesus until 30-40 years AFTER his "supposed" death. WHY? Most of the New Testament wasn't written until 100 years after Jesus' death. WHY? Your NT is nothing more than a collection of writings that a "group" decided were "gospel" and included them in the NT.
It sure is funny how God does so much BEFORE mass literacy, but does NOTHING after... Very strange...
Vasyl1, I'm always up for a good debate. Now, just remember to take it easy on me, I'm just a dumb sailor after all, but I'm more than willing to answer a few of your challenges.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said "Ask you 5 years old child Are you an animal? He will respond No, I am a human. Ask 50 years old professor evolutionist, and he will say I am an ultimate animal, smart ape."
My response; When I was 5 I'd say I was a Ninja Turtle if someone asked me. An "evolutionist" wouldn't say he's the ultimate animal. If he is knows anything about the science of evolution, he would know that there is no higher and lower evolution, there is only being my adapt to your environment. These possible thumbs of mine come in quite handy at times but if I lived in water webbed feet or fins would keep me alive and able to reproduce a lot longer.
You said "Please answer me someone, If men evolved from monkey, what happen with the tail?"
My response; What tail or you referring to? The tail we have in our embryonic stage? It disappeared as I developed in the womb. Being that I have this conversation 3 times a day before breakfast with Creationist I know now that you were referring to the monkeys tail. The thing about takes is that they are great for balance. Whether your a monkey in a tree or a cheetah using his tail to turn on a dime, a tale is great for balance. Balance isn't the pinnacle of human existence, so we simple don't need both a tale and the fluids in our inner ear that we use for balance.
You said "What evolved first, virus or bacteria?"
My response; Despite their ability to reproduce and mutate(i.e. EVOLVE) you are away that viruses are not living things correct. But as for my answer, prepare yourself. I simply don't know. That the difference between people like me and people like you. When we are stumped we say wait, let look at this closer and try to figure it out. You come right out with "Goddidit! Goddidit!" If you will feel like you scored a victory with asking me a question then go ahead
celebrate. But remember, there were many aspects of evolution that were hard to explain because of limited technology 100 years ago. When technology gets
better and if those questions are answered then what will you say. BTW, since your the one who claims to have all the answers, you tell us what came first.
You said "If the solar system got formed from an explosion of the old Sun, how it happened all of the planets have different chemical content and some of the planets and moons have different spin direction with the Sun?"
My response; ??? I think I might know what you're trying to say. After all, I don't believe in proofreading either. Your making this debate into more of a astronomy and physics issue than an evolution one. Nothing you said there has anything to do with evolution or "intelligent" design. So won't answer this one, but I invite you to go to my hero Steven Hawkins web page and check that out.
You said "Have anyone tried to heat a whole potato in a microwave and get some pieces of cake, onion and wood chips after an explosion."
My response; No my good friend, we haven't :)
You said "Evolution is a religion built on believes and unproved clues. Why do we have it in our schools?"
My response; How is evolution a religion, because you say it is? No one who argues for evolution calls it a religion. I think the reason you call it a religion is that it calls to into question everything you hold as true. Evolution is built on observation, not on belief. Science as opposed to the church is built off of criticism, not agreeing. If you agree blindly with the catholic church, you have a great chance of being put in a high position as opposed to someone who critiques everything. In the scientific community, fame and credit are given to people with novel ideas that prove to be true. If I wrote a paper with facts and observations debunking evolution and proving that we all come from the spaghetti monster floating up in the clouds then I would be the top scientist, just like all the other scientist who's names are now legendary for having the balls to go against the pack. The reason most scientist agree with it is because it has stood the test of time against all comers. That my friend is why it's taught in our schools.
This article is pure conjecture.Operative wording within contain many,"would have,could have,possibly,may have.As a former evolutionist I tell you that the religion of Darwinism will be dead in 10 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the problem with the arguments presented by creationists and major supporters of Intelligent Design:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhereas there is quite a bit of evidence to help support evolution, there is NO evidence found to support creationism and/or intelligent design. Most of these arguments are stating that because there are missing links, that the theory must be wrong.
...and yet, there are no arguments presented to show anything about who/what/where/how creationism and/or intelligent design came about. "Someone/thing" at "some time" got around to making life....and we were INSTANTLY here, with our computers, our automobiles, our schools, our houses, etc..? If evolution was a bad theory, or evolution did not exist, then tell me how exactly the learning process works...
Are we not evolving, ourselves, throughout our every day lives? Did we always have computers, cell phones, homes made from wood/concrete/brick/stone/steel? If you walk all the time, barefoot everywhere, wouldn't you build up a callus eventually? When we are babies, and we are waving our arms around our heads, crying our heads off because we want something....and then learn to crawl and/or speak, is that not evolution as well? Have we not changed in some way to conform to our needs?
People who live closer to the equator are darker skinned than people who live further away. People adapt to their environments...is this also intelligent design, or are we evolving to meet the requirements of our current surroundings..?
On a religious note:
As far as God, the Bible, Jesus, and all of that...why is it that if this was the One Way, the True Way, the True One and Only God...why is it that it was so long that the religion actually began to take place? If God were all powerful, and the -ONLY- god that was truly God, why would he allow us to worship other gods prior to him? Why would other religions exist at all? And why doesn't God come down and inform us, now of all times, that he is the one true god, and that his worship is the only correct way to do things? There's no point to "testing" our faith...faith was varied long before "God" came to present himself...
Why is it that God is to be feared in the Old Testament, but Loved in the New? Why are the major taboos of society (sexism, racism, slavery, etc) not ok today, but perfectly fine when the bible was written? Why does the bible allow and encourage such things?
If a Jewish man, a Christian man, and Islamic man were to come together, which man would have the correct faith? Jesus was "King of the Jewish People", and yet all of the middle eastern countries (including Israel) are not christian or jewish? Why is that? How is it that the Pope (i.e. the most holy man within the Christian religion) stationed in italy, and not the middle east? Wouldn't it be better to have the religious capitol of the one true religion in the land that supposedly was the origin of the son of the One True God?
How many of you will try to answer my questions without insulting me? How many will be honest and true, and how many will do little more than blaspheme and throw their religious bigotry around to mock my questions?
I very much would like to know. I look forward to anyone/everyone's replies. Thank you.
I am sick and tired of all this so called "debate" between creationists and evolutionists. There is NO debate. Creationists need to start doing some scientific research. Until then, they can shut the F%^& up. People in the scientific community have been far too accommodating in my opinion. We need to just start ignoring their stupid, ignorant arguments. The day they start publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, will be the day I start listening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe previous post expresses the exact kind of sentiments that "Expelled" is talking about. Some will try to say that the community -is- accommodating, but posts like the previous one perhaps cast a shadow on the 'fair and even-handed' image that some want to portray.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs one previous poster said, these 15 refuted arguments aren't really anything like the best that ID/Creationists have. A man on the street may argue like this, but it's not where informed ID proponents are at. If scientists don't even engage serious ID researchers at their own level then they will simply tear apart articles like '15 Answers':
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610/
So give them what they want - have serious debates with serious creationists (not clergy, or people outside their field). I'm sure the owners of that site would be interested. Don't simply misrepresent them and knock down straw men.
Sigmar, there have never been any creationist research publications published in any peer reviewed journals, ever. End of discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscenturion68 said, "No transitional fossils on record. That right there should be tangible proof."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are transitional fossils. You've been told otherwise, and have chosen to believe it. That right there should be tangible proof that your creationist ideologues are morons.
I found the following point-by-point response to this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
Answers in Genesis also said that Scientific American chose to deal with the response on legal rather than scientific grounds here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/0711sciam.asp
Is this true?
It looks like my links did not make it to my previous post so here they go again: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/0711sciam.asp
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy question again: Is the accusation in my last link true?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe interesting thing is that the bible is not opposed to evolution. In Genesis God "evolved" his creation over seven distinct periods, each devoted to a particular phase of activity. These phases are not altogether different from the process which geologist recognize as forming the earth. Evolution only affirms that living things are governed by a unifying law. If laws are made by law givers then the one who designed the law of evolution posseses a greater intelligence and understanding of beauty than any one man could comprehend. Beauty takes time. I think God would understand this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been a subscriber of Scientific American magazine for 20 years. but there are definite Non Christian attitudes developing on the magazine. I am a believer in intelligent design, and yes I believe in Gods creation. This will be my last subscription to the magazine
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that Gods Creation can perfectly coexist with the evolution theory. The story told in the Genesis is a metaphore to explain to people that God created everything; but it's a metaphore. I'm a Particle Physicist and with our experiments we can go "back in time" as we can "observe" the consituents of the Matter up to fractions of seconds after the Big Bang. But we can't have knowledge about the time before the Big Bang. It's just a matter of orders of magnitude. We are tied to the objects, to the Universe and to the dimensions we know, because our senses are limited, our senses are human. I believe in God, but I don't think God is so at human-level as described in the metaphores of the Bible. That is a human-centric view. For me God is above our senses, our time and our dimensions. He created not just our tiny Earth, and not only our Universe. He created everything: maybe thousands of Universes evoluting independently. And in this view even the Evolution is a thought/idea of God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off, I believe in Creation, not ID but Creation. Here is a question for you Evolutionists... In this article question and answer #8 states that a computer program could recreate an entire play in about 4 days. If Iyou take that as a fact, wouldn't it be possible for rocks to spontaneously form "fossils"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I honestly don't understand is why Creation can't be a valid explanation. I was taught in school that humans are the only “animal†that has self-awareness. Apparently, there are about two million documented species on earth, with estimates ranging between a total of five to ten million actually existing – and only ONE in TWO MILLION is self aware? Only one mammal in is a true biped, only one in two million have a written language, only one. There is no creature on earth that is remotely similar to a human; however there are thousands of differing types (species) of other animals. Apparently there are 264 extant species of monkeys – how many extant species of Homo sapiens are there? There is only one.
Using science as my guide, I am to believe that through natural selection 264 types of monkeys, stemming from a common ancestor, evolved and yet only one type of human evolved from this same ancestor? Setting aside my personal views – this simply doesn’t make sense.
--
Edited by Lively at 04/11/2008 9:23 AM
A little comic on Intelligent Design, with the aid of graphics from Funny Times Magazine:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.funnytimes.com/playground/cartoon.php?id=7408
- Doug
Design is an emergent property of the evolutionary process. There could be a force (that we may as well call 'god') supporting the conditions that make evolution possible, or even inevitable; but that's a different question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLively,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are 3 major "species" of humans. We don't call them different species for political reasons, but they ARE different species.
So...there you have it...3 different species of hominid. Not as many as others...granted...but 3 separate species nonetheless. So, you see, once again you've been deceived by the "religious". Trust me here buddy...it's ALL man made hubbaloo! Don't believe a WORD of it. There is no God with an antfarm.
Don't you think the current mainstream religious view of God makes him out to be fairly insane? Why would God, the maker of EVERYTHING, give a hoot about what you and I are doing? He wouldn't unless he's insane! It's like a 30 Y/O man hanging around with toddlers at the day care...creepy... So is the God of the Bible... How could anyone THINK about believing it?
--
Edited by joerocker at 04/11/2008 5:09 PM
Joe-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“So...there you have it...3 different species of hominid. Not as many as others...granted...but 3 separate species nonetheless.â€
As I’m sure you are aware, the internet is chock full of information. I don’t think there is a single subject worth mentioning – or forgetting – that isn’t somewhere on the internet! Yet, I can’t find anything regarding 3 species of hominids. Can you substantiate your claim?
Did you know that through DNA testing they have found that 95% of all dogs are related to three female wolves? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2498669.stm There are 350 different types of dogs; they are the most diverse mammal species. According to science, it is likely that intense breeding over the last 500 years has created the diverse appearance of the modern dog. According to accepted science, less that 15,000 years ago there were 3 domesticated female wolves, the first “pet dogs†if you will. They are the progenitors of the modern Chihuahua. According to modern science, a Chihuahua is a sub species of the grey wolf, not a different species.
Then there is Mitochondrial Eve – Evolutionists claim that like the wolf, there was more than one human man and woman around at the time (approximately 140,000 years ago). But there had to be a first – a first woman, a first man – unless you believe that lightening struck the primordial ooze and a dozen or so humans popped up like those B-rated zombie movies. In trying to contradict Creationists, science is contradicting itself!
The truth is, until science can explain the origin of life itself, evolution will always be a scientific “best guess†and historically scientific “best guesses†have been proven wrong. The earth is not flat, nor is it the center of the universe. Evil spirits do not cause disease, germs do. Back when I was in school, I was taught that genetically, two brown eyed people could not have a blue eyes child – guess what I was taught wrong – they can.
I spent 30+ years of my life believing that evolution was fact and used to argue that the Bible was a “myth†and a “fairy tail.†I based my arguments on facts and accepted scientific methods. In the end, the more I learned the more I found science could not explain. The more I asked why the more I found out that science didn’t know, each “why†or “how†I asked led to more questions. Children constantly ask, “Why.†Why is the sky blue? Because that is the color is scattered most by our atmosphere. Why does our atmosphere scatter that color? If you really want to know, here’s a link: http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/bluesky.html. The short answer, because of the properties of the molecules that make up our atmosphere and how we perceive our world we see a blue sky. But, why do molecules exhibit these properties? Is it because the universe has certain constant laws? In the end, the answer seems to be – because it does. We can’t explain it, but that is what it does and it is pretty much constant and rarely contradicted therefore it must be “Natural Law.†It’s when I got to this point of the answer, I came to the conclusion, if you can’t explain the foundation of the science, then the science becomes suspect.
I really can’t see much difference in believing, “because it does†(faith in science) or “because God said so†(faith in God). Either way, it is a leap of faith. I’m confident that one of us will be proven right in our differing faith. If you are right, no harm, no foul. There will be no afterlife to regret any aspect of my life. But, if I am right you’ll have an eternity of regret. My biggest gripe is my children are required to learn about evolution and must accept it as fact – or fail (perhaps even be expelled) for voicing their belief. Considering that this nation was founded because of religious intolerance, I find this scientific intolerance to be incomprehensible.
And, no, I don’t think that the “current mainstream religious view of God†makes him seem insane – or creepy. Nor do I feel like an experiment in a Petri dish. I know nothing about you or how much you know about Christianity or the Bible. If you are basing your views on how “mainstream†media portrays Christians – I can see how you’d have that opinion. There isn’t a “current mainstream†view, there is only one view and that is in one easy reference, the Bible. That’s not to say that there are groups out there that have twisted it to suit their purposes (the same can be said about science as well), but if you stick to what is actually written and ignore the dogma that man has created, you’d find it isn’t a “creepy 30 Y/O man hanging around with toddlers at the daycare,†but more like a dad coaching his kids playing baseball.
Finally, just because I don’t agree with your perceptions it does not automatically make me stupid, delusional, weak minded or any of the common insults thrown at those of us who don’t agree with “current mainstream science.†If there wasn’t a dissenting voice, our world would still be flat.
Lively
Lively,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish I could quote here...
I call them "species" based on the definition that different species won't try to mate with each other. I find one "species" females...well let's just stop it at "I wouldn't touch them with a 10ft pole". I consider one "races" women to not be "true" women. I find no sexual desire for them. Unless of course crossbred with a LOT of the other races first. Call them "breeds" like we do with dogs. Fine. But each is RADICALLY different both in outward appearance and INNER mental status/abilities.
Your religion has done the same...much worse really...than you accuse science of. The FACTS as described in religion have been turned on its side more often than science has. The Pope is supposedly infallible and is "Gods voice on earth", yet over the years, his "truths" have been overturned time and again. They used to HANG people for believing the sun was the center. So, one being right all the time doesn't hold water...on either side. At least scientists ADMIT they are wrong. The church never does.
I happen to know a LOT about your Christianity and quite a few other religions. I wanted to know WHY "I" seemed to be "missing something". So, a lot of digging later...my conclusion...religion is control. Your Christianity is nothing more than a few Jews taking off and believing in some guy of which there isn't ANY proof he existed...except in YOUR New Testament.
I also know that your New Testament is made up of some WELL chosen writings, none of which were written by ANYONE who actually SAW Jesus! Jesus wrote NOTHING. His disciples wrote NOTHING. Don't you think that God would have foreseen that maybe a LITTLE proof would be nice. There in no record of a trial, a crusifiction, rising from the dead...NOTHING. Things written by people who very well might be writing "the truth" were deliberately left out. It's ALL a scam...but you swallow it hook line and sinker.
Come on...be serious...do you REALLY think that there is some "God" out there watching EVERYTHING that 5 billion people (just here on earth) do every second of the day? Do you REALLY think that he'd be so petty as to send you to hell for some minor "thought" crime? "God" provides no obvious "rules". Man, I sure hope that the "creator of everything" is a bigger man than that.
Why did a "perfect God" create men who are obviously imperfect? Why give them "free thought" when he should have KNOWN what hell would break loose...just to punish a few? If he's perfect and made everything, why didn't he make everything perfect? Why have ANY suffering at all? Why isn't everything a vegetarian? Do you see where I'm going? Perfect God isn't perfect if he makes something imperfect. The universe could...and SHOULD be a paradise for everything. Everything fat and happy.
It's NOT, it's competition and evolution. You evolve to compete. The best evolved have an advantage and survive better. It's really quite simple...and it works. You don't NEED to throw in some "God" who does everything.
The universe happened, life happened, we happened, WHO knows how and why. I sure don't. But I can be 99.9% sure that some big guy didn't fart it out, nor did he put it together out of common household items.
COULD we have been created by something...sure ANYTHING is POSSIBLE. Is it likely? Like I said, I'm 99.9% against it.
It's much...MUCH...harder to have something that can make universes instead of just having a universe happen. Because then you need another universe to hold it, and sentient beings capable of and with the right materials to MAKE a new universe...
Am I getting through at all?
Lively:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> The truth is, until science can explain the origin of life
> itself, evolution will always be a scientific “best guessâ€
Even when science can explain the origin of life (and, I'd point out, theories already exist), evolution would still just be a scientific best guess. ALL OF SCIENCE is just the current "best guess". At the risk of using absolutes, no scientific theory will ever be so rock solid that it cannot be improved upon.
> and historically scientific “best guesses†have been
> proven wrong. The earth is not flat, nor is it the center of
> the universe. Evil spirits do not cause disease, germs do.
Most of these were religious beliefs, not scientific ones. Across the board, they were proven wrong by scientists, often at the risk of persecution by religious zealots.
> Back when I was in school, I was taught that
> genetically, two brown eyed people could not
> have a blue eyes child – guess what I was taught
> wrong – they can
And this proves what, exactly?
> In the end, the more I learned the more I found
> science could not explain. The more I asked why the
> more I found out that science didn’t know, each “whyâ€
> or “how†I asked led to more questions.
So you decided to fix this situation by abandoning scientific questioning altogether? "God did it, 'nuff said"? If everyone took that approach, we'd still think that the earth was flat, that it was the center of the universe and that evil spirits cause disease.
> It’s when I got to this point of the answer, I came to the
> conclusion, if you can’t explain the foundation of the
> science, then the science becomes suspect.
it's not as though introducing God explains anything.
Where did God come from? Who created God? Where did he get his magical powers of creation? Are there other Gods? If there are, why'd you choose this one? If there's not, why not?
Does the inability to answer these questions (philosophical platitudes don't count) mean that God is suspect?
If God is suspect, then why introduce the additional complexity?
> I really can’t see much difference in believing, “because
> it does†(faith in science) or “because God said soâ€
> (faith in God).
You can test one. You can't test the other. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.
> I’m confident that one of us will be proven right in our
> differing faith. If you are right, no harm, no foul. There
> will be no afterlife to regret any aspect of my life. But, if
> I am right you’ll have an eternity of regret.
Ah, Pascal's Wager. When will people give up on this illogical argument?
This is a false dichotomy. You're ignoring the possibility that we could both be wrong.
Christians and Muslims both believe the other are going to hell (okay, the Muslims don't actually believe in the Christian "hell" but their afterlife for heathens isn't exactly pleasant). They can't both be right. So, you could be right about there being a God but still end up in hell right alongside me because you chose the wrong belief system. Heck, what if the Calvinists are right? In that case, even if a person DOES choose the right belief system, they STILL might not get into heaven, because they weren't lucky enough to be one of the predestined!
> My biggest gripe is my children are required to learn
> about evolution and must accept it as fact – or fail
This is simply not true.
Children are required to UNDERSTAND the theory of evolution. They are not required to accept it as fact. They are free to believe in whatever origin myth they feel like, just as they are free to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. All we ask is that when they're taking their science test that they be able to say what the currently accepted science is, just like we expect that when they're taking a math test that they'll be able to say what the answer to a math problem is.
> There isn’t a “current mainstream†view, there is only
> one view and that is in one easy reference, the Bible.
Given the number of differing denominations among Christian adherents, I find this reasoning specious.
> That’s not to say that there are groups out there that
> have twisted it to suit their purposes (the same can
> be said about science as well), but if you stick to what
> is actually written and ignore the dogma that man has
> created, you’d find it isn’t a “creepy 30 Y/O man hanging
> around with toddlers at the daycare,†but more like a dad
> coaching his kids playing baseball.
No dad I know will torture his kids with fire for all eternity if they strike out.
As for sticking to what's written in the Bible, I think we'd be living in a veritable hell on earth if we did that. Just a few of the bad ideas we'd be accepting:
* Stoning people for working on Saturday
* Taking slaves from the surrounding nations
* Selling your daughters into slavery
* Killing homosexuals
* Killing people for eating shellfish and pork
No one in their right mind would take moral guidance from the Bible as a whole. True, there's a lot of good along with the bad, but who gets to decide what parts we follow and what parts we ignore?
200 years ago if you would have tried to explain the core ideas around quantum physics and their consequences to people you would have been burned as a witch. Are we that much smarter today where we can dismiss 'crazy' ideas so easily?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> 200 years ago if you would have tried to explain the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> core ideas around quantum physics and their
> consequences to people you would have been burned as
> a witch. Are we that much smarter today where we can
> dismiss 'crazy' ideas so easily?
You would have been burned by those who did not accept scientific method i.e. pretty much the same people who are creationists.
By the way, the with hunt stopped 300 years ago.
This is good. The refutiation of Expelled in a one minute byte lies in a supposed misrepresentation of Darwin's motives. The lead in to the Darwin segment with the argued quote was with an american born acedemic living in France, who (paraphrasing), spoke: Nazism was not spawned by Darwinism butd, could not have existed without Darwinian theory; that of natural selection. The Nazi's were pushing the natural selection (making it unatural) of a superior race. All Stein is asking for is an objective discussion. Really, the only place you folks have to go in the face of complexity of the cell is God, or seeding by another species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, there are about 20 recognized Hominid species and several more for which there is dispute as to whether they belong within the hominid or primate genus. There are also over 900,000 distinct species of insects, whatever that proves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what the Human Genome Project actually showed was that there was a link between neanderthals and modern humans and that humans and apes have a 96+ percent similarity in dna structure. In addition, it concludes, by tracing the origins and variations of the x and y chromosones, that women evolved first about 80,000 years prior to the first male. Not 20,000 years ago, once an all knowing god figured out that the man he had created was lonely.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/999030.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10275-neanderthal-dna-illuminates-split-with-humans.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
The facts speak for themselves, but evolutionists, don't want to let the facts speak - In the beginning - God or dirt, either is a religious statement, and both because they are outside of testable science, are believed by faith. It would be nice if those who really thinks life evolved from a rock would stop wanting to teach their religion with my tax dollars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames
Thank you very much. This is a great list that clarifies much. Creationists often attack some detail as if that detail were evolutionary theory itself. I wish I had a nickel for every time somebody said to me "Until you can show me how a giraffe got a long neck, you don't have any proof".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is like saying "your corpse and murder weapon don't matter - unless you can tell me the time of death to the exact second, I reject the concept of murder".
These articles offer 100% support to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by exhibiting the very behavior predicted by Ben Stein. Why should there be such vicious backlash against not only those who espouse Intelligent Design, but also anyone who would wish to explore such a theory, whether or not they agree with it? The debate is not about Creationism vs Evolution, but about Censorship vs Free Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it startling that some think "Expelled" is anything but a manipulation by political interests who want to create a wedge issue for winning close elections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> For instance, the "micro vs. macro evolution" red herring is stymied by the clever creationist by simply disagreeing with what constitutes a new species. Two Finches, for instance, that can mate but ordinarily would not, cannot be two species, they contend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk. Try this then. Most people don't realize that we are closer genetically to chimps and gorillas than horses are to donkeys. Similarly, we humans could mate with either gorillas or chimpanzees and have offspring. The offspring would be infertile, like a mules is, but it would survive and live a normal life - but as what? Is it human? Is it ape?
So - what we need now are a few volunteers to mate with chimpanzees and gorillas. Now [u]that[/u] would get publicity for the evolution debate!
Paging Michael Shermer! Time to take serious action for the cause! :-)
--
Edited by John_Toradze at 04/19/2008 5:46 PM
It is not now possible to cross a chimpanzee with a human and produce any kind of offspring, fertile or otherwise although at one time in our lineage it probably did happen, and for quite a long time, before the species diverged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> These articles offer 100% support to "Expelled: No
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Intelligence Allowed" by exhibiting the very behavior
> predicted by Ben Stein.
Do we censor him?
> Why should there be such
> vicious backlash against not only those who espouse
> Intelligent Design, but also anyone who would wish to
> explore such a theory, whether or not they agree with
> it?
1. ID is [b]not[/b] a theory, it is an ism, a belief in a higher diety that is not scientific.
2. I see no one forbidding anyone from exercising religion. All I see is statements to the like of: "if you want to be taken serious in a scientific context you have to play by the established rules in the scientific context."
3. No one has been able to even partly prove ID using science. Which gives?
> The debate is not about Creationism vs Evolution,
> but about Censorship vs Free Science.
Give me one (or more) example where a creationist have had his or her freedom of speech impeded or taken away due to his belief in ID.
Everyone is saying: If you want to teach science, teach science. Do not teach religion. A fact is a fact, a nonfact is not a fact. A scientific theory is not a religious belief.
The error in this article's logic is that it assumes that creationism is not based on measurable evidence and that God is simply used to fill in the blanks of things we don't understand. That may be true of some individuals or groups, but is not necessarily true of everyone. There are people such as myself who want all of the evidence to be considered and the truth persued wherever it goes. The question is whether the scientific community, including Scientific American, suppresses the evidence for God's existence and involvement in the world we live in. Is there repeatable measurable evidence that is suppressed out of an atheistic bias?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvidence for God's involvement in creation seems obvious to me so it is hard to understand how it can be missed apart from some sort of denial of the plain evidence.
- Bobby
Really! 4% difference between an ape (forgive my crassness) and man; what a difference that 4% makes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4% is huge brother, where else in science can you accept 4%, any math you know accepts +/- 4%?
I work in the semiconductor industry, a 4% error left uncorrected could cause dramatic drifts in the process, cost millions of dollars and get me fired.
Insects, tracing X & Y chormosomes, thats some concrete data. I would suggest that if even 1/10 of Biblical stories are true than you'd best base your ridicule on stronger stuff than that.
But that ole cell just will not go away. And, I take it that only man and insects evolved?
I don't know, it just seems kinda shaky.
> Really! 4% difference between an ape (forgive my
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> crassness) and man; what a difference that 4% makes.
>
> 4% is huge brother, where else in science can you
> accept 4%, any math you know accepts +/- 4%?
>
> I work in the semiconductor industry, a 4% error left
> uncorrected could cause dramatic drifts in the
> process, cost millions of dollars and get me fired.
>
> Insects, tracing X & Y chormosomes, thats some
> concrete data. I would suggest that if even 1/10 of
> Biblical stories are true than you'd best base your
> ridicule on stronger stuff than that.
>
> But that ole cell just will not go away. And, I take
> it that only man and insects evolved?
>
> I don't know, it just seems kinda shaky.
Well, forgive me for my own crassness, but apparently reading comprehension isn't a particularly important requirement to "work in the semiconductor industry." Or, for that matter, even a basic understanding of science.
Nobody has ever said that apes and humans are exactly alike, so what exactly is the "error" that has to be corrected or accepted? Where was anything even close to a statement or even an implication that only humans and insects evolved made? Also why, exactly, would a cell "go away" being that it's the smallest unit of any and every organism that has ever existed.
--
Edited by EYEAM4ANARCHY at 04/21/2008 2:05 AM
> The error in this article's logic is that it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> assumes that creationism is not based on measurable
> evidence and that God is simply used to fill in the
> blanks of things we don't understand. That may
> be true of some individuals or groups, but is not
> necessarily true of everyone. There are people such
> as myself who want all of the evidence to be
> considered and the truth persued wherever it goes.
> The question is whether the scientific community,
> , including Scientific American, suppresses the
> evidence for God's existence and involvement in
> the world we live in. Is there repeatable measurable
> evidence that is suppressed out of an atheistic
> bias?
>
> Evidence for God's involvement in creation seems
> obvious to me so it is hard to understand how it can
> be missed apart from some sort of denial of the plain
> evidence.
>
> - Bobby
If that's the case then why isn't any of that obvious, plain evidence ever used as the basis for creationism? Are all the evil scientists also hiding it from those scientists that argue in favor of creationism? Why is it that creationism is based on disproving evolutionary theory rather than proving biblical claims?
Creationism consists of "evolution can't explain this, so god must have done it." That's about the extent of it and that's why it doesn't have any scientific validity.
> Evidence for God's involvement in creation seems
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> obvious to me so it is hard to understand how it can
> be missed apart from some sort of denial of the plain
> evidence.
>
> - Bobby
OK Bobby...show ME some of your "obvious" proof of God's involvement in creation. Show me some HARD evidence... Evidence isn't found in a book either...just because the Bible says something doesn't mean it's true. There are lots of things in lots of books that isn't true...including your Bible!
Gravity = science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution = religion/philosophy
Church of Darwin's 4 denonimations:
1) Classical - what Darwin taught
2) Punctuated Equilibrium - "The Miraculous Egg" taught to kids now, teaches lizard gave birth to bird to explain gaps in fossil record
3) Pan Spermia - Aliens planted us here (see Star Trek) - but where are THEY from?
4) Theistic Evo - God created Amoeba (Adamoeba?) in His image
All four claim they are right. All use same evidence. None fight because of Christ. All call the others idiots. All call God a liar. All are diametrically opposed, yet claim to be correct.
THIS NONSENSE IS A FAITH-BASED RELIGION, not science.
"Beware of science falsely so-called." - Jesus
Evolution slaughters more than all other religions combined across all time. See "ethnic cleansing", WWII, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, abortion.
Evolutionists are self deluded, religious nutbars who are far more dangerous than any Muslim bomber.
Ask a fetus or Jew.
> Gravity = science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Evolution = religion/philosophy
Dead wrong. Just because you do not understand something does not make it a religion.
Because I do not understand how to make a photon spin does not mean I begin to call it a religion.
>
> Church of Darwin's 4 denonimations:
>
> 1) Classical - what Darwin taught
What Darwin taught was based on the same scientific principles as Einstein taught gravity with. Which was the same scientific principles in which the telephone was created with. Which was the same scientific principles the radio was created with. Which was the same scientific principles the Apollo reached the Moon with. Which was the same scientific principles the atom was discovered with. Which was the same scientific principles the Vikings, Indians, Dutch, Spaniards et.c. used to navigate the seas and stars with. And so on, ad infinitum, et.c.
> 2) Punctuated Equilibrium - "The Miraculous Egg"
> taught to kids now, teaches lizard gave birth to bird
> to explain gaps in fossil record
And every hard scientific evidence points to that being true. That makes Evolution a scientific theory.
Please observe how evolution is based upon facts in the real world while religion is something we make up in our heads.
It does not say that a lizard gave birth to a bird, it says that over thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of generations any species will gradually evolve to better live in its environment.
It is the same thing as teaching kids that two physical bodies attract each other due to a force called gravity. Please try to ignore the theory of gravity and see what evolution will make of you (that was a joke).
> 3) Pan Spermia - Aliens planted us here (see Star
> Trek) - but where are THEY from?
Good rule when debating science: You should not go to hollywood blockbusters for scientific evidence.
Especially not movies which openly claims to be works of fiction. If you have to use fiction which has no part in science to try to refute evolution you really have to work on your scientific methodology. Sorry. There is an internet meme which is popular right now, I feel that to be appropriate: FAIL.
> 4) Theistic Evo - God created Amoeba (Adamoeba?) in
> His image
There is no problem is saying that God created the Amoeba or whatever in his image, it does not refute the theory of evolution because evolution is the process in which we evolve. It is not the process in which the universe was created. There is no clash between the notion that the world was created by a god (any god) and the theory that evolution exists.
> All four claim they are right. All use same
> evidence. None fight because of Christ. All call
> the others idiots. All call God a liar. All are
> diametrically opposed, yet claim to be correct.
>
> THIS NONSENSE IS A FAITH-BASED RELIGION, not
> science.
Try looking for Northern Ireland, French Wars of Religion, Reconquista, the Crusades, Bosnian Genocides and White Eagles, Battle of Jericho, The Inquisition, Army of God, KKK, Christian Identity, Lambs of Christ, Nagaland Rebels, God's Army, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, Gunpowder Plot and a few other groups and events and then tell me again weather no one fights because of Christ.
If "THIS" = ID, then yes.
> "Beware of science falsely so-called." - Jesus
>
> Evolution slaughters more than all other religions
> combined across all time. See "ethnic cleansing",
> WWII, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, abortion.
Please come again when you have some facts to say that anyone of these atrocities where created as a pert of the scientific theory of evolution.
Beware of ID falsely claiming to be science. Until ID proponents give [b]one[/b] just [b]one[/b] small evidence of Gods existence ID will only be a religious offshoot. And even then that will not invalidate the theory of evolution.
> Evolutionists are self deluded, religious nutbars who
> are far more dangerous than any Muslim bomber.
>
> Ask a fetus or Jew.
I just asked a Jew and two Cats. The Jew thought you ought to be reading up on scientific method. The cats just stared at me and later one meowed.
Yes, thank you for resorting to ad hominem, it certainly makes your point come across as valid.
If you evolved as your master claims, why do you return to the "original Eden diet" and eat grass when your belly aches and you've been throwing up all day?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeow. Hhhhh. Fffft ffft!!!
Why do Jews fear to preach Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 in synagogue even though Jews wrote both thru the Holy Spirit? Both speak of a MAN pierced for our transgressions. Ask him if anywhere else in Judaism is the nation of Israel is refered to as a man, as rabbis falsely claim today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would any Jew fear the words of his own God?
A secular Jew is a guy who doesn't want to go to Hell OR synagogue. Get your butt back to temple and ask them my questions. Shabbat Shalom, baby.
When you're done, ask God who Jesus is.
Human's cannot know the answer. Don't bother with me, Niklas, my preacher, or your rabbi.
Ask G-d. I'll be waiting for His answer thru you.
To which of the four denominations of the Church of Darwin do you belong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBear in mind, that I will then invite the other three to debate you, as I calmly bow out.
Again I state, more people were killed in the previous century by Darwin's TRUE believers than all other religions combined across all time, including your examples.
And that's not even including the abortion wars against ALLEGED overpopulation.
God is no fool. He never recanted the "Go forth. Be fruitful and multiply" order. So there is plenty of food here. Kansas alone could feed the entire earth twice over easily. If you evos are so stinking worried about it, slit your own wrists and free up the groceries you've been selfishly poking down your own necks, or get on your hands and knees and help Christians feed the world LIKE WE'VE BEEN DOING your whole self-absorbed lives.
Quick, somebody give me a term like "ad hominem" that means "arrogant".
Sir, do me a HUGE favor and ask your grandfather who suffered thru the Holocaust, how he feels about you turning your life over to the very belief system that put his fanny there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, I'll be waiting here.
Was it believers in gravity or EVOLUTION who called Jews an "inferior race"?
By the way, the scientific method is what invalidates evolution as science. Since it cannot be falsified or verified without a time machine, it falls outside the realm of observational, empirical data. THAT and that alone is why it is philosophy. The fact that everyone who believes in it does so by FAITH that would make a Muslim bus bomber blush, is what makes it a religion.
Shalom
The "frustration" of being asked for fossil evidence (the only true "hard" evidence available...evidence such as DNA similarity takes evolution as factual a priori and is therefore circular reasoning) stems from the blatant LACK of it! All evidence available shows distinct flora and fauna, many of which still exist, without the thousands of intermediaries that would be required to exist to support the macro-evolution scenario. The hard evidence shows just what we see today.... distinct KINDS of animals and plants, all of them diverse...yet separate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIva Biggrudge,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we DO see evolution now... Bacteria and viri are evolving all the time. rapidly enough for us to see.
Come on...you can't believe that man evolved to his place...but you CAN believe that there is a "man maker" living upstairs? Incredible!
> If you evolved as your master claims, why do you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> return to the "original Eden diet" and eat grass when
> your belly aches and you've been throwing up all
> day?
>
> Meow. Hhhhh. Fffft ffft!!!
Provide more info on this "original Eden diet" you speak of.
> Why do Jews fear to preach Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> synagogue even though Jews wrote both thru the Holy
> Spirit? Both speak of a MAN pierced for our
> transgressions. Ask him if anywhere else in Judaism
> is the nation of Israel is refered to as a man, as
> rabbis falsely claim today.
>
> Why would any Jew fear the words of his own God?
Exactly what does this has to do with scientific discourse?
>
> A secular Jew is a guy who doesn't want to go to Hell
> OR synagogue. Get your butt back to temple and ask
> them my questions. Shabbat Shalom, baby.
As I said earlier. What does this have to do with science?
>
> When you're done, ask God who Jesus is.
>
> Human's cannot know the answer. Don't bother with
> me, Niklas, my preacher, or your rabbi.
Then why do you bother trying to make ID a science when it is not?
>
> Ask G-d. I'll be waiting for His answer thru you.
I am unable to ask him. Please provide info on how I can contact him and get a relatively non-ambiguous answer.
> To which of the four denominations of the Church of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Darwin do you belong?
None. I belong to the philosophy of science school.
> Bear in mind, that I will then invite the other three
> to debate you, as I calmly bow out.
You are most welcome.
> Again I state, more people were killed in the
> previous century by Darwin's TRUE believers than all
> other religions combined across all time, including
> your examples.
Again, what does politics have to do with science? Especially when the politics of today preach non-science?
> And that's not even including the abortion wars
> against ALLEGED overpopulation.
What???
> God is no fool. He never recanted the "Go forth. Be
> fruitful and multiply" order. So there is plenty of
> food here. Kansas alone could feed the entire earth
> twice over easily.
Then why aren't they? How much grains and stock does kansas provide an average year? Divide over 6*2 billion people and come back to me.
> If you evos are so stinking
> worried about it, slit your own wrists and free up
> the groceries you've been selfishly poking down your
> own necks, or get on your hands and knees and help
> Christians feed the world LIKE WE'VE BEEN DOING your
> whole self-absorbed lives.
>
> Quick, somebody give me a term like "ad hominem" that
> means "arrogant".
You are just acting like a child now. Please return with more substantial arguments.
> Sir, do me a HUGE favor and ask your grandfather who
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> suffered thru the Holocaust, how he feels about you
> turning your life over to the very belief system that
> put his fanny there.
My grandparents suffered through the holocaust in Estonia. My grandfather cursed the Nazis for quote: "being so damnes religious that they do not care about anyone else!" He is dead since six years.
> Again, I'll be waiting here.
You are most welcome.
> Was it believers in gravity or EVOLUTION who called
> Jews an "inferior race"?
Nobody believes in evolution, they accept it as a scientific truth. Please realize that your argumentation is growing more and more pathetic for each sentence.
> By the way, the scientific method is what invalidates
> evolution as science. Since it cannot be falsified
> or verified without a time machine, it falls outside
> the realm of observational, empirical data. THAT and
> that alone is why it is philosophy. The fact that
> everyone who believes in it does so by FAITH that
> would make a Muslim bus bomber blush, is what makes
> it a religion.
Please provide this evidence within the scientific discourse that invalidates the theory of evolution.
> Shalom
Shalom, good evening, have a good day!
> > God is no fool. He never recanted the "Go
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> forth. Be
> > fruitful and multiply" order. So there is
> plenty of
> > food here. Kansas alone could feed the entire
> earth
> > twice over easily.
>
> Then why aren't they? How much grains and stock does
> kansas provide an average year? Divide over 6*2
> billion people and come back to me.
Doing some quick fact checking:
Kansas is currently producing [url=http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_699.shtml]4% of the total US production[/url] of agricultural products and has [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States]0.91%[/url] of the US Population. This means that Kansas currently produces food for about 4.4 states of its own size. This is true if we assume that ~1% produced will be eaten by ~1% of the population.
Considering the area of Kansas at 213 096 km^2 and its crop land at 119 552.321 km^2 Kansas would have to boost its output to meet the complete US production by 25 times its current production. This can be achieved by either using more crop land which would result in a crop land of 2 988 808.025 km^2 or 2988808.025/9826630≈30.4% of the total US land area.
Tell me, honestly, do you actually believe that Kansas could even supply the whole US population with food even during a good year? Then consider that US population is about 4.5% of the world population...
Further on... Considering that the US [url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FATUS/]exports[/url] agricultural products at the value which is about double that of the imported let us compare that. That could mean that Kansas [i]current[/i] production in [u]relation[/u] to the imported amout of agricultural goods is somewhere about 3.6‰.
Now please tell me, how can Kansas multiply its output by 600-700 to reach the level you declare them possible to?
I know that this is not the complete picture and that I have omitted things such as nutritional value and tonnage, but I hope you get my message: [u][i]Present facts to make your points valid.[/i][/u] Anyone (including myself) who only rush into a scientific discussion without facts to back up their statements will be treated with some variant of ridicule as they can not in any way be taken serious. Hence, if you want to prove that ID should be a theory and evolution not, please provide facts. (Feelings do not count as fact).
--
Edited by NiklasB at 04/21/2008 3:30 PM
Science as mentioned in this article, does not have evidence in the fossil records to prove evolution, all they can do is speculate on how things occured or came into being. This is NOT PROOF, BUT SPECULATION! Therefore does NOT merit the right to be called fact! Talk about a state religion, sadly, Athieism and Evolutionism is the state religion in the USA. Scientist who are evolutionist everywhere, should be ashamed of themselves by not protecting the right of others to teach different views!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Science as mentioned in this article, does not have
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> evidence in the fossil records to prove evolution,
> , all they can do is speculate on how things occured
> or came into being. This is NOT PROOF, BUT
> SPECULATION! Therefore does NOT merit the right to be
> called fact! Talk about a state religion, sadly,
> Athieism and Evolutionism is the state religion in
> the USA. Scientist who are evolutionist everywhere,
> should be ashamed of themselves by not protecting the
> right of others to teach different views!
The data that supports evolutions comes not only from fossils, but also from observing the current environment, exploring it, modelling it, simulating it and so on.
Teach ID for all I care but then you would also have to teach magic in physics class, phrenology in psychology class, astrology in astronomy class, tarot in economy class and so on. Go ahead and fool yourself!
By the way, evolution is a [b]scientific theory[/b]. Just like the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetic waves.
Eye,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is this Science Slam?
To quote your initial response:
[i]Actually, there are about 20 recognized Hominid species and several more for which there is dispute as to whether they belong within the hominid or primate genus. There are also over 900,000 distinct species of insects, whatever that proves.
And what the Human Genome Project actually showed was that there was a link between neanderthals and modern humans and that humans and apes have a 96+ percent similarity in dna structure. In addition, it concludes, by tracing the origins and variations of the x and y chromosones, that women evolved first about 80,000 years prior to the first male. Not 20,000 years ago, once an all knowing god figured out that the man he had created was lonely.[/i]
Then I must be abit confused what your Human Genome Project info is concerned with.
I know, factory worker, but you know what? The things we alchamize actually work, in real life. And, without these little chemically layered chips half you guys wouldn't be able to fumble through the math to posture as scientists.
But then I digress.
You gave me X Y chromosomes and insects as answeres to my evidence question.
The cell is irreducible complexity sir.
And the man and insect evolving is: those were your only examples, don't feel lonely though bacteria, insects, and abstract projections are all anyone has come up with.
But, don't get me wrong, science has amazed me, and excites my imagination.
Right now though in these discourses the threads seem more akin to pubescent cliques mocking outsiders shoe styles.
--
Edited by jcrudd at 04/21/2008 5:24 PM
Dear jcrudd, stop misinterpreting and selectively ignore parts of the scientific discourse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNiklas, sorry about your grandpa. Only God could have known that about you. Yet I was used by Him to nail you with it. Ask yourself what the odds are that I would be successful with you. I had no idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo answer your questions, though you've answered none of mine:
The original earth diet was pure vegetarian. Nobody ate meat until after Noah's flood when food was suddenly scarce. Also, disease limited lifespans to 120 yrs when people used to live nearly 1000. Noah was 600 when he started building. It took 120 yrs to build. He lived another 120 or so afterwards.
Everybody born after the flood had wimpy lifespans of 120 years max, like us.
Intelligent Design is fought by arrogant men, not because it's unscientific, but because it means they will have to humble themselves and OBEY somebody. But we know they are godlike beings who are way smarter than us. So they will never obey. And why should they? They're so great.
What does Judaism have to do with science? They probably INVENTED the thing. Jews are logical, methodical, geniuses. Hitler was half right. There is a master race. But he got which one wrong. It's the JEWS not him.
If you name a genius, chances are 1 in 3 that it's a Jew, yet they comprise 1/10,000th of the world population. How is this possible without God making them the "chosen people"? Evolution cannot explain. So it murders them off to hide its shame.
If your gramps hated religion, why was he a Jew? Why do you dishonor him by belonging to the most brutal religion that ever hit the face of the earth? The one his wannabee murderers held dear. They pretended to be catholics, but they preached EVOLUTION from their pulpit. I'm not fond of those child molestation-happy catholics, either. But I'll crush them later.
Their Pope could have stopped WWII cold by threatening excommunication (hell to a catholic) for the nation of Germany if they touched any Jew. But did the coward? Instead, look up pictures of "Pius XII" with his nose far up Hitler's rump.
And the way the Nazis started was by belittling Jews in their media, just as this rag has done with the title to this very article. I wonder if they will have the backbone to print this.
What does politics have to do with religion? Are you blind? EVERY politician uses religion to control his people, to mislead and use them... even in Estonia, and especially here.
"Google: scientific method" There's your refutation for evolution. It's a religion, that must be believed by faith. That is the Webster's DEFINITION of religion.
Have you driven thru Kansas, ever? And it is just one of many of our huge states, any one of which could feed all of Earth. Blimps could get it there under solar power. It's childsplay and I will do it if you fail. I could use the money. As I said before, those whose false gods are starving them to death are daily "fed by the crumbs which fall from the Master's table" here in the USA from places just like Kansas. And where is Darwin in this relief effort? ... as his followers feign such fake concern.
The entire world population could fit shoulder to shoulder inside my capital city limits. Sewage would be a pain in the neck, but they'd fit here. There just aren't as many people as those lying, mass murdering dogs of Darwin pretend.
Not even in Estonia where the grass is so green no detergent can get its stains out. It's beautiful... and could probably feed the whole world itself.
And as for contacting God, he never left. All you have to do is humble yourself and start talking. Think you can handle it? I wonder.
Sure Nik
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat does cut both ways though boss.
For a group that tauts objectivity worldwide, I've seen little of it here.
I believe that is a focus point of the movie that is spawning these threads.
The discussions bear emotional resemblance to religious or political heated debates,,,,
jcrudd and Iva Biggrudge. I have read you opinions multiple times now and all you have to do is present facts to support them unless you want to look ridiculous in a scientific discourse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSilly me, I thought History was a branch of science. Ho hum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, Estonian.
If a scientist does not know that, historically speaking, when you mix these two chemicals, it will blow your stinking head off, he will die soon.
I have asked MULTIPLE TIMES for you to confess which of the four Denominations of the Church of Darwin it is that you "pray to", scientifically speaking.
################################################################################
Do you have a physical disorder that prevents you from answering questions, sir?
################################################################################
If not, then perhaps you could ANSWER THE FREAKING QUESTION: which denomination(s) are you?
You say I should worry about looking unscientific, when I've already been pegged as a Jew, I mean fool, by your little band of brothers in the Nazi, I mean evolutionist, community.
"Answers to Evolutionist Nonsense" -- wouldn't that title hack you off? Why does your ignorant fanny think it'll do me any different when you change it to bash me, instead?
Our views are not nonsense. Seek A.E. Wilder-Smythe, dead now, but voted the best scientist on EARTH by a group of same (mostly evos). He was wildly godly and pro-Creation. I will let HIM do my talking.
Also seek Dr. Ken Ham of the Creation Museum. He speaks for me as well.
You DO know how to use Google, don't you? You rattled your way here. Rattle there, too. Find those men.
Yes, you are part of a religious CULT whose priests wear white lab coats instead of papal robes. But you are every bit as zealous as any Jehovah's Witness. And yes, I set THEM straight when they come knocking, too.
Are any of you neo-pagan Witnesses out there? Would you like to fight me as well? Unlike this coward, will you answer my questions, or will you just lurk and insult like this little boy is doing me?
It's hard to fight a target that cowers behind its keyboard in fear. I need a man or woman to fight, someone with a backbone who knows how to answer questions.
But since we both know you won't, here is a tickler of what to expect from MY favorite scientists:
Chemistry: what two chemicals can sit side by side for millions of years without reacting and becoming inert? Why isn't the entire Universe filled with inert, happily stuck-together, chemicals already?
Do you REALLY expect me to believe the Sun tears chemicals apart and them crams them back together and BOTH reactions GIVE OFF energy? Hopeful, aren't you?
Physics: Nothing gave birth to Something? Oh, praise the mighty name of Darwin.... Can I hear an A-monkey from the congregation? I feel more scientific already. Whew!
Compression happened in SPACE? Nothing to squeeze on first particles to harden them into solids. Remember, we're trying to EVOLVE the first energies and matter. All is traveling along diverging radii, getting farther apart with less and less gravity between as they go. What then compressed junk into the first star? It's an adult fairy tale. And you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
I'm not unscientific. You evos are. Look above. Read it out loud before bed. Then continue.
Geology: Turbidity currents prove strata were laid underwater. A single band of Iridium ore encircles the world, an inch-thick, uniformly thick all over planet, so it could not be laid down by splatter pattern from meteors or it would be thicker in spots. ALL strata are deposited in GRAVITATIONAL SORT ORDER. One layer is HEAVIER than another. Was the earth fatter way back when, or did all that lovely rock strata lay down from Noah's Flood like the syrup of chocolate milk settling to the bottom of your glass? See Mount St Helens which made a MINIATURE Grand Canyon, rock strata and all in a DAY but 1/40th the size!!!! Hey, didn't Noah's Flood last 40 days? Hmmm.
Same stinking strata at Mt St Helens, same lying dog evolutionists hiding that fact.
Where did the sediment from the Grand Canyon go? It ain't in the Pacific, laddy. By the way, there is a "Colorado River" that runs thru Mt St Helens canyon too. It formed the next day. It didn't carve the canyon. IT FOLLOWED IT!!!!!
We asked these questions from DAY ONE of Darwinism. Why don't you cowards ever answer us?
Oops, sorry, there's another question. I hope I didn't make you pee your pants.
I do not have any physical disability as far as I am aware.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are being manipulated by some evil being into not understanding [b]what science is[/b] and [b]how it works[/b]. Please come again when you can provide any fact.
Science: [i]Make claim A, back it up with fact B, make sure fits with fact C.[/i]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelief: [i]Make claim A, back it up with opinion B[/i].
What you are expressing is a belief, not science.
NiklasB, What facts have YOU given?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll you have done is quote me and complain.
Where are YOUR facts?
Again, for the fifth or sixth time, I ask....
WHICH DENOMINATION of the Church of Darwin do you belong to???????
You said you have no question-answering disability then turned right around and failed to answer AGAIN.
Are you retarded or something? Can't figure out how to scroll up and read the old posts?
Click Help and ask tech support. Then come answer my questions before my stinking head explodes.
Since you cannot remember questions from one sentence to the next, I will end with my question...
The Church of Darwin has these four denominations:
1) Classical (what Darwin taught)
2) Punctuated Equilibrium (lizard births a bird to explain fossil gaps)
3) Pan Spermia (Star Trek idea that aliens planted us here)
4) Theistic (God created amoeba, not man, in his image)
All call each other fools without involving God in the discussion at all.
WHICH OF THESE DENOMINATIONS ARE YOU, NIKLASB??????
The Earth/Moon pair is less than 50,000 years old based on how fast they are moving apart. Working the math backyards yields this age. Nasa knows and is hiding it. But THEY told us the moving apart rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Moon has only one and a half inches of silt. Asimov predicted 54 feet SINCE it is there being beaten by the Sun for "billions of years". Nasa wasted millions building detachable duck feet on the lunar lander to keep astronauts from being swallowed alive. One almost peed himself with fear while landing, fearing this. But see Armstrong's footprint.
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1969/medium/AS11-40-5903.jpg
Using Asimov's own math and the real depth of the soil yields a max age of about 6-7 thousand years.
Bishop Wilberforce of the Catholics computed all those boring "begats" in the Bible and found the time from Adam to Christ is about 4004 years. We know the time from Christ to us as the current year, 2008. Adding the two together yields a planetary age (according to God) of about 6000 years. So the Bible is closer to fact than Isaac Asimov and his evolutionary buddies.
Astronauts found that sticking their rock dating thermometer thingy on one side of a moon rock gave a completely different "age" reading than on the other side (especially the underside). So it's all crap.
Carbon-14 and all other chemical dating methods are flawed and KNOWN to be so by the very guys who invented them. For them to work even halfway right, you have to know how much carbon-14 (or whatever) was already there in the beginning. If a candle is an inch tall and burning at 1 inch per hour, it has one hour to live. But how long has it BEEN burning? That depends on the length of the candle, no? That is the initial value. Without it, the math is useless. AND THEY KNOW IT, because we told them.
They employ circular reasoning. They date fossils found in stone by the kind of stone they find them in. Yet they conversely date the stones by the type of fossils found within them.
Why do they do this? Because they know they can't trust Carbon-14, etc.
So why do they tell you it's trustworthy?
They say, they get their initial values from "index values". Those are just numbers printed on paper. Where did the data come from? Who went back in time and found out how much Carbon-14 was up old T-Rex?
I have just demonstrated three or four of their outright lies.
Hiding data is the same as lying. Taking tax money to fund a cult religion is theft.
And you trust your immortal soul to these guys?
Iva Biggrudge,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have excellent points.
I'll answer your questions...all with one answer...I don't know...
I don't know how this happened or that happened. And personally I don't think we'll EVER know. Some things are just too small for us to ever see. Some are too large. Some happened too long ago...
The problem I have with you is: You're doing the SAME thing you accuse "us" of doing. You're believing in something that has a LOT of faults and inconsistencies. Science isn't perfect, it doesn't have all the answers. Neither does ANY religion. At least we admit it.
Now...this God of yours. HOW exactly did "IT" get here? Your God appears to be able to do a lot of the things you accuse "science" of doing. Popping out of nothing. Creating this and that by a wave of a hand. And a WHOLE lot of other equally "miraculous" things.
Face it, you're trading one "belief" for another.
Thanks, but these aren't my points. They are those of the true scientific community that has been stifled for decades by the evolutionists who threaten anyone who disagrees with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy God got here the same way your energy did...
According to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, Energy cannot be created.... it can only change forms/types... blah blah blah.
That means that, like it or not, YOU also believe that something has always been here.
By the way, that flies in the face of your "something from nothing" core of the Big Fizzle (I mean Bang) Theory which clearly states that energy and matter just suddenly showed up at the doorstep one day.
Here is a mind bender for you:
You know how Star Trek is full of energy beings, and nobody has a problem with them until I point out that one could be responsible for Genesis? Well, one was. He was also responsible for creating the other energy beings 2/3rds of whom are on our side, 1/3rd of whom hate our stinking guts... according to that same first, big energy being.
According to Einstein, matter and energy are the same thing, just moving funny in relation to one another. I liken it to the edge of a fan blade going round and round real fast and SEEMING solid. If the tip of that fan blade were instead energy, would not it carve out a solid ball if centered around that fan motor? Yes, it would. Nothing, not even light would have much luck coring thru to the "motor" at the center. Yet it's all just a trick with light.
Oddly enough, the apostle of Christ who walked with an angel thru a solid rock wall said "the whole world is just an illusion" a trick played with light.
What if, speech to an energy being is just patterns of energy? What if that pattern was so cunning, the speech so impressive, that it formed a ball which acted as matter? What if he kept talking and making more? What if he used as his raw material, some of his own being (what else COULD he use?)? What if that's what he meant by "in him do we have our essence" and "to him do we belong"?
Is this idea REALLY so unscientific?
Not according to Einstein and Star Trek, it's not.
As for science being perfect, I never bashed science. Not even one time. I have consistently and quite fervently been bashing evolution, which is a blood-thirsty, pagan religion masquerading as science.
Surely you can see that I fancy myself a guardian of TRUE science? That is why I so bull-doggedly refuse to let these arrogant liars get away with their treachery.
May the Ultimate Energy Being be with you.
I must go now. If you need to contact me, I'm at
ivan.opinion@yahoo.com
Kudos! & Thank you! for your time in handling these questions and answers as thoroughly as you did!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a lover of God and of science! And the more time I spend with my kids, the greater my love for both grows! It is amazing how much of life there is yet to be discovered and yet to be revealed.
There are several parts in your discussion that I would love to sit down with you at Starbucks and pick your brain about.
There is one statement you made I think can be applied to both sides. You stated, "They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design..." This apparently looks to be true; given that so many challenging questions have seemingly and so concisely arisen on this topic of Macro/Micro Ev and ID/CS, there is a lot of catching up we "theological scientists" need to do... and maintaining one's position while engaging in intelligent conversation can be very difficult on both sides--the starting points are different. Again, thank you!
Iva Biggrudge,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate your response...but have you really read what you typed? Some of your beliefs are...mindblowing. How COULD someone possibly have so much detailed information on anything "large enough" to create our universe?
I'm dumbfounded.
I like to check up on conspiracy theories whenever I have the time. The Illuminati, Secret Societies, 9-11, oil depletion, evolution, religion, whatever. I always try to view each ones side. Some I kinda agree with. But others...nah.
Take organized religion...BAD mojo there. Nothing but control...
Science, as far as I'm aware...is not TOO corrupted except in getting the almighty dollar from Uncle Sam. Too one-sided sometimes. Good studies get no grants.
Anyway...you have some great arguments AGAINST the current scientific thinking...but does that necessitate a "God"? Couldn't we just have it wrong? Why does someone always have to "do" something if we can't currently explain it? That's the problem with ALL..."God did it"...explanations...eventually they fall. when the REAL explanation shows up. I don't think we'll EVER be able to explain everything. But I'm SURE that "God" didn't do it.
And...in the remotest possibility that there is a "God" who created everything. I'm 110%...no, I'm infinitely certain...that this "God" wants nothing to do with "manipulating" us humans living on a small speck in the middle of nowhere.
I'd like to know WHAT do you believe. Not just what don't you believe. Is there an active God who is the creator and actively manages everyones lives? A passive God who created and walked away? What do YOU believe?
Well, I just couldn't resist coming back here to check and now I'm stuck writing another dissertation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou confused me with that 1st paragraph where you called God too big to handle everything, then called him too tiny elsewhere (or vice versa). You need to decide which one you think God is.
What if God was smaller than a subatomic particle, whizzed around here and there to fake matter as I mentioned earlier, and just has a really good memory? We don't know how fast an energy being can go.
What if to God, the Universe is really quite small, small enough to hold in his outstretched arms? It says something like that in the Bible, but I'm too big a heathen to remember where.
They tell me that all the energy in the Universe could "compress down" and fit on the head of a PIN side by side without even bumping. Of course, they expect us to believe this by faith, like everything else they tell us. But hey, it fits MY theory, so what the heck?
What if God is one kind of energy that can move at "infinitely" high speeds, but "earthly" light is slow, moving at a mere speed-of-light pace? Remember, the energy being said he created LIGHT also.
Also, if God is to be believed, the EARTH is the oldest thing in the Universe. He said he built the Sun, Moon, stars (hearts and clovers?) on day 3, then ducked out so he wouldn't get stuck pretending to be a light bulb.
It was HE who caused the "sunlight" on days 1 and 2. Go check and you will perceive.
Genesis makes sense in the order of a water world in the grip of an energy being whose energy heats the water into steam and lifts an atmosphere out of cold oceans (see "firmaments").
Of course "we could have it wrong". But the important thing is, we never claimed to the harbingers of science. Those lying dog evolutionist mass-murderers did. Let's keep that blame firmly pointed where it belongs. I admit I'm religious. The problem here is that Evolutionist Scientists DON'T admit that they are - even though I've proven over and over that they are.
God said He is active sometimes and laissez-faire others. I know not the criteria for when he bows out. But he said he is no respecter of persons. He'll answer a janitor as fast as a king. We don't impress him much.
"Man's righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord [God]."
You should see how he snickers at our alleged wisdom and intellect.
He doesn't call us children for nothing.
"Know that the LORD, He is God;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;
We are His people and the sheep of His pasture."
Psalms 100 verse 3
That was written over 2000 years ago. So this isn't the first time this debate has raged. No matter what the evo "lovers of truth" tell you.
The Egyptians believed their gods came from worms which crawled out of the Nile. That's evolution any way you stack it.
Darwin invented it? Sell that myth to Pharaoh.
Feel free to use that time machine you used to get the "index values" for the Carbon-14 machine's calibration.
There is a branch of science called cladism, that clearly shows that we have more in common with an earthworm than a chimp. So if you're gonna be an evo, be an Egyptian style one. They were "mo betta" at it than Darwin and today's evos.
Evos likewise now totally ignore statistics which also knife their precious theory as impossible, stating flatly that they only believe in 50:50 probability now.
So long my stats professor!!! I hated that class anyway.
At least SOME good has come out of this.
Throw a dart at a map.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's that easy.
If it hits a land that sucks, a land whose people starve or want or are torn by strife or war, it hit a PAGAN land.
If it hits a land that is safe, and blessed; a land that has freedom and a meaningful chance for individual happiness, a land where slavery is no more, then it hit a PROTESTANT Christian land.
Do it and see if I lie.
Is your dart part of some counter-culture conspiracy?
Has it been brainwashed by a televangelist?
Notice that Catholic lands are as crappy as any other pagans with their idol-bowing ways and Mary worship? Even IF you pick the right God, you'd best not piss him off while you're there.
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the [Christian] Lord."
Oddly enough, the next best lands to live in are the ATHEIST nations!!!!!
Did you ever think a Christian would say that? Pick yourself up and read more.
It's almost as if he was "truthing" us when he said, "Behold, I am a jealous God" and "You shall have NO other gods before me". And his face is omni-directional. So "before him" means "anywhere", now doesn't it?
I hope I have given you nice readers, and even you condescending dirt bags who titled this irritaing article, all the tools you need to make it to heaven (wherever that is). I'm sure once we are pure energy, we can rattle around at the speed of light and find it faster.
If I am wrong and you need more assitance, please don't hesitate to contact me at ivan.opinion@yahoo.com
May the Ultimate Energy Being's face shine upon you.
"If it hits a land that sucks, a land whose people starve or want or are torn by strife or war, it hit a PAGAN land"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, New Orleans and surrounding area are Pagan sites?
"If it hits a land that is safe, and blessed; a land that has freedom and a meaningful chance for individual happiness, a land where slavery is no more, then it hit a PROTESTANT Christian land."
How about Japan? Pretty safe country. Very long lives here. Very low crime.
ID is not science. Quoting a 2000 + year old text written second hand by folks whom where not even there - and translated several times is the worst type of guidance possible.
ID, however, can be taught in sociology or religion class - fine with me. But it isn't science.
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the [Christian] Lord."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOddly enough, the next best lands to live in are the ATHEIST nations!!!!!
Did you ever think a Christian would say that? Pick yourself up and read more.
It's almost as if he was "truthing" us when he said, "Behold, I am a jealous God" and "You shall have NO other gods before me". And his face is omni-directional. So "before him" means "anywhere", now doesn't it?
I hope I have given you nice readers, and even you condescending dirt bags who titled this irritating article, all the tools you need to make it to heaven (wherever that is). I'm sure once we are pure energy, we can rattle around at the speed of light and find it faster.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry but were you attempting to make a point? Clearly you think very highly of your own opinions but what exactly have you added to this discussion? What tools have you provided, what new insights have you offered?
All I see is thread written by an arrogant ass who does not have even the slightest clue how to construct a proper argument let alone a proof.
I highly recommend you take Geometry or Algebra 101 (proofs), join a debate team and try again in a couple months.
I'm glad you asked. Actually New Orleans is a center of wickedness in America. Annually, college kids go there to get drunk, show their breasts in public and raise hell during Mardi Gras.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll Americans know it and wink at this evil, just as we wink at the voodoo black magic the natives do down there. Voodoo is African demon worship. They get drunk or high, spit flamable booze onto a bonfire and try like hell to summon a demon that they foolishly think will then somehow be their slave.
Yeah right.
So we humans might wink at it, but God takes a dimmer view of such crap.
He sent a Hurricane called Katrina to wipe those people and their town, New Sodom, off the map. It did. When we evacuated the devil worshipping, booby floppers to Houston, God sent a SECOND hurricane and wiped out that "safe spot" next.
Apparently, nobody noticed but me.
Clearly it slipped YOUR mind.
Yes, New Orleans is as pagan as it gets.
When did I say ANY religion should be taught in school?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristians don't want God taught in school now, because we know damn well the idiot government will choose the wrong one.
I said NO religion should be taught in school. Let churches teach their religion to their young. The problem with my statement is that nice people like you are too brainwashed to see, or too proud to admit that devilution IS a religion and also should not be taught in school EITHER.
Go back to any of my previous posts for more about the four denominations of the Church of Darwin.
They do not DESERVE to extort my tax money to push their freaking pagan religion down the throat of my child. How dare anyone pretend to hate state sponsored religion then belong to the worst example of same that has ever existed? Evolution IS that example religion.
No religion, not even Islam with its hate spewing Madrassas (Muslim schools), can hold a candle to the thorough and unscientific brainwashing gotten daily from the dogs of Darwin and their relentless barking. How I tire of it.
Again I say, we don't gripe about them teaching GRAVITY, now do we?
That's because gravity isn't a pagan religion.
Gravity doesn't have four warring denominations lying and saying they are the sole voice of wisdom, "follow us or you are fools". Evolution does.
Get evolution out of my wallet and out of my kid's school.
I'm tired of my taxes funding that pagan garbage.
I wonder how safe you, as a white outsider, would feel in neophobe Japan, which even you recognize as pagan, if the self-proclaimed man-god Hirohito had won?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJapan is not a safe country because of anything THEY did.
It is safe, and indeed a world power because of the forgiveness of Christian America which completely conquered it and COULD have nuked Tokyo and executed Hirohito.
Had the shoe (wooden sandle) been on the other foot, they would have nuked Washington DC and executed our President after parading him naked 1500 miles thru the Batan death march of the Philipines as they did so many of our soldiers.
If you want to suddenly feel unsafe, ask the Japanese why their mangod failed.
Then ask them why he didn't make up for dishonoring them with miserable defeat by falling on his sword like his admirals did.
Only Christian America rebuilds the very people who try to enslave and murder its own citizens.
Japan may be safe. But is Nanking?
Don't ask them what that means. They may beat you up or kill you.
Sir, I guess you missed my ten or so other posts earlier. My hands cramp from all the typing required to drive a stake thru the heart of this idiotic theory of yours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an adult fairytale:
nothingness giving birth to something?
Space compressing something without a vice?
On and on it goes.
Darwin couldn't even convince his own wife. He sure as his "primordial pool" is not gonna convince me.
Did you have a question I haven't already answered or did you just need to spew venom as your theory/religion croaked before your eyes?
Iva-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you notice how everyone pretty much left this topic after you started chiming in? That's because you spout off with some of the most nonsensical garbage that anyone could possibly think of. This has stopped becoming a discussion on the issues, and has just become a lot of ranting. I would swear that you're drunk when you write this stuff. Really, you would be laughable if you weren't so pathetic
@ Ivan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswonder how safe you, as a white outsider, would feel in neophobe Japan, which even you recognize as pagan, if the self-proclaimed man-god Hirohito had won?
Japan is not a safe country because of anything THEY did.
It is safe, and indeed a world power because of the forgiveness of Christian America which completely conquered it and COULD have nuked Tokyo and executed Hirohito.
Had the shoe (wooden sandle) been on the other foot, they would have nuked Washington DC and executed our President after parading him naked 1500 miles thru the Batan death march of the Philipines as they did so many of our soldiers.
If you want to suddenly feel unsafe, ask the Japanese why their mangod failed.
Then ask them why he didn't make up for dishonoring them with miserable defeat by falling on his sword like his admirals did.
Only Christian America rebuilds the very people who try to enslave and murder its own citizens.
Japan may be safe. But is Nanking?
Don't ask them what that means. They may beat you up or kill you.
____________________________________________________
You, sir, are an idiot.
I currently live in Japan. My wife, son and I are have a fantastic time and have met and made some incredibly nice and honorable Japanese. You sir are the type of person that makes the 'typical American' ugly in their eyes.
You can play what IF games all day about the consequences of WWII. I have been to Hiroshima and it is an amazing amazing CITY. Not a town any more, but a city. These folks have learned from their past, and have truly moved on. The bombing of Hiroshima was 63 years ago and was completely leveled save 3 buildings. The city is now the size and scope of Columbus, OHio. Amazing what can be done by a determined people. They lost WWII, they get it and have moved on.
The current president himself has talked to god. Not too far from Hiro-san in my book. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
What ifs dealing in the past are not scientific either. They are a thought game, but produce nothing.
Do you think some of the children in New Orleans were to die? How come the vast majority of people were left alive. How come, slowly, but surely, New Orleans is rebuilding? And rebuilding without a lot of support from the US government? god's wrath is pitiful in comparison to the man-made bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have seen the pictures and the history of the blast in Hiroshima first hand. I had stood at ground zero. Katrina was a water ballon in comparison. god's wrath my ass.
All of this has nothing to do with the original thread and for that I apologize. Science is not done by petty arguments such as this. However, your ilk prefer this to science. This is how ID is done. Thank you for proving that ID is an empty shell and nothing more than a sermon.
--
Edited by UpQuark at 04/24/2008 2:25 AM
Wow Iva Biggrudge. And I thought you were just arrogant but after reading your latest posts I am convinced that you are down right mad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than even pretending that a civilized conversation can be had with a person such as yourself I will just leave you to your personal cesspool of hate and intolerance.
--
Edited by Natedog at 04/24/2008 8:34 AM
I wish you'd addressed one additional point: radiometric dating. I've repeatedly heard creationists insist that radioisotopes could decay at variable rates over the course of history, thereby skewing modern science's interpretation of radiometric data. The fact escapes them that in order for this to happen, the relative strengths of the strong & weak interactions would have to wobble like a bowlful of jelly. Cosmology indicates that not only does this not happen, but if it did, the entire universe would probably fallen apart long ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> When did I say ANY religion should be taught in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> school?
>
> Christians don't want God taught in school now,
> because we know damn well the idiot government will
> choose the wrong one.
>
> I said NO religion should be taught in school. Let
> churches teach their religion to their young. The
> problem with my statement is that nice people like
> you are too brainwashed to see, or too proud to admit
> that devilution IS a religion and also should not be
> taught in school EITHER.
>
> Go back to any of my previous posts for more about
> the four denominations of the Church of Darwin.
>
> They do not DESERVE to extort my tax money to push
> their freaking pagan religion down the throat of my
> child. How dare anyone pretend to hate state
> sponsored religion then belong to the worst example
> of same that has ever existed? Evolution IS that
> example religion.
>
> No religion, not even Islam with its hate spewing
> Madrassas (Muslim schools), can hold a candle to the
> thorough and unscientific brainwashing gotten daily
> from the dogs of Darwin and their relentless barking.
> How I tire of it.
>
> Again I say, we don't gripe about them teaching
> GRAVITY, now do we?
>
> That's because gravity isn't a pagan religion.
>
> Gravity doesn't have four warring denominations lying
> and saying they are the sole voice of wisdom, "follow
> us or you are fools". Evolution does.
>
> Get evolution out of my wallet and out of my kid's
> school.
>
> I'm tired of my taxes funding that pagan garbage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get evolution out of your wallet and out of your kid's schools?!
Half of it - I almost agree with. First though, we start taxing all the churches and various other places of worship. Let's just tax the estimated 20-25% land for goodness sake! Nevermind the fact that donations can be deducted on tax forms. Nevermind the fact that most goods sold through religious organizations are AT LEAST tax exempt as income. Nevermind the fact that my local church is a questionable benefit to my community. Let's forget about how religious organizations don't have to go through half the red tape other non-profit organizations do - or how they don't have to report where their money is being placed. Wait no! Excuse me, make them fill out that form and make it so my money isn't spreading messages I don't agree with... especially to other countries!
In other words - stop taking my money, and stop taking other's who don't want to support whatever message your specific place of worship is peddling. That is of course assuming that you do have a church you support. Perhaps not, if you're so up in arms about the money anyway.
Secondly, if you believe in intelligence design (formerly known as creationism, though nothing between the two terms changes) - then encourage scientists who want to work on such a "theory" to submit their findings to the scientific community. If the evidence holds up to peer review and 150 years of testing - like evolution has - then it can be entered into PUBLIC (government funded, which means it's OUR money collectively) schools. It would be absolutely appauling to believe that people wouldn't want ID to be fairly tested like the rest of what we teach in schools, right? In comparison to say, oh, shoved to the forefront of supposed amazing discoveries when really there's nothing to it at all?
As for the Darwinian churches? Well, all I can say to that is evolution can stand on its own without religion backing it. The same does not apply to intelligent design. I mean - what do you want to argue? What is left for you to support if ID doesn't cross the line (or at least sit on the damn thing) that seperates church and state? That leaves aliens to have formed us. Personally, that sounds ludicrous to me. That's all there is though once you remove God from the equation, a religious concept last time I checked. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Fair is fair after all.
Try to read through this, before you respond. This individual has the most scientifically consistant rational approach to a case for intelligent design.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry to be objective in your responses.
[i][Note: The "Beads of Waitangi" were created to facilitate this discussion. They were not created by the Maori Natives of New Zealand.]
The "Beads of Waitangi" are a string of 347 beads which spell out Genesis 1:1 in Morse Code.
Are they the result of random chance or deliberate design?
Since they constitute a string of 347 elements, chosen from an alphabet of two, the probability of this occurring by unaided random chance is less than 1 in 2347, or 3 (2.8669 actually) x 10104. (A probability less than 1 in 1050 is defined in mathematical physics as to be so rare as to be considered absurd.)
Comparisons
Contrast the complexity of:
1) A simple binary string, 347 elements assembled from an alphabet of only 2, having a random chance of 1 in 2.8669 x 10104.
2) The Hemoglobin molecule, consisting of 574 elements, in a specific order, selected from an alphabet of 20 amino acids. The formula for the probability of a specific linear arrangement of n items, taken p at a time from a candidate alphabet of q items, etc., is N=n!/(p! x q! x r! ...). For hemoglobin, the random probability is less than 1 in 10650. (If these elements occur in a different order, it results in hemoglobin opathy, a fatal disease.)
3) Our DNA, a 3-out-of-4, error-correcting, self-replicating digital code, consisting of over 3 billion elements defining the manufacture and arrangement of hundreds of thousands of functional devices, each consisting of unique assemblies selected from over 200 proteins, each involving as many as 3,000 atoms in 3-dimensional configurations, all defined from a base alphabet of 20 amino acids, all of which make up the human genome.
This goes far beyond any calculations which would be meaningful. And the fact that the same coding scheme is used throughout all life indicates they all came from the same Designer. The entire creation bears His signature. It is ironic that attributing the occurrence of the Beads of Waitangi as occurring by unaided random chance is clearly (and by mathematical definition) absurd, and yet we teach our children in school a far greater unlikelihood - that life itself occurred from random chance, and this is the cornerstone of our lives, not only in biology, but in all of our social and legal structures. It's time we diligently advocated evidence-based education and stopped inculcating our children with falsehoods and mythology.[/i]
Jcrudd, did you even read point 15, and 8? They directly assess the argument you are stating, which is just verbatim Michael J. Behe. Your argument is quite weak, and I don't feel like restating points from the article we are discussing--and what you should have read before posting a counter argument which asks others to read it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>you are too brainwashed to see, or too proud to admit
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> that devilution IS a religion and also should not be
> taught in school EITHER.
Why are you too dumb to know that the theory of evolution is NOT a religion? I could ask you to read up on it but who is kidding who? You are probably not the least bit interested in gaining knowledge, only protecting your personal beliefs.
The only hope we have is to teach our children to not be as stupid as their parents.
--
Edited by Natedog at 04/28/2008 3:06 PM
Speaking of the wisdom of children: anyone interpreting the Bible ought to make sure and have a 5 year old child sitting next to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific knowledge of people when the Bible was like that of a little baby. You would not sit with your 3 year old and explain heavy-duty scientific theories. You would probably sit down and tell them enthusiastically about how everything went boom a really long time ago, and stars appeared and when everything stopped moving here we are! And they would be perfectly happy in their un-knowledge. They have no capacity to understand anything more complicated, and it would be pointless for you to try to tell them so.
So if you say that the Bible indicates a 24 hour day, of course it does! That's what they understood, and that's what they wrote. The number one million was unheard of in the time when the Bible was being penned, and one billion is a relatively new concept. Trillions and on from there are babies in the scientific world and yet are readily accepted. Remember when the universe's expansion was slowing down, and we were INEVITABLY headed for a "Big Crunch"? We were CERTAIN we were right at the time. Now we know this to be false. Yet we do not write snarky, arrogant articles about the obvious fools who came up with this theory.
If the author of this article wants to be taken seriously, I would suggest that he adjust his tone. No one likes being attacked, and evolutionists don't like being attacked any more than creationists do.
All that being said, I see no reason why evolution cannot support a theory of intelligent design. Whether or not you believe in a God or some sort of intelligent being or prophet, I think that we can all agree that the Bible was written as:
(1) a law book of the current times that attempted to explain the world (Old Testament) and
(2) as a model of what was considered moral and right at the time, through the story of a man (whether or not you believe that Jesus was a not a real person, that he was a real but mortal person, or that he was the son of God).
The degree to which you believe the Bible is written literally is a personal matter.
Personally? If you think the Bible means literally, word-for-word what is written is what happened, then you might as well pull out a dusty scroll from the 1200s that says the earth is flat and cling to that too.
I am a Christian. I believe in God and in Jesus. I also believe that Jesus was neither stupid enough nor cruel enough to try and explain things exactly the way they were. It would be like taking someone from 600 years ago and bringing them to this world and explaining that everything they believe is false. You would only terrify, confuse, and alienate anyone you wished to listen. Could Jesus, during his stay on Earth, have manifested miracles that showed that the earth was round, that unfathomable amounts of time had passed before His coming, that we all really came from monkeys? Sure he could have. But he would have only frightened people. So instead, he turned to things they could understand: water to wine, the feeding of the five thousand, and so on.
Personally, I believe God loves us as children, and when we had the minds of children, he would treat us as such. As our knowledge evolves and grows, God provides us with ways to more fully and properly understand this beautiful and complex world that He has allowed to be created for us, and that as we continue to grow in knowledge, our theories will continue to change... who knows, one day all that we know as "fact" today will be disproved. That day, of course, is when we will "truly" understand the mystery of creation, evolution, and life itself.... ;)
If September 11, 2001 isn't sufficient reason to try to indoctrinate the children of Muslims worldwide into rejecting their faith, embarassment isn't enough reason to take what is similar action against those Christian denominations in the U.S. to which the truth of the Bible's claims about the origin of present-day forms of life is as much a part of their faith as the Resurrection of Christ. Yes, it would be dishonest to claim there's any genuine doubt about evolution, and yes, evolution is too important a part of biology to keep out of the classroom. But cultural sensitivity is a possible way out; teaching evolution as an allegation without commenting on its truth is a way to respect the rights of members of traditionalist denominations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>All that being said, I see no reason why evolution cannot >support a theory of intelligent design.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right there is no reason that evolution couldn't support a theory of intelligent design BUT thus far it just doesn't.
If life was created by an intelligent designer than science should find evidence to support that theory. To date nothing has been discovered to even remotely support a claim of intelligent design.
So rather than wasting our time on untestable (so far) theories science deals with those theories which have supporting evidence.
At present the theory of intelligent design is completely philosophical in nature.
>But cultural sensitivity is a possible way out; teaching >evolution as an allegation without commenting on its truth >is a way to respect the rights of members of traditionalist >denominations.
But why would we do that? Evolution is not an allegation, it is a scientific theory backed by mountains of supporting evidence. To present it as anything less would be an insult to human knowledge and progress.
Ultimately you have to make a choice as to what is more important to you, truth (whatever it may be) or tradition.
--
Edited by Natedog at 04/29/2008 9:42 AM
I have read your answers if you believe in the theory of evolution you will be convinced it true. As a believer in Christ it does little to change my view of the truth. I know you need to have faith in your religion, when you teach this lie to children you may undermind their faith in God. God said But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. You don't have to answer to me, but to God so be careful of what you teach as truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually Nate I do not find point 8 explanatory and I will do some research on point 15, but I would imagine it is more cherry picking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Hemoglobin molecule would not support life in a stage previous to its present configuration.
So exactly how many separate evolutionary processes had to come togeather in order to support human life. The mathamatical possiblilities, improbabilities of the hemoglobin molecule in itself present serious questions.
It does take a larger leap of faith to follow an evolutionary logic sequence than that of intelligent design or interplanetary seeding.
>I have read your answers if you believe in the theory of >evolution you will be convinced it true. As a believer in >Christ it does little to change my view of the truth. I know >you need to have faith in your religion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do we have to cover the same ground over and over and over again?
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with faith. It is not a belief or a religion. It is a theory which best describes the evidence.
If the theory of evolution is a religion than the whole of human knowledge is religion as well and we know absolutley nothing. The world is not round it is only a commonly held religious belief....
For once and for all people please get this through your heads, there are not versions of the truth, there is what is true and what is not true.
>You don't have to answer to me, but to God so be careful >of what you teach as truth.
Yes, yes. Don't be bad or Kaiser Sosay *oops* I mean God will get you.
>So exactly how many separate evolutionary processes >had to come togeather in order to support human life. The >mathamatical possiblilities, improbabilities of the hemoglobin >molecule in itself present serious questions.
You make it sound like it was somehow the goal of evolution to create humans. Which creature or creatures in your opinion are more probable?
I would find it surprising if the processes required to support human life did not come together but we were here any ways. Now THAT would be improbable!
>It does take a larger leap of faith to follow an evolutionary >logic sequence than that of intelligent design or >interplanetary seeding.
That is kind of an odd statement. The origins in life on earth very well could have been the result of interplanetary seeding. Life could have started on another planet or large asteroid and fell to Earth (or be planeted here by others who themselves evolved on a different planet) . That would open up the window of time for our own evolution by billions of years past the age of our own planet. It is a perfectly logical argument.
With regards to intelligent design I would have to whole heartedly disagree. Maybe it is easier for you to accept that a vastly more complex organism (God) is more likely to occur than natural evolution over a vast period of time but I think most "logical" people would be inclined to disagree with you.
>Actually Nate I do not find point 8 explanatory and I will do >some research on point 15, but I would imagine it is more >cherry picking.
You mean cherry picking unlike your post which is a verbatim copy of Chuck Missler's arguments - Personal Update News Journal (February 2003)?
If you are serious about discussing this or any subject for that matter thinking for yourself would be a great place to start.
--
Edited by Natedog at 04/30/2008 2:57 PM
>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> If that's the case then why isn't any of that
> obvious, plain evidence ever used as the basis for
> creationism? Are all the evil scientists also hiding
> it from those scientists that argue in favor of
> creationism? Why is it that creationism is based on
> disproving evolutionary theory rather than proving
> biblical claims?
>
> Creationism consists of "evolution can't explain
> this, so god must have done it." That's about the
> extent of it and that's why it doesn't have any
> scientific validity.
I think that Christians point out the holes in the current theories of evolution because some scientists are acting like evolution is certain and has disproven that God exists or had anything to do with the way things are (most importantly the way we are as humans). These scientists may just be trying to sell books by being controversial, or they may be genuinely deluded.
The world we live in is filled with natural beauty and we as human beings are capable of enjoying meaningful relationships with one another. All you have to do to see plain evidence of God's existence is to take a nice walk on the beach or go home and hug your wife and children.
Maybe God created the universe as it is and used evolutionary processes to bring us to this point, but it seems obvious to me that we aren't living in some randomly generated situation. Why does the universe exist at all and why are the physical laws the way they are - such that evolution is possible? I think theologians call it the anthropic principle - the world/universe is made so that man can live in it.
Lastly, I think the real underlying motivation for atheism based on evolution is to avoid being accountable for our actions. If God exists and created us we are responsible to him. If not, we can do whatever we want. So, people naturally tend to supress evidence for God because of their fear of being judged for their actions.
- Bobby
What a bunch of Evolutionary Nonsense. Explain how something could come from nothing. Explain how something as complex as life could just happen. Explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Explain the lack of transitional forms all around us. Not a one, unless you were to count James Carville. Explain the absolutely brilliant design of every living creature generated from your half-baked mutation theory. Last time I looked mutations were nigh onto 100% detremental. Too bad you are so blind you can't recognize pseudo science when it is right in front of you. I expect a lot more from our so called intellectual elites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>Explain how something could come from nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean like God?
>Explain how something as complex as life could just happen.
I wouldn't exactly call the earliest forms of life complex. Can you explain why life couldn't happen?
>Explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
I can't because there are many transitional life forms in the fossil record.
>Explain the lack of transitional forms all around us.
Again, I can't because there are a number of transitional life forms all around us. In fact I would argue that humans themselves are still in a transitional period. Call me crazy but I doubt male nipples, tail bones, wisdom teeth, and the appendix are the hallmarks of a fully evolved species.
>Explain the absolutely brilliant design of every living creature generated from your half-baked mutation theory.
I am glad that you are so impressed with our fellow creatures. Evolution has certainly developed a number of unique and successful species. It has probably produced far more unsuccessful species which are now extinct.
>Last time I looked mutations were nigh onto 100% detrimental.
Well than I guess you should look again because you would be 100% wrong. Scientists have tested mutation theory numerous times on bacteria which can produce thousands of generations in a relatively short amount of time. Result? When scientists alter the environment the bacteria eventually gives rise to strains better suited to that new environment through mutation. Now multiply that scenario by billions of years and countless species and you have evolution on a massive scale.
>Too bad you are so blind you can't recognize pseudo science when it is right in front of you.
From the lack knowledge displayed in your post I highly doubt you have invested any serious amount of time into studying the theory of evolution so you will have to forgive me if I tell you that few will place much stock in your opinions on the matter.
>I expect a lot more from our so called intellectual elites.
Great! I am sure that many of the world’s finest intellectuals welcome proper debate and a healthy amount of skepticism. After all, science isn't a religion.
--
Edited by Natedog at 05/05/2008 2:27 PM
Once again the evolution supporters have fallen into the trap of creationists ("I know, but they're just so WRONG" you say) The real argument here is not, has never been, one of "ID (or creationism, take your pick) versus Science" as much as creationists would like us to believe. The real argument is whether creationism has the right to be treated as a scientific theory and therefore taught as science in schools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo creationists bring us their (sorry, no insult intended, but from the view of science:) God myth, and without taking time to understand the parameters of what science actually is insist that this theory is a scientific theory. It's not. It's just not.
This is NOT me denying your God, this is not me even denying the possibility that you are 100% correct and all of science has it wrong. What creationism and/or ID states implies an unknowable--strictly speaking supernatural--intervention. The creator, designer what have you. Supernatural beings are outside the parameters of science, end of sentence. Science concerns itself with what can be known by human beings, i.e., the natural world. Theories in science must be testable and refutable, God is not. Science is a means to an end not, as some creationists seem to think, some kind of mysticism.
There is over 140 years of SCIENTIFIC proof for evolution. This proof has been linked to, alluded to and described in this thread already many times. Please try to read it and understand it before coming back with "there is no proof" again and again. If you don't buy these well researched pieces of evidence as proof, then you do not have any understanding of what proof is in the field of science. If that is the case, please try to learn. The way a lot of creationists treat science is like a lot of cargo cultists. "I can't understand so therefore it's magic and bad" while imagining that scientists are the opposite cult, "I can't understand so therefore it's magic and good."
But of course, that's simply not the way it works. Scientific reasoning is logical concise and very open to human understanding--at least among humans who take the time and EFFORT to understand it.
--
Edited by Art for Science at 05/06/2008 5:30 AM
The author of this article obviously had a bias going into his evaluation a so does not persuade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree with the assertion that, "The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time" and with the statement, "...the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling." Please explain how the fossil record testifies that organisms have evolved through time. We have tons of fossil records, but who determines what the relationships are between them? From what I've seen, the fossil record says nothing about which organisms came first or which ones evolved into which other ones. I've heard people make assertions about those relationships, but if you just look at the evidence, the fossils, you don't know. You can't know. It's like if you found two photographs in a hotel room, one of a young boy and one of a grown man. Can you know, for certain, the relationship between the two? Are they the same person, at different ages, or maybe father and son, or maybe completely unrelated people, at different times. Show me the compelling evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRick: I understand your question, but you have faulty logic. With the fossil record we are not trying to tell whether things are related in the father-son sense, but rather if they belong to the same species. If I showed you a picture of a boy and a man could you tell me if they are both humans? Same situation with evolution being based on the fossil record.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me clarify something for anyone who is weighing in with an argument against evolution...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is an observable fact. It has been proved, and is recognised by the Catholic Church itself.
'The Theory of Evolution' was Darwins attempt to explain the driving mechanism behind this, it is a reasonable solution to what has been observed to happen over time.
ID/Creationsism is not science, it doesn't have any facts or a testable hypothesis. This is why its not welcome in a science class. If it has a place, its in a church.
How would you feel if scientists requested that each sermon preached included caveats and and a brief lecture on science and the scientific method?
How would you feel if we demanded it as a right?
America was founded by both deists and theists as a secular society, with a clear division between church and state. This was a deliberate act, and was designed as such to prevent discrimination against ALL religion/beliefs. The constitution doesn't make a distinction in favour of christianity.
Belief is a personal thing, enforcing that belief on others is wrong.
You are quite welcome to not believe in evolution. You are also quite welcome to challenge evolution, but it requires some factual evidence. Opinion and dogma are not facts.
"What creationism and/or ID states implies an unknowable--strictly speaking supernatural--intervention. The creator, designer what have you. Supernatural beings are outside the parameters of science, end of sentence. Science concerns itself with what can be known by human beings, i.e., the natural world. Theories in science must be testable and refutable, God is not. Science is a means to an end not, as some creationists seem to think, some kind of mysticism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists have erected a barrier around their work. Anything within it is science. Anything outside it is religion or philosophy and can't be considered. This naturalistic school of science refuses to consider God in their hypotheses because he operates outside the natural laws. Its circular reasoning, but they won't acknowledge that. They refuse to consider the hypothesis that God created the universe, which leaves their hypothesis (evolution) as the only one left standing. But what if (and please consider this, for the sake of argument) God did create life (without macroevolution). What, in their current research, with their current world view, would ever lead them to discover this? They couldn't, and yet (in this argument) the creation theory was the correct one. This is the trap that many macro evolutionary researchers and proponents are in. They have precluded one option, and if that option is correct, all they will have is a pretty theory, and lots of praise from each other, but no truth.
continued in another post
continuation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome argue that we can't consider God in any developmental theories of the universe or life, or even consider the miraculous. There are certainly venues in which this makes sense. I don't want a theory of gravity that says "God makes it fall". I need something that allows me to know why something falls, and how fast it will fall. But when we get to certain areas of inquiry, its self-defeating not to consider God as factor or a cause.
Now the naturalist will argue that a God operating outside the bounds of natural laws would be unknowable and unmeasurable by the means at our disposal. Yet, if the theory of an intervening God is correct, he would leave evidence of his interventions. When a stranger sees my garden, he notices plants in rows, held up by stakes, and strangely devoid of weeds (okay, this is a fantasy). If he were so ignorant of nature that he did not know that this was not the way things grow on their own, the presence of my footprints should at least make him consider that possibility.
I suggest to you that God has been very busy, his fingerprints are everywhere, but you'll never see them if you have already precluded ever considering this possibility.
The evolutionists are in this situation. They claim all the evidence for themselves, but only because they have refused to consider that this same evidence could point to a creator.
When Einstein produced his theories ithey didn't negate Newton's theories, they just explained things at the margins that Newton's theories could not. What we call "miraculous" is simply events transpiring at a deeper level of law than we normally experience. These deeper laws are probably outside our ability to know them, but I posit this idea to refute the claim that anything related to God is unscientific. It would be more correct to say that our science is lacking because it does not know how to account for God.
Homesower,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not going to go through this point by point right now, but my general impression from your posts is that you don't have a great grasp on the definitions of some basic concepts. I'm not trying to be demeaning, that's just how it strikes me.
There are very specific limitations on what can and cannot be considered science. These limitations are there because science is a purpose driven endeavor. Methodological naturalism is one of these limitations. The simple fact of the matter is that humans can't measure, test or prove things--true or not--outside the natural world. I think anyone with true Christian humility would recognize and respect that. (or the humility taught as a part of whichever code you subscribe to, I don't mean to presume.)
Scientific theories MUST be provable, falsifiable, fit the available evidence and be predictive. These are requirements of all scientific theories, so if you're going to loosen the strictures to permit ID to be considered science, then logically you also have to permit Alchemy and Astrology to be considered science.
Additionally, the evidence comes first, not the theory. Darwin based his theory on literally years of study of actual observable differences and similarities between species and created the theory as his best explanation of how those observed phenomenon came about. ID and/or creationism starts with the assumption that god/designer/being/force/alien (just trying to cover all the bases) created everything and then through selective evidence and logical fallacy tries to shoe horn the scientific record into its presuppositions.
If, as in your supposition, there is an immaterial god who acts in material ways, then eventually, if and when our scientific measurements are precise enough, we should be able to directly or indirectly measure the effects on the natural world. At that time I am confident that scientific theories and hypotheses will be adapted, adopted and/or rejected to fit the new evidence, because that is truly how science works. Until such a time though, the supposition, from a scientific standpoint, remains just that--a supposition.
Finally, as an admittedly limited, human and therefore fallible pursuit, science relies upon collaboration and consensus in the scientific community as quality control. This can appear from the outside to be bias,close mindedness or any of the other invectives so commonly hurled by the proponents of ID at scientists. I assure you it's not.
To be open minded is not the same as being indiscriminate. Researchers' time and available grant money is not an infinite resource, and therefore is dedicated to those pursuits that seem to hold the most promise for actual scientific knowledge. Currently that is evolution in the realm of biology as well as several related fields. This is no more evidence of bias or conspiracy then it is to suppose that because Microsoft is so rich and my uncle's software company went bankrupt somehow Wall Street conspired against him.
If ID wants to be treated as a science then, it needs to act like one. What does this mean? It means scientists who hold to this theory need to 1) Find evidence in the natural world that supports the theory. 2) Prove to the scientific community that it fits the definition of a theory, that is: show how it can be both disproved and proved, and show that unique scientific predictions can be reliably derived through its application. 3) Publish peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature showing 1 & 2.
After that, if a consensus of the scientific community adopts it then it will inevitably be part of science, the scientific literature and even school text books. Unfortunately, ID has done none of these things. The oft sited champion of ID, Michael Behe, has no current research to show ID is true, rather he wants to redefine science to include ID while at the same time admitting that his own definition would permit the outdated pseudo-sciences I mentioned above into science as well.
Instead of conforming to the long established, admittedly imperfect but accepted system (which has got us this far, so it's probably not all bad), the proponents of ID attempt to short circuit this process and skip right to school texts and accepted theory status.
This seems like unfair spoiled whining at best, and wreaks of ulterior motive at worst. Is it any wonder then that scientists seem exasperated and defensive?
homesower,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said this: "I don't want a theory of gravity that says "God makes it fall". I need something that allows me to know why something falls, and how fast it will fall. But when we get to certain areas of inquiry, its self-defeating not to consider God as factor or a cause."
Can't you see what you're saying? You're saying the same thing that people have said for years BEFORE science...before the enlightenment...
People used to say...God makes it XXXXX (insert anything here). They said it for EVERYTHING. God makes the wind. God makes the rain. God used to make everything. Now we know what REALLY makes certain things happen.
Now you STILL feel that God makes certain things happen. Why? Because science hasn't figured out what REALLY makes it happen...yet. Get it? As science progresses, more and more of the things that "God did" become known and now "God doesn't do it anymore". God has become less and less "important" because it has been shown that "he" does less and less of what people originally thought "he" did.
Myself, I'm completely convinced that there is NO God. There is no big guy running an ant farm. There is no one waiting for you to "mess up" so he can send you to hell. I have no idea HOW everything came about. I'll keep looking. But I will NOT attribute it all to some "thing" that created it all from nothing. And IF that is what happened..."it" surely does NOT care one iota what me and a few billion other "bugs" are doing with our lives. How full of himself man is to think that such a powerful creature would give a damn what such lowly creatures as ourselves are doing!
Forget about religion...it's nothing but powerful men playing you.
Look at this. Creationism is not non-sense. People share 95% of DNA with monkies. If 10K years ago some semi-monkey told you about the creation dreams, how much sence would you expect? Sooner or later more people will catch on -- that Gods are myths. Give people a break for their mental errors. They are 95% monkies. Its cruelity to animals to attack their creationist dreams.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace
--
Edited by SCIENCE SAVES EARTH at 05/12/2008 3:06 PM
Look at this. Creationism is not non-sense. People share 95% of DNA with monkies. If 10K years ago some semi-monkey told you about the creation dreams, how much sence would you expect? Sooner or later more people will catch on -- that Gods are myths. Give people a break for their mental errors. They are 95% monkies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace
I am an Atheist (a non-creationist) and I still think Evolution is a pile of horseshit. The above article does nothing to change that conclusion. It is as full of fluff and circular reasoning as it's opponant arguement is. Evolution isn't science, it's faith-based wishful thinking. Most people who argue that Evolution is science, don't know what science is. Science is not simply "what scientists do." Modern scientists are clowns who have lost their way. Just as guilty of hubris as any Priest, Rabbi or or Mullah.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionary science is a perversion of the scientific method.
One thing we should realize is that since Evolution is incomplete, it may not be the final answer. Future discoveries may disprove it or continue to reinforce it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific theories themselves evolve over time as new evidence comes to light.
If humans knew everything, life would not be much fun, would it?
I believe in Jesus, creation and evolution. These are not incompatible. God orchestrated it all. I do not believe that the 6 days in Genesis are 24 hour days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the most important thing is that it doesn't matter. My salvation does not depend on one or the other being true.
Grr.. i still cannot believe people are making the same mistake here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution : The ability of creatures to change over time.
Theory of Evolution : What is driving the process (Darwins answer - Natural Selection)
Evolution is a fact - if you don't believe in it, that makes you an idiot. Even the Vatican recognises evolution as a fact.
The Theory has nothing to say on the origins of life (Abiogenesis), or the big bang. When you lump all these together, you are displaying your ignorance of science and these subjects in particular.
Its like saying : i don't belive in lightning...
It won't stop you from being struck.
--
Edited by Peace Makes Plenty at 05/15/2008 4:14 AM
--
Edited by Peace Makes Plenty at 05/15/2008 4:15 AM
You IDers are making me nervous. Get with the program. Write this sentence a hundred times, (or until you can remember it). "Intelligent Design is not, not, not about God, or the bible." At least that's what all the ID experts swear to in every court case I've heard about. You're giving the rubes the idea that this whole mish-mash is really about injecting young earth christian biblical teaching into science class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously folks, this whole row should present proof positive to science teachers that generations of running away from teaching evolution is a failure. Our population en mass, has little knowledge or understanding of science itself, the scientific method, the scientific concept of a "theory", or of evolution. I'd suggest we at least double the classroom time and effort spent on evolution and the nature of science.
BTW mainline christians (who've been ducking fire on this), after the fundies rack up the schools, who do think they're coming after next?
How did the first speck of matter "evolve" out of nothing? Before the atoms and matter and the BIG BANG and before there was anything at all ... you know when there was nothing..? How did something evolve from this nothing? My point is, that yes creatures change over time, therefore evolution is a viable and very real theory. But it is not the only game in town. here are other factors involved that our puny little minds will never comprehend. There is something inherently supernatural about the fact that we are here at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole problem is because there need to be a god to create things. the best definition of GOD is given in genesis Jehova, further explained as "i am being" or 'i am alpha AND omega" i.e the begining and the end at the same time, or the state of being. the logic of this simple explanation will acomodate all knowledge that we gather about the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscreationist dont wnt to let go of a creating God to the uncertanity of "being" ie theunivers with all its paradoxes and uncertanities.
Science provides the age of the earth is around 6 billion years old and perhaps only 4 billion of that was stable enough for life / complex molecules. If we play evolution backwards in time, then sometime in the past four billion years all the biomass on earth "evolved" from a self-replicating molecule. Furthermore, this molecule adapted as it encountered new situations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of defending evolution maybe we should go on the defensive and expose religion, all religions, for what they are, anti-science, anti-freedom, childish, primitive, superstitions. From what I can tell fundamentalists don't object to evolution of plants, animals, bacteria, viruses, etc., but man is different. Evolution suggests that man is no different from all the other creatures. That is what is unacceptable. Man is “specialâ€, created & designed with a purpose, destined to rule the universe. Man is an extension of God's hand, his existence impacts the cosmos. And, of course, white, male, man is the most special of all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo suggest that man is just a simple little carbon infestation on some meaningless little dirt ball at the edge of a nondescript galaxy, well, that just can not be! That's also the driving attitude behind global warming worship. Divinely created man just has to have a significant impact on his surroundings, to both cause and cure.
Another case of anti-science is the Shroud of Turin. Forget all the pointless chatter about age or paint. The basic question everybody poses is just how a dead body could produce such an image. From a scientific perspective, that's the wrong question, it presumes part of the answer. The real science question is how the image could be created, leaving open the question of dead or living. Postulating a living body easily explains the image. Pilate doubted Jesus' death, none of the acts inflicted were inherently fatal, unpleasant, but not fatal. Even the sword in the side, mentioned only in John, could be no more than a punctured lung.
But no death means no resurrection and w/o the resurrection Christianity is just another nickel and dime cult. Paul had to defend the resurrection to the Corinthians. He basically said that w/o the resurrection, their teaching and preaching were in vain. How can Christians rationalize their pursuit of temporal power and influence if their religion isn't unique through the resurrection?
Giulio,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said:
How did the first speck of matter "evolve" out of nothing? Before the atoms and matter and the BIG BANG and before there was anything at all ... you know when there was nothing..? How did something evolve from this nothing?
Do you hear what you're saying? You question how "something" can evolve out of "nothing". And then you BELIEVE that a God did just that. God, the creator...came from nothing...and then proceeded to make everything?!?!?
Unbelievable...
How can you not see the fallacy in your logic?
"Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort". I beg to differ. If God is not a magician, but must create using natural laws, then wouldn't applying scientific pursuit to learn how God created yield knowledge of value, such as bio-fuels and reversal of genetic disorders? Scientists working in these areas act a lot more like "Creators" than "Naturalists" in their approaches. Might not the assumption that God "organized" this world yield quicker results in our scientific efforts? For example, if I thought that skyscrapers naturally evolved (there are plenty of "fossil" records to support this theory), I might struggle forever trying to understand how that happened. But, if I approached the evolution of buildings assuming there was a creator, I might figure out what the purpose of those steel towers we call cranes and find out how to create. A paradigm shift might result in new knowledge. If God created this world, then we can learn how to create.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main problem I have with Intelligent Design Theory is two-fold and once such issue are addressed I believe there is no reason to give the idea serious consideration. First, the argument is horribly circular. If the universe is so complex that it must have had an intelligent designer, wouldn't the designer automatically be more complex than what they designed, so wouldn't the designer need a designer, and then the designer of the designer would need a designer.... and so on. Secondly, unless the supporters of intelligent design are willing to pin down there definition of what did the designing, the theory is never going to be scientific. Because as it stands, the argument is saying that 'someone' did 'something' and that's why things are the way they are in the universe. Until the vague terms are actually spelled out, there is no way to test the theory. Of course, such ambiguity is on purpose, that way any religous person can pick up on ID and say it supports their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat amazes me is how many people who responded obviously did not bother to read "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does seem bizarre that people who speak out against Evolution don't attempt understand the very basics of the theory. Such as; Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life began or how the earth began. Evolution is a scientific theory, scientific theories are always supported by facts. Scientifc theories and the conventional definition of the word "theory" are different. This is where the conspiracy to mislead people usually begins. Also very odd is that people don't recognize that a vast majority of scientists in America who use evolutionary theory in their work are also practising Christians. You can find the Bible to be a sublime, spiritual work and work in Evolutionary theory without the slightest contradiction.
We can't make sense of the speed of a galaxy without imagining "dark matter", yet that doesn't make Gravity itself invalid. It just means that we can't [i]perfectly[/i] explain or understand an observable aspect in scientific terms. Evolution, like all science, doesn't ask anyone to "believe". This is a huge misconception I see implied in many of the posts and complaints on Evolution. Evolution is there to be tested and a framework to work in scientifically. It's not a belief system or value system.
It is troubling how much misinformation exists on Evolution. It's sad and sickening that something as nonscientific and nonsensical as "intelligent" design or creationism would even be considered to be put in front of children and presented to them as valid science. That to me is a horrible injustice. And to tell children that accepting Evolution will make them a "bad" Christian is an inexcusable lie.
danasti,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey NEED intelligent design. Without it, their whole "God" thing falls apart. They don't care about the non sequitor involved, they "believe". I've talked to MANY true believer Christians...until I was blue in the face. All their arguments come down to "you just have to believe" and they leave it at that. Amazing really...otherwise VERY smart people who are hooked on this belief. They are convinced that there is a God who watches EVERYTHING and makes judgments... Mind boggling...
If you folks want to believe in evolution and the god of it Mr. Darwin then it is ok for me to believe that he dictionary resulted from an explosion in a printing shop. All I can tell you is what I have observed, That I was a drunkin, skirt chasing, waste of a human being until Jesus Christ found me and changed my wretched life. I will stick with HIM, HE changed my life for much better and HIS word says " In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth" Amen!!!Lou Hassig
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLou hassig-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just have one question, how do you know?
Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFather Dawkins. HIGH PRIEST of the ATHIEST
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.drdino.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists are describing an event that already happened. I've NEVER seen an explanation of how ANYTHING is created other than by random chance. Even 50 years ago galaxies just appeared according to Hoyle. Too bad the 'creationists' are mostly fanatics, cause i've found compelling arguments FOR Intelligent design (flagellum proteins that never had time to evolve), and space/time (quantum tunneling) so to say an argon-40 atom's half-life for millions of years is based on a time reference we use for today's space-time (come on, speed of light is constant, and unaffected by gravity since photon doesn't have mass but the sun bends light...(contradiction!) ANd I don't buy the slit experiments either!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoints 8 and 9 are complete non answers to creationists arguements. SciAm is nothing but a evolutionalist rag that hold Darwin as god and Richard Dawkins as high priest. True Science shouldn't be afraid to explore the possibility that evolution may be flawed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you believe in a God whom was always there, all powerful, but not even consider that life "just happened"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou, I, and the rest of life, are a LOT easier to imagine as somehow happening than a god, creater of everything, seeing everything, and knowing everything somehow happening. How can you believe what you believe? It's amazing...
Sure...we may have "been made" by something. I can even buy more advanced races "seeded" life throughout the universe. Why not?
But can I believe there is the "God of the Old Testament"? No... "Your god" is a fantasy. No creature of that omnipotence exists and any close to those abilities would have nothing in common with "bugs" like us. They surely wouldn't be "judging" us.
Sorry...you're side "just ain't so"...
Dont drink Father Dawkins Kool-Aid
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomebody needs to write a book titled " Evolution for Dummies". It could become quite popular and it would also be an alternative to the IDists and creationists book that I might call "Creation for Dummies".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there purpose to evolution? Of course!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny self-righteous non-atheist would claim evolution implies mindless, fruitless "being". The purpose of "evolving" is clear...to survive and maintain. I think the IDers and their ilk ironically are, in their own narrow-minded way, "evolving", facts and scientific theory be damned.
This is a nice "Quick and Simple" guideline to evolutionary defense. I especially enjoyed point 8, as I've had fellow college students argue this point. It is a nice line to bring up snowflakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Britain might be a little more scientific than the US but that's beside the point
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're debating the wrong argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA long time ago, the pre-scientists went around trying to figure out how God made the world work. They looked for Him in the laws that govern nature. Well, they didn't find Him, they found out that things can happen through natural, explainable processes. Since then, they've been chipping away at the god-powered world, slowly identifying more and more natural processes.
This does not mean that God does not exist, it means that God does not [b]need[/b] to exist. Now, from a religious perspective, how else could it be? If we found incontrovertible proof that God is required for nature to work, then the whole free-will argument goes out the window. Even in a God-powered world, every process must at least be capable of happening without God's intervention. How else can humans be given a choice to believe or not? If God did make everything, then he had to make a way for it to happen without him. Everything has to have a natural process or we would be confronted with a necessary God and thus lose the ability to freely choose to worship.
Science, for quite a while now, has been in the business of figuring out how things [b]could[/b] happen without the direct involvement of God or gods. That's what science does. Science cannot [b]prove[/b] that something happens without a god's intervention, only that it can or could happen without a god. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a natural process that does not require God to function. If God created everything, then every process will also have a natural explanation that science can discover. If there are no gods, then every process will have a natural explanation that science can discover. So, why don't we let science get on with it?
Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is an oxymoron. Science is in the business of figuring out how things can happen without God or gods. Even if God did do it, any decent scientist would have no choice but to continue trying to figure out [url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2008/04/science-and-god.html]how it could happen without God[/url]. What other choice do they have? Quit science and retrain as accountants? So, stop the Intelligent Design nonsense and let the science do it's job.
People must have the free will to chose to worship or not. A truly all-powerful God that wanted humans to have free-will would create everything such that there would never be proof of God's existence. Looking for proof of God's existence is pointless; debating God's existence is pointless. Belief must be freely given. If you want to debate something, ask yourself [url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2008/04/debating-belief-in-god-is-wrong.html]if worshiping God is right[/url]. That is the proper question to debate.
If you want to believe in, Evolution then thats fine, but realize that it is a matter of faith, and not mistake it with proven truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is not based on faith, and no one ever claimed it is a fact. Theists must rely on faith because there is no evidence for what they believe. Worse, they cant modify their belief based on new information. For example, a wide variety of methods all show that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. All theists can do is refuse to accept the data as valid. In contrast, scientists have no allegiance to the theory of evolution. In fact, they have tried to disprove it for nearly 150 because if one of them were to succeed he/she would be more famous than Galileo, Newton or Einstein. But they failed to falsify the prevailing theory. That is why the scientific paradigm demands that all theories be falsifiable. During the Dover trial, IDs leading proponent, Behe, admitted that ID had not created anything that could be subjected to peer review and falsification.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a theory of desperation for those that refuse to accept the obvious
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps Father God and Mother Earth were doing something at night to create life on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the components for life falling from space suggests that if you remove hte problem of creating complex life out of our atmosphere it somehow solves the problem. It doesn't all it does is move the same problem from earth to another enviroment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint 8 is really week. It completely misses the point of the objection. Instead of just saying anything to refute it why not admit that evolution has no answer to complexity as we know even the smallest step of macro evolution requires huge complexity from a chance mix of elements
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod is just the definition of that which is currently unknown by those who refuse to give up their security blanket of fantasy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious influenced (brain washed) individuals still try to convince actual thinking people that if you can't prove that something, (God/gods), doesn't exist, that this is enough proof that it does.
People start trying to think and step into the 21st century. As an example we also now know that the Earth is not the center of our Universe and the Sun does not rotate around us. Also when you hear thunder it's not Thor's hammer or the angels bowling.
Can a modern scientist find that GOD is the natural explanations for the observable world ? Or are modern scientist that narrow minded that they are not allowed to think outside the box?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolution isn't science, it's faith-based wishful thinking. Most people who argue that Evolution is science, don't know what science is. Science is not simply "what scientists do." Modern scientists are clowns who have lost their way."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by alexander08 at 06/14/2008 9:24 PM
I would akin the devout christians here to horses walking round with blinkers on. They are so blinded by what they see in front on them that they refuse to see anything else. At least as someone with no religious beliefs I have the ability to see all religions equally and see how their points of view differ and consider them in a scientific manner. Take natural selection. If we werent top of the food chain and something using us as a food source, who do you think would survive? Christians with their prudent attitude to producing offspring, or the muslims who produce offspring by the dozen. They are going to out populate the chirstians hands down. Im sorry but if christians werent a higher functioning organism like they are today, they would of died out long ago. Its only sheer luck that throught the course of evolution that allowed us to become bipedal that gave the religious fanatics a chance at survival. Im pretty sure cave men didnt go to church.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalexander, why don't you elaborate? or is it that you can't?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisone liners and quotes are obviously making you feel good but you need to understand that, most often, the way you view yourself is completely opposite of how others do. which means that you hold no credibility with the educated due to that simple thinking. but you know, i bet my mom's way smarter than your mom!
tell me about the different hypotheses of bipedalism, or the details of the skull of [i]Australopithecus africanus[/i], or just a little bit about pangea. all without google. i'll put the cost of my scientific education along with my education on religion on the fact that you can't.
or, just tell me why it's so easy for you to believe in a fairy tale. because mommy did, and she was a good person, and taught you what she thought was right. if magic were really true, dear sir, there would be no debate because we would have gone back in time and found out.
--
Edited by als9775 at 06/27/2008 12:47 PM
--
Edited by als9775 at 06/27/2008 12:48 PM
So a computer program can write Shakespear plays? I am waiting for new ones... I would like to read more about the experiment on o 8, but both 8 and 7 are not a clear answer. If Creationism does not have an answer for those problems evolution, it must be admitted, does not have either. So why just not say we do not know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the problem with Evolution comes from the use of the word. Evolution as a word can mean simply how computers evolved over time. But it can also mean how the fittest survive which results in different colored moths. To some Evolution simply means everything came from a common species, for some it goes further and says everything came from a single cell, and some go even further to say it means that inanimate things became the animate thinking humans of today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when you talk about your evidence you need to be clear of what you are talking about. Evidence that animals adapt to their environment is obvious, and that form of Evolution creationist believe. Evidence that bacteria can adapt to its environment has been observed and that form of Evolution even creationists believe.
Even some creationists believe in speciation.
What they reject is the things that are often speculated and impossible to prove.
Now cells becoming complex species, that hasn't been observed in the fossil record, nor by any direct experimentation, that is speculation, which Creationists reject happens, or happened. Inanimate things becoming alive that has not been observed ever and is also rejected. As well as the idea of rational beings stemming from irrational things.
So what is the big argument ultimately here, not that things adapt, nor that the fittest survive, nor even that speciation occurs. The argument ultimately is something that cannot be proven by direct observation. Did God create things or not?
The cambrian explosion itself states that out of nowhere a majority of all phyla were created seemingly rapidly. There was a bunch of complex cells, and then out of nowhere skeletal complex species in the fossil record. In order to minimize God it is assumed that since things adapt and Evolve in life, that somehow those cells instantly became complex species, and that right there is purely a naturalistic argument and is not rooted in science, while Creationists believe God created the species and the cells, and programmed into them the ability to adapt and Evolve to the changing environment. The adapting and evolving of species can be observed, while Creation can be speculated.
As Evolutionists speculate that over long periods of time cells could become complex species (which hasn't been observed via experimentation or in the fossil record) all because adaptation happens in species and in bacteria , Creationists speculate that since even the smallest cell and the least complex species are so complex that it makes sense that it was created.
can someone believe in god and natural selection?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE LAW OF ADAPTATION WITH SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF LIFE
To read the entire article, go to: http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:LOTY_Pierre_Jean_Daniel
This newly discovered law comes as a death stroke to evolution theory. We have the guarantee from the nature of the underlying philosophy (Intelligent Design) that the resulting application (programmable bacteria) is free of eugenics.
First of all; let us recall the fundamental reasoning in evolutionism: natural selection coupled with mutations can transform a species S1 into a totally new species S2.
Then, let us assume an individual S1 is under difficult conditions and undergoes modifications.
What evolutionism did not consider is that at the same time, another process comes into play: difficult conditions cause S1 to enter into a resistant form, with a subsequent loss of life.
What if conditions improve? As shown with the 1970’s research led by Peter and Rosemary Grant, “in the years following the drought, previous finches (with smaller beaks) again dominated the population.
There was a reversal in the direction of the selection; the population subjected to selection oscillating back and forth each time the climate changed.”
Thus, modifications tend to reduce if difficult conditions do not persist. However, there is absolute need of a directional, steady line of changes, should the species cross over to a new form of life.
Now, in case difficult conditions do persist, two processes admittedly would run parallel. As modifications would increase, the “quantity of life” would decrease downward limits of tolerance. Modifications would at best help the species to cope, though with a subsequent loss of life.
Surprisingly, the species S2 that admittedly evolved from S1 is found with high “quantity of life”. But S2, which is assumed to have undergone the full amount of modifications, should have undergone accordingly the full amount of adverse conditions.
Thus, S2 would have been found with a lowest “quantity of life”. Indeed, natural selection, coupled with mutations leads necessarily toward the extinction of the species.
As evidenced by the law of recurrent variation, the range of possible adaptations is preprogrammed in DNA, thus imposing inherent boundaries between kinds (groups of species defined only through lineage criteria).
That's a fine rebuttal to the mistaken ideas, however, they don't play fair and therefor never get to the ideas. Here's the trick they play. They bait you by saying something like "I don't believe in evolution" or "evolution is just a belief." What is common is that they have not YET told you if they intend to defend their view on the FACT of evolution (the fossil record for example) or the HOW of evolution (natural selection for example). If you make ground on one, they are then free to switch to the other and back and forth. If you make ground on both, they switch to an "origin of life" criticism. If they can't make ground on that, they switch to talking about an origin of the universe! In the end, because you can't explain "the big bang" your hard science on the FACT fossil record and theories on HOW are flushed. So: long story short: They will say to explain EVERYTHING or I won't accept your explanation on any specific topic. It is like saying, I know how to bake brownies and they say "OH really? Explain the origin of the universe and THEN maybe I'll listen!" You have to MAKE THEM explain what they mean before you take the BAIT. Fact or means?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't get baited. Their basic trick is to drop back and punt: "If you can't explain the origin of the universe I'm not listening!" Make THEM tell you what THEY mean when they say "evolution" BEFORE responding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis country was NOT founded on an absence of religion, but on the freedom to practice your religion or lack there of as you want. there is a decided difference, and if you read the writings of our founding fathers, they proclaimed the existence of a God. Our money has "In God we trust" written on it for a reason. There are dozens of other examples. In order to be free to practice our individual religions, though, they had the foresight to pohibit a state religion. I am not arguing that schools should teach creationism, but this country was NOT founded on the absence of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe completion of human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.
98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleading Propaganda
First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.
In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man's, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.
In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalization grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.
However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.
On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution. (v.26 pp. 99-1212) However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. (Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32) Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analyzed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %.(CEN, 19(1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997)
Human DNA is Also Similar to that of the Worm, Mosquito and Chicken!
Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.
For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27) This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms!
According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.
On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. (Hürriyet, 24 February 2000)
On the other hand, the analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. (New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19)
Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46
These examples certify that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes, and on the contrary, they yield completely opposite results.
Similarities are not Evidence for Evolution but for Creation
It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble to one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.
It is possible to explain this subject with an example; all constructions in the world are done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true for living beings as well.
Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.
Darwinist-Materialist Misconceptions About the Human Genome Project
With the announcement of the latest point arrived in the Human Genome Project, some publishing organs in Turkey started to deliver misleading messages and misinform the public so that the impasse the theory of evolution has reached is not further disclosed.
In earlier pages, we mentioned the misleading messages evolutionists delivered about the "genetic similarities" and made clear that these are the subjective interpretations which do not provide any evidence for the theory of evolution. The subject which is mostly promoted and highlighted with different slogans and headlines by the Darwinist-materialist press is the claim that the discovery of the gene map suggests that the fate decreed by God can be challenged. This is a great misconception and deceit put forward by certain circles in our country. The headlines recently appearing in the printed press and the course of discussions in television programs give the impression of a stealthy indoctrination. It is a great mistake to present the information on the human genome project accompanied by messages like "Man will no longer be defeated by his destiny." For in truth, the mapping of the human genes has no relevance whatsoever to the flow of man's fate.
The Flow of Fate Cannot be Changed
Destiny is God's perfect knowledge of all events past or future as a single moment. A majority of people question how God can already know events that have not yet been experienced and this leads them to fail in understanding the fact of destiny. However, "events not yet experienced" are only so for us. God is not bound by time or space, for He Himself has created them. For this reason, past, future, and present are all the same to God; for Him everything has already taken place and finished.
This is true for everyone and every incident. For instance, God has created everyone with a certain lifetime and everyone's moment of death is determined as to its location, time and form in the sight of God. If, in the years to come, the lifetime of a person is extended with timely interventions in the genes, this would not mean that this event defeated that person's destiny. This simply means the following: God gave this man a long life and He made the completion of gene mapping a means for his life being long. The discovery of gene map, that person's living in that era, that person's life being extended by scientific means are all his destiny. All is determined in the sight of God before this person is born into the world.
Similarly, a person whose fatal sickness is cured through the discoveries made within the scope of this project has again not changed his destiny. That is because it is this person's destiny to recover from this illness by means of this project. Consequently, completion of the human genome and the fact that man will be able to intervene in the genetic makeup, do not mean confronting the destiny created by God. On the contrary, this way, humanity follows the developments created for them by God, explores and benefits from the information created by God.
If man lives 120 years thanks to these scientific developments, this is surely a lifetime decreed for him by God, this is why he lives so long.
In brief, expressions like "I defeated my destiny", "I changed my destiny" or "I intervened in my destiny" are consequences of ignorance caused by not knowing the fact of fate. On the other hand, a person's using these expressions is also predestined; how, when and under which conditions he will make these statements are all determined in the sight of God.
Cloning a Human Being or Any Other Living Being is not Creating
In some publications, it has been alleged that by the advancement of the science of genetics, human beings would be cloned and therefore, human beings would create human beings. This, too, is a very distorted and farfetched logic. Creating is to bring something into being from nothingness, and this act is peculiar to God alone. The formation of the identical of a living being through the copying of genetic information does not mean that this living being is created. While man or any other living being is cloned, the cells of a living being are taken and copied. However, never has a single living cell been created from nothingness. The researches conducted on this subject have been stopped as they all were inconclusive.
Consequently, the discovery of the human's genetic makeup by no means implies man's challenge to his destiny, and never can it be. Every incident, every speech and development are all predetermined in the sight of God according to a certain destiny. So are scientific developments and the innovations they will introduce.
Has anyone heard. The creationists have have proven all humans came out of America. http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/2965482/ Not to mention all stars were created at the same time. ALL living things at one time lived on the Earth AT THE SAME TIME. Smiladon and Tyranasaurus were both hunting the Wholly Mammoth. They have the evidence to prove it. All continents are equiped with Holy Rockets that rocket them across vast oceans in the blink of the eye, and starlight was created IN TRANSIT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow could the scientists have been so stupid all these years. What an intelligent design the creationst theory is.
From one hypothesis, the evolotionist has built a theoretical science. Why don't each one of us look up at the heavens on a clear night and wonder the infinite purpose of it all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis country was founded on many principles, one of them being Freedom OF religion not Freedom FROM religion. This means that we are all free to worship whom or what we please in any way we please; CAVEAT: As Long As It Does Not Infringe On The Rights Of Others. That said, it is important to note that, although most of the founding fathers were Christians and they were attempting to ensure that one Christian sect did not try to force their interpretation of the "Sacred Scriptures" on another Christian sect, the spirit of the Constitution remains quite clear, and that is that there must be separation between church and state. The fundamental issue is not whether or not there is a god. Public schools are part of our govenment sector, the State, and should remain separated from church. Our founding fathers figured this out well over two hundred years ago. Even Jesus said "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar." If a person is concerned about equal time for their spiritual figure - be it Yahweh, Buddha, Allah, Lao Tzu or whichever spiritual figure is worshiped in their household - then they should make provisions with their spiritual adviser to provide ample time and information about their preferred spiritual teachings to their family. Religion, spirituality and mysticism are based on beliefs and therefore have absolutely no place in public schools. The role of the public school system is to teach facts. Proper gramar and spelling are facts, a public school would not teach slang, regardless of how prevalent it is. "Feel me dog." Reading, writing, arithmetic, social studies / history, biology, chemistry, physics are all based on facts and observations. It is, at the very least, rude for the religious sector to impose their beliefs and teachings on the entire population, just because they believe that theirs is the "Right" way. Here are the instructions given by Jesus in Matthew 10:14-16, "14 Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Interestingly enough he did not say "dig a trench and hunker down until you wear them out." Heed his words. Shake their dust off your feet. Go away and let him impart his justice at his appointed time. There are plenty of people that do not believe in him so it is of no consequence to them that it will be worse for them than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. Nonetheless it is their right not to believe. Respect it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis country was founded on many principles, one of them being Freedom OF religion not Freedom FROM religion. This means that we are all free to worship whom or what we please in any way we please; CAVEAT: As Long As It Does Not Infringe On The Rights Of Others. That said, it is important to note that, although most of the founding fathers were Christians and they were attempting to ensure that one Christian sect did not try to force their interpretation of the "Sacred Scriptures" on another Christian sect, the spirit of the Constitution remains quite clear, and that is that there must be separation between church and state. The fundamental issue is not whether or not there is a god. Public schools are part of our govenment sector, the State, and should remain separated from church. Our founding fathers figured this out well over two hundred years ago. Even Jesus said "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar." If a person is concerned about equal time for their spiritual figure - be it Yahweh, Buddha, Allah, Lao Tzu or whichever spiritual figure is worshiped in their household - then they should make provisions with their spiritual adviser to provide ample time and information about their preferred spiritual teachings to their family.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a losing battle. Don't even try. If the belligerent imbecile you are trying to convince is capable of understanding your 15 answers, they won't believe in creationism in the first place. Otherwise, "if you're not descended from apes, why is your mother so hairy" is about as intelligent as they will understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese dolts are indoctrinated from kindergarten on. Look at the walls of your religious preschool, and you'll see "abc's" and "Jesus love you" stated with equal force of power. Good luck changing those minds. They are the equivalent of Christian Madrasas, raising good little warriors for Christ.
God help us all.
if we evolved from apes then show me the fossil, skeletal remains anything thats half ape and half man. we have apes and we have man but no fossils inbetween to show the process of evolution. show this to me and ill believe it otherwise its still a theory thats not fully proven yet
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProve to me that he doesn't exist. And then prove to me the other theories, such as evolution, big bang, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution teaches that we came from animals.
Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.
Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.
Sea life from single-cell life.
Single cell life from chemicals.
Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.
Conclusion, all live came from rocks.
Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?
The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that “Micro-evolution” is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only “Micro-evolution” has ever been observed.
1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)
2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.
3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.
4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.
5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.
6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be “Adaptation”
The Sun is Shrinking.
o.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big...
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?
Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.
The Geological Columns.
Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.
Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.
There is only 2 possibilities for this...
1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.
2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.
The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.
The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ½ of its strength every 1450 years.
Time Magnetic strength
2,000 AD 1
555 AD 2
900BC 4
2,350BC 8
3,800BC 16
About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.
About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.
About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.
Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.
5,250BC 32
6,700BC 64
---
50,200BC-68,719,476,736
Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.
What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?
Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.
How do stars form?
There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.
Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.
This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.
Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.
Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?
The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.
PS: the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..
Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.
EDIT: We can see design in every aspect of our life: when we see a car, a house , a writing on the wall. So, it is LOGICAL to assume that all the stuff in the Universe that show the same design patterns come from God(a more intelligent Designer than we humans can possibly be). If what I said before is not evidence, then I rest my case
Prove to me that he doesn't exist. And then prove to me the other theories, such as evolution, big bang, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution teaches that we came from animals.
Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.
Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.
Sea life from single-cell life.
Single cell life from chemicals.
Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.
Conclusion, all live came from rocks.
Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?
The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that Micro-evolution is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only Micro-evolution has ever been observed.
1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)
2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.
3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.
4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.
5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.
6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be Adaptation
The Sun is Shrinking.
o.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big...
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?
Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.
The Geological Columns.
Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.
Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.
There is only 2 possibilities for this...
1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.
2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.
The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.
The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ? of its strength every 1450 years.
Time Magnetic strength
2,000 AD 1
555 AD 2
900BC 4
2,350BC 8
3,800BC 16
About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.
About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.
About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.
Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.
5,250BC 32
6,700BC 64
---
50,200BC-68,719,476,736
Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.
What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?
Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.
How do stars form?
There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.
Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.
This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.
Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.
Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.
The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?
The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the evidence that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.
PS: the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..
Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.
EDIT: We can see design in every aspect of our life: when we see a car, a house , a writing on the wall. So, it is LOGICAL to assume that all the stuff in the Universe that show the same design patterns come from God(a more intelligent Designer than we humans can possibly be). If what I said before is not evidence, then I rest my case
I'M NOT BY ANY MEANS A CREATIONIST, BUT YOU MAY THINK I FALL IN THE VERY AGNOSTIC RANGE, WHEN I ASK WHO OR WHAT FORMED THE VERY FIRST ATOM THAT STARTED EVERYTHING. IT TICKS MY WIFE OFF QUITE MUCH AS SHE BELIEVES CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishonestly what im about to say should end these ridiculous arguments whether a god exsists or doesnt.. until we are able to create somthing from nothing the possibility for a god or divine creator will always be there.. and since scientific law does not support mysticysm. the big bang theory becomes contradictive if you remove this possibility. it started with nothing and then there was somthing. science does not support somthing appearing out of nowhere from nothing, so its a contradictive theory unless you leave for the possibility for a creator. somthing put the gases or whatever else there to get things moving, and thus we support the possibiliy of a god or divine creator. you can argue that its because science hasnt progressed far enough to discover this "nothing". but frankly that just sounds retarded. i suppose you can say the universe was always there but now we enter a whole different catagory. all we know is a beginning and an end. in fact everything we know has a beginning and an end, so even that doesnt make sense. but really all im saying is that we shouldnt force our kids to believe in any one way if we dont know for sure. give them the option to choose if a god created them or not. let public schools leave it open for discussion and decisions instead of removing the entire possibility. encourage it along with secular theories. im a christian because i choose to be and to me its logical. i also believe that we could very well fully prove all forms of evolution and all it would do is support my faith all the same. maybe a divine creator got it started and evolution took its course. maybe not. i dont know for sure. but until we can answer these questions we cant rule out the possibility for a creator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreation vs Evolution..... if we are to believe creationists, which brand is right?...... Mormon?,Catholic?, Lutheran? or any one of the hundreds of versions Christianity? as stated by a few posters before me, Creation is all about political power (and the money that goes with it). As a culture advances itself in the sciences you see superstitions fall away, and it gets harder the fill the collection plate on Sundays....as it is, most religions rely on indoctrinating children - goes down easier with the Big Bird/Cookie Monster crowd. Does science have all the answers? no.... see thats what science Is... Theories are the stepping stones of science , some are in the right direction, others come close but miss the mark... Scientists are the first ones to tell you when they get something wrong. One last point.... if God created everything, controls everything, judging from history, what man does to man (much of it in the various names of God) Do any of you REALLY want to meet a being like that? heh... think God as it is presented in any of the holy books is anything but good or kind....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI applaud scientific research; it measures results thru controlled experimentation. Repeating the experiment & gaining the same result, it concludes the same controlled method will produce the identical result. However, the idea that a unique one off of nature, if it survives and sustains itself through reproduction will generate a new specie is a stretch in logic. Albinos have occured often in many specie, yet I have not heard of albinos becoming a new specie. I have no problem in believing changes in a specie; its not evolution, just a stronger, or weaker, version of what exists. The ave American soldier in WWI to WWII, Korea, Vietnam & the Gulf has become taller/larger due to an abundance of food/nutrition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo call creationism nonsense is nothing more than the defensiveness of a person who believes in what he/she can see/measure.
Limiting our discussions to a Master Designer who created everything or whether a "big bang" created the first miniscule element of life which evolved into the species we have on earth ignores what it is that keeps "things" moving right now. We know the earth is round, we understand gravity, we have many math models that explain the earth's axis, rotation etc. We canpredict the weather because we see the clouds forming from cameras in the sky, yet do we really understand climate? How do we explain prayer, or the intervention of something unspoken, but forceful enough to cause us to do what we were not planning to do?
I have had several unexplainable (scientifically) happenings in my life I attribute to a superior force in this world. One involved two prayer groups, 1 I was in at an office in Irvine Ca & 1 at an oil company's Anchorage office, praying for the same subject for 1yr. Neither team met nor spoke to each other. 1 yr later a force stopped me in a hall, causing me to return to my room & pray. That night I sat where I was not to sit & an Alskan engineer revealed their 1 yr of praying to me. Coincidence, hardly. Explainable scientifically, no.
Gravity is also "only" a theory. Pastafarians argue that it doesn't exist and that the real mechanism is "Intelligent Falling".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very sad to me to see a once highly respectable Journal such as Scientific American become a scientific polemicist, taking unequivocal positions on highly equivocal subjects such as Darwin's Theory and the even more debatable argument on so-called global warming. I do not hold myself out to be an authority on either of these subjects but I do know enough about both to know that there is plenty of room for discussion. What is even more distasteful is your practice of equating individuals who are willing to debate and discuss such subjects as ignorant fools. If one is willing to say clearly and unequivocally that they believe in the supernatural, i.e., they believe in God or at least a God, then there is no reason that a reasoned and principled discussion could not be carried out on other subjects, such as creation, where there are many gaping holes in current theories. Neither I nor many of the others who have serious doubts about these matters are quite the village idiots that you would make us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Burson, MD, PhD(stated only so you will know that I have at least been exposed to "conventional widom")
Evolution is real and happening right now only it takes so long because incremental changes happen with each generation which we are unable to see.When God Supposedly made Adam he created him out of nothing but for Eve he wasnt so clever he had to use rib/hair & more from Adam[boy that must have hurt].That means that from what we know Adam & Eve must have the same DNA & blood type.Should we all not have the same blood & DNA then if evoltion is not doing its thing?If they then procreated whats the chance medically as i'm sure this is not possible or likely to forever abort.Does this not also make it adulterous?.If by some chance they unlikely had children then how did they keep procreating?.What an insestuous family!What skin colour were Adam & Eve?.What languge were they given?.How did they know which foods to eat without being poisoned?.Why did they not get eaten by large predators?.How did they breathe because the air was seriously lacking in oxygen back then.Why have a butterfly lay an egg which turn into a catterpillar, then becomes a chrysallis which in turn becomes a butterfly again.To me this is evolution right before my eyes showing how it can change body form & shape.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" 200 years ago if you would..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed Niklas, but in today's scenario also Science don't have answers to many mysteries of Origin & Universe. What before Big Bang, who created the basic particle etc. I was very eager to get the answers either in Science or in Religion. Recently I came to know about Occult science & its logics. I am reading a book named "Snake & The Rope" and I am a bit impressed with its logics. Its a good occult science book which resolves the problems in western science. Try it (http://www.snakeandtherope.com)
These arguements border the irrational. Who cares? Religion has no place in school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe work seems so perfectly sublime, but it appears that you have very little care for the feelings of others as they are just plain stupidly ignorant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people attempt to give a bit of understanding to both sides of any equation, so Mr. Einstein I hope this doesn't turn thermal-nuclear in your nose one day.
I guess you may rightly say that I am stupid for not believing 'Big-Bang'? Of course the entire universe was 10 -28th at one time and your gigantic brain spawned out the this silly name. Don't get me wrong, I love to experience the Universe and learn about the complexities, but I prefer to think that some ultimate life form had some coincidental relationship with the whole matter.
If I am on your stupid list you should know that likewise, you are on mine!!
I have people in my own family who are religious and live to do the right thing at all times. They live a Christian life and I respect that. They know when to stop. They know that religion is important for certain reasons, just as I do, but they also know it has limits, and it cannot shadow every aspect of life. Ancient words do not hold up against massive amounts of scientific evidence. I can understand it when some Creationists say that there is a point where Scientists have no answers. But they act as if THEY have the answers-- they do not. They have beliefs and that is it. No one can explain our own creation after a certain point, but is clear that scientists devote their lives to finding out. I completely support living a life based on Christian values, or any religious/moral values for that matter, but I do not support knocking down clear facts in the name of religion. Your religion is there for you to make the right decisions, to guide you through life, not for you to bog down scientific advancement. Learn to accept the truth, and embrace it because it is truly amazing once you do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit takes much more faith to believe nothing created something and that something has more intelligence than the thing (the no-thing) that created it. Chance happening? No way. Humans are too complex as well as the world and the universe to have been created by nothing, by chance happening. What in the world put all the planets in motion? Chance? God declares Himself by his creation. The bible declares that all humans are sinners. Sin, where did that come from? You have free will? Try not sinning for a day. Let me know how that works for ya.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm. I think, in both sides' (including your) strident need to establish dominance, you're missing the point. Just like the Catholic Church I belong to, I have no problem with evolution or any other objectively followed science that attempts to explain our universe. ID is NOT Creationism, just as belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God. I disagree with ID as a political pursuit, but not as a possible explanation. If you are a scientist, might I suggest that your emotional retorts and creative wording do little for your cause (preaching to the choir, as it were), although you are respectably well-referenced. Personally, I prefer to keep my mind open, if arguments are presented in a reasonable manner. That is NOT the same thing as using reason to support your ultimately emotional decision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to laugh when I read that the theory of evolution has been proven. The writer says that there is massive proof in paleontology, genetics, zoology, and molecular biology. What is it? I hear people saying that, but I have in my research, I have to find anything that proved the theory. In fact, the lack of fossil evindence is proof that the theory is flawed. Darwin himself said that if there was no fossil evidence to support his theory, then it must be false.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the creation of life is provable by your theory, then lets see you use your scientific knowledge and create something simple, like a fly or a seed to grow a tree. If you really want to prove it, do it with inorganic material.
In section one of the article it is stated that the fossil evidence proves the theory, yet there is no fossil evidence proving that point. It goes on to say that life forms went through transformations to evolve into other species, yet in section 2. he goes into survival of the fittest. I don't see how you can have it both ways. Survival of the fittest would prevent any transformations. Variations would be unacceptable mates for reproduction. In fact, the fossil records support that, and not the evolutionist theory. Which is why it is still called a theory.
The fact is that there is no "so called" evidence of an animal that has ever transformed from one form into another. In fact, if this were happening, the fossil evidence would show it.
The existance of a living Coelacanth, a 400 million year old fish proves that animals don't change over time. The last Coelacanth was caught off the Indonesia in 1998. Scientist were amazed that it had not changed a bit from fossil specimens that were 400 million years old.
Come to your own conculsions, and do your own research. Don't believe anyone who tells you they have proved a theory without hard factual evidence.
If you think you have some type of actual proof, please reply with that information.
Thanks,
John
I agree with these comments:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 Evolution is a pile of horseshit
2 The above article does nothing to change that conclusion
3 It is full of fluff and circular reasoning
4 Evolution isn't science, its faith-based wishful thinking
5 Science is not simply "what scientists do."
6 Evolutionary science is a perversion of the scientific method
I agree with these comments:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 “Evolution is a pile of horseshit”
2 “The above article does nothing to change that conclusion”
3 “It is full of fluff and circular reasoning”
4” Evolution isn't science, its faith-based wishful thinking”
5 “Science is not simply "what scientists do."”
6 “Evolutionary science is a perversion of the scientific method”
Many of these statements are in fact used by non-scientist creationists. They should be carefully distinguished between the statements made by scientists that object to the conjectures of evolution. The author of this article did not make much effort to address the true scientific objections to evolution - rather he has chosen the non-scientific objections to evolution that have appeared in popular literature on the subject. Being that there are substantial objections made by scientists, and they are not addressed here, it leads me to question either the author's actual education on the subject or his sincerity overall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a great article! As a Christian i find it hard to fathom why it is so hard for other christian's to acknowledge or even fathom that eveolutionary forces can and do exist in the world and have from day one. This line of thinking cannot disprove a God or some greater being having intimate involvment in the world we know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biblical version of creation was written in a story format. This means that it could of happened the way it was written or it could have happened another way,However it was explained more easily in a simple story format. This was a common way of written expression in those times. The common thread to this story is that a greater being was intimately involved in the story and could have enacted this "creation" anyway it chose to whether it be six literal days or millions of years.
To spend one's whole life trying to disprove science in order to justify specific beliefs is a life spent in vain. Equally, spending one's whole life chasing science to disprove anothers beliefs is equaly in vain. Some things will never be able to be conclusively (or in some instances even partly) proven and that is the only fact that is convincingly clear.
The reality to all of this is, science will continue to prove and disprove people's "beliefs" in both science and creation forever to come and no matter how much science we discover it will still not get us to an answer of "is there a God" which seems to be one of the fundamental instigators for our search for the unknown.
What annoys me is that (we) christians feel the need to get so angry in defense of all of this. Jesus spoke about the fundamental law of laving God first and each other. If we all just loved each other the way Jesus described, we would probable be listened to so much more than if we just tried to push our case with anger and sometimes hatred.
Thanks,
Brad
This SciAm board is lacking. People who comment cannot separate paragraphs of thought ... the sentences run on and on and there is no way to break thoughts into paragraphs. And what are all these symbols inside some people's comments? No italic, bold, or other html markup? Wow, SciAm needs to upgrade or pay the webmaster more money ...
Ok, the post, and my comment. Creationist thought seems nonsensical. And so if I were to consider all the energy and force inside this universe of ours, and that this force and energy is causing all this physical motion of things and creating different forms of material things to exist, the only thoughts that seem to matter the most pertains to my focusing on all that energy and force inside the universe. Where did all this force and energy causing all this stuff to exist inside the universe, How did all this force and energy get here? Where did it come from? The force and energy of, or from the Big Bang could not have come from "nothing." It had to come from "something." Why do so many evolutionist-atheist-agnostic types beat their chests spouting "there is no god." The force and energy inside the universe absolutely and logically came from some "thing." If the logic of this argument escapes anyone, take a deep breath and think it through until the realization hits you like a ton of bricks. The force and energy inside the universe could not have originated from nothing. It had to have originated from some "thing."
If this is nonsensical thinking, I wonder what rational is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you have to reject reality in order to believe evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKurt L Hanson - but if something always has to come from something, where did God (or whatever kind of thing you might suppose led to the universe) come from? Or, if there is anything that could have been 'first', why couldn't it have been the universe? (I put 'first' in single quotes because spacetime is an aspect of this universe - and could be of other things 'outside' this universe, but once you get 'outside' this universe, ... etc.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all have a moral code written into our mind by God Himself. Among other things this code says most lying is wrong and reason is right. But, some suggest our moral code can stand on its own, without God, because of its benefits to humanity, its rationality and its objectivity. But if we actually believed our moral code just happened by evolution we would believe it would soon evolve into something else or even disappear altogether, and therefore breaking it would not be wrong in the sense we now believe it to be. We would consider our moral code either a nuisance or simply a nice suggestion and breaking it would be an expression of freedom or something merely imprudent for humanity. And if our moral code were not enforced by God, the most reasonable attitude would then be, Why should I care about others, theyre not me?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want the complete argument and REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE God exists, read "The Case for Christian Objectivism on the Social Science Research Network, ssrn.com. Search: Objectivism.
It is technically superior to any other argument because it concedes it is impossible to prove God exists, yet it discovers a solid scientific theory for His existence. Furthermore, it reveals that at least some of the people who believe in God have achieved this certainty through sound moral reasoning!
Interesting article. Regardless of what the creationists claim, I still have trouble following their reasoning: complex systems couldn't exist without any divine intervention. Well, isn't the the almighty god who created everything far more complex than anything we know? Who/what created the god? If the god could pop out of no where, why couldn't simpler systems like those we observe today? If this is really their basis for the debate, based on the very same reasoning, god shouldn't exist either. The so-called creation should never take place at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Sergiio's spelling is anything to go by then the US public school system really is in trouble. Or perhaps that is the literacy level of fundamentalist intellectuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Sergio's spelling is anything to go by then the US public school system really is in trouble or perhaps this post reflects the literacy level of fundamentalist intellectuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscenturion68 at 04:49 AM on 12/20/07
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin's "hypothesis" is just that, a hypothesis that is at best a observation with that crudest type of reseach done by him 143 years ago. Although I must admit that the evolutionists have been busy trying to make Darwins research legitimate. Come on now. Let's talk about why Darwin was the way he was. Do the reseach of the man himself. You will see that he was deficient in many areas of life. He himself was an admitted racist. His hypothesis was based in bias thought and contrary to what he had been taught. Even our modern advances in science have disproven Darwins "hypothesis" many times over. I am a real fan of scientific research, but the more evolution gets shut down by those who specialize in the sciences, the more people seem to cling to the fantasy of evolution. Even some of our well renown scientists, (past and present) cannot cling to the fiction of evolution. Could it be that the alternative requires obedience. Note: .No transitional fossils on record. No evidence. No truth.
The above quote is one of the best to illustrate the typical Creationist argument: uninformed, poor in logic, the resorting to ad hominem arguments and, last but not least, an atrocious level of literacy.
Let's look at examples of these in the above post.
1 uninformed: "No transitional fossils on record."
Anyone who has the least acquaintance with the subject knows that this is simply not true. Check the internet for articles in the evolution of tetrapods. mammals, whales, horses and humans and you will see that only someone who is totally ignorant of the topic or being deliberately obtuse could make such a statement.
2 poor in logic: "His hypothesis was based in bias thought and contrary to what he had been taught."
I thought that going against the accepted teachings )of the times (provided this could be supported by observation was the hallmark of progress in science. Newton's rebuttal of Aristotle's explanation of why things fall being a classic example.
3 ad hominem arguments: "You will see that he was deficient in many areas of life. He himself was an admitted racist."
What has this to do with the truth of falsity of his theory?
4 an atrocious level of literacy: "the more evolution gets shut down by those who specialize in the sciences, the more people seem to cling to the fantasy of evolution. " ?????????
Read the post for other examples
Is this a sensible comment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an Atheist (a non-creationist) and I still think Evolution is a pile of horseshit. The above article does nothing to change that conclusion. It is full of fluff and circular reasoning .Evolution isn't science, its faith-based wishful thinking. Most people, who argue that Evolution is science, don't know what science is. Science is not simply "what scientists do." Modern scientists are clowns who have lost their way. Just as guilty of hubris as any Priest, Rabbi or Mullah.
Evolutionary science is a perversion of the scientific method.
Lots of angry energy here bickering for one side or the other. The Bible says that man was made from the dust of the Earth and to dust he will return. It doesn't explain HOW that happened. And certainly believing that life got its start here on Earth by falling here in ancient meteors (or the more colorful version, from UFOs) takes as much faith to believe in as life coming from the mind of God. So which is it, God, lightning or Martians?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that the problem the Creationists have is that they insist on a literal explanation but use as evidence a text that does not provide that level of detail (e.g. the Bible focuses more on why God creates than on how He does it).
On the other hand the Evolutionists exclude God as playing any part in the rise of life on Earth because they dismiss belief in the existence of God as superstition a priori. Ok, show me the body of scientific evidence that disproves the existence of God. Once God is categorically, absolutely, definitively, scientifically and unquestionably disproven, then it makes good scientific sense to exclude Him from theorizing about the origins of life. If He cannot be disproven (or proven), then could He not be some kind of variable in the mix? The very first reason in this article states that All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. Cannot the same be said for God and the myriad of unexplainable miracles (telltale tracks) recorded across the ages? Not even Einstein believed that God played dice with the universe .
The gist of all this bickering is not disparate interpretation of fact, but rather defense of pet prejudice and various bigotries. The question that will eventually have to be addressed by both parties (if both parties ever evolve to this level of reasoning), is, could the two views be reconciled? Must they be mutually exclusive?
i must first say that those who have read this article in depth will notice the lack of information that it produces. What puzzles me the most is one can feel that these answers are a semi-sufficent rebutle to the questions. Take for instance question 1 the author quotes the creationist question. "Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law." He then attempts to debate this statementby trying to prove how evolution is not a theory he cannot. You cannot say that evoultion is not a theory until you can call it a fact, which science is unable to do. Look at the paragraph and tell me where he states once that evolution is a fact. He even quotes the NAS who clearly state that evolution explains "some aspects of the natrual world." Some is not all and the lack of ability to explain all means it is .... A THEORY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore his "abundant other evidences " have fallen short of fact. Take for instance the fossil record with its numerous gaps and little explanation for where these species could be since we have searched for them for over 300 years or his proof that historical science is reason enough to believe evoultion. Yet scientist themselves have said that historical science is least relaible piece of the evolutionary proof. Examples of this come from the rock formations that mt. st. helen's made that were made in hours and are identical in formation, layering, and shape to that of the grand canyon's formation that are said to have taken to millions of years to make.
I would love to talk to people about this subject and much more so please email me at abrown@sdcc.edu
a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am enjoying this discussion and learning loads. thanks to you all but please some one tell me; what is ................'s ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis country was not founded on the abscence of religion but the freedom of religion. Freedom to freely practice religion without persecution. If the topic is "The Beginning of the World" the major ideas should be discussed. Use the scientific method to disprove it-fine-but don't just ignore it. Your desire to leave Creationism/Intelligent Design completely out of the classroom doesn't empower children at all. So when they get in a situation where someone is speaking about creationism all they can do is mock them but cannot give any intelligent scientific rebuttal. In the same vein there are faults in the "theory" of evolution, those should also be taught.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSergio, a creationist proponent, says his children children are already in a private school. So, why is he arguing for teaching of his creationist myths in our public schools?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy is it that people in your opinion are not allowed to have freedom of speech an relgion everywhere?Are we to limit these freedoms in the classroom in order to aviod stepping on the toes of others? If so nothing should ever be taght or expressed because someone might get offended.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe public schools are Sergio's schools as well as yours, mine and ours, unless he is given some kind of tax break for putting his kids in a private school. As far as what the schools teach, I would hope that they do not practice censorship but would allow for open, safe and unantagonistic discussion of ideas among children so they can makeup their own minds. After all, wasn't that what the Scopes "Monkey" trial was all about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Creator snapped his fingers and all the universe sprang forth from that one action. In a nutshell Creationists have a small view of their God if they think it spent time worrying over each little bit and gave individual attention to everything that exists. The main difference between reasonable arguments in this topic is this: Creationists think that the universe began some odd number of thousands of years ago and evolutionists say it happened at the big bang. With all the evidence showing that the universe has been here for more than thousands of years, is it not an even more powerful miracle that all things within the universe were "intelligently created" when the Creator initiated the big bang and stepped back to watch events unfold?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Evolution is a theory, why can't we include another theory, Creation Theory, into classroom ? Why do you have to insist that students have to leave out Creationism ? Being an open-minded guy, aren't you contradicting yourself ? If a theory is made up of observations, I don't see a problem of having someone observing the world and coming up with a conclusion that it is too complex to not be created. Also, does evolutionary theory has holes ? You bet...so why can't we have an alternative answer ? We seem to have an alternative answer in every other areas, why not this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us say, for the sake of unsupported argument - the only kind the Creationists have - that Holy writings prove Creationism happened. Seriously answer the following question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich Holy writings are the then Truth (as they all claim to be)?
Judaism/Christianity/Islam - all the same god and creation mythos?
(and if you don't know they are the same - you don't know enough to argue)
The Shinto or Buddahist of the Orient? The Hindus of India?
The Celestial Court of the Chinese?
The ancient Greeks and Romans who holy writings are just as old?
The Egyptians, the Celts, the Wiccans?
Seriously, whose Holy writings are the real Truth, all are different? All have different stories all were considered irrefutable fact at one time or another, all have just as many fallacies as the other and far more than Evolution does. So show me some evidence of which Creationism is true over the others and I'll even consider it versus Evolution.
As I read through these points I realized that the author has already been presented with all the evidence that he needs to cast doubt on evolution, and yet has chosen not to accept that evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe states "If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
If he considers historical evidence valid, he would have realized that the "superintelligent aliens" he is talking about are just another way of saying super intelligent beings not of this world capable of creating life. I submit that the intelligent beings...or Being...that he refers to who is not of this world is God, and God has come to Earth and told us of His creation. Yet he has not believed His report. If he had believed His report, he would have seen the "purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt."
Why? As it says in the Bible, "professing themselves wise, they became fools, and traded the glory of God for a lie, and worshiped the creature more than The Creator." This is not a new phenomenon, but one that has been going on from the beginning.
Give me a break, this article uses the same old arguments that evolutionists have been using for years without giving real answers. most of what constitutes evolution could just as easily be labelled adaptation without speciation. transitional fossils? Will someone please be honest about the horse fossil series as well as the others? It is just as logical to assume that those fossils could each be from a different species of horse like creature without assuming one became the other. This is an assumption made based on a preconceived notion that evolution must be the explanation. Let's not even get into the various hoaxes over the years in regards to the so called human transitional forms! Anyone who has watched Johansens video about his discovery will be shocked to see a great number of very unscientific practices. Like breaking the pelvis to make it look more human and less apelike becasue of course it must have been broken in the past and re-fossilized. It wasn't actually a monkey pelvis in his estimation. oh no, it must fit the evolutionary model and once we have manufactured the evidence on little pieces here and there from who knows how many digs, we suddenly have irrefutable proof???? I still have many many questions. Not only of the so called proof but of the thinking and methodology involved which fails to answer numerous questions or consider alternatives that are obvious to any non-biased party. The idea that finding different levels of complexity in eyes proves observable evolution over time when they could just as easily be environment and creature specific is another example of preconceived thinking in action. And please please don't use genetic similarity as a guidepost when you know full well that genetic similarity is a given in this particular biosphere we call earth. That does not prove evolution, only common matter looking for a more elegant solution than I have seen so far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDrop the Darwin nonsense and come up with something new. It's time for the Darwinists to acknowledge the leap of faith in their own belief system. The incessant attacks on any opposing ideas in this particular publication is evidence enough of it's own insecurities on the matter. 15 answers indeed! 15 weak defenses perhaps. You may not like the creationists, but at least give everyone else the benefit of some truth instead of the same old arguments that end up with an assertion that what we have is better than what you have even if it is still very little.
To the creationists:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists aren't against creationism being taught in schools, but it has to be contextualized correctly. We don't teach philosophy in biology class, so we shouldn't teach creationism there, either. Plenty of schools have theology courses, and I don't see a problem with that. Often times philosophy (of which I consider theology to be a branch) forms the basis for scientific inquiry, and so it has its place in the academic setting. But pushing it off onto children as fact, or even in the same light as facts is an injustice.
To the evolutionists:
While these 15 answers are good counters to the more asinine attacks of the creationists, there are some more valid questions that they do not answer - as have been proposed by some of the commenters here. As one example, I think that what creationists (and also scientists) really need to be examining is the apparent randomness of mutations. While natural selection is nonrandom, mutations are random, and a creationist could argue that these are the places where "God" intervenes in the overall process. That is to say that random mutations may not actually be random, but chosen by another selective mechanism. Whether or not that mechanism is a god or some other unintelligent process is for the creationists and scientists to continue to investigate.
To both:
If you'd spend less time attacking each other's positions, looking for loopholes through which to challenge the logic of one side or the other, and actually opened your mind to the possibility that "creation" may be a little bit of both, or NEITHER, perhaps we could come to understand more about this crazy world of ours.
1. Hebrews.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeld together by the unseen
2. Sorry you’re stuck running in circles. Look at who’s making the babies. It’s survival of the unfit.
3. Kinda like the emperors’ new clothes. Who cares about evolution? If The Truth created life through a process, imported it, or farted and here we are. There was energy, matter, mass. The Trinity. Before clowns ran around fields filled with self importance, explaining the joke.
4. Fellows patting fellows. Blah
5. Look, you can prove adaptation. Hell I can breed dogs and make all kinda useless little yip-yappers. If someday you come up with a clear record of man from ape… Again, Who cares?
6. Circular logic indeed. Get off the monkeys already.
7. Over and over you state that the naked emperor is wearing really cool stuff. You sit at a table and proclaim, “I taste oregano in the salsa. I therefore, say there was no cook and the table at which we sit is to be ignored”. It came from this matter which is really expresses itself as a termite fart. God. Look at yourself.
8. Well sheet.. You are your best argument. Those who support creation don’t believe in chance. You do. God is Truth and Light. Not chance. Kinda like Popeye. “I yam what I yam”.
9. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=second-law-of-thermodynam Humm… Still never seen a coffee cup get up off the floor and reassemble. Have you? Don’t matter. You are still trying to explain someone elses table.
10. Wow, you must read a lot. Shrug
11. God. Five more to go. You ignore the emperor. Your King. Still naked. God isn’t evolution. He is more. Stop taking apart the rubber on the pavement. Some one is on the bike.
12. I’m disappointed boys. That is so weak. I felt a mixture of pity, disgust and shake the head, “What the F---“. Look. You are smart. You are made in his image. In a way you are a clone. Stop kicking the play blocks across your privileged bedroom floor and screaming, “It’s not the right color”. And keep searching for understanding.
13. Can you hear yourself????????????
14. My eyes are still working. Evolve me a watch. To hell with the self view of, Creationist. To hell with the idiot savant scientist. “I am here, turn around. I hold my arms out all day to a nation that turns over stones looking for me. Turn around. I am here”.
15. So many words… So little said.
16. God is Life. God is truth. You are looking for truth in HIS work. But then you must keep looking. You are after all, intelligent design.
The capital letters say it all. The uncompromising, authoritarian views of some poor soul who is clinging to sanity in this complex and baffling world we live in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrevious comments about how science has to accept anomalies and mysteries until some rational, tested explanation is revealed could benefit those who rely on the existence of a supreme being for their mental equilibrium.
Anyone who actually read and pondered over this well thought out and presented article could never arbitrarily dismiss the work of thousands of scientists and researchers.
But, having said that I still wonder how a group of primitive sheep herders carried a book for thousands of years that in its first chapter had such an uncannily accurate explanation of the origins of life on earth. I mean Genesis, with its description of life beginning in the oceans, to the lesser species and vegetation. I would love to do a thesis on the chances of that happening at random.
Here here! If we were created by god, and given these abilities to think, reason, and a sense of curiousity, then science is indeed a product of god. It is clear to anybody, christian or not, that this is the case...otherwise god in all his omnipotence would simply render all of us as stupid and nonthinking as rocks. Another idea I cannot wrap my mind around is the idea that humans are *capable* of reducing something as expansive, powerful, and all-knowing as god into a caricature that is somehow impervious to rational inquiry. Everything is game when it comes to objective inquiry, and religion simply doesn't stand up when the really simple rational questions come knocking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience still questions relativity and quantum mechanics, although theories both have proved useful in explaining observations. Can science question evolution, scientifically, without being shouted down?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bible was written by humans, however divinely inspired they may have been, with extremely limited scientific knowledge. Personally, I think that science and all of its advancements are further proof of how wonderful the creator spirit is and how beautifully complex its language is. People who use faith as an excuse to refuse new revelations are living un-christian lives by refusing to be accepting and understanding of their nieghbors and the world they live in; living lives based on fear and hate rather than accomodation and love. Which would Christ choose?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease download and read the document at the following address, especially pp.13-15 for testimony by religious people, and scientists, and p. 41 for an explanation of how a eye can develop from simpler structures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease remember that science is really not here to ask why things happen , but really to answer questions of how things work.
As humans, especially those of us who carry a deep religious faith (I am a Christian), it is extremely arrogant to think that we can fathom the mind of God even with the guidance of his word. Who are we to decide how he did things.
Evolution is a collection of scientific fact based on extrapolated theories which makes all the facts just theories. This whole article is a bunch of scientific garble that explains nothing. Like this quote from the first page "The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. So scientists don't need direct observation to prove their theories but won't believe in God till he shows his face. Interesting. I find this article full of "could have been this and could have been that" Not very absolute if you ask me. My faith in God is absolute and makes no sense in the scientific world. As scientists uncover all the mysteries of the universe all they are doing is excavating Gods work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we should treat set theory the same way as the creationists want to treat the theory of evolution and just admit that computers operate the way they do because of God's magic hand. We can call it 'God's Supreme Algorithm" and teach it instead of Computer Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBottom line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy, Matter, Mass.
Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
Call it what you like.
What went Bang? At the Big Bang?
Take care of the widows and orphans. Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Support the afflicted. In other words, Do, what the hell is right!
Who gives a bloody damn if your grandmother was a monkey?
You discuss the dermas of a labia and postulate the origin of life.
Your are bound to understand,,, skin.
Faith is healthy. Hell your placebo effect can be up to 30%.
You are made in his image. What else can explain your stubborn intelligence?
Dont blow yourselves up. Find cures for decease. Fill your minds with knowledge. My people die from a lack of knowledge .
Faith, Hope and Love.
Express your faith in CERN. By making a better life for all of us.
Express your Hope, by teaching others to bring water to a dry land.
Express your Love, by doing what is right by that Creationist , That Evolutionist at your side.
Knowledge is not to be feared. Fear is the lack of understanding.
We should not dismiss the good that science has brought us.
We should not dismiss the hearts of good men and women who give because they believe it is the right thing for them to do. When we argue, it is healthy. Just dont bunch up on the left or the right.
The truth is alive. Light, well, you chase it. I am what I am . That is not the point. It is a given.
At the core of you, For all the bullshit, Do you care?
It is a global search.
It is an individual quest.
Hey.
Third stone.
Third stone on the outskirts of nowhere.
Its time to wake up.
Man, this is the problem with you scientist types...I can't argue a one liner from some creationist with 3 paragraphs of explanation - I can barely remember my work laptop in the mornings for crying out loud.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive me some snappy one liners I can throw back. or maybe just TYPE EVERYTHING IN ALL CAPS SO IT READS LIKE A BOOMING VOICE FROM ABOVE. That works, too.
For ways to fight this nonsense see book
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans
extraordinarily unlikely
R. Mirman
and blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
I really do not understand how someone can actually believe in creationism. I mean seriouslly grow up. People need to stop believing in these fairy tales, and move on. Not only does religion put friction between man and science, it creates friction between various groups of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Fying Spaghetti Monster is perfect he is who we follow, you can prove him or prove him not, but he is there!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat? You do not believe? All you need is faith and he is there!
It's actually the creationists who keep taking a step back and adding one more (very complicated) extra step to explain everything as we advance our knowledge. What scientific evidence do creationists have? When they have no evidence they simply fall back claiming you need (blind) faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no need to add any god into the equation. The Greeks explained lightning as their god Zeus being angry. When things were not understood and science was in it's infancy, lack of knowledge was substituted with stories. Bow down to the laws of physics, they are your true master.
Uh oh! God is telling me to kill other people who do not believe in him again! Ooops! I mean Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou will all die for not having faith! And after you are all dead, you will all suffer in Spaghetti Monster Hell!
Sorry Tony about your laptop. Must be a PC Clone. Sony, Tony, wouldnt license the beta format. Apple did briefly and well, its still playing out. Get a mac.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRmirman. I cant say I read it all. You seem to think about it.
SirOrmak. Stone sharpens stone.
Lets all shake hands and go about our unsettled, scientific theologian, atheist believer in the big fart lives.
If you see me on the Kohala Mountain Road while stuck in the mud. And you have relevant info/experience and a chain that extricates me, Coronas on me.
If I see you bogged in the mire of, It really worked the last time, I dont know whats wrong, give me a minute&
Ill give you as many as you need. And tell bad jokes as I have a captive audience.
All of you.
Feed the hungry. And as directed, I am reminding you, Dont think of yourself more highly than you ought.
Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe. Sign me up.
Show me the puzzle.
Then show me all the pieces and how the cube works.
I'll believe in God.
I'll believe in mans quests for truth.
I'll believe in whatever makes sense and if I don't,,, slap me.
You still can't take something from nothing.
The argument is pathetic.
One side says, before the big bang something’s existed.
The other states, Yeah, we are trying to identify that. In the meantime ignore it.
It really gets down to practicality, because in the end you are inconsequential. Just another ant, another worker bee.
Let's all form a posse and tree that squirrel. Dissect it. Then decide if that is the son of a bitch that has been stealing my nuts.
Let the cute little animal go.
.
Hey Johnny,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHope all is well.
Hey Sciam,
That was your best shot?
Johnny, Live, love and laugh.
Sciam,
what the F---, Over.
The universe isn’t made of cotton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember the commercial?
The touch, The feel, the fabric of our lives.
The space, time continuum Won’t break because some 4 year old in preschool built a toy. (Hats off to all preschoolers)
Your holograph is what you have. (Holographic Universe)
Dark matter exists.
When you turn the light out, Do you cease to exist?
Little pieces, that yes, science will discover.
We want the truth and we want it now.
Love is not exclusively a rose…
Wow, how sad, I look into the sky, it's called the sun, ever heard of it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know what? Even Muhammed and Jesus saw God, the old method is clearly religion, because in the past there was no explanation or meaning, or even research, so people needed a values system. Of course it was much easier to explain these value systems back then because, as stated before, we were a simple organization expanding slowly. Until people began the research and investigation. Then these so called faiths promote terrorism to get people to believe it such as christians believing in a hell or Muslims believing in some holy war or nonsense like that.
This article is an unbelievable ignorant demonstration of old evolution arguments that have been disproven time and time again. Any enlightened science oriented person knows intuitively that transmutation is a science fiction fantasy. Most so-called "transition fossils" have been scientifically proven to be a hoaxes. The age of the universe has not been proven to be billions of years old. It has been mathematically proven that chance cannot create the complexity we find in even the most simple creatures. Real scientists know that there is in fact a Creator and that our real science job is to discover how to manipulate creation to enhance our quality of life. We worship our Creator not that which was created.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance...".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat , is this more implausible than the "Big Bang" from which every thing else came by chance?
In the beginning there was nothing ... which exploded.
"8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo is the "Big Bang" THE uniquest and bizzarest chance event ever, the central tenet of Cosmology, more plausible or mathematically conceivable?
In the begiing there was nothing ... which exploded...
Reading this forum, it's funny that the people who accused creationists as hardheads are actually the ones that are about to grab a gun and shoot the person who has anything to do with religion. Why such anger ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, the people who don't believe in God, will not. And the people who do, will continue to do so. Billions of people, from world leaders to geniuses to successful businessmen to entertainers, are believers.
At the end of the day, the atheists will only accept what they see as answers. For us, we believe in reasoning. Reasoning should be objective and should include science, but not exclusively, because humans have limited potentials. If Evolution is correct, then it's not a contradiction, but part of creation. The limit of science won't go beyond the tangibles. If we want to search the ends of the whys and hows, science cannot and will not answer. Knowledge is a gift to us believers, we have to use it objectively. Science, on the other hand, will never be able to explain what is knowledge and why knowledge exists.
I have a question if man evolved from ape or monkey, why are apes still around?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi have a question if man evolved from ape or monkey, why are apes still alive? If the whole survival of the fittest is correct
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationist can't accept these facts just because they are taught the contrary things at first or most. the simple things definitely evolve to the complex. That's what human-being is doing today. all these maybe are divined by God unconsciously, but that does not undermine evolution theory.
Is Darwinism thoery, or "accidental design" any more scientific than "intelligent design". The second law of thermodynamics, simply put, says everything goes from order to dissorder. Is it scientific to posit that life resulted from the random association of molecules in a primordial slime? I think not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, is it reasonable to think the complexity of the human body occurred accidentally? Just watch 'the Body by the Numbers" on the Discovery Channel and see if you think the complexity of our own bodies could happen accidentally.
Whatever the process has been over the millenia, it seems more reasonable, "scientifically" that it was started, if not manipulated and controlled, by an intelligent force.
Great information. However, the greater fallacy implied by creationism is that if they can simply prove that evolution is false, then creationism must be true, that is, there are only two possible outcomes. The is the logic error known as the "argument from ignorance".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBryanC
If you came from your parents, why are your parents still alive? Evolution does not me that other earlier forms of life must cease to exist when another evolves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism is not taught in science because there simply is not evidence for it. Science is about evidence. Science is about taking observations and attempting to understand them, not taking something you've decided is true and trying to rationalize it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only people that seem to have a problem with evolution are religious zealots. Since they have no scientific evidence to support their beliefs they can not present scientific arguments they just regurgitate their religious indoctrination. In any other area of life if you believe things that have no basis in reality you are considered irrational and in need of medical help (sorry but true). I really dont understand why the same standard is not applied to the Creationist/ID crowd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the things that I think is really despicable in the whole Creationist/ID movement is the fact that they are dishonest (which I always thought was a Christian sin). Clearly their motive is to bring their religious beliefs into the classroom. But because they know that the constitution forbids that they try to sneak their religious views in by the back door. I find that deeply immoral, especially coming from those who are the first to preach about morality to others.
As regards to apes and humans - the reason apes and monkeys are still around (if barely these days!) is because they filled a different ecological niche than humans. This is similar to the way that both lions and cheetahs successfully coexist today even though they live in the same environment. When it came to direct completion for resources our very close relative Neanderthal man seem to have lost out big time and there are probably other species that lost out to homo-sapiens but did not leave evidence behind for us to know about them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the significant differences between science and religious belief is that scientists will adopt a new theory if it better explains the facts while a religious belief will not change given new facts. For example: Even though Newton, who created the first theory of gravity, was one of the greatest scientific minds ever, his theory was replaced by one composed by an unknown Swiss patent examiner within a couple of years because it fit the facts better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt took the Church hundreds of years to accept the simple fact that the earth is NOT the center of the universe and even then only grudgingly. Religious dogma can not deal with change as once it is admitted that one part of the dogma is wrong they whole thing falls apart.
Evolution as we know it today may not be correct but until a better scientific theory comes along and does a better job explaining the facts (and there are a ton of facts to explain) it is what should be taught.
Some people believe we should teach creationism to be balanced. That is wrong, balance is not required. Just as we don’t teach in science classes that the earth is the center of the universe and that elements are made from combinations of fire water air and earth. Wrong ideas do not need to be taught.
Oh my this is the saddest thing i think i have ever heard. The continued utterances of words like "Proven" and "Tested" by what appear to be children on this site. NinjaFresh, do you really believe that "This has never been a Christan country nor shall it ever be. This country was founded on the absence of religion." How could anyone believe your knowledge of biology when your history is so poor. Please, bare with me by opening your scientific mind; please post or produce any "Test" that has ever been done to prove even the most basic element of molecules to man evolution. Try bringing cells to life with some primordial ooze. Try showing me this "Documentation" of any single cell becoming a different type or kind of cell. Please reproduce for me any example of any additional DNA instructions providing additional components and growth in any creature (living or fossilized) where the instructions were not pre-existing and information wasn't lost instead of gained. (Flightless birds, wingless beetles, changing bacteria, etc. all lost a feature or an ability) Please show me even one example of gained information in this very lengthy past you have created, there actually should be millions living and billions in the fossil record. Look for one earnestly and diligently and please stop relying on what people have told you or even the way you think things ought to be. Just look and do the science, put in the time and use the mind that God gave you. You will be surprised at what you find (or rather don't find) and maybe even a little mad at what you have been told. And by the Grace of God one day even a little ashamed to have born such a witness against the One who will someday define the purpose of your life. And don't forget this, that your purpose and position in this world is far greater than your evolutionist colleges would have you to believe. God bless you NinjaFresh. When enough men have lied to you and disappointed you and kept you from being who God has planned for you to be, i pray that one day you find yourself in the presence and in the true knowledge of God. When that happens pray for me and remember this word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets do this one at a time folks: (READ BETWEEN THE LINES)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis (THERE IS NOTHING MERE ABOUT A HYPOTHESIS, IT IS THE STARTING POINT FOR ONES DIRECTION IN SEARCHING FOR FACTS) but below a law. (REMEMBER HERE THAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN THE NEXT SENTENCE)Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. (REALLY, SO THE PEOPLE STILL USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ARE NOT SCIENTIST THEN) According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (BY THIS DEFINITION ALONE DARWINIAN EVOLUTION LOSES EVEN MORE CREDIBILITY IN THAT IT HAS VERY LITTLE INCORPORATION OUTSIDE ITS OWN HYPOTHESIS) No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. (PUTTING HISTORICAL SCIENCE IN THE SAME SENTENCE WITH "LAB TESTED" REPEATABLE SCIENCE DOESN'T MAKE THEM THE SAME THING: OH BUT MAYBE THEY HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR! {FYI, THAT'S A JOKE.}
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, (NO, MEANING THE IDEA OF ASCENT WITH ENGINEERING) one may also speak of the fact of evolution.(IF ONE DID, ONE WOULD BE MISTAKEN) The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed (Try that with a T-Rex) and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"(I AM GLAD WE DETERMINED WHAT THE NAS DEFINES AS TRUE, IT DOESN'T AT ALL MEAN THAT MOLECULES TO MAN EVOLUTION FITS THIS CRITERIA HOWEVER) The fossil record and abundant other evidence (IF THEY ARE SO ABUNDANT WHY AREN'T THEY LISTED HERE) testify (SSHUUSH.! THE FOSSIL RECORD IS TESTIFYING) that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. (CLEAR! THERE IS NOT ONE TRACE OF INCREASED LIFE INFORMATION IN THE LIVING OR FOSSILIZED RECORD. I WOULD HARDLY CALL THAT COMPELLING. BASED ON THESE AMBIGUOUS EVOLUTIONARY ASSUMPTIONS THERE SHOULD BE MILLIONS OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS LIVING AND BILLIONS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD; MORE IN BETWEEN FORMS THAN ARE FOUND COMPLETE.
This one is easy enough: (Read between the lines)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. (John, John, saying this is a common argument with creationist is a sneaky little trick to fool your readers into thinking that creationist do not observe the same creation. I have never met a creationist {not an I/D person incidentally that is not the same thing by the way but it would take research for you to know that and i know that is not your strong suite, yet} who did not fully understand the changing world around us and how God designed his entire creation to be more adaptable than we could have ever imagined. Many 'kinds' of animals have been capable of numerous varieties over the years and natural or environmental selection has played a large role in identifying those variations. Wide variations in possibilities were pre-wired in the DNA long ago, all were capable due to DNA coding from the start. Clearly in this fallen world however, marred by sin organisms also lose functions every day as in the bacteria that no longer has the ability to react poorly to antibiotics, good for it in the short term but not so good for us.)
Number 3: (Read between the lines)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
(Most of the statements in this "Answer" make my case form me or have nothing at all to do with supporting the authors point so i will forgo them and only speak to the really sad support below.)
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. (This is what is needed to prove evolution, not disprove it as i indicated in my response to an earlier comment. Molecules to Man Evolution begins with Living Matter from Non Living Matter. You have made the very root point of all Creationist, "Please show us the primordial ooze and make that happen one more time, and then help the readers understand why it doesn't happen over and over again. And tell us again not just how basic life turned its DNA {DNA it was born with by the way} into complexed encyclopedias on building and engineering a cells long before the first trial and error 'mistakes' were made in those cells. And how it spit into plant life and animal life two clearly different functionalities.)
If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
(I am truly hoping that the author is about 11 yrs old.
What if the particular species was an African Pygmy and the super-intelligent alien wanted to know why evolutionary thinking caused a man to be placed in the Bronx Zoo during the early part of the 20th Century)
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor. (There are a few branches that no doubt need to be pruned in the years ahead. Operational science by the way still holds very strongly to this principle because it is too dangerous to draw false conclusions in those areas of study, historical science on the other hand is floundering now as a whole precisely because it has had little immediate impact on society when it began to grossly distort the facts.)
who or what created your superintelligent aliens? And for that matter, who or what created your god? Just saying a superhuman being created life etc. does not answer anything, since that superhuman being would have to be fantastically complex in its own right. So who or what created it? Just doesn't answer anything. Three little words occur regularly in science but never in religion: "I don't know". Most scients are not afraid to use them when the question of the origins of life come up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive it a rest. God created evolution. God has all the time in the universe...Man does not. Man wants it all yesterday and get very upset if Man does not get what it wants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was also Man who decided that we must all bend at the knees. Con form or you'll go to hell. Well thats just like the Musslims. Conform or else.
It is this mentality that is hurting ALL HUMANS. Down with the christians and Musslims. Frankly you both hate the planet and all that lives here.
To HELL with you ppl.
Hi BrianC, obviously you didn't realize in your last comment that your dear evolutionist friends comments are separated from mine by the intentional use of the ( )'s. Most of what is written in my comment blogs are the actual statements that John Rennie gives in his 15 so called "Answers". You will definitely need to read ahead and actually know what the article we all came here to read says to understand my discussion comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease know that i am only being facetious in making a comment about "aliens or super-intelligent beings" because this is the type of immature rhetoric that John and his peers use on a regular basis. Scientists and Christian Scientists deal with this constantly from the Old Earth Evolutionary crowd.
One can hardly pick up a "Science" magazine or visit a "Science" web site these days without being bombarded with words like "Proof" and "Research", "Truth", "Hard Science", "Evidence" etc. on the same page with things you would not have seen from an intelligent source as little as 40, 50 years ago. Things like "UFO's what is the government hiding?", "Big Foot, has he been found?", "How do the spirits of those who have passed on tell us how to live today?", "Is there a gene that makes you do bad things?", "What would a T-Rex do if he were loose in a modern city? Find out what scientists 'DISCOVERED' about what really made T-Rex 'tick' and how dinosaurs 'REASONED' and 'PRIORITIZED' there social lives on pg 38." This goes on and on and on.
It is like trying to debate with an adolescent; hence my comment that "I really hope the author is 11yrs old." when he brought up the "super-intelligent aliens appearing and claiming credit for creating life on earth {or even a particular species} "(Obviously eluding to his own species) and saying that this would be a viable and plausible option for him changing his view.
See those ( ) above, those are my thoughts on and intermixed with the authors comments.... do you see the method now?
So, sorry but i just can't debate who created the aliens that John Rennie has dreamed up to come and "take some credit for creation" and change his evolutionary views.
Also i hope you don't intend to stand on the "Who created God?" question as if you just thought of that ground breaking halt to every Christians belief system.
Less than 10 minutes of reading in a good KJV would sum that up for you and i really think you should research at least that one question yourself if you intend to continue debating those who believe in the God and Creator of the Universe.
Okay, here comes number four: (Read Between the Lines)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
(This one is so very true)
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal (a 'peer' here means someone who believes exactly the same thing as you), and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. (Not only do they embrace it they require it.)
Conversely, serious ('serious' here excludes any varying view point publication no many how large or widely read) scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. (This my friends is a lie and I can prove it to you with no debate.) Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult {which no one disputes}(. In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
(If you believe this is true, put your money where your mouse is and log on right now to www.answersingenesis.com Don't take my word for it, you are literate, don't ask a friend about it, just go there and read. Remember its not about what you think about the results or the data or the evidence or methods, you are being lied to right here on this website that it doesn't even exist and that Lawrence M. Krauss and Barbara Forrest couldn't even find the information about Creation Science. You are being lied to right now that George W. Gilchrist found no literature or even an article about creation science when there are thousands and thousands a mouse click away. This lie is only one of many you have been told and i know that God made you are way smarter than that.)
The old same fuss about a subject that will always be discussed about. Just something I'd like to know... why on earth a christian would wait for Sciam to have an article defending creationism or intelligent design? It's the same as reading "Darwin was right, after all!" as headlines in Christianity Today. No use getting into an argument by using two diametrally opposite logics of thinking... but still, nobody really knows where Big Bang came from. Believing it was an act of God or just a natural result is a pure choice. And of course when you open a science magazine you know what to expect. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading this thread is exhausting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere in the Philippines, you know, a 3rd world less-developed country, there's no creationism vs. evolution debate. Evolution is accepted here and taught in schools with no problem. In fact, I went to a Christian private school and learned it there.
Most of the places where this is such a heated argument are first world countries where education is so accessible and supposedly of better quality.
I don't get it.
In the light of arguments put forward for teaching creationism alongside science;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf such an argument holds any credibility: Why limit it to the Abrahamic Biblical view.
I would put forward arguments for a much wider teaching of the basis of all major religions in Religious Education plus a basic knowledge of philosophy
Such an understanding would be of great help in understanding History, Politics, and Philosophy, and Psychology.
Additionally it would substantially broaden many pupils’ perspective on many issues.
Practically it would be difficult to teach such a wide range if information, if indeed it were possible to find people suitably qualified to do so.
Let me explain why that is...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen communists take over an area they walk into schools and begin teaching evolution.
When the Nazi's took over an area their first order of business was to teach evolution to the children.
In many of the underdeveloped or 3rd world countries there is a great need to teach evolution in an effort to keep the people from their true potential.
Anywhere people must be controlled and they are given the "choice" to comply or die, it is much easier if they have no belief that they in any way, individually, matter. Knowing your value and your worth makes you dangerous to a dictator or a collective society.
You are right in that our freedom allows us to have this 'heated' debate, and that freedom did not come easily. We are not and never have been a go along and get along society in America when it comes to our families and our freedom. We believe our freedoms are founded by God. We believe our Liberty and Rule of Law were established by God. We believe that our world and our lives were created by God. Attacking one belief is just the beginning of the attack on all.
It is quite naive of you to think that you attended a Christian school even if it had a Christian name out front. If your school taught Christianity it would be shut down and the instructors would be removed and possibly even face prison.
Envision for a moment that your instructor told you that God did create the world, and that he has a plan for you. A plan that is bigger than your society bigger than your government. That his law takes precedence over the laws of your state or province. And that all men are created equal and the you (and everyone else for that matter, male or female, black or white, rich or poor) have inalienable rights that no man can take away. How well would that sit with the authorities in the Philippines?
I know it is hard, but try not to be fooled into believing that the creation debate is new and only in America. Hitler would not allow reading or teaching from the book of Genesis either. He allowed "Christianity" to be taught as long as it wasn't taught correctly. You could teach about "God" and even assign him to the 'big bang' if you wanted. He just wouldn't allow you to teach people the truth, because the truth did not allow for him and his "sciences", evolution on the other hand was his justification.
Jesus said "My people perish from lack of knowledge"
Don't ever think that 'faith' means lack of information, it is the knowledge of things yet unseen.
Another circular argument from the scientism worshipers (aka pseudo-scientific scientist). Good job for scientists nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello, anyone here me? I'm from your black hole.
Sorry, I have been traveling for a few days, back to the business at hand of sharing a little truth with all you good people. (Read between the lines.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. (This is so true.)
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. (It is important to remember that these 'debates' are not about "how" but "if" and not about "amounts of relationship" but "if relationships exist at all". Not technical differences among evolutionist but foundational differences. No one wants to tell you this part because it speaks to the arbitrary nature of the "debates". Some people act like having a debate about ideas make them valid in some way when none of this deals with direct and reproducible evidences.)These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. (Biologist who are reformed evolutionist will tell you that delving into the specialty fields of their expertise is what woke them up to the misappropriated facts, not their religious beliefs. )
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. {Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.} Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory. (Please take a look for yourself, research Stephen Gould, his work even conflicts with what is stated as his beliefs in this article!)
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. (Ah, here we are redefining our position once more. You can research the simple keyword 'evolution' and find the falsehood in this statement. From its earliest development to the formation of a theory evolutionist have declared the ape a cousin, almost a brother, and that man is directly related. Only after recent 'discoveries', some of us were not surprised, in the Gnome and DNA mapping process where, even after all the propaganda pronounced great promise by the way, no scientific evidence was found to support this notion of relationship and only then did we go back to a previously chosen and discarded idea that there was some distant other relative who has a "missing" and "similar" gene that would appear in both apes and humans; if we could only find it.)
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. (This statement is a creationists point in itself! If that were true then do we have 0, zip, zero, notta, none in the fossil record of any animal, not just monkeys and humans, that are anything but what they are?! Every ape regardless of type is an ape. Every single specimen found regardless of variation is exactly what it is. Big chicken, little chicken, its only a chicken.) The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct. (The author here is attempting to shift back and forth between evolution and natural selection, two very different idea sets as I mentioned in an earlier entry. )
(Please see all of my entries and go through a few steps of research for yourself.
You will never see this call to action on the evolutionist side, you will continually see them state things like: "Everyone knows" "Everyone agrees" "Scientist believe" "There is no disputing the evidence" "It has been proven"
If I convince you of nothing else please let me convince you of this "You are smart enough to look into this yourself, don't stop and do question everything. Don't just believe me either! Go find out what is true.")
Here is a twist for you guys...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about an Answer to some Evolutionist Nonsense from my friends at answersingenesis.com :
Is science impossible without evolution?
Some evolutionists have argued that science isnt possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science!
Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible.
Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.
Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of Gods sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.
Evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived.
Here we go guys #7 ( Read between the lines.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. (This is the very foundation of the idea of evolution.)
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned (Show the work here on what they learned the actual data! and how they learned it, the process!) about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. (Here is a statement to stop the presses for! Let's hear that again: Biochemist LEARNED about how PRIMITIVE NUCLEIC ACIDS and AMINO ACIDS and other BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE......COULD..... have FORMED and ....ORGANIZED THEMSELVES.....into Self-replicating Self-sustaining Units and then they LAID A FOUNDATION FOR CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY! Oh my that is well spoken! So you are saying that "PRIMITIVE NUCLEIC ACIDS and AMINO ACIDS and other BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE 'engineered' a plan and then 'executed it' and carried it out as a prerequisite to be built upon by an additional step later in the plan! Now that takes faith!)
Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin {(for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago)},
There you have it folks the root of this entire discussion: "I'll take aliens over God for $600.00 please." The author is clearly prepared to discard his entire theory that he holds so dear if he could just find some little green men who would allow him to continue denying God and His authority and His creation.)
evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. (Once again I call on your intelligence, please, look up these two words: microevolutionary and macroevolutionary, and find out what they mean. These two differences actually define how the evolutionists misrepresent the issue.)
Ah, Madscientist and Mattastic from much earlier in this thread, where are you? I enjoyed the criss-crossing of proofs and re-crossings of validations/invalidations of your arguments. An open discussion, void of attacking the person and only attacking what you see as falicies in an argument progresses to a more open mind and discussion. By only attacking an argument, you can logically reject what you deem as false and, in turn, be forced to back up logically your own argument; by attacking the narrarator, you've effectively made that person null and void. And no likes to feel null and void. They tend to shout; they use those annoying caps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo toss in the philosophical sphere in with the religious and scientific ones: I have faith that there's an infallible explanation for everything, but I have very little faith that the mechanics of my brain/mind will ever be able to grasp even a small percentage of it. I believe in predeterminism, but I don't believe in a Being that determined it. I know what is truth in my own head, but I can never truly know what's in yours.
So, I'm sorry to see that I found this article so late and missed the effective discussion from half a year ago. There are some who are trying, but those darn caps are pretty discouraging.
" We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us. " Mark Twain, Following the Equator
Evolution is as simple and clear as can be! If you don't believe in evolution, then when you get a bacterial infection, you should get plain old penicillin. If you "believe in evolution" then you understand that "resistant" bacteria did not grow resistance "because they needed" it, but that the ones that are alive today descended from the ancestors that didn't die when they were exposed to penicillin! Those that had no resistance died. Those few that survived had some sort of resistance to penicillin. Those bacteria had babies, who were born resistant because they had resistant parents. This might all be God's plan. But. Either way, it is clear that there are bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics that used to work. If you believe in God, why can't you imagine that he invented evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it very interesting that one might believe in any form of 'god.' It seems that religion is really just installed in one from birth. Or one may run into something that turns their life around. Possibly a 'spiritual awakening.' There is nothing that really gives any real evidence behind creationism. I believe people are driven to religion by fear, misunderstanding, or installment. The only thing that is difficult for me to understand is the reasoning behind a group of 40 men writing about all these experiences. What was their reasoning?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also couldn't help but notice that somebody mentioned evolutionists lack 'faith.' Do evolutionists not have faith in the concept of the big bang?
I am writing a research paper on evolution Vs Creationism. If anybody has any helpful information, please don't hesitate to email me. I'm very interested in this subject.
ater.michael@gmail.com
I find it very interesting that one might believe in any form of 'god.' It seems that religion is really just installed in one from birth. Or one may run into something that turns their life around. Possibly a 'spiritual awakening.' There is nothing that really gives any real evidence behind creationism. I believe people are driven to religion by fear, misunderstanding, or installment. The only thing that is difficult for me to understand is the reasoning behind a group of 40 men writing about all these experiences. What was their reasoning?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also couldn't help but notice that somebody mentioned evolutionists lack 'faith.' Do evolutionists not have faith in the concept of the big bang?
I am writing a research paper on evolution Vs Creationism. If anybody has any helpful information, please don't hesitate to email me. I'm very interested in this subject.
ater.michael@gmail.com
As for #13, transitional species are important to the creationist idea of the Great Chain of Being. When creationists make this argument they are arguing against themselves
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA well written book on evolution is ' only a theory ' by Kenneth Miller, a professor at brown who often defends evolution in court against creationist. He is also a theist and the book does a great job explaining how evolution is correct yet it does not take away from a strong belief in God. This is the real problem, the way evolution has been taught by people like the late stephen J gould and other athiest scientist who want to try and pretend that evolution means there is no creator. The real argument for beleivers should be why the genesis account of creation is only a story and how comming to that realization does nothing to change ones beleif in a creator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real reason why there is such a conflict with evolution and not with other theories like the truely bizzarre quantam theory is that many of evoltuions strongests proponents have incorrectly presented evoltuion as proof there is no God. Some use evolutionary theory as evidence that there can be no creator. The devil and God are in the details. Read Ken Millers book, 'only a theory' and understand the issue at hand from a non atheist who understands that evolution is how where came to be who we are today and how this in no way takes away from the notion that we where created by God. It actually is a strong argument for our existence. The atheists can flame on but the argument is 50/50 philosophically. The only notion stranger than that of a creator, is the notion that everything came from nothing.....
The proponents of evolution have been twisting its relevance suggesting it somehow dictates there can be no creator , the true reason evolution has meet so much resistance is because of the ASSUMPTIONS of men like stephen j gould and others. Evolution is fact and it does nothing to contradict the christian philosophy that we were created/intended. Read Kenneth Millers book, ' only a theory' and decide for yourself if evoltuion contradicts your faith. Scientists who pride themselves on objective trueth and then present evolutions in the manner that stephen j gould did should be ashammed. I was disheartened after reading all of his writtings. If he stuck to evoltuion everything would have been fine but he insisted on playing philosopher too. Religion was only a method of moral values to him, not something real as it is too many people who argue against evolution because it has been presented in a way that appears to be in opposition to their beleifs.
Actually, scientist don't pretend or act as if they know everything. That is the job of religion. Religion begins with a conclusion that shuffles information that appears to support it. Science, does the opposite lending itself to intellectual honesty(unlike religion). Science uses the method of inquiry and methodological naturalism. Science will test and retest its findings and will not hold anything sacred enough to question. Religion makes wide claims based on unprovable ( but not disprovable ) claims and then announces edicts of punishment to those that do not accept their unvalidated dogma. Science is something you owe much to, all the while religion provides comfort to those that are afraid of the unknown or need some "Big Sky Daddy". Are you sure you want your children to possess the mindset of an uninformed and delusional person? Wake up. Science and true compassion and humanity will render religion obsolete. This isn't the agenda of science but by default it will do so just as easily as it made proof that flies don't spontaneously generate from rotten flesh!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with NerdType. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I have come to realize that every scientific advancement since heliocentrism theory has been viewed as tantamount to atheism. Intelligent design proponents accept that there is a natural causation to most things such as meteors falling to earth, but they refuse to realize that simply because there is a naturally observable causation, that it does not anwer the ultimate question of why such an event occurred. I think it's the same with evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been talking to my mother about evolution, and she flatly refuses to listen to any argument I put forth. She asked at least half of the questions in this list, and I answered them; but she just spouted rhetorical questions which i also answered. Then she told me that in fact I must be an atheist (I am not) because I don't take the first chapters of Genesis literally; and never once did she attempt to refute the arguments for evolution, the just retorted that I am going to hell for believing it. And it was pretty obvious that she has no idea what the theory evolution really states, and simply stated that it's just a theory like any other. I told her that I had read several creationist "science" books, and that I could not finish reading any of them because of the unbelievable level of ignorance of scientific knowledge that I have as an AP Biology student.
I feel the pain of anyone who has ever tried to speak rationally to a direct creationist. Does anyone have some tips on how to convince her (if it's possible)?
I agree with NerdType. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I have come to realize that every scientific advancement since heliocentrism theory has been viewed as tantamount to atheism. Intelligent design proponents accept that there is a natural causation to most things such as meteors falling to earth, but they refuse to realize that simply because there is a naturally observable causation, that it does not anwer the ultimate question of why such an event occurred. I think it's the same with evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been talking to my mother about evolution, and she flatly refuses to listen to any argument I put forth. She asked at least half of the questions in this list, and I answered them; but she just spouted rhetorical questions which i also answered. Then she told me that in fact I must be an atheist (I am not) because I don't take the first chapters of Genesis literally; and never once did she attempt to refute the arguments for evolution, the just retorted that I am going to hell for believing it. And it was pretty obvious that she has no idea what the theory evolution really states, and simply stated that it's just a theory like any other. I told her that I had read several creationist "science" books, and that I could not finish reading any of them because of the unbelievable level of ignorance of scientific knowledge that I have as an AP Biology student.
I feel the pain of anyone who has ever tried to speak rationally to a direct creationist. Does anyone have some tips on how to convince her (if it's possible)?
The manner in which evolution has been presented to the lay people by atheistic scientist like stephen j gould is the reason for the out cry over evoltuion. There are many other scientific theories presented simply stating the facts and there is no outcry like quantum mechanics and relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout science providing a true humanitarian guide for the masses I have to say you need to be joking. science is about discovery not moral interaction. Star trekkies unite but the real flaw behind having science as a new religions is this ' all humans are falible' the same scientist who said physics would be over in the next few years where proven wrong with the discovery of relativity and quantum mechanics. Scientist make mistakes just as easily as everyone else. Lets take a look at evolution and see what it says to the atheistic scientist. Survival of those who survive. The only true moral law derived from this scientific observation of how the natural world operates would be this: Do what ever you need to do to ensure your genetic material is passed on to the next generation. Develope a humanitarian set of laws from that. Do' WHATEVER' you need to do to ensure your seed will be passed to future generations. So now lets be internally consistent. You want science to be the moral voice for our civilization? Then derive a humanitarian law from the what evoltuion teaches us of the natural world.....survive at any costs and breed at any cost. Find some possible way to derive a humanitairan society from this scientific observation of how life really is. Do it and remain consistent. Atheist need to come to terms with what evolution teaches. If an atheist is internally consistent then there should be no moral gates to prevent them from getting whatever they need to fulfill the one true natural law..survive and breed. Love your children? No, they are simply your genetic pathway to evoltuion success. Compasion for other humans? other life on earth? Why? Be consistent and get the job done. Do whatever it takes to survive and pass on your seed. If you wipe out a few species in the process who cares so long as YOU survive and YOU have offspring. If you kill a few people along the way...WHO CARES!! do whatever needs to be done to survive and breed. Science gathers data and makes observations about what is observable. If all thats is ..is all that we can observe...then we are in a world of hurt because as human beings we have an inbreed inability to not see things as they really are. Science is a tool we use to see better
God here!,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am tired of all this debating/slander/ .......you have one shot ,
Ask all your Questions , and I will answer,
Hey,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bacteria are the same. They have a short life cycle so they adapt against threats in what appears as shorter time frames when compared to ours.
I believe in God.
And I really don't care how he did it.
Sometimes I consider that maybe he is just some pre-adolescent kid in a basement playing with his ant farm.
Christians shouldn't be so threatened by evolution.
"Science", shouldn't be to quick to dismiss design.
The bottom line is, if science finds cures for disease, better ways to grow crops etc. And Christians feed the hungry and dispense those meds, Then; I don't give a flying squirrels pecker. We are on the same team.
And,,,
I may get gas, but not like that.
Some one was having fun, or, a really bad day on the day of the big bang.
Hell, Maybe we are made in his image.
I just want to say the angry Christians on this discussion don't represent all of us. I have no idea who you're God is but my God is a loving, compassionate and understanding being. Since God created everything then he created the scientists. He gave all of us this wonderful brain and curiosity and these hidden secrets about humanity and nature to discover. To find out more about the world around us and the world in the past is to get closer to God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion everything in the world happens because God deems it so for reasons known only to him. Who am I to go against God? Do you think God wants us to punish people for being gay or for pursuing evolution? Don't you think God wants us to treat people with love and respect because they are all God's creatures and they are all human beings and God made them the way they're supposed to be.
I'm just sick and tired of people using God as a reason to hurt, as a reason to stay ignorant, and as a reason to hate. It is up to God to decide not us.
I would just say 'Mom, we may disagree on some things but as Christians we can agree that there is a God. He created the world and since he created the world then he must have had something to do with evolution and science.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe in creation who are you to "try" to prove it wrong!!!! I mean you can go on calling yourself an ape but i was made in the image of God. Oh and I am also a BIG fan of Dr.Hovind. I may not know much but just by just by watching Dr. Hovinds videos I not only believe but KNOW! that the world was created by my personal savior. You should repent for even writting such nonsense and if with a true heart God will forgive you. P.S. hope I see you in heaven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe in the living God who created me in his image. It does'nt bother me you can go on calling yourself an ape, what bothers me is you are trying to prove a lie. Oh and I am also am a BIG fan of Dr.Hovind,I may not be smart but just by watching his videos I not just believe I know I was created by this amazing, living God! All of you who are trying to prove creation wrong you should repent for writting these big lies and relize that you're made a mistake , and those who are on Gods side good work... I love Jesus too and I am so happy that I have so many brothers and sisters in christ!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am so happy to see so many ppl stnd up for the truth I'm sure God is too.Good work I whanna see these evolutionists/ athiests (if they repent) in heaven to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdid you readthe rules no bad language, yeah i know my tongue gets itchy to but is that how a christian would act?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou believe that you're an ape ...great! I believe i'm Gods image....you can believe whatever you like but you won't prove something as dumb as evalution to me. I mean seriously how old are you? look at what you believe? you would get me to believe such nonsense when i was in what 1grade
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissorry you're right but some ppl are just ruining other ppls faith and sometimes you can't stop them with love and compassion...thanx for ya know helping me out... i'll try to change and show our God's love...k?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt0WluTpFTg listen to this awesome song either you're a creationist or a evalutionist....i love this song a-lot hope you do to. oh and plz reply a comment to me ...k?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissoory the song i pasted did'nt turn into a link
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah if God is so Perfect ...and he don't Make mistakes ....how are Gay People possible?....not saying I think he made a mistake ...but you obvousley think Being Gay is taught , or maybe they have been hagging a around with the wrong sort of people, I know maybe they caught it like a virus.......just stop ...stop ...stop, not one of you Creationist have the ability to understand comments away from your own theory's .......you know what I don't even know why I am responding to your comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInfact nobody should debate anything with you Guys ...because there is no debate to be had .....Science is the pursuite of truth , and does not exlclude God ...where's Creation theory is the persuit of God while excluding Science....Science Vs Faith ........it's always been there.
As one who believes that the world was created by God, I can still keep an open mind about the theory of evolution in the respect that it must happen for species to survive over tens of thousands of years, true?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeaving out the big bang theory and the theory that man evolved from apes (if they did then why don't we still see apes evolving into man? Why are there still apes walking around?) then yes, evolution does and did always exist.
There's going to be argument about this for a long time to come. There's proof that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct but how do we know that the tools we gauge our proof on are correct? Hundreds of years from now scientists may discover something that disproves everything scientists today thought to be 100 percent foolproof.
I tend to agree with you my dear, that the "faith basket" is where I put all my eggs and I feel very comfortable and confident about that. I am the one who teaches my children about the creation of the world and man and who instructs them on how the world is going to try to tell them different and test their faith. You just have to be the example, that's all. They'll get it, don't worry.
I don't have a problem with Faith...I do have a degree of it myself , and yes if we discovover something later that Brings Faith closer to Science then it will receive my Buy in.......it just annoys me that some Creationist are willing to Fabricate to fool their own flock , there is room for Science and religion, but one is not going to cancel the other out , so I wish they would stop trying to do that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristians dont have to rule out science and reason. If you really read and understand the Bible and its history you will find out that the Bible is not just a book on how to live. Its a book of History! and it shows the history of the earth. It explains everything you need to know. Its a history book if it is taught the right way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really think you can really interpret accuratley something that was talked about for around a thousand years before somebody decided to write it down over two thousand years ago .....it's nothing more than a book of stories and fables passed on from one person to another ...over 2,000 years ago, but hey I am not judging you , but how you teach your beliefs to impressionable young minds ...example the Creation theory Museum...1st half of the visit consist of a anti evolution movie lasting 30 mins ......then they let you walk around ...and these are kids we are talking , I know a lot of adults have als visited , but they are old enough to make their own minds up ...the children are not .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known" is a statement right on par with something I'd expect a creationist to utter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure where the conflict is. Scientists may have discovered the order in which things developed or appeared in the grand scheme of things but the order of development in no way proves or disproves coincidental development or intelligent design. Knowing what path a car took as it rolled down a hill and knowing what items it hit in its path does not in any way prove whether or not the car has a driver. Intelligent design does not dispute the theories of evolution, for which there are many conflicting pieces of purely scientific evidence, merely whether or not there's a guiding intellect present. I would think scientists of all people would know that proving a negative is very nearly impossible especially once we get to microscopic and cosmic levels. I am curious as to what the writer's comments would be to the scientists who are also people of faith?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you stupid. Submit to a debate where the rules are set by one party of the debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy dont you send your evidence of CREATION to a review by NATURE and , SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN if YOU think your are right. Thats what all scientists have to do.
Are you mad. Submit to a debate where the rules are set by one party.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think creation is right and evolution wrong then why dont you send your evidence to NATURE at or SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN for review so the scientific community can see it
Sorry the bible was written 400 years after the alleged events
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those of you have a problem with the big bang
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi.e Nothing then BOOM - where did the boom come from ?
Quantum mechanics predicts that matter can be instantaneously be created from nothing
I am fed up reading some of the rubbish people are writing ref .– evolution
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you PLEASE PLEASE read something about it first – You don’t have to believe it just read it
1) Most of you are not arguing against evolution but the theory of evolution by natural selection (Charles Darwin if you don’t know)
2) This does NOT say that creatures evolved by chance, or survival of the fittest .
They evolved by being the most adapted, suited, whatever you like to call it, to the environment at that time
3). They evolved by a series of very small steps
4) Man arrived at the present stage by a series of very small changes in genes since we diverged from the same point as apes, each decided by natural selection to be the best suited to the environment at that time. We did not arrive here by chance but by evolution. Starting again from the same point but with different environment it is likely we would be different now.
5) Neither man nor other animals are “irreducibly complex” , There is NO big jump from single cell to complexity but a series of very small steps – that’s why it takes so long.
6) Evolution is happening now and will continue until the planet cannot support life. The fact that YOU nor I cannot see it does not mean it isnt happening. Remember - even if man is changing the environment, given time nature will adapt
For an in-depth discussion of Creationism, Intellectual Design and Evolution, try reading David Mills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso Christopher Hitchens explains in his books where no gods can exist and why.
Religion suffocates thought.
IT IS NOT EVIDENCE. PLEASE REST YOUR CASE NOW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPARTS OF YOUR STATEMENTS ARE WRONG - THEREFORE YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE A PRIORI WRONG. FAULTY LOGIC.
AND
YOUR SPELLING IS ALSO NOT GOOD.
Try reading "Athiest Universe" by David Mills. The Forward section is by Dorion Sagan, son of Carl Sagan. This book addresses creation vs evolution, and much more, using science. I got a used copy in very good condition at Amazon for around $8.00. Let me know what you think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyknowme@yahoo.com
Firstly I am not an American citizen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I were I would be EXTREMELY worried about the future of my country.
I am a scientist and believe that the evolution theory (by natural selection) gives the best explanation of how man and all others creatures evolved to where we are now.
But this is not what what would make me worried.
What would make me worried is the move by creationists to have creationism (or whatever name you wish to call it) taught as a SCIENCE your schools on a par with Evolution, physics, chemistry etc.
I have read many so called “scientific facts” put forward by creationists and I can tell you with certainty that they are not “scientific” or “facts” .
There is a “procedure” whereby ALL sciences progress their knowledge. This is the “scientific method” ,and is understood worldwide. Go to any science lab and they should be able to tell you what it is.
ALL scientists MUST follow this procedure in order to get there work accepted, otherwise it would be rejected
Creationist “scientists” do not follow this procedure in any shape or form. In ANY normal scientific discipline ALL their “scientific” work I have seen would be thrown out as garbage. But not so with creationists. It is published on creationist sites as “scientific facts”.
What you would be doing by teaching creation theory as a science is saying to science students. “In science you don't have to follow any established procedure, just get to the end of our course and you will get your diploma, certificate, degree”
Are you not aware that the rest of the world is watching (it is irrelevant whether you care or not). If you carry on there will come a time when the rest of the world will wonder whether any American student science qualification is worth the paper its printed on. After that we will begin to wonder the worth of any American research involving American students.
Then will come the “this American equipment, will it work properly or is it a pile of junk?” .
Do you think twe will be more or less inclined to buy it after asking this question? (I think less likely)
(It is irrelevant the actual quality of the product. Pose yourself this question – You are buying a car – You have a choice, I can buy this one which is more likely to be a pile of junk than that one from another manufacture. Which one would you buy?)
Do you not realise that evolution theory also applies to countries and people?
What do you think your “gifted students” and research people are going to do when they realise that their research is likely to be restricted if it is likely to be in conflict with creation theory? (You notice I said likely, this is because they only have to start asking themselves the question and it theory will start to affect their decisions)
Do you think they will be more or less likely to stay in America in order to follow their talents once they start to wonder. (I think less likely)
According to evolutionary theory this would lead to a gradual migration of talented youngsters out of the USA.
It may take a few generations but where eventually do you think this would leave the USA?
If I were an American citizen I would be extremely worried about the future of my country
hi person whats up? u sound so mean so i will say that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTO LOVEHUGS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you have an open mind about the theory of evolution (by natural selection) when you obviously do not know much about it. Nobody ever said that man evolved from apes, only that in the distant past we had a common ancestor (like the branches on a tree, all of them go back to a single thing - the trunk)
You ask "how do we know that the tools we use to prove the theory of evolution are correct" . Because thousands of scientists evaluate the evidence of others , (there are many scientific branches involved not just biologists), present their own evidence,all to ensure that the current understanding of the theory is the best it can be at any point in time .
Sure it may not be perfect - thats why they are trying to improve (or disprove) it.
Sure at some point in the future new theories,evidence, whatever, may change our current thinking. but at this moment the theory is the best explanation SCIENCE has developed to explain evolution
One thing you can be sure of- All scientists LOVE to pick apart the evidence, theories, of others. If ANY of them could disprove evolution theory then they would make themselves a fortune and win a Nobel prize.
(You may ask yourself why if those who say they can disprove evolution theory dont submit their evidence to the rest of the scientific community. Sure you can see their evidence their web sites but they dont submit it , I wonder why not? )
You say you have put your eggs in the "faith basket", But then you go on to explain your faith to your children and explain to them that someone will come along to "test" their faith (and by implication your faith) . I dont know how old your children are but if they are young isn't this loading the dice a bit.
The thing is, science cannot explain how we see the world, using our eyes as a projection device and a tiny place in our brains as a screen to play the movie that we call "life".It's a miracle that we are able to view a world of full color and depth, in a place where no light can come in. We dont see with our eyes or brains, the eyes and the brain are mere flesh. We see with our souls. And the world we are watching is being broadcast by God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thing is, science cannot explain how we see the world, using our eyes as a projection device and a tiny place in our brains as a screen to play the movie that we call "life".It's a miracle that we are able to view a world of full color and depth, in a place where no light can come in. We dont see with our eyes or brains, the eyes and the brain are mere flesh. We see with our souls. And the world we are watching is being broadcast by God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my experience, if a creationist cannot change the fact, then it's the definition that gets changed (there are no transitional fossils, the creationist argument goes, because Tiktaalik was 'just a fish', Archaeopteryx was 'just a bird', etc.). In the pseudo-logic of creationism, it seems that invention is the mother of necessity. And, 'Creationist AIG', typing something in capital letters does not necessarily make it more true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my experience, if a creationist cannot change the fact, then it's the definition that gets changed (there are no transitional fossils, the creationist argument goes, because Tiktaalik was 'just a fish', Archaeopteryx was 'just a bird', etc.). In the pseudo-logic of creationism, it seems that invention is the mother of necessity. And, 'Creationist AIG', writing something in capital letters does not necessarily make it more true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do creationists/findamentalist Christians or possibly religious fundamentalists of any persuasion believe in the physical and technological sciences but don't believe in the bilogical/evolutionary sciences
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question always is if a god created everything what/who created the god and ad infinitum
If E=mc2 is true (I believe it is, but I've never read the supporting texts), then energy is "eternal", it always was and always will be. Whatever we consider the "beginning", whether it's "of the universe", or "of life", etc., E=mc2 seems to preclude a "beginning". Some people cannot accept that concept. I think this is the point where science and faith diverge. Scientists don't need to answer this "question", whereas people of faith must.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think your number 8 argument is proof of a designer isn't it? You give an example of a computer programmer who designs a program which comes up with a phrase after only 90 seconds. If it hadn't been for the programmer, there would be no such phrase generated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, languages are not know to monkeys. They would first have to evolve to a level of a not merely spoken, intelligible, complex language, they would then have to have the intelligence to develop written symbols for it, quite a stunning feat for monkeys.
Tullman: Actually, Koko spoke over 1000 words in sign language. I have no idea if she ever wrote anything alike our language down, but I would interpret American Sign Language as an intelligible, symbolically spoken, complex language. However, because she doesn't have the same vocal equipment you and I have, her spoken language will never sound like yours or mine. And if she is so very inferior, why can't I easily learn to speak 1000 words of gorilla?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Mindo: When bacteria shows photosensitivity (a reaction to light), is that evidence of mere bacteria-flesh, or a soul? It truly is a wonderful world, I'm not about to contradict Louis Armstrong, but what provable evidence do I have that it's my soul taking it in, and my mere flesh is just along for the bumpy ride?
To BG1125: I'm an American citizen, and this discussion does not worry me in the least. I much prefer to see all the cards on the table, and come to my own conclusions. In Kitzmiller v Dover from just a couple years ago, it was ruled that intelligent design is not science, and therefor is not a legitimate alternative to be taught in school. I might have ideas completely different from my neighbor, but as long as I can see their cards, I'm all good.
I'm not being facetious in any way, I just have questions about creationism/ intelligent design that I honestly want answers for:
Is creationism supposed to be approached as theory? If so, I have Carl Sagan's invisible flying dragon living in my garage. How exactly can I prove/ disprove creationism?
How does proposing to teach creationism in public schools NOT violate the seperation of church and state?
Who exactly is the designer? Is it most definitely christian God, or is it just as likely Zues? Again, I'm not being funny, a designer theory was discussed in ancient greek theology. Silly greeks, were they on to something, and just clouded it with their polytheism?
Can the great complexity of living organisms on our planet only be assigned to a Designer? After 4.5 billion years (a staggering number, don't you think?), why is the purely scientific tree of evolution so distasteful and/or outrageous?
Perhaps the biggest question would be why? Why would I and everything around me be designed in the first place?
I have a document that says it's the definite truth, and it states that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything -- the universe, the world, and man -- with his glorious noodley appendage. But I still have to wonder, where did FSM come from? Who made him? And can he create a problem that even he cannot solve? Hmmm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amusement is mutual I am sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose 'scientists' who have zero evidence for beneficial morphological adaptation resulting from natural selection are whistling in the dark when they accuse others of 'blind faith.' Nothing is blinder than people who claim 'overwhelming evidence' that evolution is a 'fact' and then when pressed they are reduced to citing things such as 'well, these particular species can't mate'. Weak. Very weak.
There are holes in the theory of Darwinism large enough to drive all the Mack trucks in the world through, but so-called scientists are all busy playing a game of Emperor's new clothes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a born-again Christian, I think this article is 100%...CORRECT! I'm grieved by the current public debate of creationism vs. evolution. I think some fault lies on both sides.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe atheist who claims evolution disproves God is just as stupid and ignorant as the Christian who says the Bible disproves evolution.
I admit, I used to be a traditional creationist. But I'm fairly intelligent, enough so that I don't summarily dismiss scientific advances as some sneaky work of the devil. Over the years, my views morphed into something like: "Human understanding of science is partly right, human interpretation of the Bible is partly right, the truth is somewhere in the middle, someday we'll all find out the actual truth, so whatever."
Dr. Francis Collins' book "The Language of God" is what turned me around. It exposed all the errors in my thinking and how I've been influenced by Christian leaders--who are not scientists.
The entire debate would cease to exist if Christians would stop abusing the Bible by using it as a science book. The Bible is 100% true. But any truth applied out of context is 100% false. I forget where, but some verse in the Bible says something about the earth never moving, the mountains are set in their place, etc.
That verse was used to "prove" the earth was the center of the universe. Along comes Galileo and Copernicus with evidence to the contrary, and you know the rest. However, that verse is true--in context. David (the author of Psalms) wasn't talking about orbital mechanics when he wrote it. The Bible wasn't--and isn't--wrong. Our understanding of it is what's flawed.
The current evolutionary debate is in the same kind of position the heliocentric theory was a few hundred years ago. 300 years from now, evolution will be as well-substantiated as the heliocentric theory is now, and creationists will share the same status then as flat-earth nuts do now.
The Bible explains the why, science explains the how. Wherever the Bible and science seem to conflict, it's not because one is wrong and one is right. The conflict lies in our inadequate understanding of one or the other, or most likely both.
If it is true that a significant number of, even all of the most up-to-date textbooks on science in public schools and high schools continue to propagate evolutionary findings which have been demonstrated many years ago, by scientists, to be hoaxes and outright lies, how can any serious thinker be blamed for expressing skepticism, even extreme rage, towards those who make it possible for such propaganda to continue to dominate every field of science that the fertile minds of future generations are susceptible to?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomebody here repeated a question that I believe Bertand Russel asked, "Who made God?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me that question is no different than the question that I asked my Sunday school teacher when I was 6.
"How old is God?" is a question that I asked my Sunday school teacher when I had a six-year old mind.
The answer she gave me was simple enough for my 6-year-old mind to grasp instantly. I was certainly no rocket scientist. Also my IQ was a dull-normal 80-85. But I had absolutely no problem figuring out what she meant when she said "God is always".
I am constantly shocked everytime I discover the apparent inability of every fully mature adult who repeats such a question to grasp the simple answer or any similar answer.
Don't they see that to ask such a question is like asking "Who made infinity?" or "Who made that which has never been made and yet has always existed?" or "Who made the which can neither be created nor destroyed?"
If scientists or the public servants that teach our children what to think about life and everything around us cannot grasp what I and others who believe in an uncaused cause are getting at when we give such an easily grasped answer to such questions as the one that is attributed to Bertrand Russel, then they do not deserve our trust in their ability to continue influencing our children's fertile minds.
Unless one has a mind that is incapable of allowing anything outside of one's own extremely narrow perception of reality, I can't see how anyone could fail to be compelled, by the overwhelming evidence of everything he/she can detect, that an infinitely powerful uncaused cause has to be ultimately behind every effect and other cause.
I don't see anything rational, scientific, or natural in the evolutionist's position on the laws of cause and effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems quite obvious to me that the evolutionist has an irrational faith while the creationist has a rational one.
For instance, from what I understand of evolutionary thinking, the evolutionist is convinced that the effect does not need to appeal to any cause that is greater than itself for an explanation of its existence and behavior. In other words, the evolutionist would much rather put his/her faith in the effect as opposed to the cause.
The biblical creationist, on the other hand, thinks it is much more rational to put his/her confidence in the ultimate cause of causes and effects. In other words, the creationist prefers to put his/her confidence in a cause that could never have been nor ever could be an effect.
In short, it appears to me as if the evolutionist has chosen to ignore the well extablished scientific laws of cause and effect in favour of a take on the childrens fairy tale story of the prince turning into the frog, only over astronomical periods of time instead of instantly. The evolutionist seems to believe in a magical event that happened over millions billions or some other astronomical number of years.
The biblical creationist is not guilty of holding to such an absurd position.
TO "Shpakalaka"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems quite obvious to me that the evolutionist has an irrational faith while the creationist has a rational one.
NO – Evolutionists have scientific evidence – Creationists have faith
For instance, from what I understand of evolutionary thinking, the evolutionist is convinced that the effect does not need to appeal to any cause that is greater than itself for an explanation of its existence and behavior. In other words, the evolutionist would much rather put his/her faith in the effect as opposed to the cause.
NO – Evolutionists do not put their faith anywhere. They look for scientific evidence for the cause of an effect
The biblical creationist, on the other hand, thinks it is much more rational to put his/her confidence in the ultimate cause of causes and effects. In other words, the creationist prefers to put his/her confidence in a cause that could never have been nor ever could be an effect.
No Creationists only have faith that a cause existed – This is not rational
In short, it appears to me as if the evolutionist has chosen to ignore the well extablished scientific laws of cause and effect in favour of a take on the childrens fairy tale story of the prince turning into the frog, only over astronomical periods of time instead of instantly. The evolutionist seems to believe in a magical event that happened over millions billions or some other astronomical number of years.
NO – Evolutionists take the scientific evidence which explains how the current universe evolved over millions of years
Creationists believe in a magical event that happened some time in the past (Just WHEN depends on which creationist you are)
The biblical creationist is not guilty of holding to such an absurd position.
IF by “absurd position” you mean ”belief in a magical event” then this is EXACTLY what creationists believe
You say as a 6 year old you had no problem figuring what a sunday school teacher meant when giving the answer “god is always” when asked “How old is god”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt 6 years old you didn't figure out anything, you were just happy with the answer. I very much doubt that any 6 year old has a real grasp of what “always” really means.
“I am constantly shocked everytime I discover the apparent inability of every fully mature adult who repeats such a question to grasp the simple answer or any similar answer.”
If you really were as dumb as you say then I am not surprised you are shocked as the answer given is a “non-answer”
Don't they see that to ask such a question is like asking "Who made infinity?" or "Who made that which has never been made and yet has always existed?" or "Who made the which can neither be created nor destroyed?"
These questions could only be made by someone of faith as they pre-suppose a creator.
If scientists or the public servants that teach our children what to think about life and everything around us cannot grasp what I and others who believe in an uncaused cause are getting at when we give such an easily grasped answer to such questions as the one that is attributed to Bertrand Russel, then they do not deserve our trust in their ability to continue influencing our children's fertile minds.
I am certain NO scientist or teacher desires to teach children WHAT to think about life or anything, but that the universe and EVERYTHING is there to be scientifically examined, questioned and researched, and for them to make up their own mind.
I am certain that creationists want to teach children that faith is the answer to evolution, and cannot be questioned, especially by science.
Unless one has a mind that is incapable of allowing anything outside of one's own extremely narrow perception of reality, I can't see how anyone could fail to be compelled, by the overwhelming evidence of everything he/she can detect, that an infinitely powerful uncaused cause has to be ultimately behind every effect and other cause.
You obviously have a mind incapable of allowing (or even grasping) anything outside your own faith , as you cannot see the overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution.
To - Shpakalaka
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say how can any serious thinker
By this I assume you include yourself as a thinker.
You have written on 3 occasion. In each occasion ALL of your points are founded on your belief of your particular teachings (whether bible, koran, whatever), and presume them to be true.
However I have NEVER seen any evidence that the modern day contents of any of these is the SAME as when originally written. For the old testament this becomes even more difficult as the supposed events happened thousands of years before writing was invented. So there are thousands of years where the stories must have been handed on verbally.
And this is just the provenance of the writings.
Then we come to the actual contents. Even if you could prove the provenance of the old testament (which I would say is impossible) there is not one shred of evidence that the events contained EVER happened as described. You only have YOUR faith that says the contents are true.
To say that science is propaganda just beggars belief. Yes there have been fakes and hoaxes., but these are a miniscule proportion compared to the mountains of scientific evidence. At least evolution can be examined and criticised. Alleging a creator does not explain anything . Only your belief says there was one creator. Why shouldn't there have been several ? After all the bible says many times that there were gods (that is- the greek version from which the modern bible was translated).
AH! but your belief says there was only one, THEREFORE there must have been only one - there goes your faith again
I just cannot believe how anyone who believes themselves to be a serious thinker can have extreme rage against scientific evidence when the ONLY thing supporting their beliefs is their own faith.
I have extreme rage when creationists peddle their own propaganda calling it science, when the only thing supporting it is faith.
I concur fully with sarcosapien,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know it's the oldest game in the world ...religion that is.
and I agree why don't Muslims fight for thier right to have their believe taught in school, or any other religion ...they don't bother because they understand the concept of a faith based religion, .....if creationist can scientifically proof the existance of Inteligent Design ( like they say they can , I have read the evidence and it's about as far away from any from of scientific evidence as you are likely to get) then surly that will remove the need for faith ...as the scientific proof would have answered any question of the exsistance of an all knowing being.
There is no Debate there is only Religion and Science, why is it so important for Creationist to be push the point? and why do they need to be so hell bent on thrusting their believes down the throats of anyone that might listen, ?
Other religions don't try to dress up and devalue their faith by trying to change it into something more plausible to science in a bid to convert more people...maybe other religions have enough faith as not to worry about what other people think.
I can't speak for everyone, but I have Muslim, Catholic,C of E, friends and they all believe there own religions , but I don't get to hear about it and I definatley don't judge them, and they certainly don't feel the need to try and convince the world they are right and you are wrong...that's because they have a degree of faith , and that's the Key ...they believe totally .....if you can prove exsistance of God...then why would you need faith?.......talk about a parodox,
P.s . I have read articles in the past that cite that we are told by our scientific leaders what to think, and follow them blind , I for one (and many of my friends) had a great science based education and I learned about all different types of religions ...in a lesson called RE....not in chemistry or Biology, Physics, ...that would of just confused me , funny how Intel Design followers are eager to follow without question a set of theory's laid down by an insecure cult , ....well I suppose there must be safety in Numbers ...but remember , it's quality ...not quantity...that wins through.
BG1125: At 6 years old you didn't figure out anything, you were just happy with the answer. I very much doubt that any 6 year old has a real grasp of what “always” really means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShpakalaka: When I said “I had absolutely no problem figuring out what she meant when she said "God is always" I thought that most of you would be bright enough to see the statement in its context. But you obviously didn’t see it in its context since you completely ignored the first sentence in that 4 sentence paragraph.
In the first sentence of that same paragraph, I said I grasped instantly what she said to my 6-year-old mind.
How do you know that at 6 years old I didn’t figure out anything? Were you there? Better yet, were you me? Better yet, aren’t you just making a bigot’s bind leap of faith when you dare to make such bold claims about people you have never even met? Also, just in case you didn’t know it, “always” just so happens to be one of the most common words that every 5-year-old in Canada at the time when I was growing up had in his or her vocabulary. Maybe not in yours though. So, let me assure you that your doubt is misplaced or ill-founded.
I had what I believe was a flawless understanding of the word “always” just as I had a flawless understanding of words like “now”, “tomorrow”, “old”, etc. – Such simple words are not hard for even a 5-year-old to understand. Maybe you were never 5 or six years old or maybe your memory of your younger years is not as good as mine. I don’t know. But still that is not a good reason for doubting that a 6-year old can understand the sort of things I insist that I understood. I insist that I had a flawless understanding of the answer. My mind instantly grasped the association between my question and the answer that was given. I instantly reflected on the beginningless/endless nature of God’s age as I was well aware of the apparent beginningless/endless nature of the sky that I had beheld and wondered at numerous times when I was 6, though “beginningless/endless” was not in my vocabulary at the time.
BG1125: If you really were as dumb as you say then I am not surprised you are shocked as the answer given is a “non-answer”
Shpakalaka: You have to say that because either you don’t like the answer or you just don’t understand the answer, meaning you badly want to believe that creationists have no reasonable answers to stupid questions like “Who made God?”
Don't you see that to ask such a question is like asking "Who made infinity?" or "Who made that which has never been made and yet has always existed?" or "Who made that which can neither be created nor destroyed?"
BG1125: These questions could only be made by someone of faith as they pre-suppose a creator.
Shpakalaka: Now apply that same logic to the atheistic evolutionist who asks, “Who made God?” and what do you get? If your logic is right, then “Who made God?” is a question that could only be made by someone of faith as it presupposes God. But no, your logic is wrong, because someone of faith is not the only type of individual that would pose such a question. In fact someone who professes no faith in God may very well ask such a question because he thinks that someone of faith and someone who presupposes God will have no rational answer.
If scientists or the public servants that teach our children what to think about life and everything around us cannot grasp what I and others who believe in an uncaused cause are getting at when we give such an easily grasped answer to such questions as “Who made God?”, then they do not deserve our trust in their ability to continue influencing our children's fertile minds.
BG1125: I am certain NO scientist or teacher desires to teach children WHAT to think about life or anything, but that the universe and EVERYTHING is there to be scientifically examined, questioned and researched, and for them to make up their own mind.
Shpakalaka: I am certain that haters of an ultimate authority (such haters would certainly include judges, scientists, members of school boards, and teachers) in society’s most influential positions not only desire to teach children what to think about life and everything else that supports an anti-God bias (i.e., conviction or faith) but have actually succeeded, to a great extent, in making it virtually impossible for the children (of parents who have open minds to explanations that are far more adequate than strictly naturalistic ones) to think for themselves in any way that contradicts or refutes the purely naturalistic (i.e., anti-supernatural) faith of Charles Darwin and the legions of people in every field of empiricism that follow his tortured science.
A purely naturalistic point of view is by no means objective, let alone “real science”.
If anything, a purely naturalistic point of view (such as that which Darwin’s successors have caused to dominate publicly-funded educational facilities with) is far more subjective, objectionable, and scientifically flawed than any view that would allow anything outside of the natural to explain things that are inexplicable if the natural is supposed to explain itself without once appealing to anything outside of itself.
BG1125: I am certain that creationists want to teach children that faith is the answer to evolution, and cannot be questioned, especially by science.
Shpakalaka: I am certain that evolutionists, who seem to ravel in tortured logic and twisted science, want to teach our children that blind faith in the magical or miraculous works of a mechanism that is shrouded in mysteries that defy the imagination or that is incapable of thinking for itself is better than rational faith in the creative capabilities of an unrestricted being that is capable of thinking for itself.
BG1125: You obviously have a mind incapable of allowing (or even grasping) anything outside your own faith, as you cannot see the overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution.
Shpakalaka: Clearly, you do not have a mind that is objective enough to allow for the possibility, much less the probability, of any explanation (no matter how superior it might be to the Darwinian type / hype / hogwash that you have been brainwashed with) of your reality that contradicts that which conforms only to your completely blind faith in the obviously magical or miraculous fairytale-like capabilities of non-living and completely brain-dead nature, hydrogen, or natural selection, to bring itself into existence or to transform itself into any living/intelligent being.
BG1125: NO – Evolutionists have scientific evidence – Creationists have faith
Shpakalaka: Correction!
Both have faith. Creationists have faith in an obviously adequate explanation / interpretation while Evolutionists have faith in an obviously inadequate explanation / interpretation of the data that they observe in the natural world (i.e., data that is no more evident to Evolutionists than it is to Creationists and vice versa).
For instance, from what I understand of evolutionary thinking, the evolutionist is convinced that the effect does not need to appeal to any cause that is greater than itself for an explanation of its existence and behavior. In other words, the evolutionist would much rather put his/her faith in the effect as opposed to the cause.
BG1125: NO – Evolutionists do not put their faith anywhere. They look for scientific evidence for the cause of an effect
Shpakalaka: Correction!
Evolutionists put their faith in their ability to manipulate facts in ways that are designed to dupe the vulnerable and stupid public into accepting their obviously harebrained fairy tale and inadequate explanations so that everyone toes the line of their form of scientism (a dogma that pretends to be real science).
The biblical creationist, on the other hand, thinks it is much more rational to put his/her confidence in the ultimate cause of causes and effects.
BG1125: No Creationists only have faith that a cause existed – This is not rational
Shpakalaka: On the contrary! Everything about it is rational, for without a cause how can there be an effect? That is a perfectly rational question. The cause must always precede the effect – Never the other way around. Good old-fashioned common sense, assuming you have a sufficient amount of it to carry on a rational discussion about nature and science, will tell you that. Furthermore, the same common sense insists that one effect may very well be the indirect cause of another effect. Though it may very well be a secondary or sub-cause and although it may be equal to its sub-cause, no effect can ever be greater than its ultimate (or direct) cause and the ultimate cause of all effects can never be coherently referred to as an effect of any other cause, for the simple reason that no cause or effect can ever be greater than the ultimate cause of all effects.
In short, it appears to me as if the evolutionist has chosen to ignore the well established scientific laws of cause and effect in favor of a take on the children’s fairy tale about the prince turning into the frog, only over astronomical periods of time instead of instantly. The evolutionist seems to believe in a magical event that happened over millions billions or some other astronomical number of years. This is much harder for any sensible mind to accept than it would be to accept any explanation that would allow for an uncaused living intelligence to create and sustain both living and non-living natural things and the inherent mechanisms / programs that make it possible for them to diversify, multiply, and be self-sustaining within certain boundaries.
BG1125: NO – Evolutionists take the scientific evidence which explains how the current universe evolved over millions of years
Shpakalaka: Correction! Evidence (scientific or otherwise) may verify or deny an explanation. But the explanation is dependant upon the observer’s presuppositions, assumptions, or faith. In other words, the evidence explains nothing, though it may verify or deny certain statements of fact.
If you are suggesting that Evolutionists are more interested in the kind of stuff that serious inquirers are interested in and that Creationists are not, then you are convincing me that you and every evolutionist who speaks like you are no less religious and certainly no less full of religious bigotry than any religious fundamentalist could ever be.
BG1125: Creationists believe in a magical event that happened some time in the past (Just WHEN depends on which creationist you are)
Shpakalaka: Speak for yourself! The belief that monkeys turned into humans over millions of years is even more unbelievable than suggesting that a certain prince turned into a frog in a very short period of time. Perhaps the only difference I see between evolutionists and creationists is this. Evolutionists suggest that the effect is the result of some magical or miraculous selection process or mechanism that took millions of years to work. The Creationist, on the other hand suggests that the effect is the result of some recent miraculous event that was performed by a cause that is obviously more adequate than the one that Evolutionists place their faith in.
BG1125: IF by “absurd position” you mean ”belief in a magical event” then this is EXACTLY what creationists believe
Shpakalaka: I mean tortured logic, twisted science, hare brained speculations, and the like.
Fundamentally speaking, Biblical Creationists have a tendency to associate the magical with the diabolical, the Satanic, witchcraft, and the like. Likewise, they have a tendency to associate the miraculous with the ultimate cause, the two-thirds of angelic beings that did not follow Lucifer (a name that is often associated with Satan before his rebellion against Yahweh).
Colud it be that there is no clear way to prove either view? All I know for sure is that I have carefully studied both theories and have found that evolution actually takes more faith to believe than creation does. The theory sounds good, but I don't see much proof. Where are the fosil records of transitioning species? Why don't we have any idea how life on earth formed (The Big Bang theory is wack!)? The more I really looked in to evolution the more flaws I found. Could it be that you don't want to believe in creation because that means that there is a God who is more powerful than you? A God who you owe your life or at least your respect to for creationg you? Its not science that is keeping you from believing, its pride.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBG1125: You say “how can any serious thinker”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy this I assume you include yourself as a thinker.
Shpakalaka: Brilliant assumption, I must say!
How long did it take you to figure that one out?
BG1125: You have written on 3 occasion. In each occasion ALL of your points are founded on your belief of your particular teachings (whether bible, koran, whatever), and presume them to be true.
Shpakalaka: The 4th occasion was a response to the first post you made in your attempt to discuss the things I wrote about in each of the occasions that you are referring to. This is the 5th occasion and it is a response to the second attempt you made to discuss the things I wrote about in my first 3 posts. Mind you, I do not have all the time I would like to have to discuss this issue with anyone, let alone everyone, in on any discussion that may arise under the article that the webmaster invited a discussion about. If I am tardy in my responses, I am confident that everyone here will understand why. For the same reason, I am aware that you and everyone else who participates in this discussion may also be too slow in their response time for my liking.
The following is a quick answer to the charge that all of the points that I made in each of my first 3 posts were founded on a certain presumption or group of presumptions that had everything to do with my metaphysical convictions.
On the first occasion that I wrote, my point was founded on my observations of the blatant lies or hoaxes that persist in publicly-funded school textbooks and of the evolutionary bigotry that persists within mainstream media and scientific journals;
On the second occasion, I was not attempting to make a point. I was merely attempting to bring to everyone’s attention the blatantly irrelevant or stupid nature of the question, “Who made God?” in that it is usually raised by people who question God’s existence and who, at the same time, are well aware of the fact that the people being questioned do not believe that God was made.
So, if I was making a point at all, in this case, then the point had nothing to do with my beliefs. Rather it had everything to do with pointing out the nature of the question “Who made God”. I was merely trying to point out the irrelevance of such a question when applied by someone who is supposed to know that the ones being questioned believe that God has always existed.
Continued from 5th post…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I don’t see how my belief of my teachings had anything to do with the points, if any, I was attempting to make on the third occasion. I was merely expressing my amazement at how irrational evolutionists repeatedly prove themselves to be when they continually confuse “real science” with real fantasy. Equally, I was merely attempting to reflect the creationist reasoning that suggests what the natural laws of cause and effect affirm.
Frankly, I can’t, for the life of me, see how any one of my points could have caused you to honestly conclude as you have. So, I would insist, contrary to your bold-faced statement, that my beliefs or presuppositions had absolutely nothing to do with any of the points I brought to everyone’s attention in this discussion.
BG1125: However I have NEVER seen any evidence that the modern day contents of any of these is the SAME as when originally written. For the old testament this becomes even more difficult as the supposed events happened thousands of years before writing was invented. So there are thousands of years where the stories must have been handed on verbally.
And this is just the provenance of the writings.
Then we come to the actual contents. Even if you could prove the provenance of the old testament (which I would say is impossible) there is not one shred of evidence that the events contained EVER happened as described. You only have YOUR faith that says the contents are true.
Shpakalaka: I have much to say on this issue. But I am attempting to stick with the topic of this discussion, namely, “15 Answers to Creationists”.
BG1125: To say that science is propaganda just beggars belief.
Shpakalaka: Where did I say, in any of my posts that “science is propaganda”? Just looking back at it, any literate person can see that I said no such thing. I may have referred to the hoaxes and lies in public school textbooks as propaganda. But I certainly never referred to science as such. I am sure that everyone but closed-minded bigots can see that.
Cont'd from last post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBG1125: Yes there have been fakes and hoaxes., but these are a miniscule proportion compared to the mountains of scientific evidence. At least evolution can be examined and criticised.
Shpakalaka: Miniscule? Who are you kidding?
These fakes, hoaxes, and downright lies are too often presented as undisputed evidence in an attempt to indoctrinate impressionable minds with the erroneous belief that evolution is a fact of science or “real science”. Furthermore, they are never corrected as they keep showing up, year after year after year, in publicly-funded textbooks.
What is so miniscule about the fact that children in publicly-funded schools are never told by their teachers that fakes, hoaxes, and downright lies exist within the very books that every child in the publicly-funded system is supposed to be graded on?
What is so miniscule about the fact that most people are never aware of such misleading information until, say, some Creationist comes along and points it out to them?
What is so miniscule about the fact that public awareness of textbook indoctrination and propaganda in the so-called “free-world” is not much better than that which characterizes every Islamic society or closed system?
Also, the mountains of evidence in support of evolutionary thinking that you are insisting on are, in fact, nowhere to be found in the real world – not only according to the actual data that we have to work with but also according to your most revered authorities on the supposedly “real science” that you and your religiously zealous comrades seem to worship.
Evolution can be examined and criticized no better or worse than creation can. Neither can be demonstrated to have taken place in the past and neither is taking place now. Both are singularities that can’t be tested, falsified, or verified by any method that discontinuitists and uniformitarians use. Creationists (discontuists) don’t have a problem with this. That is why they are willing to refer to it as faith. Evolutionists, on the other hand, seem to have a very real problem with it, because it does not serve their religious purpose and so, naturally, they do not want to admit that evolution (microevolution is not what I am talking about), requires as much, if not more, faith than creation does or ever did.
BG1125: Alleging a creator does not explain anything .
Shpakalaka: Even more so, the same can be said of a non-creator.
Cont'd from last post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBG1125: Only your belief says there was one creator.
Shpakalaka: Only your belief says there were no creators. Besides, I don’t recall telling you what my belief is. So far, you have just drawn some conclusions that have no bases in the reality of my belief. So far as I can tell, I have not yet given you enough information about my belief for you to assume that I believe anything that you seem to think I believe.
BG1125: Why shouldn't there have been several? After all the bible says many times that there were gods (that is- the greek version from which the modern bible was translated).
Shpakalaka:
When referring to God as creator, Elohim is used in the Hebrew Bible. It is a plural form of the English generic term “God”. If this doesn’t answer your question, then I suppose what you are really getting asking is, “Why does it have to be the God of the Bible and not some other God or number of Gods. For an answer to that question we have to go way off topic. But if anyone is going to benefit from the current discussion (i.e., 15 Answers…), I think it would be unwise to allow oneself to get sidetracked. Let’s just stick with the topic under discussion.
Incidentally, what do you know about the Bible?
The canonical Bible consists of 66 documents (commonly called “books”: 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament). Only the last 27 of those books were translated from the Koine Greek MSS. The rest were translated from the Hebrew MSS. However some parts of the Bible were translated from the Chaldean and Aramaic languages.
If you don’t know as much as I do about the Bible and if you wish to stay on the topic of this discussion, I would hope that you would not pursue any issue that might sidetrack you. I want to stay on topic. Sidetracking only creates confusion and uncertainty. Let’s stay on topic.
BG1125: AH! but your belief says there was only one, THEREFORE there must have been only one - there goes your faith again
Shpakalaka: Wrong again! Just read what I said about Elohim as well as the other stuffWhen will you learn to stop jumping to irrational conclusions? When will you wait until you have all the information you need to make an informed decision as to what my belief is all about?
Continued from last post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBG1125: I just cannot believe how anyone who believes themselves to be a serious thinker can have extreme rage against scientific evidence when the ONLY thing supporting their beliefs is their own faith.
I have extreme rage when creationists peddle their own propaganda calling it science, when the only thing supporting it is faith.
Shpakalaka: Need I say any more than what I have already said? Your rage is ill-founded. Mine is well founded.
Shpakalaka:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I said I had absolutely no problem figuring out what she meant when she said "God is always" I thought that most of you would be bright enough to see the statement in its context. But you obviously didnt see it in its context since you completely ignored the first sentence in that 4 sentence paragraph.
A summary of what you wrote
As a 6 year old you asked "How old is God?" You then said the answer was simple enough for my 6-year-old mind to grasp instantly . You then give 2 sentences of rhetoric and then say you had absolutely no problem figuring out what she meant when she said "God is always".
My response was
At 6 years old you didn't figure out anything, you were just happy with the answer. I very much doubt that any 6 year old has a real grasp of what always really means.
I assumed you would be bright enough to read my response in the context of the paragraph .
Obviously I was wrong
How is this response out of context ?
Yes always is a very common word, but what has common usage of the word got to do with its real (as in actual) meaning and correct usage
When asked how long a very old local landmark has been there, or how long known you have known an aquaintance or friend, a common answer may be Its always been there , or Ive always known them . I have heard similar questions and answers many times and as an adult understood the conversational use of the word. But this was as an adult who understood the difference between the actual and conversational meanings .
(If you dont understand the correct meaning I suggest you consult a dictionary.)
If you try to tell me now that as a 6 year old you had a flawless understanding of the word and its implications as regards time, then I would have to refer to you in terms not permitted under the terms of the site.
Conversational understanding perhaps , Flawless no
You also say you had a flawless understanding of a number of words, one of which is old
Now this is a relative term as it depends on the perception of the timescales. A cat can be termed old at say 15 years as its expected lifespan is say 20 years,. However something else may young at 1 million years if its life expectancy is say 1 billion years. Some 6 year old children regard their own parents as old and grandparents very old.
If again you say now that as 6 year old you had flawless understanding of old then I would use the same term as before.
Within the experiences of a 6 year old a reasonable understanding yes , flawless understanding no.
You stated
I am constantly shocked everytime I discover the apparent inability of every fully mature adult who repeats such a question to grasp the simple answer or any similar answer.
My response was
If you really were as dumb as you say then I am not surprised you are shocked as the answer given is a non-answer
Shpakalaka: You have to say that because either you dont like the answer or you just dont understand the answer, meaning you badly want to believe that creationists have no reasonable answers to stupid questions like Who made God?
Why are you changing the context of my response?
My response was in the context of your statement as a continuation of the question/answer you had as a 6 year old. The question was How old is god? not who made god?
As an adult I couldnt care less about the answer you had, as firstly as an adult I wouldnt have asked that question, and secondly if I had I certainly wouldnt have accepted the answer given without further clarification.
I would also expect any mature adult who thinks the question (or similar question) has merit to require further clarification, as I regard the answer given as an incomplete and therefore non-answer.
Thats why I am not surprised that you are shocked, as you still believe the answer complete in itself. (Growing older does not seem to have improved your critical ability as you appear to still accept without question answers given to you as a 6 year old)
Shpakalaka: I am certain that haters of an ultimate authority (such haters would certainly include judges, scientists, members of school boards, and teachers) in societys most influential positions not only desire to teach children what to think about life and everything else that supports an anti-God bias (i.e., conviction or faith) but have actually succeeded, to a great extent, in making it virtually impossible for the children (of parents who have open minds to explanations that are far more adequate than strictly naturalistic ones) to think for themselves in any way that contradicts or refutes the purely naturalistic (i.e., anti-supernatural) faith of Charles Darwin and the legions of people in every field of empiricism that follow his tortured science.
So now everyone who wishes to teach children evolution theory (as you mention Darwin I assume you mean evolution by natural selection) are are haters of an ultimate authority and anti-god
I am sure that many judges, scientists, members of school boards, and teachers would be interested to read your opinion.
You accused me earlier of being a bigot because you say I made claims about a person who I have never met , however here you are making completely unsubstantiated claims against many thousands of people, who you have never met, and have no idea what their beliefs are.
110% for bigotry.
You also refer to the faith of Charles Darwin as anti-supernatural . Can we presume that you therefore believe creationism as supernatural.
Shpakalaka: I am certain that evolutionists, who seem to ravel in tortured logic and twisted science, want to teach our children that blind faith in the magical or miraculous works of a mechanism that is shrouded in mysteries that defy the imagination or that is incapable of thinking for itself is better than rational faith in the creative capabilities of an unrestricted being that is capable of thinking for itself.
Many times in your responses you refer to science and apply many emotive adjectives.
Do you actually read any scientific magazines or journals.?
All the scientific basis for all scientific disciples are available to be read by anyone, and yet you regard those of evolution theory as shrouded in mysteries that defy the imagination
Again I am at a loss as to why you think this., as the concepts of the theory is very easy to understand?
Have you actually read it?
I am also intrigued as to why you should think that this branch of science is incapable of thinking for itself when by your own admission you believe the theory is shrouded in mystery and beyond imagination. How can you possible think for yourself when you have no idea of the theory.
Shpakalaka: Clearly, you do not have a mind that is objective enough to allow for the possibility, much less the probability, of any explanation (no matter how superior it might be to the Darwinian type / hype / hogwash that you have been brainwashed with) of your reality that contradicts that which conforms only to your completely blind faith in the obviously magical or miraculous fairytale-like capabilities of non-living and completely brain-dead nature, hydrogen, or natural selection, to bring itself into existence or to transform itself into any living/intelligent being.
Do you know what objectivity means ?
How on earth can you be objective when you, by your own admission, have no idea what the scientific basis for the theories of evolution are.
1) On the one hand you accuse evolution theory of blind faith in the obviously magical or miraculous fairytale-like capabilities of non-living and completely brain-dead nature
2) On the other hand you believe a supernatural entity created the universe + all planets +all stars + all life from nothing in 6 days.
However you call 1) blind faith and hold 2) a completely rational position to hold
110% for ignorance. 120% for bigotry , 110% for stupidity
Shpakalaka: Correction!
Both have faith. Creationists have faith in an obviously adequate explanation / interpretation while Evolutionists have faith in an obviously inadequate explanation / interpretation of the data that they observe in the natural world (i.e., data that is no more evident to Evolutionists than it is to Creationists and vice versa).
Again you appear to have no idea of science vis-a-vis faith
At this moment in time I accept that the theories of evolutions along with the scientific evidence give a best (by far) explanation of how the universe came to be as it is today.
If tomorrow a better theory comes along, or scientific evidence is found that is inconsistent with the theories then I will discard them for better ones.
I accept that this could happen with any scientific theory at any time.
That is science
Do you believe that a theory may come along that is better than your belief in creation?
Should this happen would you accept it ?
If your answer to either of these is NO then that is faith
Sorry I cant understand what you are saying .
Are you saying that given a better explanation/interpretation of data from the natural world would convert an evolutionist to a creationist.
If so then you aint half dumb
Shpakalaka: Correction!
Evolutionists put their faith in their ability to manipulate facts in ways that are designed to dupe the vulnerable and stupid public into accepting their obviously harebrained fairy tale and inadequate explanations so that everyone toes the line of their form of scientism (a dogma that pretends to be real science).
Again you say science, this time real science
What is the difference between science and real science .
As you later refer to the well established scientific laws of cause and effect ,
. we must conclude
1) you are ignorant of scientific laws
2) that your definition of real science is science that supports your faith. (Un)real science must therefore be science that supports evolution theory
Oh by the way I understand there are NO scientific laws of cause and effect
There is however the principle of causation
You have already stated that the evolution theories are shrouded in mystery and beyond imagination. So yet again we must conclude you have no idea what you are talking about
Shpakalaka: On the contrary! Everything about it is rational, for without a cause how can there be an effect? That is a perfectly rational question. The cause must always precede the effect Never the other way around. Good old-fashioned common sense, assuming you have a sufficient amount of it to carry on a rational discussion about nature and science, will tell you that. Furthermore, the same common sense insists that one effect may very well be the indirect cause of another effect. Though it may very well be a secondary or sub-cause and although it may be equal to its sub-cause, no effect can ever be greater than its ultimate (or direct) cause and the ultimate cause of all effects can never be coherently referred to as an effect of any other cause, for the simple reason that no cause or effect can ever be greater than the ultimate cause of all effects.
In short, it appears to me as if the evolutionist has chosen to ignore the well established scientific laws of cause and effect in favor of a take on the childrens fairy tale about the prince turning into the frog, only over astronomical periods of time instead of instantly. The evolutionist seems to believe in a magical event that happened over millions billions or some other astronomical number of years. This is much harder for any sensible mind to accept than it would be to accept any explanation that would allow for an uncaused living intelligence to create and sustain both living and non-living natural things and the inherent mechanisms / programs that make it possible for them to diversify, multiply, and be self-sustaining within certain boundaries.
(Why is it that in my experience creationists seem to take an inordinate length of time to say the simplest things?)
The whole of the first paragraph can be summarised as a cause must precede an effect , along with a bit of personal abuse with a bit of Good old-fashioned common sense . thrown in, (for good luck I suppose.).
Interestingly you have added that your creator is living and intelligent . I dont recall the bible specifying that your god as being living or intelligent . What makes you believe your creator possesses either of these properties. Have you any idea how these could be accomplished by an entity not existing in our universe.
Firstly Good old-fashioned common sense is notoriously unreliable so there is nothing good about it.
Secondly There are many very new theories about time. I am not sure that some of them dont predict that a cause need not necessarily precede an effect. (i.e. time can run backwards, or something can jump from one point in time to an earlier point.)
Thirdly - Quantum mechanics predicts that matter+ antimatter can be instantaneously created from nothing. So you have an effect where is the cause? Or are you saying quantum mechanics is wrong ?
Fourthly - I am not clear on what you mean by greater than A thermonuclear explosion (effect a) is caused by the compression of a few pounds of uranium (cause b) Is a) not greater than b)
For your second paragraph
Summarised as
Evolutionists believe the scientific evidence of evolution over billions of years
Creationists believe in the instantaneous creation of the universe by a creator.
(- So your opening words of para 2 i.e in short is b.s. )
Heres the laughable bit You accuse evolutionists of choosing to ignore the well established laws of cause and effect ,
For a start. - My.understanding is that there are no Laws of cause and effect they just dont exist.
How can we ignore that which doesnt exist
(There is a principle of causality, which is what I believe you are referring to).
You apparently have not read anything remotely connected with evolution (There are actually a 3 theories which explain different aspects of evolution).
From these I assume that you are that implying that the big bang theory ignores causality.
Now you have 3 possibilities regarding your belief in a creator
1) The universe (that is empty space) existed before creation. Hold on dont you believe that in the beginning was a void so that leaves
2) That nothing existed before creation and your creator created the universe (empty) before carrying on
In this case before creation your creator must have existed outside our space/time continuum.
How did it get into something which did not exist in order to create it?
OR How did it it manage to create one universe whilst in another.
Do not both of these ignore the principle of causality, as I understand it a cause must exist in the same universe as the effect.
For creationists you also propose a cause but then ignore any implications the instantaneous creation of the universe would have on matter, planets, and stars.. When the implications of a creationists creation are pointed out by notorious scientists what happens? The laws are adjusted until they fit . Explanation Your creator suspended the laws of nature during creation.
When they were restored or how it was done is not explained. So much for scientific laws.
( In fact I reckon your creation violated several scientific laws that we know today. (4 immediately spring to mind))
The conclusion is that you believe it rational to believe that there is a supernatural being (I assume you believe it exists outside our universe) who can instantly change the laws of nature at will, with no scientific rationale . This I call faith, not rational.
Shpakalaka: Correction! Evidence (scientific or otherwise) may verify or deny an explanation (meaning 1). But the explanation (meaning 2) is dependant upon the observers presuppositions, assumptions, or faith. In other words, the evidence explains nothing, though it may verify or deny certain statements of fact.
You appear to be using word explanation with 2 meanings
Hypothesis as to a possible causes of a phenomena ( in your terms = explanation = meaning 1)
Evidence = observational data (from experiment or other source) + assumptions+ logical argument =>conclusion (in your terms = explanation = meaning 2)
Sum total of conclusions = support/clarification of hypothesis => accepted Theory
As you say a conclusion may support or deny an hypothesis,. However in itself it may explain that particular part of the Hypothesis it supports. In fact that may be the object of an experiment.
Shpakalaka: Speak for yourself! The belief that monkeys turned into humans over millions of years is even more unbelievable than suggesting that a certain prince turned into a frog in a very short period of time. Perhaps the only difference I see between evolutionists and creationists is this. Evolutionists suggest that the effect is the result of some magical or miraculous selection process or mechanism that took millions of years to work. The Creationist, on the other hand suggests that the effect is the result of some recent miraculous event that was performed by a cause that is obviously more adequate than the one that Evolutionists place their faith in.
Here we go again Do you ever read anything Its the old monkeys to humans B.S again
You obviously have never read anything relating to evolution (by natural selection) . Please read SOMETHING about it , ( you dont have to believe it, it wont contaminate you )
I like the bit about the prince turning a frog in a very short period of time
What is it again that you believe ?
Ah yes The universe created from nothing in 6 days. Not much difference from the frog and prince but on a bigger (much bigger) scale
Shpakalaka: I mean tortured logic, twisted science, hare brained speculations, and the like.
On what basis do you make these allegations?
By you own words you say that evolution theories are beyond your understanding. I would love to see some or your evidence of tortured logic, twisted science and hare brained speculation.
I do not see any logic of any sort, or science of any kind, supporting creation., please supply some
See if you are a Muslim who believes in the truth of the Holy Quran, there is no contradiction whatsoever between science and religion. The Quran uses words similar to the Bible, but goes into more detail. For example it says in three different places, that man is made from dust, he is made from black fermenting mud, and that he is made from dry ringing clay. Is is just by chance that these happen to be various stages in evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Quran says that evolution did happen, but it was guided by God. So there were no 'false starts'. Polar bears were not orange, blue, green and white and then only the white survived, only white evolved because they were suited for the environment. (if this is not true, then where are the fossils of orange polar bears? or of any other similar animals?)
The Quran also speaks of Dark Matter and of the eternal expansion of the universe and many other incredible things. All by chance or could it be that the Quran is the word of the same God who created all this?
AMuslim: See if you are a Muslim who believes in the truth of the Holy Quran, there is no contradiction whatsoever between science and religion. The Quran uses words similar to the Bible, but goes into more detail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShpakalaka: Incidentally, Muslim scholars have made it quite obvious that the Quran speaks about origins in ways that lead us to believe it has no strong position on any side of the creation vs evolution controversy. You say it speaks in favor of evolution. www.scienceinquran.com/creation_phenomena.html (what I believe is an Islamic website) says it speaks in favor of creation.
Also, the Quran says many things that I am sure are not stated in the Bible or that are in stark contrast to everything the Bible says on issues that really matter. The following examples may or may not be used to illustrate this observable reality (I will let the reader judge for him/herself):
"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble... Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Quran. 5:101-102; extracted from www.faithfreedom.org, the website of an ex-Muslim scholar who often refers to Islam as the religion of hate and who offers information that Muslims tend to cover up, take out of context, or explain away until there is no significant opposition to Islam or until the time is right for Muslims to not have to worry about it; it is the website of a man who offers $50,000, at www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm, to anyone who can, in a LOGICALLY coherent way, demonstrate that the authority that settles all disputes among Muslims does not, in a most convincing way, prove that Islams last and greatest of the prophets, that is Muhammad, was not a mad man, was not the originator and / or leader of an extremely dangerous cult, was not a stark raving mad sex offender, was not a rapist, was not a pedophiliac child molester, was not a man who was abnormally in love with himself, was not a man who had a grudge against women, was not a man with dangerous sexual desires, was not a looter or pirate, was not a man who loved to torture people and / or animals, was not a terrorist, or was not a stark raving mad lunatic)
Continued from last post...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following are quotes from the Quran and Muhammad’s official biographer:
Qur'an:9:88 "The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah's Cause."
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
Ishaq:325 "Muslims, fight in Allah's Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious."
Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
Ishaq:324 "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"
Qur'an:9:14 "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them."
Ishaq:300 "I am fighting in Allah's service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah's war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good."
Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."
Qur'an:8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."
The first 12 of 76 quotes that you saw in my last post were borrowed from www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.Islam. They are quotes from the Quran and Islam’s official biographer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the purposes of these quotes is to demonstrate the fact that the quran does not use words that are similar to the Bible as AMuslim claims, in any way, shape, or form.
The following 2 of 47 quotes were borrowed from www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Stupidity.Islam. They are quotes from Islam’s official authority on the traditions of Muhammad, Islam’s official biographer, the Quran, and Islam’s official historian.
Bukhari:V6B61N550 "The Prophet said, 'It is a bad thing some of you say,"I have forgotten such-and-such verse of the Qur'an." For truly, I have been caused by Allah to forget it. So you must keep on reciting the Qur'an because it escapes faster than a runaway camel.'"
Bukhari:V4B55N616 "Allah's Apostle said, 'The Prophet Moses was a shy person and used to cover his body. An Israeli insulted him, saying, "He covers it because of some defect like leprosy or scrotal hernia." Allah wished to clear Moses of this allegation, so one day he took off his clothes, put them on a stone and started taking a bath. When he moved towards his clothes the stone took them and fled. Moses picked up his staff and ran after the stone saying, "O stone! Give me back my clothes!" He reached some Israelis who saw him naked, and found him to be the best of what Allah had created. The stone stopped there and Moses took his garments and started hitting the stone with his stick. By Allah, the stone still has some traces of the hitting, three, four or five marks. This was what Allah meant when he revealed the surah saying: "Believers! Be you not like those who annoyed Moses. Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged."'"
The following 5 of 30 quotes of Islam’s official authorities were borrowed from www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Science.Islam. I think they give us a pretty clear picture of Islamic science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQur'an 18:83 "They ask you about Dhu'l-Qarnain [Alexander the Great]. Say, 'I will cite something of his story. We gave him authority in the land and means of accomplishing his goals. So he followed a path until he reached the setting place of the sun. He saw that it set in black, muddy, hot water. Near it he found people."
Tabari I:234 "Then the Prophet said: 'For the sun and the moon, Allah created easts and wests on the two sides of the earth and the two rims of heaven. There are 180 springs in the west of black clay-this is why Allah's word says: "He found the sun setting in a muddy spring." [18:86] The black clay bubbles and boils like a pot when it boils furiously.'"
Tabari I:233 "When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, 'When Allah was done with His creation He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size."
Tabari I:236 "'When the sun rises upon its chariot from one of those springs it is accompanied by 360 angels with outspread wings.... When Allah wishes to test the sun and the moon, showing His servants a sign and thereby getting them to obey, the sun tumbles from the chariot and falls into the deep end of that ocean. When Allah wants to increase the significance of the sign and frighten His servants severely, all of the sun falls and nothing of it remains in the chariot. That is a total eclipse of the sun. It is a misfortune for the sun.'"
Tabari I:236 "Allah created two cities out in space, each with ten thousand gates, each 6 kilometers distant from the other. By Allah, were those people not so many and so noisy, all the inhabitants of this world would hear the loud crash made by the sun falling when it rises and when it sets. Gabriel took me to them during my Night Journey from the Sacred Mosque [the Ka'aba] to the Farthest Mosque [the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem]. I told the people of these cities to worship Allah but they refused to listen to me."
i am a creationist if evolution were true as you say what is the evolution mathamatical formula.Surely if evolution turned molecules into men you must have a formula or demonstrate it in a lab but as i see 150 yrs later and millions of man hours to find a formula has failed.Please submit your evolution formula.Also show me the mechanism in evolution that adds to the gene count.As evolutionists state that things become more ordered over time how do mutations get new information no beneficial mutations have ever been observed nor ever will be.If bacteria have about 500 genes in its genome and humans 22,100 and evolution says we evolved from simple to complex tell me how do you add genes to the genome i wont expect and answer.I have many more for you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisim a creationist.so please all the evolutionists out there please tell everyone the mathamatical evolution formula.Surely if evolution turned molecules into men after 150 yrs since Darwin and millions of man hours trying to find a formula you must have one by now.Also please tell me the mechanism for a gene to add to its genome.Bacteria have 500 genes humans have 22,100 so if we evolved from simple to complex tell me how can a gene add to gene count since mutations ALWAYS LOSE INFORMATION NEVER HAS BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS BEEN OBSERVED NOR EVER WILL BE.Where do you get new information from?I also notice evolutionists say our brain evolved since evolution states things evolve after a need for a change.Science has recently proven if we learn something new every second of our lives it will take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the brain.So how is it possible if it takes three million years to exhaust the capacity of the brain when all we can live to is about 100 years.I will not expect and answer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi agree
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif the universe is billions of yrs old why are there still comets?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith regards to John Rennie, the author of "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" William Dembski (an advocate of Intelligent Design Theory) says the following at www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/john-rennie-on-expelled-for-scientific-american
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[Quote]
Given this abysmal track-record of “unintelligent evolution,” it is the height of arrogance for Rennie to exclude intelligent design from scientific discussion. In elucidating the problem of life’s origin, intelligent design promises to do far better than Rennie’s atheistic approach to science, and certainly can’t do worse.
[Unquote]
Only open-minded readers would care to see a point by point response and refutation of virtually every major argument that is raised in John Rennie's "15 Answers...". Closed-minded, die-hard, anti-supernaturalistic, wishful thinking evolutionists dare not be so objective.
At www.mbbc.us/creation/retorts1.htm the reader will discover how Patrick Briney Ph.D., a former atheistic evolutionist, responds point-by-point to Rennie's "15 Answers..". I think he does a pretty good job at exposing the obvious anti-supernatural nonsense that "15 Answers..." consists of.
This is an attempt to share some of my reasons for completely dismissing evolution as an explanation of anything, let alone a scientific one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. To those of us who truly want answers to questions about everything we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel, it is not natural, nor is it normal, for us to refuse to look outside of ourselves and nature for answers to our questions. In other words, those of us who are most interested in the truth are willing to look to nature for clues and outside of nature for answers. On the other hand, those of us who are more interested in being politically correct than actually correct, in the year 2008, or those of us who are more interested in pleasing our peers, in the year 2008, than getting at the truth, would certainly not be willing to look outside of nature for any reason. Keeping this in mind, evolutionary thinking is the most incapable of allowing the thinker to find answers simply because it will not allow answers to come from anywhere outside of itself or nature. Keeping the same thing in mind, creationist thinking is the most capable of allowing the thinker to find answers simply because it will not only allow clues to come from nature but also it will allow answers to come from somewhere outside of itself or nature. Therefore, it is more natural, normal, or sensible to think like a creationist than it is to think like an evolutionist. For these reasons, evolutionists (no matter what scientific credentials they may have) are bound, more so than creationists, to be wishful thinkers, religious fanatics, or bigots.
2. It is not natural nor is it normal to think that any natural cause or effect could be its own cause. Rather it is far more natural or normal to think that some supernatural cause, which by definition might or might not be an effect (depending on whether it is an ultimate uncaused supernatural cause or a caused supernatural cause – God is the best example of an ultimate uncaused supernatural cause that I can think of and one of the angels that God created is the best example of a caused supernatural cause that I can think of) is ultimately the originator of every natural cause and effect
3. Decades ago, scientists proved beyond a reasonable doubt that many evolutionary suggestions that were taught as fact in public schools were misleading at best and hoaxes or outright lies at worst. Those same things are today being presented as scientific facts in every publicly funded textbook that grade school students are required to pass their grades on
The is a second part of an attempt to share some of my reasons for completely dismissing evolution as an explanation of anything, let alone a scientific one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4. Leading evolutionary scientists will, every now and then, openly and adamantly admit the pathetically weak – even absurd – nature of the so-called “real science” that evolutionists like to dub their so-called scientific theory
5. Creationists are not the only ones who consider the story of evolution to be riddled with utterly ridiculous and bold-faced lunacy. Even the most respected anti-creationists and neutralists consider it to be no better than “a fairy tale for grown-ups”
Here is the first part of a Creationist's response to Rennie's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". That response is found at www.mbbc.us/creation/retorts2.htm#1._The_meaning
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following list of creation representations and claims (total of fifteen) are in the words of Rennie, and do not necessarily reflect legitimate creation claims or represent all creationists' positions.
1. The meaning of “theory of evolution” does not suggest reservations about its truth. Evolution is an unambiguous and compelling fact. Rennie’s answer to: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Webster’s dictionary and the wide-spread use of the word “theory” will not bear out the National Academy of Sciences’ preferred definition of theory and law. It is obvious they have a conflict of interest in taking on both the task of defining theory and persuading people to accept evolution as an indisputable fact.
Rennie’s first point is really an irrelevant semantic issue since the many definitions of theory in Webster’s dictionary assign different degrees of validity to it. All Rennie is attempting to say is that evolution is an indisputable fact rather than a disputable explanation.
However, Rennie is wrong. Many scientists do have reservations about the theory of evolution. It is but one explanation used to explain the origin and development of the universe, life, and species; however, it lacks supportive evidence for several of its critical claims like spontaneous generation and biological relationship between major groups of life. The intelligent design movement among scientists is evidence that evolution claims are not indisputable, unambiguous, and compelling.
Here is the second part of a Creationist's response to Rennie's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". That response is found at www.mbbc.us/creation/retorts2.htm#1._The_meaning
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. The natural selection of ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not circular reasoning because it is just a conversational way to describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Rennie’s answer to: Natural selection is based on circular reasoning : the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
Once again Rennie attempts to defend evolution by defining phrases. However, the following quote points out that even the reference to leaving the “most offspring” is tautological.
"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti- Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. And C. H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection...turns out...to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power...of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here" (Popper K.R., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344. Ellipses in original).
Rennie attempts to establish that “survival of the fittest” is simply a conversational phrase rather than a true description of natural selection. By one author disagrees stating,
"Another philosophical question regards the very definition of the word 'selection'. One of the original formulations of selection was 'the survival of the fittest'. If you open a standard textbook of genetics 'fitness' will probably be defined as 'the ability to survive' or something similar. But if the 'fittest' are defined as 'the best survivors' then the idea of natural selection becomes 'the survival of those best at surviving'. So what else is new? If there is no more to Darwinism than a truism then the whole theory rests on very shaky ground." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.21)...Continued in my next post
Continued from my last post...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe next quote points out dissent among scientists regarding evolution theory and the fact that natural selection is indeed tautological.
"I have quoted some voices of dissent coming from biologists in eminent academic positions. There have been many others, just as critical of the orthodox doctrine, though not always as outspoken - and their number is steadily growing. Although these criticisms have made numerous breaches in the walls, the citadel still stands - mainly, as said before, because nobody has a satisfactory alternative to offer. The history of science shows that a well-established theory can take a lot of battering and get itself into a tangle of contradictions - the fourth phase of 'Crisis and Doubt' in the historic cycle and yet still be upheld by the establishment until a breakthrough occurs, initiating a new departure, and the start of a new cycle. But that event is not yet in sight. In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection - quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology." (Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up," Picador: London, 1983, pp.184-185).
i'm curious. my field is philosophy, so i'll be honest that i'm not as well versed in evolutionary theory (not including effects on culture, and not including history) as probably some of you. now, i don't care, and i try not to have any bias when looking at evolution, but by the little research i have done, i'm not seeing how a methodological naturalism (in the strictest sense) must absolutely lead to philosophic naturalism. by studying the history of evolutionary theory, this is definitely apparent.... but anyway, that's not what this is about. i'm just here to learn, so here's my question. is there any physical evidence out there that just as easily couldn't fit into a different methodological and philosophical framework? i know that many have said that philosophical and methodological naturalism have remained separate throughout this whole ordeal, but be honest. historically, and even now, this just isn't the case. evolution, if nothing else, deals with the origin of the mind as we know it now. evolution is always going to be wrapped up in controversy even if all the creationists claims eventually die down (doubtful). anyway, the question is very simple. is there any physical evidence that couldn't as easily, soundly (based on all current evidences) fit into a different methodological base? basically, how are the id people (or any other basis, but that would take too long to answer) wrong on a basis other than the fact that some of them don't completely adhere to methodological naturalism? also, please leave out the quips and word games. i'm very good at them, and i find them very irritating. i'm only interested in the evidence, and so far, i have no allegiances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDaniel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour question, "Is there any physical evidence that couldn't as easily, soundly (based on all current evidences) fit into a different methodological base? basically, how are the id people (or any other basis, but that would take too long to answer) wrong on a basis other than the fact that some of them don't completely adhere to methodological naturalism?" is confusing.
It seems to me as if you are asking "Is there any...evidence based on... evidences that couldn't as easily...fit into a methodolocal base that differs from an evolutionary methodological base?" How would you demonstrate a way to base any evidence on any evidences?
In actuality, are you really trying to pose a question that goes something along the lines of, "Is there any position/hypothesis that is suported by evidences that are acceptable to the scientific observer...?"
Please clarify or be more specific if you will. Thank you.
Daniel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour question, "Is there any physical evidence that couldn't as easily, soundly (based on all current evidences) fit into a different methodological base? basically, how are the id people (or any other basis, but that would take too long to answer) wrong on a basis other than the fact that some of them don't completely adhere to methodological naturalism?" is confusing.
It seems to me as if you are asking "Is there any...evidence based on... evidences that couldn't as easily...fit into a methodolocal base that differs from an evolutionary methodological base?" How would you demonstrate a way to base any evidence on any evidences?
In actuality, are you really trying to pose a question that goes something along the lines of, "Is there any position/hypothesis that is suported by evidences that are acceptable to the scientific observer...?"
Please clarify or be more specific if you will. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbasically, is there any observed evidence that would never fit into an id framework? is there any observed evidence (this can be in the fossil record, in biology, whatever) that completely destroys the framework?
in other words, is there a good reason, besides science being methodologically natural and having a long history with evolutionary theory, as to why evolution has to be the only acceptable scientific idea?
I'm just trying to get some things straight in my head mate.
and again, thanks for the time. it really is appreciated.
Daniel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am no scientist! I never even completed high school, much less, acquire a University degree. All I have to work with, in discussions of this sort, is a little of my own God-given common sense and a lot of information acquired from both sides of the discussion and, frankly, I don't think it is too difficult for anyone in my position to see that no informed evolutionist can ever fair as well as any informed ID advocate in a discussion of this sort simply because the evolutionist, from the start, is stubbornly unwilling to consider anything outside of his/her obvious and extremely narrow-minded way of perceiving the natural world while the ID advocate is willing to consider such.
In answer to your question, I think you can be pretty darned sure that if the observer happens to be a naturalist / evolutionist, then s/he will interpret all evidence in such a way as to make sure that it never fits into an intelligent design(er's) framework. That is how narrow-minded scientism's orthodox position happens to be.
We can't blame the people who follow such a dogmatic position. After all, it is only natural for them to reject all evidence that opposes their scientistic orthodoxy or to re-interpret all evidence in ways that support it.
Anyone who happens to be unwilling, under any circumstances, to allow anything outside of, above, or beyond the natural can best be described as a stubborn narrow-minded / short-sighted fool, if you will pardon my politically incorrect way of expressing the conclusions that the obvious compels me to express.
One more thing I would like to bring to your attention:
If I can remember correctly what little I learned in the philosophy books I have in my personal library, science (i.e., physics) is just one of at least two philosophical methodologies (ways of discovering truth) that may or may not be at odds with one another. It is certainly not a be-all and end-all methodology.
Metaphysics (i.e., superphysics - a new term I just came up with), on the other hand, is the study of things which are damned by dogmatic scientists (i.e., religiously dogmatic naturalistic philosophers). In other words, metaphysics is the study of things which science (physics) cannot and will never ever be able to explain without resorting to some sort of religious dogmatism.
Oh, and by the way! I appreciate you expression of gratitude for my response even though I consider it a great pleasure as will an an obligation to discuss this very important issue in this forum.
What if by some chance someone would find scientific evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? For example a fossil or a trace of DNA. Do you think that any Creationist would object to this evidence and say "No, I am not interested in scientific oberservations. My faith suffices."?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sure that in the moment science becomes advantageous it will suddenly not seem as ridiculous and idiotic as before.
What would happen if someone would find scientific evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? For example a fossil or a trace of DNA. Do you think that any Creationist will claim at this point "I don't believe in science. My faith suffices."?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think that any Creationist would uphold its aversion against scientific observations at this point.
Leada,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArchaeologist, the late Ron Wyatt, claims to have done just that, found scientific evidence (a DNA sample) that Jesus Christ (more accurately Eashoa M'Shekha in Aramaic and Yahushua Messiach in Hebrew) not only existed but that He also died by crucifixion, was raised from among the dead, and is still alive today. But, I don't see why that discovery would destroy anyone's confidence in the scientific method of investigation even if it does turn out that Ron Wyatt's testimony is a hoax, which at this point I have reason to doubt, judging by his sincere character. You can watch any of many videos that have been made of Ron Wyatt and his discoveries at www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+wyatt+jesus+blood&search_type=&aq=2&oq=ron+wy or simply go to the website that he created and is now maintained by by others in his stead: www.wyattmuseum.com/ron-wyatt.htm
But even if it can be demonstrated to my satisfaction that Ron's testimony is a hoax, my confidence in the historicity of Jesus would not be shaken, simply and most importantly because the Biblical account of His existence is at least as convincing as any historical account of any other ancient or modern character's existence could ever be and even more so; secondly because scholars like Josh McDowell (www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Josh-McDowell) and William Lane Craig (www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig) have, to my knowledge, never lost any debate on His existence.
I just recently learned that William Lane Craig has not won every debate. So, I take back what I said in that respect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I did forget to mention that debates, especially non-exhaustive ones rarely, if ever, yield the kind of information that a careful researcher needs to verify or deny the truths of claims and suggestions that objective minds need to work with in order to make the wisest possible choices of belief with regards accounts of factual matters that come from outside of one's own observable experiences.
At www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm I recently came across a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D Erhman. In that debate I discovered Erhman's probability argument against the New Testament resurrection account. The following is my response to that argument.
In all probability I did not experience what I insist I did experience only one time in my life. But, in actual fact, I did experience it and I alone know that I did, no one other than the omnicient and I know it for sure. The reason being, there is no way, outside of my own sincere and consistent testimony that I can prove to others that I had a one time experience. So, probability rules do not and can never be used to prove or disprove certain things or anything.
Hi Shpakalaka
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill waiting for you to put forward any actual evidence of creation (any parrt of it you like) (I asked for some several weeks ago)
A few bits for you to chew on
Evolution (by natural selection) is not tautological (The way it is often discribed by creationists is summarised as "survival of the fittest because the fittest survive" is tautological but is NOT evolution theory)
I also note that still bring up endless quotes from numerous people/books.
Whats the matter cant you think for yourself?
You mention that "Ron Wyatt, claims to have done ... found scientific evidence (a DNA sample) that Jesus Christ not only existed but that he also died by crucifixion, was raised from among the dead, and is still alive today."
Remarkable man to do all this from just a sample of DNA (presumably 2000 years old).Just a matter of interest WHERE DID THE DNA COME FROM, and just exactly how did he comfirm it came from JC
In your answer to Daniel you say
I think you can be pretty darned sure that if the observer happens to be a naturalist / evolutionist, then s/he will interpret all evidence in such a way as to make sure that it never fits into an intelligent design(er's) framework. That is how narrow-minded scientism's orthodox position happens to be.
We can't blame the people who follow such a dogmatic position.
After all, it is only natural for them to reject all evidence that opposes their scientistic orthodoxy or to re-interpret all evidence in ways that support it.
Anyone who happens to be unwilling, under any circumstances, to allow anything outside of, above, or beyond the natural can best be described as a stubborn narrow-minded / short-sighted fool, if you will pardon my politically incorrect way of expressing the conclusions that the obvious compels me to express
I agree all this applies to creationists (changing all science/evolutionist references to creationists) but with the added characteristic of stupidity
I especially liked the bit about interpreting evidence, especially coming from someone who has not given 1 positive piece of evidence to date
hi Shpakalaka
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong again - Probability can be used to prove something
You also invent a new term for Metaphysics - Why did you do that -Is the current dictionary definition not good enough (but you got even this wrong) - or are you trying to lay claim to some scientific credentials
Metaphysics deals with the subjects science cannot investigate. (for the present) . Science does not damn them, or condemn them, or whatever, it just cannot investigate them.
For all you out there thinking creationists hold the answer just keep asking them for actual evidence for their case so you can investigate it yourself. Yoificu will see them attacking scientific evidence for evolution but I have yet to see any positive evidence from them that isnt lies, or easily disproved.
Some people seem to like to give endless quotes, but quotes are not evidence
Hi Shpakalaka
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain you dont read your own citations
In the debate re W L Craig and B D Erhman you said Erhman brought up probability to disprove resurection. However it was Craig who brought up probability calculations to prove the resurection.
Erhman mentioned earlier that historians have to decide what "probably" happened in the ancient past , but this is not same as probability
Just as Craig used the "likely" truth (i.e. "probable" truth) of supposed witnesses in the alleged circumstances to prove his case
I also repeat my earlier questions
Do you believe there can be a better theory than creationism (in whatever form) as to how the universe came to be as it is ?
If such a theory were to come along would you believe it ?
what can i say? i do not have time to answer everything, but think about these, and consider if creationism is so illogical after all: point 3: Human fossils not found in "jurasic" strata, sure-- but wollemi pines are! no alien has ever claimed credit, they too would have to impossibly evolve, but GOD certainly has claimed credit in a very specific way, in the Bible. and look at the world, scientists: isn't it falling apart at the seams as god said would happen, with monsters like hitler, mao, stalin, marx, many of the popes, people who specifically rejected god and found out the results. You wonder at the mechanics of the brain that makes people depressed and commit suicide; i'll tell u straight: it's because they think they are worthless accidents that evolved from scum. there are answers for those who really want to know, but u have to understand that god is not like us. Check out www.creationontheweb.com and get a bible. argue it to shreds if u will, but read it. i'm 18.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi again Shpakalaka
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the probability part of the debate you mentioned. Found 2 flaws in Craig's maths/reasoning (perhaps there are more- my maths is not what it was) His conclusion re probability proof of resurrection hopelessly flawed.
Oh by the way I think you (and others) are confusing tautology with circular reasoning (if you and others are not aware they are not the same)
Secondly wasnt the discussion supposed to be about teaching creationism as a science. Why all the quotes and discussion (by many people) re the NT - As far as I can recall creation only relates to a few paras in the OT nothing about it in the NT.
Still waiting for some positive evidence of creation
Hi Shpakalaka
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry but I have re-read your reply to Daniel and I think further comment is in order
YOUR reply to Daniel
"I think you can be pretty darned sure that if the observer happens to be a naturalist / evolutionist, then s/he will interpret all evidence in such a way as to make sure that it never fits into an intelligent design(er's) framework. That is how narrow-minded scientism's orthodox position happens to be. "
The scientist does not "interpret" the data in any particular way. If fact I would say a scientist does not "interpret" data at all. A scientists conclusions must be based on raw data + assumptions + maths + logic.
You are perfectly at liberty to take the same raw data, (or obtain new data), propose new assumptions, and derive new conclusions. BUT it is up to you to prove why any assumptions you make are valid, (and that the data was collected correctly).
It is of absolutely no interest to the scientist whether or not it fits into an "intelligent designer's" framework. Why should it ?, its up to you to collect appropriate data and draw your own conclusions
From all previous posts by you I think all readers can be pretty darned sure your thoughts regarding scientific theories are worthless.
"We can't blame the people who follow such a dogmatic position.
After all, it is only natural for them to reject all evidence that opposes their scientistic orthodoxy or to re-interpret all evidence in ways that support it and became a mainstream theory"
I have no idea what you mean by "orthodox" or "dogmatic" positions I assume you mean to personally accept currently accepted theories.
Isaac Newton's theories of motion and gravitation were universally accepted (orthodox?) from 1687 to 1919 (240 years??) when Einsteins theory correctly predicted errors in Newtons's theory, (and led to new fields of study).
According to you scientists in 1919 would have ignored Einstein and continued with a "re-interpreted" Newton. BUT THEY DIDN'T
Why do you think that was?
DO you think scientists in 1919 had thought it was time for a change so picked Einsteins theory out of a hat?
Or do you think Eddington's observations in 1919 showed Einstein's theory of gravity to be better than Newton's
(In fact do you now HOW Eddington showed Einstein's theory was better?)
Again you show either complete ignorance of scientific method and/or stupidity
Also - Do I detect a hint of condescension, or is it just plain arrogance ?
"Anyone who happens to be unwilling, under any circumstances, to allow anything outside of, above, or beyond the natural can best be described as a stubborn narrow-minded / short-sighted fool, if you will pardon my politically incorrect way of expressing the conclusions that the obvious compels me to express."
No I stand corrected it is just plain arrogance+ a helping of bigotry+stupidity.
You do not have the faintest grasp of scientific method and many scientific theories, but are quite happy to express your conclusions as to the origins of the universe etc. Based on what?- I have no idea
I also am not clear what you are trying to say in this paragraph
If you have any idea at all about science (which I have doubts) you MUST be aware that science can only deal with studies/theories in this universe (i.e the natural universe). It CANNOT by definition consider the super-natural (i.e outside this space time continuum)
IF you are alleging that because a scientist is "unwilling, under any circumstances, to allow anything outside of, above, or beyond the natural" therefore they are "narrow-minded / short-sighted fools"
Then plainly you are 100% stupid
Hi Shpakalaka
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy last post for a while (- unless you most more stupidity)
A question for you
The earth rotates around the sun (I assume you agree with this) at a distance of say 96000000 miles
Assume all current constants used in science remain constant.
Assume the sun is now removed instantaneously
What would the earth do over the next few minutes , and why ?
(You dont have to be precise - just reasonably close will do as this is just to see if you have any grasp of science)
Please no-one give any clues or answers until Shpakalaka responds. I will assume if there is no response by the new year he(she) either doesn't know or doesn't care - you can draw your own conclusions.
Hi Shpakalaka
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy last post for a while (- unless you most more stupidity)
A question for you
The earth rotates around the sun (I assume you agree with this) at a distance of say 96000000 miles
Assume all current constants used in science remain constant.
Assume the sun is now removed instantaneously
What would the earth do over the next few minutes , and why ?
(You dont have to be precise - just reasonably close will do as this is just to see if you have any grasp of science)
Please no-one give any clues or answers until Shpakalaka responds. I will assume if there is no response by the new year he(she) either doesn't know or doesn't care - you can draw your own conclusions
Perhaps the reason Shpakalaka doesn't answer is because the webmaster refuses to allow the member to log in to the discussion, meaning Shpakalaka can't log in to give any response or to enter the discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid that ever occur to anyone here?
BG1125,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a question for you. What does it matter whether Shpakalaka knows or doesn't know how to the question you just posed, especially if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a significant numer of readers and posters that the points s/he is making here, in response to the article under discussion, are valid and worth everyone's consideration?
Hi Y'all - my last post for a while I promise
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Daniel787 re post 11/26
In the last para you say "please leave out the quips and word games. i'm very good at them" you also say your field is philosophy
OH YEAH
You are not very good at writing concise english
You ask a convoluted question,wander all over the place and then ask the same question again, if that wasnt enough you ask the question a 3rd time (not the same phraseology but the same basic question)
You also say "evolution, if nothing else, deals with the origin of the mind as we know it now". WHAT? Evolution deals with many things but the origin of the mind - CERTAINLY NOT
Sorry but I must have a last post re Shpakalaka 11/21 then I must leave you all for a while
He complains that
1) Rennie’s answer to: Natural selection is based on circular reasoning : the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
as
2) "The natural selection of ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not circular reasoning because it is just a conversational way to describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances."
because Rennie "defined phrases"
WHAT??? Can anyone see where Rennie defined a phrase because I cant?
Para 2) is not circular reasoning as "survival of the fittest" is just a single simplified explanation
Para 1) is a tautology
(a) If during a football game you ask "who wins the game" A simple answer could be "the one who scores most points"
b) If after the game you ask why did a particular team win? The simple answer is "Because they scored most points"
If the questioner puts a) + b) together. he gets "The team who scores most points wins the game, and the winner is the team who scored most points
This is a tautology (Shpakalaka and others do not appear to know the difference between a tautology and circular reasoning)
The questioner is also stupid as answer a) answers question b))
(Personally I believe creationists ask 2 questions
A) Which species will survive - simple answer - the fittest
B) Why did this species survive - simple answer - because it was the fittest
They then put the 2 together and get - The fittest survive because they are the fittest (remarkably similar to 1))
He(Shpakalaka) then goes on to post 2 long quotes (yet again)
(I really dont know why he keeps doing this as he appears either not to read or not understand them)
The first just says that something is Tautological
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A TAUTOLOGY EXCEPT THAT IT CONTAINS REDUNDANT OR NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
In the second the writer assumes a book will "probably" define "fitness" as "the ability to survive"
(Evolution theory does not define evolution by natural selection as the "fitness" or "the ability to survive" or anything similar.)
The writer then goes on to define "fittest" as "the best survivors" and constructs a new definition as "the survival of those best at surviving"
So the writer alleges "probable" phraseology using definitions not used in evolution, adds a new definition all his own,constructs a new meaning, and says this is a truism.
OF COURSE IT IS THE WRITER CONSTRUCTED IT THAT WAY
Congratulations yet again a failure
Supernaturalist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi,
It doesn't really matter except that whoever it is keeps expressing opinions about the validity of scientific theories.So far every actual scientific reference made has been complete rubbish. Claims have been implied re considerations science vs creationism (of any kind), but personally I have seen no evidence that the poster has ANY knowledge of science theory to consider. Reference keeps being made re common sense. The question I asked is simply an attempt to identify to anyone interested if the writer has any scientific knowledge, or will common sense prevail (that why asked WHY a particular answer is given)
Personally I believe common sense to be notoriously unreliable in giving correct answers to questions. Perhaps you dont
Do you not think it relevent that someone posting definitive statements relating to science or scientific theories or answering scientific posts have some scientific knowledge ?
Personally I do .
I have just posted a response to comments made last month re claims than Evolutionist answers to creationism are incorrect. Please read them and the original response. .
1) Is my analysis correct?
2) Should anyone with even moderate knowledge of science come to the same conclusion (assuming they were to analyse the post)?
Personally I dont believe a lot of people bother to analyse posts or read actual citations and thats where the problem arises. They tend to believe that people making definitive statements know what they're talking about.
I understood the point of the exercise was to discuss the validity of teaching creationism (as a science?) in schools .Or isn't it ?
Hi BG1125,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems quite obvious to me that Shpakalaka does not consider evolution to be a scientific theory. I think s/he is expressing his/her outrage at what s/he feels is a materialist’s audacity to confuse an unscientific fairy tale with a scientific theory and then to turn around and accuse creationists of the same.
Complete rubbish? Please explain. How complete?
So far, you are the only one that I am aware of who has referred to his/her references as such. Where are you coming from or where are you intending to take Shpakalaka with this line of reasoning?
I see no rubbish in the reference that pointed to a qualified creationist’s response to the article that this discussion is all about.
You brought to our attention some things against that response that you wanted us to consider. However, some of us, like Shpakalaka, may not be as well versed in scientific matters as you may happen to be. So, naturally we would want to see what the creationist might say in response to your critique of his work.
Incidentally, do you expect every rational individual to consider your critique to be the final word (i.e., the word that proves once and for all that the creationist’s response is “complete rubbish”) when we have little or no reason to believe that he has an opportunity to respond to your critique?
You obviously thought it was worth your while to expose what you consider to be error within the creationist’s response.
Did you not expect any response from a qualified creationist?
Would you think it fair if no creationist were given an opportunity to respond to anything that evolutionists say against them?
Do you think it is impossible for a creationist to be considered a scientist, even though he may have the same credentials as or better credentials than evolutionists do?
Please pardon my ignorance. I have never come across a statement like yours from anyone else. Are you suggesting that Webster is wrong when he defines common sense as: “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts” (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common+sense)?
So long as the poster has some knowledge that is scientific he doesn’t need to have a scientific knowledge that is academic to post authoritative statements relating to science. After all, knowledge that is based on personal experiences and observations of every day realities can go a long way in helping us to define what is and isn’t scientific.
Where are the comments you talk about?
Science provides answers to questions based on what can be tested. Science does not pretend to have answers to questions that can't be tested. Why is it so difficult for you to realize that your church is the one pretending to have answers, not science. You can teach your child whatever you want. If you don't want your child to understand the way science views the world, then enroll him or her in a religious school. I want my children to have an honest view of life. A life where it's okay to say, we don't have answers to everything. Science is honest in this way, religion is not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, I would argue that in comparing the character of most religious figures to the character of most scientists. The result would not be favorable to religious figures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you seem to be well read when it comes to evil evolutionists. In your unbiased search did you uncover any "evil" people who aspoused other religious affiliations? or is that an unfair argument. Furthermore, is it your belief that the type of god one chooses to worship is more important than the fundamental "ways" by which one lives. If your perception of GOD involves condemning people because of which religion they chose. Then I would rather have no god. Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King---all individuals who taught non-violence, sacraficed and lived "good lives" but had different "faith". According to this one religion approach, are condemned despite their noble efforts. This is why religious logic is so fundamentally flawed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAND JACK CLIMBED THE BEANSTALK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSANTA FLIES IN HIS SLEIGH
THE TOOTH FAIRY GIVES MONEY FOR MOLARS
AND THE GOD DEBATE CONTINUES ALL DAY!
Hi every one, I want to provide some answers to the claims made in the article, to the level of my highshcool ability. as to point 4, there are specific journals for creation science such as CREATION MAGAZINE and TJ.how does the author expect creationist scientists to be able to present their findings in journals edited by avowed evolutionists who already claim that there is no merit in creationism? Scientists are just normal people like the rest of us, who lie,bully, and ignore opposing views. does this really surprise you? have you actually replaced God with scientists? point 7: Now this is where the really good stuff comes in. the author claims that numerous evolutionary studies of chemistry have verified that early life could have begun by natural processes alone. He didn't refer to a single one, nor its subject. So check this out: the building blocks of proteins, aminoacids, are exclusively "left-handed" (a bit complicated) in living things; no example of aminoacids arising spontaneously have ever been recorded; and when they have been produced in a lab (by INTELLIGENCE and by using the pre-existing parts of old aminoacids), both left and right-handed acids have been produced in equal amounts. The funny thing is, left and right-handed aminoacids cancel, or destroy each other! So in the imaginary chemical soup that the world previously "was" (which has no evidence, but is theorised of necessity for evolution), how did these aminoacids form spontaneously (by natural processes), as both kinds must neccessarily be formed and would destroy each other= no life!! God bless you all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell freedominchrist you are mistaken. I will provide you with the reference which you are lacking. The Miller-Urey experiment conducted all the way back in 1953 involved simulating the conditions of an early atmosphere. They found that in a closed system with the gases methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen. Combined with simulated lightning--electric charge, in just one week they formed--by accident amino acide--the building blocks of proteins. Check it out for yourself, sorry to dissapoint. Just remeber that science does not address the supernatural--traditionally. There is no need for faith to feel threatened by science. I am not deeply religious and I am a scientist. I consider it an act of hubris to presume despite evidence to the contrary, that human beings understand genesis. It's foolish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html
OMG u guys are so ignorant!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno creator??? obviously everything was put where it is completely by mistake... READ THE QURAN. u want science its in there... from finger prints to the big bang!!!!
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH SERGIO. 100%
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisu want science... real science. it in the quran. from fingerprints to the big bang
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH SERGIO. 100%
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisu want science... real science. it in the quran. from fingerprints to the big bang
Even IF Intelligent Design was a viable theory, which creation theory should be taught?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, who touched a rock with his noodley appendages and created the world. Our concept of 'science' is just him messing with our perception of reality.
Or maybe the Scientology version? That an evil alien warlord (Xenu) froze half his population and brought them to Earth in spaceships resembling DC-10s, dropped the frozen chunks into volcanoes and exploded them with thermonuclear bombs. The dead ghosts of the aliens (Thetans) enter our bodies today and make us feel emotions.
Or maybe one of the more 'established' religions?
then you are admitting that your beliefs cannot taken on their own merit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand the big mistake that people happen to make is they tend to think "know" and "belief" are interchangable
hate to burst that bubble,
but their not.
seeing may be beliving[and vice versa]
but believing is not knowing.
you dont anything to believe in anything. all you need to do is believe.
Knowledge is something that takes, facts, that can be tested[time and time again] and various other sources of peer-reveiwed[which might i add "peer-veiwed" is more or the less the butchering of your work to find out what is wrong with it and it flaws so they can point them out to you, and if you pass your welcomed with open arms] its kinda like a scientific baptism by fire.
and whos god is perfect? your god? my god? their god? whos god?
and how is god perfect?
not perfect to me. perfect is an opinion. what may be perfect to one people[or group may be completly disorderly to another person[or group]
in my opinion jesus was to fuckign short. not big enough, he coulda shaved more often, i dont liek his sandles, i dont want to see his dirty unclipped toe nails.
he's not perfect. Gods not perfect. not enough arms. at least vishnu had 8 arms. not thats divine. and hes not perfect because he's to lazy to do anything himself. thast why he "sends" an angel..which makes think maybe he subject to physical laws? he had to "send" an angel. indicating he had to traverse distance. if god was sooo perfect he wouldnt have to rely on people like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps and George Bush to spread his Gospel.
not to mention you try to argue about SCIENCE of a SCIENTIFIC website devoted to SCIENCE. your arguments presents nothing of any value. all it does is showcase your blind-willingness to ignore things and try to feel by what evolution says[while at the same time throwing the same tired old predictible creationist jargon]
and lets say their is some god, whether it be of the 3 abrahamic religions, or the various other pagan,buddist, cult,occult etc etc religions, then it beyond doubt[except only to delusional americans like yourself] that this various invisible man in the sky has used evolution as the design to which has come to exist.
ohhh, and faith is not a virtue its a determent.
and in extreme cases.
a mental disorder.
sooo operating on nothing but faith as you wonderfully infallible servent of god you are, then you must believe we live in a flat world surrounded by a crystal firmament and that stars are set in fixed place [continued]
Evolution and the Bible cannot mix. If you believe that the Bible is true, then you obviously have to reject evolution. If you believe that you accidentally came from some dumb monkey running around millions of years ago, why bother with believing in any kind of faith in general and the Bible in particular? You have no purpose on earth and when you die, you are "dead all over, just like Rover". I am assuming this is what the vast majority of Darwinists believe. I am always puzzled why evolutionists insist that the Bible and Darwin are compatable. I am assuming that a) they do not want to be tagged with the atheist label, and b) they want to con Christians into buying into the evolution lie. I am further puzzled why evolutionists get so upset that so many people do not agree with their bizarre theories on the origin of species. The last time I checked, it's a free country. I firmly believe that I was created in the image of God, just as the Bible says. Why should that upset anyone? If evolutionists want to believe they are little more than high-level monkeys, I say go right ahead. You are mistaken,but I am hardly upset with your mis-guided thinking. Like I said, it's a free country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution and the Bible do not mix. If you truly believe in the Bible, then obviously you have to reject evolution and all of its manifistations. If, on the other hand, you believe that you accidentally came from dumb monkeys running around millions of years ago, then why have any kind of faith in general and belief in the Bible in particular? You have no purpose on earth and when you die, it's lights out forever. Evolutionists get so upset that so many people reject their bizarre and unproven theories about the origin of man. Why? The last time I checked, it's a free country. We can formulate our belief systems as we deem logical. I firmly believe that I was created in the image of God, have responibilities while here on earth, and am given the promise of everlasting life if obedient to death. I did NOT mindlessly come from the slime of life zillions of years ago. Why that should upset anyone is beyond me. As for me, I could care less what evolutionists believe and think, but would affirm they are grossly in error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Federal courts have ruled that Atheism is a religion (religious point of view, even if it is by definition the absence of Deity) and that Evolution is its creation story. Legally, the issue has already been answered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, both sides (Creationists and Evolutionists) often fail to see their own prejudices and also fail to see the value of the other opinion. For example, the faith of Creationists has played an important and valuable role in formulating and establishing moral norms for societies around the world. simply because current science disagrees is not a reason to discard the thousands-years-old values of Religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and others.
Creationists often fail to appreciate the order and structure that science documents when it comes to species variation. While it can be said that not a single living person has ever witnessed evolution from start to finish, there is no doubt that specific species are so uniquely adapted to their environments that it is logical to question if a particular creature adapted in some way to an environment - even if only its behavior.
Many people of faith believe that God created everything, but do not dispute that God may have used the process of evolution for some or all of it. In the end, both choices are matters of faith, whether Creation or Evolution, because we will never actually witness a complete process of Evolution, and nobody living on this planet witnessed the original creation. I just hope that both sides can begin to appreciate the other and disagree respectfully.
Evolution and IT are both correct. The failure to integrate the two is the fault of extremists at both ends of the polemic. Evolution seeks to describe the "how" of our physical bodies amd IT discusses the "why". One set of dogma looks back into our biological past, the other looks forward to our evolutionary outcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe folks who continue to clash about this are largely the same who feel safe as long as Christ remains nailed up there on the Cross, and those who feel that God 'commands' them in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
Can someone please tell me just what hubris justifies the conviction that an almighty Creator would have any use whatsoever for this imbecile dialectic? He already knows the answer, shouldn't we be pestering HIm about something more useful?
Besides, it doesn't matter one way or the other, now does it?
We as a society clearly go against the way we should if evolution was real. This is because we protect the weak and defenseless but why not let them die if we believe in survival of the fittest?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow for the scientific part, the first hurdle, no matter how you spin it life cannot come from something that is lifeless and lifeless matter from nothing! This is essentially the beginning of evolution yes?
It's all very well to say big bang or red shift etc but when nothing existed something doesn't suddenly form from that nothingness. Then after this, impossible reasoning that life could suddenly come into being. These are two points out of many. I'm not dogmatic and so am open to an unbiased intelligent scientific response but I studied hard at biology so did my friend with a PhD and we cannot see an intelligent scientific reasoning behind the theory of evolution.
Please reply
Creationist arguments are not answered but justified by your thoughts. We agree with microevolution, but There never has been an animal to bring forth other than after its kind. Using flawed dating methods to construct a geological column which is then used to date earthly things is not science. When we can repeat it and observe it we call it science. Sound like neither creation or evolution fit this definition. If creation and evolution theories are taught side by side the truth will prevail, whatever the truth may be, right? Using the descent of species does not rightly define a term that is commonly used to refer to the ascent of goo to you. What about all the evidence for a young earth? Don't bother with c14 or ar-k dating, the geological column, or fossils, because these methods are based on assumptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry, but this wasn't very helpful. The creationists I meet don't even think about using the vast majority of the arguments refuted here and the few they do use (1 or 2) are used in a different way with a totally different range of understanding the definitions used here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisParamedic851!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope you get a chance to read this post.
A few posts back, I think that FreedomInChrist was attempting to make a point that is very obvious to those of us who best understand the position of the Creationist and the Intelligent Design advocate.
In suggesting that amino acids aren't formed by accident, I think s/he was actually suggesting that none of the stuff (new or old) that finite INTELLIGENCES (e.g., human scientists) have discovered, observed, worked with, or manipulated has ever given anyone (be s/he scientist or anyone esle) any sound reason for concluding that it brought itself into existence or that it produced itself out of non-existence by any means whatsover (be it intentional or accidental).
Your response to FreedomInChrist leads me to believe that you missed that point entirely and for that reason didn't even address it, let alone prove that s/he he was mistaken.
You referred to the Miller-Urey experiment to prove it.
You suggested that scientists had produced amino acids in a closed environment (a system which by the way, had been CREATED by the actions of a pre-existing INTELLIGENT group of scientists), using PRE-EXISTING stuff, materials, substances, or objects that could only have been manipulated by PRE-EXISGING beings that were demonstrably capable of producing amino acids BY ACCIDENT or in a way that FreedomInChrist insisted was not possible.
In saying that, it appears to me as if you have confused the kind of ACCIDENT that FreedomInChrist referred to with an ACCIDENT that was made by a being that is just as capable of producing amino acids by ACCIDENT as it is of producing them by DESIGN and only if and when pre-existing stuff is available.
Did it ever occur to you that, in so doing, you may have either ignored or re-enforced the point that FreedomInChrist had made?
I have an observation: why is it that creationists seem to have a propensity for SUDDENLY hitting the caps lock key and typing sporadic words in CAPITALS? What prompts this CURIOUS affliction? Do they all attend the same (home) SCHOOL? Or is it that the same PERSON is typing all these comments using DIFFERENT log-in names? Or do they perhaps IMAGINE that writing a word in this way somehow makes it more TRUE?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe more that one is aware of this strange quirk, the more one notices its use!
ambertooth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have capitalized words because I see nothing in this forum that allows me to type bold-faced fonts and it is the best way I know of to emphasise them. I assure you that no other purpose was intended.
But I apologize for offending your sensitivities.
Incidentally! I don't mean to offend you. But, just out of curiosity, I would like to ask, "are you merely attempting to use a nit-picking tactic to divert everyone's attention from the point I was attempting to make to them?"
The idea of bunching conservatives with religious zealots shows a lack of understanding of conservatism and probably many things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSupernaturalist: "are you merely attempting to use a nit-picking tactic to divert everyone's attention from the point I was attempting to make to them?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. But still, ID would not exist without the religious belief which it has as its base. ID'ers might flatly deny this, because to admit it would mean continuing to exclude ID from the scientific arena. But if you did not hold the religious beliefs which you do, then you would not have the objections to evolutionary theory that you do, which are religious and not scientific. Call me wrong. No scientific theory has ever been deposed for religious reasons. Not one. So any amount of ID criticism directed at biogenetic experiments serves no useful purpose.
Dear Sergio,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with religious folks (like you seem to be) is that you think you have The Answer to everything and you dare tell the rest of us as a parents, aunts, uncles... what all our children should learn as The Answer.
Have the intestinal fortitude and sincerely question the foundation of your faith as well as we scientists routinely question the foundations of science, and then you may enter the discourse.
Cheers, Tantris der Narr
Somehow it's presumed in these comments that every educated person who has studied the field of evolution has to be convinced by the facts presented that evolution happened. That's not the case. There are a lot of condescending dogmatic evolutionist who would have you believe the case is closed, evolution happened. What is true is that many thoughtful people have examined the facts and found no basis for evolution of any sort. There is nothing that is new that has come into being by evolution. Many things have been damaged by mutations but the effects are usually short lived. They certainly have not been shown to add to the incrediby amazing cycle of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOlahakayah, I would suggest that the colorful phrase "condescending dogmatic evolutionist" is perhaps a shade loaded in itself. And I wonder who all those "many thoughtful people" actually are, what scientific credentials they have, which peer-reviewed papers they have published, and in which journals?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would find your comment more honest if you just came straight out and said that you disagree with evolutionary theory for religious and not scientific reasons, rather than pretending that your objections have anything to do with fictive faulty science. Statements such as your phrase "There is nothing that is new that has come into being by evolution" make preposterous reading on a science site.
Are you sure? Some very good early politicians based their ideas of right and wrong on their "religious" convictions and helped pass many of the laws and sections of the constitution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter reading all 456 posts I have to say a few things about these discussions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, this is a forum at a science website, so anyone posting here should have a reasonable expectation that the basis for conversation would be in science. Science as defined at dictionary.com is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." See, by definition science excludes the supernatural. Therefore, any supernatural non-observable force is excluded from consideration.
Second, the Constitution of the United States prohibits teaching religion in public school. This is why ID, Creationism, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Invisible Pink Unicorns are not taught in public school. Evolution is taught as Science in public school because it is an accepted scientific theory (right or wrong).
Third, "survival of the fittest," as used in the context of evolutionary discussions, does not mean that the strongest members of an environment kill the weaker members. It means the most fit for that specific environment thrive, while those that do not have either lower populations, musts move to a better environment, or go extinct.
Lastly, Creationism presupposes that there was nothing except a creator and He made everything. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, science presupposes nothing, it simply states that prior to a certain point in time they are incapable of finding any meaningful measurements.
Beliefs can make people stronger, a moral guide from which people live their lives. The creation vs. evolution debate does not need to be filled with irrational argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA moot point for me however is the evidence that creationists propose for the existence of a god.
Claims that solid scientific proof exists for the creationists viewpoint are, somewhat, without meaning to cause any offence, laughable.
I did read some 'proof' as they say, which all referred back to the bible as the ultimate evidence, but we must remember that this is only a book, and has been translated many times and probably re-written to some extent.
I too enjoy books but I do not believe for a second that trolls live under bridges, there really is a platform 9 and 3/4, or a Hogwarts academy for wizards and witches, or that Narnia exists through a wardrobe (although I have tried to find the last one for the turkish delight).
I remain unconvinced of Creationist arguments and for the time being and considerable future I am proud to declare myself a fully fledged Darwinist!
THe problem is not science, or creationism. The problem is forgetting what science actually is and the misunderstanding between creationists and scientists. Christians who disregard science are not wise, in the same way scientists who do not acknowledge God are not wise. Those who say that evolutionists are faithless are wrong. It takes more faith to believe that everything came about by itself and that nature is a strong force with enough intelligence to create the planet and and all its inhabitants with such precision. THe truth is human beings are too intelligent for this to be true, and unfortunately we are so intelligent that we have the capabilities to make a good arguement in support of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience does not change or becomes less valid or important because one acknowledges that there is a creator behind the creation. In fact science would develop a lot faster if more scientists did.
Safrhone,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour last two sentences are exactly what this article is about. As I stated in my last post, by definition, science cannot consider a supernatural force or entity being the cause of an event. If so phrenology, astrology, and tarot all become "science" and these are all ideas that have been disregarded as nonsense. By the same logical applications of the rules that allow those ideas in, FSM (flying spaghetti monster), Islam, Catholocism, and all other religions become "science" as well. Science has rules that are based on measurable and observable evidence. This evidence is then used to make logical, in the argument use of the word, inferences and deductions about this evidence. These ideas are then tested to be validated. If these concepts stand up to years of testing and cannot be falsified they become accepted as scientific theory and continue to be tested. There is no way to test "because the Creator made it that way." Therefore, religion is not science.
If you have the answers to all of the evolution in opposition to religion then answer these in opposition to other science. The Items that follow are more scientificly correct than the if's, could's and mights that are in all of the answers to the 15 questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no question as to the evidence about microevolution. Just like there is no evidence to the questions of macroevolution.
"The belief that species are immutable [unchangeable] productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration."*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (conclusion to second edition).
. The changes detected in the sun call into question the accepted thermonuclear fusion energy source for the sun. This, in turn, questions the entire theoretical structure upon which the evolutionary theory of astrophysics is built.
The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to
t = (93,000,000 miles) (5,280 ft/mile)
(2.5 ft/hr) (24 hr/da) (365 day/yr)
or approximately 20 million B.C. However, the time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years.
It is amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man.
MAGNETIC FIELD DECAYAs you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earths magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.
In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the first measurement of the earths magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of earths internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!
BigBangBang,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has never been about having all the answers to religion. It has been about keeping religion out of science class. I'm not really sure what you mean with your Darwin quote so until you clarify I will refrain from responding to this point. As to your quoting Dr. Akridge and the "shrinking sun" concept, this is incorrect. The idea was disproven in 1986 by Van Till (Van Till, 1986, p.17) due to incomplete evidence. As an analogy, imagine scientifically obeserving the tide only come in and making calculations based on the rate of rising water. The world would be completely covered in water within days. Since Eddy and Boornazian's original observations the sun and other stars have been observed experiencing expansion and contraction cycles.
There is no denying that the magnetic field is weakening, but that is only because the earth's magnetic poles are shifting. Again. This phenomenon is also cyclical and has been observed to have occurred several times in the past with the last occurring 780,000 years ago. This is seen in the layers of lava from several different volcanic activities. As lava cools, the iron in the lava traps the magnetic field at the time of the eruption. So, at locations of high volcanic activity, like Hawaii, they are able to capture vast amounts of historic data on these events.
As an aside to these discussions, please do not believe only one source of information. The internet is a wonderful tool for multiple viewpoints. After all, if I were to only believe the Ku Klux Klans evidence on the natural order of men, then I would have a certain skew to my view point. But, you know, I could be wrong.
.
safrhone: "Science does not change or becomes less valid or important because one acknowledges that there is a creator behind the creation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, of course it doesn't. But a scientist's personal religious beliefs or non-beliefs play no part in the science that he or she practices. I don't know how to say this more clearly, but at least if this point is understood, then it also explains why creationism, or any other 'ism' which aspires to being science via a religious belief, virtually excludes itself from scientific acceptance.
Sure, there are other reasons for exclusion, such as Intelligent Design's use of inherent presupposition, which is not admissible in science. But however you slice it and dice it, and whatever your beliefs or non-beliefs, in science, God is not falsifiable.
BigBangBang: "There is no question as to the evidence about microevolution. Just like there is no evidence to the questions of macroevolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBigBangBang, you're commenting on a science site. Evidently you are not aware that terms such as micro- and macroevolution are terms used more by creationists. For practical purposes, such terms do not carry much currency in the biological sciences. In nature, there is no 'stop' button that will prevent new speciation over time, so neatly packaging organisms and biological processes up with such redundant terms as you mention becomes rather meaningless. As is your statement per se.
ambertooth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you did not bother to read the answers to the 15 questions that started this board. Question number 3 specifically breaks evolution down into 2 categories Micro and Macro evolution in order to counter argue a point.
dvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quote by Darwin was to say he did not believe his theory could stand if the earth were so young.
Question how does the sun expand and not violate the first law of Thermodynamics?
BigBangBang,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy no means am I an expert in thermodynamics but the first law applies to changes of energy in closed systems. So, as long as there is no loss or gain in energy there is no violation of this principle. These long term cycles of "change" in size are produced by oscillatory effects of the core. For a more detailed explanation of this phenomenon see the following publications:
R. L. Gilliland, "Solar Radius Variations over the Past 264 Years," Astrophysics J.. 248, 1144 (1981).
J. H. Parkinson, L. V. Morrison, and F. R. Stephenson, "The Constancy of the Solar Diameter over the Past 250 Years," Nature 288, 548 (1980).
Now on to the Darwin quote, this shows that he correctly anticipated that people who hold a young earth opinion would be incapable of drawing the same conclusions he did. Evolution takes great lengths of time so if the earth is only ~6000 years old then there must be another explanation for the origin of species. Having said that, considering that most major religions believe the evidence that the earth is significantly older than 6000 years old. Only those who believe in a literal translation of the bible think the earth is "young." So that leads to the follow up question of do you believe in a literal translation of the bible?
For the record, BigBangBang, I read every word of this article before commenting, but I see from your comment that I was at fault in not explaining my point well. What I mean is that science recognises the evolutionary process as happening at the microevolutionary level as much as at the macroevolutionary level, and in this sense it is the process that is continuous, rather than the terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAttention and interest might go out to the more spectacular macro- transitional forms, such as the recently-discovered Odontochelys semitestacea, but creationists view the difference between micro- and macroevolution, not in the way in which science perceives them, but as a cut-off point for what is acceptable to their beliefs (as your previous comment makes clear). Creationists largely accept microevolution but draw the line at macroevolution because it involves clear speciation, although the continuous processes of evolution are also happening at the microevolutionary level. So I stand by my comment.
Actually the Bible says " And there was evening and there was morning, the first day" so that is how long a day is in Gods terms. Lets take the evidence that Creationists put on the table, according to the Bible the Earth is aprox 6,000 years old. About 4,500 years ago there was a great flood and Noah and his family repopulated the earth and saved 2 of every animal on the Earth. This includes dinosaurs. Now the question has always been "how can you get 2 of every animal when there are millions of species?" Their answer, there are only about 8,000 diferent "kinds" of animals and they only took babies. The problem with that is that dinosaur fossils have been carbon dated to be hundreds of millions of years old, not thousands and even if they did only take the 8,000 different kinds of animals 4,500 years is not nearly long enough to evolve into millions of species today. Genisis also says that humans lived for over 900 years in that time as well and that it slowly came down to our life expectancy now. That cant be true due to the fact that life expectancy in the middle ages was usually 35 to 40 years and now it is 75 to 80 years. The main thing creationists need to know is that the Bible is meant to be taken figuretively not litterally, it can be a great guidepost on how you should live your life but is not meant to be taken as a true history of the world. Think about it, in those days they didnt know what made the wind blow, the sun shine, earthquakes, volcanos ect. If you had to make a story explaining all this before science, there has to be some being that made everything. That is why all cultures have Gods or Spirits that they worship, every culture has a creation story. Religion is a way for people to explain the unknown and to have answers to why things happen. It is a coping tool as well, when a family member or close friend dies it was Gods plan, it cant be that life is based on luck, chance and opportunity. Either you are lucky and win the lottery or dont get on the plane that crashes or your unlucky and are in the wrong place wrong time. Either you have a chance encounter with your future spouse or you never meet them. Either you get the opporitunity to make a difference or you never take it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sun is basically a closed system in and of itself. There can be no hydrogen added to the sun or the universe but as it converts to helium and then converted to radiant heat the amount of molecules that make up the sun must decrease. Therefore reducing the mass of the sun due to the conversion from internal energy to radiant heat, and in order to preserve the first law of Thermodynamics the mass must decrease or the internal energy available must decrease. The first law basically states that a thermodynamic system can store or hold energy and that this internal energy is conserved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. This doesn't mean that one day is equal to a thousand years it is to represent the fact that a very long time in our experience is a very short time in God's eyes. I don't know believe the earth to be 4.6 billion years old.
How is this Odontochelys semitestacea a transitional form when it is in the same species as all turtles? Sorry not trying to get personal here but your argument is rather weak. There is still no proof of speciation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBigBangBang: "How is this Odontochelys semitestacea a transitional form when it is in the same species as all turtles? Sorry not trying to get personal here but your argument is rather weak. There is still no proof of speciation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, yes, the 'Odontochelys is just a turtle' line of reasoning. Presumably you also consider that Tiktaalik is 'just a fish', and Archaeopteryx is 'just a bird'. Why not? After all, if you can't change the facts, then change the definition. In fact, do everything but admit that speciation actually occurs. Truth to tell, BigBangBang, I would suggest that absolutely any example put to you would in your estimation be 'rather weak', even when such an example has long been embraced by science. So perhaps, if you don't accept Odontochelys, then you would accept Tiktaalik, or Thrinaxodon, or Ambulocetus, or Confuciusornis, or Pachyrhachis, or Anomalocaris (a favorite of mine), or even the humble Eocoelia, etc., etc., as evidence for speciation? Somehow, I think not.
But citing the names of transitional fossil forms as evidence for speciation is in any case rather immaterial, since speciation has been accepted as mainstream science for the last century and a half. It is therefore not up to me to provide 'proof' of speciation (whatever 'proof' actually means to you, because scientific theories do not deal in proof). Instead, the onus is upon you to provide scientifically credible evidence that speciation never actually takes place, and to present your evidence (with an accompanying counter-theory which explains how species originate) through the usual accedited channels if you are to have a hope in heck of having your ideas accepted.
Because, for some reason, I just get the feeling that announcing on a SciAm thread that 'there is still no proof of speciation' is somehow not quite going to cut it as far as the general body of science is concerned. So if you are to make any inroads at all with your ideas, I would suggest that you set to and get that paper written on your 'no evidence for speciation' claim.
And if, as you have made clear, you do not accept evolutionary speciation, perhaps you could supply an alternative natural mechanism which explains the diversity of species.
Big,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never meant to imply the sun wasn't changing size, simply the rate of 5 ft/hr was wrong as explained in those links I posted last time.
Now on to your quote. What does that have to do with determining the earth's age? The problem I personally have accepting any legitimacy of the young earth theory is that nothing beyond the Bible (which at its core is a book) scientifically supports this data. All of the young earth sites I have gone to for proof simply latch on to various parts of topics and use it to "disprove" the billions of year old theory. However, it always uses just one article as the basis of their argument. Using a logical thinking exercise as an analogy, the arguments go something like this:
Fact 1: Boys wear hats.
Fact 2: Sally is wearing a hat.
Conclusion: Sally is a boy.
or
Fact 1: There are no foos in America.
Fact 2: George is not a foo.
Conlusion: George is in America.
Both of these examples demonstrate a conclusion that cannot be drawn with certainty from the facts.
Another issue I have is that young earth Creationists present this as an either/or argument. Either the earth is 5.5 billion years old or God made the Earth 6500 years ago. Since you are arguing for the young earth theory, please provide arguments that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Absolutely hysterical that we both grew tired of providing scientific evidence that was disregarded and asked for proof supporting alternative theories the same day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, dvashun, it's really about time some of the more off-the-wall rejectionists of evolution either put up or shut up. It's an easy matter to come with scoffing 'there's no proof' statements. It would seem that it's quite another matter actually to supply a meaningful alternative theory that feasibly and lucidly explains how all the world's species (estimates vary, but maybe some thirty million currently alive, not counting fossil species) came into being. If they did not evolve through speciation, then where did they all come from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, supernatural agencies, whether in the form of a Judeo-Christian creator or a pseudo-neutral 'designer', are not falsifiable, and therefore not admissible as science.
So perhaps, if you don't accept Odontochelys, then you would accept Tiktaalik, or Thrinaxodon, or Ambulocetus, or Confuciusornis, or Pachyrhachis, or Anomalocaris (a favorite of mine), or even the humble Eocoelia, etc., etc., as evidence for speciation? Somehow, I think not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay if these are examples of speciation then what was the species they came from and then the new species they then became? To use a fancy name and the expect people to take your word that it is a transitional form is there again weak. I do not have to provide evidence to support my ideas due to the fact I have not presented any claims of creationism I am just saying there is now proof of speciation, or macro-evolution. I am open to being proven wrong although I would venture to say you are not. I have give evidence to say that the earth is not 4.6 billion years old. This would prevent macro-evolution the time to occur. You are the one that has provided no proof and then said you did not have to. My thermodynamics back ground tells me (which are laws) that your evolution theory is not plausible. I am not arguing creationism here, even though I tend to lean in that direction. Law verses Theory. Law wins every time.
It is therefore not up to me to provide 'proof' of speciation (whatever 'proof' actually means to you, because scientific theories do not deal in proof). Instead, the onus is upon you to provide scientifically credible evidence that speciation never actually takes place, and to present your evidence (with an accompanying counter-theory which explains how species originate) through the usual accredited channels if you are to have a hope in heck of having your ideas accepted.
I would run from providing proof to it there is not to be had and then tell some one else to prove you wrong.
Still not proof. I am interested in proof not empty words. Oh yes then it is just a turtle line. If it is not just a turtle then what was the species prior and then what did it change to. If it is still the same species then it isn't speciation.
I did provide proof that the earth is less than 10,000 years old even if the sun is not shrinking at a rate of 5ft/hr it is still shrinking. The first law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow for expansion. If the sun was only shrinking at a rate of 1ft/hr over a 4.6 billion year time period the sun would still have been so large that it would have reduce the distance between the earth and the sun to the point no life could exist. So let’s say that the sun is shrinking at a rate of only 20% of the original rate of 5 ft/hr. Now the sun is only shrinking at 1 ft/hr. That would be 1.659 miles per/year. The distance between the earth and the sun is 93 million miles. This would mean that distance would be zero miles in only 56 million years. Not quit the 4.6 billion is it. This is giving a large error for the original shrinkage rate. The rate would have to be less than .15 inch/hr in order for the distance between the sun and the earth to be zero. Life would also not exist at a distance much outside of 93 million miles plus or minus 10 million miles. Distance from the sun 93,000,000 miles + 10,000,000 would make the temperature to cold to sustain life and 93,000,000 miles – 10,000,000 would make the temperature to hot to sustain life. So in order for the earth to be 4.6 billion years old the sun would have to be neither shrinking nor expanding. If it is not shrinking then the first law of thermodynamics is not a law at all, but just a theory and one that must be false.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll skip the fact that you have provided no actual evidence to support the "shrinking" sun theory other than the Eddy/Boornazian abstract and attempt to reason out your first law arguments. There is clearly a disconnect regarding the first law of thermodynamics between your understanding and mine. So, let's start with the law:
Energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed.
and (more to the point of this argument)
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
How you are extrapolating that this law precludes any changes in the size of the sun is beyond me. We know that the sun is a huge ball of gas (understating the different exact composition of each layer) that is transmitting energy that it produces through fusion reactions. This energy is then transmitted outward. You see there is a loss of energy from the sun because it is transmitting it's energy outward (not a closed system).
Now you may say "Aha" the sun should be shrinking since it is using mass but that reduction in mass will, over the long term, result in an increase in size due to a reduced gravitational field*. So how was the sun observed to be shrinking? Even assuming that the measurements used were correct, because the sun is a big ball of gas with several forces operating on it (gravity, magnetic field, nuclear explosions) and a non-uniform rotation there are certainly opportunities for anomolous measurements, even over a 70 year span.
*Just for giggles, here is the math on the mass that the sun uses:
Mass used - 1.353x10^20 g every year
Sun Size - 1.989 x 10^33 g
So, if the sun were to last 5x10^9 (5 billion) years how much mass would be used:
((1.353x10^20 g)x(5x10^9))/1.989x10^33 g =6.8 x 1029 g / 1.989 x 1033 g
which is .034%.
Not that significant a number is it. Just for more fun let's see how a .034% change would "shrink" the sun. (I will use the radius to see the change in relation to the Earth)
Radius of the Sun (Equatorial) = 6.955 x 10^8 m
Change in mass over 5 Billion years = .034%
Change in radius = 234670 m or 234 kilometers or 147 miles
I know that a change in mass is not directly tranlatable that way and these numbers are assuming a constant rate of change in mass. However, the distance changed using this math is equivalent to the change experienced using the "shrinking sun" math in less than 18 years.
BigBangBang: "I do not have to provide evidence to support my ideas due to the fact I have not presented any claims of creationism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a cop-out. BigBangBang, it is you who is specifically making the extraordinary and scientifically unorthodox claim that evolutionary speciation does not take place. And it was you who in your original comment rejected macroevolution. True or not? And yet you have so far not offered a single substantive word in support of that claim.
I am debating from the standpoint of what already is long embraced by the scientific community. You are the maverick who chooses to buck the accepted scientific orthodoxy. The onus is therefore upon you to provide evidence that speciation does not take place. Do so. And failing that, at least supply an answer to where all the species, both fossil and contemporary, actually came from. Because one thing's for sure: all the species actually exist. And while your 'age of the Earth' calculations are somewhat immaterial to this factor, speciation is favored by geological time, not some forced time-frame colored by the musings of a single 17th century bishop.
Frankly, only creationists/ID'ers/Young Earthists are woolly-headed enough to make such fallacious statements as 'Law versus Theory', when scientific theories, as you seem not to be aware, can actually contain scientific laws.
My point is that you reject a body of science without having something to put in its place. So until you do have something, that body of science still stands. That is the way in which science works.
ambertooth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot a cop out that is way you are doing.
Hard headedness that is laughable coming from the point of view you are holding. The facts are that I have never claimed to be a creationist. It is also equally obvious that you can not argue you evolutionist beliefs based on the empirical evidence you have provided.
The fact that you can not provide evidence to support your belief even convinces me more that you are wrong.
The only thing that an evolutionist can do in an argument is to take apart other peoples views. Sense I never gave you any views you have nothing to take apart. Therefore you are left to prove your view by providing evidence. To which you have not done. The only thing I have said is that I do not believe the earth or universe to be 4.6 billion years old. I also did not paint myself into a corner by taking the creationist view that it is as young as 6,000 years. I did how ever affirm my faith with scripture from
Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. This doesn't mean that one day is equal to a thousand years it is to represent the fact that a very long time in our experience is a very short time in God's eyes. This allows for much more time then 6,000 years. My shrinking sun information does provide evidence that the earth and universe is not 4.6 billion years of age. This does not allow enough time for Macro-evolution or speciation. Of which you never provided evidence to either.
There again I have nothing to prove when all I am disputing is the age of the earth, but by doing this I am also not allow enough time for speciation.
If they did not evolve through speciation, then where did they all come from? This is a very good question but it is stated in a manner that would indicate that if not evolution then what. Not it must be evolution because the evidence says so.
Since speciation has been accepted as mainstream science for the last century and a half. This is incorrect also because that is how old the theory is. It was not immediately accepted by the mainstream science. (Sorry wrong again). I guess I will discontinue this dialog because I was hoping for proof but I am not getting any. Ho Hum.
dvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact 1: Boys wear hats.
Fact 2: Sally is wearing a hat.
Conclusion: Sally is a boy.
Simplicity at is most hypocritical. This is an attempt at using the Vienna Circles Verification process based on logical positivism. This method falls short on some mean counts I don't know where to start. Falsification is a much better method.
Although you do make a very good argument with the math on the mass change per year and the shrinkage rate, therefore even though the math comes out to more like .036% instead of .034% your numbers are very impressive. I would be interested in continuing this dialog. Even thought the sun is not a closed system the first law still applies due to the back that you can not create energy it has to be converted. To which you have supported with the math you used on the mass usage per year. This is the type of dialog I am interested in proof not conjecture. Now if I can get so proof on speciation that would be great. It is not Ho Hum.
The logic problem was an example of drawing incorrect conclusions based on incomplete/incorrect information which is exactly how the "shrinking sun" idea even came into existence. The idea has been proven to be incorrect in great detail in those other documents I listed. So your use of it as "proof" is like someone writing a paper showing that 1=2 and bringing it to my boss as evidence that I should be making twice what I currently do. My proof would be wrong so any findings based on that proof would be incorrect as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way you may want to check the math again, it comes out to .0340120664% (rounded). And about the first law, I have simply argued that it does not force the sun to remain a constant size (or cause shrinking) since it is not a closed system.
BigBangBang: "I guess I will discontinue this dialog because I was hoping for proof but I am not getting any. Ho Hum."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy guess is more that you will discontinue this dialog because you cannot substantiate what you claim. I don't have to; the science is already accepted for what I say. But you have an unorthodox claim to establish: specifically (in case you missed what you yourself said), that your time frame "does not allow enough time for speciation".
My specific and direct question to you therefore was: then considering the fact that species exist, and in view of the fact that you reject evolutionary speciation, how does speciation occur? Can you answer this or not?
I did check my numbers but I went out and got the actual numbers from some where else and ran them from the start. The numbers you sight comes up to what you calculated but when I found the starting numbers and ran them it came out to.036%. Of course I did not trust your number, but they turn out to be pretty accurate. I do agree with you easement that the shrinking sun numbers were wrong. You gave very good proof unlike other people on here that can only divert attention to something else rather than provide proof to support there view. I provide proof and it was pointed out to me where the information I was relying on was incorrect with proof not questions. For this I thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry Ambertooth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did ask you to tell me what species the transitional forms you sighted transformed from and to what they became. But you did not instead you answered my question with a question. You appear not to be up to the task so I will direct my comments toward dvashun. Thanks for nothing.
BigBangBang, you sound petulant. So let me be very clear: I can assure you that I feel no obligation whatever to take the trouble to supply you with material that is already generally available from any number of sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince I made it clear (and if you are honest with yourself, since you already know) that I am debating from a standpoint of accepted science (and you are not), you are hardly dependent upon my testimony to look into these things if you are sincere about finding out about them. Just visit your local natural history museum, or ask for books on this subject in your local library, or check the websites of scientifically accedited institutions, and you will find all the material that you ask for and more, and you know it.
But the above, of course, only applies if you have the serious and committed intention of wanting to find out about such material. If this is not the case, and if you are merely attempting some point-scoring tactic, then you will continue to imply that I am the sole source of this information upon which you and all others are totally dependent.
So stop pretending that I am witholding information from you that only I am in possession of. I mean, myself and others might interpret this as you masking your own inability to answer my question, which you so far have singularly failed to do.
Well said ambertooth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistypically Bigbangbang wants other people to do all the work for him(her?), but doesn't appear to know basic science -
Since the sun is NOT a closed system then its age cannot be calculated by loss of mass due to energy expended, the 1st + 2nd law of thermodynamics are irrelevent (- who knows what astronomical bodies have crashed into the sun in the past?).
Secondly the mass of the sun does not indicate its size. Its size depends on its mass and density. (who KNOWS with certainty what the density of the sun was in the past?)
He is asking other people to PROVE things to him when he is scientifically ignorant.
He seems to imply "speciation" = "evolution" = "evolution by natural selection"
Well they are not the same
Evolution was theorised by many people years before Darwins theory but was accepted by most scientists by late 19th C (near enough to 150 years for me). I
If you want proof bigbangbang then go out and read for yourself, but get a bit of scientific knowledge first.
BigbangBang said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" My shrinking sun information does provide evidence that the earth and universe is not 4.6 billion years of age"
- What evidence.? - You start with stupid assumptions, make irrelevent calculations based of meaningless data, and call this information evidence.?
Also what would the age of the earth have to do with the age of the sun or the age of the universe ?
Or were you alleging the age of earth=age of sun=age of universe ?
If so then prove it as you keep asking others to do.
Sorry BIgbangbang butI have just read your post 2 March
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- What a load of rubbish
It is clear that you have no knowledge of relativity or laws of thermodynamics
1) I know you have been corrected but to say the sun was a closed system in the first place means you have no knowlegge of thermodynamics.
2) Who said no hydrogen can be added to the sun ?
3) You said it "converts to helium then converts to radiant energy". Have you not heard of e=mc^2
4) You say the number of molecules in the sun must decrease.
Do you not know the difference between molecules,atoms or plasma.
There are no molecules in the sun
5) what has the number of molecules got to do with the mass. Mass is a function of number of atoms and atomic weight.
e.g. 1 atom of uranium has more mass than 50 atoms of hydrogen
6) The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with the mass, however the laws of relativity do
7) I dont know how you managed to make the 1st law of thermodynamics sound so complex but you did
Do you not do any checking of the scientific facts BEFORE you make any posts
I notice that many creationists refer to the "LAWS" of thermodynamics as if they were immutable and irrefutable, however who said this is the case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewton created his "LAW" of gravity mid 17th C. However Einstein successfuly challenged it early 20th C. (250 years.later). Who can say this will not happen with the "LAWS" of thermodynamics. (created late 19th C)
So far no-one has refuted them but perhaps they should be re-titled the "Theories" of thermodynamics, as perhaps in time some-one will.
Also creationists insist life cannot come from non-life. However is this not precisely what happens in all reproduction? An egg (non-live as it cannot reproduce, and has no self sustaining ability) fertilises an egg (also non-live) to create life.
So what is the definition of life?
Sorry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust read my last post and realised I forgot to add some other things to ponder
If you believe in creation then you must believe that the universe came into existance from nothing('cause that what it says in the bible)
Since the universe IS a closed system then this violated the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics
You MUST therefore believe that the laws of thermodynamics are not immutable and CAN be broken. (under which particular circumstances is not relevent)
To therefore insist that evolution theories obey those same laws is unscientific (I would also say stupid)
The same argument applies to the beginning of life, since according to creation life came from nothing (which by definition must be non-life)
The most meaningful comeback to creationist arguments is "Really - can you prove that?" When we buy into their posturing and "Prove it to me" attitude we are being set up to lose - no matter what you say they can always respond "It doesn't convince me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, they can't prove their positions. And "intelligent design" is pure balderdash. From a biological perspective the "pocket watch in the field" is part of the environment that a certain species creates, just like ant hills and bird bowers. If you believe in a deity that designed the world there is no difference between ant hills and watches, both are part of the creator's design. If you do not believe in a deity you believe that they came about through natural processes. No amount of posturing about "design" can change this - the natural world does not care about your ideas of god or science and either view has to accept what we observe.
I for one do not care to be set up by the specious creationist posturing. Snickering, laughing, and saying "Prove it!" is the behavior of the playground bully. Listening carefully to others is the behavior of both spiritual and intellectual giants. Frankly, they seem to be missing in the ID/creationist community.
One last post re Bigbangbang stupidity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe gave supposed "proof" of earth/sun being no older than 4 billion years old. This "proof" was based on supposed shrinking of sun . He later answered a correction to his data with
"I provide proof and it was pointed out to me where the information I was relying on was incorrect with proof not questions"
i.e he was wrong because his information was wrong.
However he personally made 1 absolutely unforgivable error.
The data for changes in the sun's size has only been collected from 18th C to date (250 years). In his calculation he miraculously assumes this change to have been constant for 4 BILLION years with abolutely no reason to assume this(Some assumption)
There are several scientific reasons why the sun may be expanding or contracting at any one time, but no-one has any data (calculated or measured) as to the changes before the 18th C
Any calculation of the sun's size due to shrinkage before the 18C is therefore meaningless no matter what rate of shrinkage you use, unless you have evidence of the rate of change.
I am not saying Bigbangbang is a creationist, but this typical of their "science".
Hi Bigbangbang - You still there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin your post 2nd March you said
"How is this Odontochelys semitestacea a transitional form when it is in the same species as all turtles"
It might be advantageous to everyone and prevent a lot of wasted time if you were to if define exactly what constitutes a "transitional form"
Hi dvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a very minor comment ref your post 03/05
I think your calculation of change in radius of the sun due to change in mass is incorrect
Taking the change in mass as 0.034%
This means mass after 5 b yrs = 99.966% starting mass
New radius = old radius * 0.99966^(1/3)
(mass proportional to radius^3, therefore radius proportional to mass^(1/3))
Change in radius = 78.83 Km
Not that this is of any relevance I thought you might like to know
From my reading I believe at the heart of the problem re. creationism/ID lay 2 questions
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 Does either
a) the proponents of creationism/ID wish to become a universally accepted scientific discipline.
Or b) do they wish subjects relating to biological evolution be removed from the list of established disciplines
If the answer to the above is a) then a second question arises
2) Do the proponents wish to
a) Become an established discipline by following the currently universally accepted scientific methodology and tenets
or b) Change the methodology and tenets of all sciences to become more easily accepted as a universally accepted discipline
or c) change the methodology and tenets in relation to biological sciences only
Would any proponent of creationism/ID care to answer these questions ?
hi Supernaturalist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI notice you are still making posts. Sorry I couldn't respond earlier to your post 12/14/08,
better late than never
It seems quite obvious to me that Shpakalaka does not consider evolution to be a scientific theory.
Neither your opinion of Shpakalaka's views, nor his opinion re- evolution are of any interest to me
I think s/he is expressing his/her outrage at what s/he feels is a materialists audacity to confuse an unscientific fairy tale with a scientific theory and then to turn around and accuse creationists of the same.
I see no evidence that he has any idea what constitutes/what is required of, a scientific theory.
Complete rubbish? Please explain -- Which word did you not understand ?.
How complete? -- Totally complete
So far, you are the only one that I am aware of who has referred to his/her references as such.
So what ?
Where are you coming from or where are you intending to take Shpakalaka with this line of reasoning?"
Where I am coming from is not relevant.
I do not intend to take him(her) anywhere, however where he (or you) posts scientific rubbish I will identify it if possible.
I see no rubbish in the reference that pointed to a qualified creationists response to the article that this discussion is all about.
qualified creationist ? - a creationist with qualifications perhaps, but I was not aware that there were any recognised qualifications in creationism .
Incidentally, do you expect every rational individual to consider your critique to be the final word (i.e., the word that proves once and for all that the creationists response is complete rubbish )
NO. In fact I hope they make further investigations.
when we have little or no reason to believe that he has an opportunity to respond to your critique?
We have no reason to make any conclusions at all from his lack of response. I dont
Did you not expect any response from a qualified creationist? (- see above re qualified creationist .)
It is of no interest to me whether ta creationist responds or not
Would you think it fair if no creationist were given an opportunity to respond to anything that evolutionists say against them?
My opinion is not relevant
There are many creationist web sites that do not allow any outside input. Even though most of their facts are wrong or based on false assumptions they are never corrected. Are these fair? (they are certainly not scientific.)
Do you think it is impossible for a creationist to be considered a scientist,? . NO (depends on the scientific discipline, and who's doing the considering, (I hear some unregistered creationist colleges give Ph.D's if you knock on their door))
Please pardon my ignorance. I have never come across a statement like yours from anyone else.
Might I suggest reading a little more widely may increase your knowledge.
Are you suggesting that Webster is wrong when he defines common sense as: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
Did you not read what I said? Or perhaps you suffer from selective word-blindness. ?
I said common sense is notoriously unreliable, not that the definition is wrong .
The definition you quote identifies precisely why I say this. It says judgement based on simple perception . But if the situation is complex then simple perception may possibly (probably?) lead to an incorrect conclusion.
{Take for example . (I would assume you are seated when you read this.) Your simple perception may say you are motionless. However the earth spins at around 1000 miles/hr. the earth is also moving around the sun, the sun around our galaxy , and the galaxy in space. So in fact you are not motionless but are continuously moving at quite high speed 24 hrs /day , 365 days /year
See also any optical illusion]
So long as the poster has some knowledge that is scientific he doesnt need to have a scientific knowledge that is academic to post authoritative statements relating to science.
- I agree (however if someone posts an authoritative statement containing incorrect/incomplete data/assumptions, or illogical conclusions I believe it my duty to point this out)
I also said that someone posting authoritative statements relating to science should have SOME scientific knowledge.
I did not specify that this should be academic
After all, knowledge that is based on personal experiences and observations of every day realities can go a long way in helping us to define what is and isnt scientific.
'Fraid not. The individual does not define what is or isnt scientific.
What is or is not a scientific discipline is defined solely by the methodology applied in the study and analysis of the discipline.
An addendum to my last post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said that personal experiences and observations do not determine what is or isn't scientific, however not being scientific DOES NOT invalidate them.
Sorry but I had to add this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said
"when we have little or no reason to believe that he has an opportunity to respond to your critique "
Very good creationist logic -
With no evidence you say that because someone does not respond then it is almost certain they cannot respond
Bet you majored in creationist "science"
Laughable,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI specifically stated in my post "I know that a change in mass is not directly tranlatable that way." I was just illustrating a point.
When answering question #7 of this article, about the first appearance of life on earth, the author states "Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But, even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cell billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless micro-evolutionary and macro-evolutionary studies."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut then, the author turns around and contradicts himself. When talking about natural selection in answer #11 he states, "Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved".
So.....on one hand the author says the scientific community is open to the possibility of aliens introducing the first cells but how can that be because he also says that those forces must be natural and cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence is unproven. I'd say aliens fit that category (and yet, you are open to THAT possibiity????). And by the way, if aliens deposited our first cells, the next question is, "Where did THEIR first cells come from?". Hmmmmmm.......
You say that extra-terestrial life fit the same category as an intelligent creator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it be you believe they could be the same "thing" ?
If not, do you believe they belong to the same "species" as an intelligent creator, or would they be a different "species".
KB222
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould you refresh my memory ?
How EXACTLY was life created either by an "intelligent designer" or during "creation"
For example - were all the major "essemblies" (heart,lungs etc) assembled first and then the whole lot put together,or was the whole body put together in one go ?
Where did all the material come from ?
The article refers to the answers to 15 creationist questions
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever there lies the double standards of creationists.
They expect answers from evolutionism but either do not (or refuse to) understand science, ignore any questions by evolutionists, ignore the holes in their own belief, or expect evolution to answer questions for which they themselves have no scientific answer.
Here are my list of 15 examples of where creationists(aka ID) attempt to mislead the public
1 The basis of creationism consists of just a few paragraphs in a book. It is not an hypothesis,theory, or fact, just a few statements.
2 Creationists do not understand the difference between the phrase "circular reasoning" , and a tautology
3 Creationism is unscientific, It presents no evidence, and makes claims about events that were not observed and, according to them, can never be re-created
4 Scientists totally reject the creation story as written in genesis
5 There is total agreement among real scientists that the paragraphs in genesis have no scientific evidence to support them.
6 No human fossils been found with dynosaurs
7 Creationism makes no attempt to explain HOW life appeared on earth
8 Creationists repeatedly resort to probability which assumes all changes in evolution are equally likely. But evolution theory explicitly states that this is not the case
9 Creationists are ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics, but repeatedly refer to them.
ALL laws of thermodynamics are irrelevent to the creation of life as they only relate to CLOSED systems.
ALL material in the universe is in an OPEN system.
The universe is the only thing in nature that is a CLOSED system
The second law also refers to entropy not disorder. Entropy is a measure of free energy in a system - this is not the same as how "orderly" or "disorderly" the system is, or how much "information" is in the system.(The flow of "information" has nothing to do with the amount of entropy in a system.) It also DOES NOT say that the entropy of something cannot decrease, only that energy must be used to enable the decrease to take place.
10 Creationists make repeated assertions of fact based on no evidence. e.g.mutations cannot produce new features. My question to creationists - what evidence do you have that they cant?
11 Creationists make no attempt to scientifically explain the origins of different species
12 Creationists have a strange concept of time, short periods of observations(in human terms) are extended into "forever", implying that since something has/has not occured in the short period then it must always have been so.
13 Creationists make no attempt to define what constitutes a transitional fossil but expect evolutionists to find one. In fact there is no reason in evolution why 2 genetically difference species should not have identical appearances. In this case identifying them as difference species would be extremely difficult, and at present impossible with fossils
14 "Intelligent design'ers" have not presented any evidence to support their conclusions, only their opinion. They have NOT presented any scientific evidence to show that an "intelligent designer" exists (or could exist), NONE that it influenced the structure of ANY living thing, and NONE as to how this was (or even could have been) achieved.
15 Creationists repeatedly try to "reverse engineer" life and conclude that because life is complex now that it has aways been complex, and therefore evolution theory must be wrong (see 12). However evolution theory explicitly explains how this is incorrect and how life evolved to that we see today.
A word to creationists. I am a firm believer in God and the fact that He created everything. But why do you think God created without a system? i.e., evolution. Look around you, if you believe there is a God who is still here, still in control, does he perform magic and materialize things out of nowhere? Everything happens gradually, in accordance with Divine laws. Take the birth of a baby. It goes through the entire process of evolution in its first few weeks in the womb. The baby is no less a miracle when he/she is born. So evolution does not contradict creation at all. God must have made everything according to a gradual system. If you amend your ideas, creationists, and not take the Bible in the literal sense, and look at the evolved idea of God propounded by the Holy Quran, you will fare much better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisemail me on fowziabushra@gmail.com for comment
"Everything happens gradually, in accordance with Divine laws."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat laws would they be?
"The baby is no less a miracle when he/she is born."
I see an inanimate sperm fertilise an inanimate egg - a purely biochemical process, -what miracle are you talking about?
"god must have created everything according to a gradual system."
Whats with this "must have".
Where did you get the "gradual system" from? -Who said anyone created a gradual system or a system at all?
Thank you for your response. My comment was addressed to creationists, and I hoped they believed in Divine Laws. You obviously do not believe in a Creator. I was trying to reconcile creationists into believing in God and in evolution at the same time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are so many answers to someone who believes in automatic or chance creation. For instant, why is their beauty in the universe? Why would there be a need for Angelina Jolie if the need for procreation could be fulfilled by Jennifer Anniston? Why is there good tasting food? It could be just tubes of food of the sort provided to astronauts, merely fulfilling a need.
This is only one aspect of Gods attributes, ie Rahman or Merciful (loosely translated), that He has made things for our enjoyment that were not strictly necessary.
The Divine laws I was referring to meant that everything is carried out in accordance with a system of strict laws. If you perform a calculation in maths on paper for instant, and you go and check it, you find that it exactly matches what happens in nature. For example, the astronomer Johann von Wittenburg performing mathematical calculations in 1766 realised that all the planetary orbits followed a particular pattern. This led to the prediction that there was a missing planet in the solar system between Mars and Jupiter. But no one had observed a planet in that space yet when more careful observation was possible it was discovered that there existed an asteroid belt which was of about the same mass as a planet broken up into pieces in the predicted space!
There are many other intricate mathematical formulae at work in nature. For example, fractals, or the way shells or flowers or the tubes inside trees are structured are some of the most complex mathematical structures. We can only reproduce their iterative techniques with the help of a computer.
We as humans are hard pressed to understand all of the maths, but someone (or something?) knows, understands and puts the laws into beautiful, harmonious and perfect use. What is it that has a much better intelligence than ours and is doing all this maths?
You quote the example of an inanimate sperm fertilizing an inanimate egg. The two inanimate objects create a perfect human being capable of conscious thought. If we could, and if we did take inanimate objects and somehow fused them together, could we provide it with a consciousness? Furthermore, it takes the collusion of millions of perfect steps in the right direction to make a perfect baby. The slightest wrong step can result in horrendous deformities. If it were mere chance, there should have been many many deformed individuals and only a very few perfect ones. This is what I call a miracle.
"For instant, why is their beauty in the universe? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeauty is a perception not a fact, What is beauty ?
IF you are implying that beauty was created for our benefit then:-
Why are there several other planets in our solar system.?
Why are there other suns?
Why are there there other galaxies?
as none of these are required for our benefit, or were they all just a whim?
"Why would there be a need for Angelina Jolie if the need for procreation could be fulfilled by Jennifer Anniston?"
I do not see what you are trying to say by this - Are you saying Angelina Jolie is "more attractive" than Jennifer Anniston, - then this a matter of opinion as with all perception of beauty. I also do not see why you presume that there is a "need" for either person you mention. (I think you are confusing "want" with "need")
"Why is there good tasting food? "
Our taste buds have evolved over the millenia to protect us from food that is not good for our survival. Food that is beneficial to our survival tastes good, and vice versa.
"It could be just tubes of food of the sort provided to astronauts, merely fulfilling a need."
True, but I dont see any relevence.
"This is only one aspect of God s attributes, ie Rahman or Merciful , that He has made things for our enjoyment that were not strictly necessary".
An assumption, - that things were MADE for our enjoyment. Again no evidence.
We could have evolved over millenia to enjoy foods that were beneficial to for our survival, and did NOT enjoy things that acted against our survival. Natural selection in action ?
"The Divine laws I was referring to meant that everything is carried out in accordance with a system of strict laws".
What evidence have you that any laws were divinely inspired ?
Also have you not heard of quantum mechanics, which says that in all atomic events (and therefore everything in the universe) there is an eliment of chance ? So the "strict laws" are not quite so strict.
"We as humans are hard pressed to understand all of the maths, but someone (or something?) knows, understands and puts the laws into beautiful, harmonious and perfect use. "
One HUGE presumption that someone (I assume you mean someone outside this universe) understands and is putting the laws into effect.
What EVIDENCE do you have to presume this ?
"What is it that has a much better intelligence than ours and is doing all this maths? "
Rhetorical question based on the previous presumption.
"You quote the example of an inanimate sperm fertilizing an inanimate egg. The two inanimate objects create a perfect human being capable of conscious thought."
Again - consciousness as the result of biochemical processes.
"If we could, and if we did take inanimate objects and somehow fused them together, could we provide it with a consciousness?"
You are implying that consciousness is something separate from the process, and has to be "provided" as an extra. I say it is part of the biochemical process.
Furthermore, it takes the collusion of millions of perfect steps in the right direction to make a perfect baby. The slightest wrong step can result in horrendous deformities. If it were mere chance, there should have been many many deformed individuals and only a very few perfect ones. This is what I call a miracle.
You say "if it were mere chance". What is the "it"? - Do you mean "The slightest wrong step" ?
Have you not heard of DNA. (which acts similar to a computer program). Where is the miracle in a computer following a program?
So I dont now why you assume there would be many "wrong steps".
Have you also not heard - sometimes by "mere chance" DNA does make a "wrong step" , and an individual suffers as a result.
I do not know why you presume that a "wrong step" will automatically result in "horrendous deformities"
hi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate that you are trying to help creationists reconcile their beliefs against evolutionism. In that I wish you well.
Even though I do not believe in creation I believe that science and religion can co-exist
But that is not the problem
The problem is that creationists believe the stories of creation explicitly (so I understand) and are trying to have these beliefs taught as a science. In doing so they want to enter the arena of science, but are not prepared to follow the discipline of science.
As a result, wherever I see assertions made regarding scientific subjects I request scientific evidence where I believe none already exists (obviously I may be wrong in this respect, and am happy if this is pointed out as it expands my knowledge).
If I can I will also try to point out faulty logic or assumptions. However the problem with some creationists it their posts are so involved or convoluted they take a lot of time to analyse and respond (time which I do not always have)
Thank you for your time. To answer your criticism, I would say that Ok beauty is a perception, but most people would perceive Angelina Jolie as more beautiful than Jennifer Anniston. I was trying to pre-empt your reasoning that beauty was necessary for procreation. And anyway, thousands of years of blind evolution would result in many more people looking like Ms. Jolie if she is seen as very attractive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for food, there is not just good tasting food, there are also different textures all designed not to fulfil a need for food but to remove boredom and instil enjoyment and joy into something we have to do three times or more each day. My point is that blind chance would not have gone to all this trouble.
As for the solar system and stars, the Holy Qur�n tells us that they exist to guide us in darkness. For many centuries, mankind has been benefiting from stars and other heavenly bodies to find directions. But they also serve to guide us in darkness of knowledge. The study of the solar system and the galaxies etc has helped us learn a tremendous amount about our world here. Cosmology is now at the forefront of particle physics.
DNA is a computer programme, fine. Have you ever heard of a computer programme that wasnt programmed by a programmer?
When I said wrong step I meant the ones that result in deformities.
Quantum mechanics is but one explanation of natural phenomenon. It is actually quite ridiculous. For example a particle can exist in two places at the same time. Or, that there is a bit of me in China and simultaneously another bit in Australia! Yet you are willing to believe in it! Sure it explains many phenomenon but it is far from the full story.
Quantum mechanics provides only a limited explanation of nature just as Newtons laws were limited. Scientific laws are not hard and fast. They explain only a small range of life, and are ever changing. Science always provides evidence to prove it right but there is always new evidence rejecting the previous.
So what is the discipline of science? The trouble with scientists is that they are just as narrow-minded as creationists. Scientists think they have all the explanations until some others prove them wrong. Creationists believe only the version of God put forward by Christianity is the right one.
My point is that we must admit to our understanding being very limited and liable to change. Consider the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. (by the way the Holy Qur�n mentions this). Or the possibility of other universes (again mentioned by the Holy Qur�n) according to String Theory. If our understanding is so limited, why do we say no to being told about the existence of a Being who knows more than us?
Hi lovegod - You cant get away that easily
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"but most people would perceive Angelina Jolie as more beautiful than Jennifer Anniston"
There you go again making assumptions
"many more people looking like Ms. Jolie"
So you believe descendants look like parents ?
Personally I do not look like my parents - for a start I am 6ft 1in tall they were 5ft 3 and 5ft 6
My grandparents (both paternal and maternal) were even shorter. -
"My point is that blind chance would not have gone to all this trouble."
My point was that enjoyment of food was a necessary evolutionary process.i.e. was not blind chance but was the result natural selection (Those who did not enjoy food tended to die through starvation. Those who enjoyed the wrong food tended to die through poisoning, or were weekened by their experience and fell victim to predators/environment).
"For many centuries, mankind has been benefiting from stars and other heavenly bodies to find directions"
You mean like astrology ?
"DNA is a computer programme, fine".
I said DNA "acts similar a computer program", I did not say it is a computer program.
Have you ever heard of a computer programme that wasnt programmed by a programmer?
Question irrelevent .
"When I said wrong step I meant the ones that result in deformities."
The "wrong step", as you put it, is the result of a change in the DNA. It is only "wrong" because WE have determined that the result is undesirable. However these changes are ones which COULD lead to a new species.
"Quantum mechanics is but one explanation of natural phenomenon. It is actually quite ridiculous. For example a particle can exist in two places at the same time."
I do not think quantum theory says that a particle can exist in 2 place at the same time. What it says is that particle has a probability of existing in one place and a probability of existing in another. As a result we cannot be 100% sure where the particle is, so it is "considered" to be in both places.
"Or, that there is a bit of me in China and simultaneously another bit in Australia! Yet you are willing to believe in it!"
See above - It is not 100% certain that a specific particle of "you" is in any specific place. Only that is has a probability of being in that place - the further from "you" the lower the probability(for a particle of "you" being in China or Australia the probability is very......very low, but is NOT 0% probable (i.e impossible), therefore there is still a possibility of it being in these places)
I bet you believe your body is 100% solid (apart from obvious empty spaces like lungs, stomach,etc), but you are in fact 99.99% (maybe more) empty space, yet you believe quantum theory ridiculous. (If you dont believe me - subtract the volume of an atomic nucleus from the volume of an atom (take hydrogen atom for example), the remainder of the atom is empty space). So much for what people believe.
"Sure it explains many phenomenon but it is far from the full story." I agree there is more to learn in this area.
Quantum mechanics provides only a limited explanation of nature just as Newton's laws were limited. Scientific laws are not hard and fast. They explain only a small range of life, and are ever changing.
So far so good.
""Science always provides evidence to prove it right but there is always new evidence rejecting the previous".
"rejecting the previous" is a little of an overstatement. "Superceding the previous" I think would be more accurate.
"So what is the discipline of science? The trouble with scientists is that they are just as narrow-minded as creationists. Scientists think they have all the explanations until some others prove them wrong. "
Again I someone who I dont believe understands science. No scientist believes they have ALL the explanations, only the best available at that moment in time.
Again someone who believes scientists are narrow minded. This belief seems to be centered aound the fact that scientists require scientifically based facts, data, evidence and analysis in their studies, not unfounded assumptions and opinions. Now there's a novelty.
(You may be interested to know that at this moment in time scientists in europe are carrying out research to find a specific particle. Some scientists have expressed a hope that the particle will NOT be found, because this will prove existing theories wrong and they will have to find a replacement theory.)
"Consider the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. (by the way the Holy Quran mentions this). Or the possibility of other universes (again mentioned by the Holy Quran) according to String Theory."
I may be wrong but I bet the quran does not explicitly mention dark matter or dark energy or other universes. but these are "interpretations" of what the quran does say
"If our understanding is so limited, why do we say no to being told about the existence of a Being who knows more than us?"
I do not know any scientist who says that there is absolutely no possibility of an entity existing outside our universe, only that there is no scientific evidence that one does exist (or even that at this moment in time evidence that "outside our universe" exists)"
You say a "being who knows more than us" . Why should such an entity (if it exists) know more than us, what evidence do you have ?
Hi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 more litle thing
You say
"there are also different textures all designed not to fulfil a need for food but to remove boredom and instil enjoyment"
I assume by this you are asserting that foods have been "designed" to have different tastes and textures to "remove boredom ...etc"
To presume that foods were "designed" in order for us to enjoy them is quite a presumption. Please supply evidence
However I would say that most foods we eat must be cooked prior to eating in order to "enjoy", otherwise we would suffer problems with digestion (not including food poisoning)
If you believe they were designed then they were not a very good "design" were they? (If I were designing foods for my new "creation" I would have ensured all were edible and enjoyable without intervention).
To all you creationist believers out there
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver the past several days I have asked many questions re - creationism
So far
replies of any sort - none
answers - none
Wonder why that is ??????
Perhaps you are all shy ?
First of all, I am not trying to get away, I am willing to respond to your criticism which I will take point by point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am indeed making the assumption that most people perceive Ms. Jolie to be very attractive. When I said most people would look like her, I meant that if natural selection selects what is most successful to perform its required part in life, it will have chosen (what a majority of men perceive as) her kind of beauty over other kinds.
To elaborate, I would start by requesting you to agree that evolution has taken place from lesser forms to higher forms of life.
If you agree, then I would say that if left to natural selection, it need not select the best character that would lead to a higher form of life. Take a famine for instant. A lesser form of life may succeed in it when higher forms might die out, which is what happened in the case of the dinosaurs. But we see that evolution has maintained an overall direction toward man in all circumstances, famines, droughts comets hitting earth etc. It has evolved into the creature with the most developed faculties, capable of being by far the most successful on the planet.
Coming to food and many other things such as fragrance, feelings, in everything we observe far far more enjoyment than was necessary. You are right to an extent that survival required food to be enjoyable. But do you think mere survival demanded mangoes, guavas, pomegranates, bananas, melons…the list is endless. I don’t know about you but I think it is very obvious that Someone loves us and wants us to enjoy the food as well as other pleasures much more than what was necessary for mere survival.
And in any case, if the food was evolving to be competitive to be eaten by us, what was in it for the food? In nature, animals that want to live evolve/develop defensive characteristics to survive.
So natural selection is inadequate at explaining why evolution took the route that led to the present scenario.
Directions of north south etc provided by stars as in astronomy, not astrology.
I think one can call DNA a computer programme. Because it is made of flesh and blood does not mean it is any less efficient. Same goes for the rest of our body.
You need a programmer to write a programme, so I am suggesting God is the programmer who wrote the DNA sequence.
Of course, changes can lead to new species. My point was that many things have to go in a particular direction to create a physically perfect human baby. When those things don’t go right and imperfections of the sort happen which make human life either unbearable or unlivable, scientists/doctors try to make the life as normal as possible. No one lets a patient suffer because it could produce a new species. So there is a difference between an advantageous change and a disadvantageous one.
The point is that there are many possibilities of change but for a change to be advantageous to a species to take it to a higher order requires a guiding Hand.
You are right about the probability of the particle being in two places at the same time. But a bit of me in two different places at the same time (which is even more ridiculous, in terms of what we actually observe) is very possible indeed likely according to Quantum mechanics. I know the possibility very low etc but the point is that Quantum Mechanics is a true theory. It explains many things in nature. I am not contradicting you. What I am saying is that you are willing to accept its unobserved and ‘weird’ points without observed evidence, yet you are not willing to apply the same rule to a belief in God.
I am sorry I did not get your point about most of matter being empty space. It is not a weirdness to me.
I stand corrected; superceding is far more accurate than the word rejecting.
I have experienced that more often than not when I talk to scientists or to doctors, I feel their attitudes towards the possibilities of alternative medicine or alternative theories are met with prejudice. My question is that if scientist’s own understanding is so limited, why deny there could be an explanation that involves God?
Don’t all ideas in science come from theories? Scientists make assumptions and theories based on observation and then they are regarded as scientific fact once they are proven experimentally. The Higgs Boson is one such theory. Scientists are of course open to possibilities of immediate scientific theories but they are not open to the science beyond, i.e., considering the possibility the existence of a God.
Coming now to the crux of the matter as you will agree. Where is the proof of God? On a personal level, I have experienced His direct proof. But to you, I will present the example of Quantum mechanics again. You believe in the truth of this theory due to its explanation of certain facts, so you accept all its implications, some even without proof.
Now I present to you the case of the Holy Qur’ân which is a book composed of God’s words, given to us 1400 years ago. It predicts the merging of two oceans, in two different places. Of course it doesn’t name the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal as such but it is obvious that that is what is meant.
It speaks of a fire emanating from hatama which will attack people’s hearts, before burning them. Is this not what happens in an atomic bomb, the heart’s electronics are disrupted with a shock wave before the actual effects of the explosion hits them?
The Holy Qur’ân says that God created the universe and He shall make it expand. Is this not exactly in accordance with latest cosmological observations?
It says God created everything from water. It says man was created from clay, from dry ringing clay and from black fermenting mud in different places. Are these not various stages of evolution of man?
It says God created everything in pairs. You know that every particle that makes up matter has an anti particle pair.
The list goes on and on. Even though it is mainly a religious book but it contains all this knowledge as well. They are more than just interpretations because one after the other these so called interpretations are proven time and time again to be correct.
If this is indeed a true book, then the writer of the Holy Qur’ân and the Creator who created the universe must be one and the same. Because the writer of the Holy Qur’ân knows things only the Creator could know.
Of course you could argue that the Holy Prophet Muhammad may peace be upon him wrote it and he must have been very intelligent. I do believe that he was intelligent, but how could he possibly have the knowledge scientists only gained recently?
So I present my proof of the existence of God as the Holy Qur’ân. Once one believes in a part of the Holy Qur’ân then as in Quantum Mechanics, one must accept the whole and believe in God as the Creator of the beautiful and perfect universe.
Your argument that because some food has to cooked means it is not good design does not hold water. We have to clean, to shave to eat, to drink , to cut our nails, to milk our cows, to kill our meat... Would good design have meant that we should do nothing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are a part of the life we are designed to live. All of the inequalities of life enable us to live the life of a good person or a bad one. By good things I mean to help each other, to be kind to each other. To be fair and not take away each other’s rights, which is the other thing religion teaches us.
That is the point of religion. God gives us a life and choices to see how we will behave. We are told we are to be brought to account for how we act in this world.
Hi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy response. -
"When I said most people would look like her, I meant that if natural selection selects what is most successful to perform its required part in life, it will have chosen (what a majority of men perceive as) her kind of beauty over other kinds."
Clutching at assumptions yet...yet again ("majority of men".. says who? )
Many civilisations not in the west would regard her as ugly (also some men in the west regard her as ugly, or at least not as attractive as others) . Why should natural selection favour her type of beauty above other equally valid perceptions of beauty.
"Take a famine for instant. A lesser form of life may succeed in it when higher forms might die out, which is what happened in the case of the dinosaurs."
Taking the currently accepted theory ie. collision of asteroid, then nearly all dinosaurs died out because of global catastrophy (ie. a physical event), NOT because of a failure of natural selection ( i.e a biological process), most of the remainder died out as the result of the resultant famine.
I also do not know what you mean by "a lesser" or "a higher" for of life.
In an extended famine those species which required large amounts of food tend to die, those with lower requirement for food tend to survive. Whether they are a "lesser" or "higher" species is irrelevent.
"But we see that evolution has maintained an overall direction toward man in all circumstances, famines, droughts comets hitting earth etc"
I see that again you are making an assumption - that "your" evolution has a "direction" i.e each step in evolutionary changes were aimed towards an end product .i.e man
Firstly provide evidence that this is the case
Secondly - Lets assume that "your" evolution has a direction. Prove that man is the "target" of this "evolution".
"It has evolved into the creature with the most developed faculties, capable of being by far the most successful on the planet"
I dont know what you mean by "far most successful"
Dinosaurs were the most successful species for hundreds of millions of years, man (i.e. homo sapiens) has only been on the earth for 10's of thousands of years (according to scientific evidence), and for a substantial part of this was not the most "successful" species. .
So I dont know what you define as successful.
Coming to food and many other things such as fragrance, feelings, in everything we observe far far more enjoyment than was necessary. You are right to an extent that survival required food to be enjoyable. But do you think mere survival demanded mangoes, guavas, pomegranates, bananas, melons&the list is endless. I dont know about you but I think it is very obvious that Someone loves us and wants us to enjoy the food as well as other pleasures much more than what was necessary for mere survival.
How many more assumptions are you going to make.
All of the above is based on the assumption that they are provided for our benefit. EVIDENCE PLEASE.
I think you have a circular argument.
You say that "it is very obvious that someone loves us", but your evidence for this is an assumption that someone created things for our benefit.
"And in any case, if the food was evolving to be competitive to be eaten by us, what was in it for the food? In nature, animals that want to live evolve/develop defensive characteristics to survive. "
WHAT ??? - foods evolved against other foods so that they would be eaten by us.
Now that IS stupid
Did you not understand what I said ?
I said WE evolved to enable US to eat the produce available. It is only AFTER we started to eat them did they became FOOD to us. They existed BEFORE WE started to eat them and do NOT require us to continue to exist.
"So natural selection is inadequate at explaining why evolution took the route that led to the present scenario."
Stupid statement based on illogical argument.
"Directions of north south etc provided by stars as in astronomy, not astrology".
Which north are you talking about (there are several "north's")
"I think one can call DNA a computer programme."
Whats with this "we". You can if you wish - I do not. You can call it whatever you like, it doesn't make it so.
"Because it is made of flesh and blood does not mean it is any less efficient."
(I'm being a little pedantic here) - DNA is made of flesh and blood ???
"You need a programmer to write a programme, so I am suggesting God is the programmer who wrote the DNA sequence."
You can suggest you wrote the DNA sequence personally if you want, it doesnt make it true.
EVIDENCE please.
"My point was that many things have to go in a particular direction to create a physically perfect human baby. When those things dont go right and imperfections of the sort happen which make human life either unbearable or unlivable, scientists/doctors try to make the life as normal as possible. No one lets a patient suffer because it could produce a new species. So there is a difference between an advantageous change and a disadvantageous one"
To some extent I agree.
However there are a number of things to consider (I dont know the answer to the following)
Treatments tend to minimise the symptoms but at present we do not/cannot treat the underlying cause - i.e the problem in the genes.
If at some future time we be able to treat the underlying cause by genetic engineering, is there not a possibility we are interfering with evolution ?
(At this time I am thinking of scicle cell desease, where the cause of the desease also give high immunity to malaria - the biggest killer in sub saharan africa)
.
"The point is that there are many possibilities of change but for a change to be advantageous to a species to take it to a higher order requires a guiding Hand."
Almost a circular argument based on 2 assumptions
You are right about the probability of the particle being in two places at the same time. But a bit of me in two different places at the same time (which is even more ridiculous, in terms of what we actually observe) is very possible indeed likely according to Quantum mechanics. I know the possibility very low etc but the point is that Quantum Mechanics is a true theory.
Sorry it appears I failed in my explanation of Quantum theory. Lets have another go but simpler still.
There is probability of a particle of "you" being at point A (lets say 50%)
There is also a probability of the particle being at point B (lets say 50%)
( This comes from Heisenbergs uncertainty principle)
So we know that the particle is EITHER at point A or B
But since they are equally probable then we dont know which it is.
So the particle is "considered" to be at both points, not that it IS at both points.
"to apply the same rule to a belief in God. y"
I dont know why you say this. I have no rules as to anyones "belief" of any entity
"I am sorry I did not get your point about most of matter being empty space."
My point was that peoples perception of the world can sometimes be completely different from the reality.
"I have experienced that more often than not when I talk to scientists or to doctors, I feel their attitudes towards the possibilities of alternative medicine or alternative theories are met with prejudice."
Is it possible you are confusing prejudice with scepticism.?
In the case of the medical profession I tend to agree that many doctors were VERY reluctant to think "outside the box". But in the USA this may have been because this may have left them open to malpractice suites.
(I believe there is anecdotal evidence that some doctors are becoming more, lets say, amenable to some altenative medicines.)
I would HOPE that any doctor or scientist presented with alternative medicine or theory would be VERY sceptical until evidence(scientific or clinical) is provided.
I would expect them to TOTALLY reject any evidence the basis of which are assumptions or opinion.
"My question is that if scientists own understanding is so limited, why deny there could be an explanation that involves God?"
I have not seen any evidence that scientists says there "could not be" only that no-one has provided any scientific evidence that there "is"
"Scientists are of course open to possibilities of immediate scientific theories but they are not open to the science beyond, i.e., considering the possibility the existence of a God. "
So you want scientists to "consider the possibility" of an entity existing outside our universe?
How exactly could they do that ?
How exactly could they begin to investigate another universe?
"Coming now to the crux of the matter as you will agree. Where is the proof of God?"
Again I am not asking for proof of an entity existing outside our universe - only evidence
"You believe in the truth of this theory due to its explanation of certain facts, so you accept all its implications, some even without proof.
We have evidence that the theory correctly predicts the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. If we had "proof" it would be law not theory
I believe it is the best explanation so far of this behaviour, not that it is the "truth". Until a better theory comes along I will stick with this one
"It predicts the merging of two oceans, in two different places. Of course it doesnt name the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal as such but it is obvious that that is what is meant. "
Again you use the word "obvious" - So you are interpreting the book.
The problem is- once you start interpreting you can allege it to be referring to any fact you want, just like Nostradamus
"It speaks of a fire emanating from hatama which will attack peoples hearts, before burning them. Is this not what happens in an atomic bomb, the hearts electronics are disrupted with a shock wave before the actual effects of the explosion hits them? "
Again you are interpreting
"The Holy Qur�n says that God created the universe and He shall make it expand. Is this not exactly in accordance with latest cosmological observations? "
Intepretation again
"It says God created everything from water. It says man was created from clay, from dry ringing clay and from black fermenting mud in different places. Are these not various stages of evolution of man? "
And again
"It says God created everything in pairs. ".
and again
"The list goes on and on. Even though it is mainly a religious book but it contains all this knowledge as well. "
Your mean your intepretations go on and on
"They are more than just interpretations because one after the other these so called interpretations are proven time and time again to be correct".
I like this - You interpret a book to mean know facts, and then say the interpretation must be correct because the facts are correct.
The ultimate in circular argument
"Because the writer of the Holy Qur�n knows things only the Creator could know".
I have not read the Quran, but you have not given any evidence that the contents are actually correct, only that the interpretations are correct, or that a creator knew them.
"I do believe that he was intelligent, but how could he possibly have the knowledge scientists only gained recently?"
Again no evidence - It is a stupid statement to say the writer was aware of modern knowledge after the writings have been intepreted in light of this knowledge
"So I present my proof of the existence of God as the Holy Qur�n. Once one believes in a part of the Holy Qur�n then as in Quantum Mechanics, one must accept the whole and believe in God as the Creator of the beautiful and perfect universe."
You can believe what you want , but a book as evidence ????
You also say that if you believe part of a book you must accept the whole. WHY????
I have a number of fictional books based about recent true events. You say I should believe the whole book because part of it is true ??? Illogical
Hi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA reply
"Your argument that because some food has to cooked means it is not good design does not hold water. We have to clean, to shave to eat, to drink , to cut our nails, to milk our cows, to kill our meat... Would good design have meant that we should do nothing? "
My statement re - good design, obviously was only my opinion and related to food.
In earlier times we had to hunt food/farmed land/gathered fruits in order to obtain food. All good exercise.
Those who did not hunt or farm or gather, died.
Most of what you identify man did not do( I believe) in early times except at a basic level, they but survived.
Just an observation - Some of the things you say we have to do - some we do out of social convention. Cleaning we do to prevent germs/infection from handling food. We eat/drink to sustain the bio-chemical processes. I think cows could manage quite happily with their own calves as this is how they evolved. However for us to obtain milk for our own benefit then "obviously" the milk will not come to us.
"These are a part of the life we are designed to live. All of the inequalities of life enable us to live the life of a good person or a bad one. By good things I mean to help each other, to be kind to each other. To be fair and not take away each other’s rights, which is the other thing religion teaches us."
Apart from the the part "we are designed to live" which I disagree with for reasons previously stated, I agree 100% with the remainder, except for 1 small thing.
I agree that religion(s) teaches all that you have said, but I think a person can be all of this without a religious belief.
"That is the point of religion. God gives us a life and choices to see how we will behave. We are told we are to be brought to account for how we act in this world."
Again I agree 100% if you believe in a religion, but I would like to make 1 small addition.
You say that "We are told we are to be brought to account" . To me ones own conscience here and now is a stronger force to be a good person.
I do not know how many religions believe that if one confesses to being a bad person then the "sins" can be forgiven. To me this is total hypocrisy.
loveGod: "Now I present to you the case of the Holy Qur’ân which is a book composed of God’s words"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAha.. but if, as you seem, you are all but bending over backwards to be reasonable and even scientifically credible, shouldn't that be: "...which is a book which I believe to be composed of God’s words"? Otherwise you are making a presupposition (in this case, the existence of 'God'), and while that's fine with a religious belief, where no evidence is required, it's definitely bad science.
loveGod: "That is the point of religion. God gives us a life and choices to see how we will behave. We are told we are to be brought to account for how we act in this world."
I can equally (and frankly, effortlessly) argue that religion serves no purpose, because we have a life and choices anyway. In this life we must take responsibility for our own actions, and stand ready to accept the consequences of those actions, because to follow such a course brings a maturity of reason beyond the simplistic and rather juvenile 'reward and punishment' systems which have a deity in the admonishing parent role, which religions mostly peddle.
As to the assumed prophesies of the Holy Qur’ân: well, I have debated others who argue the same for the Bible, but nothing has been (or can be) proven in such a direction, because one is always perceiving such prophesies after the fact. And it can be equally convincingly (indeed, perhaps even more convincingly) argued that the prophesies of the Hopi are way more on target and speak to the relevance of our times more directly than such scriptural texts.
And (another 'frankly') Ms. Jolie, whatever her attributes, is way too Hollywood for my tastes, so there's no need to make any assumptions in this direction on my behalf.
loveGod: "By good things I mean to help each other, to be kind to each other. To be fair and not take away each other’s rights, which is the other thing religion teaches us."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is therefore a savage irony that inter-religious conflicts (between religions), and intra-religious conflicts (between different factions of the same religion) have raged through human history. Religions have been at the interface of much human suffering, persecution and misery, and shocking cruelties have been perpetrated in religion's name, as history verifies.
In fact, to be unfair and to take away each others rights, whether those rights involve basic freedoms and choices, or even of human life itself, have been activities with which religions and religious factions have occupied themselves, at times with every sign of apparent relish. I could give examples a-plenty, but I am sure that one or two at least will spring to the mind of anyone who may read this.
It is not scientists who feel they have the answer to every thing. Scientists know they do not have an answer to every thing and that is what drives them to push further. What the do have is a mountain of evidence based on reason, testing, and logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is creationists who feel they know the answer to every thing. They are the ones that say this is how it happened , then back it up with passages from the bible (as if it wasnt a man made doctrine full of ghost stories trying to understand existence during a time when leaches where the cutting edge of medicine, spread initially by mouth by an illiterate uneducated population, diluted by translation, and heavily edited by thousands of splinter cults), and then conclude it is fact.
Faith is important when rationality is it ally. I have faith that the sky wont fall on my head because we know it is not a solid object. I have faith that the food I eat wont kill me because thousands of others have eaten it before. Faith is only awarded to an idea when it has proven it deserves it. The belief of a celestial dictator who only chooses to show him self to specific uneducated tribes wondering around in the dessert a few thousand years ago after thousands of generations of humans have live brutal short almost meaningless lives and has decided to go on vacation for the past 2000 years and can not in any way validate his existence does not deserve any faith what so ever.
It is not scientists who feel they have the answer to every thing. Scientists know they do not have an answer to every thing and that is what drives them to push further. What the do have is a mountain of evidence based on reason, testing, and logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is creationists who feel they know the answer to every thing. They are the ones that say “this is how it happened”, then back it up with passages from the bible (as if it wasn’t a man made doctrine full of ghost stories trying to understand existence during a time when leaches where the cutting edge of medicine, spread initially by mouth by an illiterate uneducated population, diluted by translation, and heavily edited by thousands of splinter cults), and then conclude it is fact.
Faith is important when rationality is it ally. I have faith that the sky wont fall on my head because we know it is not a solid object. I have faith that the food I eat won’t kill me because thousands of others have eaten it before. Faith is only awarded to an idea when it has proven it deserves it. The belief of a celestial dictator who only chooses to show him self to specific uneducated tribes wondering around in the dessert a few thousand years ago after thousands of generations of humans have live brutal short almost meaningless lives and has decided to go on vacation for the past 2000 years and can not in any way validate his existence does not deserve any faith what so ever.
Laughing gravy, among your many points, let me take up the point of why you dont consider humans as the highest forms of life. Is it not a fact that humans have been the most successful in using the worlds resources for their advantage?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rest of your arguments are just that, arguments. Evidence and proof to me is based on agreeing on something. if I show you white you can still insist it is black. How many times has evidence and proof been shown to be wrong? That certain factors that should have been taken into account werent taken into account leading to wrong results.
Also have you ever heard they say you can prove almost anything with statistics?
I am not saying proof is irrelevant, I am saying that what I have presented is proof. Yet you insist on rejecting it. For example you deny that human beings are the highest form of life. You deny that most men would find Ms. Jolie attractive. You insist I am making assumptions. Fine I am, but they are true assumptions none the less.
As for the Qur�nic interpretations as you call them, you should not say that until you have the actual Arabic text in front of you and you can get it translated by someone you trust.
True the interpretations are after the fact. But there are other scientific facts contained in the Holy Qur�n as well. For example it says that one day we, God, will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of a scroll. If I tell you this, you will say that how can you believe it if it isnt proven.
So really, with you I am in a no win situation. I told you verses that have been proven to be right; you say it is after the fact. If I tell you about verses that are to be proven in the future, you will not accept them because science has yet to catch up with them.
Laughing gravy, your point about a bit of me being in two diffent places. You seem to know about quantum mechanics but I don’t know why you are saying that that is not what it claims. A particle is a different story, but out of the trillions of electrons that make up me, is their no probability that at least one may be in China, since it can extend to infinity? I am made of many many particles, I am not just one particle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am certain you know this; I therefore question your claimed intention of wishing to increase your knowledge here
To bkswain87
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me explain to you the difference between a scientist and a creationist such as myself, bear in mind I am taking my points from the Holy Qur’ân and not from the Bible, which I think is not as detailed.
Scientific knowledge which I respect a great deal, if for nothing else, for the fact that it proves the Holy Qur’ân right. Although science is responsible for transforming and bettering our lives, the big drawback in scientific knowledge is its transience. Have you read the article in Scientific American from an issue this year which says that quantum entanglement may throw into doubt special relativity? It says that the universe is non-local, turning so many things on its head. What is scientific truth exactly? We are taught constants. Then we are taught they are not really constants. Recently a mathematician was implying that apart from causality, i.e. that a window can’t break before a stone is thrown on it, we can’t really be sure of anything.
So, scientific knowledge is changeable. Something true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow.
I love science, and I love scientists’ open-mindedness about science and the willingness to accept weird things, but they don’t apply the same open-mindedness to religion.
As far as religion is concerned, I believe the Holy Qur’ân to be from God who knows the ultimate truths of science. Unlike the Bible, the Holy Qur’ân has not changed since it was revealed. So if I find something in science that is confirmed in the Holy Qur’ân, those are the things that become real scientific facts to me. Because I believe that God knows the unchangeable realities because He is the one who created them and He is the one who wrote the Holy Qur’ân.
I do not believe in a God who only revealed himself only to wandering tribes. The Holy Qur’ân tells us that God created us and then stayed with us. The idea that He became visible to anyone is wrong. He was with all the humans since they gained the ability to think. He sent them prophets over and over again to guide them. He is still with us and provides for us in every way, spiritually and physically.
I am not certain of the name, but there was an analyst of some sort who said that the rate at which human population is growing, will not be matched by the amount of food being produced. He therefore judged that humans would die out. But, what actually happened? Food production actually grew faster and now there is far more food produced than we need, despite the sharp increase in human population.
The Holy Qur’ân tells us that God is responsible to provide for us, and not to fear an increase in the number of children for the reason that they will not have enough to eat.
A faith in God is a very beneficial thing for us. If God does indeed exist, imagine how Powerful He must be. He hardly needs us. But we need Him. Imagine if you were in a situation where your prayers at times of anxiety and worry were heard. At impossible situations you were helped in miraculous ways. That is the God I have, a Merciful God, a Beneficent God, a God I could not live without.
To laughing gravy: it is not correct that mere conscience can make one a better person. A true belief in religion enables one to be completely selfless no matter what happens. I have met people who are very nice and very civil. But when it comes to a test, they will stab you in the back quicker than the speed of light
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy religion teaches me that if I do something wrong, and I repent, I will be forgiven but and it is a big BUT, only if I am genuinely sorry and never intend to do it again. That is not hypocrisy at all. Otherwise there would be no hope for anyone. The point of religion is to reform us. Forgiveness is a means to that end. If someone is lying and is not going to reform then of course he is punishable because the punishment in such cases can lead to reformation
to ambertooth:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen I said that the Holy Qur’ân was composed of God’s words, I am presenting something I believe in and I am hoping that what I am going to say afterwards will be convincing enough for someone else to believe in too.
About bad science. As I indicated in a previous post, scientists are willing to accept a change in their immediate ideas but are disinterested in a larger change which is not so immediate. They come across a problem and then they consider all kinds of solutions. I am saying that since rationality in religion is not a demand made of them in their circles of investigation they are not willing to consider it.
The way I see it, I am actually enhancing the cause of science. The things that are confirmed in the Holy Qur’ân of science are final, ultimate truths and scientists should rely on them, and should base future scientific predictions knowing that these facts are non-transient.
True we do have a life and choices. But to make a choice even though it is of no benefit to you except that it will take you to heaven, is a difficult one indeed. If you have a way of making someone behave in a beneficial way, why rubbish it?
It is a popular notion that religion is the basis of many conflicts. But what about other reasons? Throughout history, some of the worst atrocities were committed for other reasons entirely. What does religion teach exactly? Since you are obviously more familiar with the Bible, didn’t Jesus peace be on him promote love and understanding? The Holy Prophet of Islam may peace be upon him was a very kind person too.
A woman used to throw her rubbish at him as he walked across the street every day. She was so regular that once when she missed an opportunity, he noticed and asked about her welfare. When he was told that she was ill, he went to inquire after her health!!! Why would he do that if he didn’t care deeply about people’s feelings?
Prophets are model human beings. God chooses them to teach people to be kind like them. The people who are closest to prophets and who follow in their example don’t usurp the rights of others
A religion never teaches people to be cruel and evil. People who have such intentions use religion to justify their actions as is happening with Islam these days.
You have called my argument about food evolution as stupid. However, can you present proof that plant life stopped evolving long before humans came into the world? It is similar is it not to the chicken and egg question, which came first? That and other similar arguments are very relevant to this discussion. See I would say that a Guiding Hand evolve them both side by side knowing the ultimate object which would be to combine them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not asking scientists to investigate beyond our universe. I am asking them to open their eyes to the proof of God that exists in this universe.
You said about fictional books based on true events. They are fiction. You know this and the author knows this.
However, if someone you trust because he has always been factual in what he reports, would you not accept something he reports because it sounds too incredible?
I know God is true. I know this because the things He has said in the Holy Qur’ân has been proven to me to be true. He claims that everything in this book is true, so do you think it is stupid of me to believe Him?
loveGod: "I am saying that since rationality in religion is not a demand made of them (scientists) in their circles of investigation they are not willing to consider it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen you misunderstand the way in which science functions. It is not that scientists are "not willing", or that they "do not apply the same open-mindedness to religion" (as you comment to bkswain87). Science cannot include faith-based concepts because such concepts are not refutable. That is why I called them 'bad science'.
loveGod: "It is a popular notion that religion is the basis of many conflicts. But what about other reasons?"
Of course there are other reasons, but this is irrelevant to my point. You made the statement that religion teaches us "to be fair and not take away each other’s rights". My specific point was that in practice we are, and have been, frequently motivated to do the opposite on grounds of religion. I stand by this point.
loveGod: "The things that are confirmed in the Holy Qur’ân of science are final, ultimate truths and scientists should rely on them"
Why should they? 'Because you believe that they should' is hardly a valid reason, as you surely must realise. My impression from your comments is that you want your ideas to take the same route as Christian creationism: you seek to have your ideas accepted into science while shortcutting the checks and balances of scientific methodology to which all ideas and researches must subject themselves. True or not? The biological sciences in general, and evolutionionary theory in particular, have worked hard over the decades to gain the scientific acceptance which they have. That is why this specific theory occupies the central position that it now enjoys.
So if such acceptance is your intention, I would suggest that, rather than presenting your ideas as comments on a SciAm thread, your time would be more productively spent in writing up your ideas in a paper and submitting the manuscript to a scientifically accedited outlet for peer review, because that is the only way that things are going to happen for you.
As an appendix to the above, I note in your comments to others that you apparently favor a homocentric view of nature (your comment: "we see that evolution has maintained an overall direction toward man in all circumstances"). That is: the view that humans are in some way priviledged beings at the top of the creational heap. This is the view propounded by Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths, but it is a view that is somewhat early-19th century and no longer valid as a scientific model. From the cold perspective of the natural world, humans have become a parasitic species whose excessive demands are outstripping what their host organism (the planet) reasonably can provide. At the present rate, by 2050 we literally will have outstripped the planet's resources. We either will kill our host organism, or the host organism will strike back in a very radical way. Because I see that in the distant past nature has recovered from even extreme events over time, I incline towards the latter scenario.
I leave others further to address your comments which are in reply to them specifically, but in reading through your comments I see little that is basically different from Christian creationist pseudo-science.
lovegod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason religious books are not considered as proof of evidence in scientific studies is because they cannot be tested. Science deals with the natural world and cannot consider supernatural forces in their experiments. The inclusion of supernatural forces would invalidate any testing by allowing some other unobservable force to "cause" the results and not what the actual observations revealed.
To illustrate an example of why religion cannot be considered in science, consider this case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI drop an apple and it falls to the ground. My hypothesis is that the FSM (flying spaghetti monster) pushed the apple to the ground. There is simply no way to disprove my claim. Every rational person knows that gravity caused the apple to fall to the ground. However my religion does not believe in gravity, we believe that the FSM is everywhere and his giant spaghetti tentacle pushes everything toward the earth. Since the FSM is invisible and omnipotent only through faith can you understand him and believe in his power. To me it is far more plausible that an invisible FSM is causing the apple to fall than the natural, observable, repeatable, force of gravity.
I do not actually believe in the FSM but this should illustrate the type of arguments that people who want religion to be accepted as a science put forth. You're statement "The way I see it, I am actually enhancing the cause of science. The things that are confirmed in the Holy Qur’ân of science are final, ultimate truths and scientists should rely on them, and should base future scientific predictions knowing that these facts are non-transient," is basically pushing the same ideas. This is bad juju attempting make a persons beliefs a valid source of scientific evidence as I have hopefully illustrated with my FSM example.
Ambertooth: First of all your definition of bad science does not apply to the religion I believe in which is, Ahmadi Islam. You can absolutely refute faith based concepts. Faith based concepts must be rational and logical otherwise they must be rejected. After all did God give us a brain to use for everything except religion? Does He expect us to believe in some weirdo explanation accepted hitherto by people whose intellect was less developed than ours? If Islam is for all times, (as it claims) it must stand up to the most thorough scrutiny by scholars of any time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I do not aim to shortcut or bypass any checks at all. Islam has been accepted by a large majority of the world a lot longer than evolutionary theory. The Holy Prophet May peace be upon him has been called the most influential man in history in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
My intention in writing these posts is to share with others the rational religion I have enjoyed following for a long time. I am actually a physicist trained in Kings College London. I wish that clear thinkers would understand that even they can benefit from the advantages of belonging to a religion.
I confess that I have not studied Christian creationist pseudo-science in any great detail. I do know however that the Holy Qur�n is quite different from the Bible in that it gives detailed account where the Bible doesnt. For instant, the Holy Qur�n says that God created a being and then from her created her mate and from them He created men and women.
The foetus we now know, is initially female before it goes through certain changes to make it a male (if it is to be a male). If it is to be a female, it continues to develop without any change. This is only one way in which this statement of the Holy Qur�n is amazingly true.
With such truths contained in it, of course it leads me to believe in it.
May I ask you why you say that a homocentric view of creation is no longer valid as a scientific model? I am not denying that we are parasites, the Holy Qur�n says that we (God) made man the best of evolution and then we returned him to the lowest of the low. Although man is the most capable of all the creatures on the planet, he has the capacity of being the most harmful to it and his fellow creatures, both animal and human.
By the way I agree that God (or nature as you put it) will sort the world out eventually.
By the way, did you know that an ice age is due now? I reckon (this is only my analysis) that Global warming will be combated by an ice age in the near future.
I also thank you for your suggestion to write up my ideas and send them to a scientifically accredited outlet, I hadnt considered doing that previously but will now probably do so. Thanks again
Dvashun: the brand of religion I believe in, Ahmadi Islam, does not as I said in a previous post expect belief in things that are irrational. As for supernatural forces, we are willing to believe in Dark Energy or Dark Matter because of some minor observation. This belief essentially means that space is not empty. But we observe it as empty. Of course it is filled with something that we cant observe with the faculties we have at the moment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is exactly what I am talking about! If scientists accept Dark matter and Dark energy without observation, with far more proof of God, why don’t they believe in Him unless they can see Him?
God as represented in the Holy Qur’ân does not go against His own Laws. You are not expected therefore to believe in an unobservable supernatural force. I cannot think of a scientific experiment you could do to test the existence of God.
Apart from the prophesies and scientific facts contained in the Holy Qur’ân being shown to be true, I can think of one other direct way to do a ‘test’. You could challenge someone to pray and then test if the prayer is accepted.
dvashun As for your FSM example, that is not at all my case at all. I believe in a God who has bound himself to His own laws. Gravity is His creation too. This is exactly what my original point was, God is not a magician who magically made man appear out of nothing. He used His laws of evolution to create man over billions of years. This is what the Holy Qur’ân tells us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod acts exactly in accordance with science. The Holy Qur’ân tells us that we will have more faculties in the next life. Like before a baby is born, he/she is quite comfortable in the womb and can probably not envisage the pleasure of seeing things.
Yet when it is born, it has a far more fulfilled life if it can see. Many more of life’s truths become clear to it and helps it to develop. The Holy Qur’ân presents this to be the case of our next life.
It means that in our next life we will be born with new faculties. Faculties which will enable us to see God for instant.
All the knowledge we have depends on our faculties to comprehend it. If there are things here that we are powerless to comprehend, does not mean they don’t exist, does it? The presence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter proves that. Also the presence of (probably) other universes also proves that we have not been endowed with the faculties to observe/perceive them.
So God is very real. Just as we look for indirect ways of judging if string theory is correct for example, we also have to look for indirect ways of judging if God exists.
loveGod,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour arguments for evidence of God are similar to the Intelligent Design theory of irreducable complexity. The idea of irreducable complexity is adequately explained on Wikipedia. Just because gravity exists does not mean that God created it. This is no different than me claiming that there is no such thing as gravity, just the FSM effect. You say that the Qur'an has had many prophecies come true, but it seems to be a matter of fitting the facts of history to fit the verses of the Qur'an. Nostradamus made many predictions that were correct so does that make him a prophet of Islam? How do you explain prophecies by the Qur'an that are wrong?
You keep mentioning dark matter as something unobservable that is accepted as fact. However, from my understanding, dark matter/energy is used to explain the difference between measured results and expected results. It is just a way of identifying something that humans have not yet found a way to measure. Dark matter is in no meaningful way relatable to a religious diety. Here is the difference, when someone sees a phenomenon that cannot be explained (like rain, lightning, and thunder in early mankind) and uses that as evidence of a god then there is really just a lack of knowledge. With dark matter/energy there is an acceptance that something is being measured that cannot be observed. The measured result is not being attributed to a god just to create an explanation.
Hi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre your post 23/03 9.41
You say that man is successful because he is the best at consuming resources. - That is one of the most the most stupid beliefs I have heard.
Eventually Man has consumed ALL resources - begins to die because there are no resources left - man dies. -Very successful, but now extinct.
(It is beyond my comprehension that you actually believe this !!!!!!!)
Of course all I have said are arguments -
but I have presented logic + evidence in support .
What have you presented - your belief , no evidence, nothing
Your proof consisted of your assertions of your belief , nothing else
Why should your "proof" be any better than mine.
You also do not read either what you say or what I say.
You keep repeating " Most men" without qualification.- For that to be true more than 50% of the male population of the world would have to believe any following assertion you make..
There is no way in the world that you could possibly know what the worlds population of men believe ,
THEREFORE IT IS AN ASSUMPTION
I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT AND NEITHER HAVE YOU.
To persist with any assertions relating to "most men" as fact is THEREFORE STUPID
You quote something from the Koran., and then predict what I would say in response.
You could not be more wrong.
What I would say is - Great you have a prediction before the event. However this does not become a fact until the event. Whether you or I believe it will happen or not is irrelevent.
You say that verses have "proven" to be right. What actually happened is that SOMEONE took verses, put THEIR OWN meanings to the words and found known facts/events to fit their new meanings. To me this just beggars belief as to how someone could be so stupid as to believe this PROVES anything.
Hi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre your post 09:52 PM on 03/23/09
" Laughing gravy, your point about a bit of me being in two diffent places. You seem to know about quantum mechanics but I don’t know why you are saying that that is not what it claims. A particle is a different story, but out of the trillions of electrons that make up me, is their no probability that at least one may be in China, since it can extend to infinity? I am made of many many particles, I am not just one particle."
Now you really have got me baffled as to you are saying or what the problem is you have with quantum mechanics
You originally brought quantum thoery up saying
"Quantum mechanics is but one explanation of natural phenomenon. It is actually quite ridiculous. For example a particle can exist in two places at the same time. Or, that there is a bit of me in China and simultaneously another bit in Australia!"
I have said I didn't believe it says that a particle exists in two places at the same time. I said that Quantum theory says there is a PROBABILITY it can exist in one place or another or another .......Etc
Do you not understand the difference between a probability and certainty?
Are you now talking about the "whole of you" or a particle of "you"?
Certainly quantum mechanics says that it is possible a particle of you is in China, or Australia, or wherever.
Hi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre - your post 10:42 PM on 03/23/09
""it is not correct that mere conscience can make one a better person."
Now theres a statement from a true bigot
A true belief in religion enables one to be completely selfless no matter what happens.
No it doesn't
I have met people who are very nice and very civil.
"So have I"
"But when it comes to a test, they will stab you in the back quicker than the speed of light"
You mean like all the religious fanatics So much for being "true believers
"My religion teaches me that if I do something wrong, and I repent,"
It is of no interest to me what your religion teaches you
To all out there responding to posts made by lovegod.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy advice is Dont bother
He is not interested in ANY logic/evidence/proof outside his own readings of a book.
That's it - no critical facilities, no logic, no science, nothing rational. To all intents and purposes brain dead
lovegod??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You have called my argument about food evolution as stupid."
No - I called you stupid for presenting such an argument
"However, can you present proof that plant life stopped evolving long before humans came into the world? "
Why should I ? - I never said food has ever stopped evolving, and have no reason to believe it has stopped.
Now I know you are living outside the real world - either that or you cant read.
"It is similar is it not to the chicken and egg question, which came first? "
who said either came first?
"I am asking them to open their eyes to the proof of God that exists in this universe."
Are you totally brain dead - What you believe is not proof
"However, if someone you trust because he has always been factual in what he reports, would you not accept something he reports because it sounds too incredible?"
You can trust a book as much as you like, you can believe that every word it contains to be the absolute truth.But all your beliefs are of no relevence to me
"I know God is true. I know this because the things He has said in the Holy Qur�n has been proven to me to be true. He claims that everything in this book is true, so do you think it is stupid of me to believe Him?"
You are stupid to assert that because you believe it then other people should.
Your beliefs are of no interest to me
lovegod??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) "For instant, the Koran says that God created a being and then from her created her mate and from them He created men and women"
2) "The foetus we now know, is initially female before it goes through certain changes to make it a male (if it is to be a male). If it is to be a female, it continues to develop without any change.
3) "This is only one way in which this statement of the Holy Koran is amazingly true."
So you say the"Koran is amazingly true" because what it says in 1) is the same as what we know to be true 2)
I must say you have a very fertile imagination if you think 2) bears any resemblance to 1)
"The Holy Prophet May............has been called the most influential man in history in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. "
In your dreams maybe
"I am actually a physicist trained in King's College London. "
Why do I think this is bull????
Could it be that one does not "train" as a physicist
By the way, did you know that an ice age is due now?
I too can read
"I reckon (this is only my analysis) that Global warming will be combated by an ice age in the near future."
Surprise, surprise. Join the list of several other analysis that predict this as a possible outcome of global warming
"I also thank you for your suggestion to write up my ideas and send them to a scientifically accredited outlet, I hadn't considered doing that previously but will now probably do so. Thanks again"
Thought you would probably be against trying to publish.
Could it be that your analysis is remarkably similar to others.?
loveGod: "Islam has been accepted by a large majority of the world a lot longer than evolutionary theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this is relevant because....??? Based upon the logic of this statement, I could equally say that Hinduism must be far more true than Islam because it has been around for a lot longer. And what do you consider a 'large majority'? Globally, Christianity currently has almost double the adherents of Islam.
However, you ask me why I consider that a homocentric view is no longer valid in science. Well, this is not my personal opinion, although it is one which I endorse. Old-fashioned trees of life would always show a man (never a woman!) at the top, with all other life forms branching out below him. The reason being (as I see it) that science was still perhaps unconsciously influenced by Scripture, and tended to view Homo sapiens as nature's crowning achievement.
But science now sees things more objectively (and again, as I see it, more accurately), and assigns the human species a place in the scheme of things as it does to other species. Those old-style family trees have since given way to cladistics, and more accuracy and objectivity is now possible. So from the point of view both of nature and of science we are fundamentally no different from any other species. Neither nature nor science makes the further distinctions that are made by religious beliefs (our immortal soul, and other such factors of faith), simply because such considerations are beyond the brief of science.
You describe man as "the most capable of all the creatures on the planet", but this is not passable science. What defines 'capable'? The social activity of hive bees, and their means, not just for locating pollen sources, but in communicating that information to their fellows, demonstrates considerably more than mere capability. Conversely, and regrettably, we humans have proven ourselves grossly incapable of managing our resources effectively.
If an ice age comes, it will come as the result of current global warming. The shutting down of such warm currents as the Atlantic Gulf Stream due to warming of the Arctic Ocean is one possible scenario, and one that is already known. So I wouldn't rush to claim credit for the idea!
You further say that my definition of 'bad science' does not apply to your religion, being Ahmadiyya. I stand by my statement. Any person who has attempted to mingle their religious beliefs with science (and that has included yourself, as well as many Christian fundamentalists, and even a Buddhist) with whom I have so far debated, both here on SciAm and on other forums, has claimed that this 'does not apply' to their particular faith. Every faith considers itself unique and more true than others. But I assure you that no faith of any kind can be mixed with science, however exempt it considers itself. I have fully explained the specific reasons for this (which are science's, and not my own) in my previous comment to you of 03/24/09.
To Devashun: First of all, there are no prophesies of the Holy Qur�n which went wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was waiting for Nostradamus mention. Although I havent read them personally my understanding is that Nostradamus predictions are not very clear and sometimes they can be wrong. Just as someone said about the Holy Qur�n in this discussion that perhaps I am interpreting certain verses to fit with my own claims. This could be argued about some verses, yes. Because they are indirect and you could equate them to Nostradamuss predictions.
However, there are some verses which are so clear that you could not translate them in any other way except one. Here are a few of the examples: (these are taken from my previous post)
The Holy Qur�n predicts the merging of two oceans, in two different places. Of course it doesnt name the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal as such but it is obvious that that is what is meant. The Quranic words in both places are Marajal Bahrain, two oceans shall merge. How else would you interpret these verse?
It speaks of a fire emanating from hatama which will attack peoples hearts, before burning them. Is this not what happens in an atomic bomb, the hearts electronics are disrupted with a shock wave before the actual effects of the explosion hits them?
It says God created everything from water. It says man was created from clay, from dry ringing clay and from black fermenting mud in different places. Are these not various stages of evolution of man?
It says God created everything in pairs. You know that every particle that makes up matter has an anti particle pair.
The following is an example of a verse that could have more than one interpretation:
The Holy Qur�n says that God created the universe and He shall make it expand. This is exactly in accordance with cosmological observations. But it could apply to the expansion of knowledge about the universe for instance. True that its application to the universe scenario has become more obvious in retrospect, but does it not amaze you nonetheless?
About Dark Matter, I am sorry if I confused the issue. I wasnt claiming that Dark Matter was proof of the existence of a Deity. I was saying that with such severe limitations to our knowledge of such a large portion of the universe, we mustnt deny the existence of something else (Someone else) that we may not know of.
Laughing gravy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy beliefs are not based just on the Holy Qur’ân. The Holy Qur’ân is my main resource, but several hundred books have been written about the understanding of the Holy Qur’ân by the Ahmadiyya community. If you don’t believe me, look on the following website: alislam.org
You think it is bull that I am a physicist? Because I chose to say ‘trained’ instead of studied? I studied in London England, but I believe in USA the word ‘trained’ is used. Do you want me to scan my degree and post it so that you believe me? If you do, then contact me on fowziabushra@gmail.com and I will do so.
Why don’t you check the Encyclopaedia Britannica before rejecting what I am claiming about the Prophet Muhammad May peace be upon him being the most influential man that ever lived?
This attitude conveys to me that you don’t believe what I am saying to be true. I can assure you that it is. As I said, check on the above website and look for a book called ‘Rationality, Revelation, Knowledge and Truth’. Most of my arguments are taken from that book.
Let me take your point about my beliefs being of no interest to you. That’s fine, but my beliefs, if you consider them with a cool mind, may help you. I don’t mean that you personally need any help, but each of us needs God’s help in our lives. You only live once. (In this world I mean). What if what I am saying or rather what the Holy Qur’ân is saying can help you in your life? Is it wise of you to dismiss it in the way that choose to dismiss it or should you investigate it to your satisfaction like a good scientist?
You presented as proof of the validity of evolutionary theory the fact that it has stood the test of time. That is why I said that Islam had been around a lot longer. And you are right, by the same argument, Hinduism or Christianity could be regarded as even truer, but that doesnt make scientists accept any of their claims like they do of evolutionary theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your explanation of the homocentric view. The trouble is that Christianity presents such an illogical explanation of events surrounding the death of Christ that it leads people to dismiss everything in Christianity. Although tainted, Christianity is by no means completely wrong.
What it has done however is to make logical and rational thinkers reject repudiate every single thing it presents. So that when a logical point of view of religion is put forward, they are prejudiced by their previous assertions. Man is the best of created things; he has far more variety of senses than animals. Man can speak a proper and very varied language; he can write and record things for future reference. How can you think that a bee is more advanced in its genetics etc than a human being? Everything is coloured these days with the environment problems. If God does exist, then He will certainly take care of the earth, no matter what we do to it. After all, the earth has been through much worse throughout history.
I am not claiming credit for predicting an ice age. I read an article in Scientific American about it. I am not an expert, but is it not a fact that the earth goes through cycles of ice ages. According to this article, there has been an ice age due for the past two thousand years. It was presenting the possibility of human activity resulting in global warming as being one of the reasons why the ice age hasnt occurred as yet.
You appear to be familiar with Ahmadiyya Islam. May I ask how?
You say that every religion claims it is unique and truer than others. That is correct; and it is exactly what I am doing. But what makes me different is that I take what I claim directly from my holy book which is unchanged from when it was revealed. Buddhist religious texts are based on some writings carved on rocks in the time of Ashoka 500 years after the death of Buddha. The Bible has been changed from its original form as you must know. So it is impossible for the adherents of these religions to claim that their present views are attributable to their original religious teachings.
Is it the case then that all religions should be dismissed completely? Is it not possible that at least one may be correct?
In a previous post it was said that why should scientists believe that there is a religion. The reason is that the Holy Qur�n can benefit science. Scientists can be guided by the scientific facts contained in the Holy Qur�n. The Nobel laureate, Professor Abdus Salaam (who was an Ahmadi Muslim) took much of his knowledge from the Holy Qur�n.
Some ways in which the Holy Qur�n can guide scientists are as follows:
It speaks of six other universes, apart from the one belonging to this world. (I refer to the three dimensions of this world being one universe)
It speaks of more fundamental forces than the four we know of.
Imagine if scientists had the advantage of being guided by the Holy Qur�n, they would save so much time. Rather than wasting time going after fruitless endeavours, they could be guided in the right direction and thus use their time much more efficiently.
So I would assert that science cannot afford to dismiss the Holy Qur�n at all.
My comment of 09:24 AM on 03/28/09 was to ambertooth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow you present the basis for your belief Why ?
I dont doubt you believe what you believe.
I said your beliefs are of no interest to me, so why should be interested in why you hold them.?
You can scan and e-mail as many certificates as you like, scans can be faked. Even if genuine they do not prove that the sender is the person entitled to the document.
"The MOST influential man that ever lived? " . Influential certainly, Very influential - probably, MOST influential - I repeat - in your dreams
From what I can see this opinion is taken from 1 book and is the opinion of the books writer only. One man's opinion is not exactly a sunstantive reference
(The fact that you believe the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" to be the ultimate reference is of very little relevence.)
"This attitude conveys to me that you dont believe what I am saying to be true. I can assure you that it is."
You are saying a lot, however much of it you are presenting as fact when it is not.
Much of your evidence you are presenting as fact when it is interpretation or opinion.
So your assurance is of little value.
"Is it wise of you to dismiss it in the way that choose to dismiss it or should you investigate it to your satisfaction like a good scientist?"
Who said I was a good scientist? , or a scientist at all?
Assuming I am - Why would I want to investigate it at all ? I have many more things of interest that I would like to investigate first
You say the Koran predicts the merging of two oceans, in two different places. and that it is obvious that that is what these are the Suez and Panama canals.
You then ask how else would you we interpret the prediction?
Leaving aside that it is you who has looked for somewhere which could fulfil the prediction and found the canals
Here are a few problems with your intepretation.
1) what did the writer mean by "merging"?
You have assumed merging means that they were joined. Perhaps the writer did not mean this. (In the days the book was written the meaning of "merge" was not the same as we understand it today.)
2) What did the writer understand by "oceans" - did he mean (in modern terms) , lakes, seas, or oceans.?
You have assumed that the linking of 2 seas = merging of 2 oceans.
If you are assuming 2 seas = 2 oceans then you could equally assume 2 lakes=2 oceans.
3) In modern terms the Suez canal linked 2 seas (not oceans). But also the 2 seas (Red + Mediteranean) were already linked via Atlantic and Indian oceans. So technically the 2 "oceans" were not merged as the were already linked.
4) Technically the Panama canal does not merge any ocean as it is not a continuous strip of water. So I do not consider the Panama canal "merged" anything.
Besides - each end of the canal were already linked as with Suez canal.The canal, as with the Suez canal, was just a short cut.
5) Why have you assumed this so called prediction has already happened ? Perhaps it has yet to happen.
(Ah! I suddenly realise. - In order for you use the quote as proof you must have a reference point. If it hasn't happened you have no reference point, therefore no proof)
"It speaks of a fire emanating from hatama which will attack people's hearts, before burning them. Is this not what happens in an atomic bomb, the heart's electronics are disrupted with a shock wave before the actual effects of the explosion hits them? "
1) IF you are trying to allege this is referring to an atomic bomb then interestingly the quote doesn't mention light which is infinitely more apparent than the accompanying gamma rays or fire. (I refer to a "normal" atomic explosion)
2) Why should you presume that "fire emanating.............., before burning them" refers to invisible gamma rays and not actual fire
3) You have assumed that "people's hearts" refers to their physical heart. It could equally refer to their emotional heart
Also interesting is your intepretation
You say "the hearts "electronics" disrupted with a "shock wave", before the "actual effects of the explosion" hits them"
The only thing that could affect the heart electrically (not electronically) would be the gamma rays which would go straight through the body. Not exactly a "shock wave"
Also are the gamma rays not an "actual effect of the explosion" ?
Odd phraseology
"It says God created everything from water. It says man was created from clay, from dry ringing clay and from black fermenting mud in different places. Are these not various stages of evolution of man?"
So if someone says to create man
Take a bucket of water, leave to boil then cool, add some nice fermenting yeast, some nectar of the gods, and leave until the life giving fluid is produced
then this is evidence that they knew the evolution of man ? I think not.
"It says God created everything in pairs. "
You imply the particle+anti particle are examples of this. Bringing (Particle + antiparticle) together -> nothing + large amount of energy - Not exactly a stable creation.
"We mustn't deny the existence of something else that we may not know"
This is assuming a certainty of an existence when there is only a possibility. I do not know of anyone who denies the possibility.
Finally
"First of all, there are no prophesies of the Koran which went wrong!"
Now you are having joke
You quote various predictions. Interpret them to the ultimate degree so that they agree with modern facts and have the audacity to say they are correct.
What a comedian
To lovegod - yet again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan can speak a proper and very varied language; he can write and record things for future reference.
Ah yes , but can he fly unaded?
I may be wrong but, apart from the ability to speak (not the ability to speak languages), none of the attributes you mention are specifically due to genetics
How can you think that a bee is more advanced in its genetics etc than a human being?
Ah yes, but a bee can fly unaded (that IS due to genetics)
"If God does exist, then He will certainly take care of the earth, no matter what we do to it."
1) So if we create an earth such that we (humans) become extinct the earth will be taken care of ?
2) Or are you presuming a feedback system such that this scenario will not be allowed to happen?
If you are presuming 2) them this implies a limitation on what we can do to the earth. so the phrase "no matter what we do" is meaningless
If you are presuming 1) then you are contradicting your earlier posts that the earth is created and maintained for our enjoyment.
In this case why should a creator continue to maintain something provided solely for our enjoyment..
I am not claiming credit for predicting an ice age.
Again I may be wrong but I dont recall you predicting an ice age, only that this was possible due to global warming
Saying something is possible is not the same as predicting it.?
"But what makes me different is that I take what I claim directly from my holy book which is unchanged from when it was revealed. "
Oh yes -
So the book today is in the same language as originally written is it?
So translations have not changed words or phrases into modern phraseology?
So every word in the original text has an EXACT modern replacement, and in modern language.
I think not.
"Is it not possible that at least one may be correct? "
Its possible that the universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster but I dont think it likely.
"Scientists can be guided by the scientific facts contained in the Koran"
So far I have not seen any facts in the Koran
"The Nobel laureate, Professor Abdus Salaam (who was an Ahmadi Muslim) took much of his knowledge from the Koran"
I think it likely you are confusing knowledge with inspiration.
"It speaks of six other universes, apart from the one belonging to this world."
So what? - I have read many books referring to several universes.
"It speaks of more fundamental forces than the four we know of".
Any book can claim there are more fundamental forces (or universes)
It would have SOME credibility if it indicated how many forces, and the effects of these forces.
Otherwise perhaps in time science will find additional forces and - LOW AND BEHOLD- You claim the Koran predicted it (as with your previous "proofs")
In fact I predict NOW that there is at least 1 universe and at least 1 more force to be discovered.
Let me know when science discovers them so I can let everyone know what a great scientist I am (or was).
"Imagine if scientists had the advantage of being guided by the Koran, they would save so much time."
They would save even more time by ignoring it
Lovegod - yet again pt 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Man is the best of created things; he has far more variety of senses than animals"
There are creatures with
better vision
better hearing
better sense of smell
better sense of taste
better sense of touch
better endurance
higher longevity
better tolerance of extremes of temperature
can run faster
can climb better
can swim better
better social skills
better social harmony
compared to man
Many with combinations of several of the above.
In fact man is mediocre (compared to the best) in most of these.
I would say your statement is several degrees removed from the facts
laughing gravy: does a single animal have all of these senses in combination? You are missing the point that human beings are the most capable because they have the best combination of these capacities. they have all of them except flight. But then God gave man the brain that could create aeroplanes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislaughing gravy: Or are you presuming a feedback system such that this scenario will not be allowed to happen? yes indeed that is what I am proposing, but with a difference that the scenario might happen but the earth would recover from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis implies a limitation on what we can do to the earth. So the phrase "no matter what we do" is meaningless. Why is it meaningless? If global warming happens, there will be more rainfall, which will result in more trees, end of CO2 excess, end of problem.
In the short term, humans will suffer at their own hands, but in the long term, the earth will fight back.
I said that I thought by the coming of an ice age, global warming may be neutralised. That is one possibility. I recall reading that there is an ice age predicted, but whether or not human activity has postponed it by 2000 years is not clear. I went further than this article and predicted that an ice age may become the reason for global warming coming to an end.
And yes, the Holy Qur’ân is still in exactly the same language as it was when it was revealed. It is the same Arabic, still spoken (with sometimes a change in dialects) in most of the Middle Eastern countries. It is still understood in its original form by many people, including myself. I agree that translations lose the variety in meaning that is found in the original. This is true of most languages but it is especially true of Arabic because it is a very vast language and most other languages do not have as many words as Arabic has.
You keep presenting the same argument. If something is confirmed to be true in the Holy Qur’ân you say it is no big deal because it is after the event. But if you were indeed a seeker after the truth, you would not be saying that if I make a prediction now for the future you cannot believe it anyway as it has not happened.
I would say again that if you are a scientist or even a logical thinker, you would be applying the same rules to religion as you do to scientific manmade varying knowledge.
If you can make your self free of bias, I can assure you will see the truth in what I am saying.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that I have got a degree in Physics? Do you not think that a Muslim is capable of doing a degree in Physics? Your disbelief is quite unbelievable.
Do you know anything about Professor Abdul Salaam? I do. You can call it inspiration, but he certainly gleaned most of his knowledge from the Holy Qur’ân. The Holy Qur’ân is not a book of science. It is basically a book of religion. It is not going to give you detailed equations of General Relativity or something. It is absolutely amazing that it gives these guiding lights that can help on the path of research.
If you study the evolution of man, you will see that dust, dry ringing clay and black fermenting mud are key stages in his evolution as ascertained by scientists.
The Holy Qur’ân does tell one about the total number of fundamental forces. But it is not a piece of knowledge I am going to share with you because I intend to do research on this subject myself and prove that the Holy Qur’ân is correct (much to your chagrin, I am sure).
laughing gravy:The Holy Qur’ân uses the word Bahrain meaning two oceans or two seas in two different places. Your criticism is only for the sake of criticising. The fact is that the merging or joining of these two sets of oceans/seas/large bodies of water was of great advantage to mankind. Whether or not the Panama Canal is continuous or not is hardly relevant. The point is that they both provide a short cut where there previously wasn’t one, and the Holy Qur’ân predicted these significant events nearly one and a half thousand years before they actually occurred.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point the Holy Qur’ân is making in chapter 104 is that there is a type of fire that has been confined within long columns against the people who commit evils. The word fire (naar) is used. It will pounce on people’s hearts. What kind of a fire could it have meant all those years ago when mankind had no idea about nuclear energy?
The Holy Qur’ân does not use the word gamma rays, but the fact that it says that the fire will seize the hearts means that it is not normal fire. Does it not strike you as an amazing coincidence that hatama (so similar to the word atom) is said to contain this strange fire. I stand corrected, not a shock wave that would pounce on the hearts, but gamma rays. The point is that something from the explosion seizes hearts before the actual explosion burns them. Odd phraseology maybe but amazing nonetheless.
All of these predictions, these facts, do they not give you any message about the truth of the Holy Qur’ân? I am certain that if a book of science was to give you such information you would not have dismissed it.
man?! evolution is trash!! u really think it's science? it's also a religion. when u believe something that u don't see, we call it faith. have anyone lived long enough to witness or prove evolution like you've said? there's no real proof, they just made things up all around like a circle, just to denied the presence of God! and they say it's science... you can't be god! the job's not available! and you're not the first person whose being fooled at.. xoxoxo?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.drdino.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishahaha.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.drdino.com/
lovegod - strike 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Holy Qur�n uses the word Bahrain meaning two oceans or two seas in two different places. Your criticism is only for the sake of criticising. The fact is that the merging or joining of these two sets of oceans/seas/large bodies of water was of great advantage to mankind. Whether or not the Panama Canal is continuous or not is hardly relevant. The point is that they both provide a short cut where there previously wasnt one, and the Holy Qur�n predicted these significant events nearly one and a half thousand years before they actually occurred.
1)
Your quote says that 2 oceans will merge. and you say that it is not relevant that the panama canal is not continuous ?
So you propose to re-define the word "merge" do you ?
Next you will be saying that building a road between 2 oceans means they are "merged"
2) WHAT ???
The Koran says one thing - You interpret to mean something else.
I disprove what you say and that the statement in the Koran is meaningless.
You reply that it doesn't matter because your interpretation resulted in a benefit to mankind.
And to finalise you say that your intepretation was predicted 1500 years agos.
WHAT COMPLETE BULL
3) I am not criticising at all I am stating you are wrong, and illogical (and also stupid (in a non-pejorative sense)
You have also ignored that even without the canals the oceans (seas) YOU identify are already merged with others to form one continuous stretch of water.
"The point the Holy Qur�n is making in chapter 104 is that there is a type of fire that has been confined within long columns against the people who commit evils. The word fire (naar) is used. It will pounce on peoples hearts. What kind of a fire could it have meant all those years ago when mankind had no idea about nuclear energy?"
You have a circular argument (one of many)
YOU have interpreted the quote to mean nuclear energy.
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE QUOTE REFERS TO NUCLEAR ENERGY ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION ASSUMES THIS IS THE CASE..
"The Holy Qur�n does not use the word gamma rays, but the fact that it says that the fire will seize the hearts means that it is not normal fire."
It could mean that fire (a normal fire) struck fear into their hearts (emotional heart).
So YOU are presuming that the fire was not normal.
"Does it not strike you as an amazing coincidence that hatama (so similar to the word atom) is said to contain this strange fire. I stand corrected, not a shock wave that would pounce on the hearts, but gamma rays. The point is that something from the explosion seizes hearts before the actual explosion burns them. Odd phraseology maybe but amazing nonetheless."
Not amazing at all - just stupid.
OR - A fire ("normal") struck fear into their hearts ("emotional") before burning them ("physically")
Are you not aware - If you are close enough to a nuclear explosion to be seriously effected by gamma rays, the gamma rays + energy from the light will burn you long before the blast reaches you.
AMAZING that someone saying they have studied physics making simple mistakes
"All of these predictions, these facts, do they not give you any message about the truth of the Holy Qur�n"
YOU repeat yourself yet again.
Again I must point out that YOU have intepreted the quotes to agree with know facts. The quotes themselves do not predict any fact.
lovegod- strike 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This implies a limitation on what we can do to the earth. So the phrase "no matter what we do" is meaningless. Why is it meaningless? If global warming happens, there will be more rainfall, which will result in more trees, end of CO2 excess, end of problem."
Not if we chop the trees down and burn them.
"I said that I thought by the coming of an ice age, global warming may be neutralised. That is one possibility. I recall reading that there is an ice age predicted, but whether or not human activity has postponed it by 2000 years is not clear. I went further than this article and predicted that an ice age may become the reason for global warming coming to an end."
This is a repeat from an earlier post
"You keep presenting the same argument. If something is confirmed to be true in the Holy Qur’ân you say it is no big deal because it is after the event. But if you were indeed a seeker after the truth, you would not be saying that if I make a prediction now for the future you cannot believe it anyway as it has not happened. "
Its not my fault you repeatedly make the same assertions. (You have said the above quote at least once previously)
While you keep doing this I will repeat my arguments against them
My answer is to repeat what I said in my earlier post.
"I would say again that if you are a scientist or even a logical thinker, you would be applying the same rules to religion as you do to scientific manmade varying knowledge.
"If you can make your self free of bias, I can assure you will see the truth in what I am saying. "
Repeated from earlier posts (not verbatim, but the same sentiment)
"Why do you find it so hard to believe that I have got a degree in Physics? "
Why is it relevent to you what I believe.?
I neither believe nor disbelieve - I would say I am ambivalent
You say one thing but the evidence points to another.
Why do you think it relevent what anyones qualifications are, and whether anyone believes them or not.? (You brought up your qualifications in an earlier post)
What matters is the quality of the argument. Not the poster's qualifications
"Do you not think that a Muslim is capable of doing a degree in Physics? "
Why should I think this is the case ? YOU are an individual not a group.
(Ah! I see - You are trying to divert criticism from an individual to a group)
"Your disbelief is quite unbelievable".
YOUR STUPIDITY IS QUITE UNBELIEVABLE.
You make an assertion with no evidence, and then leap to conclusions based on this assertion. However you have done it before , no doubt you will do it again
"You can call it inspiration, but he certainly gleaned most of his knowledge from the Holy Qur’ân."
Do you not know the difference between inspiration and knowledge.
"If you study the evolution of man, you will see that dust, dry ringing clay and black fermenting mud are key stages in his evolution as ascertained by scientists. "
Not in the books I've read.
"The Holy Qur’ân does tell one about the total number of fundamental forces. But it is not a piece of knowledge I am going to share with you because I intend to do research on this subject myself and prove that the Holy Qur’ân is correct (much to your chagrin, I am sure)."
Ah a bigot in action, what fun.
Why the reluctance to share the number of fundamental forces the koran identifies? Surely its there for all to see? (or is this another interpretion ?)
Why the secrecy. the number of forces gives no indication of what they are, or there effects?
Why do you assume I have any connection with physics?
SHOULD you do research then good luck to you . If you find another fundamental force then fantastic. (as an aside - you will also prove my prediction correct.)
Why am I a little sceptical this will happen?
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"does a single animal have all of these senses in combination? "
Which specific senses have you in mind?
Are there any other senses you believe exist and which man has?
Please identify them, then we can see which other creature(s) have them
Taking the commonly known ones
Most creatures can see,hear,touch,smell,taste.
Dogs can see,hear,smell better that man
BUT there are many creatures that have a combination of several of the attributes I listed that are better than mans
You are missing the point.
There is no such thing as the BEST combination of capabilities in an absolute sense.
Each species is the result of evolution which favoured the species with the capabilities that most favoured its survival.
So each species can be said to have its own "best combination" of capabilities.
To say that any specific species is "the most capable" is a meaningless statement -. Capable of what ?
MAN has only got the best combination necessary for HIS survival. Who knows if this will continue.
(You could also say that this combination is/has directly leading to the extinction of many species. SO MANS "best combination" is the worst for these species)
"But then god gave man the brain that could create aeroplanes!"
No-one "gave" MAN anything. All animals evolved a brain as an advantage in survival
MAN only developed a more powerful brain to counter the fact that in all other areas he was LESS capable than ancient predators and competitors.
With the set of attributes MAN had, evolution(by natural selection) favoured the men with more powerful brains as they were more likely to survive, as against men with a less powerful brain.
Advice to ZED
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep taking the tablets - you will be alright
lovegod - sorry I missed this one
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"All of these predictions, these facts, do they not give you any message about the truth of the Holy Qur�n?"
" I am certain that if a book of science was to give you such information you would not have dismissed it. "
If I were presented with something purporting to be a science book containing the "information" as you present I would throw it in with the other rubbish.
However - since the "information" you present comes only from your imagination (a very fertile imagination), I would read it as a book of fiction, not science, so there would be no problem
loveGod: "Man is the best of created things; he has far more variety of senses than animals."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho says that "Man is the best of created things"? The best as compared to what, and in what way? The best at inflicting wanton cruelty? The best at executing mass conflict? The best at outstripping the resources of his environment? No other organism equals humans in these things, so indeed, in a bitterly ironic way, there are aspects of your statement which are technically correct.
As to man "speaking a proper and varied language", you again reveal your ignorance of these things. In terms of variety evaluation of intra-species sounds in communication among mammals (and only among mammals), humans are indeed among the top three, but actually come second, in between dolphins and whales in the top position. If you wish to be humbled in your attitude (which I doubt, as it would disturb your world view too profoundly), then study the language of hive bees, as I recommended. You seem to be confusing these complex natural attributes with human cultural artefacts as a standard of achievement.
loveGod: "You say that every religion claims it is unique and truer than others. That is correct; and it is exactly what I am doing. But what makes me different is that I take what I claim directly from my holy book which is unchanged from when it was revealed."
Doesn't make a blind bit of difference. What I said still applies, and you are in no way a special exception. If you don't believe me, write that paper and submit it to a science journal. It'll get sent back to you by return of post. The fact that you seem unwilling to accept science's reason for this demonstrates that you're backing a non-starter.
loveGod: "Is it the case then that all religions should be dismissed completely? Is it not possible that at least one may be correct?"
It might or might not be, but the veracity of ANY religion can never be conclusively established. Religion is belief. It's something that its adherents take on trust. That's why it's called 'faith'. Which in turn means that theories couched in any ANY religion, whether that's Ahmadiyya Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christian Pentecostalism, Pitjinjara totemism, Wicca, or the worshipping of little metal bottle tops on alternate Tuesdays of the month, is not admissible science.
And you might refer to the three dimensions of this world being one universe, but science currently recognises four. You left out time, which completes the space-time continuum (and current science also allows for up to ten different dimensions).
So your assertion that "science cannot afford to dismiss the Holy Qur’ân" remains an assertion (and always will, for the above reasons), and has not the slightest bearing on science. loveGod, my sincere and well-meant advice to you is: be happy and fulfilled in the religious faith which you have. But resist wasting your own time in attempts to mix that faith with scientific theory, for your attempts, whatever they might involve, will not be admissible as science.
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have twice refered to 2 quotes and tried to related them to our physical world, in an attempt (failed) to show that the quotes predicted facts
You also asked for any alternative interpretation
Well here's mine
The quotes relate to the metaphysical, not the physical
Th quotes
1) That 2 oceans in 2 places will merge
This relates to a) belief merged with wisdom, b) knowledge merged with curiousity (these are just examples)
2) A fire strikes the heart before burning him (to paraphrase)
The "fire" relates to the drive in man to try to achieve greater things
The burning relates to his spirit not to his body.
So my interpretation of this is "The drive in man will spur his heart until it burns his spirit"
("heart" relating to his spirit not his physical heart - his "eagerness" for want of a better term.
"spirit" relates to that which keeps a man going in the face of adversity)
3) you mentioned another quote where the fire is contained between 2 pillars
This would also fit - as for good people the fire (i.e the drive in man) would be controlled by the pillars of knowledge and wisdom (for example)
So My interpretion is
(If unchecked by the pillars of wisdom and knowledge) The drive in man will spur his heart until it burns his spirit.
(For evil people who lack either wisdom or knowledge, the drive will continue unchecked until it damages this spirit)
Does this not make a lot of sense.? (Especially in the context of religious writing) I think it does.
Sorry though - This intepretation means that none of the quotes are predictions
Reading through the insights offered by Laughing gravy's comment to loveGod (10:15 AM, 03/31/09) prompts me to comment that taking the route of interpretive metaphor for scriptural texts (of whatever faith) not only provides a vivid example of the way in which the readings of such texts are enriched when literalism is abandoned. It also underscores the follies of literalism, which strip such texts of spiritual value and reduce them to mere instructional handbooks. Creationists take note.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Oh yes, and zed, maybe you should go and lie down in a darkened room for awhile.)
Faith and science are two completely separate things. Science is based on observation and experiments, which have been tested time and time again. Scientific theories have been tested countless times in order to reach the status of a theory. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it has been tested countless times, and countless times evolution has not been rejected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, I accept evolution as a natural process that occurs on Earth. I accept this based on scientific experiment and observation.
On the other hand, I also accept that there is a God. And I accept Jesus as my lord and savior. This is based solely on faith. It cannot be tested, and thus it cannot be proven or disproven. But, I still accept it, based on my faith.
So, science and religion are incompatible. They cannot be compared. Evolution and Creationism should not be viewed as equal scientific theories. Evolution is purely science. Creationism is an attempt to combine religion and science, and cannot be tested, and is thus not a relevant scientific theory.
It is possible to accept evolution and still be a Christian or a member of any other religion. I wish people wouldn't be so divisive with this issue.
ambertooth. The writer of the Holy Qur�n, i.e., God intends to have His book studied and understood. God repeatedly tells the reader after speaking of a certain phenomenon, 'in this there are signs for those who contemplate '.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe style of various verses to do with creation is different. Some are very clear, while others give hints and can only be ascertained by those with a bit of know-how of the science.
You lose nothing from the spiritual value because A) most of such verses are not spiritual or metaphorical as such and unless you try to indirectly infer them to be so. B) Such verses that shed light on creation are separate from the verses that inform about dos and donts and reward and punishment etc.
Your points of view about man not being the best of creation and about mans method of communication i.e., language not being the best of all the other animals methods of communication is incredible. Are you comparing a bee dance to the complexity of human communication methods?
About time, the Holy Qur�n says that it is only specific for the dimensions of this world. So somehow the other dimensions (the perception of which we will be given in our next lives) will be free of the constraints of time.
We will see whether my article which predicts the number of fundamental forces, which sheds light on the amazing nature of time and what part it plays in various dimensions, and also what exactly is the nature of at least one of the other dimensions, is rejected or not!
So you can ignore the Holy Qur�n, but I wont. And it will help me understand what science has yet failed to understand inshAllah (God Willing).
JBod2004, Please read my previous posts. The version of religion presented by Islam is very compatible with science. God does not want you to forsake your rational mind when it comes to religion. Islam expects you to ask questions and it is quite capable of satisfying your most intense scrutiny. If a religion cannot answer your questions based on logic, it is not a complete religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJBod2004, another point. You make yourself appear irrational when you say you want to accept something without proof. If you have a particular level of scrutiny about one concept, you cannot have double standards and forsake the same level of scrutiny about a different concept. The events surrounding Jesus’ death are very logical and understandable. Read about it on alislam.org .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should ask yourself, if someone appears to you whom you thought was dead, and he invites you to touch and feel him, would you decide, ‘O he must be a ghost’. or would you think,’ O I thought you were dead, but you are alive.’ Think with the mind you have now of the events of the time of Jesus, and you will feel far more satisfied with your belief.
Read the book called, ‘Christianity-facts to fiction’ on the above website. It says that Jesus was taken down alive from the cross, and after three days of recuperating he met his disciples a final time and then left to take his message to the ‘lost sheep’, i.e. the tribes of Israelites who had been taken away from the area
Ambertooth in my post at 08:20 PM on 04/04/09, I said, that most of such verses are not spiritual or metaphorical. This is not stictly the case because a lot of times they are metaphorical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is one God, a personal and intimate God, not a impersonal and distant God, but one who created all living organisms including and specially man. Creating in His own Image. The truth of this will and only be found in the Bible, the authoriative word of the Living God. I am currently, working on a research paper on my english comp 2 class and I have found valuable recources on both sides of this debate. The best of which is with the institute of creation research and answers in Genesis websites. You know if evolution was true there would be undeniable evidence of this but there is not. Instead there is undeniable evidence this is man's attempt to live without God and that we came to being only through a creator. Evolution can't make man, only something as power and intelligent as a creator can wire and fashion man and all of the other living organisms. Now other than the Bible and those two websites I mentioned above some other resources where one can find good, credible, and reliable information is in these books. Can man live without God, by Ravi Zacarias; By Devine Design, by Michael Pearl; and The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel. Lee was a former athesist turn believe because in his two year long search found God. And as I can attest to. Man must find God before he can find himself. Man must find God before he can find answers to the creation and origins of this world and man. "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." God's infalliable word. If you seek knowledge you will only find knowledge but if you seek God you will find Him, the truth, and the answers you are looking for. Jesus is the only way. My final thought or word creation is more of a science than evolution, creation belongs in the classroom evolution doesn't but America is a democracy so I guess you got to give them both equal time. However, creation will lead our children, though I have none, to a God that saves. Evolution will lead them to chaos and to a god that destroys. By the way reading the comment from someone else. Hebrews 11:6 says without faith it is impossible to please God. So, in light of this and someone else's comment it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation. God's stamp and fingerprints is everywhere just open your eyes, heart, and mind and you will see the beauty of the love story that is wriitten upon the canvas of history from the beginning of time no more than 10,000 years ago till now. Here is our King, Jesus, He is inviting you home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is one God, a personal and intimate God, not a impersonal and distant God, but one who created all living organisms including and specially man. Creating in His own Image. The truth of this will and only be found in the Bible, the authoriative word of the Living God. I am currently, working on a research paper on my english comp 2 class and I have found valuable recources on both sides of this debate. The best of which is with the institute of creation research and answers in Genesis websites. You know if evolution was true there would be undeniable evidence of this but there is not. Instead there is undeniable evidence this is man's attempt to live without God and that we came to being only through a creator. Evolution can't make man, only something as power and intelligent as a creator can wire and fashion man and all of the other living organisms. Now other than the Bible and those two websites I mentioned above some other resources where one can find good, credible, and reliable information is in these books. Can man live without God, by Ravi Zacarias; By Devine Design, by Michael Pearl; and The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel. Lee was a former athesist turn believe because in his two year long search found God. And as I can attest to. Man must find God before he can find himself. Man must find God before he can find answers to the creation and origins of this world and man. "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." God's infalliable word. If you seek knowledge you will only find knowledge but if you seek God you will find Him, the truth, and the answers you are looking for. Jesus is the only way. My final thought or word creation is more of a science than evolution, creation belongs in the classroom evolution doesn't but America is a democracy so I guess you got to give them both equal time. However, creation will lead our children, though I have none, to a God that saves. Evolution will lead them to chaos and to a god that destroys. By the way reading the comment from someone else. Hebrews 11:6 says without faith it is impossible to please God. So, in light of this and someone else's comment it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation. God's stamp and fingerprints is everywhere just open your eyes, heart, and mind and you will see the beauty of the love story that is wriitten upon the canvas of history from the beginning of time no more than 10,000 years ago till now. Here is our King, Jesus, He is inviting you home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJared743, James says faith without works is dead. along with this Hebrews says without faith it is impossible to please God. God is not just a good idea or a cruch. He is the creator of all living things. A side note here, the evil in this world including bacteria, and sickness and death is man's fault not God's, it is all part of the fall of man back in Genesis. All this evil was not part of the created world that Adam and eve lived in but their sin did. We bear that sin today as a result. However, the good news one man Jesus Christ is that man who has in our place died for the ungodly, us, so we don't have to spend eternity in hell. But through his death we are made right in God's eyes. Acts 4:12 says there is no other name in heaven or on earth which man must call upon to be saved. That man is Jesus becaue He stepped off the throne as God and became man and died as the perfect spotless lamb in our place. In closing, I highly recommend you to pick up the Bible, God's infalliable word and really read the book of Genesis and the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There you will find all your answers because when you meet God you find joy and peace this world can't offer. I know this personally to be a fact. I would not be alive today if it was not for God's saving grace and forgiving mercy. God in the form of a perfect man, Jesus, died for you because He loves you more than you could possibly ever know. Because of this truth I spur you on to live for Him. It is your purpose in life. And only finding God you will find christianity is not a religion it is a relationship with the one true and personal God. He is inviting you home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisloveGod: "The writer of the Holy Qur’ân, i.e., God.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoa! Hold it right there. If you wish to gain some sort of scientific credibility, then making statements such as the one above will only be counterproductive. You might believe the above to be a fact, but for anyone not belonging to your faith the statement has no credence. Not that I don't respect your beliefs and you're right to follow your chosen faith, but as with any religious belief, there is just no way to establish the veracity of such a statement, either in philosophy or in science.
It therefore follows that any attempt to build a scientific hypothesis on such a foundation is doomed to rejection. Not because science is anti-faith, but because any hypotheses following from such a faith-based statement are irrefutable (that is: they can be neither proven nor disproven), and therefore are inadmissible as science. I really had thought that I had explained this point in my previous comments, but hope at least that this is now clear. These are not my ideas, but science's.
loveGod: "Your points of view about man not being the best of creation and about man's method of communication i.e., language not being the best of all the other animals' methods of communication is incredible. Are you comparing a bee dance to the complexity of human communication methods?"
Absolutely. I am not talking about human technological artefacts such as email or whatever, but about the natural sensory equipment that humans have as compared to other species. Why do you regard this as 'incredible'? I have established the veracity of my statement in my previous comment. It is largely due to human-centered hubris that we are now in the mess in which we find ourselves.
loveGod: "So you can ignore the Holy Qur’ân, but I wont."
No-one is suggesting that you should. But recognise the difference between religious faith and science.
inHisname4everIstand, I suggest that you read my previous comment to loveGod to understand better why faith-based views can never be admissible science. For the rest, if you wish to write a tract expounding your religious faith, I suggest that you find a more appropriate internet forum. Frankly, recommending such a scurrilous and unaccredited website as Answers in Genesis on a website such as SciAm is shooting yourself in the foot in a major way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinHisname4everIstand
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“He is the creator of all living things. A side note here, the evil in this world including bacteria, and sickness and death is man's fault not God's, it is all part of the fall of man back in Genesis.”
It never fails to amaze me – the volte-faces creationists put forward in order to preserve their belief as the above quote illustrates. (The “fall of man” is not a “get out of jail free” card.)
To paraphrase
A creator created “ALL LIVING THINGS” except those it didn't (i.e. bacteria)
A creator created everything except things it didn't (i.e .sickness and death)
“Evolution can't make man, …....”
WHY not ?
“…......only something as power and intelligent as a creator can wire and fashion man and all of the other living organisms.”
So you are happy to believe that an entity existing outside this universe created life in this universe. You do this without the remotest explanation as to how this was done, how did the entity journey from one universe to another, where did the molecules/atoms/particles come from, were creatures created over a period of time or instantly.
You accept absolutely just a few paragraphs in a book.,
(Refering to a “divine power” DOES NOT ANSWER these questions, it just shifts them to another place, the questions are still valid and REQUIRE ANSWERS.)
All this and you say “evolution cant make man”
That is what I call stupid bigotry.
Laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the Genesis account of the creation of the world. God said there be light then there was light. God said let there be... and it was. God's word stands authoritive above all. There is no equals or anything that stands above God the creator of you and me. However, He loves us as his own because we are his children "made in his own image and likeness" The only difference is He [God] is infinite, all-knowing, and all-powerful. And you and me [man] is finite. Just like it takes an engineer to put an engine together man, trees, grass, flowers, birds, tigers, fish, bees, ants, and so on were the direct result to a creator, not evolution.
You need to check the resources out on leestrobel.com and his books. You also, need to check out institute of christian research and answers in genesis. Those two websites you will find more answers than I can offer you. But my faith in God assures me I know my purpose in life and where I cme from because I know my maker. God, Jesus Christ. What about you is your faith in evolution assure you the peace and joy I have in knowing God as my creator , friend, redeemer, Lord, and Savior. Does your faith in evolution assure you of anything? In my opinion no because you cannot know the answers or yourself until you know where you came from and your purpose in life. And you cannot know this without knowing the One True Personal God. He is alive and still part of His creative world. The evidence is everywhere you just have to open your eyes and stop disbelieving, stop doubting.
Friend you can walk in the dark, try to live without God, miss God just like they did 2000 years ago when Jesus who left the throne of heaven to die and bring back His people, the lost sheep, home to Him. Or let God in your life and come home to your first love. He just wants you to know that He is enough. He created, knew you from the beginning, created you for an awesome, and unique purpose that only you can do, and He died for you so you don't have to live in darkness forever and so you would know His love, mercy, grace, and presence. God loves you, and He is real I know because I have been a christian for going on twelve years it's been hard at times but I would not be here or alive if it was not for God the creator or Jesus my Lord and Savior. He saved me from certain death for rejecting His law and he brought me out of two different seasons of depression. I own Him my everything not only did He create me, which means He was thinking of me before I could have ever thought of Him, and then He died for me.
inHisname4everIstand: "Just like it takes an engineer to put an engine together man, trees, grass, flowers, birds, tigers, fish, bees, ants, and so on were the direct result to a creator, not evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse analogy. We can empirically establish that an engineer put an engine together. The rest is unprovable religious belief, so can play no part in science.
inHisname4everIstand: "Does your faith in evolution assure you of anything?"
Again, false analogy. Despite the pitch that creationists try to give it, evolutionary theory is of course not a recognised religious faith.
inHisname4everIstand: "The evidence is everywhere you just have to open your eyes.."
Somehow I have the feeling that this faith-based statement is not quite going to cut it in terms of scientific veracity.
As I mentioned previously to you, inHisname4everIstand (but I'll repeat it as often as you ignore it): if you want to use a SciAm thread as a vehicle for writing a religious tract in support of your faith, then I suggest that you find a more appropriate web forum. And citing such a preposterous non-accredited pseudo-scientific website as Answers in Genesis on a website such as SciAm just gets your personal credibility shot full o' holes.
ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFar I am concern it is not religious belief because there is only one God and for me it is not belief it is a conviction. Why? Because my belief or conviction has become personal because I know God just like other christians know God just like you know any of your friends. His word is just one of many ways we know God is the creator and how we can commune and talk with the creator of the universe. Not just because He is God but because He is Lord and King over all. From eternity to eternity He is God, no beginning no end. He is also Savior and redeemer.
Also, it is personal to me and real because God has revealed Himself to be in so many ways. The fact that I am alive is one of them. God saved me from suicidal thoughts not once but twice because He showed me that I am loved and life is including mine is too sacred to be wasted. A life not lived for God is wasted. So, I will say this I will not only die for my conviction in knowing God is real and personal I will live for it. If there was no God and somehow life was sustained by some force I don't know then I would not be alive and here today. But my life and truly everyones life is a testament that there is in fact one true and only God who created all humans and animals when He spoke it into existence. Matter of fact it was on his mind before it was even there was life on earth. We are here from the beginning and today because God has thought of us and continue does so. "If He for one moment stopped to think of us we would cease to exist. (taken from Storm, by Bill Bright and Jack Cavanaugh)"
In closing science proves what we already know in our hearts, because God has placed eternity in our hearts, that there is a God. read the book of Job and challenge God to make Himself real to you. Caution if you seriously taken this challenge God will show up just like He has done countless of times for those who do not believe but are willing to seek the answers no matter what conclusion they come up with. I pray that God will work in your life like He has mine. He will change you from the inside out. For your good. You will never be the same because you will know Him and you will know His presence. God is waiting for you to come home. You still have time but He is coming back soon. By the way this is not a story of wishful or whimsical fantasies it is a story written on our lives and history.
I wish I could make you believe in God and see what I see but I can't because I am not God only a loving father can speak to His creation in a way that opens their eyes to Him.
Those of you that don't believe in God. He is alive and real. Open your eyes, You don't believe Him either because you don't want to or you are walking with your eyes shut. Stop living in the dark. There is a God and He created you and died for you to show and prove to His creation that He is enough and that He loves us so much. But some of us wish not to believe for reasons I don't see or understand. Because He is real to me. He can become real to you if you just allow God to open your eyes and see Him for some of you the first time. God loves you too much to continue to walk in the dark, step in the light as he is in the light. God loves you what more does He have to do to prove He is the creator, He is real, He Jesus is the only way to God and Heaven, and that He loves you so much. Wasn't the Cross enough. Are we going to crucify Him again. Stop trying to live without God. It is foolish and wasteful. God loves you!!! He created you and He died for you. He loves you unconditionally. Come home to your first love. He desires to do amazing things in, with, and through your life. He loves you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists claim that their theory is based on scientific evidence of which they can collect, assess and nevertheless observe. However, they are lacking common sense. Evolutionsts are simply denying a distinct purpose of our existance and replacing it with indiscrete bullshit... If both sides of the argument were to completely discard both theories as they had never been discovered... what do we have? well.. we can say that we have 5 senses and we are aware of our own existance. we can say that us human beings reproduce to make variations of... human beings, as well as birds, fish, bacteria.. ect... Now a typical evolutionist would sell as if the evidence for evolution is concrete, yet evolution still remains a theory, THE-ory THEOLOGY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinHisname4everIstand
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I dont see the point of all your rhetoric You are just repeating yourself.
Read the Genesis account of the creation of the world.
I dont see the point of that You have already written a longer account than that in genesis
Shame for all your rhetoric you give no more facts than genesis.
You need to check the resources out on leestrobel.com and his books. You also, need to check out institute of christian research and answers in genesis. Those two websites you will find more answers than I can offer you.
YOU really ought you read more if you believe the references you quote give the answer to anything.
Sorry Its YOUR answers I want
I asked why evolution cant make man?
YOU said it can't, so you must have a reason to believe this
In my opinion no because you cannot know the answers or yourself until you know where you came from and your purpose in life.
I am not interested in your opinion. However I WOULD like some facts.
Where did MAN come from (There is no point in re-quoting genesis, because this doesn't answer the question.)
I re-iterate the question I asked - I'll refresh your memory -
where did the molecules/atoms/particles come from, were creatures created over a period of time or instantly?
What EXACTLY is the purpose in life of MAN?
He saved me from certain death for rejecting His law and he brought me out of two different seasons of depression.
What law?
Spintwister.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse.
I never fail to be astounded as to how many people believe that common sense gives a faultless explanation of reality.
You too have joined a seemingly endless list.
(Just an observation – It always seems that those who place ultimate faith in common sense are also creationists, perhaps there's a connection.)
Just try looking at an optical illusion and repeating that your “senses” are a reliable judge of reality.
Also DO YOU NOT READ ?
The very first answer (that's answer 1 to you) to the article to which we are supposed to be responding, explains what constitutes a scientific THEORY.
(Sorry we also have more than 5 senses)
spintwister: "Evolutionsts are simply denying a distinct purpose of our existance and replacing it with indiscrete bullshit..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIgnoring your not-heard-in-church language, I'm at a loss to actually know what 'indiscrete BS' actually refers to in relation to evolutionary theory.
spintwister: "If both sides of the argument were to completely discard both theories as they had never been discovered..."
Bet you thought that if you said that real quick then no-one would notice the subterfuge. There is only one recognised theory in discussion here, and that is the accredited theory of evolution. So there are no 'both theories' to discard. You'll have to be sharper than that next time.
spintwister: "yet evolution still remains a theory"
*handpalm* spintwister, I strongly suggest that you actually take the trouble to read the article heading this thread, particularly the very first answer to the widespread and totally wrong creationists' misconception that evolution is 'only' a theory. Do you consider gravity to be 'only a theory' as well?
Laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat law?
Have you forgotten the ten commandments or the laws Jesus talked about. Love God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength, and the second to love your neighbor as yourself. Because we have violated these laws we are not right with God. But because of what Jesus did on the cross and raising from the grave three days demontrating God's poer and conquering death we who accept Christ as our Lord and Savior are made right with God.
Far as creation I did answer that question when God spoke it into existence it was immediate. When God said let there be light there was light before this the world was dark and without form or without void. God created both Heaven and earth in six days then rested on the seventh day. It doesn't take time to create life it only took the power of God and his authoritive voice. When God wants something done it happens on His time not ours. Speaking of time. What seems like a 1000 years to man is but 1 day to God. God is not controlled or limited by time like we are. Matter of fact God sees everything right now. He sees the beginning, present day, the end of time, and everything in between. He sees it all at once in one snapshot because He is omnipotent and omnipresent.
Far as credibility of those sites. Lee Strobel a former athetist is a credible resource and so is institute of christian research just check out their article on the tubular fish as well is answers in Genesis. Why? Because the answers we are looking for like where we came from and why we are here are found in Genesis. Knowing who made us we thus no why we are here. John piper says this in Desiring God, The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Why? Because He is the creator we are the creation. He is the potter and we are the clay. He fashioned and formed us while we were inside the womb. He even knew us and planned our birth at this very moment when we were born. He thought of us all when he started creating the world. Speaking of this it is out of His love for us the world came to be. That is why we did not come from apes but from a God who loves and has the power to specifically make man the way He did. Let us make man in our own image and likeness. So today we bear our fathers image. We have a humorous side just like our father and we have a creative side just like our father. There is more but I will stop there.
In closing, you say atoms and molecules come from evolution. Am I correct? I say the only way there is life and for it to be sustained is from God.
inHisname4everIstand, I'll leave Laughing gravy to respond to specific points as chosen, but will respond to a couple of things you mention. Yet again I repeat to you that this thread is not the appropriate forum for you to use to write a religious tract about your beliefs. If you wish to comment specifically about one or other of the fifteen answers mentioned in the article here then do so. Otherwise, please find a more suitable website to promulgate your religious views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd because yet again you recommend such a scurrilous pseudo-science website as Answers in Genesis, I'll take things a step further now than merely saying that you're damaging your own credibility by doing so. Take the issue of what creationists insist on referring to as 'dinosaur blood', but which is thought possibly (and only possibly) to be either hemes (Schweitzer, Horner, et al) or bacterial biofilms (Kaye, Gaugler, Sawlowicz).
Answers in Genesis quotes Dr. Schweitzer in September, 1997 as saying: "Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’ "
I took the time to track down what Dr. Schweitzer actually said, three months earlier in 'Earth' journal, June, 1997: "So I showed these microscopic bone slices to my boss, paleontologist Jack Horner, renowned for his work on dinosaur nesting sites. He took a long look and then asked, “So you think these are red blood cells?” I said, “No.”
The AiG version is neither accurate nor honest, but nevertheless serves to underscore the way in which a creationist platform will not stop at grooming the facts to reinforce its own case. And yet this is the source that you are putting forward as having 'credibility'. As to Lee Strobel, he is a Christian apologist who holds a journalism degree and a Masters Law degree, neither of which even remotely qualify him to discourse professionally on the biological sciences, and any views which he might hold in this direction do not therefore rise above the level of mere personal opinion. John Piper holds a Bachelor of Divinity degree, so it's idem ditto for him. In short: virtually none of the sources which you recommend as having 'credibility' have any credentials whatever in the biological sciences.
Your closing statement is "I say the only way there is life and for it to be sustained is from God." Of course it's okay for you to believe this. But it is belief, and so has no place in science.
"Have you forgotten the ten commandments "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because they are written in a book does not make them a commandment, law, anything , they are just words in a book.
You can believe them if you wish but it does not make them valid.
I could write a book today commanding you to ignore the bible, it would not make it a law
"Far as creation I did answer that question when God spoke it into existence it was immediate. "
Why did your creator speak? (there was no-one there to hear)
You say speak Do you mean in a language (of any sort)?
Where and how did your creator speak?
How did speaking create life ?
Where did the stuff (to make creatures) come from ?
"Far as credibility of those sites. Lee Strobel a former athetist is a credible resource and so is institute of christian research just check out their article on the tubular fish as well is answers in Genesis. "
Sorry You are pretty gullible if you believe either of these sources are credible.
Why do you think Lee Strobel is credible ?
Are you aware the only accredited qualification he has is in law, no science, no mathematics, just law, and you think him a credible resource. Remarkable !!).
Perhaps you are not aware the institute you mention has yet to carry out ANY original research attempting to forward their beliefs
I would recommend you check out ANY article from ANY any journal other than the so called institute of christian research , as regards evolution/astrology/cosmology/big bang.
A good start would be to read the 15 answers at the header of this article
"Why? Because the answers we are looking for like where we came from and why we are here are found in Genesis. "
I ask a third time WHERE DID WE COME (i.e the material in us) from (see above) , WHY are WE HERE?
(from my recollection genesis does not explicitly say WHY we are here)
FOR the third time genesis does not say where we came from
You follow with yet more rhetoric
"In closing, you say atoms and molecules come from evolution. Am I correct"
No - I asked, in the account of creation of man given in genesis
WHERE did the atoms/molecules/particles come from ?
inHisname4everIstand: "I wish I could make you believe in God"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm revisiting a previous comment that you made to me (at 01:49 PM on 04/06/09) because you are making assumptions about someone whom you don't even know: namely, myself. Not that this is a new experience for me when discussing such issues on the internet, but it does illustrate the mindset of those such as yourself who apparently cannot conceive of the idea that someone who not only accepts but is prepared robustly to argue the case for the biological sciences might actually enjoy a rich spiritual life.
Because I find little to commend the quick-fix shop foreman version of the creationist's God, who hustled to turn the whole trick over in six days and then took a lunch break, doesn't mean that my life is devoid of what for me is a more fulfilling and mature version of events. So please respect my wishes and decline to 'pray that God works in my life', because the position has already been taken, and it does not involve the visions of bronze age goat herders.
Hi inHisname4everIstand Are you still there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a few more things for you to consider
You said in an earlier post that your creator created things instantly, with an authoritative voice .
On what basis do you make this statement?
Genesis only says that things (especially life) were created .
No mention of an authoritative voice or how long it took,(only that it was less than a day ).
You also say that your creators perception of time is different to man's.
On what basis do you make this statement ?
Nowhere does genesis say that this is the case
Or are you making this assumption, otherwise your creator would not be able to see all of time
inHis name4everIstand. you have very noble objectives and I respect that, but you are misguided. Has God died (God forbid)? Is God still with us? If He is, does He act differently now? if the answer is no, then He couldnt have done instantaneous things in the past, just like He doesnt do today. He is the master of time, why should He create the world instantaneosly? or in six days. the Holy Quran explains what is in the Holy Bible and says that God's days are of different lengths than those of human beings, some of his days are equal to a thousand years. 'Days' only refers to periods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not visited the posts for a while and I bet you thought you had the last laugh, alas, it is not so.
When you said that fire contained within hatama that will strike at the heart had nothing to do with the atomic nucleas, and you try to interpret the Holy Qur’ân in your own way, let me inform you that hatama in Arabic means the smallest pulverized particle. Go on, try to interpret it in any other way. A tremendous hellish fire contained in the smallest particle, it is an incredible description of nuclear energy.
Yes the oceans are mostly parts of a single body of water. But they all have different names, they are all different compositions, they all look different. The Atlantic looks different from the Mediterranean for example. The Holy Qur’ân says in 25:54 where it mentions one of the predicted merges: ‘He it is Who shall cause the two seas to flow, this palatable and sweet, and that saltish and bitter; and between them (for now) He has placed a barrier and a great partition.’
For purposes of this post, I have looked at the comparative compositions of the Red Sea vs. the Mediterranean, and lo and behold, the Holy Qur’ân was right yet again. The Red Sea was much saltier than the Mediterranean until they merged. The Red Sea also came into the Mediterranean via the ‘Bitter Lakes’, so the water flowing into the Mediterranean was extremely salty.
The Holy Qur’ân also says that one will flow vigorously into another meaning that they are not on the same level otherwise their would be an equilibrium and they would mix slightly in the centre, but not merge properly. (The Red Sea and its marine creatures have flowed into the eastern Mediterranean.)
You say that since the Panama Canal is not continuous, it has not merged. As I tried to explain to you, the Holy Qur’ân is not a book of physics, it speaks in a language that has to be understandable to men of 1500 years ago as well as to the man of tomorrow. It is not going to have the exact terminology that we have invented. With the word maraga about the coming together of the two oceans, it makes itself understood beautifully.
The following is a quote from Wikipedia about the Panama Canal:
‘One of the largest and most difficult engineering projects ever undertaken, it had an enormous impact on shipping between the two oceans’
The fact is that God knew about this merging of the two oceans and He predicted it in the Holy Qur’ân since it was going to be so significant for man’s progress.
In speaking of the majority of Dr. Abdul Salaam’s knowledge having been ascertained from the Holy Qur’ân, you said that I did not know the difference between inspiration and knowledge. Inspiration can be from anything. You can be inspired by someone’s example for instance. Inspiration does not necessarily guide you or gives you a hint of something. But the Holy Qur’ân gives you actual hints and in some cases exact and entire pieces of knowledge.
If you want me to go on to some new predictions/ bits of knowledge that can be ascertained from the Holy Qur’ân and of the quotations of the Holy Prophet of Islam (may peace be upon him), I can do that. Such as the prediction of cars and other modes of travel that rely on the explosive power of petrol. Or, the best diet and health advice you could ever have. or, the perception of various dimensions.
However, the Holy Qur’ân says that many will be guided by this book while many will be misguided by it. I invite you to be of the guided ones-it will be to your own advantage.
response to laughing gravy's post in response to inHisname4everIstand, the purpose of the life of man is to worship God which includes doing as He instructs us to do. He is like home, He is peace and happiness. We have to return to Him one day so we must return to Him out of choice rather than being forced to return to Him after undergoing hell-fire. That is the reason we are here, the reason that alas, eludes both creationists and non creationists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisloveGod: "I have not visited the posts for a while and I bet you thought you had the last laugh"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisloveGod, you surely cannot be so naive as to imagine that what you say on this SciAm thread is actually going to make the remotest difference as to the acceptance or otherwise of your ideas. Only when your hypothesis has been widely accepted as accredited science, has graduated to become a peer-accepted theory, and has replaced evolutionary theory as a more viable alternative to explain the diversity of species, and ONLY at such a time, can you claim to have had 'the last laugh'.
As I understand that you have yet even to write and submit a paper to an accredited scientific outlet for peer review, then you have not even begun to tread the path towards scientific recognition for your ideas. I will absolutely guarantee you that a free exchange of ideas on a SciAm thread will do nothing whatsoever to set you on that path, no, not even as a first step. And if you think otherwise, then you have a poor grasp of the way in which science functions.
And as I have previously pointed out to others on this thread: unless you have something specific to say about the fifteen answers to which this article refers, and which is what this thread is about, then you are off-topic, and I suggest that you find a more appropriate web forum to promulgate your ideas. Lengthy discourses which compare the differences in saline content of the oceans, and praising the Holy Qur’ân, no matter how sincere or well-intentioned, have little to do with the fifteen answers in the article being discussed here.
I have never heard claim that the sole purpose of life was to worship God. If you could point out the specific passages in the Bible, Koran, or any other religous book with God as their deity I would appreciate it. Also, I have two follow up questions. First, if the entire purpose of life is to worship God, then why is there non-sentient life that is incapable of worship? Second, doesn't that make God an incredibly petty narcissist if in his infinite wisdom and power he chose to create a universe for the sole purpose of stroking his ego? Which leads to a new follow up, if God is that petty does he deserve to be worshipped?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have never heard claim that the sole purpose of life was to worship God. If you could point out the specific passages in the Bible, Koran, or any other religous book with God as their deity I would appreciate it. Also, I have two follow up questions. First, if the entire purpose of life is to worship God, then why is there non-sentient life that is incapable of worship? Second, doesn't that make God an incredibly petty narcissist if in his infinite wisdom and power he chose to create a universe for the sole purpose of stroking his ego? Which leads to a new follow up, if God is that petty does he deserve to be worshipped?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot all scientists know all the answers. One example is the case of a couple of Christian non-scientists who found out that the Shroud of Turin piece that was carbon dating had French interweaving, contacted one of the scientists involved and through further investigation was found that cotton fibers were dyed from the 16th century to make it look like one piece. The carbon dating was off because of the presence of more modern fibers. There was a cable Discovery Channel broadcast of this last week.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe concept of faith from the Bible is based on belief but that which has been tested and proven as in the case of courtroom evidence. The word "pistis" in the Greek includes the meaning of testing/trial rather than blind faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, but this foundation provides freedom to people of all faiths and religions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi lovegod good to hear from you AGAIN
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many times now have you repeated yourself ?
When you said that fire contained within hatama that will strike at the heart had nothing to do with the atomic nucleas, and you try to interpret the Holy Qur�n in your own way,
Off you go again. I DID NOT say that a fire had nothing to do with the atomic nucleus
I said that the phrase YOU quoted COULD be interpreted another way.
YOU are trying to interpret the koran in YOUR OWN WAY, when it COULD be interpreted another way.
Maybe hatama means the smallest pulverised particle maybe it doesn't. Maybe the koran actually states hatama , maybe it doesn't. Maybe you got the quote correct, maybe you didn't
(You got another quote wrong, maybe you got this one wrong)
You then quote a reference from the koran (actually it should have been 25:53 not 54.)
In my translation it says let free 2 bodies of flowing water . NOT two seas to flow .
Now I would have taken 2 bodies of flowing water to be two rivers -NOT two seas. So YOUR interpretation starts off a little shaky, but it gets worse.-
Neither does my translation say anything about the merging, joining, or coming together, of the bodies of water
You then go on to justify the claim that the koran is correct by observing that the red sea was saltier than the mediterranean. For your information it still is. (And the Mediterranean is saltier than the Atlantic.)
The question is SO WHAT?
You also say that they are not on the same level. Are you not aware (as a physicist ) that water finds its own level. The red sea and mediterranean were at the same level before the canal(apart from tidal differences). In fact there were worries when the canal was built that they were not at the same level and a rush of water would happen when they were joined, but this did NOT happen.
The Holy Qur�n also says that one will flow vigorously into another
It doesn't say this in my translation.
You persist in your stupidity about the panama canal. You complain about my interpretation and then do some interpreting of your own . You say 2 oceans are joined,(first you said they merged now they have come together , what next I wonder) when they are not joined but connected by a canal with 5 locks (I think)
it makes itself understood beautifully. Only if you interpret it the way you have.
You haven't answered a question I put earlier
How do you know the prediction has already happened ? Perhaps it has yet to happen.
Cos if it hasn't then YOUR evidence is B-S
I ASKED if you knew the difference between inspiration and knowledge.
I can perfectly understand how the Koran may inspire someone.
But have yet to see any evidence that it contains any knowledge.
Ambertooth, If what you say is correct, and this thread is not an appropriate place for this discussion, then why have you and others responded to mine and other creationists' posts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy hope is that someone who may not necessaritly respond to my posts may see answers to questions in their own minds and may be (God willing) be guided to the right path
laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I said once before, I can show you white and you can call it black, that is up to you. If you refuse to take the verses I have presented as proof, then your case is like those about whom it says in the Holy Qur’ân, 'they are deaf, dumb and blind, therefore they will not believe'
The Holy Qur’ân is available in Arabic. If you know anyone who speaks Arabic, get them to make you understand these verses. Or, take go to any Arabic dictionary online and type in the word hatama and see what it is defined as. Or, read the translation in English done by Maulvi Sher Ali, available on alislam.org. If you are really interested. You will find that Arabic is a very vast language, and can be translated in different ways. The confusion you are facing is due to differing translations, not differing interpretations.
If the Red Sea water did not gush into the Mediterranean, then why are the creatures of the Red Sea now found in the Eastern Mediterranean?
If you still wont accept that the gushing of waters refers to the Suez canal then what about the Panama Canal? Every time a ship goes through each of the locks, the water gushes from one level to another. So the gushing is an on-going process. Another strike for the Holy Qur’ân!
The reason why the numbering is different is that my community, the Ahmadiyya Community take the first verse of each chapter of the Holy Qur’ân, 'in the name of Allah the Gracious, ever Merciful' as being a part of the chapter, so it is always added to the number of the verses, and becomes the first verse. So the numbering of the rest of the verses is effected accordingly.
Dvashun: the following are verses of the Holy Qur’ân that tells us about the purpose of our creation and the creation of the universe around us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this51:57 And I have not created the Jinn and the men but that they may worship Me.
6: 10 Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
67:3 Who has created death and life that He might try you — which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.
[18:8] Verily, We have made all that is on the earth as an ornament for it, that We may try them as to which of them is best in conduct
[11:3] It teaches that you should worship none but Allah
The Holy Qur’ân is not applicable to the non-sentient life which does not have a choice between right and wrong. God is very kind and loving and forgiving. We commit so many excesses yet he continues to forgive us most of the time. If He was selfish, He would seize us for our mistakes. Even to such as do not believe in Him, He still continues to provide them with sustenance in His world.
If we worship God and be kind to our fellow beings, it is for our own benefit. We need God, He certainly does not need us.
However, God’s pleasure at someone turning to Him exceeds that of a man who has places all his belongings on a camel which got lost in the desert, but then returns of its own accord. This is taken from the sayings of the Holy Prophet of Islam (may peace be upon him)
loveGod, you ask why I respond to your postings and the postings of creationists if they are off-topic. Well, the comments of creationists ('inHisname4everIstand' and 'zed' provide examples) are less off-topic than your own, because this article specifically concerns the misconceptions that creationists have about evolutionary theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat leaves yourself. You would deny that you are a creationist, but like it or not, the arguments that you put forward here parallel those of creationists, which has at least given reason for debate. Central to this debate is the issue that religious beliefs cannot provide a basis for what is scientific. The reason for this is easily established. You can say that such-and-such is so because it is stated in the Holy Qur’ân. But as this statement (whatever it might be) is irrefutable belief (that is: it can neither be proven nor disproven with scientific methodology), then it has no validity in science. I just don't know how to say this more clearly.
In this sense, you put yourself in the same boat as Christian creationists. What is said in the Bible regarding the creation can neither be proven nor disproven, so will never have the weight of scientific veracity. This does not mean that science is 'against' religious belief, and even less so that it sets out intentionally to undermine such beliefs (as creationists seem misguidedly to assume). Just that religious beliefs of ANY kind can play no part in science, for the above reason. Each time I tell you this, I hope against hope that you will finally grasp this fact. I go on hoping against the odds.
But if you now deny that you are a creationist (of whatever religious persuasion), then you have proven my point for me, and have nothing to seek on this thread. As a non-creationist, to continue to comment here, simply to wish that someone "may be (God willing) be guided to the right path" is neither the thrust of this article nor the purpose of this comments thread. I might also add that I find this statement of yours presumptuous. Presumtuous, because it makes the presumption about others (whom you do not even know) that they are not already on their own 'right path'.
So: if you are using (or rather, misusing) this thread simply to promulgate your views about the Holy Qur’ân, then my point is made, and I suggest (yet again) that you seek a more appropriate web forum.
Hi lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor one who says they believe in the koran you are very selective (or ignorant) with your quotes
You have REPEATEDLY referred to a quote supposedly saying that it is a prediction of the merging of 4 oceans.
THIS IS THE ACTUAL QUOTE from one source
It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.
AND from another source
He is the One Who has cut off both seas,
this one being sweet, fresh, while the other is salty, briny.
He has placed an isthmus in between them
plus a barrier to block them off.
IN BOTH QUOTES it is obvious that the 2 sources (whether river or ocean) were intended to REMAIN SEPARATE , NOT MERGED or LINKED,
IF YOU SAY THAT THIS QUOTE PREDICTS THAT THE WATERS ARE TO BE MERGED THEN YOU ARE MORE STUPID THAN I THOUGHT YOU ARE ALSO BLASPHEMING YOUR OWN BELIEFS AS IT CLEARLY STATES THAT A BARRIER WAS PLACED BETWEEN THEM.(we presume by your creator)
As an aside believe it or not fish can swim and creatures move in either direction along the suez canal.
Before I start I want to apologize to Amber and laughing for continuing this argument but I can't just let it go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove,
Thank you for providing verses to answer my first question. Having said that you still did not answer the second, third, or fourth questions. You skirted the second question by saying it does not apply to non-sentient life but in your previous statement you said that life was put here to worship God, not just "the Jinn and the men." Further, the verses you provided further illustrate why I have a problem accepting any form of organized religion. Verses 51:57 and 6:10 actually answer the question but the others only confuse me more. 6:10 says "There is no God but He," yet 18:8 says "We" and 11:3 says "worship none but Allah" explicitly implying that there are other gods (note the lower case) that can be worshipped. This amibguity allows the faithful to pick and choose what and how they want to believe. As an example, fundamental creationists believe in a ~six thousand year old earth because the bible is to interpretted literally. Yet the Vatican accepts old earth evolution as fact and that the bible is interpretable. I could go on for quite a while about this but I will stop now. Before you say the Islam does not have these inconsistencies please do not as I do not want to take this conversation in that direction.
My VERY LAST POST RE lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest you read a few more translations. re El 'Hutamah
Several translate this as "the fire (or wrath)" or your creator.
There is NO indication of the source of this fire except a creator.
Also ALL references to the "heart" in the koran have referred to the emotional not the physical heart
(I tend to believe the interpretations I have read rather than your somewhat biased and limited interpretation)
So as far as I am concerned YOUR assumption that the "fire" comes from the atom exists ONLY in your imagination.
YOU can believe it came from the atom if you wish but it does not say (or indicate) this in the koran.
AGAIN it is YOU doing the interpreting NOT ME
Hi lovegod - my VERY VERY LAST RESPONSE TO YOU
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the water gushes from one level to another. So the gushing is an on-going process. Another strike for the Holy Qur’ân!"
I dont know where you get the "gushing water" from - The koran NEVER mentions gushing (or rushing water), from any level to any other level.
STRIKE 3 YOU'RE OUT
two things one you beleive we came from rock two show me where you have made life without first having life you can't three it has been proven to your unhappenes you can not take a part out of an DNA strand and change it because the only thing that happens is the life dies it does not become something esle .so see as science as you like to call it studies the human body more and more there coming to relize just how complex and amazing the human body is and to believe it all happened by chance is crazy you reglion and yes evel.is a reglion.what i find is you own science is going to be the tool that unmasked you lie thank and maybe if you take a rock and put in a melting pot just one day life will happen out of no where.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou need to do research before you start talking about something you know nothing about read letters of are founding fathers and when you start talking about jefferson remember the context in which he was writing the letter and i do not want my kids fed lies (at my tax dollars)by some one that has such a closed mind that it scares them to discuss ather means.as science progress it is findind just haw amazing and complex the human body is.and to think at one time there was nothing here but hot lava and one day life just sprung up show me wher they creatied life without first have life so you want us to believe that we came from rock now tell me who is crazy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo truth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dont know what you're on but when you come down could you please re-write your comments into english so that we can all understand them.
Hmm, 'truth', did you know that Thomas Jefferson thought that the Book of Revelations was so nonsensical that he wanted it dropped from the New Testament? He even objected to the miracles of Jesus, and actually cut them out of his own Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, that's an aside, because you make a claim here (in fact, you make the standard creationist claim) that scientists 'believe that we came from a rock'. There are a few things to consider, the first of which is that this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, which concerns itself with speciation. Next, I would strongly recommend that you actually take the trouble to read the article which this thread is about, particularly answers 7 and 8, which deal with what you claim. Ironically, since seeding of the early Earth by bacterial life on comets is a plausible hypothesis for the origin of life, then in that sense we could well have 'come from a rock'.
On another note, I would ask you to explain just how 'coming from a rock' is somehow less plausible than being made from dust by a supernatural act. It's a reasonable question.
To chuckgaff
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) the USA was founded on secular non-religious values specifically to provide freedom for people of all faiths and religions.
2)The belief in any religious faith only requires it to have been tested and proven to the individual. This is NOT the same as required in the case of courtroom evidence.
3) 3 small pieces of the shroud of turin were supplied by the vatican for c14 dating. These were CORRECTLY dated. However is was assumed (by whom ?) that the whole shroud was of similar material , and that this date applied to the whole of the shroud.
The resultant incorrect dating of the shroud (as a whole) was the fault of the vatican, as the C14 dates of the SAMPLES supplied were NOT off.
Hi truth - You come down yet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf so - you asked 1 question "tell me who is crazy"
From the evidence so far - I would say you are.
Whether this is a permanent or temporary state we have yet to find out.
Hmm, it seems that the entire controversy exists because of the presuppositions of the three groups. Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creation. And until the presuppositions are surpassed, none of the groups can agree with one another on evidence. Your presuppositions determine how you view the evidence. There is no brute fact, all evidence is neutral and up to the viewer to interpret.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut towards the ID people specifically, you say why couldn't a day to God be millions of years, well if He is an omnipotent, all powerful God, then why should it take Him millions of years to create something, and why would He call it good, if it was in the beginning stages of its evolutionary path?
ikeshero, reading through the context of your comment, you seem to be confusing a term here. You use the term 'presuppositions' when your context implies that what you actually mean is the term 'preconceptions'. This distinction is quite important, because a presupposition is the flaw upon which the whole ricketty facade of Intelligent Design rests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo explain: ID proposes that an unknown, unnamed intelligent agency created, and continues to create, the natural world. The evidence (according to ID'ers) is the inherent 'design' manifested in that world. But to say this, means that this evidence rests upon an unvalidated (and unverifiable) presupposition. That is: it pre-supposes the existence of such an agency without having validated its existence in the first place, which makes it untenable as science. Which is why ID is not, and never can be, admissible science.
No such presupposition exists in evolutionary theory, because no such presupposed agency is involved. It's just the mechanisms of nature doing what they do. Now, you might pretend neutrality and claim that 'there is no brute fact', and that 'all evidence is neutral and up to the viewer to interpret'. But of course the reality is that evolutionary theory has not proven itself so robust in so many applications of the biological sciences over the last century and a half for no particular reason beyond your claimed 'how the evidence is viewed'. There's more to it than that. Considerably more.
Darwin started with no preconceptions. He went where thirty years of data collection irresistibly led him, and where no-one had trodden before him. That is the way in which science works. Creationism, on the other hand, begins from a preconceived premise (there's your preconception right there) and molds the evidence like silly putty to match its Scriptural preconceptions.
And let's not hear any of that nonsense about 'three groups'. Intelligent Design, the ugly sister of creationism, was simply floated as an idea by creationists in a cynical attempt to circumvent a court ruling against introducing creationism into the school curriculum.
ikeshero
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have hit on the 2 MAJOR, MAJOR problems
1) I have yet to see ANY pro-evidence from either ID or creationists though I have asked many many times
I have read a lot of opinion and assumption but no scientific facts or evidence.
Thereby we come to the second problem.
The WHOLE basis of the problem is that ID and creationists want their position taught as SCIENTIFIC fact (or theory) on the same basis as other scientific theories, BUT, and it is an ENORMOUS BUT, they refuse to put any scientifically based pro-evidence forward . The evidence they do put forward (either pro, or anti) is either based on either completely unscientific evidence (sometimes opinion), long out of date data, totally unfounded assumptions, or absurd logic.
According to reputable scientific journals neither ID nor creationists have put forward ANY papers for scientific review in over 20 years. Even though the failures of the evidence presented in their own "journals" or web sites is pointed out many,many times they persist in asserting it as fact and call it scientific.
So on the one hand they want to present their position as scientific, but on the other they refuse to follow the internationally recognised scientific method.
ikeshero
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I forgot my own theory
Personally I don't believe i.d. or creationists want to present their position as scientific at all.
I believe they want to create a fundamentalist christian indoctrinated USA and remove ANY teachings that are in conflict with this.
Their first problem is the theory of evolution(by natural selection) which directly contradicts the creation of man in genesis.
Removal of the teaching of evolution is just the first battle in their long term strategy
LOL!!! Information(DNA) came from random chance! Right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnotachance
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo
So is there a MIND behind the response or did your collection of marbles hit the keyboard?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnotachance
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not know to whom or what you are referring. It might be nice if you gave a clue.
However IF you are referring to my previous post (re long term strategy) it is NOT an original concept from me.
IT is only my summation and deductions from the actual public statements made by major proponents (not on this notice board) of i.d. and creationism.
IF your comment refers to my post then I suggest you try to beg, borrow, or steal some marbles for your own (from evidence you dont appear to have many) as it had nothing to do with DNA or random chance.
IF you can "acquire" enough marbles to get your IQ into double figures I suggest you go and read some of their statements.
A lot of If's I know but I dont want to burden your already overstretched marbles (is it 1 or 2 ? -or is counting beyond you at this moment?) too much.
OR Are you playing the distraction game - ridiculing the messenger in order to distract readers from the message?
notachance
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisp.s.
DNA is NOT information- it comprises biochemical strings-
it consists of " chcmical molecules", no more no less.
notachance: "So is there a MIND behind the response or did your collection of marbles hit the keyboard?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen someone posts such coy silliness as this, the suspicion must be that they themselves are doing so in lieu of a cogent response. notachance, if you do not agree with the statement that DNA 'came from random chance', then you should outline the way (within scientifically acceptable parameters, of course) in which you think it did come about.
Humans of all kind, whether friends, foe, or self, they are all disappointing. The arguements here mean close to nothing, we debate about what is "true" and "real" and "better" but do we care about the person we are debating with? No, we are not here to be an advisor, a friend, or even a foe, we are here to be "right" and force OUR experiences on others. Do not tell a fish that it is better to live on land, or a bird it is best to orbit the stars, or a monkey it can only live in the sky. We are born different, we develop different, we are different and for that reason we argue, fight, contest because we cannot always accept that the other view can be acceptable. Live your life for you and your loved ones. Do not bother me with your problems, for my life is hard enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans of all kind, whether friends, foe, or self, they are all disappointing. The arguements here mean close to nothing, we debate about what is "true" and "real" and "better" but do we care about the person we are debating with? No, we are not here to be an advisor, a friend, or even a foe, we are here to be "right" and force OUR experiences on others. Do not tell a fish that it is better to live on land, or a bird it is best to orbit the stars, or a monkey it can only live in the sky. We are born different, we develop different, we ARE different and for that reason we argue, fight, contest because we cannot always accept that the another view can be acceptable. Live your life for you and your loved ones and do not disturb the life of another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery sagacious, truelagunatic, I'm sure. But this is the Internet, and that's where stuff like this happens. Haven't you noticed? For myself, I already do 'live my life for me and my loved ones'. But as for 'not disturbing the life of another', you've got to be joking. Your own life is now probably disturbed, however briefly, trivially or superficially, merely by your decision to comment on this thread, so I'm wondering why you bothered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis thread and its accompanying article is specifically about the misconceptions which creationists have about evolutionary theory, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that, as a relevant subject of discussion, that is what is going to get talked about here. Do you have anything to say on that topic?
laughing gravy: Your saying that I am out will really get rid of me and people who think like me, wont it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am afraid not, you and people like you will one day be remembered in history as being a nincompoop and unable to see the truth despite having intelligence.
On the point you are trying to make, Arabic language is very vast as I have repeatedly said. And if you have any experience translating any language you will understand that often one has to choose between a number of options when translating. One translation can therefore be different from the other. That however does not make any of them wrong. The traslation of the words of the Holy Quran to mean water gushing forward to meet the water on the other side (as in the Panama Canal) is found in an Urdu translation of the Holy Quran by Mirza Tahir Ahmad available on alislam.org
Ambertooth: If creationism means a belief that the world has an intelligent creator, then I am most certainly a creationist. However, I am different from Christian creationists because I do not propound the Biblical story of Creation in the way that Christians do. I say that the Holy Qur’ân offers a more detailed and logical view of creation than the Bible does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn your second point that religious beliefs such as mine cannot be proven by science therefore they must be kept separate, I say that religion and science go hand in hand and you can’t have one without the other in a complete sense. My reasoning is that if it is the same Creator who created the universe and created religion, the two can never contradict each other.
In order to prove this fact, I have presented verses from the Holy Qur’ân which shed light on scientific facts that have been discovered many years after the Holy Qur’ân mentioned them. I have also said that the Holy Qur’ân gives us hints about many more scientific facts that we at the moment fail to comprehend. For example, I told you that the Holy Qur’ân speaks of the total number of fundamental forces and the number of dimensions etc. it also speaks of the fact that the universe will expand forever!
The reason that I can understand for the Holy Qur’ân to make such statements in to enable people who are logical thinkers to realise the truth of religion. Why? Because we all need God, no matter how smart we are.
A majority of the people in the world today are not on the right path. However, having some faith is better than not having any faith. If you perhaps feel that you for example are on the right path, then if your faith is making you live a life free of falsehood, of being kind and sympathetic, of being an advantageous human being, then that is fine.
However, if your faith does not convince you to become a ‘good’ person and to believe that you will be answerable for your actions one day, then I am afraid you are not on the right path.
If the former is true and you are provided with all that is necessary by your faith then you should make sure you are on the path that takes you to the highest degree. You get but one chance at life. You owe it to yourself to make sure you are living the life that can give you a Nobel prize from the highest authority.
Dvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I did answer your third and fourth question, when I said that God is very Kind and Merciful and not selfish. If He were selfish, He would not provide even those that do not believe in Him with sustenance. If He were not kind and forgiving He would punish us for all the sins we commit and not keep giving us a chance to reform.
Your last question was that why does God deserve to be worshipped. I told you that it was because we need Him, and He does not need us. if we worship Him, it will be of great benefit for us both in this world and in the next. In this world, He gives the heaven of a permanent state of peace of mind which you cannot find with anything else.
I provided you with certain verses of the Holy Qur’ân, which speak of the reason for creation. I will take your points one by one with regards to these verses.
The jinn refers to people who are seldom seen, ie, the Bourgeois, as opposed to the common man. This means that a common man may think that there are special people upon whom the laws of religion do not apply, but they are wrong and these laws apply to everyone. This interpretation of the word jinn can be found on alislam.org.
‘we’ and ‘I’ are repeatedly used in the Holy Qur’ân to mention God. ‘We’ is a word of respect as is used sometimes even by monarchs. In many languages today, plural is used to indicate respect. Even in old English you must be familiar with the usage of ‘thou’ and ‘thine’ instead of you and yours. So ‘we’ is used to point out that one must respect God.
If the above was wrong then why would God repeatedly remind us that He is One?
‘worship none but Allah’ means do not believe in powers beside Allah. For example, when someone is committing a crime, he /she thinks he can get away with it. He believes he has the power to fool the authorities. The same is the case when someone lies. ‘worship none but Allah’ means that one should not commit evils because one must realise that God is watching. And that He is far more powerful than anything else. A person may get away with a crime in the eyes of his fellow men, with the power of his own cunning, but he should remember that he has not managed to conceal his crime from the eyes of the One who has the power to punish Him far more severely than any man can.
So the point of religion is to make itself logical enough for any man to be able to believe in it, and then to reform that man so he becomes a beneficial human being for all those around him.
Lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour saying that I am out will really get rid of me and people who think like me, wont it?
Who said I was trying to get rid of anyone (think like you ? you flatter yourself)
YOU (That means YOU , not anyone else) ,have repeatedly made assertions based on YOUR interpretation of 2 verses in the koran
I post the actual translations/interpretations of the WHOLE of the 2 verses from 2 completely separate translations/interpretations (there are many more, at last counted 7 translations all similar) from REPUTABLE writers (MOST of ARABIC origin) which bear NO resemblance to YOUR interpretation for either verse., but as a true bigot you persist.
OF course one translation can be different from another yours for example. In fact YOURS differs totally from ALL others.
In ALL translations a barrier is placed BETWEEN the different waters in order to keep them separate.
BUT no you persist ONLY in YOUR translation does the verse means that the waters are to be JOINED.
Evidence of a bigot in action
HIS understanding is the OPPOSITE of everyone else's. Still he persists. HE is right , everyone else is wrong.
I suggest YOU read an english dictionary because YOU are displaying absolute evidence that you have no idea what BARRIER means or its implication.
I am afraid that YOU appear to be typical of fundamentalist believers, THEIR truth only exists in there own imagination.
I am certain that TODAY , not one day, you have been exposed as a bigot . I suggest you check the meaning of this along with barrier
I also see you are back to the panama canal again I cant even regard you as intelligent in persisting with that fiasco.
P.S The water for the canal does not flow from one end of the canal to the other (in either direction) but 100% from rainfall.
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In order to prove this fact, I have presented verses from the Holy Qur’ân which shed light on scientific facts"
I thought it was against your belief to lie.
You have not presented any facts from the koran or anywhere
So this statement is a lie.
TO anyone following the writings of lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe repeatedly says that the koran says this, the koran says that, whatever
ALL evidence suggests that this is only true in HIS translation/interpretation. MOST other versions do NOT translate it as he does.
To all readers re - the veracity of lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs per my previous post re - lovegod's interpretation of the koran
Now I shall also question his veracity
In recent posts he has made 2 statements
1)
“The jinn refers to people who are seldom seen, ie, the Bourgeois, as opposed to the common man ............................. This interpretation of the word jinn can be found on alislam.org. “
THIS IS A LIE
The word “jinn” is translated as “spirit” or “sprite”. lovegod has interpreted this to mean "bourgeois" (how he arrived at this interpretation I have no idea. No doubt in order to introduce another startling "revelation" in the koran) -
Nowhere in any translation of the koran, including alisalm.org, is "jinn" interpreted as "bourgeois"
2)
“the traslation of the words of the Holy Quran to mean water gushing forward to meet the water on the other side (as in the Panama Canal) is found in an Urdu translation of the Holy Quran by Mirza Tahir Ahmad available on alislam.org”
THIS IS A LIE
The translation HE quotes does NOT say this . In fact it translates the verse closely to what I originally stated in a recent post. It NEVER mentions gushing or rushing water, or the JOINING/MERGING (of salt and fresh water),in fact the exact opposite.
You may deduce your own conclusions as to lovegods personal veracity and to the truth of any other statement.
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the above was wrong then why would God repeatedly remind us that He is One?"
Ego/narcissism/conceit , also its a circular argument (from you)
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Your last question was that why does God deserve to be worshipped."
"I told you that it was because we need Him, and He does not need us."
This is not relevant to the question
"if we worship Him, it will be of great benefit for us both in this world and in the next. "
An assumption (in fact 2 assumptions)
In this world, He gives the heaven of a permanent state of peace of mind which you cannot find with anything else.
Another assumption (again in fact there are 2 assumptions)
You still haven't answered the question -
A frequent evasion tactic of yours. You prevaricate but do not answer
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I say that the Holy Qur�n offers a more detailed and logical view of creation than the Bible does. "
Another of your fantasies
The koran is LESS detailed than the bible (and I thought that was impossible, - still you live and learn)
NEITHER are logical. But you could say the koran was less illogical (because it says less then the bible)
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"then if your faith is making you live a life free of falsehood.
Where does that leave you ?
loveGod: "On your second point that religious beliefs such as mine cannot be proven by science therefore they must be kept separate, I say that religion and science go hand in hand"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many times does something have to be repeated to you before it finally penetrates? 'What you say', what your personal opinion is on this point, is of no consequence to science. I am not giving you my own personal opinion. I am telling you what awaits you if you ever try to put your ideas to a scientific journal.
If you do not believe me on this point, or just plain don't accept what I say, then fine. Instead of wasting your time here, have the courage of your convictions and go ahead and write and submit an article, yes, why not to Scientific American? But don't say that I didn't try to warn you. I have by now serially told you that what the Holy Qur’ân or any other scriptural text says has no relevance in science.
A very specific request: do not try to preach to me about how you are 'afraid I am not on the right path'. My welfare, spiritual or otherwise, has nothing whatever to do with you, nor to do with your ideas, and for you to write as if it does is a conceit that I find presumptous, sanctimonious, and objectionable.
loveGod, you make a statement to Dvashun that 'the point of religion is to make itself logical enough for any man to be able to believe in it'. You might like to reflect upon the fact that, so far in your comments on this thread, all that you seem to have achieved is to antagonize others to your own religious beliefs with arguments that are anything but logical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaughing gravy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou dont think I have made up the fact that the Holy Qur�n speaks of the merging of two sets of oceans, do you? First of all, I am not the sole proponent of this idea. As I have said repeatedly, if you check on alislam.org, there is a whole community of millions of people who believe in the same logical way I do. In fact, I have learnt most of what I know and my way of thinking from some very special people in the Ahmadiyya community.
On your specific allegation that the Holy Qur�n does not mention the merging of two oceans, I would like to point out two verses to you. Verses 25:54 and 52:20 have both got the following Arabic words, marajal bahrain. Maraja means have met/merged/flowed or will meet/merge/flow. And bahrain means two seas/oceans/bodies of water. Check any Arabic dictionary and it will confirm what I have stated.
Arabic language does not make a distinction between the present and the future tense. So something that has just happened and something that will happen are both indicated by the same extension of a particular verb.
So there is yet again another sign of the truth of the Holy Qur�n, because God knew there would be a time when the Holy Qur�n would be read when the great mergers of the four oceans would have already occurred. So He used this extension in the word maraja to indicate that there will a period of time after the revelation of the Holy Qur�n when the seas would not yet have met, and then there will be a time when they will have met.
Laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not lie. Everything I said is supported by the sources I have quoted. The following is the translation of the two verses of the Holy Qur’ân from alislam.org , and the particular page I have quoted from is the following:
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/quranSearch.php?frm=0&rpp=10&swaootw=%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86&search=%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB+%2F+Search&slang=AR
55.20
‘He has made the two bodies of water flow. They will one day meet.’
And
25:54
‘And He it is Who has caused the two seas to flow, this palatable and sweet, and that saltish and bitter; and between them He has placed a barrier and a great partition.’
As for the words, ‘rushing forth’ I said it was taken from an ‘Urdu’ translation of Mirza Tahir Ahmad. Mirza Tahir Ahmad did not translate the Holy Qur’ân into English except for some amendments in an English translation by Maulvi Sher Ali. The Urdu words transliterated are, ‘barh barh kar melange’. ‘Barh’ means in Urdu ‘to rush’ or ‘to exceed’
Laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not lie. Everything I said is supported by the sources I have quoted. The following is the translation of the two verses of the Holy Qur’ân from alislam.org , and the particular page I have quoted from is the following:
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/quranSearch.php?frm=0&rpp=10&swaootw=%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86&search=%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB+%2F+Search&slang=AR
55.20
‘He has made the two bodies of water flow. They will one day meet.’
And
25:54
‘And He it is Who has caused the two seas to flow, this palatable and sweet, and that saltish and bitter; and between them He has placed a barrier and a great partition.’
As for the words, ‘rushing forth’ I said it was taken from an ‘Urdu’ translation of Mirza Tahir Ahmad. Mirza Tahir Ahmad did not translate the Holy Qur’ân into English except for some amendments in an English translation by Maulvi Sher Ali. The Urdu words transliterated are, ‘barh barh kar melange’. ‘Barh’ means in Urdu ‘to rush’ or ‘to exceed’
Laughing gravy
Please do not question my veracity. You seem desperate when you dismiss what I say on these grounds. I am afraid the more you probe what I say, the more truth you will find in my statements.
You also state what I say is my own fantasy. I wish it was. I was like you, devoid of the light of guidance. But I had the excellent fortune of working on the book ‘Rationality, Revelation, Knowledge and Truth’ written by Mirza Tahir Ahmad. I learnt to think the way I do from him. Most of the things I have presented in these posts are products of his excellent mind. Look at the book yourself, on alislam.org.
The book speaks of ‘the fire contained within the smallest particle that attacks the hearts’ as referring to nuclear energy on the following page:
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_6_section_3.html
For the merging of the four oceans and other prophesies of the Holy Qur’ân, look on the following and scroll down to ‘oceans linked’
http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/prophecies.html
On the following page in the above book,
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_3.html
The following is said about the word ‘jinn’. Please note the last part of the quote.
‘Arabic lexicon mentions the following as the possible meanings of the word jinn. It literally means anything which has the connotation of concealment, invisibility, seclusion and remoteness.’ ‘The word jinn is also applicable to snakes which habitually remain hidden from common view and live a life secluded from other animals in rock crevices and earthen holes. It is also applied to women who observe segregation and to such chieftains as keep their distance from the common people.’
The same author also writes in another chapter, (found on the following link)
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_1.html
‘The Quran most certainly does not speak of this superstitious human fantasy when it speaks of the pre-biotic age with reference to the jinn.’
I have heard the author speak on this issue many times as well. And he used the word bourgeois for jinn. Although the above does not use the word, but you can see that that is what is meant when he says ‘chieftains’.
Of course by having the good fortune of working with him, I have been influenced by his way of thinking which has led me to discover many other amazing scientific truths in the Holy Qur’ân too.
I really hope, laughing gravy that you would stop criticising for a moment and actually use your intelligent mind constructively and then perhaps you too could share in the amazing wonders of the Holy Qur’ân.
Ambertooth: I apologise if I sound conceited etc. I did not mean to. The Holy Qur’ân tells us that if someone among the people of the book (the Bible) believe in God and in the fact that they will be answerable for their actions, then they do not need to have have any fear. So if that applies to you, according to my beliefs, you will be alright. However, the journey towards our goal of eternal peace is a constant one. I do not claim to have attained my goal. There are miles for me to go yet. But it is a journey I realise that I have to undertake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is all I meant that I hope you would also undertake that journey.
But I know that I am not going to answer for what you do. And vice versa. But to try to guide people is a requirement of my faith. But of course it cannot be forced upon anyone. But it would be wrong of me to have the ability to help people and then to stand idly by and do nothing. If you do not agree with me then it is up to you. I only wish to fulfil my responsibility to the best of my ability.
Ambertooth: my arguments are logical as you yourself stated in a previous post, ‘you are all but bending over backwards to be reasonable and even scientifically credible’.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for antagonising people, laughing gravy has consistently and pointlessly criticised my statements, including questioning my veracity. There are always people like that, who do not see the truth even if it stares them right in the face. laughing gravy has been very unjust towards me in his posts. However, do you want me to stop writing and let your readers think that I am false and I have made up what I say? I can’t do that. So until these posts are stopped or until what I am saying is accepted as being the truth, how can I stop?
About the idea of science and religion going hand in hand being my idea, I have already responded in my posts to laughing gravy when I said that these are the ideas of a vast community of Ahmadi Muslims.
loveGod: "The Holy Qur’ân tells us that if someone among the people of the book (the Bible) believe in God and in the fact that they will be answerable for their actions, then they do not need to have any fear. So if that applies to you, according to my beliefs, you will be alright."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo your beliefs tell you who and who will not 'be alright'? And you want me to think that you don't go around judging people? Pathetic. You actually state that you consider that you have the ability to help people. All that you have managed to do here so far is to antagonize them. I have not read a single comment anywhere on this thread that actually supports what you say.
loveGod: "About the idea of science and religion going hand in hand being my idea, I have already responded in my posts to laughing gravy when I said that these are the ideas of a vast community of Ahmadi Muslims."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I repeatedly have told you: it makes not a scrap of difference if it IS the views of the entire 'vast community'. It still does not represent what is acceptable to science. Go ahead and write and submit your paper if you don't believe me. I challenge you. And for what it's worth: I have not read a word of Laughing gravy's yet that I disagree with. That you accuse someone whom you do not even know of being 'devoid of the light of guidance' is for me reason enough to put you in my own 'pompous ass' category.
loveGod: "However, do you want me to stop writing and let your readers think that I am false and I have made up what I say? I can’t do that. So until these posts are stopped or until what I am saying is accepted as being the truth, how can I stop?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen allow me to point something out to you which you seem to be ignoring:
Just as in society, there are certain rules of Internet etiquette that exist to stop the whole thing descending into unruly chaos. On this site, one of these is that someone who wishes to comment should reasonably confine their comments to what the accompanying article is about. In this particular case, that is specifically to do with fifteen popular misconceptions which creationists have about evolutionary theory. If your comments are not about one of these fifteen misconceptions, then you are off-topic.
Frankly, I consider that what you are saying in your comments is not only off-topic, but that you are simply using (or rather, misusing) this article's thread to promulgate your own personal views, which in turn makes it less easy for those who wish to respond to what you say to also stay on-topic. This being so, I suggest that you seek another more appropriate Internet forum to do this.
Lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU are looking for your own SPECIFIC translations of the koran in order to YOUR assertions.
YOU have repeatedly referred to a specific verse in the koran.
YOU have repeatedly stated that THIS verse PREDICTS some future event as evidence of knowledge and the science in the koran
YOU assert that the suez and panama canals are PROOF that THIS verse predicted the future
I PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT EVEN IF THE VERSE YOU QUOTED WERE A PREDICTION (WHICH IS IS NOT) NEITHER CANAL FULFILS THIS PROPHESY.
(EVERY claim you have made regarding the canals has been shown to be false.)
YOU advise anyone to check translation in this verse.
YOU say it is because that the arabic language can be translated/interpreted many ways (THIS IN FACT DISPROVES YOUR OWN ARGUMENT) , and that I should obtain another translation
When I provide 2 other translations of the verse YOU quoted that disagreed with YOUR interpretation YOU still persisted with YOUR interpretation and advise anyone to check YOUR reference translation
WHEN I POINT OUT THAT YOUR REFERENCE AGREES WITH THE TRANSLATIONS I PROVIDE STILL YOU PERSIST
SO I ASSERT THAT YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOUR REFERENCE AGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION WAS A LIE.
YOU now refer to the translation of ONE word in ONE dialect of arabic in the interpretation of ANOTHER verse, in order to support YOUR assertions .
THIS BEGGARS BELIEF
NONE OF 7 reputable translations translate the word as you.
2 OF THESE TRANSLATIONS ARE BY EXTREMELY WELL QUALIFIED WRITERS
YOU say that YOU have provided evidence that the koran provides scientific evidence.
I say that NONE of 7 translations provides such evidence, ONLY YOUR translation, and that relies 100% on the specific translation of ONE word , in ONE dialect ., when YOU YOURSELF SAY that a word can have many meanings.
SO I SAY THAT YOUR ASSERTION IS A LIE.
ONLY YOUR SPECIAL TRANSLATION FULFILS YOUR ASSERTIONS
What next The original ancient greek usage of an english word used in the translation
AND YOU SAY I AM THE ONE . who do not see the truth even if it stares them right in the face
YOU ARE SEEKING TRUTH WITH YOUR EYES CLOSED.
'Have you any evidence you can put before us? You believe in nothing but conjecture and follow nothing but falsehoods.'
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou invite me to read many reference you quote.
Why?
These are all interpretations of the koran by individuals
If they wish to translate/interpret the koran as a whole some other way then by all means let them publish their translation. But until they do I can read the current translations myself.
I am sure that a translation of every sentence in every book ever written can be represented many ways in the second language - As you are now doing.
But that does not mean they validly represent the original writing.i.e they do not convey the thoughts and spirit of the original.
The only way you can do that is to read several translations from different writers to get a "feel" for the passage.
YOU are not doing that .
YOU are taking 1 interpetation as the "true" interpretation, and expecting others to do the same.
Personally I think this as stupid.
I also think it misrepresenting the writings to further ones own beliefs.
Lovegod And to anyone else who cares to read
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTO recap
From earlier posts
You have made 2 claims regarding evidence of scientific knowledge which come from the koran
To take just 1 of them
1 You asserted that the koran correctly predicted the merging of 2 seas with water gushed/rushed between them
2 you quote the particular part of the koran but you omit to mention that YOUR quote is only part of the verse.
3 In your quote you omitted that the later part states that 1 of the seas was salty the other fresh water
4 You claimed that the suez and panama canals fulfilled this prophesy and that therefore the koran correctly predicted the future
5 I pointed out that the Red and Mediterranean seas were already merged (via atlantic and indian oceans), and similarly for the panama canal
6 I point out that the panama canal comprises several locks separating the 2 oceans and they could not be considered to be merged
7 You assert that this did not matter because both canals resulted in a benefit for man ??
8 I pointed out that that when the suez canal was build there was no gushing of water in either direction, and that as someone with a scientific background(which you claimed to have in an earlier post) you should know that water finds its own level, therefore there should be no gushing of water
9 You asked that if that were the case why were fish and creatures from the red sea found in the mediterraean.
10 I said that the creatures could swim/move in either direction.(I was surprised you did not appear to know this)
11 Though it was identified that both the red sea and mediterranean are salty I omitted to say that in order for YOUR assertion to be correct one should be fresh water. (3)
So we can conclude that the suez canal DOES NOT fulfil your assertion.
12 I point out the complete verse (from 2 sources) which states that, far from predicting that the sees would be MERGED, a BARRIER was (i.e. in the past) placed between the 2 seas
13 YOU advise to look at YOUR reference
14 YOU refer again to the panama canal and that water gushes through the locks and in YOUR post strike 1 for allah
15 I point out that the water in the canal comes 100% from rainfall NOT from seawater(so by inference water from either end NEVER merges with water from the other)
16 I point out that in none of 7 translations does the word gushing or rushing appear.
17 I point out that YOUR reference (13) agrees with MY 2 translations
18 YOU THEN refer to a SECOND verse and a SPECIFIC translation of ONE word in ONE dialect in THIS VERSE.
19 THIS VERSE in YOUR INTERPRETATION contradicts YOUR earlier reference
YOU accuse me of narrow mindedness.
On what grounds ? I take 7 translations you take 1 I would say it is YOU who is being narrowminded
During all of this YOU reply to others that YOU have provided evidence that the koran has supplied scientific facts/evidence
I point out to others that this is a lie.
YOU ask others to check YOUR reference, and claim it will agree with you
I CHECK The translation YOU identified agrees with those I presented.
I therefore say that YOUR claim was a lie
AND YOU SAY I AM BEING UNFAIR TO YOU
I ALSO AGREE WITH AMBERTOOTH
IF YOU WISH TO PRESENT THE WRITINGS OF YOUR BELIEFS THEN THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DO IT
IF YOU WISH TO WRITE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS THEN BY ALL MEANS DO IT.
IF YOU PRESENT EITHER WRITINGS IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACES THEN I WISH YOU WELL.
lovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdo you want me to stop writing and let your readers think that I am false and I have made up what I say? I cant do that.
Course you can if you want you just stop making "religious" posts. But that is up to you.
(I think readers will already have made up their minds regarding you/I, and I dont think further writings from either of us will change them.)
what I am saying is accepted as being the truth,
Perhaps a slip of the tongue, perhaps not.
But therin lies the whole essence of your posts. You say you want what you are saying to be accepted as being the truth.
What you are saying is only YOUR truth
I do not dispute that you believe what you believe,
but it is only YOUR truth.
IT is NOT THE truth
Each person must decide for themselves their OWN truth
(IF you are referring to truth in general.
If someone repeatedly makes an unfounded assertion or cites a supporting reference, which does not in fact support their argument, then what is it? )
Maybe someone else with the same beliefs as you, may have read the same articles as you, and come to the same or different conclusions. I neither know nor care. It is YOU who is writing posts on this forum
At this moment you are presenting your beliefs on a scientific forum. As Ambertooth keeps reminding you ,this is NOT the place for presenting religious beliefs, but still you persist.
However YOU repeatedly try to present the scientific credentials of YOUR beliefs as FACT on a scientific forum (presumably in order to convince others of their factuality )
(I dont believe I have ever said you have made up what you have said. If fact quite the contrary, since I repeatedly re-quote the verses YOU quote)
What you have done is make assertions as to scientific evidence/fact. However when these have been challenged (as will occur on any scientific forum. IF you ever decide to present a scientific paper then you had better get used to it) you change the basis for your assertions, and,even though refuted, repeat them again and again. .
What IS false is that you appear to want anyone else to accept what you say to be fact, without challenge.
I DO NOT want anyone to do this In fact I hope anyone will check what I say , either to check my or any references, or check my or any posts,.
The more awareness people have the more they can appreciate the arguments which started this forum.
Personally I am not interested in your beliefs , or challenging them ambertooth is more knowledgeable in the philosophical area
Is the answer to Question 8 correct? Wouldn't the number of iterations needed to get "TOBEORNOTTOBE" be 26 times the summation of 1/n for n of 1 to 13? In other words, 82? In other words, to get your first letter, it takes 26/13 iterations. If you keep that letter, then it takes 26/12 iterations to get the next letter, and so on. Why is a program to do this needed? I did that anyway also, and the 82 seems to be correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLovegod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU have repeatedly made assertions that the koran has made predictions of future events.
HOWEVER you also say
"Arabic language does not make a distinction between the present and the future tense. So something that has just happened and something that will happen are both indicated by the same extension of a particular verb."
(THIS IS YOUR STATEMENT, NOT MINE)
So YOU have NO REASON AT ALL to assume that ANY event in the koran relates to a future event.
According to YOUR statement it could relate to some event in the PAST (i.e. BEFORE the book was written)
laughing gravy: You have a lot of time on your hands dont you? You have no doubt checked the references I have provided to support what I have claimed. Therefore no doubt you now know that I did not lie about the references I quoted from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also now know after checking my references that my ideas are not originally mine, but are believed by a vast number of poeple.
But you do not have the decency to apologise and to accept that your questioning my varacity was wrong.
if you wish to continue the same arguments over and over again, with a few new twists here and there, I have answered them repeatedly.
I will repeat one thing though, that the Holy Quran is not a book of science. It speaks in language that had to be understood by the man of 1400 years ago. For instance when the Holy Quran and the prophet of Islam (may peace be upon him) predicted new forms of transport driven by explosive power, it called the vehicle a donkey not a motor car.
If you had been told of such an amazing prediction at the time, how would you describe it to the people around you who only knew animals as forms of transport? If today you redicule the name donkey for modern forms of transport, then you are doing yourself a huge dis-service, by denying yourself a portion of the amazing wealth of knowledge contained within the Holy Quran.
You are welcome to do that. It hardly matters to me. I will however continue to discern incredible scientific truths (God willing)
by the way before you say this is another one of my fantasies, check the very detailed prophesy of petrol driven vehicles on 'Rationality, Revelation, Knowledge and Truth' available on alislam.org
laughing gravy: I actually agree with you for once. You are right, each person must find their own truth. No one can force a belief upon anyone else. I wanted to present to the readers what myself and a large community of people believe to be the 'truth' and hoped that someone else would see it too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not convinced of this version. Fine. You can poke holes in any argument; that is your gift. But apply the same to scientific theories, and you will end up not believing in anything! Everything scientific fact has an aspect of error, hasn’t it? No constant is a true constant. You can never assert that a scientific theory of today will never be questioned tomorrow.
If you fail to see that, then all I can say is that for myself and (and for many others like myself), the Holy Qur’ân will continue to guide us with its eternal unchanging truths. Some of which are:
The evolution of man
The expansion of the universe
The number of extra dimensions
The presence of Dark Matter
The fact that everything will decay one day
Nuclear energy
Genetic engineering
The scenario of the end of the universe
The total number of fundamental forces
Some of these are indeed interpretations, but if an interpretation takes me to a correct conclusion, then I am the one who will be laughing.
Laughing gravy: You had lots of fun with my statement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this‘what I am saying is accepted as being the truth’
Is what I propound being accepted as being the truth by you? I see it, but others don’t. I am being honest. Where is the contradiction?
When Galileo said that the earth was round, no one accepted him. In fact he had to suffer as a result of his conviction. When Darwin wrote ‘Origin of the Species’, how many people lauded him? Yet, what is happening today? His idea is being called ‘the most powerful idea in science’
More often than not, truths that are incredible are met with antagonism. Slowly, when they become undeniable, they form the mainstay of people’s beliefs.
The same will happen to the Holy Qur’ân one day (God Willing)
Ambertooth: if I see a treasure which is free for all, but someone can’t see it, should I be nice and civilised and not mention it, for fear of sounding like a pompous ass? I would be selfish indeed if I did that. All prophets preached the truth, hoping to help people. No, I do not claim to be a prophet; I only wish to convey a message that I believe to be right. That is all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don’t agree with me or you or laughing gravy think I am wrong, why do you care if I regard anyone as being devoid of the light of guidance?
To satisfy you, I have now tried to reroute my posts back to the above article.
loveGod: "To satisfy you, I have now tried to reroute my posts back to the above article."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain you seem not to understand the way in which these threads work. So for the sake of clarity: it is not me whom you have to satisfy. It is the SciAm site moderators (I assume that you know what a website moderator does). I was just giving you advice on what those moderators expect of those who comment on the SciAm site.
Your comments have nothing whatever to do with Christian fundamentalist creationism, so why are you misusing this site to propound your own beliefs and ideas? I am not saying that you should not say what you want to say. But I am seriously suggesting to you that you are misusing the SciAm site if you further insist on doing that here.
loveGod, FIND ANOTHER MORE APPROPRIATE WEB FORUM FOR YOUR VIEWS.
Is that clear enough?
Addressing an actual topic related post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBruzzy,
To randomly reach the quote it would be 1 in 26^13 assuming only the 26 letters of the alphabet and no other keys to be used. To hit the "correct" key for a single letter is 1 in 26. This is repeated 13 times for each letter.
Now for the rest of this.
Laughing and Amber,
At this point I believe the best tactic is to simply ignore the zealot. He is obviously not going to be moved from his opinion and he is so far from topic that we are just allowing him to "participate" by responding to him.
loveGod, on a practical note: there are millions of different websites, thousands of which have their own comments forums, and many of which actually are forums in themselves (such as YouDebate dot com) for debating subjects such as scientific and religious issues. Each site has its own moderation rules, and as long as you know what these are then you can engage in debate and express your views with others about the subjects that you wish. I suggest that you look around (Google 'forums', or some such) and find what suits you. There are plenty of web opportunities for you to say what you want to, but within the present context, SciAm is not one of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree
dvashun - Good point. It works for me as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat modern myths
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat at the time of galileo people believed the earth was flat (or not round)
Most people had known for centuries before galileo's time that the earth was not flat (according to wikipedia from around 3rd century bc).
Only the catholic church tried (but failed) to stifle this belief
Point #7: nice job weaseling out of that one: "The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but...". The experiment you're referring to is the Miller-Urey experiment, right? That was fundamentally flawed and proves nothing, since the simulated atmosphere lacked oxygen (an oxidizer), because the acids do not form spontaneously in an oxidizing environment. The earth's atmosphere did contain oxygen (and of course still does), proved by the existence of oxides found in rocks formed millions of years before the first living things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou then go on to say that the spark of life may have been supplied by something else, such as aliens. Aren't aliens living? What brought them to life? Other aliens? You see my point.
Thus the only thing that could've created life is the Creator, God, and if there was a being so powerful that He could create life out of nothing, then why would He stop at single-celled organisms? Why not make more complex things, such as humans?
Sultan Vinegar: "Thus the only thing that could've created life is the Creator, God, and if there was a being so powerful that He could create life out of nothing, then why would He stop at single-celled organisms? Why not make more complex things, such as humans?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Miller-Urey experiment, first conducted in 1952, was re-evaluated in 2008 with far more spectacular results (almost five times the number of amino acids had been created). And there is indeed also the plausible possibility that the early Earth was seeded with cometary bacteria.
But in terms of what you suggest, this is somewhat irrelevant, because not being able to prove something does not automatically mean that a hypothetical opposite condition has been proven. For your statement to have any validity, you first have to establish empirically the existence of your cause, which in your case you call God. Until you actually do this, you are basing your argument upon an unestablished presupposition, which has no validity in science.
Science does not yet have the firm answer to how life on Earth began. Which in science terms, does not of course preclude the possibility that we one day will have the answer, or that we one day will not make life from scratch in the lab. We're already at the RNA replication stage now, so I'd give it another twenty years or so. Maybe sooner.
Sultan Vinegar, we once cowered in our caves imagining that thunder was the rumbling voice of an angry god. We always have imposed our imaginations upon things that we do not know or understand. But filling such lacunae in human knowledge with a supernatural presupposition is not the way to advance such knowledge. Otherwise we'd still be cowering in that cave.
I agree it would be 1/26 to the 13th if you had to get the entire phrase all at once. But, if you get to keep a letter once you get it, then it isn't that probability. Seems to me it would be 26 times the summation of 1/n, where n goes from 1 to 13. In other words: 83 iterations. ??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisambertooth: Yes, the fact that scientists haven't found the answer yet doesn't necessarily mean that they never will. However, all scientific evidence (at least all that I'm familiar with) shows that amino acids will not spontaneously form in an oxidizing atmosphere. If the evidence were inconclusive we could say that everything might get cleared up in the next few years, but the evidence shows a resounding no. And the fact that the Miller-Urey experiment was reevaluated and 22 amino acids were found this time is irrelevant because the experiment is still flawed as long as it doesn't include oxygen in the simulated atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso if the earth was colonized by cometary bacteria, those bacteria would need to be brought to life somehow, thus we remain with the original issue.
As for your other point: certainly it is impossible to prove God exists with empirical science. It will never happen unless either God himself decided to send an undeniable sign to us on earth, and even then people wouldn't believe (read Luke 16:27-31), or until God returns to earth in the flesh. But although I can't prove God's existence with science, there are some things that happen, some crazy crazy crazy miracles and coincidences that lack any other explanation. Read the book The Cross and the Switchblade and explain some of the things that happen in it with science or with probability. It simply can't be done.
Sultan Vinegar: "..the (Miller-Urey) experiment is still flawed as long as it doesn't include oxygen in the simulated atmosphere."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be flawed if it did. The atmosphere of the proto-Earth would have been oxygen-poor. The levels of oxygen only gradually increased due to the presence of prokaryotes (including cyanobacteria) and other factors. Contrary to what you originally claim, it was the presence of these bacteria which actually precipitated the rise in oxygen levels, rather than the other way around. When these bacteria actually began to go about their terraforming business, the Earth's atmosphere would have been mostly hydrogen, as the latest studies show ("Early Earth Atmosphere Hydrogen-rich, Favorable To Life": Toon, Pavlov, et al, University Of Colorado: April 25, 2005).
Sultan Vinegar: "Also if the earth was colonized by cometary bacteria, those bacteria would need to be brought to life somehow, thus we remain with the original issue."
No we don't. Your original statement specifically claimed an interventionist supernatural agency as being "the only thing that could've created life". Removing those origins to elsewhere in the universe, or positing a 'magic spark' on the proto-Earth, still does not establish what you are suggesting. You first have to demonstrably cornfirm that such an agency exists within scientific parameters for your statement to be valid. But as you yourself admit, "certainly it is impossible".
Of course it is okay for you to believe what you do, but it is belief, and not science.
To use the fact that the majority of the articles appearing in peer reviewed journals is evidence supporting Evolution Theory is absurd. A major point in Expelled deals with the issue of discussing Intelligent Design at the risk of jeopardizing one's career. Articles that go against the main stream are simply not published or at least people remain in fear of publishing them. Unfortunately, it seems that only those who answer to a higher authority and don't worry about the pettiness of the smallminded, dare to tread where others fear to walk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Darwinism and Evolutionism are based on sound science, than bring on the public debate and let the facts speak, not the "opinions" of the so called "majority".
"To use the fact that the majority of the articles appearing in peer reviewed journals is evidence supporting Evolution Theory is absurd. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsurd In what way ?,
that scientific articles require peer review before they can appear in scientific journals - Is this absurd ?
That in all peer reviewed papers NONE have contradicted evolution (by natural selection) -Is this absurd ?
(Oh by the way - it not just the majority of papers (relating to evolution) but ALL the papers have supported evolution)
To state this fact Is this absurd?
"A major point in Expelled deals with the issue of discussing Intelligent Design at the risk of jeopardizing one's career. "
Believe it or not expelled was a film , made to appeal to the general public so that it could make a profit. It did not present FACTS, but the opinions of the producer/director (despite the claims in the film)
"Articles that go against the main stream are simply not published or at least people remain in fear of publishing them. "
According to peer reviewed journals no article going against evolution has been presented for review in over 20 years. Many articles have been presented in creationist journals , but these are not peer reviewed.
First we had the claim that journals were biased against creationist papers (when none had been submitted). Now we have the claim that people remain in fear of publishing , fear of what exactly ?
"If Darwinism and Evolutionism are based on sound science, than bring on the public debate and let the facts speak, not the "opinions" of the so called "majority". "
The soundness of science is determined on evidence, not by debate, or the opinions of anyone.
For example - YOU have already assumed the factualness of the film expelled , what other evidence did you examine in coming to that conclusion ?
Whose "opinion" exactly ?
The "majority" of who exactly?
If YOU wish to present an alternative to evolution (by natural selection) then I suggest YOU write a paper and submit it for peer review so that WE can see if YOUR facts are based on sound science . After all we don't want your opinion
"If Darwinism and Evolutionism are based on sound science, than bring on the public debate and let the facts speak, not the "opinions" of the so called "majority". "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are a bit late - Science has already decided that the scientific evidence presented so far is sound.
IF you want to present contrary evidence then please do so and it will be examined by the normal scientific process
.
By all means present it for debate if you want - but then it is not science, but public opinion.
SkyKat: "Articles that go against the main stream are simply not published or at least people remain in fear of publishing them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisParanoid nonsense, plain and simple. The editors of principal science journals are on record as saying, not so much that they reject such articles, but that they just don't receive them in the first place.
SkyKat: "If Darwinism and Evolutionism are based on sound science, than bring on the public debate and let the facts speak, not the "opinions" of the so called "majority"."
Oops. Too late. The facts have been speaking, and have been widely accepted, for the last century and a half.
If there was very little oxygen in the earth's atmosphere at the time of the beginning of life, then how come rocks formed long before life contain oxides, proof that there was a relatively significant amount of oxygen present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd my point about cometary bacteria needing a 'magic spark' (whether from a supernatural being or from a series of chemical reactions) isn't irrelevant. Yes, the environment that they were created in may have been oxygen-poor and hydrogen-rich, and thus similar to the conditions in the Miller-Urey experiment and conducive to the spontaneous creation of amino acids. But in the experiment, whose conditions would logically have been as close to ideal as possible, only 22 amino acids were formed. It would take many many more amino acids to be created, and then all positioned in extremely specific way for life to spring into action. Calling this unlikely would be the understatement of the century.
And perhaps what SkyKat is trying to say is that respected scientist don't submit creation-supporting articles to scientific journals for fear that the evolutionist dominated scientific community would - well to sound very juvenile - not listen, and the Creationist would lose all his credibility in the eyes of his peers and thus have his career destroyed.
Sultan Vinegar, sound science is sound science, whatever the subject matter. That 'fear of ridicule' argument is alwas trotted out as a reason why creationist writings fail to receive peer acceptance. The reality is more likely that academic fame (and probably a Nobel prize thrown in) would await anyone who actually could come up with a workable hypothesis that replaced evolutionary theory. And anyone who could actually stand geological time on its head would join the hallowed ranks of the science immortals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the interests of understanding what creationists actually are saying, I have taken the time to read several of the articles on the creationists' flagship website Answers in Genesis. Truly, they are unmitigated claptrap (the respectable SciAm moderators would not permit another word I have in mind), with no real foundation whatever in any sound scientific methodology. Articles on phylogenetics written by Presbyterian ministers? Come, come.
I have yet to come across anywhere a single shred of evidence presented by a creationist that is even close to some sort of knock-down-drag-out proof. Even here, all that you can seem to manage is to shuffle around with amino acids and oxygen contents ( I suggest that you read the article which I cited). While science is busy using genetics to confirm what already has been established by palaeontology, creationists go on claiming that Tiktaalik was 'just a fish' and positing a diet of coconuts for Tyrannosaurus rex.
Sultan vinegar
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there was very little oxygen in the earth's atmosphere at the time of the beginning of life, then how come rocks formed long before life contain oxides, proof that there was a relatively significant amount of oxygen present.
Sorry you are assuming that the formation of oxides requires oxygen from the atmosphere.
It doesn't
It would take many many more amino acids to be created, and then all positioned in extremely specific way for life to spring into action.
Very good you have assumed original life to have specific requirements, i.e. lots of amino acids in a specific order. Only creationists have this requirement.
Calling this unlikely would be the understatement of the century.
No I call this argument stupid.
You have also assumed that the investigation of the origins of life ends at this experiment .
It doesn't ALL experiments are only stepping stones to the next experiment
respected scientist don't submit creation-supporting articles to scientific journals for fear that the evolutionist dominated scientific community would - well to sound very juvenile - not listen, and the Creationist would lose all his credibility in the eyes of his peers and thus have his career destroyed.
First a prejudicial statement evolutionist dominated scientific community
There is no such thing .
Evolution (by natural selection) is the dominant theory (actually the ONLY scientific theory at present which explains evolution). BUT it is not to the exclusion of any other SCIENTIFIC theory that may be proposed. Creationists believe they have another explanation , but as yet have not produced any scientific evidence to support it.
Secondly you use your get out of jail free card. They (scientists) don't present papers for fear of ridicule.
You have made 3 assumptions
1) the scientist is a) respected, and b) has presented a coherent logical paper
2) that the paper would be ridiculed
3) that as a result of 2) his career would be destroyed.
You may ask why they not submit the papers they present on their own webs sites to SCIENTIFIC scrutiny. So fear cannot be a factor in not presenting articles.
PERHAPS its the fear of SCIENTIFIC scrutiny
So far creationist havent got to step 1) -IF they ever do then we will see the reality of THEIR papers.
Now lets examine the creationist alternative
1) Creation of life. -
life created by the wave of a magic wand - How the waving created life no explanation
who waved the magic wand a creator assumed evidence none
EVERY atom/molecule (not just amino acids) required magically appeared in the correct place.
Probability of ALL atoms/molecules appearing in the correct place ( otherwise life dies) beyond meaningful calculation explanation all done by the wave of the wand.
zbvhs01 at 06:31 PM on 01/31/08 touches on a very good point. I am sure many here will have heard the phrase "The common man marvels at the extra-ordinary, whilst the wise man marvels at that which is common - the greatest wonder of all is the regularity of nature"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe key point is the latter part of that maxim. If you spend a while thinking about just how regular nature is you will find a common pattern in all things physical and the conceptual for example, look a tree in winter with its parts branching off into ever smaller components and compare that with structures in the brain - almost identical!
zbvhs01 's own comparison of evolution which is a (relatively) long process in terms of human existance, with the much shorter lifespan of a human and its development from newborn to adulthood highlights the similarities between different systems in nature.
Molecules from atoms, cells from molecules, animals from cells, bricks to walls, walls to churches, planets to solar systems and solar-systems to galaxies - all following a regular pattern of make-up and development.
From the small to the large and the relatively quick to the relatively slow, physical, conceptual and mathematical - all things follow a pattern that point to a dynamic factor that we refer to as evolution.
In the same way in which we can detect the presence of a spacial body in orbit around a distant sun without actually seeing it, simply by measuring the gravitational effects the proposed body has on that sun, we can look at the regularity of nature all around us and propose confidently that the process of evolution is in action all the time - because it is in keeping with the consistent regularity we observe through scientific evidence.
G. K., the quotation you employ at the begining of your post, in support of your position in this on going debate, is profound in its simplicity! Who's the author ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour commentary, with reference to that quotation, is, in my opinion, praiseworthy also, but the logical conclusion you reached I wholeheartedly disagree with; the regularity witnessed in nature speaks more to design than it does to evolution. The core principle of evolution implies elimination and tranformation. Implicit in the principle of regularity is a pre-ordained and fixed nature, such as that we witness in nature - orbits of the planets about the sun, planetary rotation, the fixed position of the sun, oak trees bearing acorns which produce oak trees, gravity, atmospheric pressure, the changing of the seasons repeatedly, a mother giving birth to children, plants and animals producing life after their kind, - and the list goes on.
And these natural occurences are repetitive because their natures are pre-wired to be so. You, as well as the quotation you referenced. say as much. But you, in your conclusion which alludes to the referenced quote, attribute to the eliminating, tranforming, and changing characteristics implicit in the theory of evolution a nature of "regularity".
Such a relationship is a glaring contradiction. I've yet to hear of or witness a child barking or a dog meowing, or a cat speaking, or a rose bush producing pecans, or a planet stray from its course around the "never-moving" sun - again the list goes on. Regularity implies repetition, consistency, not variability.
I would wager a fun bet that the author you quote view life from a creation/design perspective rather than an evolutionary one.
Who is the author and what is his or her background, I'm curious to know ?
Hi Firstthings, thanks for your response, it is much appreciated
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, I have not been able to find the details of the author nor the origin of my quotation - I remembered it from a framed copy of the text hung in an old friends house some years ago. I certainly agree with you that its simplicity adds to the effect.
From your last post:
"...Implicit in the principle of regularity is a pre-ordained and fixed nature, such as that we witness in nature - orbits of the planets about the sun, planetary rotation, the fixed position of the sun, oak trees bearing acorns which produce oak trees, gravity, atmospheric pressure, the changing of the seasons repeatedly, a mother giving birth to children, plants and animals producing life after their kind... ...And these natural occurences are repetitive because their natures are pre-wired to be so..."
The point which I was trying to make (or perhaps should have made more clearly) is that the systems and processes observed in nature have a common or 'regular' pattern of development or action, to whatever outcome is most efficient (balance of forces/survival of the fittest) and not that the outcomes are fixed (as they appear today) and simply continue their cycles of existence repeatedly and without change.
From your last post:
"Regularity implies repetition, consistency, not variability."
*Not so, - The regularity I speak of refers to the common patterns we see in change and in development (through observed phenomena), not regularity meaning unchanging cycles. Variability, is a key component or asset of regular change as in many cases systems that do not change or vary often die off and evidence for this is abundant.*
The natural occurances you speak of may appear to be completely repetitive to us humans with short life-spans however, we can measure changes to these systems, over greater periods of time.
In the same way that we might observe or perceive the earth to be flat, because we as humans are so much physically smaller than it, so too it may appear to the casual observer that cycles and systems remain consistent due to the fact that most changes take place over a period many times greater than our own lives. Of course, I do not mean to exclude the changes in systems that are measurable over much shorter periods.
This is also another example of regularity in nature whereby irrespective of the length of time involved or physical size, the same forces are in play across the board.
Regards
firstthings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The core principle of evolution implies elimination and tranformation. "
Sorry wrong on both counts
"elimination" is not a requirement or principle of evolution (by natural selection) .
The ONLY principles are that, in the natural environment.
1) species will evolve, (ie. They will develop new attributes, whether or not these are beneficial)
2) that over time the species with attributes beneficial to its survival will tend to thrive against those with less beneficial attributes.
Evolution DOES NOT determine whether or not a species will be "eliminated" or not.
There is also NO "transformation" of any species.
"Implicit in the principle of regularity is a pre-ordained and fixed nature, "
1) PROVE that anything is pre-ordained.
2) PROVE HOW anything is ordained.
3) PROVE WHO pre-ordained anything
4) PROVE WHEN they were ordained
5) PROVE that anything has a fixed nature.
"such as that we witness in nature - orbits of the planets about the sun, planetary rotation, the fixed position of the sun, oak trees bearing acorns which produce oak trees, gravity, atmospheric pressure, the changing of the seasons repeatedly, a mother giving birth to children, plants and animals producing life after their kind, - and the list goes on."
So you reckon that all of the above show a pre-ordained and fixed nature.
I am sure that astronomers will be glad to hear that the orbits of the planets, planetary rotation are constant, and that the sun is in a fixed position.
WHEN did this miraculous transformation take place. ?
Were you not aware that, even now, planetary orbits + rotation are not perfect but vary , and in the distant past the situation was far worse.
Were you not aware that the the sun is not in a fixed position ?
Are you saying this situation was the same several billions of years ago ? If so then prove it.
Also meteorologists will be glad to hear of the regularity of atmospheric pressure.
"And these natural occurrences are repetitive because their natures are pre-wired to be so. "
PROVE that they are in fact "pre-wired"
After that then PROVE WHO pre-wired them, and HOW, and WHEN ?
firstthings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I asked for proof of your assertions
Lets make things a bit easier
Please supply actual scientific evidence, (not your beliefs or assumptions), that
1) ANYTHING is pre-wired , or pre-ordained,
AND -
2) how and when this was achieved, and by whom
To Firstthings/GK:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething isn't quite computing. Mostly it's usually creationists who would take a run at such superficially lyrical profundity and have it come out sounding suspiciously like banal cracker barrel philosophy. Or pseudoscience. Or just gobbeldygook.
Reading through many of the posts here and in other websites, it makes me very angry to think that many posters who believe in creationism or intelligent design are not just poorly informed - many are in fact telling bare-faced lies and resorting to outright dishonesty to further their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have seen evidence here to show that most of those countering creationist arguments are at least using genuine logic, reasoning and scientific fact and questioing.
I have also seen evidence that most of those who counter these counters are taking advantage of the lack of knowledge or experience of the layman observer/reader, who through no fault of his own, cannot distinguish between scientific facts and the creationists "FACT!!!!!".
I agree wholeheartedly with the many here who have observed that rational persons and scientists alike use evidence to draw conclusions, whereby the proponents of intelligent design 'theory' will concoct evidence to support a pre-conceived conclusion - one that seems to have appeared as if from nowhere in similar fashion to how they would describe the origins of existence.
I'm sure i'm repeating the theme of other, previous posts but it can't hurt to re-inforce the view!
OK, ambertooth, I can see where you're coming from but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists, if I can group all PoID together for a moment, use philosophy-like or pseudo-scientific statements as a defence against serious scientific analysis and deduction.
Not that I qualify my own analysis as 'pseudoscience' far from it, but rather that I have chosen here to counter some points in the same style in which the original arguments were made, or as their defences are given.
I could perhaps have chimed in with some cold data about the fossil records available or how we can replicate time and again evidence under lab conditions, just like everybody else.
Fire with fire.
To G.K.: I understand and appreciate your explanation, but if that is so, then perhaps you would take some offered advice: commenting on Internet forums can quickly become a minefield of misunderstandings. Really, it's best (and safest!) always to use your own 'voice', your own style of expression (even if that does mean including some 'cold data about the fossil records'!), whoever your comments are directed towards. That voice is then your reassuring 'identity', and misunderstandings become less likely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Sergio: Scientists are not interested in telling you as a parent that your children should or should not be taught about God. The issue is *where* the teaching takes place. It is not appropriate to teach Creationism/Intelligent Design or whatever you want to call it in a science classroom because there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. Teach your children about God at home or in Sunday School. Or if you are concerned about "fairness" teach your children the Biblical story of creation along with all the other creation stories from the various world's cultures and faiths in a "Comparative World Religions" class. Just don't try to pretend there's anything scientific about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaughing gravy and ambertooth: In response to the ridicule I've received concerning my response to SkyKat's comment, I'd just like to say that I never said that I actually agreed with him. I don't. I don't think that Creationism will ever be scientifically proven, because if it is then there is no need for faith, and without faith there can be no religion. My response was simply a clarification of his comment, because it seemed that you had missed the point of his comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaughing gravy: you seem to think that billions of chemical reactions randomly positioning billions of atoms and molecules in a perfect position for life to begin is reasonable. Yet you can't see how a supreme being "waving a magic wand" could do it? Consider this: if I have a box full of lego blocks and I shake up the box so that the blocks inside collide and "react" with each other in a completely random manner, will they come together and make a lego house? The odds aren't very good, are they? But if I (a supreme being in this analogy) have the same box of blocks, I can, using my intelligence, build a house out of them. Certainly this analogy is extremely simplified, but you see my point.
But anyway; I'm not succeeding in changing anyone's mind in this discussion (not that I really expected to), so I will bid you guys farewell. It's been a pleasure debating with you. I'll leave you with this thought:
Ultimately either I am right, or you are right. If you are right, then we will all grow old, die, and turn to dust. If I am right, we will all grow old, die, and turn to dust, but I will be in paradise and you will be in hell. I'd rather be in my situation than in yours. Think about it.
Sultan Vinegar: "Ultimately either I am right, or you are right. If you are right, then we will all grow old, die, and turn to dust. If I am right, we will all grow old, die, and turn to dust, but I will be in paradise and you will be in hell. I'd rather be in my situation than in yours. Think about it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour remark demands a response. You are making the facile assumption that this debate is about science versus religious belief. It is not. It is about the beliefs of a minority fringe group of literalist Christians who attempt to leapfrog those beliefs into accredited science by circumventing the checks and balances to which the rest of science is accountable.
In checking back to read the relevant comments, you were claiming among other things that life on Earth must have been originated by a supernatural agency, while at the same time acknowledging that demonstrating the existence of such an agency was 'certainly impossible'. It was your methodology that was under attack here, not your beliefs. You claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment was basically flawed, which I refuted by citing a published paper for yourself and others to check. That is sound methodology. What you stated was mere opinion biased by your religious beliefs.
You remarked in response to SkyKat's claim that creationist papers might not reach the stage of peer publication and review because of the authors' fear of rejection by their creationist peers, were those papers to be rejected. What peers? Creationism is not accredited science. SkyKat's claim was refuted by Laughing gravy and myself by pointing out that no such papers are received by the editors of science journals in the first place, as is known and on the record.
One factor on this site common to commenters such as Laughing gravy and myself has been our request for some sort of verifiable evidence for what creationists claim. To date, no such substantive evidence has been provided, and that includes everything which you have said here. Metaphorical Lego is not admissible science.
As to your final Pascalesque assertion that those who do not agree with you might end in Hell, and therefore are in some way so terribly 'wrong' that they actually are in danger of jeopardizing their immortal souls: your bathetic and offensive remark reveals the true mindset of your fundamentalist beliefs.
Sultan Vinegar
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to the ridicule I've received
AS far as I have read you have not received any ridicule.
There have been many comments regarding your posts but no ridicule
Have you not received such comments before ?
you seem to think that billions of chemical reactions randomly positioning billions of atoms and molecules in a perfect position for life to begin is reasonable.
Firstly a false assumption
That life( the first life form) required billions of atoms/molecules in perfect position
This is a presumption only required by believers in id or creation, as it assumes original life was complex (e.g. as it is today)
It is NOT required for evolution
I neither believe nor stated that original life was complex YOU DID
So you start with a straw dog argument - STUPID
Yet you can't see how a supreme being "waving a magic wand" could do it?
Rhetoric !
What I asked for is evidence not your assumption or rhetoric
Consider this: if I have a box full of lego blocks and I shake up the box so that the blocks inside collide and "react" with each other in a completely random manner, will they come together and make a lego house? The odds aren't very good, are they? But if I (a supreme being in this analogy) have the same box of blocks, I can, using my intelligence, build a house out of them. Certainly this analogy is extremely simplified, but you see my point.
NO I dont see your point.
I ASSUME you are trying to imply this analogy to living creatures
IF so then
1) evolution is not random as in shaking blocks in a random manner
2) YOU have assumed the presence of a controlling influence
On what basis did you make this assumption ?
3) YOU presumed a desired outcome (i.e. in your analogy a house) On what basis did you assume a house (or any other structure, or life form) is a desired outcome.
4) YOU have assumed blocks arranged in the shape of a house has more structure than a pile of bricks. It doesn't. Technically there is no difference.
I also notice that YOU COMPLETELY AVOIDED MY QUESTIONS (I notice this characteristic of id believers)
YOU have not supplied any (and I emphasise the ANY) SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
1) that any living creature was designed
2) When it was designed
3) HOW it was designed
4) or WHO designed it
Ultimately either I am right, or you are right.
Another assumption
You have assumed there are only 2 positions i.e mine and yours
Perhaps there is a third ?, fourth, ?, fifth position ? Who knows THINK about it
but I will be in paradise and you will be in hell.
You have assumed there is a heaven and a hell (and have views on the characteristics of each) and that you will go to heaven . (Presumably because you believe you have had a good life )
Perhaps the basis for your belief is designed for you to believe the wrong thing and if fact lead a bad life thereby ensuring you will go to your hell
I dont have this worry
Think about it
TO anyone caring to read
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSultan Vinegar wrote an analogy purporting to support id
Consider this: if I have a box full of lego blocks and I shake up the box so that the blocks inside collide and "react" with each other in a completely random manner, will they come together and make a lego house? The odds aren't very good, are they? But if I (a supreme being in this analogy) have the same box of blocks, I can, using my intelligence, build a house out of them. Certainly this analogy is extremely simplified, but you see my point.
This analogy (or something similar) is often used re. differences between evolution and id, and sounds very convincing until you analyse it
1) There is a presumption that evolution is a completely random process It isn't
2) Is assumes a directing being (in the analogy - a supreme being)
3) It assumes a causal link between the being and the event (in the analogy - between the supreme being and the creation of the house). That is that in some way the being created the house . (In the analogy the writer says that using my intelligence builds the house, Now I may be wrong but in our world intelligence does not build anything hands do, i.e. hands are a common causal link. However the writer NEVER mentions HOW the supreme being ACTUALLY (or even COULD) builds the house)
4) It assumes a required result (in the analogy a house ie. There is a presumption that there was intent/requirement to create a house .) i.e. a direction - Evolution does not have or require a direction .
i.e. ID assumes that there was an INTENT to create life (especially man). Evolution does not.
5) there is an implied assumption that the requirements for life to exist must be complex i.e. to create life as we know it today would be extremely difficult, and therefore could not have come about by evolution. However this is EXACTLY what evolution says DID NOT HAPPEN. and that life as we know it came about from simple beginnings via a series of very small steps over eons.
So the whole analogy (and others similar) is in fact false and written with the intent to mislead .
(Id requires the first life to be complex, however evolution DOES NOT)
5) There is an assumption that there are only 2 solutions (as to how life as it is now came to be)
ie. If it isn't evolution then it must be id. Science is open to other solutions but at present NONE have been presented with scientific evidence to support it
However there is a complete lack of evidence to support ANY of these assumptions of ID
Has ANY evidence been presented that life IN FACT was designed - NO
Has ANY evidence been presented that ANY entity exists NO
Has any evidence been presented as to HOW the entity COULD have designed life NO
Has ANY evidence been presented as WHEN or WHERE this design took place - NO
There is a lot of opinion,rhetoric, and assumption , but NO evidence
BUT it is on this basis that believers in id want it taught as a science.
Sultan Vinegar: "Laughing gravy and ambertooth: In response to the ridicule I've received concerning my response to SkyKat's comment,..." etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSultan Vinegar, in the interests of fair-mindedness, I have just carefully checked through all of my responses to you. In none of them can I find any trace of ridicule towards yourself (unless you can gainsay this by quoting me). What I have done is consistently provide reasoned counter-argument. My one venture into ridicule was directed firmly towards a specific named creationist website, which, in view of the spurious pseudoscientific idiocies which that website parades as so-called serious science, richly deserves all the ridicule that can be heaped upon it, and I take pleasure in doing so.
Peddling the sort of unaccredited nonsense which that creationist website and others like it do might seem cause for derisory but harmless mirth, but to me it's spitting (I'm keeping it clean) on the hard work of many decent and principled men and women (various of whom it has been my privilege to work with over the years) who have devoted their working lives to uncovering human knowledge using the sound and tested methods of science.
Creationists who read the above, and who think of commenting here, might first consider this.
excuse me, but could you tell me how the first "stuff" came about? Riding on the backs of Crystals? You say that Christians get everything from an "old book", but have you investigated everything you can about that book, or do you just dismiss it as "rubbish". If you took the time to really investigate it, you would see that it has more evidence for validity than classic literary works! I don't see how you can say Christians are pushing their religion in schools when evolution can't even be proved....it seems to me evolutionists are pushing their "beliefs" on schools. Please visit this sight and listen to all the radio programs and then tell me that evolution is true: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse me, but how would you say the first "stuff" apeared? Riding on the backs of Crystals? You say that Christians get everything from an "old book", but have you ever taken the time to investigate everything you can about that book? If you ever actually tried to find out, you would see that the bible has more evidence for validity than classic literary works that everyone takes for valid! The bible was written over years and years with hundreds of different authors, all telling the same thing. Prophets in the old testiment prophesy the coming of Christ and does it happen? Yes. You say that Christians force their views on the schools, but evolution is not a scientific fact (though you may say it is)...it has not been proved! So I would say that evolutionists are forcing their views on schools and teaching kids things that aren't even proven. In my opinion, evolution is another type of belief. Creationists are not just people that believe in fantasies...if you really tried to intelligently discover the truth, you would see that. Please go to this websight: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer, and then debate me over Christian believes and creationism. I hope you will oneday find the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Excuse me, but how would you say the first "stuff" apeared?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich stuff would that be? the universe ?,Energy?, matter ?, or life?
"but have you ever taken the time to investigate everything you can about that book?
If you ever actually tried to find out, ..."
Why should I try to find out ?
1) You are the one presenting the argument.
2) YOU have never bothered to read anything regarding the THEORY (i.e not FACT) of evolution (by natural selection)
3) I am quite happy with the scientific theories (there are 3 major ones) which explain how the universe is as it is today
"you would see that the bible has more evidence for validity than classic literary works that everyone takes for valid! "
This is a new one classic literary (I assume fiction, otherwise I would take them as scientific not literary) works, are taken as valid (I assume you mean are taken as truth)
So you think everyone takes works of fiction to be true ?
"The bible was written over years and years with hundreds of different authors, all telling the same thing.
Prophets in the old testament prophesy the coming of Christ and does it happen? "
Have you ever considered they could all be referring to a single "prophesy" ?
After all NO actual complete originals remain for the OT,
ONLY a few fragments remain re dead sea scrolls.
I may be wrong here but I understand the OT was "reconstructed" from various non-original fragments (i.e various fragments of translations from the original) AFTER the alleged birth of christ.
How many "prophet (s?)" were there exactly ?
AND the circumstances of the alleged story of christs birth does not meet actual KNOWN facts , they only agree with the prophesy (such as it was)
AND the new testament was written a MINIMUM of 60 years after the alleged events. (believe it or not this means that the majority of the NT is NOT a first hand account, with some of the writings 3rd or 4th hand)
AND the new testament was very substantially edited during the 14th century
"but evolution is not a scientific fact (though you may say it is)...it has not been proved! "
Do you not read ? No-one says evolution is FACT, but a theory
But PLEASE before ranting on about theories read answer 1 above as to what constitutes a scientific theory
"In my opinion, evolution is another type of belief".
Fine but who said anyone was interested in your opinion?
"and then debate me over Christian believes and creationism."
Why would anyone want to debate you over your beliefs ? You believe in the FSM if you want
blogger272
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse me, but how would you say the first "stuff" apeared?
I ask you the same question, with the emphasis on the HOW.
blogger272
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think many people would love to examine the scientific aspects of creationism. But to do this first we need some scientific evidence supporting creationism.
IF you could supply some I am sure many people would love to respond.
(REMEMBER - scientific evidence, - not opinion or assumption)
(Oh I almost forgot - no rhetoric either)
blogger272: "Excuse me, but how would you say the first "stuff" apeared? Riding on the backs of Crystals?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour attempt at facetiousness falls flat. Even if science did say that life came swooping onto the planet on the backs of crystals (which clearly it does not), you must then explain how this might be considered more fanciful than appearing out of nowhere as the direct result of an unproven and unprovable supernatural act. So go ahead.
And as it happens, I have done considerable study on the subject of how the Bible took its present form. Scholastically, it is as much of a patchwork of sources, translations, retranslations, mistranslations, parts left in, parts left out, things changed and other things given different inflection and emphasis, as you could ever imagine. The coming of Christ in a role as a Jewish Messiah (that is: someone who would restore the Temple) was what was prophesied. Much of the way in which we now perceive Jesus' ministry (dying for our sins, and what are now regarded as other tenets of Christian faith) was devised later by Paul, who strove to give the emerging faith the direction which he personally sought for it. But all that is academic, because in the present context the Bible, when accepted as scriptural authority, has nothing to do with science, and certainly has no place in a school science curriculum.
As for evolution being 'not a scientific fact': get real. Evolutionary theory has been a fact, with broad applications in the biological sciences, for the last century and a half. After all, you want others to take the time to read an entire book, so it should not be too much to ask for you actually to take the time to read the accompanying article about which you are commenting in the first place.
As for your remark that "creationists are not just people that believe in fantasies"; oh, yes they are. I for one am through with indulging in even-handedness when it comes to considering the mishmash of pseudoscientific idiocies that pass for creationists 'faith' as anything other than derisory nonsense peddled by those whose only excuse for such an uncouth anti-science charade is because they feel their literalist religious beliefs threatened.
As you so presumptuously and pompously conclude: "I hope you will one day find the truth." I would suggest that if you yourself ever "really tried to intelligently discover the truth", then you would not be a creationist in the first place.
blogger272: "If you ever actually tried to find out, you would see that the bible has more evidence for validity than classic literary works that everyone takes for valid!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what 'classic literary works' are we actually talking about here? The Enuma Elish, or the Epic of Gilgamesh (sources for the story of Noah)? The Dream of the Red Chamber? The Tale of Genji? The Iliad and the Odyssey? The Mahabharata, or the Ramayana? How about Beowulf? Or Burnt Njal's Saga? And by what standards are you defining 'valid'? Because you neglected to mention that. Valid as great literary works (because all of them certainly are that)? Valid as 'truth'? Ah, but what defines 'truth'? Great literature contains its own truth.
Ironic that one book which I personally would consider as valid, and certainly as great literature, is the Book of Enoch, which, although it is referred to in the Bible, and supplies much information that without it otherwise remains ambiguous, is nowhere canonical except in the Ethiopic text.
To G. K. : The point you were trying make to was clear to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy response to you was an attempt to show that in using the word "regularity" ( "... the greatest wonder of all is the regularity of nature ..." ), your quoted author is expressing his or her amazement at the established order of nature: women always give birth to children, cats always give birth to kittens, two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen always combine to form one molecule of water, the planets always revolve around the sun - and so on. These natural processes happen repeatedly and invariably; never do we see the earth revolving around jupiter, women giving birth to kittens, cats giving birth to children, and the atomic components of a molecule of water combining to form salt. Your author is awe-struck by the regularity manifest in nature's continued and consistent conformity and obedience to the fixed and certain laws of nature. That gravity never ( not once ) caused two bodies to repell each other blows the author's mind.
This, I think, is the proper sense and meaning the author intends for the word regularity, given the context in which it is placed.
Firstthingfs: "I've yet to hear of or witness a child barking or a dog meowing, or a cat speaking, or a rose bush producing pecans, or a planet stray from its course around the "never-moving" sun"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem not to be aware that (with the exception of the last, which involves planetary mechanics) if any of your examples actually happened, then evolutionary theory would be refuted, and the fact that they do not happen is in line with what the theory predicts. Your statement therefore supports evolutionary theory. Oh, the irony.
As to that stray planet; well, in the early solar system that actually happened (Renu Malhotra, 'Migrating Planets', Scientific American, vol. 281, #3). And there's always scope for planetary catastrophe. It has happened to the Earth in the past, and there's no reason to think that it will not happen again at any time. Our world is not the safe haven which it outwardly seems, and so far we've just got lucky.
A recent quote
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"if you really tried to intelligently discover the truth, you would see that. Please go to this websight: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer, and then debate me over Christian believes and creationism"
Dont you just love creationists.
Did the writer bother reading anything about evolution? No
He makes no attempt to "intelligently discover the truth" but expects those who accept evolution to do all the work in order to debate HIM
- Just plain stupid
firstthings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"and the atomic components of a molecule of water combining to form salt."
This I do not understand - could you explain?
firstthings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That gravity never ( not once ) caused two bodies to repell each other blows the author's mind. "
Gravity that can cause 2 bodies to both attract and repel
(possibly at the same time perhaps ?)
That would certainly blow my mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry
Just thinking about it there is no reason why gravity should not cause two bodies to repel.(if one of them had -ve mass ?)
"The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it, and not by evidence that God could not have done it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd where does this little gem of fatuous topsy-turvy logic come from? Why, from the website which blogger272 recommended and provided the link for on this thread. Yes, Folks, in the wonderful wacky world of creationism (creation science, Intelligent Design, and any other pseudoscientific nom de guerre that creationists' fantasies can devise), a demand for evidence arrived at by a double negative apparently is what carries the day.
So, according to this creationist website recommended by blogger272, science is beholden to produce "evidence that God could not have done it". Right. I shall reuse an example of my own of a double negative statement which I have mentioned on this site once before to demonstrate much the same point: to produce evidence that God could not have done it is like me saying, "I cannot prove that there is not an invisible unicorn in my neighbor's garage, so that proves that there must be".
Quod erat demonstrandum... not.
typical creationist circular logic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you cant prove me wrong then I must be right"
(I actually read this argument (wrapped up in pseudo logic) used by a creationist in a debate)
Ambertooth, foundational to the theory of evolution are, among other things, the ideas of something coming from nothing, randomness, chance, and change ( transformation - something becoming something else, if you will ).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat not one of my examples has occurred undermines that foundation. That nature obeys fixed and certain laws, as evidenced by the examples I used, contradicts and refutes the theory of evolution.
I fail to see how a theory based on uncertainty can predict with any degree of certainty such certainties as: a woman will bear only chidren, a cat will bear only kittens, the atomic components of water will never produce salt, and the earth will return to this very orbital position a year from now.
Now, I've seen children born, but I've yet to see evidence that men were monkeys. Come to think of, that's not even a prediction!
Regarding the never-straying planet: I'm aware that planetary perturbation and precession exist and causes variations in a planet's orbit around the sun and its axial oreintation, but the dominant principles of revolution and rotation are not violated; the earth does not fly off of its ordered course, nor does it wobble to a point dizziness ( "still it moves" - around the sun ).
The affect of perturbation may be likened to you or I driving along a road and dodging a pothole; we steer around it, we don't veer off onto another road.
To Firstthings: That you 'fail to see', shows how shaky your grasp of science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular, actually is. Do you know what the concept of falsification (refutation) in science involves? The concept of prediction? Well, clearly you do not, otherwise you would not use the examples that you do - and for the third time now!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou state: "That not one of my examples has occurred undermines that foundation." Says who? An ID'er with scant apparent understanding of the subject? You leave comments on a science site, presumably expect to have those comments taken seriously, and yet fail to understand why your own statements confirm what the theory predicts. In fact, your comments to myself give the impression that you are genuinely baffled as to why I point out that you actually are unwittingly endorsing evolutionary theory.
You then move on to make that tiresome (and unscientifically phrased) statement: "I've yet to see evidence that men were monkeys". Of course you have 'yet to see' any evidence. Reading up on this subject, or visiting a good museum to learn about it, is anathema to you, so you reject any evidence that might come your way. True or not? It is your religious beliefs that persuade you to reject the evidence, so do not claim that your Scopes-trial stance has anything to do with sound science. Were I to point you in the direction of some good basic source material on the subject, would you go away and seriously, open-mindedly study it? I somehow doubt it. Would you visit an accredited museum and take it all in? Of course not.
Since you seem to place weight on what is 'foundational to a theory', I shall repeat to you what I have asked other ID'ers: foundational to the idea (it's not a theory) of Intelligent Design is that there is a 'designer' (ID'ers coyly avoid overt religious terms). But you cannot seriously posit the idea that things were consciously designed without first existentially establishing such a designing agency in the first place. Otherwise you have an idea whose foundation is resting upon a presupposition; hardly either sound science or even sound logic. And you seem at least to be aware of how vital the foundational element is.
So; can you existentially establish such a disembodied designing agency or not? Because unless you first do so, so-called 'Intelligent Design' does not rise above the level of mere opinion.
firstthings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That nature obeys fixed and certain laws, as evidenced by the examples I used, contradicts and refutes the theory of evolution. "
I fail to see any logic in this statement.
HOW does it contradict OR refute the theory ?
"I fail to see how a theory based on uncertainty can predict with any degree of certainty such certainties as: a woman will bear only chidren, a cat will bear only kittens, the atomic components of water will never produce salt, and the earth will return to this very orbital position a year from now."
DO you not know ANYTHING about the theory of evolution
YOU do not seem to understand that the certainty of a result has nothing to do with the probability of the result before the event.
Roll a ball along a surface
When it stops there is only 1 point touching the surface .
We are now certain of the point it stopped on, but when it was rolled the odds were billions to 1 that it would stop on that specific point.
So we have certainty from uncertainty DO YOU GRASP THIS ?
"Now, I've seen children born, but I've yet to see evidence that men were monkeys. "
Someone else who responds but does not even read the 15 answers above
READ ANSWER 6 before you post such rubbish
"Regarding the never-straying planet: I'm aware that planetary perturbation and precession exist and causes variations in a planet's orbit around the sun and its axial oreintation, but the dominant principles of revolution and rotation are not violated; the earth does not fly off of its ordered course, nor does it wobble to a point dizziness ( "still it moves" - around the sun )."
SO ? - This is just a statement What are you trying to say ?
I thought that I would add this comment for the sake of clarity in the situation, as Firstthings seems baffled as to why his examples actually support evolutionary theory. It is now broadly accepted that to have worth, a scientific theory needs to be potentially falsifiable (that is: it can be refuted by examples).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the case of evolutionary theory, this means that anything which provides evidence that would run radically contrary to the mechanisms of the evolutionary process, such as the fossil of a kangaroo being found in Cambrian shale, or a trilobite coming from post-Permian deposits, or a non-avian dinosaur fossil being unearthed above the K-T boundary, or one species giving birth to or having the characteristics of another (such as Firstthings various examples), would all represent substantive evidence directly contrary to what the theory predicts, and the theory would then be seriously undermined.
But the fact (and it is a fact) that we do not find any of these things, or observe any of them happening, is what confirms the theory's validity. One species does not give birth to another. Fossils conform to their predicted strata. Without exception.
No, Firstthings, children do not bark, dogs do not miaow, evolutionary theory remains intact, and planetary motion has nothing to do with it.
Life originated from water in the Noble Quran:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sections of this article are:
- The origin of life in the Noble Quran.
- The Bible never mentioned that life originated from water.
- Articles and links of official web sites that confirm the Noble Quran''s claims.
Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran makes very important scientific claims:
"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious sorcery!" (The Noble Quran, 11:7)"
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran, 21:30)"
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things. (The Noble Quran, 24:45)"
"Protoplasm is the basis of all living matter, and ''the vital power of protoplasm seems to depend on the constant presence of water'' (Lowsons'' Text-book of Botany, Indian Edition. London 1922, p. 23). Text books of Zoology are also clear on the point. For example, see T.J. Parker and W.A. Haswell, Textbook of Zoology, London, 1910, Vol I. p. 15: ''Living protoplasm always contains a large amount of water.'' " [2]
"About 72 percent of the surface of our Globe is still covered with water, and it has been estimated that if the inequalities of the surface were all leveled, the whole surface would be under water, as the mean elevation of land sphere-level would be 7,000-10,000 feet below the surface of the ocean (cf. 11:7). This shows the predominance of water on our Globe. That all life began in the water is also a conclusion to which our latest knowledge in biological science points. Apart from the fact that protoplasm, the original basis of living matter, is liquid or semi-liquid and in a state of constant flux and instability, there is the fact that land animals, like the higher vertebrates, including man, show, in their embryological history, organs like those of fishes, indicating the watery origin of their origin
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Life+Originated+from+Water%3B+Scientific+Miracle+of+the+Quran-a01073912408
Those article I got from a website with the pasted link at the bottom....for your further review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a muslim, and I know it's the truth.
and the Quran has mentioned it...
there is the theory of evolution in Quran....but only applied for the animals and other beings...not for human....
1400 years ago...not by charles darwin...
even the big bang theory was in the Quran...just study it guys...
The truth is not out there...the truth is in the Quran....This is not X-files....
Why did muslim fail to study this....because we study the world first and then refer to the Quran....not from the Quran and then the world...The God already told us....and because of capitalism who tried separate the religion and the world...and they succeed doing this...even to muslim world....because todays there is muslim who only study the Quran but they don't even bother to study the science in the Quran....Science was in Islam all the time....never been separated...but being forgotten by almost all muslim (not all) because they take for granted what they read in the Quran....
There some reviews in muslim world...that the Darwin theory of evolution of man....is only propagate by the atheist scientist to create a world without borders, morals and ethics between human....sorry to say that!....But can you even see the future of evolution of man theory into what it will bring us in the future...Even your hollywood movies showing it...like the sixth days....there will be no values of a human life.....seen it summarized it....
"there is the theory of evolution in Quran....but only applied for the animals and other beings...not for human...."what I said....Why I said that????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things). (The Noble Quran, 25:54)"
Above from God in the arabics words mean mud...there is some percentage of water in the mud...when the God created Adam.....it is not totally mean water.....
Yes, ajhill, that's how science works. Just because nothing in science is beyond question doesn't mean we can't tentatively assign different levels of how certain we currently feel about the correctness of a given concept or set of observations. Laws don't necessarily have to apply in every situation either. Taking your example, Newton's laws are still taught for a reason, and it's not the same reason we learn about phlogiston in chemistry or Lamarckism in basic biology classes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's also no reason not to have facts and laws. For example, it is indeed fact that evolution occurs. Evolution, at its most basic is "a change in allele frequency over time" in a given population. The many variations on how this evolution occurs and how extensive its influence has been and will be is what is not so certain, and what we're still working on.
"The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisindirect evidence "
contradiction, much?
I agree, we can only be certain about a set of observations or what we have seen in the historical record (fossils, rock strata...). The problem is this: all we have is speculation on both sides. Most creationists or ID'ers would agree with you on the micro-evo side. What bothers most is the utter lack of evidence that any speciation has given rise to another and completely different species. When we talk about laws and facts, where in science do I ever learn of life from non-life except when we talk about origins? Any statement by a scientist that starts with "I believe" is a religous statement. That statement is not based on fact, but on a personally held view. There are many unanswered questions when it comes to the "fact" of evolution. Lastly, you state in your opening that nothing in Science is beyond question, then why when a creationist or ID'er raises a question regarding the observable facts of evolution, the missing links that remain in the fossil record, and so on.... , is met with such hatred? Is Darwin and current scientific ideas above the fray? I am not saying you come off that way, but it is bothersome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismjknoxville: "The problem is this: all we have is speculation on both sides."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonsense on two counts. For a start, one hundred and fifty years of accredited science is not 'speculation'. And there are no 'both sides' here. There is accredited science, and there is a disproportionately vociferous fringe religious minority whose maverick beliefs fly in the face of that science.
You further state that "any statement by a scientist that starts with 'I believe' is a religious statement", but where have you read such a statement in the published literature? Science either interpolates, deduces, infers, or extrapolates. But it does not 'believe'. As you point out, 'belief' is a religious statement. Where it might appear in science is in the sense of deliberately indicating what is speculative.
You reference mg's statement that "nothing in Science is beyond question" and then ask why, when a creationist or ID'er questions some aspect of evolutionary theory, those questions are "met with such hatred". Here is my own answer: I for one am not aware that 'hatred' is in evidence (not on this site, anyway), so your statement is a presumption. If the term is qualified to 'resentment', then the reason for this is not hard to find: beliefs such as creationism and ID seek to elbow their way into scientific respectability (and the school science curriculum) while circumventing the checks and balances to which the rest of science is accountable.
Given these conditions, do you wonder that accredited science, which has to work to make its way in the world, resents the pseudoscience propounded by such beliefs? So "when a creationist or ID'er raises a question regarding the observable facts of evolution", let them do so within the accredited peer review method to which science itself is accountable. Then, perhaps, they will receive reasoned (and reasonable) answers.
But even this approach is not what science is about. Merely questioning a theory will not overturn it. To actually replace a theory, science expects another hypothesis to supercede it to become a theory in its own right. ID will never be a recognized part of accredited science unless it can present itself as a viable hypothesis within science. And that means first existentially establishing a causitive 'designer', otherwise it is a hypothesis founded upon a presupposition.
mjknoxville
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The problem is this: all we have is speculation on both sides."
No the problem is
On the evolution side we have speculation followed by investigation, followed by scientific evidence
In the creationst/id side we have --- nothing but opinion and assumption
"Most creationists or ID'ers would agree with you on the micro-evo side.
What bothers most is the utter lack of evidence that any speciation has given rise to another and completely different species."
What bothers ME about creationism/id is the COMPLETE lack of scientific evidence supporting it
But it STILL presents itself as a science.
"When we talk about laws and facts, where in science do I ever learn of life from non-life except when we talk about origins? "
Where in creationism/id do you learn of life from non-life,? , nowhere - life from non-life is based on 3 assumptions.
"Lastly, you state in your opening that nothing in Science is beyond question, then why when a creationist or ID'er raises a question regarding the observable facts of evolution, the missing links that remain in the fossil record, and so on.... , is met with such hatred? "
Because most of the questions asked have been answered many times, but they are still asked.
Interesting you mention missing links. Science has found some links, but creationists/id decline to define what constitutes a link so persistently ignore them.
"Is Darwin and current scientific ideas above the fray?
In essence no, but a "fray" implies a free for all, Science follows a methodology
Present you evidence.If it is validated then it will be accepted.
If is explains phenomena better than that currently accepted then it will become the new accepted theory.
" I am not saying you come off that way, but it is bothersome. "
Does it not bother you that creationism/id presents NO evidence but requires others to do so?
Laughing gravy (to mjknoxville): "Does it not bother you that creationism/id presents NO evidence but requires others to do so?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe single most telling statement on these comments so far. In my own experience of debating creationists (whether they call it creation science, 'Intelligent Design', or any other term which they choose to fish out of their pseudoscientific mojo bag), both on this site and elsewhere, I have found the pattern to be predictable. They expect others to jump through all manner of hoops (and attempt to steer the debate in a direction which ensures this) to produce evidence. This tactic in turn puts them in a position where, when such evidence is produced, and regardless of what it is, they can just say, 'that's not convincing.. let's see something else', and so keep this particular ball in play.
And their own so-called 'evidence' (which invaribly is based upon one or the other misconception) is always dismally predictable. The Oort cloud, fossil penguins, the second law of thermodynamics, the so-called 'lack' of transitional fossils (they get around this one by changing the definition, so Tiktaalik is 'just a fish', Archaeopteryx is 'just a bird', etc.). Plus that they stubbornly go on claiming that 'evolution is just a theory', and that 'we did not come from monkeys', and so on down the list of the fifteen misconceptions to which fifteen answers are provided by this article.
Creationists also zero in on those areas for which science presently has no definitive answer (although hypotheses are certainly not lacking), notably specific 'origins' questions. Such areas are misconstrued by them as signs of weakness in science, but they do not understand that not having evidence for one does not amount to having evidence for the other. As I have before commented here, current lacunae in human knowledge are not usefully plugged with quasi-religious Polyfilla.
Laughing gravy's much-repeated request to creationists to produce some sort of tangible and verifiable evidence for what they claim (and of a caliber that will, of course, hold up under scientific peer scrutiny) has still to be met. I predict that it never will be.
I have witnessed a demon possession. The spirit that was on a girl transferred to a man(a friend of mine) next to me. They did utter same words and did behave similarly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, mr_simple, this is relevant to evolutionary theory because...???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre these creatures also part of the evolution? Or can their existence prove the Christian Bible which then also can prove the existence of an "immaterial" beings that creationist claimed were responsible for all of these.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt appears that John Rennie has stared at the lightbulb of psuedo-science for so long that he has become blind to the obvious conclusion that the lightbulb was designed, and he could not believe it so even if Thomas Edison personally tried to explain it to him. A science that cannot consider or accept the premise of a designer can only build their evolutionary models upon the imaginations of Hollywood. It may look real on TV.... but it isn't real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientist(Engineers) are trying their best to build an imitation(Robot) of a human body (which consist of interlocking systems) by carefully making a sophisticated design both hardware and software. And "chance" is only responsible for what it(human body) is right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Denny: the point is (as I seem already exhaustively to have explained previously on this site) that unless you first can provide scientifically verifiable, existential evidence for your 'designer', then in science what you are proposing is considered a presupposition, and a non-starter. So (yet again here) can you provide such substantive scientifically peer-acceptable evidence or not? If you cannot, then your own hypothesis is itself a pseudoscientific 'imagination of Hollywood'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo mr_simple: The presumed existence of 'these creatures', as you call them, being beyond either proof or disproof, has no relevance in science (which is why science does not touch the supernatural). Unless, as I pointed out to Denny, you can provide scientifically acceptable, substantive evidence for their existence, which you so far have failed to do. I have a feeling that you claiming that you "witnessed a demon possession" is somehow not going to cut it as far as the rigorous standards of scientific acceptability goes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto ambertooth: thanks for replying. yes, you're right, in science proof rules. But can we separate religion from science? all the "miracles" the bible claims should not be called miracles if it can be explained by science (although science can also do amazing things). In "the origin of all things" religion and science directly contradict each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor many centuries science has already touched the untouchables, explained mysteries, and discovered the unthinkable, and have done so many wonders. Can science extends its might towards this(supernatural) or it is not worth it?
Denny
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"he has become blind to the obvious conclusion that the lightbulb was designed, and he could not believe it so even if Thomas Edison personally tried to explain it to him. "
I fail to see any logic,
Why on earth would he not be aware that the lighbulb was designed ?
" A science that cannot consider or accept the premise of a designer"
A dont think science refutes that the lighbulb was designed.
" can only build their evolutionary models upon the imaginations of Hollywood."
"models"? , "hollywood" ? I dont follow
What have these got to do with evolution theory ?>
"It may look real on TV.... but it isn't real."
Sorry is this a conundrum
To Denny: I should have added that your lightbulb is a false analogy. Your comment even supplies the reason, in that you name Thomas Edison as the lightbulb's 'designer'. Thus, the designer of this human artefact can be empirically established. Not a problem. But this does not apply to the natural world unless, as I have previously pointed out, you can empirically establish to the standards of scientific requirement that such a (super)natural 'designer' also exists. Anything less than this is mere subjective opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo mr_simple: Proof does not rule in science (that's in mathmatics). My statement referred to the scientific requirement for something to be refutable (or falsifiable). It has at least to be theoretically possible to refute something by example. In evolutionary theory, for instance, this would be something like one species giving birth to another, or a mammal being found in Cambrian strata. Any of such things would totally go against what the theory predicts, and evolution would be refuted, or at least re-evaluated. The fact that we just don't find such exceptions verifies the theory's worth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut this cannot apply to the supernatural, because the nature of supernatural phenomena is against it. They are neither falsifiable nor predictable, which things in science should be. So it's not a question of (as you describe it) science "extending its might towards" the supernatural. If such a thing appears to happen, it's more a case of what we had thought of as being 'supernatural' retreating before scientific rationale. I have used the example before on this site of humans once cowering in a cave believing that thunder was the rumbling voice of an angry god. Now through science we know differently, and any supernatural elements in thunder were supplied by the human imagination.
So, yes, science can and does separate itself from religion. Not that this has anything to do with science being 'against' religion. Of cause it is not, and that's not the issue anyway. The requirements for each are just radically different. Religion does not require evidence, only faith. That is its great strength. If a particular religion ever could have its veracity established in scientific terms, then it would no longer be a religion, and would simply be regarded as part of the natural order. Have you considered this, and is this something that you would even want to happen anyway? As they say: be careful what you wish for!
to ambertooth: very good point! Of course supernatural is unpredictable. It is not bounded by any rules. And because of this, we cannot use science to observe it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if "the origin of all things" is done supernaturally, science cannot trace it. Because no science tools can be used to measure it. Religion and Science should not clash with each other nor hinder each other to prosper. God(or Religion) can never be predicted and measured by science. If supernatural exist, then it is beyond science(or they are totally different).
Thanks again for explaining. You clearly stated your point.
To mr_simple: I have now explained this fundamental difference between science and religion many times (usually to creationists). Frankly, I am used to considerably more dusty replies, but your response is the most courteous that I have received, and is appreciated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo any creationists generally who might read both mr_simple's and my own comments here: creationists crave to have their religious beliefs accepted as mainstream science. This endeavor is doomed to failure for all the reasons that can be read in the recent comments here. But what mr_simple understands is more profound: were this impossibility ever to happen, then the inevitable further consequence would be that, because it would no longer require an act of faith to believe in such a religion, it would cease to be 'religious', and would be absorbed into the natural order of things which can be accounted for by the scientific method.
No faith necessary means no religion. Is this what creationists would truly wish to happen?
Creation scientists waste more paper, breath, and webspace trying to tear down the Theory of Evolution than they use trying to prove their own positions on the subject of Intelligent Design and the age of the Earth. Many of them seem to be under the delusion that if they can prove that Evolution is wrong, then they are right by default.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf someone has evidence of Intelligent Design... something beyond, "It's too complex so it HAS to have a designer"... point me and other scientists in the right direction so the scientific merits of the evidence can be examined.
I have a question to those who have opinions as Ninjafish has... Have you ever read the bible... like truly read it? Do you know what you are really fighting against... I suggest that you know your stuff before you begin to try and prove that it is false...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is something to think about... "If what's true for you is true for you and what's true to me is true to me, what if my truth says that your truth is a lie... is it still true?" (Lecrae from his Rebel CD)
I, for one, am not fighting against the Bible. I rant against the folk who want to supplant science with the Bible in public schools. So I really don't care what is in there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline
kreamed korn 29, I certainly am not 'fighting against the Bible', as you put it. What I object to is the cavalier use of pseudoscience in attempts to 'prove' Biblical literalism. The Bible is a text whose authority is accepted by Christians. But its authority, which is limited to that area, is scriptural, and not scientific. So your 'true-for-you' statement doesn't really count here. Biblical 'truth' is founded upon religious belief, which requires faith, not proof. But science, having different methodology, does not even deal in absolute 'truth' (that's in mathmatics). Religious 'truth' and scientific knowledge are just not comparable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskreamed korn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere has been no efforts at all on this board to "fight against " the Bible. Creationists have attacked the validity of Evolution and they have been challenged to produce evidence outside of their scriptures that supports their theories. This has typically degenerated from that point into little more than Creationists saying their specific religion is correct and science wants to destroy religion and the non-religious trying to explain the difference between science and theology.
kreamed korn 29
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething for you to think about
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."
Einstein
Have you ever read the theory of evolution and all the supporting evidence? Until you do you have no idea what you are fighting against. I suggest that YOU know your stuff before you begin to try and prove that it is false.
Hindsight is often pretty good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell me which would be preferable in a university:
1. A darwinist teacher giving compeling reasons and facts from science on why "pygmies " are mentally inferior than whites and why it is okay to put them in the Bronx zoo for display. This happened.
or
2. Teaching the students that the Bible says all men are intellectually equal and valuable?
Neal T, we can teach that all men are equal without using the Bible. In fact, it isn't correct to say that all men are equal. All human beings of both sexes are born into different situations. Some have birth defects and mental defficiencies at no fault of their own. Some are born into families with unstable parents that abuse them and cause them emotional damage which hinders them for the rest of their lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOthers are born with strong minds and bodies or into homes with good parents that love and nurture. Some are born into poverty, some are born into wealth and will have many more opportunities in life.
The idea that "All Men are Created Equal" is one for the study of law. In a democracy such as our own, all PEOPLE are equal before the law. No one is above it, all are subject to it, according to principle.
What do you mean when you say that all MEN are intellectually equal and valuable? What about women? Are you saying women are not equal to men?
I'm sure you're not, it's just a bad habit to use the masculine pronoun and it does not mark you as a sexist. At least, not to me. Someone might mark you as a sexist pig, which by your logic means we shouldn't listen to anything you say.
After explaining how all <HUMAN BEINGS> are equal, what evidence can you give to support this statement?
Faultline
Neal T, the Bible is irrelevant to such moral value issues, as Faultline points out. Plus, of course, the obvious point that within its covers can be found any number of examples which recommend anything but equality, fair-mindedness and other worthy human qualities. Has your son been disobedient? Why, drag him to the city gates and have him stoned to death, as is recommended in Deuteronomy 21, 18-21. And so on. Not that I choose to make this an anti-Bible comment, but in the interests of accuracy these things need to be pointed out, and certainly in response to such a heavily-loaded and prejudiced statement as you have made here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMerriam-Webster Dictionary: MAN (b): the human race: humankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPardon my last comment, it was not as clear-cut as I would have liked. “Equal” was not the most accurate word to use, it is not specifically used in the Bible either. I meant equal as being genetically similar and valuable, in contradistinction to classifying people as superior and inferior, etc.
The Bible does not divide man into races of superior and inferior mental abilities as early Darwinists did. Skin color is not any more of a genetic variation than eye color. Nor does the Bible teach that women are mentally inferior as Charles Darwin believed. While people have varying gifts and strengths and weaknesses, there is more genetic variance between individuals than there is between the various "races" of the Darwinists.
For example, Scientific American published in July 23, 1904, slanders the "pygmies"…
"They are small, ape-like, elfish creatures . . . they live in absolute savagery, and while they exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies, they possess a certain alertness which appears to make them more intelligent than other Negroes . . . … They have seemingly become acquainted with metal only through contact with superior beings."
Here’s Charles Darwin encouraging what his cousin Galton would later term eugenics:
"Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind" - Charles Darwin, Descent of Man Chapter 21.
Here's Charles Darwin on women...
. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).
A good theory should increase men’s capacity to understand the world, however in this regard alone, Darwinism fanned the flames of racism and bigotry at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
I do not agree with them, do you???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth said, “the Bible is irrelevant to such moral value issues…”
Ambertooth -- In the interest of Biblical accuracy it is necessary to point out that you quoted from the Old Testament laws of the nation of Israel specifically, rather than the New Testament, which has superseded it and is meant for peoples of every ethnicities for the last 2000 years. The bible is relevant to such moral issues.
A real life example is one of Ota Benga, a Congolese “pygmy” who around 1906 was brought to America and put into the Bronx zoo as an exhibit with the monkey’s sponsored by scientists who believed in Darwinism. Clergymen James H. Gordon and others considered the exhibition hostile to Christianity for its promotion of Darwinism and dehumanizing to African Americans. By the end of 1906 Benga was released into the custody of Rev. Gordon and was treated as a brother in Christ.
The teaching of the Bible contracts Darwinist nonsense about “races” and superiority baloney.…
Genesis 1:27 NIV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Acts 17:26 NKJ
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth
In the Bible there is only one race, the human race. All human beings are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). God loves the entire world (John 3:16). Jesus laid down His life for everyone in the entire world (1 John 2:2). The “entire world” obviously includes all ethnicities of humanity.
The teaching of the Bible was nearly a hundred years ahead of the early Darwinists regarding the above subject matter and is in line with current scientific thought regarding genetics.
Neal T, you seem to regard millennia-old examples from the Bible's system of justice (the last time I looked, the Old Testament was included in the canon) as inconveniently irrelevant, and yet present examples from a century ago, which any right-minded person these days would consider lurid and reprehensible follies, as somehow providing a case against evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoral values or the lack of them are not scientific evidence, and using juvenile scare tactics examples will do nothing to further your case. If you have actual verifiable scientifically admissible evidence which might stand up as an alternative to evolutionary theory then please present it. Otherwise, your comments should be addressed to theology or to ethics.
Ambertooth, Darwinists made several wrong predictions and observations through the years based their theory concerning biology (racial superiority, sources of variation,cell biology, tree of life, overstating the role of competition, etc) and appears to cherry pick the evidence. It is often said by Darwinists that lack of evidence does not disprove Darwinism, it only means that it hasn't been found yet. That's a double standard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReplying to your Biblical comment...
While the Old Testament (covenant) is part of the Bible, there is a reason why the books that follow it are called the "New" Testament.
Hebrews 8:6 NIV
But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
The Bible did not teach the mental superiority of races, mental superiority of men over women, but early Darwinists did and it was taught as science. It was wrong. The Bible was right about men being of one blood and not distinct "races" and it did not teach the mental superiority of men.
Neal T, the conclusion which inescapably must be drawn from what you so far have written here is that you are pretty hung up on racist issues. I presume that you must feel driven in this particular direction due to the paucity of any other evidence which you are unable to muster for your case (although, other than attempted slurs on those 'early Darwinists', you fail clearly to state what that case actually is).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, other than in the mistaken belief that you somehow can assume the moral high ground by playing the racist card, your comments have nothing whatever to do with the biological sciences as such. And racist pot shots at 'early Darwinists' serve nothing beyond demonstrating your own lack of more worthwhile argument.
So for the record: the Bible's authority is scriptural, not scientific, and even then is limited to the Christian community. It has no jurisdiction beyond that, so for you to quote from it, however meaningful this might be to yourself, serves no useful purpose here. It might be wise to ponder the fact that Scientific American's audience is global, and Bible Belt values do not extend as far as you might imagine.
Now, unless you can meet my previous request actually to produce some scientifically admissible evidence which might provide a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, then trying to claim moral superiority in the way in which you are attempting is a non-starter. And realise as well that whether what you say is 'right' or not is immaterial, because evolutionary theory remains unaltered by your comments.
So: can you produce such evidence or not? And don't forget: the Bible does not count.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are hundreds of millions of people who read the Bible outside of the United States and over two billion Christians in the world, so your comment about Bible Belt values is just bluster. A good number of Bible readers today are descendants of Darwin's so-called "savages". I call them brothers and sisters.
Attempted slurs? I made accurate quotations. The slurs quoted were from Darwinists to others. I stayed on the same subject because I don't like to jump around. I will be glad to move on and present evidence. What can you say that you specifically know for sure about one aspect of evolution.... "common descent"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "A good number of Bible readers today are descendants of Darwin's so-called "savages". I call them brothers and sisters."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI call them fellow humans. Had you lived a century and a half ago, you would have been calling them savages as well. At the same time as Darwin was forming his views, your countrymen were busy slaughtering each other over the issue of slavery. You know: slavery, as in the right of one human being to own another. Apparently there was not much in the way of brother- and sisterhood in the congregations of many churches at that time. If you choose to indulge in such sanctimonious point-scoring, then you'd better have your factual ducks in a well-ordered row, because I can just as easily claim that a good many Bible readers of yesterday have now rejected it in favor of greater truths, and you cannot disprove such a statement.
Neal T: "I will be glad to move on and present evidence. What can you say that you specifically know for sure about one aspect of evolution.... "common descent"?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, too rich! Only a creationist would follow a statement that they are 'glad to present evidence', not by actually presenting evidence, but with a counter-request of their own!
Let me make something very clear: I feel no obligation whatever to provide you with information that you can seek out for yourself from any number of resources in any number of places. You can visit an accredited museum, or go to your local library and ask for material on evolutionary theory in general or a subject such as cladistics in particular, which includes the topic of your enquiry. Or if such resources are not within your grasp, then visit the websites of accredited museums or science sites. The mere fact that you are commenting here confirms that all the resources of the Internet are available to you.
Of course, if you are not actually sincere about seriously wanting to know about such subjects, and are merely looking to score points in a debate, then you can do as other creationists have done that I have come across here and pretend that if I don't provide you with this information then there is no other way that you can get hold of it. But guess what? I am not here to do your work for you.
If your views lie outside accredited science, then it is beholden to you to provide evidence in support of such maverick claims (whatever they are, because you still have not stated them), and not for me to spoon-feed you with information which you can obtain for yourself. But as I say, that depends upon whether you sincerely wish to learn about common descent and other related topics or not. And if you object to evolutionary theory for religious rather than scientific reasons, then you might as well pack your bags now, because nothing in all of science has ever been successfully challenged on religious grounds. If, however, your objections are scientific ones, and you wish to cite some serious science to back any hypotheses which you choose to promulgate, then do so.
So now for the third time: Neil T, what are your views, and can you present scientifically admissible evidence in support of them?
Neal T: "There are hundreds of millions of people who read the Bible outside of the United States and over two billion Christians in the world"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo? If you want to play the numbers game, I can simply respond by pointing out that Christianity is the most factionally divided of all religions, with divisions within divisions (some 38-39,000), and those divisions running so deep that Christians of one denomination would no more think of worshipping in the church of another than they would of worshipping in a synagogue, or in a mosque, or in a temple. The Bible might be the scriptural authority of all Christians, but it certainly does not unite them. The orthodox churches of Rome and Russia have been at loggerheads for a thousand years. Protestants and Catholics? Ecumenical gestures are in reality no more than that.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the sake of this discussion, I will say that evolution is completely wrong. Now, please provide an alternative theory that is supported with natural evidence.
See, this is the part that stumps Creationists, even if Evolution is disproven, that does not make Creatism correct. All that a disproof would mean is that a new theory based on natural evidence would become prevalent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Finely tuned cosmos, earth, solar system, and Milky Way Galaxy characteristics
2. Rapid origin of life
3. Lack of inorganic kerogen in the early earth
4. Extreme biomolecular complexity
5. Cambrian explosion
6. Molecular clock rates
7. Missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
8. Placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
9. Frequency and extent of mass extinctions
10. Recovery from mass extinctions
11. Duration of time windows for different species
12. Frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
13. Frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
14. Speciation and extinction rates
15. Recent origin of humanity
Hahahahah! That's not a refutation, Neal T! That's a laundry list. If you want to make a splash on a science website, then you're going to have to put out more. You have to expound on why you have raised these specific issues, cite who your accredited sources are (note that critical word 'accredited'), what the import of your named issues is, how that import impacts upon what you are objecting to (which, even after seven separate comments, you still have not made clear), and so on. Just presenting a list and leaving it at that fulfills none of these requirements. I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed. I really was beginning to think that this might turn into some sort of a discussion, but if just reeling off a list of topics is the best that you can come up with...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd don't forget, both dvashun and myself have now made it clear to you that simply finding fault with evolutionary theory isn't going to do squat, because plain old objecting to a theory in science will not even dent it. You have to come up with your own well-reasoned hypothesis which you then submit through the accredited channels.
So, do you have such a hypothesis?
Ambertooth and dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm certainly not new to the creation vs evolution debate. I used to believe in common descent of species, but after looking at the evidence, I believe that the creation model predicts the evidence best. I do not deny that natural selection, mutation, and HGT occur in nature to some extent, I just don't think evolutionists have sufficently made the case for common descent. I start with the first prediction on my list and that is that a finely tuned cosmos, galaxy, solar system and earth that supports advanced life is the result of design and is expected from the creation model. I do not have time to post further right now as I have to leave, but I will be back with support for my first point.
Neal T: "I start with the first prediction on my list.. I will be back with support for my first point."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou would be wise to spare yourself the time and effort if that is the direction in which you are taking this. Do you seriously think that reeling off supporting arguments point by point for the topics which you have listed is actually going to make any difference to anything? I already have said several times on SciAm to others of your beliefs what I now will ask you:
Forget about working your way through a list of presumed 'creation model' evidence. If you wish within scientific acceptability to claim a supernatural cause ('God', a 'designer', or whatever your term of choice happens to be), then you have to establish in a scientifically verifiable way the existence of such a supernatural 'designer' in the first place. If you do not do this from the outset, then your entire argument will be based upon a presupposition. That is: for every point which you make, you are presupposing the existence of such a disembodied designing agency without first establishing within the parameters of science that such an agency actually exists, which would invalidate everything that you say in consequence of that presupposed premise.
So before you go any further, you need to supply independent scientifically admissible evidence for the existence of your disembodied creating agency. No recourse to scripture. No saying things like 'look around you', or 'it's so complicated/perfect/wonderful that it MUST have been designed'. Just independent evidence, verifiable within science.
Neil T, before (and if) you comment further regarding your 'first prediction', I would refer you on this website to: Space (on the menu bar), then scroll down and choose from the 'Archive for Space' topics, 'Unlikely Suns Reveal Improbable Planets'. I suggest that you read both the article in full and the accompanying comments (several of them by myself), with the polite reminder that you are on a science website, and therefore should present your ideas from the point of view of science, and not of religious belief, whether or not you choose specifically to use words such as 'God', or 'designer', or other directly or indirectly religious terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou challenge me to find evidence for the existence of God scientifically. Under what circumstances could science (by your definition) ever provide evidence for the existence of the creator God if God is inadmissible to science? I'm interested in your answer.
I was reading...and....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell if you want your kids to learn about evolution why don't you enroll them in evolution school...why do we have to start a counrty out learning about God...and "scientists" take over...technically "private school" should be called school...they need to make a evolutionist school.
Why don't we cut eachother slack...and for those of us who what to actually LEARN something, give us a chance...and don't throw crap in our faces.
Sure we are all different...I am a Christian...you are obviously not...I am not open minded because Jesus was not.
Sure I may be 15...but to many people...they think I am smarter than many older people.
Personally with all of the "new ideas" in evolution and science I do not beleive you should be call a theory.
Creation on the other hand has not been solidly proven wrong...and holy cow...yes it has been proven correctly.
Possibly you are wondering why you have not heard of this.
That is because if they got it out into the media...media would be crushed...smashed.
I have many things I could say.
One thing I just replied to I said.
"You said on one page that God was wrong when he said, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it for you will surely die."
In these verses God is talking about perfectness.
If you notice further on in the bible nobody was able to see God face to face...for they had sined before?
Notice after he kickes them out of the Garden of Eden they never saw God face to face...he is talking about their walk with him.
Maybe you should do more research next time...try reading the bible..."
Ooo...good one I know.
I was reading through and...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell if you want your kids to learn about evolution why don't you enroll them in evolution school...why do we have to start a counrty out learning about God...and "scientists" take over...technically "private school" should be called school...they need to make a evolutionist school.
Why don't we cut eachother slack...and for those of us who what to actually LEARN something, give us a chance...and don't throw crap in our faces.
Sure we are all different...I am a Christian...you are obviously not...I am not open minded because Jesus was not.
Sure I may be 15...but to many people...they think I am smarter than many older people.
Personally with all of the "new ideas" in evolution and science I do not beleive you should be call a theory.
Creation on the other hand has not been solidly proven wrong...and holy cow...yes it has been proven correctly.
Possibly you are wondering why you have not heard of this.
That is because if they got it out into the media...media would be crushed...smashed.
I have many things I could say.
One thing I just replied to I said.
"You said on one page that God was wrong when he said, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it for you will surely die."
In these verses God is talking about perfectness.
If you notice further on in the bible nobody was able to see God face to face...for they had sined before?
Notice after he kickes them out of the Garden of Eden they never saw God face to face...he is talking about their walk with him.
Maybe you should do more research next time...try reading the bible..."
I agree 100% with Neil T.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen Brother!
Neal T, you now have voiced my whole point. And hopefully, you will understand why your beliefs (to which, as beliefs, I have no objection) are just that, and so never can be admissible science. It is now accepted as part of the scientific method that, at least potentially, things need to be refutable (in science the term is falsifiable). With something such as evolutionary theory, this would mean that finding (for example) the fossil of a camel in Cambrian shale, or a buffalo giving birth to a zebra (one species giving birth to another) would falsify (refute) evolution, and science would have to look for other explanations. But the fact that these things never happen is what confirms the theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut supernatural phenomena and religious beliefs can neither be proven nor disproven to the standards of science. They are beyond predictability, beyond refutation, beyond either proof or disproof. Religious belief does not even ask for proof. It requires an act of faith to believe. That is its great strength. Its proof is experienced in the human heart. This is why I object to creationism both on scientific and on spiritual grounds. I have already made it clear why it falls short of the science. But to me it lacks any spiritual endeavor because, in its insistence on 'proof', it denies the act of faith that is the essense of the spiritual.
But let's take things a step further, because in my long experience of debating them, I have found that creationists fail to make that extra step. Supposing, just supposing, that 'God' could be proven in a laboratory. Were this ever to happen, then belief would become redundant, because faith would no longer be required. Religious belief would cease to be 'religious', and would become absorbed into the natural order of things which once were thought to be supernatural (thunder, rainbows, the aurora, eclipses, etc.), but which we now can explain with science. Would this be what you really would like to have happen?
No, Neil T, there are no circumstances under which God can be proven using science. Be grateful for that, otherwise your faith would become redundant.
Rachel B., the point is that what is accredited science should be taught in the science class, and what is religious belief should not. Evolutionary theory has been accredited science for the last century and a half, whether you accept it or not. Certainly no-one here is "throwing crap" in anyone's face. If you look through some of the threads on SciAm which relate to this subject, you will realise that I for one have been endlessly patient in serially explaining the same points over and over to various commenters who seek to have their beliefs accepted as science without those beliefs being accountable to the same standards which science must meet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to whether or not evolution should be called a theory: please read at least the first answer in the accompanying article. Perhaps if you read all fifteen answers of the whole article, you might have a better understanding of the subject which you are attacking. And please don't go the route of that 'creationism has been proven but it's being covered up'. Does it not occur to you that any scientist who actually could successfully topple evolutionary theory (one of the most widely-applied theories in all of science) would win instant academic fame and probably a Nobel prize as well? Science progresses by keeping its options open, not by locking them down.
You reject those areas of science which you do because you perceive them as undermining your religious beliefs. But it is not, and never was, the intention of science either to prove or to disprove any religious belief. That it at times appears to do so is just a by-product of science 'doing what it does'. If you read through my response to Neil T, perhaps you will understand better that, when it comes to matters of religion, science is simply neutral.
Everyone seems to just overlook the fact that the "answers" don't really negate the questions. I can't believe all the die hard "anti-religious nuts" that chimed in seeming to not have thoroughly read the flaws that were handed to them by the author.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen the usual "arguments from nowhere" where one was never started against science in general began. The same arguments can be made for religion (has helped a lot of people from dying, etc).
Science and religion have their good points. Once you realize that, then we can move on to finding out what happened. Not what may have happened.
Everyone on both sides are playing games and trying to close the book. Fine, take a break and move on but don't chime and and say the origin of life has been explained or pretend that there is no reason to think evolution is a little off and may be such a problem that we might need to start over to find a "pre-evolution" origin.
If that hurts your head, it's like when you see a different book by a different author who brings something new to the subject, instead of following what everyone else is pressured to.
I wonder how we ever got this far. The scientific community is just as guilty of wating our time and money as anyone else. But I'm not going to reject everything I hear from them, just this nonsensical biased propaganda. I still can't believe the way it's the same thing as what happens when religion and money shake hands. It's the same thing. Anti religious nuts. I can think of a better way to label it. They are infesting everything, the media, the internet, government.
Don't even try to tell me there isn't some money involved in all of this. Scientific American is using it to get more hits on their web page. And I understand that. But don't follow this blindly.
Think for yourselves.
That was a good point. That is much better than the way SA has put it in this article, which is irresponsible in my opinion. It's almost like a reverse psychology experiment if you read the way the answers dance around then how people respond as if they have created life themselves with a newly discovered recipe and all the "religious nuts" have overlooked it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm on board with the way things change over time, but I think there is a need for something completely different to kickstart life as we know it.
Even after we know what that is, we still don't know why there are even greater things that need to come from something. It really points to an infinite source. Time itself never really beginning or ending. Maybe we were all created by something, after all we are as close to creating life as it gets and we just used things that were already here.
TLTD,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say that people need to think for themselves and not accept things blindly. I agree that this is incredibly important and that it is important to evaluate each piece of information before determining the validity of it. Having said that I am not sure what are you referring to when you say "nonsensical biased propaganda"?
Rachel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you. It is good to hear from a young person who has thought deeply about this and to know that the spark of innovation and thinking outside of accepted science is still alive in younger folks.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make several assumptions that I believe are incorrect. First, regarding FAITH. I disagree with your comment that if the existence of God could be proven by science then faith would not be necessary. Faith is not only the belief in the existence of God, but at a higher level, faith is trusting in God for salvation, believing that he loves you, and that he answers prayers.
Knowing that God exists does not necessarily lead to personal trust in Him.
Hebrews 11:6 NIV
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Notice the two dimensions of faith in this verse: 1. believe that he exists and 2. believe that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Second, you assume that science is fundamentally incapable of ever proving the existence of God. Is this because the present philosophy of science forbids such inquiry? Or , do you have evidence that a liberated science will never be able to detect the existence of God?
Great scientists of the past such as Newton, Kepler, Boyle, and Pascal did not see their scientific work as being isolated from their faith in God, but an extension of it. They had a healthy concept of what science should be.
The scientific philosophy that you share along with the other self appointed guardians of science today couldn't hold a candle to these great thinkers and innovators and it seems to border on being pathological.
God is so big! You cannot put Him on a lab to be observed. The acceptable scientific method/process is too insignificant compared to God's characteristics. And if we ever find a way to observed God and His ways, it will be subjected still to His will if He wants to be observed or not. His ways and thoughts are higher than man's. How high? infinite...immeasurable....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific method is a process invented by human to observed all the things around us. This method alone is not enough to prove God and His ways of creating the universe.
My faith tells me that God created all things. I cannot prove God by my faith here(this website). My faith is between me and God. Only God can truly judge my faith.
So you see, faith in God(and also the Bible) is a mystery itself. It cannot be understood by many ( "narrow is the road...";"many are blinded") It is the work of the Holy Spirit. I can't force others to accept by presenting "evidence" .
TLTD, your colorful choice of phrases such as "nonsensical biased propaganda", and "die hard anti religious nuts" who, according to you, "are infesting everything" sound more ranting and out-of-control than any remarks which I challenge you to quote from the comments of those who you bluster about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismr_simple, as usual I find myself agreeing with your commendable directness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T, you are of course free to agree or to disagree with what I say, but if you wish to submit material that would pass as scientifically verifiable to any scientific outlet, then those are not necessarily my ideas to which you object, and it is not me whom you have to satisfy. Although you certainly raised a smile by including me in the ranks of your "self appointed guardians of science". So what does that make you? A 'self-appointed guardian of creationism'?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is commendable that you name those scientific immortals whom you do (to which I certainly would add the name of Max Planck), because they indeed demonstrated that one can be both devoutly religious and practice sound science without railing against the findings of science itself, as creationists do. Were creationists to follow the example of these great scientists, then the clash between their literalist religious beliefs and the profound knowledge and insights which science has gained, and which it has to offer the collective pool of human knowledge as a whole, need never happen.
So, do you actually have any scientifically admissible evidence for creationism or not? This does not, of course, include any supposed evidence against evolutionary theory because, as I have already pointed out, merely attacking a scientific theory will not accomplish anything. You have to build your own hypothesis.
As to your remark that my 'scientific philosophy' 'borders on being pathological', it is regrettable that you have chosen to end your comment with such amateur psychology melodramatics.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "It is commendable that you name those scientific immortals whom you do (to which I certainly would add the name of Max Planck), because they indeed demonstrated that one can be both devoutly religious and practice sound science without railing against the findings of science itself, as creationists do. Were creationists to follow the example of these great scientists..."
Were you aware that in the General Scholium to Isaac Newton's Principia mathematica, one of the greatest scientific writings of all time, Newton writes...
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being..."
Newton was a proponent of Design and he was not shy about mentioning GOD in his scientific writings.
Are you only opposed to the "railings against science" by creationists or do you reject all mention of God in scientific writings?
Neil T: "Newton was a proponent of Design and he was not shy about mentioning GOD in his scientific writings."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you seriously claiming that Newton was a proponent of Intelligent Design? This is of course a conclusion after the fact, and using such logic I could just as easily claim that Giotto would have made a great website developer. Newton's Christian views, by the way, were heretical, and he considered the Christian Trinity blasphemous.
But generally, that whole question which you raise about mentioning God in scientific writings is historically context-reliant, in the same way that the term 'savages' was that you first brought up. Galileo and Newton after him still lived in times in which religious beliefs were pervasive in society, and what represented sound scientific methodology was still being formed. Even Darwin studied theology before he sailed on the Beagle.
But that was then, and this is now. Personally, I wouldn't mind one way or the other if any scientist today mentioned God or not. Spiritual beliefs can inform and enrich one's life. But the point is that it now would be bad science to allow one's conclusions about evidence to be determined or even influenced by one's religious beliefs. Such bias would render the conclusions invalid. This is what happens with creationism. The creationist begins with the Bible and sets out both to 'prove' with science what the Bible says, and to 'disprove' what in science is perceived as being contrary to the scriptural texts; a course of action which is diametrically opposed to the spirit and veracity of the way in which science functions.
One consequence of the creationist's approach to science is that it produces an illogicality, where some things in science are accepted, probably because they are 'neutral', or considered not to conflict with scripture (the study of superconductors, for example), while others, which are perceived as contradicting scripture (evolutionary theory, obviously) are vigorously objected to and attacked. But the grounds for such objection are not scientific, but religious, which is what produces the illogicality of thinking in the creationist's attitude to science. For the creationist, superconductors = good, evolution = bad, although the scientific principles behind them (and anything else in science, from particle physics to life-saving drugs) are identical and equally applied.
You need an operation, and have to go under the knife. You totally trust that the anasthesiologist is pumping the right chemicals into you so you will not feel the pain when the surgeon's scalpel does its work. You trust the surgeon as well, because you know that he/she is professionally qualified and experienced to do the job. But a skilled geologist, who is in every way as professionally qualified as the surgeon, and who perhaps has accumulated many years of career experience in the field, is in the eyes of a creationist using 'faulty dating methods', because to a hard-core creationist, geological time conflicts with the Book of Genesis. But if Genesis just happened to mention specific figures in millions of years ago, then the creationist would be saying that potassium-argon, or uranium-lead, or other such dating techniques, were the hottest thing since sliced bread, because they confirmed the scriptural figures.
I have made the point before to creationists that you cannot treat science like a plum pudding, and stick in your thumb to pluck out the bits you find tastier, and reject other bits because they don't look nice to you. Science is science. It's all in, or all out, and if you accept one part, then you have no reason in logic to reject another equally scientifically accredited part, for whatever reason other than sound science. So if you don't like some parts of the biological sciences, then have the courage of your convictions, turn off your computer, your electricity, and grandad's pacemaker, stop seeing your doctor when you fall ill, and go and live in a cave somewhere.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewton was certainly not a proponent of "Intelligent Design" as it's known today, but a proponent of design from the creationists standpoint in that he did not hesitate to call the designer God. Isaac Newton was a commited Christian and studied the bible and wrote extensively about it.
You've actually said something that I agree with: "Spiritual beliefs can inform and enrich one's life", but then you
make an incorrect assumption by attacking creationists in general without differentiating between "young-earth" and "old earth" creationists. Are you aware that many creationists believe that the Bible does not specify a creation "date" and that the "days" of Genesis chapter one could be long eons of time?
Neal T: "Are you aware that many creationists believe that the Bible does not specify a creation "date" and that the "days" of Genesis chapter one could be long eons of time?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course I am. That is why I specifically used the term 'hard-core creationists' when referring to those creationists who dispute geological time. So I did not make an 'incorrect assumption'. Still, if that is the only point which I raise that you dispute, then I am assuming that you generally agree with everything else.
If not, perhaps you could mention what form of creationism you actually follow. If, for instance, you do not accept the accredited evolutionary model for speciation, maybe you could give a description of how all the many hundreds of thousands of species (floral, faunal, microbial), both extinct and living, actually came into existence. Did they just pop out of nothing when they were created? What is your assessment of the actual creational mechanics involved? And why did some things (well, a very great number, actually) become extinct? Weren't they particularly well-designed? Or was this Designer merely experimenting when he created them?
And if God created everything, then why did he create things such as the bot fly? The bot fly injects its eggs into the bodies of live baby birds in their nests. The eggs then hatch, and the sizeable larvae proceed to eat their way through the living hatchling chicks from the inside out, causing them excruciating pain before their short lives are ended. There are, of course, many such examples in the natural world, various of which also afflict humans in the form of schistosomiasis (bilharzia), onchocerosis (river blindness), and many other ailments, and clearly are the cause of great suffering. What was God's purpose in creating these things? Can you hazzard a guess? Because when thought of as 'designs', they might be astoundingly efficient alright, but if a human designed such things, we would consider that person to be depraved, sadistic, and psychotic. Someone who endorses Intelligent Design looks at the sunset, at a butterfly's wing, at a swallow in flight, and thinks 'isn't the designer who created these things a being of majesty?'. But these acceptably wondrous things are only the half of it. And the other half can at times seem very dark indeed.
Once when I put this poser to another creationist, he responded by saying that it was the Devil who created the nasty stuff, apparently not realising that giving Satan equal creative powers to the Deity was a Christian heresy. So I'm going to trust that you will not say the same. And I'm also going to trust that you will not respond by saying that it has something to do with 'sin'.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy view on the age of the earth is to be open to wherever the evidence leads and it appears that it points to an old earth.
As I stated in a previous post I do not deny that natural selection, random mutation, and Horizontal Gene transfer occurs to some extent in the world, I just do not believe that it can account for common descent.
Asking if I believe in evolution is like asking if I believe in MONEY. Yes I believe money is real and it can be useful, but it can not do everything that some people think it can. Money can buy a house, but not a happy home. Money can buy someone a present, but it can not buy genuine love. And evolutionists have not proven that evolution accounts for common descent. That is why a majority of Americans and a large number of accredited scientists (see Discovery.org for the list) do not buy into the ever-changing just so storyline.
Regarding your comment on parasites, I think the answer to your question is much more complicated than what you're assuming a good creator would do or not do. We do know that parasites, viruses, and bacteria are everywhere and are essential to the well being of our ecosystem. We know that certain parasites play a role in keeping nature in balance, such as keeping the gypsy moth from taking over whole forests and destroying it and the animals that depend on it. Also, parasites can mutate from harmless to dangerous. Poor hygiene and the unwise influence and interference from humans in the environment can led to new outbreaks. They can also mutate from being originally harmless to dangerous. Sex outside of marriage has played a huge role in the spread of HIV.
I don't think it's as simple as eliminating all parasites and everything would be better off, however, I would certainly vote for booting mosquites off the planet!
Neal T: "Regarding your comment on parasites, I think the answer to your question is much more complicated than what you're assuming a good creator would do or not do."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know it is! I certainly don't have a theological answer, and I was not really expecting you to have one, either. It's an imponderable which greater philosophers than you and I have broken their heads over, but I was interested in your answer, so thank you for that. My purpose in making the comment was to underscore the fact that thinking of God as a 'designer' is considerably more curly than ID'ers usually seem to imagine. And for what it's worth, I'll mention that no creationist/ID'er has ever actually managed to give me an answer. In terms of straight evolution, of course, such moral dilemmas do not arise, and no 'explaining' of such issues is necessary.
If you do not believe that evolutionary theory can account for common descent, then the burden is of course upon you, not to prove that particular area of the theory faulty, but to supply a sound and scientifically verifiable natural mechanism that works better than common descent and still leaves the rest of the theory intact and workable. Because, as you surely must be aware, you just saying in a comment on ScAm that you're not convinced of common descent is not going to change anything.
I would never claim that evolutionary theory is perfect. What I sincerely am convinced of is that it is hands-down the best explanation for speciation that we have (in fact, it's pretty much the only explanation), and until something more viable comes along, then it stands as it is. Clearly, a theory as comprehensive and as broadly-applied in as many areas of the biological sciences as evolutionary theory is, certainly did not make its way in science over such a long period of time by being held together with duct tape and bits of string. Its robust durability and flexibility speak pretty eloquently. So your glib description of it being an "ever-changing just so storyline" is not going to wash.
And neither is your recommendation of the Discovery Institute. Scanning down the list of names on their website, I found quite a number of authors, journalists, lawyers, doctors of medicine and philosophy, and senior fellows of this and that, but no actual hands-on accredited career scientists, and no names that I recognised from the sciences. The Discovery Institute struck me as 'religion trying to come to terms with science'. But getting touchy-feely with science from such a perspective says more about the insecurities of those who seem to feel that such a course is necessary than anything to do with science as such, which forges on unperturbed. Science is, and should remain, neutral in its stance towards all matters pertaining to religious belief. To be otherwise would jeopardise the worth and integrity of its own methodology.
Regarding this last point, I personally would include Richard Dawkins' strident brand of near-militant atheism as having been as unhelpful in this situation as any of the fruit-loop pseudoscience that I have come across on creationist websites such as Answers in Genesis. The way I see it, Dawkins has done much damage by polarizing the argument towards a 'religion versus godless science' type of debate, which to me it never was. I have always clearly viewed this contention as being between accredited science on the one hand, and on the other, a fringe religious literalist belief which seeks to gain scientific respectability without being itself subject to the standards to which the rest of science is accountable.
Neal T: "That is why a majority of Americans... do not buy into the ever-changing just so storyline (of evolution)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is true, then it points to a tragic shortcoming in the American educational system. Are the criteria for science not taught as part of school curricula there? As a statistic, it is more something to be ashamed of and embarrassed about, than any cause for crowing. And if standards of education in the science class are so lax, and a true understanding of these issues is not upheld, then why should anyone be surprised that such values are wiped over in favor of a religious fundamentalism which peddles a mindset that is medieval in its intent? This chilling remark of yours, if true, makes me grateful that I live in continental Europe.
I have tried to find some statistics for this. Various polls put the average figures at about 55% of adult Americans rejecting evolution, and about 20% of adult Europeans. Of the thirty four countries polled, only Turkey beats the States as having more than 55% of adults rejecting evolution. (From: Science Policy Forum, vol. 313, 11 August, 2006)
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere still exists in America the pioneering spirit brought here by immigrants from Europe and other lands that seeks to push the horizon. It has been a land to seek dreams for many.
We absolutely love to break protocol.
America has many non-traditional and positively exciting and relevant to the times (at least I think so).
We are the land of Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. We landed a man on the moon 40 years ago. We love our technology toys.
Did you check out the list of the skeptics of darwinist at discovery.org (Dissent from Darwinism). It's an 18 page list of names of scientists, and university professors, many with doctorate degrees who've signed it. Why do you think so many scientists would dissent from Darwinism?
Neal T: "It has been a land to seek dreams for many.. We absolutely love to break protocol."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this has to do with rejecting accredited science in favor of pseudoscientific fringe religious beliefs because...??? When you say, "non-traditional and positively exciting and relevant to the times", I guess that you mean as in, "let's ditch existing legitimate science in favor of the sort of quasi-religious Bible-doting primitivism that flourished in Europe centuries ago." Yeah, that makes sense. Maybe you should move to Turkey. They have even less people who endorse evolution there than in the States. Give me European health plans and standards of education any day.
Do you know what has puzzled me the whole time, Neal T? Considering the amount of comments which I have addressed to you, of the many points which I have raised, you have objected to or questioned very little. So I'm taking it as read that you either do not or cannot dispute the various things which I have been saying. And who cares about that list of 'skeptics' at Discovery Institute? If they are true to their scientific calling, instead of just wanting to bellyache, then they can formulate their alternative hypotheses as science papers and submit them to the appropriate accredited outlets. As I have now said many times on this site, disagreeing with or being skeptical about something doesn't mean squat. You have to come with your own scientifically viable alternative.
And each time you comment, I'm thinking 'now he'll say something about why he objects to common descent, and what he would replace it with'. But guess what? In spite of my pressing you to produce something, you're silent on that issue as well. You just say that you disagree with it and leave it at that. All very convincing is it not.
Neal T,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSometimes it is difficult to keep a walk with God because scientists are smashing "what MAY be" into our faces...and not what we believe is.
However, keeping a walk with God is called faith.
And I do very much so agree with you...God can not be proven in science...for he is.
It is difficult for the human mind to understand that because we believe everything has a begining and an end and that everything must have a definition.
The truth is however God is the beinging and the end...he never began therefore there is no eternal end.
And with God being...he can not be described.
Say God is the sky...however there is a begining and an end to that...well we are choosing to look at God as that one perfectly shaped cloud...
The human mind fights the fact that God is...he has no begining and he has no end.
Ambertooth.,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistherefore they should not be throwing science belief in Christians faces…that is a religion…but we are being forced to learn what you think is. The fact is Christianity has been around for a longer time…and it has never been changed. Look at the bible for one. In the ancient Greek book on page 911 they talk about two towers crumbling…on 9-11 the twin towers collapse…on that page they also talk about the help coming…hence calling 911…these papers were written hundreds of years ago. If you think about it we are all repeating the same things…possibly you think you are doing a better job…but you must admit both Neal and I are also being patient.
Hahah…I have read it and I for one find it very unbelievable…
It does occur to me and that is where I find faith…see regular scientists of this day need to be reassured and known for what they have (or not so much have) done. With Christian scientists, they are not universally famed…with Christians we do not need fame…all we need is faith. And yes it does occur to me…it is Satin trying to smash me and my brothers and sisters.
That is what my teacher told me in the beginning of this semester…however I told him I did not believe him. Admit it…science is trying to block out Christianity…because they have failed many times to try and prove it wrong.
I have been reading and the more evidence we get the more Christianity is proven correctly and the less evidence Evolution ends up with.
I say that science is not neutral because one…my faith tells me so and also, you see a ark load of stuff on evolution in the books, in the teachings, in the videos, on the tests…but I have not yet had a test in school that revolved around Christianity…but I did have a test on evolution…and I got an A on it because I proved my points.
One question for example was…in which period of time did humans first evolve…when God created them of course…on the sixth day of creation.
Yes...I did get in trouble.
And honsetly I don't care...this teacher needed someone to stand up to him...God told me it was my time to stand out.
Rachel B.: "Admit it…science is trying to block out Christianity…because they have failed many times to try and prove it wrong."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can I admit to something that is persecution-driven nonsense? You are doing your best to do what Richard Dawkins has tried to do from his side, which is turn this issue into a 'religion versus science' debate, and it is not. So tell me, Rachel B., how many years of experience have you actually had of working with career scientists that you take upon yourself the right to tar them all with the same brush in such a discriminatory manner? Because I'll tell you now that the scientists with whom it has been my privilege to work over the years have been all shades of belief and non-belief, from good and decent Christians, committed atheists, to two Buddhists, and even a respected palaeontologist who was a pagan whom I knew to be a man of great personal integrity.
And stop with that absurd nonsense about how scientists are 'throwing science belief in Christians faces'. Answer me this: when was the last time that two scientists showed up at your front door trying to convert you to evolutionary theory? When, Rachel?
As for science trying to prove Christianity wrong, I suggest that you might like to do some study into the lives of such great, enlightened, and sincere thinkers as Hypatia of Alexandria and Giordano Bruno, who fought for true human knowledge, but were hideously put to death with particular and specific cruelty at the hands of the Church authorities, who wished to control knowledge and power for themselves. The same would have happened to Galileo had his nerve not failed him and he recanted against his own judgement.
Contrary to what you seem to have persuaded yourself of, I have nothing whatever against your personal religious convictions, as I presume you do not against mine. But if you choose to intrude with religious issues into the arena of science, then you should be prepared to justify them on scientific, and not religious, grounds.
One other point: I trust that you appreciate the freedom of speech which the moderators of a respected science site such as Scientific American allow you as a platform to express your views. What would happen were I to do the same for my views, and go to a site such as Answers in Genesis, or Intelligent Design dot org, or the Young Earth Creation Club? I'll tell you: nothing. Because at a time when websites of any scope and size offer forums, or at least message boards, for others to freely comment within the moderators' rules of each site, creationist websites offer no facilities whatever for such an opportunity for freedom of speech. I wonder why not?
So comment away here by all means, and be aware and appreciative of the fact that the world of science, which you apparently so despise, allows you the freedom to do so. Because such freedoms of expression are not reciprocated to those such as myself by any Christian fundamentalist websites that I have come across.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The ideology and philosophy of neo-darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientifically theoritical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides the students from the fields real problems."
- Dr Valdimir Voeikov, Professor of Biorganic, Moscow State University, member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. Also, just one of the scientists on the 18 page listing of Skeptics of Darwinism (discovery.org).
Ambertooth, you often argue your point by assuming that real scientists and anyone with a good science education does not question the validity of darwinism. This is inaccurate and misleading.
There is an organized effort to keep dissenters from publishing in many scientific publications and to stop the schools from teaching the real problems with the theory. Rachel B has a valid point about this also.
Dissent from Darwinism is not the result of the lack of good science teaching but rather telling the students the problems with the theory and not brain washing them. "No evidence is not proof that it's not true". I'm selling a tropical beach in Siberia too.
I'm not sure how long ago it has been since you studied evolution in school, but most of the things in my old books have been either proven wrong or were fabrications.
1. Darwins tree of life --- wrong
2. Dark and light peppered moths --- wrong
3. Haeckel's embryos -- wrong
4. Darwins finches -- beak sizes are back to normal
5. Piltdown man -- wrong
6. The ubiquitous rendering by an artist of the vertical ascent of various primates up to a man. --- wrong.
The fossils from the Cambrian explosion of life point directly to the sudden creation of life. If doesn't take finding a buffalo in the Cambrian fossils to disprove evolution, all it takes is for evolutionists to admit that the gradual changes in species up to the Cambrian life simply does not exist.
Neal T: "Ambertooth, you often argue your point by assuming that real scientists and anyone with a good science education does not question the validity of darwinism. This is inaccurate and misleading."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you know what is really misleading? Your "18 page listing of Skeptics of Darwinism". Because the skeptics on that "18 page listing" are a drop in the ocean when placed next to the thousands of career scientists who incorporate evolutionary theory into their researches on a global basis. So don't try to create the impression that there's some sort of major upwelling of discord (a point, incidentally, which is covered in the accompanying article).
If that truly pitiful list of six items are what comprise your objections to evolutionary theory as it is expounded upon and practiced in contemporary science, then don't be too surprised if anyone who knows even a modicum about the subject snorts with hoots of derisive laughter. Haeckel and Piltdown? Oh, please. You must be grasping at straws. And Darwin's tree of life was not wrong, although it certainly has since been refined, as you would know if you knew anything whatever about the subject of cladistics. Time to get up-to-date, Neal. Maybe your own experience of evolutionary theory stopped with your school days, but mine has moved with the times. It has incidentally also now spanned a year shy of half a century on both a personal and professional level, and in that time I have seen many new discoveries made which would have delighted Darwin, because they have only confirmed what he thought. Darwin had no fossil humans to study. We now have many. Darwin would have been staggered at the way in which modern genetics are now confirming all that he wrote about. Oh, I keep abreast of things alright, Neal, but that list of six so-called 'proofs' which you wheel out are so antique that they're positively growing whiskers.
And you are just one in a long and undistinguished line of creationists whose only apparent end option is to resort to "organized effort"-style conspiracy theories. "They're all against us, so we can't be heard'. Pathetic.
"The fossils from the Cambrian explosion of life point directly to the sudden creation of life." Oh, really, Neal? The Cambrian explosion lasted some six million years. What are you going to dredge up next? Comets from the Oort cloud? The Paluxy prints? The lack of transitional fossils? Archaeoraptor? Nebraska Man? Spare me, please, and either take your ridiculous posturing to another website or actually come up with some serious objections that would at least stand a reasonable chance of being considered sound and worthy science.
NealT those six items are laughably silly. Piltdown man was a hoax, which is not evidence against Evolution. It is nothing more than evidence for a hoax. And what exactly is wrong about dark and light moths? Also, theories get fine-tuned all the time, models and diagrams like the tree of life get refined with more research. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE ORIGINAL WAS WRONG!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell me, which SPECIFIC idea do you have to support the variety of life on Earth and let's see a model to explore and some evidence to support it. Right now. No more doubletalk... right now.
Faultline
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy list of darwinist teachings in textbooks represented several of the icons of evolution that have been in text books for generations of students and was not a complete list of all the holes in the theory.
Haeckels embryos were artistic fabrications that were pictured in books for a hundred years, even many years after being discovered to be misleading and inaccurate. The icon survived. Why?
Piltdown man endured for 40 years in science books. Why were scientists so quick to embrace it and so long in finding it to be a hoax?
Your response was typical of the hand-waving general answers to serious issues with the theory. Your statement about Cambrian life and 6 millions years is supposed to explain why animals appear fully formed early in the Cambrian with no fossil evidence that they came from an ancestor. Darwinism requires an innumerable series of intermediate fossils. Where did the complex eyes in some of the Cambrian life come from suddenly?
The creation model of God creating life originally and then progressively creating species over time and then finally man, better fits the fossil evidence. The fossil record shows a mosiac of life created from similar designs.
So unless you can submit something specific about the Cambrian explosion to show common descent for the many animal phyla, handwaving and bluster only goes to prove you have nothing.
Neal T, please would you cite the publishing details of science papers on the material which you claim 'disproves' evolutionary theory, including that of the claimed invalid species variations in the beaks of Darwin finches, the creation of species during the Cambrian explosion and after by supernatural means, and so on. Names of authors. Titles. Dates of publication. Publishing journals. I would like to check these. And I'm sure that I am not the only one who might be reading along to what you have to say here who would like to know these details. As Faultline has pointed out, if you are claiming that speciation was achieved throughout geological time by a supernatural interventionist event (which is now what you have directly said), then you now have to provide the model and evidence in support of that. Scientifically verifiable, of course, otherwise it's just belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWelcome back.
The peppered moths are the classic textbook example (with pictures) of natural selection, unfortunately it belongs in second place at an elementary school science fair.
It is more a classic example of false assumptions and questionable practices by evolutionists who are all too eager to make the evidence fit their preconceived notions.
Light moths are better camouflaged than dark moths – this is true for human observers, but birds can see in UV and the camouflage argument breaks down when this is taken into account.
Detailed records of moth populations studied in Manchester UK are typical of changes occurring worldwide but studies in other areas show that this is not the case, sometimes the light form is more successful in industrial areas, and sometimes the dark form predominates in unpolluted areas.
To trumpet such an experiment with questionable assumptions surely means the evolutionists are desperate for examples. If they can't interpret live insects what credibility do they have to interpret the Cambrian explosion that took place millions of years ago? If just so stories count as evidence then real evidence doesn't matter.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStart with this reference: Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! Atrocious! " Natural History (March 2000) pages 42-49 for info on Haeckel's fake Embryos.
Darwinism has done a great disservice to science and understanding the extent of natural selection and random mutation. Small changes are extrapolated into the realm of miracles by just so stories, generalizations and hand waving.
It is hypocritical to ask creationists to demonstrate a historical event in the laboratory when darwinists can't show macroevolution in the lab. Pointing to fossils as proof of macroevolution is open to interpretation and the creation model of sudden creations over time followed by small variation is what the fossil record really shows.
Cherry picking missing links out of a mosaic of millions of animals in the fossil record that share similar design is not what Darwin predicted. Darwin's tree of life is being quietly buried and replaced by a BUSH because similar anatomy is often generated by different genes in different species and the genetic links are missing everywhere in what was once his tree of life.
Neal T:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article you presented from Natural History March 2000 by S. J. Gould is no help for you. Gould explains how Haeckel grossly misrepresented the early stages of embryos, how embryologists of the time knew that his drawings were wrong, and how a travesty it was that these drawings got used in textbooks. Gould even explains the tendency of textbook makers to copy whole sections from previous textbooks in an effort to save time and money. Gould admonishes them for being sloppy.
What point are you trying to make here? How does Haeckel's mistake lend evidence to an intelligent creator?
Also, on the moth light/dark issue. I've done some reading and I was surprised to find that birds can perceive UV light. Thanks for bringing that up, I never knew that. But the details are not so simple. Birds don't see in UV light the way a modern milspec set of night goggles do. Each species has a limited ability to see UV light based on how it evolved. Largely, it has to do with determining color patterns on the feathers of other birds, for spotting UV light reflected from the surface of shiny fruits, and to some limited degree, some species use it to find prey.
I'd like to know where you get your information that the fluctuation in light/dark moth population was normal and not linked to the environmental change, and where you get your information that a similar situation occured somewhere else in which there was no population change. Has this been scientifically documented or is this speculation?
Also, if you want to argue for ID, then provide some evidence for it, please. The best you can do is provide a model to explore and some evidence to support it. If you're not doing that you're not doing science and it does not deserve to be accepted as such.
Faultline
Neal T: "It is hypocritical to ask creationists to demonstrate a historical event in the laboratory..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not ask you to do so. I asked you to provide your referenced sources. You have not done this. The Gould 'reference', the only one which you have provided, does not count (as Faultline has pointed out), as this is merely discrediting Haeckel's work, which was justified, and notably was done by a scientist from a scientific and not any religious motivation. It has nothing whatever to do with either scientifically establishing or undermining the veracity of evolutionary theory, so don't waste your energy pursuing it.
Neal T: "Darwinism has done a great disservice to science and understanding the extent of natural selection and random mutation. Small changes are extrapolated into the realm of miracles by just so stories, generalizations and hand waving."
Oh, too rich. This is of course exactly what you are doing. Which is why I now have asked you to be specific and provide your sources for what you are claiming. Without these, you might as well be claiming a sighting of Bigfoot.
Referenced accredited published sources, Neal T?
Rachel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on your statements I am going to assume that you attend public school in the United States. The reason that you have never had a class on religion is because it is prohibited by the Constitution. You are taught about evolution in Science class because, whether it is right or wrong, it is currently accepted as science. If you attended a private school you could have the opportunity to attend religious based classes. The Constitution specifically prohibits teaching religion in public school in order to prevent any religion from being forced on anyone else. The freedom to choose a religion is so important to the US that it is in the very Amendment.
The last two words should be three: "very first amendment"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an American I was surprised at the 55% number, I honestly thought it would be much higher. There really is that big of an issue with American schools. The focus is less on an actual education and getting the students to pass state tests. So, the students learn to the test knowing that is all that matters. Meanwhile, they attend church 3 days a week and every fifth channel on television is a religious channel. The parents are placing more emphasis on religion than on education. When I look at America today I think of an Einstein quote:
If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies.
Albert Einstein
There is more focus on celebrity and entertainment than on education.
dvashun, I was truly saddened by discovering these statistics, because even just over half the population rejecting the science is a shockingly high percentage when compared with other countries (with the exception, apparently, of Turkey!). Saddened, because I know the States and have good friends there. How can religion be regarded as a strength when it turns its own people, who have first world standards of living, into uncritical and intellectually impoverished individuals who cannot hope to compete on the academic world stage?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comments of Rachel B. were for this reason more poignant than she ever realised. Still, I do know one brave soul who did the reverse of what Rachel B. said that she did. This young American (who is now a teacher herself), when her supposed 'science' teacher started to lecture his class about Flood geology and Noah's Ark, stood up in the class and objected, and eventually forced the issue to be dropped. If a teacher tried such a stunt in my part of the world, they would simply get laughed at. It has nothing to do with science, and even less to do with true spirituality.
Faultline, Ambertooth and dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReference for peppered moth variation : Grant BS, Owen DF, Clarke CA. 1996. Parallel rise and fall of melanic peppered moths in America and Britain. Journal of Heredity 87: 351- 357.
I fail to see how teaching students the icons of darwinism such as the flawed peppered moth experiment to illustrate natural selection, and the fraudulant artwork of the haeckel embyos is a good education. Sloppy and fraudulant experiments and illustrations are acceptable in textbooks, only if one believes that the end justifies the means. Who needs to actually teach about valid experiments because evolution is so well documented, right? Why bother with such trival details, right?
If an experiment is 5% valid, then 20 such experiments adds up to 100% validation. Presto!
"What did you learn in science today, Johnny?"
"I learned about peppered moths and how that proves evolution."
"That's my boy, now run along and play and don't forget what you learned!" Nothing like a education!
Wow, impressive, Neal T. Now you only have another few hundred thousand accredited science papers on this subject left to refute. Best make an early start tomorrow. No, but really.. do you seriously imagine that the peppered moth is what evolutionary theory hangs upon? But it does confirm it. Please read on...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have the details of a more recent paper by the same authors which contains new research that actually confirms the evolutionary findings of the original peppered moth research of the 19th century (Tutt, 1896) and later in the 20th century (Kettlewell, 1955-56). It is: "Geographic and temporal variation in the incidence of melanism in peppered moth populations in America and Britain", by B.S. Grant (Department of Biology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, USA), A.D. Cook (Department of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK), and D.F. Owen (School of Biological and Molecular Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK). Pub: The Oxford Journal of Heredity 1998-99, 89: 465-471.
This paper is published two years after the one which you cited, and confirms the evolutionary nature of the decline of the melanic form, both of Biston betularia in Britain, and B. betularia cognataria in the States, the results of which "clearly show" (the authors' actual words) this decline to be consistent with decreases in polution, and so confirming the evolutionary selective nature of the original 19th and 20th century observations.
The paper is available on the Internet to read in full as a PDF document, and the authors specifically describe the mechanisms of selective predation on parallel evolution (their term) on this particular species (UK) and subspecies (USA). To actually quote the authors: "We are left, again, with SO2 as a potential contributing factor, or at least a factor potentially linked to environmental conditions that affect Darwinian fitness among moth genotypes." Neal T, you have chosen to to cite in support of your cause three scientists who actually endorse evolutionary theory.
The Pratt Tribune, December 13, 2000
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOriginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/December/13-653-news92.txt
Accessed 2003
Bruce Grant: Charges of fraud misleading
"In recent weeks your newspaper has printed letters debating revisions in high school biology curricula. Some of the correspondents have leveled charges of fraud directed at evolutionists for attributing changes in the colors of peppered moths to natural selection. As I am one of the evolutionary biologists who study peppered moths, I feel obliged to comment. Charges of fraud cannot be left unchallenged...
....We still have work to do. We do not all agree about the relative roles of contributing factors, such as the flow of genes between moth populations in different regions, the importance of lichens on trees, where on trees moths might hide from predators, how important is differential predation, and so on. As in any branch of science, participants endlessly debate interpretations. Such wrangling is the norm, and it stimulates additional research. That is how we make progress."
I said the peppered moth experiment was invalid and so it was. Here Grant still admits that there is disagreement on differential predation and so on. Then he concludes with the usual indefensible darwinist response that "wranging is the norm". Really? Funny that the "wranging" about the peppered moth was not part of the textbooks.
Creationists don't have a problem with natural selection to some extent (that's pre-Darwin), including the variation of light and dark moths.
MY POINT WITH THE PEPPERED MOTH WAS NOT THAT EVOLUTION HUNG ON THIS AND OR THAT RESULTS WERE A PROBLEM FOR CREATIONISTS. What is incredible is that evolutionists elevated an inconclusive experiment to the status of an icon and published it in millions of textbooks for years and years.
So what? You still don't have any evidence to support Intelligent Design or Creationism. You are actually trying to claim that Evolution is wrong because, somehow because, there is some controversy over the observation of peppered moth populations and because Haeckel's drawings were wrong. Even though you SAY you are not trying to claim this as your case, you keep bringing it up as if you can discredit the entire body of knowledge that surrounds Evolutionary Theory because of a mistake that got proliferated (Haeckel) and some controversy over peppered moths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisControversy, however, is not bad. It means that people are discussing it.
Of course you say that you find these two examples incredible. Scientists agree with you about Haeckel and the peppered moth issue does not seem to be settled in your favor by the look of papers refuting the article you brought up.
Like Gould said, those who assemble and publish science textbooks are not always experts in every field that the book will cover, and often they copy or mimic whole sections from previous textbooks to save time and money. The publishers are in business, after all, and that is a failing of the publishing industry, not of Evolutionary Theory.
Now, do you have an alternative model that we can discuss about how the many species of animal were formed and some supporting evidence? I mean, even if you blew apart Evolution with some stunning find that no one ever predicted (not likely), Intelligent Design and Creationism aren't going to win by default.
Let's just start with the Earth. How old do you think it is? Never mind why for now, just tell me.
Faultline
Neal T, your comments are taking on an increasingly desperate edge. Professor Grant's reported words that you quote actually are protesting AGAINST fraudulence and misrepresentation of the material. He even actually describes himself as an evolutionary biologist. And you interpreting 'wrangling' as some sort of serious contention only exposes your ignorance of the way in which these things work. Of course scientists 'wrangle' with each other. As Grant himself says, "that is how we make progress". None of which means that the processes of evolution are themselves in contention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlus, of course, that you need actually to state what specifically it is in the authors' paper that you dispute. What in their research findings are you contending, Neal T? You can also check the half dozen or so other published papers on this subject by Professor Grant, including "A reversible color polyphenism in American peppered moth (Biston betularia cognataria) caterpillars", by Noor, Parnell and Grant (PLoS ONE. 01/02/200802/2008; 3(9):e3142), which confirms that catapillars of this species also exhibit the same traits as the adult forms for the same reason.
So let's see how much fire you really have in your belly. If you truly are convinced of your position, and consider the peppered moth data invalid, and therefore the findings of these three scientists either fraudulent or null and void, then instead of having a bellyache about it on this thread, which will not change anything, here is what you should do:
Contact the three authors of this paper and put your position to them. That way you will have it from the horse's mouth whether or not this research is valid. And it's no good now trying to get yourself out of the corner that you have been busy painting yourself into by protesting that the experiment is 'inconclusive'. Because the undisputed fact remains that the scientists who authored the paper were working with evolutionary Darwinian processes, as they themselves literally state in the paper. These processes are not in question.
As with virtually all creationists with whom I have had contact, it is clear that you have only the most vague idea of the more-than-Herculean task ahead of you. Do you really actually seriously think that naming a few points of contention on an Internet comments thread is going to somehow 'disprove' evolutionary theory? I was only partly joking when I said to you that you only have another several hundred thousand published science papers left to refute.
And Faultline is right (and indeed as I have put to you before, but you seem reluctant to accept it): even invalidating a theory in science will not by default establish any validity for an alternative hypothesis. You first have to take that hypothesis the route that all unestablished ideas in science must tread, and jump it over all the stringent hurdles that define the standards of science.
You could at least make a start here and get some informal feedback for these ideas by finally doing what you have been pressed to do and supply some sort of a model for the actual processes involved in your hypothesis of speciation by an interventionist supernatural agency, which is what you are claiming. How these processes actually would work in practice, how they work over geological time, how matter is materialised supernaturally, what purpose transitional fossils serve in such a scenario, what purpose in such a scenario is served by the persistence of relic ancestral traits in genetics, and so on.
Please do so, and please cite your source for what you are claiming about Darwin's finches. Because the work of Grant and Grant (2002) has only confirmed the evolutionary processes at work in these finches, as has the most recent work on genetic growth factor studies of the beaks (Sinervo, 2004).
And finally: "Professor Bruce S. Grant is emeritus professor of biology at the College of William and Mary. He has a particular research interest in the peppered moth. He is a defender of the teaching of evolution and has criticized creationist Jonathan Wells, who has cited his work, as "dishonest." ..is what he has chosen to say about himself for his Wikipedia entry. And in his lengthy letter to the Kansas Pratt Tribune, which you quote, and which I have now read in full, he bitterly denounces the quote-mining of his work and that of other scientists by creationists such as Wells, and the misrepresentation and dishonesty of their tactics, as anyone who follows the link which you so thoughtfully supplied can confirm for themselves.
Faultline and Ambertooth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Kettlewell experiment was the one that adorned millions of textbooks without a mention of "wranging" and so on. Regardless of what inaccuracies may have been corrected a generation later it was this experiment that was the Darwinist Poster Boy (poster moth) for half a century. It was invalid for a number of reasons, such as releasing the moths during the day, and not taking into account night feeding bats. While Grant is not a fraud, he admits that the causes of the moth variation are still not settled. Are unsettled conclusions good enough to become a Darwinist Poster Boy? I guess.
I suggest we bury the moth and move on.
I brought up these cases of poorly done Darwinist science to show that they are not immune to poor judgment and even fraud and these are not isolated cases, but icons of the movement. I haven't even brought up the problems with origin of life, convergence and homology.
Based on evolution and without the aid of a good microscope to show a real life cell, Darwin thought the cell was simple, but it turned out to be a super information storage unit with internal molecular machines with a mastery of quantum mechanics. After all, if it evolves naturally, it must be simple. But the blob assumption was wrong.
Forward to today and the Darwinists still have a tendency to dumb down the basis of life. Their so-called "JUNK DNA". I have a better term for it, "JUNK THEORY". Junk is expected if common descent is assumed to be true and we are the result of random mutation. Why bother to actually break a sweat and try to understand the genetic code and learn something new?
My creation model is based on the Bible, but my evidence will be from the best evidence science can provide at this time. Please spare me hand-waving and general dismissal of what I say because someone who knows better disagrees. I want to get down to the details and would ask that your disagreements are specific and reasoned to my points. Saying, "everyone knows that's wrong" is not a reasoned argument. Saying, "a gazillion papers support me" is not a reason either. Let the games begin.
Neal T, yes, I am sure that you would very much like to "bury the moth and move on". But we are not done here until you address what Professor Grant made clear about his distaste for creationist tactics of misrepresenting and quote-mining his work. These are not my comments and my ideas, but his own words which, ironically, you directed myself and others to in your links and quotes. The Kettlewell data was endorsed by Grant, et al, unless you can produce specific evidence that ALL data collected on the peppered moth (which now spans over a century) is either fraudulent or seriously flawed. I am going to hold you to this until you either produce your claimed refutation or drop your ridiculous protests that the data is invalid. As I have already made clear, no findings on this subject conflict with evolutionary theory unless and until you can produce very specific evidence which proves otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I am going to presume from your comment that you indeed do not have the intestinal wherewithal actually to put your money where your mouth is and contact Professor Grant yourself to take up your objections with him. Why am I not surprised? When push comes to shove, and it comes to confronting the science face to face, creationists with all their bluster and protest are in the end just bags of hot air.
You further say: "I want to get down to the details and would ask that your disagreements are specific and reasoned to my points.". I invite anyone reading this to scan back over our exchange on this thread and find any examples of objections put to you by myself and others which have NOT been "specific and reasoned". By contrast, it took several days of probing just to get you to confirm what your standpoint actually was. That is how 'specific' you yourself have been.
And since you are now keen to stick to specifics, I am also going to hold you to produce the cited reference which I previously requested from you for what you claimed about Darwin finches.
So let's now see you be specific and answer each point which I have requested of you which would form a hypothetical model for speciation by interventionist supernatural agency (how matter is materialised supernaturally, what function transitional fossils serve in such a model, and so on). I shall be ticking each point off as (and if) you answer it. I will not comment upon any new points which you raise unless and until all of my own specific points have specifically been answered by you. Oh, yes, we are going to get specific alright, but for a change it is you who will be doing so.
Neal T is upholding the moth example as if it were key to Evolutionary Theory. It is not. It is a solid example of natural selection used in textbooks in public schools. The principle of natural selection is well understood even though some of the details of the peppered moth instance are in debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow we can lay the moth issue to rest.
Got any evidence for ID?
Faultline
Neal T, for you to agree with Faultline's comment that the moth "is a solid example of natural selection" is of course for you to acknowledge that evolutionary theory is valid. But if you still disagree with this statement then I will hold you to what I said in my own previous comment about this. Any lack of acknowledgement will be taken as concurrence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn all that you have said so far, you have taken the well-trodden creationist route of attempting in some way to discredit evolutionary theory, and all your examples have been to this end. The reality is that in science this approach will get you nowhere. As has been pointed out to you several times now, simply attacking a theory in science will not even dent it. You have to actually produce a hypothesis with evidence and a model for what you consider is an alternative. Please do so. If you wish, then consider your exchange of comments here a dry run for what you can expect were you to submit your ideas within a scientific context. With the obvious difference of course being that the questions being asked of you here are the easy ones.
To start things off, and to establish what you claim, please explain the process by which species are materialized by an interventionist supernatural event.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou state "My creation model is based on the Bible, but my evidence will be from the best evidence science can provide at this time." Could you please post this model and some of the evidence you have to support this model. I am interested in what you have to support your model. It is obvious based on on your discussions on this board that this evidence must be substantial for you.
Ambertooth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me be clear. The peppered moth as presented in millions of textbooks was misleading because the evidence is more complicated and still debated (Grants' "wranging"). The pictures that adorned these textbooks of the moths on the trees were staged for the camera on trunks where the moths rarely settled. The captions on the pictures did not indicate to the reader that this is something to consider. The textbook presentation was wrong for "dumbing down" the science with dogma rather than giving students the real life version and encouraging them to think about the conclusions for themselves. What role did this play in forming generations of students who only see life as win-lose and black and white? The pictures stick to the brain like velcro and for them to be staged without explanation of that fact is dishonest and wrong in my opinion. Maybe I'm all wrong and they were just trying to make a commercial for a new brand of glue and couldn't find anything else laying around the tree trunks. Or, perhaps others take a less precise view of how science should be presented to the public.
As for the finch population, the beak sizes grew bigger with the drought and then smaller again when the rains returned and this is presented as evidence that evolution can proceed even faster than people thought.
Did they expect finches with beaks the size of B52 bombers if the drought continued?
It is misleading when natural selection, common descent and random mutation are all lumped into the one definition of evolution. Did natural selection occur with regard to beak sizes? Yes, but proving a small incidence of natural selection does not automatically qualify as evidence for common descent. That distinction gets muddled under the all encompasing and slippery umbrella of evolution.
Nobody has a problem with variation and natural selection to some extent. The problem is with the extrapolation of it to common descent. It's like a customer begging a car salesmen to show him the engine and all he wants to talk about is the paint job and the size of the bumpers. Faultline and dvashun have requested that we move on and I agree.
Faultline and dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some main points to clarify my position so you understand what I am arguing for, so we avoid strawman arguments:
1. Natural selection, random mutation, and HGT occur to some extent in nature.
2. Natural selection, Random mutation, HGT, and darwinian stories do not account for common descent.
3. Evidence pointing to an old earth is considerably stronger than young earth evidence.
4. Intelligent Design (ID), is not the same as creationism, in that ID makes it a point to not define who the designer is. Creationism identifies the designer as God without reservation. I hold to the position of creation by God.
5. Physical imperfections and weaknesses are designed into life on purpose.
6. The Bible and the physical evidence are not in conflict.
Neal T, your last comment to me is wasted. Both in my own previous comment, and dvashun and Faultline in theirs, have requested that you provide evidence and a feasible model for what you are hypothesising. You still have not done so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSupplying 'main points to clarify your position' is not what is being asked of you. In any case, you already have previously made it clear that you are an old Earth creationist, and that you reject speciation by evolutionary mechanisms and accept that speciation occurs by what I would term an interventionist supernatural event or agency, although you might be more comfortable with terms such as 'divine intent' or 'God'. Choose which you prefer.
So again I ask you specifically to provide such evidence and a model for what you are claiming. As I have serially repeated to you: just proclaiming things such as: "Natural selection, Random mutation, HGT, and darwinian stories do not account for common descent" means nothing in science. If you do not agree with the accepted science, the onus is upon you to rationalize with models, examples, and evidence of your own what DOES account for the event of speciation in organisms.
I have suggested that you start with your own explanation for how species are materialized by such an agency as you are postulating, which would seem a logical place to begin.
Please do so.
Neal T let's examine some things in your list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first three are useless as a means of supporting an alternative theory. Just saying that Evolution is false doesn't automatically make your ideas true.
#4 is an odd way of putting things. You hold to the idea of creation by God. You believe that everything was created by God who is intelligent. Since God is intelligent, and the creator of the universe, you must therefore believe in Intelligent Design.
#5 - And your point is.... what? You really should go about presenting evidence that life was intelligently designed before assuming that physical imperfections and weaknesses were put there on purpose.
#6 - Since you believe that the Earth is more than 6,000 to 10,000 years old, you seem to have already found evidence that contradicts what is in the Bible. I mean, do you really believe the Earth was formed in six days? That would mean that afer the sixth day, a few billion years pass, during which all these hundreds of thousands of animal species (including the dinosaurs) have become extinct, yet mankind is still around? To believe in Old Eart Creationism is to already find conflict between physical evidence and the Bible.
I understood your position up until number 6. Then you lost me. I don't know how you can believe there is no conflict between physical evidence and the Bible when you admit to item number 3, in which you state that there is considerably more evidence for an old Earth.
Faultline
Neal T: "The Bible and the physical evidence are not in conflict."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Bible is in conflict with itself (that there are different orders of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 being an obvious example, which is not a promising start). If you believe that the Bible and physical evidence are not in conflict with each other, then you must also believe that virtually all animal life extant today must be descended from the pairs that were taken onto the Ark. Can you confirm that this is what you believe (although it must be, otherwise your statement is a fallacy).
Evolutionary theory deals with and explains speciation in all organisms. If you do not accept the accredited version (and it's all in or all out, and no plum pudding accepting bits and rejecting other bits, as I made clear earlier) can you then explain, if the Bible does not record their presence on the Ark (which it does not), where all floral and microbial life came from. Did Noah take on board samples of Florida sawgrass, or Himalayan rhododendrons, or Chilean Araucarias? Or Arctic lichens? How did he obtain them? Because these things and presumably almost all other vegetation except floating seeds would have perished in the Flood. And what about diseases? Were Noah and co. carriers of typhoid, syphilis, and all other such afflictions that are in our world today? They must have been, otherwise the Bible contradicts the physical evidence.
And what about the time frame? What is your own estimate for the events of the Flood? Four thousand years ago? Four and a half? Because if the Bible and physical evidence are not in conflict, then you must believe that virtually all life since that time has evolved within that time frame (if you believe that all the many thousands of species were supernaturally materialised within that time, then of course you have to produce independently verifiable evidence for that, otherwise it is on the level of belief or mere opinion).
Perhaps you could clarify your position on these points.
I will not address the other points since Faultline and Ambertooth have already addressed them but I am unable to accept your point number 4. Pandas and People is the origin for the current meaning of Intelligent Design and there is proof that the terms creationism and creationists were replaced with intelligent designers and design propenents. In case you are unaware, there is even a version of the book with "cdesign proponentsists" which clearly demonstrates a direct replacement by the authors of Pandas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Physical imperfections and weaknesses are designed into life on purpose."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn that case, please explain the 'purpose' of a child being born blind, or crippled, or with other afflictions. Your beliefs, and your choice of words "on purpose" make it clear that you believe that it is God the designer who is responsible for such deliberate "physical imperfections and weaknesses". So what is God's 'purpose' in doing this?
I don’t have a problem with the timeline of 14 billion years since the beginning of the universe and 4.5 billion for the earth, but I’m not committed to defend it either if better estimates come along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me be clear. The Bible doesn’t give dates for the creation of the universe or the earth. Commentaries and notes in the margin of the Bible are not part of the scripture. Many have tried to infer the date of creation from the text, but these are based on assumptions by the reader.
The two major interpretations of the “days” of Genesis One are:
1. Days are normal 24 hour earth days
2. Days refer to an eons of time. This is my current position. Even in modern English this is an accepted dictionary definition…”in grandfather’s day…” or “day of the dinosaurs”. The Bible (Hebrew “yom”) uses the word “day” to refer to daylight hours, 24 hours, or unspecified periods also. References to evening and morning in other places of the Bible do not always refer to 24 hours.
We are left to look at creation itself to discern how old the earth is. As an side note that I find interesting is the General Theory of Relativity and how it shows Time to be relative to the observers’ point of reference. For example, a photon just arriving to earth from the far reaches of the universe has an age of 0 from its point of reference, even though it has traveled for billions of earth years. What an observer (God) who is larger than the universe, but also able to relate to all reference points in the universe would perceive as time has to be far different than our perception.
If we are left with physical evidence to calculate age, then how is the Bible helpful or relevant in this discussion at all?
Look at the first three words of the Bible (one word in Hebrew) ….”In the beginning” (Genesis 1:1a). In contradiction to the scientific Solid State theory and other variations of it over the course of human history, abundant evidence for a beginning to the universe continues to gather (sources upon request). As we open with the first word of Genesis 1:1a, there is not a contradiction with the evidence.
I can say much more regarding the first word of the Bible hopefully will get the opportunity. Many good questions were asked of me since my last point, but they go in many directions and I would politely request if comments/questions could be directed to the things I specifically said in this post here to keep somewhat focused.
Neal T: "Many good questions were asked of me since my last point, but they go in many directions and I would politely request if comments/questions could be directed to the things I specifically said in this post here to keep somewhat focused."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo cigar. You were the one who declared that he wanted to get specific. You were asked very specific and, within the context of the subject under discussion, very reasonable and relevant questions. Had you even halfway attempted to answer any questions at all put to you then you might have a moral right to 'politely request' what you do. But as things stand, your last comment is evasive waffle.
Instead of addressing the very relevant and specific questions put to you, you have chosen to ramble on at length about relativity and the meaning of a Bblical 'day', which you have already covered in a previous comment. Faultline and dvashun will respond as they choose to, but for my part, unless you actually now can have the civility at least to attempt to answer my own queries in your following comment, I will take your non-compliance as confirmation that you are unable to, and that this in itself will represent a conceding of your views in favor of the accredited science.
Yet again, I ask you to provide a model with independently verifiable evidence for what you claim, and explain the processes involved for your own view of how speciation occurred supernaturally.
Ok, but I want to get back to Genesis 1:1. I want to explain the model in a stepwise fashion and not jump from ID to Noah's arc and human suffering. Their all important questions, but I'm not ADHD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent Design vs. Creationism. Proponents of each make the distinction and ID folks make it a point to not mention God but keep the Designer vague. Of course God is both intelligent and the designer according to creationists. I'll not argue about the motives of ID people not mentioning God. I am ashamed to claim Genesis as my model. I spoke of ID not in the generic sense, but regarding the movement in particular. If you are looking to pick apart my arguments based on ID websites, its not going to match.
Noah's ark: Does hebrew "erets" always mean the whole planet earth? Do a little research and get back to me.
Human suffering: Do you think there is one cause and answer to all suffering?
The creationists will never get it no matter how much scientific facts you throw their way. They just want to throw back meaningless tasks for you to prove which have been proven by the scientific community during these modern times. The fact is that they cling to their religion and shut their eyes because if you disprove one fact it makes it look like more facts in the Bible are as well a farce..it's scary to them to take away what they have been taught to believe since childhood. Do they ever think about the other religions outside of Christiandom? No....I would like them to look at how other tribes that have been cut off from modern civilization like new found tribes or the Australian aborigines about their thoughts of human origin...completely different eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig correction to my last post as it was done in haste. I meant to say that I am unashamed to claim Genesis as my model. I regret to have said the opposite. As for scientific facts, which one should we accept, Haeckel's embryos? Eugenics? Steady State Theory? What fact is there that proves that life was not created by God?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow long was the Bible proclaiming that the universe had a beginning before science acknowledged it in the 20th century?
Neal T: "What fact is there that proves that life was not created by God?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh yes, the old creationists' double negative. 'You can't prove that there isn't, so that proves that there is.' Pathetic. The kinds of arguments that you are dredging up here are the tired old tactics that are the only things which creationists have to offer. Neal T, If you DID have something more substantial then you would have stated it by now. But you are STILL waffling about things which supposedly discredit what you object to, and which have already long been discussed.
YOU were the one who wanted to move on and get specific, yet you do anything but this. Had you answered it, the statement which I put to you in my previous comment (and in my comment before that, and in my comment before that comment) would have been an opportunity for you at last to bring something of substance to the table. And yet again you have not done so, and have chosen instead merely to prevaricate about Hebrew terms and points of semantics.
I note also that, typically for a creationist, you have opted to answer a question of mine, not with an actual answer, but with a question of your own (regarding human suffering). But my question was not even about human suffering. It was a specific question in response to your own specific claim that God the designer deliberately designed "physical imperfections and weaknesses into life on purpose". I asked you why God as a designer should do this. Can you support your own statement or not?
I have been debating creationists on various websites for well over a year now. In all those months I have yet to come across a single one who actually ended up supplying anything substantive whatsoever in support of their claims. In place of doing so, they only repeat the same tired old arguments over and over, because those things are all that they have.
You, Neal T, are no exception.
So again I ask you as a direct and specific question: if you do not accept common descent, what model are you claiming in its place? Independently verifiable evidence, please. This is a science site, after all.
The Theory of General Relativity tells us that the cause of the universe creates it independently or outside of the matter, energy, and the space-time dimensions along which the matter and energy are distributed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe frame of reference in Genesis 1:1 is the cosmos. God brought into existence the entire physical universematter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with matter and energy. Hebrews 11:3 says that the things we see were made from what we do not see. Big Bang theory describes the universe as beginning at an infinitely small point (invisible to the eye). Actually the term big bang was coined by Fred Hoyle as a cynical description of theory. Mr. Hoyle preferred the older scientific model of the universe called the Steady State model. More accurately big bang is not like an explosion in space time, it is rather the super fast expansion and stretching of space-time itself and this is exactly what the Bible describes. Psalms 104:2 speaks of God who stretches the cosmos.
Since God existed before our space-time dimensions were created, this strongly suggests more dimensions of existence than the four we relate to. Genesis 1:1 links time (the beginning) to space and matter (heavens and earth). Titus 1:2 refers to God before the beginning of time , accurately referring to a reality before time itself. General Relativity now explains mathematically how time itself starts with the big bang expansion.
Scientists and atheists who clung to the Steady State Theory and its philosophical implications were eventually forced to give it up because of the overwhelming evidence against it.
The creation model is testable and as any good model should, it has been found to make accurate predictions about the evidence. The creation model requires a beginning to the universe as well as an outside agent to initiate its origin. Scientific and mathematical evidence give strong support that these predictions.
In reference to the Big Bang Theory and its implications for the beginning of the universe, Robert Jastrow, PhD is famous for his quote: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Neal T: "How long was the Bible proclaiming that the universe had a beginning before science acknowledged it in the 20th century?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust about every culture from every period of human history in every geographic region claims 'a beginning' in its mythologies/traditions. Many of them predate Biblical texts, and the vast majority are independent of those texts. You cannot therefore claim special privilege or even insight for the Biblical version of events 'in the beginning'. Not only that, but the Hindu cosmological model, which is considerably more ancient than the Biblical one, is actually far closer to what science now concurs with. What was it that you said to me? Ah yes: 'Do a little research and get back to me'.
As for your most recent rambling comment, which merely regurgitates warmed-over science masquerading as so-called 'confirmation' of your religious beliefs, it's boring. Neal T, you have now been posting comments on this thread for two weeks. You still have made no attempt whatsoever to answer what Faultline, dvashun and myself have repeatedly asked you. I conclude that you have no intention of doing so because you simply cannot.
You have failed totally to present any evidence whatever for your silly pseudoscientific fantasies, and your woolly mental meanderings clearly present not the remotest threat to science. You've had more than your chance. Science rules, evolutionary theory remains unchallenged, and I'm not even sure that I'll bother reading anything which you might further post here. Were I to do so, I'd probably have to jab myself with various sharp implements to prevent myself dozing off with boredom while reading your oh-so-predictably turgid waffle.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not done with the creation model. I just started, and the evidence does support the conclusions I've made so far. Scientific evidence does point to a beginning of the universe from things not seen. Your argument seems to be, everyone's religion said that. According to your premise then they all made better predictions than Fred Hoyle and the Steady State agnostics and atheists. What does that say about Darwinism?
As far as the Hindu stories, here's a sample, but there are hundreds of various Hindu gods and several stories: “Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.”
“From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command. “
Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'
“A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.”
Here's a sample from the Aboringines:
“Underneath the crust of the earth were the stars and the sky, the sun and the moon, as well as all the forms of life, all sleeping. The tiniest details of life were present yet dormant: the head feathers of a cockatoo, the thump of a kangaroo's tail, the gleam of an insect's wing.
A time came when time itself split apart, and sleeping time separated from waking time. This moment was called the Dreamtime. At this moment everything started to burst into life. The sun rose through the surface of the Earth ..."
Your statements were irrelevant to the evidence.
Neal T we are not getting anywhere with this debate because you are confusing Biblical scriptures with evidence. Somehow we've moved away from the Theory of Evolution to cosmology and your last two posts were totally uninformative and useless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can quote-mine anything, even the Bible, and find something that can be vaguely interpreted to describe the evidence we see in the real world. By doing so, you have not found evidence, you've found scripture. Scripture needs no evidence to be accepted as truth, it only requires that the reader have faith that it is true.
Now do you have any alternative theories to present that are based on evidence, not scripture, which are not the same thing? If not, then I'm done with this discussion until you come up with something substantive.
Faultline
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"and the evidence does support the conclusions I've made so far. "
No it doesn't
"Scientific evidence does point to a beginning of the universe from things not seen."
Sorry - This is misinformation -
I dont think there is any scientific EVIDENCE pointing anywhere.
There is a scientific THEORY (supported by mathematics) that indicates how the universe began. BUT it DOES NOT point to a beginning "from things not seen"
You are re-phrasing scientific theories to leave a gap for an extra-universe creator. But there are no scientific theories nor evidence that point in this direction.
You then follow with long rambling from Hindu -these are not relevent to the evidence.
"The Theory of General Relativity tells us that the cause of the universe creates it independently or outside of the matter, energy, and the space-time dimensions along which the matter and energy are distributed. "
No it doen't - The GENERAL theory of Relativity says nothing about the origin of the universe.
"The frame of reference in Genesis 1:1 is the cosmos. God brought into existence the entire physical universe,matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with matter and energy. "
It is only partially relevent what genesis says.
Please supply EVIDENCE that an extra-universe entity exists, and HOW it created the universe,matter,etc.
"More accurately ,big bang? is not like an explosion in space time, it is rather the super fast expansion and stretching of space-time itself and this is exactly what the Bible describes. ."
Get it right. The Big-bang was NOT an explosion IN space/time, nor a STRETCHING of space/time, but the CREATION of space/time.
Again - misinformation intended to allow the inclusion of genesis.
"Psalms 104:2 speaks of God who stretches the cosmos. "
And the rest of 104.2 continues - "like a curtain" - i.e the cosmos ALREADY exists - i.e. it has NOTHING to do with the creation of the universe.
"Since God existed before our space-time dimensions were created, this strongly suggests more dimensions of existence than the four we relate to."
Very good - start with 2 assumptions (i.e. existence of a creator + other dimensions) - then use the assumptions as evidence of other dimensions.
Bet you are a creation scientist.
Secondly - You have have as many dimensions as you like in THIS universe, they have NOTHING to do with the existence,or not, of another universe..
"Genesis 1:1 links time (the beginning) to space and matter (heavens and earth). Titus 1:2 refers to God before the beginning of time?, accurately referring to a reality before time itself. "
Interesting that you should say "accurately referring to a reality before time itself"
How on earth would you know if this is accurate or not?
There is NO evidence as to the existence of an alternate reality.
"General Relativity now explains mathematically how time itself starts with the big bang expansion."
No it doesnt - - That is Quantum mechanics
"The creation model is testable and as any good model should, it has been found to make accurate predictions about the evidence. "
No it is not testable - not unless you want to create another universe.
(REMEMBER the first step is for YOU to present evidence in support, NOT for us to disprove it)
Secondly - What predictions does it make?
"The creation model requires a beginning to the universe as well as an outside agent to initiate its origin. "
Evidence of an "outside agent" + evidence of the existance of an "outside" if you please.
"Scientific and mathematical evidence give strong support that these predictions. "
What predictions?
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do a little research and get back to me."
I would suggest you read something to do with the
General Theory of relativity (not the theory of general relativity), and quantum mechanics and then get back to me.
Neal T: "The creation model is testable and as any good model should, it has been found to make accurate predictions about the evidence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny attempt to use the Bible to mimic (should I say 'ape'?) the processes of science is a lost cause. Its authority is scriptural, not scientific (*groan* how many times have I pointed that out now on SciAm?). Specifically (remember that you wanted to 'get specific') how is the creation model 'testable'? Remember: no Bible allowed. And how is it falsifiable? Evolutionary theory is readily falsifiable in any number of ways (examples of which I have already given on this website). Please provide an example of falsifiabilty in the creation model.
Neal T, yet again you seem to be confused about what is being asked of you. I did not ask you to supply a creation model. I asked you, if you did not agree with the specific evolutionary mechanism of common descent, what mechanism would you put in its place? I have now asked you four separate times to answer this. Over successive comments you have failed to do so. I am already convinced that your evasive responses mean that you have no answer, but I guess there's still an outside chance that you might surprise me.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The creation model requires a beginning to the universe as well as an outside agent to initiate its origin. Scientific and mathematical evidence give strong support that these predictions."
If by predictions you are implying that there is scientific and mathematical evidence that support both an "outside" (i.e another universe) and an "outside agent" then you are wrong on both counts. There is NO scientific OR mathematical evidence for either.
Secondly - Neither of these are PREDICTIONS, both are part of the fundamental basis for creationism, they are NOT predictions of creationism
"He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
As you raised the quote - it gives a fundamental insight to the difference between scientists and theologians
The ONLY reason theologians would be there would be due to their BELIEF , no evidence or facts, just belief and ignorance.
SHOULD scientists conquer the same peak it would be as a result of evidence and facts.
As ambertooth pointed out another VERY serious thing to consider is that, - SHOULD science conquer the peak, then it would cease to be a religion with its mystique and kudos, but would become a science, to be analysed and pulled apart like any other science.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The creation model requires a beginning to the universe as well as an outside agent to initiate its origin. Scientific and mathematical evidence give strong support that these predictions."
If by predictions you are implying that there is scientific and mathematical evidence that support both an "outside" (i.e another universe) and an "outside agent" then you are wrong on both counts. There is NO scientific OR mathematical evidence for either.
Secondly - Neither of these are PREDICTIONS, both are part of the fundamental basis for creationism, they are NOT predictions of creationism
"He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
As you raised the quote - it gives a fundamental insight to the difference between scientists and theologians
The ONLY reason theologians would be there would be due to their BELIEF , no evidence or facts, just belief and ignorance.
SHOULD scientists conquer the same peak it would be as a result of evidence and facts.
As ambertooth pointed out another VERY serious thing to consider is that, - SHOULD science conquer the peak, then it would cease to be a religion with its mystique and kudos, but would become a science, to be analysed and pulled apart like any other science.
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a quote from the CERN education website regarding the Big Bang theory..
www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html
"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.
The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
The Big Bang was like no explosion you might witness on earth today. For instance, a hydrogen bomb explosion, whose center registers approximately 100 million degrees Celsius, moves through the air at about 300 meters per second. In contrast, cosmologists believe the Big Bang flung energy in all directions at the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second, a hundred thousand times faster than the H-bomb) and estimate that the temperature of the entire universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius at just a tiny fraction of a second after the explosion. Even the cores of the hottest stars in today's universe are much cooler than that.
There's another important quality of the Big Bang that makes it unique. While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Rather, physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe. "
Notice that the Big Bang created AND stretched space itself according to CERN.
The singularity would not been seen in our universe since the singularity was the universe, so the Biblical statement about all things being made from that which is not seen is accurate.
Singularity is an essential feature of the physics described by Einstein's gravity. Many biblical scriptures speak of the beginning of our cosmos. Many scriptures speak of the stretching of our cosmos in prsent tense. Both mathematical calculations and physical evidence of the expansion of the universe continue to confirm the Big Bang model.
Also, I am well aware of cherry picking scriptures to suit a particular teaching. But the Bible agrees throughout about the concept of a beginning and the expanding of the cosmos.
Neal T, is this post expected to establish the Bible as a scientific authority? That it is somehow superior to science in predicting natural phenomena? It sounds like that is your point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI get it. You want us to see that the Christian Bible contains an accurate description of the creation of the universe. So a handful of quotes picked from various Biblical scriptures is somehow the scientific equivalent to the Big Bang Theory?
I don't think so. You are interpreting scripture which uses vague language and prosaic descriptions. You know, another example of this is the writings of Nostradamas. It doesn't take a lot of digging to find some historical event that happened since his death to match with one of his passages and claim he can see the future. Five hundred years of real history passed since he wrote. There's going to be some coincidences here and there. Enough of them make him look like a real psychic.
But he ain't.
This is useless. Got any evidence that there is an Intelligent Designer for life on Earth or not?
Faultline
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI previously listed several predictions of the creation model and anyone of which could be falsified.
Start with the first word of the Bible Bereishit ...in the beginning. Steady state model could have been shown to be viable. Consider that one word from the Bible blows the whole Steady State model away.
Wasn't it you that said the Bible can inform us?
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can present the creation model to show why it fits the evidence better than darwins common descent and give testable predictions of this model. Does your view of science even allow me to mention a creator? If so, then to what extent?
Do you acknowledge any weakness with the neo-darwinism theory? What specific evidence about common descent really made you a believer?
Honestly when I ask this question I usually get told that I am in some way ignorant and that everyone should know it.
What do you really know for sure about common descent, Faultline?
Can you answer this without disparaging me or my question? Can you answer this personally without telling me to go read a book? Sum it up briefly for me?
Neal T: "Consider that one word from the Bible blows the whole Steady State model away."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClinging to such preposterous claims only underscores the absurdities of your case. You're actually seriously claiming that one Hebrew word refuted Hoyle? Well, heavens to Betsy and I'll be cornswaggled. I had lunch yesterday with Bigfoot as well.
Neal T: "Wasn't it you that said the Bible can inform us?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was (and still is) me who asked (and keeps asking) you to provide a model with verifiable evidence for what mechanism you would put in the place of common descent. That makes the fifth time. I still have not had an answer.
Unless and until you produce such information with independently verifiable evidence, asking myself (or Faultline, or whoever) to provide 'specific evidence' FOR common descent is a hypocritical non-starter. The simple fact is that common descent (which these days is more likely to be referenced as a cladistic node, so your science is a little out-of-date) is accredited science. Whether you personally agree with the science or not is irrelevant. But if you disagree with it, then you are the one who must provide material in support of your maverick claims.
For the fifth time: please so so.
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am perfectly aware of the big bang , but thanks for the quote anyway.
But the biblical quote from psalms which you kindly provided refered to expansion of an already existing universe., not to the beginning of the universe.
Purpose of referring to psalms? - no idea
Also a singularity to which you also referred is a prediction of the theory of relativity, but is not fundamental to the theory.
A singularity also does not indicate the start/beginning/creation/whatever of the universe. but can exist in an already existing universe. In fact can ONLY exist IN an already existing universe, (otherwise there is no space/time in which gravity can act to create the singularity)
The Big bang refers to the CREATION of the universe + its immediate effects, not the long term expansion of it thereafter. The important thing here - it refers to the Creation - no mention of this in psalms 104.
(fyi The universe is still expanding)
The quote you also kindly provided is also very simplistic (perhaps for children). For example it says all matter was created at the first moment of time. This is wrong. All that existed at the first moment of time (and for some time afterwards) was energy, no matter. Matter did not start to condense until long after the big bang.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Does your view of science even allow me to mention a creator?"
Course you can
But if you want to make scientific claims regarding the existence/actions of a creator, then scientific evidence is required.
For example :-
What do you really know for sure about your creator?
Where did it exist (before the universe began)?
What evidence do you have that it actually existed, or continues to exist ?
How did it create whatever you claim it created.?
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I can present the creation model to show why it fits the evidence better than darwins common descent and give testable predictions of this mode"
As ambertooth has asked several times and now I ask
PLEASE DO - WE ARE ALL WAITING
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The singularity would not been seen in our universe since the singularity was the universe, so the Biblical statement about all things being made from that which is not seen is accurate"
Sorry the "point" mentioned in your quote from cern is not a singularity (as in Einstein's therory of relativity)
Secondly - "things being made from that which is not seen"
could equally be taken as referring to atoms (or perhaps not even atoms but things too small to see with the naked eye (microscopes not invented until much later than bible written), - nothing to do with creation.
Just your imagination at work?
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene (page 274) tells some of the history of Einsteins work with general relativity and how the equations of general relativity showed that the universe could not be static... this pointed to a universe that had a beginning. Einstein stubbornly balked at the consequence of general relativity because he and everyone else "knew" that the universe was eternal. This caused him to introduce the term "cosmological constant" to his general relativity equations. Had Einstein allowed his original equations of general relativity he would have predicted the expansion of the universe a decade before Hubble discovered it observationally, but still 3,500 years after Genesis 1:1 was penned.
This is useless. We're asking for evidence and Neal T claims he is giving it. I honestly believe that Neal T is under the impression that he is giving evidence that God created the universe by showing us which verses in the Bible contain phrases that can be interpreted or construed as having something to do with scientific creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "God created the universe. That is my theoretical model"
Us: "That's no model. Where's the evidence to support it."
Neal T: "It says that it happened right here in these Bible verses..."
Please understand that using the Bible as evidence for any scientific theory is a logical fallacy called Argument from authority or appeal to authority. You argue that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
Like I said, there are a lot of words in the Bible and a lot of time has passed since it was written. It only takes a little digging to find a scripture that can be interpreted to sound like a description of a current or historical event. Much like Nostradamas and his so-called predictions of the Kennedy assassination and the rise of Napoleon and so on.
Refresh my memory. This has all gotten muddled and confusing when you started quoting Bible passages as scientific evidence.
What is the specific claim you are making with regard to Cosmology and Biological Evolution? I know you are saying that God did it all, so if it is that simple just say so. Keep in mind that Cosmology and Biological Evolution are two different disciplines.
Secondly, what evidence can you provide other than "it says so in the Bible" that your claim is true?
Thirdly, you said that your claims are testable and falsifiable. Clearly state what qualities would falsify your claims.
Overview:
1. Specifically name your claims.
2. Give supporting evidence (some other source than scripture)
3. How, specifically, is it testable or falsifiable?
Apart from these items, I think we've reached the bottom of the argument.
Faultline
Faultline: "This is useless. We're asking for evidence and Neal T claims he is giving it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a classic creationist ploy used to give the impression that evidence has been presented when in fact it has not.
My own two points directed to Neal T are, and remain:
1] The Bible's authority is limited to a scriptural context. It cannot be used either to support or to refute ANY scientific argument. So all that 'in the beginning' business is irrelevant. As, in fact, is the whole edifice of creationism, and for the same reason.
2] If you reject common descent, Neal T, which you already have made clear, then you should propose what mechanism you would replace it with, and cite independently verifiable evidence for your ideas. Otherwise, you have neither moral nor scientific grounds for your objection. In science, just plain old disagreeing with something won't float your boat.
As you have commented since I previously asked you, for the sixth time now: either present your alternative ideas with evidence for common descent, or stow your griping about it.
You still on with Einstein?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly
you say"because he and everyone else "knew" that the universe was eternal"
This statement is rubbish -You are equivocating eternal = not changing = steady state
These are not the same.
Einstein added the constant because he believed the universe to be in a steady state, not that it was eternal. Whether or not it was eternal was irrelevent to his theory. (and still is)
He removed the constant when it was indicated that the universe was expanding. Again it is irrelevent whether or not the universe is eternal.
Should all matter contract to a small point then it would do so in an existing universe. Get that - the universe (that is - space) would still exist.
But genesis 1.1 says that NOTHING existed (including the universe) before it was created. Doesn't quite square with Einstein's theory does it?
Genesis 1 also says universe created + man+ everything else
Leaving aside the 6 days
ALL scientific evidence says this is rubbish (including the 6 days), but you still persist gen 1.1 scientifically accurate.
- No mention of the rest of genesis (or the 6 days).
No mention of the who? or how it was done? - BIG scientific blunder.
Unless you can supply some evidence then all you are saying is just b..s
You are also picking and choosing what is correct/not correct.
ON WHAT BASIS do you base your assertions?
minor point - gen 1.1 was penned much later than 3500 years ago.
Lastly
What has all you are saying got to do with the subject of the article (15 answers remember?)?
Sorry - my post was addressed to neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt just dawned on me what Neal T is trying to say. I was sitting here drinking a Mug root beer when lightning struck and his position is all very clear to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"God created the universe. It is proven with science. Science says X happened, the Bible said it first, so therefore the Bible is right and this proves God created the universe, and therefore science is wrong because God created the universe."
It is why he keeps bringing up the quote about theologians sitting on top of the mountain that scientists have struggled to climb.
The Biblical description of an expanding universe has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory. The Biblical account is a descriptive story, not a scientific one. The Big Bang is a mathematical Theory, and is a scientific one.
Done. If nothing new comes from Neal T or anyone else, I'm through. Washed hands. Over.
Faultline
Faultline: "It is why he (Neal T) keeps bringing up the quote about theologians sitting on top of the mountain that scientists have struggled to climb."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd put it this way, and maybe, just maybe, it might help to bring some clarity (and sanity) to the situation:
To Neal T: What you just don't get is that there are two different mountains here. There is the mountain of religious faith (where the theologians are), and there is another mountain of scientific method which all scientists climb. I can establish this quite easily:
Were the Bible on the same mountain as science, then it would contain specific exponential information that would make it permissible as science. But just saying things like 'In the beginning' and 'there was light' does not exactly cut it either as scientific or as mathmatical rationale. Specifics are totally lacking. If the same standards applied to science, then Einstein could just have said "Time is relative. Take my word for it." and left it at that. But the standards of science demand more. In the Bible, there is no quod erat demonstrandum, otherwise we would regard Euclid as a prophet, not as a mathmatician.
The other side of the coin (and I've worked enough years with scientists to speak from personal experience, which perhaps you do not) is what happens when scientists get together. They could be (and are) all shades of personal belief and non-belief, but in discussion their lingua franca is the language of science. It could not be religious belief, because if three guys who were scientists were discussing a point of science, then were a Sikh to base his findings on his religious convictions, his findings would immediately be questioned by the Christian, and both of their findings would be dismissed by the atheist. So religious beliefs are not, and CANNOT, be part of the permissible language of science, which has its own standards.
A personal observation about your metaphor: I do not accept that ANY theologians sit on top that mountain. True religious conviction demands in its own way just as much toil and sweat and overcoming of difficulties of crises of faith and self-doubt as science does with its own issues on its own mountain. All struggle, and all are climbing. No-one is smugly sitting on top either of the mountain of faith or of the mountain of science.
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said concerning what you think I meant: "Science says X happened, the Bible said it first, so therefore the Bible is right and this proves God created the universe, and therefore science is wrong because God created the universe."
I’m not sure what you meant by “therefore science is wrong”. Do you mean science in general? Steady State model? Darwinism? I began with the first word of Genesis as a starting point to show that contrary to what the “Bible is a Myth” crowd says, the Bible is accurate from the start. Do you folks realize the revolution in cosmology that took place with Big Bang theory? Yet, ONE WORD from the Bible, the first word in Genesis 1, summed it up beautifully. Even more, I began with it as the basis for starting point of the creation model to lead into the physics of our precisely tuned universe that allows for human life to exist.
Let me be clear. I am opposed to an atheistic worldview masquerading as a science while its proponents stubbornly refuse to see the observational and mathematical evidence against it.
My personal opinion is that the Bible can sometimes inform scientists, and science can work out the details and the two do not need to be alienated from each other. An example (there are others) of this would be Matthew Maury. Maury was the author of the first textbook on modern oceanography and one of the founders of oceanography, who found his inspiration for mapping the “paths of the sea” (ocean currents) from the Bible (Psalms 8:8, etc). He did more than just say, “The Bible says there are ’paths of the sea’ ”, he took the concept of sea currents and charted them based on scientific observation and data. That’s my concept of how the Bible can inform scientists. How might the Bible have helped Einstein? It could have given him some confidence to trust his general relativity equations that pointed to an expanding universe and a definite beginning. The Bible is not a scientific treatise, but what it says is accurate and can guide modern man.
NATURALISM:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieving that science should be explained in only naturalistic causes is merely a philosophy that is based on certain assumptions. To accept the philosophy of naturalism one must believe that:
a. Nothing produces everything,
b. Non-life produces life,
c. Randomness produces fine-tuning, and
d. Unconsciousness produces consciousness, and
e. Non-reason produces reason. Naturalism requires faith. Darwin’s Common Descent is not neutral towards religion because it marched a full scale assault on the origin of man based on the philosophy of naturalism.
The creation model makes certain predictions that can either be supported or falsified by science.
Naturalism requires faith. Belief in God requires faith, however, while this creation model does not prove God’s existence, it makes predictions regarding the physical evidence that can be tested by the scientific method. In this way, it is a better model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenesis 1:2 shifts the frame of reference to the surface of Earth. That verse describes the initial conditions of primordial Earth: its surface was dark, water world, empty of life, and unfit for life. With the frame of reference and the initial conditions for creation established, a high level chronology only for the creation events unfolds in Genesis 1. Genesis is not to be taken as an exhaustive account of the origin of all forms of life, but a simple account given in narrative style of the some of the major life that man would be familiar with (for example, anthropoids, amphibians, water plants, etc do not appear to be mentioned). Its main theme is that God is the author of creation and not the created (i.e. he is not the sun, moon, crystal, quantum particle, big bird, etc). This list is not to be taken as everything the Bible says about creation, such as the differentiation of the early earth, etc. Also, creation “days” are long periods of time.
1. Creation, by God, of the entire physical universe (space-time dimensions, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Planet Earth singled out for a sequence of creation miracles. At its beginning, Earth is empty of life and unfit for life; interplanetary debris and Earth's primordial atmosphere prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the planet's surface
3. Clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth's atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth's ocean
4. Formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle
5. Formation of continental land masses and ocean basins
6. Production of plants on the continental land masses
7. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to occasionally transparent. Sun, Moon, planets, and stars now can be seen from the vantage point of Earth's surface
8. Production of swarms of small sea animals.
9. Creation of sea mammals and birds
10. Creation of three specialized kinds of land mammals: short-legged land mammals, long-legged land mammals that are easy to tame, and long-legged land mammals that are difficult to tame—all three specifically designed to cohabit with humans
11. Creation of the human species
Now, here are the specific areas that the scientific method can be used to test the creation model. Testing is not done with scripture, but is open to scientific data and inquiry. The beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists some of the numerous successful predictions made the creation model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistranscendent creation event
cosmic precision-tuning
rapidity of life's origin
lack of inorganic kerogen
extreme biomolecular complexity
Cambrian explosion - no ancestors
missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
frequency and extent of mass extinctions
recovery from mass extinctions
duration of time windows for different species
frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
speciation and extinction rates
recent origin of humanity
huge biodeposits and variety of resources
molecular clock rates
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU ARE EVADING YET AGAIN
PROVIDE EVIDENCE IF YOU PLEASE
You AGAIN refer to gen 1.1
EVIDENCE OF A CREATOR AND HOW IT WAS DONE OTHERWISE IT IS JUST B/S
Secondly
As regards your latest efforts
Sorry the creation model did/does not predict any of the things listed
Some are pre-suppositions/assumptions made by you which are baseless or incorrect, some do not exist
Thirdly
PREDICTIONS DO NOT A MODEL MAKE, EVIDENCE DOES
I myself have made 2 predictions of future scientific discoveries on SCIAM sites.
I have no idea how or where they will be found but I have no doubt that they will be fullfilled sometime in the future.
Fourthly
"How might the Bible have helped Einstein? It could have given him some confidence to trust his general relativity equations that pointed to an expanding universe and a definite beginning"
Onwards you go blithly ignoring every contrary fact
The changes in general relativity were due to the expansion of matter in the universe, i.e stars etc moving away from each other, NOT the expansion of space itself
Therefore General relativity indicates a t=0 IN AN ALREADY EXISTING SPACE, (but in fact general relativity breaks down at t=0)
gen 1.1 indicates a t=0 of NO SPACE/NO UNIVERSE/NO MATTER/NOTHING.
So if you believe relativity predicts the start of the universe then you cannot believe gen 1.1 as the start of the universe, as they contradict each other
NOW MAKE UP YOUR MIND - DO YOU BELIEVE EINSTEIN RIGHT OR GEN 1.1, - THEY CANT BOTH PREDICT THE START OF THE UNIVERSE AS THEY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER?
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you spent as much time writing up your model and submitting it for review as you do writing on this site , maybe you would further your cause.
As it is you are getting nowhere UNLESS YOU PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE.
I EMPHASISE THE "YOU"
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you spent as much time writing up your model and submitting it for review as you do writing on this site , maybe you would further your cause.
As it is your cause is going nowhere UNLESS YOU PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE.
I EMPHASISE THE "YOU"
Neal T: "Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike I said, I had lunch with Bigfoot yesterday as well (I shudder to ask why chaos theory became a part of your statement). Just making statements means nothing. Neal T, Laughing gravy is right (and to emphasise what I have already said): Unless you actually can produce independently verifiable evidence for what you are saying, then you're just wasting your own time. I hardly ever do this, but for once I'm going to hit the caps lock and say:
THE BIBLE CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE (no, not even as corroborative evidence).
Do you understand this? Anything which you say that cites the Bible to support your case is wasted. A lost cause. A non-starter. Whether you believe that the Bible really does predict what you claim (and I'm sure you do) has no meaning in science.
Having posted my comment about the two mountains (which I am going to assume that you have read) who would blame me for now thinking that you frankly must be a little thick for not getting this point. So you producing a six-point plan to 'refute' naturalism (as you see it) has neither meaning nor purpose, anymore than you producing an eleven-point plan to support what you imagine Genesis claims. Your last three comments are wasted time and effort, Neal T.
To say it yet again: whether you, Neal T, personally accept what you call 'naturalism' or not is of no consequence, because it is already part of the body of accredited science. So trying to discredit or disprove it means nothing. You have to cite NON-BIBLICAL, independent evidence for your case, not just ideas or interpretations, as you have done up till now.
For the seventh time: please do so.
Neal T: "This summary lists some of the numerous successful predictions made the creation model." etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo it doesn't. As "successful predictions" of your creation model (which is not actually a model at all, but an assemblage of conjectural ideas) these sixteen items have as much scientific worth as a laundry list. What, for example, is a "transcendent creation event", or "cosmic precision tuning"? Explain these terms within a scientific context (and please, please, don't say something like "It's so perfect, God must have done it", or somesuch).
As to the rest of the items on your list, from what I can see, most of them already are explained by science. So you cannot claim "frequency and extent of mass extinctions" and "recovery from mass extinctions" for your case, because there causes and effects have already been accounted for by science.
But you unintentionally raise another issue:
Were it not for the findings of the science to which you object, you and your hypocritical creationist pals, whether they be young, old, or getting-on-for-middle-age earth creationists, would not even know about such things as mass extinction events, the Cambrian explosion, speciation and extinction rates, and other knowledge uncovered by science in the first place.
Neal T, your are a hypocrite. If you don't accept the science, then you have no moral right making use of the discoveries of science to pad out your fallacious argument.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally, I prefer to keep the Bible out of scientific discussions, but I am willing to make an exception for this discussion. You have continually referred to Genesis during this discussion, so I will refer refer to it as well. Verses 3-5 of King James version state "3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." This pretty much defines a single 24 hour period as a day unless the Earth had a slower rotation. I only bring this up because your continued reference to the Bible as the basis for your arguments yet you state that you believe that in an old earth. For there to be an old earth you have to ignore/modify the word of the Bible how you choose to fit your theory. There are several other cases in Genesis that are in direct contradiction with current scientific evidence and theories. If you would care to go line by line let me know and we will in personal correspondence.
NealT,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally, I prefer to keep the Bible out of scientific discussions, but I am willing to make an exception for this discussion. You have continually referred to Genesis during this discussion, so I will refer refer to it as well. Verses 3-5 of King James version state "3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." This pretty much defines a single 24 hour period as a day unless the Earth had a slower rotation. I only bring this up because your continued reference to the Bible as the basis for your arguments yet you state that you believe that in an old earth. For there to be an old earth you have to ignore/modify the word of the Bible how you choose to fit your theory. There are several other cases in Genesis that are in direct contradiction with current scientific evidence and theories. If you would care to go line by line let me know and we will in personal correspondence.
dvashun, I explained the different meanings of the word "day" (hebrew - yom) in a previous post. Please review that and if you would like more detail I would be happy to provide it. I would really enjoy going line by line with you because I don't believe that the Bible is inaccurate, but our interpretation of it can be inaccurate sometimes. But, I want to get to specific evidence for the creation model first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I said on a previous post, I can not prove the existence of God, at least to everyone's statisfaction. Knowing human nature, not everyone would believe even if He came through the sky on a chariot of fire. Some people don't want to believe in God because they do not want to be accountable for their actions. Most people, however, have concluded that there is a God.
While faith is necessary, faith in God does not have to be irrational. If we want to explain a phenomenon or event (origins, etc) we should consider a whole range of hpotheses and infer to the one which, if true, would provide the best explanation. In other words, we do exhaustive analysis of the possible explanations and keep adding information until only one explanation is left that can explain the whole range of data.
Correct interpretation of the Bible and correct interpretation of scientific data are not in conflict. So let's move on to the evidence.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "Were it not for the findings of the science to which you object, you and your hypocritical creationist pals, ... would not even know about such things as mass extinction events, the Cambrian explosion, speciation and extinction rates, and other knowledge uncovered by science in the first place."
You are pitting creationists against science, but this is a straw man argument. Many of the founders of the various branches of science were creationists (list upon request). The scientists that discovered some of the things you refer to were creationists. There were old earth creationists before Darwin. Some such as the theologian Augustine (400 AD) did not teach that the creation days were 24 hours, so the idea that old earth creationists came after modern science is a myth.
Darwinists often try to muffle opposition with bluster and calling people hypocrites, etc, but it's only because their case is weak.
It would certainly be refreshing and helpful if we could politely agree to not call names in this discussion.
Let's look at the evidence and see which model is better.
Neal T: "Let's look at the evidence and see which model is better."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I guess if you ever got around actually to providing an acceptable scientific model, then maybe we could. And I did not call you or anyone 'names'. I used the term 'hypocrite' to describe you. I stand by that description. You are happy to take what you want to from science, and push other bits that you don't fancy to the side of your plate the way a picky child does.
I have told you before: with science, you're all out or all in. If you fully accept science, then you cannot say picky-child stuff like 'I go along with some parts of evolutionary theory, but not with common descent'. That, Neal T, is what I'm talking about.
Even now, you still have not presented you own evidence for what you would replace this particular evolutionary mechanism with, and instead disguise your lack of evidence, ideas, and whatever, by accusing others of 'bluster', which is in itself mere bluster. That also is hypocricy.
So if you don't want others to think that your actions are hypocritical, and if you don't want others to think that it's actually you who is doing the blustering....
For the EIGHTH time: please submit your independently verifiable evidence and ideas for what you would put in the place of common descent.
"Some people don't want to believe in God because they do not want to be accountable for their actions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment is objectionable, insulting, and as lame as a one-legged centipede. It puts you in a long, long line of bigoted creationists that I have come across who seem to imagine that atheists live a hedonistic, all-brakes-off lifestyle. I could just as easily say "some people need the Bible because they fear taking responsibility for their own actions and moral values, and instead would rather be given a commandments-to-go set of rules that they are supposed to follow, although few, if any, manage to".
In your comment to me you accused me of trying to turn this into a 'creationists against science' argument (which accusation, incidentally, I am happy to confirm, because creationism practices sound scientific methodology in the same way that a seal practices Flemish lacemaking). Your statement above came from your comment to dvashun. If you had any reason whatever for making such a bigoted remark, then it could only have been to attempt to turn your own argument into a 'creationists against atheists' one.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo way. No how. Your definition of what name calling is almost as bizarre as your insistence on keeping Common Descent away from scrutiny. Since when does has a theory become an all or nothing dogma? Natural selection was pre-Darwin.
Let me be clear. The problem people have with evolution is not the size of bird beaks and tomatoes, but extrapolating the data based on a philosophy. IT'S ALL ABOUT COMMON DESCENT.
Common Descent has forced an intersection with religion. Gould's NOMA philosophy of keeping religion and science separate is not workable at this point unless one is willing to compromise either science or religion. The Bible does more than make ethical statements and comfort people, it touches reality, creation, and the natural world, and eternity.
Are you really up to discussing the evidence?
CREATION MODEL VS COMMON DESCENT
I'll start with fully testable data to determine which one explains the data better. Let's cut to the chase on this one.
Biological complexity occurs rapidly in the fossil record of the earliest levels of the Cambrian Explosion. Rapid appearance of biological complexity and diversity is best explained by a creation event not common descent.
I'm fully aware of the counter arguments by Darwinists on this one. Handwaving and generalizations are not sufficient support. Based on the fossil record show the ancestral line for each of the new life forms that have been discovered in the Cambrian fossils.
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Are you really up to discussing the evidence? CREATION MODEL VS COMMON DESCENT "
No - it isnt creation model vs common descent
Its creation model vs big bang + relativity+cosmology then evolution
So lets not start at the end, lets start at the beginning.
Provide YOUR evidence of creation then we'll discuss it
p.s.
"Natural selection was pre-Darwin".
No it wasn't
Evolution was, but evolution by natural selection wasn't
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a question at present
"Biological complexity occurs rapidly in the fossil record of the earliest levels of the Cambrian Explosion. Rapid appearance of biological complexity and diversity is best explained by a creation event not common descent"
Is this is your idea of evidence?
Neal T: "Common Descent has forced an intersection with religion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, put out the flags. It has only taken you three and a half weeks of commenting to come out with what for you is the core issue, so I guess that's progress of a sort. Now you actually have said it. You do not, and never did, object to anything in evolutionary theory on scientific grounds. You do not have, nor did you ever have, any sound argument based in science for what you claim.
No, Neal T, the reason that you so kick and scream, the reason that you comment here at all, is because, as you perceive it, your precious religious beliefs are undermined by the findings of science. You disagree? Supposing you were an atheist, or a Buddhist, or Jewish, or (now here's a thought) a moderate Christian (because the vast majority of Christians do accept the science, and it is only lunatic fringe minority groups such as your own which baulk at the scientific conclusions).
No, Neal T, we are not going to 'discuss the evidence' for 'creation model vs common descent'. For one thing, to discuss what you propose would dignify creationism with a spurious legitimacy which in reality it is totally lacking (that is, unless in your next comment you can supply the details of half a dozen or so science papers in the accredited published literature which expound an accepted peer reviewed model for what creationism proposes). For another, there is no 'creation model' to discuss (unless you can cite those papers). And for another, if you think that I spend what time I do on this website to 'debate', then you're on the wrong site, and you're speaking to the wrong person. On open forum sites I debate (or used to, because I don't spend much time doing so nowadays). On SciAm I both comment generally on the articles on matters of science and perhaps correct the sort of spurious pseudoscientific idiocies and misinformation that pass for so-called 'science' in the wacky world of creationism.
I can tell that you're all bushy-tailed and ready to spring out of the starting gate, with your 'show the ancestral line for each of the new life forms' and your clichéd 'let's cut to the chase', and all the rest of it. But you know what, Neal T? Even were I to do so, you'd just come with some sort of 'evidence' that you consider supports your case, then I'd point out the flaws in what you present, and then you'd undoubtedly point out the flaws as you saw them in what I present, then you'd say stuff about 'interpretation of evidence' or somesuch, to which I'd reply something-or-other. No, that route is almost depressingly predictable, and not worth my time, because nothing that you could say would convince me, and nothing that I would say would convince you, and, as I have made clear, I'm not here to debate just for the sake of debating.
Also, I come right back to saying what I did to you at the beginning (and several times since): my standpoint is that of accredited science. I feel no obligation whatever to 'prove' anything (and as my view is that of accredited science, you are not reliant upon myself for the information, but can access it yourself from any number of resources). You, however, hold non-conventional minority maverick views, so it's up to you to come up with the goods. That's the way it works.
Now, if you want to convince me that there really is such a thing as a 'creation model', then cite those papers for others to check. Because I have consistently made it clear that any evidence which you present has to be independently verifiable. If you want to consider that what you believe has some sort of scientific legitimacy, then you must expect to play by the rules of science, and that means a whole lot more than just making unsupported statements. So: cite those papers. Authors, Titles. Dates of publication. Publishing journals.
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet ME be clear
I am not interested in "The problem people have with evolution " and discussing that
As ambertooth has said the evidence FOR evolution (big bang, + cosmology+evolution by natural selection) is freely available
I am interested in the EVIDENCE for YOUR creation model
WHEN you provide such THEN I will discuss YOUR evidence
It is YOU who wishes to present an alternative to the accepted theories on evolution
Until such time as YOU present evidence FOR your "creation model " then ALL you say is just b/s
Neal T: "No way. No how."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery way. Anyhow. I described you as hypocritical because you apparently see no contradiction in freely making use of the very science to which you take exception because it offends your religious sensibilities. Being a typical creationist, you seem to think that you have free rein to offend both the science and the beliefs or non-beliefs of others with impunity, but as soon as you get some dished back, you cry 'foul'.
You don't like being called a hypocrite for the above reasons? Then either suck it up, or go elsewhere, or lodge a complaint with the Scientific American site moderators.
Laughing gravy, Ambertooth, etc--
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments here are typical Darwinist rhetoric when they are backed into a corner by the evidence. This is one of the reasons why I no longer believe in common descent.
Darwin himself thought in unconventional ways, as he states, "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." (Burkhardt, Frederick and Smith, Sydney, eds., 1989. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6:412).
You are treating Darwinism like dogma. It is only open to inquiry if you do not question the fact that it happened. Is this really just science for you anymore? Or is it your worldview?
What are you going to suggest next, that Darwin invented the internet?
You requested evidence and now you refuse to engage in discussing it! Darwin's prediction for Common Descent was the Tree of Life and being able to show ancestry.
Why are the so called "missing links" evidence for Darwinists, but the Cambrian Explosion where ancestry is missing is not evidence for creationism? If finding a buffalo or something like it in the Cambrian fossils is about the only thing that could counter your idea of Common Descent, then you have a theory that predicts very little.
The bottom line is that no one can provide an ancestry tree to the Cambrian fossils and that is why you fall back to rhetoric. Where's your real science now?
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvation, constant evation
"You requested evidence and now you refuse to engage in discussing it"
Yes we requested evidence - You still haven't produced any.
What do you want us to discuss , the weather where we live?
(Personally I could not care less whether you believe in constant descent or not)
What I want is for YOU to present evidence of this mythical creation model.
You persistantly evade, and keep referring back to Darwin.
Why ?
WE know Darwins theory and the evidence for it.
What WE want is YOUR evidence for a creations model
BUT TO date you have produced NO EVIDENCE to support the mythical model.
Thats what we are waiting for.
How can we discuss that which does not exist.?
You earlier posted
"Rapid appearance of biological complexity and diversity is best explained by a creation event not common descent"
I asked if you regarded this as evidence.
As yet no answer.
Well I have news for you, as a statement this is fine, but is not evidence.
You say "it is best explained by a creation event"
Fine - Then go ahead - explain the "creation event", WHO created it, and HOW and WHEN it took place,. Of course your explanation MUST be supported by evidence, thats what we're here to discuss.
Until you do all you have is a statement ,no evidence, nothing to discuss.
When we have such evidence THEN we can discuss it against any other evidence + Darwin's theory
neel t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why are the so called "missing links" evidence for Darwinists, but the Cambrian Explosion where ancestry is missing is not evidence for creationism"
The "missing links" are NOT evidence for Darwin. In fact they are largely irrelevent to darwin
IF creationists which to use the explosion as evidence then they must explain the mechanism as to HOW it took place , with evidence of course.
The explosion itself is just data.
Nealt t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'll start with fully testable data to determine which one explains the data better. Let's cut to the chase on this one.
Biological complexity occurs rapidly in the fossil record of the earliest levels of the Cambrian Explosion. Rapid appearance of biological complexity and diversity is best explained by a creation event not common descent. "
I'm fully aware of the counter arguments by Darwinists on this one. Handwaving and generalizations are not sufficient support. Based on the fossil record show the ancestral line for each of the new life forms that have been discovered in the Cambrian fossils."
Neal you aint half a hypocrite
YOU have been asked many many times for evidence to support your creation model
You total response to date - 1 statement consisting 1 sentence, no evidence, nothing
Now you ask US to "show the ancestral line for each of the new life forms that have been discovered in the Cambrian fossils"
You started by saying "Let's cut to the chase on this one."
What a bull/s/er and hypocrite you really are.
First, those are not the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. The theory of evolution is the best argument against it. Charles Darwin had not idea how complex the cell was, but today we realize that chance could not account for the cells complexity. If you are so scared of the creationist, then why don't the scientific community have an intelligent debate with them. You should let the people decide who has the better argument. Your theory doesn't have a leg to stand on and that i why more and more scientists are rejecting it. The evolutionist today are scared that people would find out what the theory really is about which isn't science. You should watch Ben Stine's documentary called, "No Intelligence Allowed" if you want to know the truth behind the theory of evolution and how evolutionist are scared of creationist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Why are the so called "missing links" evidence for Darwinists, but the Cambrian Explosion where ancestry is missing is not evidence for creationism?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe straightforward, readily-understandable (yes, maybe even for you, Neal T) answer is that lacunae in evidence for something do not by default amount to evidence for something else (as has previously been explained to you here by various commenters, but being a typical creationist, you apparently have to have things serially explained to you before they finally sink in). That you do not grasp this reason for yourself shows what a lamentable state your own understanding of the methodology of science is in.
As to the rest of your comment, I'm going to assume that your muddled meanderings are just another way of saying that you are unable to corroborate your unfounded statements with accredited sources. At this stage of your sojourn on this comments thread, I no longer seriously expected you to produce any anyway, nor do I expect you to in the foreseeable future. Surprise me.
Neal T, remember that I said in my previous posting of today that I'd give you until your next comment to cite accredited sources for others to independently check? You have not done so. So you just waving your fingers over your keyboard and saying things like "Darwin's prediction for Common Descent was the Tree of Life and being able to show ancestry" doesn't mean squat. Cite your published accredited sources.
So start with Laughing gravy's suggestion (because it is a worthwhile one) and expound upon your claimed 'creation event'. What evidence (independently verifiable, and non-Biblical) do you have for this 'creation event'? How did it occur? At least if you could run through how you envisage the process taking place, then it might be a start. But until you actually provide something beyond unsubstantiated statements and personal opinions, there's nothing to discuss.
And don't forget to provide those published accredited sources, otherwise what you say is in the same category as a Bigfoot sighting.
So off you go, Neal T. This is your moment to shine. The floor is yours. An exponential abstract, with citations, of the 'creation event', if you please.
grego5, first go away and learn something about what you are opposing. Just blurting out unsupported statements such as "Your theory doesn't have a leg to stand on and that is why more and more scientists are rejecting it" doesn't mean a thing. You have to provide your own evidence, with accredited sources, not for what you are AGAINST, but what you are FOR, because just attacking a theory in science accomplishes nothing. It might help you if you begin by actually reading the article with fifteen answers which is the subject of this comments thread. That "more and more scientists are rejecting it" is unfounded nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgrego5, maybe you could enlighten us all about your own professional experience in the sciences, and the kind of contact that you have with career scientists on a daily basis in your work, that might give you substantial grounds to reach the conclusion which you do that "more and more scientists are rejecting it". I presume that you do actually have such hands-on experience on which to base your conclusion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lie repeated often enough will come dangerously close to becoming perceived as true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgrego5: "...more and more scientists are rejecting [Evolution]."
Who are these scientists, where are they, what papers have they published to proclaim their disbelief in Evolution? This is a lie repeatedly cast into the boundless internet rumor mill that just isn't true. Scientists present their ideas in journals. How many journals have been published by accredited sources that actually say Evolution is false? How many does it take to equal "more and more?"
Go on, grego5, find them. Names, dates, publications, journals. If more and more scientists are rejecting Evolution, you should have no trouble finding them.
Faultline
Face it guys, Neal T thinks he is presenting evidence when he says that the Cambrian explosion is best explained by a Creation event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let me clarify why you are wrong, Neal T. I've faced this situation many times before and the same flawed logic comes from all Creationists.
Your argument is that Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion, so therefore it must have caused by God. Therefore Evolution is false and Creationism is true.
How ridiculous. You are not allowed to force an "either/or" choice onto the situation. No arguing against Evolution and its evidence and research amounts to any positive evidence for Creation. In order to show that God created living things in their forms you'll have to provide a model and some evidence.
By the way, since you are claiming it as evidence, could we extend him a hypothesis and let him claim that all living things found in the Cambrian Explosion were an act of supernatural creation? Just for a couple of posts, could we suspend our disbelief just for arguments sake? Let's temporarily allow that Cambrian lifeforms all sprang into being all at once with no previous forms of life to have evolved from.
Then we can explore his hypothesis and falsify it if possible.
Faultline
grego5: "You should watch Ben Stine's (sic) documentary called, "No Intelligence Allowed" if you want to know the truth behind the theory of evolution.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, grego5, let's see what Ben Stein's Wiki entry says: Ben Stein "is an American actor, writer, game show host, documentary filmmaker, conservative political and economic commentator, and attorney. He gained early success as a speechwriter for American presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford."
You know, grego5, I might be missing something here, but I didn't notice any scientific or academic qualifications in there. The last time I checked, being an actor and a game show host does not exactly qualify anyone to pontificate on issues of science, unless you live in a world where garage mechanics are allowed to conduct open-heart surgery, where janitors are allowed to practice law, or where game show hosts get to make pronouncements about science. Well, maybe you do. I guess if you want to believe what a game show host tells you about science, then that is your good right. And if you want to buy the Golden Gate Bridge, there's this guy I can put you in touch with...
grego5
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have little more to add than has already been said except 3 things
1) Read answer 4 in the 15 answers of the article
2) You wrote -
"If you are so scared of the creationist, then why don't the scientific community have an intelligent debate with them. You should let the people decide who has the better argument. "
Science is not a democracy. There isn't a debate or vote to decide the best theory
The best theory is decided by the best scientific evidence.
At present creationism/id has no scientific evidence to support it (do you get that bit,? it is VERY important) - therefore is not even a theory.
By all means believe creationism/id but it sure aint scientific. And no amount of debate will make it so.
3) "but today we realize that chance could not account for the cells complexity"
I dont know where you got this from but wherever it was is lying to you.
Hi faultline
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Just for a couple of posts, could we suspend our disbelief just for arguments sake? Let's temporarily allow that Cambrian lifeforms all sprang into being all at once with no previous forms of life to have evolved from. Then we can explore his hypothesis and falsify it if possible"
I have no problem with the starting point of the cambrian explosion. i.e a massive increase in the number of species..
This is demonstrable fact.
But neal t's hypothesis IS that that these "sprang into being all at once" i.e. was a creation event.
I dont see how you can falsify this unless HE provides evidence of the WHO, and HOW of the creation event.
Without this evidence you could only try to prove it DIDN't happen via a creation event with reference back to Darwin.
This removes the onus on neal t to provide evidence FOR a creation event.
This has been REPEATEDLY asked for, and I believe is exactly what he is trying to wriggle out of.
I see! His assumption IS his evidence, so therefore it is a circular argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'"The Cambrian Explosion is evidence of a Creation event. It appears to be a Creation event, so therefore I conclude it is one.'"
"Clearly you have a dizzying intellect."
--- The Man in Black
(JOKE) Of course. Gravy, you sprang the trap before Neal could walk into it!
The truth is that you can't claim that your hypothesis is evidence for its self. A hypothesis is an assumption, and you collect data to test that assumption. You MUST have something better than "It looks like Creation at work, so therefore it cannot be anything else, so therefore it is Creation at work."
Faultline
Sorry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStupid mistake, wont do it again
Laughing gravy, faultline, etc,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour ability to reason is being held hostage by a bizarre twist of scientific methodology. Evolutionists themselves say that HOW evolution occurs is still being studied and new mechanisms are being looked at all the time.
Scientist formulated the principles of gravity before anyone knew exactly HOW.
Scientists may know something about how the human brain functions, but HOW does the MIND work exactly? HOW is human conciousness awakened? HOW do I know that you have a MIND if you haven't offered sufficient proof?
Neal T: "Your ability to reason is being held hostage by a bizarre twist of scientific methodology." Blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLong story short, Neal T: you cannot establish your claims. No evidence. No proof. No citation of sources. Zero. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. Where is your independently verifiable non-Biblical evidence??? Where is your independently verifiable 'creation model'??? Could it be *feigned shock, horror* that you actually DON'T HAVE ONE????
I guess so.
If you want to gain the respectability of science, Neal T, then you have to play by the same rules as science. Because the over-generous quantities of hot air which you have huffed and puffed over this comments thread during almost four weeks have so far achieved exactly nothing. Poor creationist. What a waste of your time and effort.
Try again: supply a descriptive exponential abstract of your 'creation model', including independently verifiable evidence and sources. I'm sure that you wouldn't want others to think that you're just bluffing, now would you?
Would you?
Laughing gravy, faultline, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me help you understand how the theory of evolution that you support was formulated by Charles Darwin, because you are confused about scientific methodology and specifically scientific inference.
(From Ernst Mayr 1977 after Julian Huxley 1942)
"FIVE FACTS & THREE INFERENCES
DARWIN'S EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENT 1859
Fact 1:Potential exponential population increase
Fact 2: But populations in steady-state
Fact 3: Resources limited, esp. food, space, mates
Inference 1: Struggle for existence among individuals of the population
Fact 4: Uniqueness of individuals within population
Fact 5: Most parental variation inherited in offspring
Inference 2: Differential survival and reproduction = NATURAL SELECTION
Inference 3: Continued over many generations = DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION (i.e., evolution)"
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are back again to Darwin
WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
YOU want to discuss it WHERE IS IT?
As previously said - blah,blah blah
You are just full of hot air - a windbag
Have the "million monkey's" in the above Scientific American article "15 Answers... #8" been turned loose on keyboards to reply to my comments and given the predefined goal of sending back canned rhetoric?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould their keystrokes produce a reply without being guided by an outside intelligence to accept the keystrokes that led to a coherent paragraph?
Neal T, we're just waiting on some sort of Creationist model and some evidence to support it. The act of attacking Evolution is not the same as supporting any alternative theory. This is not canned rhetoric. It is a request for Creation Science to display some science. Without science, it is faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaith is fine, but it doesn't prove anything. That is what faith means, believing without needing to have proof. This is something that has always bothered me about Creation Science. Why do they need science? Is it because they need to supplant faith with science in order to continue believing in God?
But don't let me get us off on a theological tangent. The request remains the same. We need a model for Creationism, we need evidence to support it.
Thanks and have a great life.
Faultline
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlah blah blah
YOU said you wanted to "cut to the chase" and discuss creation model vs evolution, but you repeatedly refer to darwin only.
This is not a discussion of the pros and cons of darwin
We are still waiting for evidence for your creation model.
As I said - so far all you have said is just hot air..
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor your information
I dont know about the others but I have no intention of discussing the comparitive merits of a hypothesis against a accredited theory when the hypothesis proponents refuse to produce any evidence to support their case (As you are doing)
Hot air and bluster does not suffice.
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease clarify what your definition of scientific model, scientific evidence and fact are. It would be helpful if you gave a brief model of evolution, the evidence and a fact in order to see an example. Just briefly, with the understanding that I know you are not listing all the evidence or facts as you know them.
Thanks
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust realised the implications of your post
"Could their keystrokes produce a reply"
So you want us to reply to your critisisms of darwin.
What a hypocrite.
You want to discuss evolution vs creation model
You have persistently refuse to provide supporting evidence for your creation model
Now you are petulant that we decline to reply to your criticism of darwin
Again - What a hypocrite you are.
Time to cut the crap, Neal T. Repeating ad nauseum what you imagine to be the shortcomings of what creationists call 'Darwinism' has nothing to do with proving your own case. You have to produce evidence FOR what you believe, NOT against what you disbelieve, which in science is a total waste of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow hard can it be to get this? How boneheaded are you?
Please provide a descriptive exponential abstract of your 'creation model' (if, in fact, you actually have one, which I seriously doubt), including independently verifiable non-Biblical evidence and sources. Your credibility here has already sagged off the bottom of the chart as it is. Providing at least something of substance (NOT 'against', but FOR), might just help you to claw back a little credibility. But I'm not promising. It's up to you.
So, are you finally going to provide something in support of what you claim, or are you just content to waffle out some gasbag 'keystrokes and monkeys'-type silliness? Because posting such nonsense only makes it look all the more like you're desperately trying to deflect attention away from your inability to provide what has now been asked of you on multiple occasions.
A 'creation model', Neal T, if you please.
Neal T (to Faultline): "Please clarify what your definition of scientific model, scientific evidence and fact are."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a toady hypocrite you are, Neal T, and no mistake. It has been serially explained to you that if you are coming from OUTSIDE accredited science (and, by golly, you are, by quite a few light years), then the onus is upon YOU to substantiate what you claim. Again, the mere fact that you're clinging to all these yesterday's-breakfast arguments just makes it look all the more that you are frantically trying to cover up the fact that you don't have a figleaf to hide your own lack of evidence.
And I'm awake to the creationist tactic of "drive them to distraction and make them lose patience." Then when they start hurling insults in sheer exasperation, it gives you, the creationist, the chance to say something like, "well, if you're just going to throw insults, then it shows you have no real argument. I'm not here to be insulted.." This then gives the creationist the let-out clause to trounce off in an aggrieved huff. I've seen it all before. You're no different from all the other waffling phoneys, Neal T.
Want to prove me wrong? Produce you 'creation model'.
It looks like the folks on this discussion who still support Darwinism are unwilling to do more than point people to their accredited scientists and act as self appointed guardians of science. Rhetoric replaces reason because they know that in just two examples I've given 1. The beginning of the universe points to a creator. 2. The Cambrian explosion of the sudden appearances of new animals in the fossil record point to creation events. The creation events were written in Genesis thousands of years ago, well before the Cambrian fossils were discovered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI summarized my creation model days ago here, along with a brief list of over a dozen ways the model can be tested. They refuse to see that the rapid appearance of a mosaic of new animals, not just in the Cambrian, but Avalon followed by slight variation is exactly what the creation model predicts.
The fact of rapid appearance of new animals in the fossil record has been established. Scientific inference points to creation events by God as the best model to account for sudden biocomplexity.
Intelligence is the only thing known to produce new information. It's time for the Darwinists to leave the age of the steamboat and move up to the information age.
I will continue to present the testable predictions that the creation model has made as I've outlined previously.
Neal T, in a much earlier post a poster cited this website: ApologeticsPress.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI visited this site and found it to be quite impressive!
On this site, the authors give a sound and formidable rebuttal to each of the 15 answers the editor of this present article, John Rennie, puts forward here on Sci. Am.
Perhaps you've visited this site, but if not I can assure you (and many here on Sci. Am. ) that you will be informed, enlightened, and edified. In addition, there are references not only to the discussion here but also to a wide range of topics. Check it out!
Go to ApologeticsPress.org. At that page look under Contents>Sensible Science>15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense (By section)
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
This topic is the first of 161 listed items on many topics concerned with evoltion. Neal T and All, enjoy it!
So your argument is the Cambrian explosion is an event of God's creation so therefore it must be evidence that God created life. And that the Big Bang looks like a creation of God, so therefore it must be evidence that God created the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow sudden do you think the Cambrian explosion was? How fast do you think these lifeforms appeared? How long did this period last in geological terms?
Answer these, please. I want to find out how fast God makes creatures.
Faultline
Neal T: "It looks like the folks on this discussion who still support Darwinism are unwilling to do more than point people to their accredited scientists and act as self appointed guardians of science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this100% certified baloney. I have already pointed out (I have already pointed out pretty much everything already) that if you want to have your claims recognised as legitimate science, then you must be prepared to bow to the modus operandi of science. These include citing where elsewhere in the existing accredited literature your claims are supported. And that "self appointed-guardians of science" twaddle won't wash. You have used that phrase before, and my response then was "so what does that make you? A self-appointed guardian of creationism?" Remember, Neal T?
Neal T: "I summarized my creation model days ago here.."
You mean that laundry list? You call that a 'model'??? Do you even know what a scientific model comprises? If all you can manage to do is regurgitate those two claims about the beginning of the universe and the Cambrian explosion, then you'd better pack your things right now. Like other creationists, you seem to imagine that just repeating the same points over and over (and over and over) will somehow make them more convincing. It doesn't.
Neal T: "The fact of rapid appearance of new animals in the fossil record has been established."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComparatively speaking, yes it has. But if you are claiming reasons other than the accepted ones for this, then begin by establishing your cause. So far, you have not.
Neal T: "Scientific inference points to creation events by God as the best model to account for sudden biocomplexity."
Bigfoot sighting. Mixing words like 'biocomplexity' in with an otherwise-unsupported claim might work for you on other sites, but this is a science site. Like I said, your claim is already covered by existing science. If you wish to claim God as a cause, then in science you have to establish that cause within scientific relevance. Otherwise *stifled yawn* you are basing your claim upon a presupposition.
Neal T: "Intelligence is the only thing known to produce new information."
Unfounded and unestablished waffle. No such evidence exists for it being "the only thing known". If you want to establish your statement, you have to expound on what sort of intelligence this is. What form does it take? Is it disembodied? In what ways does it operate? What are its known parameters? Where did this "intelligence" come from? What existing evidence in science is there for such an "intelligence"? Where in the contemporary accredited literature has the existence of this "intelligence" been cited? In any case, the existing accepted scientific model already covers what your statement claims.
Neal T: "I will continue to present the testable predictions that the creation model has made as I've outlined previously."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour laundry list is not a scientific model. There is no 'creation model' extant in science. First you have to present a scientifically legitimate model. As a first step, you could produce an abstract. That is, you have to first write a fairly lengthy passage which outlines what you propose, your reasons for proposing these things, what evidence you have and what data you have collected in support of that evidence, and where else in the published accredited literature your claims have previously been stated by others. At the end of the abstract (and this is of crucial importance), you cite the previously-published accredited sources which you have referenced for what you are claiming. THIS, Neal T, is what comprises an abstract ('summary') of a model. But this is only an abstract. If you want to move on to presenting a hypothesis, then you haven't even begun your work.
I should add, of course, that doing all that here on this comments thread is a total waste of your time. These comments threads are for general discussion about the accompanying articles, and have no bearing whatever upon gaining scientific recognition for any particular claim.
Neal t + Firstthings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis NOT a one sided discussion of the pros and cons of darwins theory of evolution.
It is supposed to be the evaluation of a contrary hypothesis - neal t's supposed creation model, or creationism/id if you want
WHEN (I am not holding my breath) we get some scientific EVIDENCE suporting either THEN we will evaluate it AND compare it to Darwins theory
"It looks like the folks on this discussion who still support Darwinism are unwilling to do more than point people to their accredited scientists and act as self appointed guardians of science"
No neal t we are not willing to put up with your bluster, evation, hypocricy, and hot air any more.
Personally I have no intention of wasting time explaining what constitutes evidence, fact, whatever.
I also have no intention of allowing YOU to set the agenda, by YOU repeatedly evading and referring back to Darwin.
Put up whatever YOU consider scientific fact that supports your hypothesis. WE will evaluate it .
Until then you can bluster as much as you like as far as I am concerned.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Cambrian explosion of the sudden appearances of new animals in the fossil record point to creation events"
Firstly
I wouldn't exactly call the rapid (in evolutionary terms) appearance of new creatures over a 80 mill years period "sudden"
So your hypothesis is that a creation event gave rise the new species.
( For a start not all new species apeared at the same time - so your hypothesis must be that there were more than 1 "creation" events, not just 1 )
Fine - now go on - lets have some evidence as to
WHAT made the events occur?
HOW the events took place.?
(That is - HOW did the whatever caused the events to occur, cause the creatures to be "created".)
WHY was there such events at that time. ?
firstthngs
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou refer to a webs site the challenges the "15 answers"
Good - you did not take the 15 answers at face value.
However you now say "the authors give a sound and formidable rebuttal to each of the 15 answers"
Now my question is - How do YOU know they were "sound and forminable"
Did you check these statements ?
I bet you didn't
If you didn't then I ask , why not ? - You checked the 15 answers but not the website answers, why not"
Brad Harrub and Bert Thomson wrote this in their answers.
"The fact is: the second law of thermodynamics strictly prohibits organic evolution,"
If you know even just the basics of the first law of thermodynamics you will know that it HAS NOTHING REMOTELY TO DO with evolution. Even in thermodynamics it refers to a closed system WHICH THE EARTH IS NOT.
You what do we conclude
1) Brad Harrub and Bert Thomson know absolutely nothing about the laws thermodynamics
2) They did not check the laws.
3) They lied because they started by saying "the fact is". It is NOT a fact at all,and they knew it, or ought to have checked.
4) It is a reasonable assumption that they may have lied in the past, and may lie in the future in order to support their position.
So the question is WHY do you believe them.WHY did YOU not check their answers.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfirtsthings
I would suggest you read the comments on the following site as regards the thermodynamic arguments apologeticspress present
http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm
Firstthings: "I visited this site (Apologetics Press) and found it to be quite impressive!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving read Laughing gravy's comments about the Apologetics Press, I was curious enough to check it myself. Well, I guess it'll just about pass muster for the under-fives and those who don't know any better about the subject. And thanks to Firstthings' tip-off, I now know another prime source from where creationists get their scrambled ideas (how reckless of you to post such a link on a science site, Firstthings).
The Apologetics Press' article is a so-called rebuttal by Harrub and Thompson of this accompanying SciAm article. But how can anyone be taken seriously who uses such floridly biased language as an "indoctrination manuel" to describe the National Academy of Science's report 'Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science', which it apparently mailed to every science teacher in America?
The NAS clearly has done its stirling duty to counter and correct the kind of disinformation about science that apparently is being peddled in America at the moment by the religious fundamentalists. Truly, if the Apologetics Press is what represents American intellect, then it'll be rocky times ahead for those up-and-coming Americans who seek to present themselves on the international stage in the science arena of the future.
The Apologetics Press article also struck me as being a mere extended version of what Faultline, dvashun, Laughing gravy and myself have complained about from the beginning. There was reams and reams of stuff (the word 'obsessive' springs to mind) attacking evolutionary theory, alright. But do they present a thorough, documented expounding of their own so-called 'theory'? Haha. I'll leave you to guess.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Hmm.. isn't Ph.D. a doctorate in Philosophy? Where are their doctorates in the sciences? Could it be *feigned gasp* that they don't have any??? Funnily enough, when I tried to google the academic credentials of this duo, I landed on an article in Wiki ('Fallacy of quoting out of context', if anyone wants to check) which mentioned them in the context of quote mining from Stephen J. Gould's texts. Why am I not surprised?
firstthings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs regards the site you identify I will go further than ambertooth
You have probably have read the sites reply to the 15 answers - looks impressive doesnt it
Lets take the reply to the first of the 15 answers - "
"Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law."
The site goes at very long length in a supposed reply, but I would say 90% is irrelevent to Rennies answer.
The only thing to consider is that Rennie is trying to explain what constitutes a theory in science i.e the difference between the scientific and general use of the word, and why evolution, though only designated a theory, can be thought of as a fact due to the overwelming evidence that supports it
What is the reply of the site?
Well the first thing it does is bring your attention to the NAS -
Why does it do this ? answer - to bring a little doubt into your mind about the NAS and consequently their definition of "theory"
( If you didnt check I will tell you - The NAS has existed since Lincolns time to advise the government on scientifc matters(check on wikipedia)
I think the NAS has more credibility than the site, as the NAS deals with ALL sciences, not just evolution.)
Why does it want you to question the definition? answer - so that it can introduce its own definition
Why does it want to do this? answer - because its definition is less stringent than the NAS, and would allow its hypothesis to be considered as a theory
To try to substantiate this re-definition it introduces 3 definitions "given by scientists for scientists"
1 of the definitions is from a normal dictionary - ie NOT the scientific use of the word as Rennie highlighted, I would say the webster definition irrelevent.
1 is by 1 person in a biology dictionary, Not exactly by scientist(S) for scientist(S)
It is also supposedly "in her widely used dictionary" Personally I have no idea if it is "widely used" even in biology. have you?
Why should anyone OUTSIDE biology use it at all, it is a BIOLOGY dictionary.
1 is very similar to that specified by NAS - but this specifies "lacking absolute proof"
If ANY theory had ABSOLUTE proof then it would be fact not theory.
So I would say that to qualify as a theory under this definition requires some, but not absolute, proof (i.e some evidence). I.e virtually the same definition as the NAS
Then they say "We recognize that the definition of "theory" is itself .evolving."
Very generous of them to say so but it is not true.
The SCIENTIFIC definition of "theory" is NOT changing,
THEY are TRYING to change it so that THEIR hypothesis will qualify as a theory (actually it is not even a hypothesis)
The rest of their reply to the first of the "15 answers" is in fact nothing to with Rennie's answer but they are trying to re-define the meanings of scientific terms
Why ?, - because under the present definitions none of the basis for creationism qualifies as evidence, fact, hypothesis, or theory. , i.e creationism doesn't qualify as a science.
They are trying to change definitions so that opinions/assumptions can become fact, any unsubstantiated claim can be considered scientific evidence., i.e creationism could be considered a science.
And this is just their reply to answer 1 ,
You still think their answers "sound and formidable" ?
firstthings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne last thought
In the Dover trial Michael Behe testified that if the definition of what constitutes a science were changed sufficient for id(creationism) to be considered a science, then astrology could also be considered a science.
Makes you think doesn't it
Why fight scientific progress with insults. You need to let the argument happen so that we can resolve the debate. Read Behe's book Darwin's black box, chemicals do not assemble themselves into highly complex structures that even biochemists cannot duplicate from scratch elements. e.g. micro motors in mitocondria that spin at 10,000 r.p.m's That would contradict the second law of thermodynamics. Without debate and new ideas science will not progress and we all loose. Would you like it if we called your evolutionary sacred cow nonsense?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHarry Campbell: "Why fight scientific progress with insults."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy indeed? Then creationism should stop using quasi-religious pseudoscience to do so. As to "letting the argument happen", as Laughing gravy has previously made clear here, science does not function like some Internet debating forum. What has sound evidence within the parameters of scientific methodolgy is what counts in science, not who can argue the best.
You are a little behind the times on this thread if you dredge up that old creationist chestnut, the second law of thermodynamics, which also has been dealt with here (see Laughing gravy's recent comments to Firstthings).
You say "Without debate and new ideas science will not progress and we all loose". 'Debate' I have already dealt with. 'New ideas' are always happening in science, but they must first prove themselves by applying the accepted standards of science. Science is flexible and constantly adapts itself to accommodate new research results and discoveries, which it is doing anyway as part of the normal process of science. No 'debate' from outside science is necessary for this process to happen, and scientists can be ruthlessly critical of each others' findings, as you would know if you have any professional experience whatever within science. As to "we all lose", we would only 'all lose' if the stringent standards of science were allowed to let slip to accommodate pseudoscience, which is what current religious fundamentalism in America clearly desires.
You end by saying "Would you like it if we called your evolutionary sacred cow nonsense?" Well, you seem not to realise that you just did call evolutionary theory 'nonsense' by using the ludicrously emotive term 'sacred cow' to describe it. Creationists constantly call those parts of accredited science which appear to conflict with their religious beliefs 'nonsense', and far worse, and I have debated them long enough on other Internet forums to have heard many adjectives considerably more colorful than 'nonsense' being applied to evolutionary theory. Harmless terms like 'nonsense' pale in comparison.
So, Harry Campbell, instead of being a typical creationist and attempting to cast doubts upon evolutionary theory with examples that you have gleaned from pro-creationist websites, let's see you present your own scientifically acceptable model for an alternative, with examples, independently verifiable evidence, cited accredited scientific sources (with details of titles, authors, dates of publication, and publishing journals, so that others may check). Because if you wish for your beliefs to gain the respectablity of science, then you have to be prepared to adhere to the standards of science. And you are, after all, commenting on a science website, and not some debating forum.
At least if you were to do so, you would prove yourself a notch more credible than all other creationists who so far have commented on this thread, and who endlessly beef about the supposed shortcomings of specific aspects of the biological sciences, but who, even when pressed to do so, never present credible alternative hypotheses of their own.
Please do so.
Harry Campbell
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You need to let the argument happen so that we can resolve the debate. "
Again - (Please try to follow this, because so many people make the same argument.)
Science is not democratic, No amount of argument,debate or votes "resolves" what is or is not science, or the validity of scientific theories.
EVIDENCE and the scientific method determines the validity of science and scientific theories.
So far there has been 0 (zero) evidence put forward that supports creationism/id.
"Read Behe's book Darwin's black box, chemicals do not assemble themselves into highly complex structures that even biochemists cannot duplicate from scratch elements. e.g. micro motors in mitocondria that spin at 10,000 r.p.m's"
"..................That would contradict the second law of thermodynamics. "
Do you read nothing,
1) Read Behe's TESTIMONY at the Dover trial - HE testifed that, under the current parameters as to what constitutes a science, - ID IS NOT A SCIENCE.
The fact that you believe his book does not make it true. It is a book, written by a scientist, but it has not been reviewed by independent reviewers as to its accuracy,so it is just a book like any other.
2) The second law of dynamics HAS NOTHING TO WITH EVOLUTION
Go visit the following site,
http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm. This will tell you what people who KNOW about thermodynamics think of this argument.
Personally I do not care what you call evolution - Science has already decided that it is the best theory available at this time (in FACT it is the ONLY scientific theory available.)
Science does not progress by following peoples false assumptions, opinions, false facts or stupid logic.
Harry Campbell
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Read Behe's book Darwin's black box, chemicals do not assemble themselves into highly complex structures that even biochemists cannot duplicate from scratch elements. e.g. micro motors in mitocondria that spin at 10,000 r.p.m's"
I think you are jumping to conclusions
You say
"chemicals do not assemble themselves into highly complex structures "
You (or he) are implying it CANNOT happen
It may be that Behe may not be able to conceive a mechanism how it could occur, nor have seen it, but that does not mean it CANNOT happen.
In order to justifiably conclude this he has to PROVE it DOES NOT AND CANNOT OCCUR (ie. not assumption or opinion, but science). It is extremely difficult to PROVE a negative ie. that something CANNOT happen under any circumstance.
The assertion that at present "biochemists cannot duplicate from scratch elements" is not relevent as it does NOT mean it is not possible, just that at present they cannot do it. Who knows what their capabililities will be in the future?.
I also do not see the relevence as regards evolution - Evolution does NOT say "highly complex structures" come from basic chemicals.
This is NOT a requirement of evolution
In fact Behe is trying to demand evolution meets the requirements of ID i.e the immediate creation of complex structures (from chemicals in this case).
Since this is NOT the basis of evolution theory (in fact it is almost the opposite) , and Behe knows it, it is a stupid argument.
Reflecting on what Laughing gravy has pointed out to Harry Campbell here, I can't begin to know how many times creationists have asked me (always with an implied scoffing incredulity) 'So you believe that your grandfather came from a rock?' (or a monkey, or mud, or slime, depending upon the creationist concerned).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only true answer to this is of course: No, I don't believe this, and this is not in any case what evolutionary theory says. To say that a giraffe came from an amoeba (or somesuch) seems absurd, because it makes an unrealistically abrupt jump between clades. But creationists say exactly these things to create an effect of improbability for evolutionary processes. That these statements do not accurately reflect the science is apparently of no consequence to their scruples.
My other more ironic response when asked this question is to reply: And coming from slime is somehow less credible than coming from clay by the intervention of a supernatural agency because...?
Michael Behe practices bad science, because, as Laughing gravy points out here, he makes unestablished statements of assumption. Even just a generation ago, nanomachines were unthinkable. Now they are already actual ('Powering Nanorobots', by Thomas E. Mallouk and Aysuman San, Scientific American, vol. 300 #5). If the technology is moving so fast, who's to say that in the future we won't be able to duplicate the mechanisms of mitocondria?
Hi guys and gals,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas surfing around for information. And I was SHOCKED. I meant I did not realize there are ACTUALLY people attacking evolution, and thinking creationism is science.
Well, I am on the other side of the global, so I seldom paid much attention to the domestic affairs in the US. It is only until a bunch of ultra-conservatives took over a local woman's right civic group (we kicked them out eventually), then I did start to take notice, and did some research.
I am an agnostic and I am usually apathetic to any form of activism. I always assumed everyone are rational like me, and I gotten a rude shock when I realized that there are people who have such literal beliefs!
But that is beside the point, I always assumed that everyone know that it is common sense to live and let live, and science is independent of religion. So far, it is still so. A very significant proportion of the people still supports science, as such very few people dare to assert that creationism is true in public, or with non-believers.
But I am worried that my country will end up like what that is happening in the US. In fact, I start noticing creationist preaching in a local geek forum. But as expected, geeks trashed him with Google.
But anyway, before this incident I actually doesn't really know much about evolution, except the basics. But over the few weeks, I think I learn alot more than the creationist ever had in their lifetime.
I may not understand everything about evolution, but I do see plenty of holes in creationism and intelligent design. And that is from an engineer's point of view. Even if I don't know much about biology, I can see that evolution is not random chance at all. Genetic algorithm showed it mathematically. And I know a fallacious argument when I see one.
But I am pretty worried about this religious activism. I am generally tolerant to almost anything, but I do draw a line at passing religion as science.
But after some thought, it is the dishonesty and willful misrepresentation, that really pissed me off. I meant if they can prove creationism is true in an honest logical way, I have no objection of it been taught in school. But the fact is they are blatantly dishonest. Even I as a non-biologist can see that.
Egan, Josephine, Does Creationism Commend the Gospel? A Developmental Study among 11-17
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYear Olds , Religious Education, 87:1 (1992:Winter) p.19
A little off-topic, but if you have the means, read this article about the effects of pushing Creationism on teenagers. Trying to support religious beliefs with false science has a negative affect on teenager's faith in organized religion.
From p.21 of the article:
For example, Helmut Reich argued, in his recent essay on complementarity in the religious thinking of young people, that "one of the major reasons why adolescents lose interest in religion is the incompatability, as they see it, between religion and scientific views."
According to Ronald Goldman's interpretation of his Piagetian type research, "the evidence indicates this rift by the end of the junior school, and becomes more vocaly expressed by the third year of secondary schooling, when some science teaching has been experienced and a more rigorous operational mode of thinking develops."
...while Creationism commends the gospel among 11-13 year olds, it detracts from the gospel among 16-17 year olds. This indicates that, on psychological grounds, the teaching of Creationism in school may well prove counter-productive to the church's mission.
End Quote
In my opinion, the farther Christianity stays away from science, the better for Christianity AND science. Christianity is not meant to be questioned, at least not on scientific grounds. That is what faith is for. Science is meant to be questioned, but certainly NOT on religious grounds.
Why does Christianity need to prop up belief with science? Faith should need no scientific evidence. A lack of faith, it seems, could be both the driving force to collect scientific evidence for Creationism, and the driving force behind 16 and 17 year olds becoming disillusioned with Christianity.
Faultline
Oh, just to add. He even invited us to debate with Jonathan Sarfati, who is coming down to talk about creationism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd this is what that worried me. More people are gonna get brainwashed. I did not realized that there are so many closet creationists until this incident.
The sad thing is I realized some of my friends believe in it. And is quite vehement about it. I meant, I get shouted at when I said evolution is supported by evidence. And I don't really wish to antagonize them. Lol.
Why shouldn't you put your view,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisESPECIALLY if they are shouting at you.
Antagonise them all you want - they are antagonising you.
DO NOT let them use you as a doormat because you dont believe what they do.
NO-ONE shouts at me because I present what I believe.
By all means they can argue - but SHOUT ? - NO CHANCE.
Just one thing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshould you attend his debate
I guarantee he will NOT present any scientific evidence FOR creation but will either
Present either just assuption or opinion - ie. NO scientific evidence
or
Will just attack the evidence FOR evolution
JUST ask for SCIENTIFIC evidence FOR creationism,( ie. NOT against evolution), where it is, was it peer reviewed and so on.
DO NOT allow his to sidestep the question by going back to attacking evolution.
I guarantee he will try his best NOT to answer (by giving SCIENTIFIC evidence. ), but will try whatever evation tactics he can get away with
He is my colleague. Life would be awful if we start arguing over things that are not even related to our work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd erm, we do need to work very closely on a daily basis. And I like to clarify that the shout is more at evolution than me as a person.
Just to say, I am a very laid back person, whereas he is the opposite of me. Very motivated, and erm, very stubborn and hot tempered. lol. Basically a nice dude, but abit extreme. I meant if he thinks u are a friend, he really is the best friend u can have. But if he thinks u are an enemy, then u are really in deep shit. U noe, the black and white view of world. In a sense, he is more moral than me, but in another sense, he terrifies me.
So I prefer to just avoid the issue. Just as he avoid the issue on God with me. But the thing is he is not those goody shoes Christian. He makes fun of God, Christian, almost anything in general. And in most matter, he is a skeptic like me. Except on the case of evolution.
I have no idea how he comes about with this idea. I meant we always make fun of God and Christians and many other things. It is not so much he that believe in creationism (he admit it is his own illogical beliefs). Is more like he hates evolution, and thinks it is bullshit. It is like a sore spot for him, and I have no idea why.
And before the incident where I met this creationist in the geek forum, I always thought is his own interpretation or something. I meant, I always believe everyone is entitled to their opinions. But now I suspect he has been fed these misconception by external influences.
I don't think I will attend the debate. Lol, but some in the forum are thinking of attending and challenging him - but as it is a forum, I don't how many are really serious about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause I get stage fright, and I don't think I know evolution enough. And mainly, the hostile audience? I don't know. Because I think he is being invited by a church or something.
If he is debating in the university, I would definitely turn up and challenge him. But I don't think he will be presenting in the university.
Eterna2,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWelcome to the discussion.
If people are presented with an honest look at evolutionary theory including its weaknesses, the majority will generally be skeptical of its claims. I used to believe in common descent until I started to look at the evidence and found that the observable evidence supports the creation model more consistently.
I don't know of any creationists that do not see that natural and artificial selection, random mutation, or HGT occur to some extent, the problem is with extrapolating these to COMMON DESCENT. IT'S ALL ABOUT COMMON DESCENT.
At Discovery.org (search skeptics of darwinism) and there is an 18 page list of scientists and professors from all over the world that have signed their names to the list of those that are skeptical of the claims of Darwinism. They are accredited scientists and scholars. These include PhD's, neurosurgeons, mathematicians, biologists, biophysists, micobiologists, etc, etc.
"Darwinism is a trival idea, that has been elevated to the status of scientific theory that governs modern biology."
- Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatriacs State University of New York.
You do whatever you think best ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut do NOT let anyone brow-beat you about your beliefs. (or religion for that matter)
Discuss it - ok , maybe argue, (but not passionately)
As they say - never argue about religion or politics.
I also forgot.
Do not argue science in a creationist presentation/debate unless you have a pretty good grasp of many scientific principles.
Creationists will present pseudo science, and in fact lie about the science behind their arguments.
They dont often tell actual lies (but will occassionally), but they do present, or imply, things as fact which are not fact, or opinion/assumptions as fact.
If you do not have a reasonably good understanding you will be in no position to challenge them
The one thing to remember
As I have said many times before
Science is not a democracy.
No amount of argument,debate, votes can turn a non-science into a science.
eterna2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisneal t is a case in point
He has just made a post.
SEVERAL TIMES he has said he wants to discuss his "creation model" vs evolution
WE have repeatedly asked for evidence FOR his "creation model" over the past few weeks
TO date he has posted none.
HE repeatedly refers back to Darwins theory
If you read his post he is at it again - No reference at all to HIS "creation model", just references to Darwin.
Just read the posts over the past - say 2 weeks - you will see what I mean.
A typical creationist
to NEAT T
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CREATION MODEL.
Hi Neal T,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have actually read what that is written in Discovery.org, Creation.com, and various creationist sites. I have actually read the articles on Miller Urey experiment, on Carbon14 dating, etc. (Yeah, I spent several weeks reading them all).
But I have also read Wikipedia, TalkOrigins, ReligiousTolerance, and various other sites. And I do have a good appreciation of natural selection in the form of genetic algorithm - I am pretty mathematically in nature.
I might not understand the exact biological mechanism in genetic transfer, etc. But I am not ignorant of basic scientific measurements, or the mathematics behind them. And I do take up formal logic during my undergraduate years.
Frankly, I don't see much weakness in evolution. As in the basic premise. If u can show me any major weakness, I will not mind looking at it. However, please do note that I did spend more than a month reading up everything presented by both sides. So please do not use the old arguments that can be found in Discovery.org, Creation.com, etc.
I have read them all, and found them mostly fallacious, inaccurate, misquoted, misrepresented, and sometimes out-dated. That are for the articles against evolution.
As for the articles for Intelligent Design, yeah, I agree that there are intelligence in the way life is form, and changes. But not in a supernatural sense. I love mathematics. And this seeming intelligence in mathematics never cease to amaze me. I meant, do it amaze you how does a flip-flop circuit works? How it can actually retain memory. Or support vector machine, it is so amazing that the way u can classify things after u trained it. It is all mathematics!!
Anyway, I fail to see how can evolution be not possible, from the mathematically point of view.
And for ID, I don't find their arguments to be particularly strong. Oh, and I did actually bothered to read the court transcript when they cross-examine Behe on ID.
So if u have anything new, feel free to tell, and I will consider it. To-date, my analysis of the arguments presented by both sides show that evolution is sufficiently scientific, while ID is just a hypothesis, and creationism is just theology.
eterna2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal t's whole argument in his post rests on his assertion that there is an 18 page document of scientists how are skepticzal of darwin
(Note the "skeptical" - that does not mean they dis-believe it)
My question is - so what?
His argument is predicated on the assupmtion that because they are "skeptical" then you should question it ie. it implies it is wrong
However consider this
Suppose say 10% of scientists disbelieve a theory - does this mean it is wrong - NO
suppose say 90% of scientists disbelieve a theory - does this mean it is wrong - NO
Suppose say 90% of scientists believe a theory but the evidence is against it - does this mean the theory is right(or wrong) - It means it is INCORRECT
Suppose say 90% of scientists disbelieve a theory but the evidence is for it - does this mean the theory is wrong(or right) - It means it is CORRECT
Conclusion - The number of people who believe/disbelieve a theory has no bearing on whether it is correct or not - THE EVIDENCE decides.
An example
Prior to 1917 NOONE belived Einsteins theory of relativity
EVIDENCE showed it to be correct
After the evidence was found , EVERY SCIENTIST BELIEVED Einstein.
SO FAR CREATIONISM/ID has presented NO evidence to support it
You say that do not see any weakness in evolution
They question is DO YOU SEE ANY STRENGTH IN CREATIONISM (I.e. supporting evidence,)
P.s. be very scptical of any evidence presented on their web sites - I advise you to check it VERY carefully)
Majority view vs Minority view (or vice versa) of a theory does not make or break it, but the fact that many (at least 18 pages worth) "accredited scientists" are skeptical of the claims of Darwinist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI need to take my son to camp. More later.
eterna2 (to Neal T): "If u can show me any major weakness, I will not mind looking at it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBad idea, eterna2. Creationists are never happier than when they have been invited to point out what they consider to be the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. This is something which they will carry on doing until the cows come home and the moon comes up, because as long as they're doing this, then they don't have to worry about actually presenting any evidence in support of their own ideas (which, in my long experience of debating them, they never actually get around to doing).
Creationists typically do what Neal T has been doing here for the last three weeks now: endlessly repeating the same points over and over, and endlessly prevaricating when asked point blank to produce hard evidence for their case (such as the way in which Neal T is doing now).
The whole point in science, however, is that just saying what you disagree with doesn't get you anywhere. You have to present verifiable evidence for what you DO believe, and this is what creationists should be made to do. Anything that is already counted as accredited science has no need whatever to justify itself. In contrast, any NEW, unaccepted ideas have a lot of explaining to do.
Neal T: "At Discovery.org (search skeptics of darwinism) and there is an 18 page list of scientists and professors from all over the world that have signed their names to the list of those that are skeptical of the claims of Darwinism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T, you're just endlessly chewing over the same old cud that you brought up literally a couple of weeks or so back. We all know well-enough that you have eighteen pages of scientists (so what? They're a drop in the ocean, as I've already pointed out). We all know that you beef about common descent and 'Darwinism'. We all know that you have a thing going about the Cambrian explosion.
What has been endlessly repeated to you is that attacking evolution won't do squat. That line of reasoning is irrelevant, whatever you say. You have to present, not your criticisms of evolutionary theory, nor how many or how few scientists either agree or disagree with it. Because THAT is irrelevant as well.
You have to present your own alternative hypothesis. We are still waiting. Independently verifiable evidence, cited sources, etc. you know the drill by now. Please do so.
Your further failure to produce anything of substance will again be taken as an acknowledgement that you have no evidence to support your case. And, no, that feeble laundry list of items that you previously presented does not represent a scientific model.
Newton's laws are still valid. Things fall and orbit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou canhave a million pages - my question is still SO WHAT?
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE YOU PROMISED ?
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note your quote from
Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and pediatrics
Supposed to be knowledgeable on evolutionary biology is he ?
- just because he is professor of neurosurgery etc ?
- doesn't mean knows anything about evolution or biology does it.?
For all I know my local garage mechanic may know more about evolution and biology than he does. (pretty clever is our andrew). In fact I bet he does.
I decided to chase down just one example which Neal T has been parading here, and which is written by one of those so-called "scientists against Darwinism" on Neal T's much-trumpetted eighteen-page list. It is the article written by Graham Laughton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life", published in New Scientist, 21 January, 2009. I have now read the article in full, and make the following comments:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article makes no claim whatsoever that evolutionary theory is 'wrong' (*chuckle* now there's a surprize). It only says that, in an age of genetics, Darwin's original tree of life diagram is out-of-date. This is only to be expected, as the knowledge that we can now access just wasn't available in Darwin's time. It also provides a great example of the flexibility of science in adapting itself to take on board new knowledge.
Here are three passages which I have extracted from this article:
"Nobody is arguing - yet - that the tree concept has outlived its usefulness in animals and plants. While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another - a tree of 51 per cent, maybe. In that respect, Darwin's vision has triumphed: he knew nothing of micro-organisms and built his theory on the plants and animals he could see around him."
"(Doolittle and Baptiste, the two scientists concerned) ..are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not."
"We understand evolution pretty well - it's just that it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."
Now I know why creationists insist on referring to evolutionary theory (the contemporary version that is applied in today's biological sciences) as 'Darwinism'. Anything which gets updated from Darwin's original version is seen by creationists, not as an update, but as a refutation of evolution itself. They read the words "Darwin was wrong" and make the erroneous assumption that the scientist who said it is actually saying that evolution is wrong. Not so.
That someone like Neal T can be taken in by what he reads on the Discovery Institute and Apologetics' Press websites is probably understandable. What is mory scary is that such websites, which visually look respectable, with tasteful graphics and snappy design, can peddle such distorted information to a willing and uncritical audience who are easily swayed by such subtle misrepresentation of the original source material.
No, Neal T. 'Darwinism' is not the same thing as evolutionary theory. And misrepresentation of someone's honest ideas (in this case, Garham Laughton's) is unscrupulous, however you slice and dice it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you say it only takes seconds to tell a lie/ distort the truth/present misleading information/disinformation
It takes a lot of time and effort to check and disprove them
I read a comment by a scientist who had attended a creationism "debate"
He said the creationist had told more lies and distortions in 5 minutes than he could disprove in a week
That is the difference between creationists and scientists. A scientist follows all of the information available to whatever conclusion lies at the end. A creationist knows already what conclusion is desired, so only follows the data that seems to reach that conclusion, ignoring all else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand you quite somewhat more since you posted this concering Dr. Egnor...
"For all I know my local garage mechanic may know more about evolution and biology than he does. (pretty clever is our andrew). In fact I bet he does."
Dr Egnor is a brain surgeon with outstanding an outstanding resume, who also teaches other doctors how to perform brain surgery. Do you realize that a brain surgeon is probably the most difficult speciality in the medical field? You think your mechanic knows more about biology? You ought to be ashamed.
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "A scientist follows all of the information available to whatever conclusion lies at the end. A creationist knows already what conclusion is desired, so only follows the data that seems to reach that conclusion, ignoring all else."
First, there are scientists who are creationists. Second, scientists in whatever field are usually biased and work to find support and funding for their own theories. Scientists with opposing theories do likewise and the end result is that the better theory eventually prevails.
Evolutionists often treat their theory as DOGMA and are sensitive about teaching the weaknesses of their theory, even though such things are known among themselves.
"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."
- Dr Phillip Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Penn State University.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwins "tree of life" is one of the icons of evolution and is still being memorialized for his 200th birthday. Back in February, for example, the Texas Natural Science center had this as one of their presentations. It's not a tree anymore but a bush in terrible need of trimming. My point was not that the tree turning into a bush proved Darwinism wrong in itself, but that it was another failed prediction based on the theory.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe tree of life has turned into a bush because the common descent argument is slowing falling apart. The links are getting much more complicated than those from the age of steamboat predicted.
The creation model predicts that this bush of life will become further entangled and complicated as DNA is researched further because life is not related by descent but by COMMON DESIGN. Life is better represented by a MOSAIC of similar and varied biological features.
There is a point where nature and design meet and it happens all the time... it's called ENGINEERING.
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGAIN
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM?
I say again you are a hypocrite -
You suppose there are 2 theories, criticise the evidence for one but provide NO EVIDENCE for the other.
"creation model predicts....." There is no such thing as a creation model , so you start with disinformation (I would say a lie)
"Dr Egnor is a brain surgeon with outstanding an outstanding resume, who also teaches other doctors how to perform brain surgery. Do you realize that a brain surgeon is probably the most difficult speciality in the medical field? "
Yes but it is irrelevent to biology or evolution - To say that because he has substantial knowledge in brain surgery then THEREFORE he must have ANY knowledge of evolution is stupid. The 2 subjects are not related.
Thats like saying that because someone is highly qualified in English then they must be knowledgeable about mathematics
"You think your mechanic knows more about biology? You ought to be ashamed"
Why? I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT the Dr knows about evolution, I DO KNOW what Andrew knows.
It was another stupid statement - YOU have no absolutely NO IDEA what my mechanics knows. FOR ALL YOU KNOW he may have a PH.D in biology.
YOU are equating qualifications with knowledge - - The 2 are related BUT ARE NOT THE SAME.
High level qualifications ONLY relate to a specific subject - THEY DO NOT IMPLY ANYTHING as to the persons knowledge of another subject.
In your replies you refer to quote by "Dr Phillip Skell Member National Academy of Sciences, etc"
Your list of credentials failed to mention that all were as a result of his work in chemistry (nothing to do with evolution). An oversight perhaps?
Or are you trying to mislead readers again?
A quote from a Dr of chemistry relating to evolution - My question - So what, ?
Bet my mechanic knows more about evolution than him.
"My point was not that the tree turning into a bush proved Darwinism wrong in itself,
Dont try to mislead - This is EXACTLY the point you were trying to make
"but that it was another failed prediction based on the theory"
stupid statement - It was not a prediction - it was his vision as to how it worked
New evidence has shown that it was not a complete picture. HE was only PARTIALLY right - not WRONG at all.
"another failed prediction" - Completely WRONG - NOT "another" anything, was not a "prediction" nor did it "fail"
I would say it is ANOTHER lie from a creationist.
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is a point where nature and design meet and it happens all the time... it's called ENGINEERING."
Again disinformation (I call it a lie)
It has NOTHING TO DO WITH ENGINEERING its called ID
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo your mechanic knows more about biology than a brain surgeon? Did Charles Darwin invent the internet?
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So your mechanic knows more about biology than a brain surgeon? "
????? Stupid presumption.
You have NO IDEA if your brain surgeon knows ANYTHING about evolution. The fact that he is/ or was/or teaches brain surgery is immaterial as regards his knowledge of evolution theory
For all YOU know my mechanic may know substantially MORE about evolution than your professor. The fact he is a mechanics is irrelevent.
For all YOU KNOW he may had carried out extensive research on evolution theory.
EVOLUTION IS NOT BRAIN SURGERY, NOR IS IT ROCKET SCIENCE, NOR IS IT CHEMISTRY.
Did Charles Darwin invent the internet?
Stupid question,
What has Darwin got to do with the internet, or the internet to do with evolution.
And what has the question got to do with your professor, or brain surgery?
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE SUPPORTING CREATIONISM?
Charles Darwin had nothing to do with the internet. It's a joke, okay? Are you from Europe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simple fact is that,life is very very complex far beyond any mans total understanding. People need to take the theorems that have been proposed by science and incorporate them into creationism, if they wish. The secrets within rocks are not falsehoods,they dont lie.People are much too narrow minded ( especially christians).I am a christian.Im not denouncing god. The bible was written by men who had been taught by word of mouth passed down through the generations. These accounts of how god created everything was portrayed in a way primitive homo sapiens would understand it.It is not a literal account. God would create ,in my opinion, with a big bang and then he would sit back and watch through the billions of years that it would take for everything to happen the way it has through history.Not in seven earthly man days, but in Billions of mans earth years A superficial chunk of gods infinite time scale larger than any mans comphrehension. humans argue about creation versus evolution,and it bears no fruit only making christians look like fools ,and scientist also. God does not create like a man would. he creates like god would the easiest way possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "My point was not that the tree turning into a bush proved Darwinism wrong in itself, but that it was another failed prediction based on the theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T at 01:01 AM on 06/07/09: "Darwins tree of life --- wrong"
So you see, Neal T, you might now claim that was your point, but that is not what you said in your previous comment, as anyone who does what I did and checks back on this thread to the above date can confirm for themselves.
Still no evidence for your own case. Still going the old irrelevant Darwin-bashing route. Still ignoring all the confrontational issues raised by others. Still sounding like an over-inflated bag of hot air. What's the 'T' stand for? Turgid?
Wheres your evidence FOR what you believe in, Mr. Neal Turgid? Oh, yes, that's right.. you don't have any.
Neal T: "The creation model predicts that this bush of life will become further entangled and complicated..." blah, blah, blah..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA model which does not exist cannot do any predicting. First produce the model.
Ambertooth, yes the tree of life was wrong. If a nursery delivered a bush to your home when you ordered a tree for your yard, the delivery would be wrong. The bush will probably turn into a briar patch if they keep insisting on going down the common descent path using the branching concept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the tree of life was all that kept Darwinism afloat, then I concede that it proves Darwinism in general wrong.
neal t,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain you do not answer the question?
Can you not read ?
My question was
What has Darwin got to do with the internet, or the internet to do with evolution.?
And what has the question got to do with your professor, or brain surgery?
So from this you reckon I am saying
"Charles Darwin had nothing to do with the internet"
Creationist stupid logic in action yet again.
Answer the questions.
Answer the next question too
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM?
(I have written it in large letters so you can read it more easily?)
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTree of life .........bushes.......trees...... blah blah blah blah
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM
Jordon Richard,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello and welcome!
We're you aware that young earth creationists who believe the Bible speaks of six 24 hour creation days do not speak for the whole creationist community? Many people, including myself do not hold to the view of "days" in Genesis 1 being 24 hour days for very Biblical reasons. I've have studied Genesis and this subject for 30 years and I find the Bible accurate. Good Biblical interpretation does not contradict good science.
The Bible is often years ahead of the philosphies and science of men, for example:
1. Belief in "gods" who were part of creation itself were common throughout most of man's history, including Egypt, Greece and Rome, yet the Bible makes it clear that the one true GOD was not created and is not equated with creation at all.
2. Spontaneous Generation- Life comes from life according to the Bible, yet for thousands of years the best Greek philosophers and even scientists up until the last couple hundred years thought spontaneous generation was valid.
An offshoot of Spontaneous Generation is the modern term of biogenesis. The quest for the first life being generated from natural processes continues in a modified form.
3. Steady State Theory - up until 1920's until Hubble drove the stake through the heart of this cherished theory, did science finally confirm what the Bible has taught for thousands of years..."in the beginning".
4. King David penned Psalm 139 that man was fearfully and wonderfully made. It has only been in the last few years with the opening up of the complexity of the cell that this has been shown to be more true than ever. Away with the blobs of Charles Darwin.
5. The teaching of the Bible that God created the universe and like God his creation is consistent and based on reason inspired early mathematicians and scientists to find that reason and law within nature. Isaac Newton for example.
6. Man is made from the dust of the earth. Accurate, yet even the Greek philosophers did not get it and many that followed until more modern science confirmed what man is made of.
I could go on, but it disturbs me when folks deny the accuracy of the Bible when it has been around thousands of years pointing men out of darkness.
We take the things above for granted and many think the Bible was silent towards the foolish concepts of past centuries. Yet the words of the Bible remind us today that we are not the result of common descent but MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD for a purpose. Common Descent shall pass away too.
Jordon Richard, Hello and welcome!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBe advised - Neat t is just a b/ser
He has said many things but provided evidence of none.
He also has a propensity to economical with the truth, and provide mis/dis-information
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisblah blah blah blah
I notice you provide a lot of mis-information again
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR ALL THIS?
You say you can go on -
COURSE you can (and frequently do) BUT YOU DON'T PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE.
YOU ARE JUST FULL OF HOT AIR.
I've summarized the creation model previously and will now again continue to expand on one of the tests for the creation model, which is the sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record. The fossil record often shows sudden appearance (sources upon request) of fully developed life without direct ancestry. This shows in early life in the Avalon explosion and then in the Cambrian Explosion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Cambrian “Explosion” was a dramatic event in life’s history taking place around 530 million years ago. At least 20 to as many as 35 new phyla appeared with unique body plans.
...Most of the phyla that have ever existed on earth.
Phyla are the categories in the biological classification hierarchy that refer to an organism’s body plan, or architectural make-up.
Some believe that all living phyla may have originated in the Cambrian.. -Valentine et,al., “Fossils, Molecules, and Embryos: New Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development 126 (1999).
Current estimates put the Cambrian explosion at between 2-5 millions years, however, many appear in the early Cambrian fully developed and diversified (Trilobites, as one example).
To put the timeframe into perspective- if you were to compress all of earth’s history into a 24 hour period, the Cambrian Explosion would consume less than 1 minute.
In the Cambrian Explosion enormous new biological information is needed to account for the vast and sudden appearance of radically new body plans. New information encoded in DNA is needed to produce the new hierarchical arrangement of cells, tissues, organs, and body plans. A few examples include:
In 1986, Simon Conway Morris identified an additional feature of the Cambrian Explosion that the ecology of the Cambrian fauna resembled that of a modern marine ecology. It includes identifiable predator-prey relationships. -S. Conway Morris, “The Community Structure of the Middle Cambrian Phyllopod Bed (Burgess Shale),” Paleontology 29 (1986): 423-67. “The Cambrian ‘Explosion’: Slow-Fuse or Megatonnage?” Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000): 4426-29.
S. J. Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 222-24.
The thick lenses in the aggregate eyes of a group of trilobites were doublet structures designed to eliminate spherical aberration. The shape of the optically correcting interface is in accord with constructions by Des Cartes and Huygens and is dictated by a fundamental law of physics. - Nature 254 April 1975
Neal T: "Common Descent shall pass away too." blah, blah, blah..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wish. Common descent is staying right where it is unless and until you produce evidence for a viable scientifically verifiable alternative.
It's now getting on for a month since you began posting on this thread, and all you have done is waffle, prevaricate, and turn over old ground that you've already gone over a dozen times. You've done everything, in fact, to avoid presenting that non-existent evidence for your case which doesn't exist anyway.
Neal T, you are the most unmitigated b/s artist that I have ever come across on the SciAm website. And where creationists are concerned, who are renowned for their avoidance of presenting verifiable evidence (which is to say: they never do), that is really saying something.
In fact, as a creationist, you have done everything necessary here to make your posturing pseudoscience creationist garbage look even more ridiculous than it was, and I wouldn't have thought that possible. A dubious achievement indeed.
No creationist evidence = no credibility = no case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "I've summarized the creation model previously and will now again continue to expand on one of the tests for the creation model.."
More blah blah blah. Unless and until you can post specific references in the published accredited literature which present specific details of your 'creation model', then the kind of sources that you're mentioning here don't mean a thing. You have to cite published papers ON THE CREATION MODEL AS A SUBJECT of the papers themselves, and in which it is specifically named.
Until you do this, the so-called 'creation model' does not exist.
Neal T, if you are claiming God as a creating agency responsible for the diversity of life in the Cambrian (which you have already stated), then you have to explain in detail (in science it's called 'expounding', but you probably don't know that, having just done the usual lazy creationist's copy'n'paste job for your last comment) how this came about. What processes did God use to achieve this? How long did it take God to create these new forms? Did he just sort 'poof' them instantaneously into existence? Or did he take awhile? If he took awhile, why did he need more time? How is material form created from non-material form? Why did he decide to create trilobites in the first place? etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, these are just a few of the more obvious questions that come to mind that you'll need to answer. After, of course, you have empirically established within the parameters of science that God actually exists.
I would like to make it clear to those unheard voices who might be reading along with this exchange, that on the subject of God as a religious belief I have only respect. But as soon as someone attempts to place God within science, then that someone must be prepared to establish God's existence and presumed creative powers to the standards of science. Otherwise it remains as religious belief.
That's the way it works.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I've summarized the creation model previously "
WE AE NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR SUMMARY
I CAN SUMMARIZE YOUR SUMMARY IN TWO WORDS - HOT AIR
WE ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR EVIDENCE
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ?
You produce a lot of information - , but this is all it is
information.
My question is - SO WHAT?
If you are trying to associate it with your creation model
THEN PROVE IT - SHOW EVIDENCE as to HOW your creation model would account for it.
JUST QUOTING THE STUFF IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I've summarized the creation model previously and will now again continue to expand on one of the tests for the creation model"
blah blah blah blah blah
No evidence= no model=no prediction=no test
Neal T,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some explanations for the Cambrian Explosion (CE) that scientists have been pondering. Unlike creation by God, these explanations have evidence to support them.
•The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
•Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
•The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
•Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
•Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
•Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
•Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Even if you were able to totally defeat all of these ideas, as fully researched as they are, it still would not support your claim of Creation by God. No act of defeat of one theory is in any way an automatic confirmation of an opposing or alternative theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T, you've taken to a simplified and wrongful understanding of the CE. It lasted, by narrow estimates, around 5 million years. Some estimates extend it to 40 million years. So it is a rapid period of evolution, but not exactly "sudden." That word has probably been used a hundred times to describe the CE, but it isn't a scientific term and it is relative to Evolutionary periods.
My previous post contains explanations that shed some light as to why Evolution sped up during this time. Don't ignore them. Ignorance is the antithesis of science. You have to take all possibilities that have evidence to support them. Unfortunately for you, creation by God is a possibility without any evidence, so it has to remain in the realm of faith.
In addition, there were many complex creatures around before the CE. Life didn't jump from bacteria to trilobytes in a few million years. Also, many complex forms of life evolved well after the CE. The taxonomic step above "phylum" is "group," meaning fish, mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, almost all of them did NOT begin in the CE.
From Talk Origins:
The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
Take all the evidence together. Get educated from some source other than creationism. They skim science for bits that support predrawn conclusions. They don't do real science.
Faultline
One of the cited sources which Neal T has given here I actually have as a PDF on my hard drive. This is: "The Cambrian 'explosion': Slow-fuse or megatonnage?" by Simon Conway Morris. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 4426-4429. April 25, 2000. vol. 97 no. 9. I'll bet Neal T has never actually read this paper, which is cited as a source by several creationist articles on such websites as Reasons to Believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd again, as with creationist citing of Graham Laughton's article, it is a case of typical creationist disinformation. The Morris article is a legitimate science paper which outlines what is known and still to be discovered (although it was published nine years ago now, and other material has appeared since) about Cambrian biodiversity (note the term, Neal T, because your term 'biocomplexity' is dubious).
The point is that, again as with Laughton, Morris' paper has nothing whatever to do with casting doubt upon the evolutionary processes. That creationists imply as such by citing the paper in their pseudoscience articles (and indeed, as Neal T has done here by copy/pasting it as a cited source from some creationist website) is the usual intellectual dishonesty that we have come to expect of creationists generally, both from the irresponsible and misrepresented use of such legitimate scientific sources by creationist websites, and from creationists such as Neal T, who just blindly copy/paste from those sites to claim material for their spurious arguments, without either knowing or understanding what the original science is actually saying.
It is also notable that in their latest comments, both Neal T and Faultline have copy/pasted from other sources. The striking difference is that Faultline states clearly his source for others to independently check. Neal T does not. He does not even say that he has copy/pasted, although that obviously is the case.
Which website did you copy/paste from, Neal T? And if you deny that you copy/pasted, then state from which website you obtained your information. Reasons to Believe, or some other similiar site?
http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/Cambrian%20Explosion.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe gotten it from here. Lol! Creationist doesn't have a lot of sources. It is always from the same bunch of people.
And everyone can read the actual paper here and see the foolishness of Discovery Institute.
Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, et al. (1999). "Fossils, molecules and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion." Development (Cambridge) 126(5): 851-859.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7175840/Valentine-Etal-Development-126-1999-9
eterna2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that creationist sites (and supporters) present their case in nice easy to understand sound/word bites.
A large percentage of listener/readers dont follow up on what they are told/read, don't realise they are being sold "a bill of goods" by creationism/creationists, and just believe it because they can understand it.
Evolution itself is unquestioned by evolutionists because it has become a DOGMA and to question Common Descent is generally a bad thing for getting money and for getting raises (or keeping a job in some places).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists are permitted to investigate the mechanisms,etc of evolution and create just so stories as long as they do not question Common Descent itself. It's a tautology that diehard evolutionists will not escape. It will be the growing number of skeptical scientists that will drive the final stake into the heart of Common Descent.
With that said, I absolutely understand that some of my sources like Simon Conway, do not question common descent even though the evidence they present does not confirm the predictions of the evolutionary model of gradual change over time. Again, Darwinist predictions of gradual and incremental changes of body plans over long periods of time is another failure.
If Common Descent is just a given, then why are evolutionists continuing to look for a new hypothesis to explain it? For example, Punctuated Equilibrium, horizontal gene transfer, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy weren't the older explanations adequate? If they were not adequate, then on what basis was Common Descent said to be beyond doubt? Were they in doubt then, but not now?Simply by default, because it is the only "naturalistic" explanation available?
If the mechanisms for achieving the Common Descent of all life on earth is not fully known, then why has it become an unquestioned DOGMA for some?
Evolutionary tales can get pretty wild sometimes and its mechanism are given the ability to "innovate" and "engineer". On my last trip to the Field Museum in Chicago, a dinosaur display in the evolution section was said to have been "Engineered for Size". I agreed with the engineering statement, but not in the context of Darwinism. Rather than an intelligent God engineering the new body plans, naturalism makes believe that inadequately explained unintelligent forces perform feats of engineering and innovation.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn an effort to show how stupid scientists are for requiring natural evidence to base their concepts on, you demonstrate the strength of science. In points 2 and 3 you show that once an idea has been disproven by evidence and replaced with a better model, the scientific community adapts. If you could provide a better model supported by evidence, I am sure everyone arguing with you would at least take the time to re-evaluate their current understanding of the subject. However, the Bible is not evidence and that brings me to your points 1, 4, 5, and 6. For point one, so which God are you referring to, the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or one of the many others I am not naming? As for point 4, nice use of the Bible to provide proof of the Bible. Strong logic. In point 5 you draw inferences that are not substantiated by any evidence I have ever seen. Newton accomplished many great advancements in many different fields and he was deeply religious, but nowhere have I read that his advancements were inspired by God. And 6 dumbfounds me, I am not even sure what you are trying to say with it. Is it that humans, as we know them, came from dust or the first living organisms came from dust?
Last, outside of your six points, the Christian Bible has not been around for thousands of years, the modern Bible, for the most part, first came into existence near the turn of the 5th century and current canons were not determined until the 1500-1600's. Not the "thousands" of years you refer to.
Neal T: "It will be the growing number of skeptical scientists that will drive the final stake into the heart of Common Descent."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore wishful thinking. That is, unless you can produce independent verifiable statistical evidence for what your statement claims. Allthough, seeing as how it's you who's claiming it, I for one am not holding my breath.
*Yawn* Still busy with the tired old Darwin-bashing I see, Neal T. Try presenting evidence FOR, not evidence AGAINST. How many times have I said that now?
Neal T, you have not answered my question (now THERE'S a surprise). From which site did you get your information for your comment at 05:15 PM on 06/23/09? I really would appreciate an answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for posting an evolutionary explanation of the Cambrian explosion. As background, I have read Gould's book "Wonderful Life" several years ago and other evolutionary explanations of the Cambrian explosion.
I see a TOP DOWN pattern of appearance of life in the fossil record rather than a BOTTON UP pattern.
The Avalon explosion (prior to CE) and the Cambrian explosion illustrate a pattern of major differences in the form and body plans FIRST, with no simpler incremental transistions before them. Later variations arise within the framework of the separate and different body plans.
For example, early Cambrian fossils show fully developed Trilobites (including complex compound eyes) followed by a greater variety within the Trilobite family later in the fossil record.
The creation model says that God progressively created new forms of life over an unspecified period of time. These events are analogous to God's workdays. This timeframe is not in conflict with long periods of time. Creation events occured in bursts throughout the creation workdays when God spoke. Creation was done by GOD'S WORD or LOGOS (Greek). LOGOS has the rich definition of reason, speech, word, and Logic. The creation model was given thousands of years before modern science so it is not after the fact.
Also, I was first an evolutionist without God. It was AFTER my consideration of the observable evidence for creation vs. evolution that I found that creation better explained the origins of the cosmos and life. My belief in a creator is not depending on only the Cambrian Explosion. CE is just one of many, many reasons.
Scientific Inference does not require the proof of God or naturalism. The inference is made by looking at as much of the available data we have available in the cosmos, in life and in the rocks and infering what best explains these historical events.
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI echo the demands of ambertooth
YOU ask questions? - YOU HYPOCRITE
WHEN WILL YOU ANSWER SOME ?
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CREATION MODEL ?
I like your observation of "inovation" and "engineering" of evolution, coming from someone who believes absolutely in something supernatural with imaginary magical powers, and which he has never seen, never heard, never witnessed, and has absolutely no evidence has ever existed.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientific Inference does not require the proof of God or naturalism. The inference is made by looking at as much of the available data we have available in the cosmos, in life and in the rocks and infering what best explains these historical events. "
You mean like michael behe's inferences ?
creatures look like they were designed
From this he infers that there was a designer
From this he infers that the designer had the capability to carry out the design
You mean this kind of logical explanation ?
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It was AFTER my consideration of the observable evidence for creation"
At last we may be getting some place
WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD THAT BE EXACTLY?
Neal T: "Scientific Inference does not require the proof of God or naturalism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery comical. Scientific inference does not deal with God in any case. If it does then it's not science.
Neal T, again I repeat my request to you to name the website from where you obtained your posted information for your comment of 05:15 PM on 06/23/09. I have long given up on you actually providing any evidence for what you claim. At least have the common courtesy (to your source, not to me) to give credit for where your information comes from.
You also need to provide verifiable statistical evidence for your claim that there are in fact a "growing number of skeptical scientists". You have no credibility left as it is. Have the decency at least to pay heed to something that is asked of you, and back up something that you claim.
If you can.
Neal T: "The creation model says that God progressively created new forms of life over an unspecified period of time."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no 'creation model', so 'it' doesn't say squat. Otherwise do what I asked you to yesterday and cite where the creation model is described in the published accredited literature. Oh, hang on, you can't, can you? Because nowhere in the accredited literature is your 'creation model' proposed. Prove me wrong by citing accredited sources.
Neal T: "Also, I was first an evolutionist without God."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCue the sound of a thousand violins. Boy, if I had a buck for every time that I've heard some creationist say that clichéd tear-jerker of a line. Then they go on to say something like 'after serious consideration of the evidence, however...' blah blah blah..
So, where is the evidence that convinced you, Neal T? (not evidence against, but evidence FOR.. you know the drill..).
Neal T actually made a claim for some evidence, if some of you missed it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Neal T referring to the Cambrian Explosion and how it is evidence of an act of divine creation:)
"I see a TOP DOWN pattern of appearance of life in the fossil record rather than a BOTTON UP pattern.
The Avalon explosion (prior to CE) and the Cambrian explosion illustrate a pattern of major differences in the form and body plans FIRST, with no simpler incremental transistions before them. Later variations arise within the framework of the separate and different body plans.
For example, early Cambrian fossils show fully developed Trilobites (including complex compound eyes) followed by a greater variety within the Trilobite family later in the fossil record.
The creation model says that God progressively created new forms of life over an unspecified period of time."
Anyone care to address this? That the Cambrian Explosion is evidence that fully formed creatures with complex structures appeared with no precursors? That it is a "Top-Down" lineage of creatures, not a "Bottom-Up?"
I know how to start falsifying this. Evidence of complex creatures existing BEFORE the Cambrian Explosion would falsify his claim. Neal T is relying on the absence of evidence to provide for his claim. Or in other words:
1. No evidence is found of complex life before the Cambrian Explosion.
2. Therefore, it no complex life existed before the Cambrian Explosion.
3. Therefore, complex life was created by God in the Cambrian Explosion.
But wait! I did provide examples of complex fossils dated BEFORE the CE. Did I not? It was in my post, I'm sure. Let me see...
From Talk Origins:
Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000).
(The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000).
There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999).
And more and more if you'll look and not just take creationist claims at face value. Complex life appears as much as a billion years before the CE.
Anyone else care to comment?
Faultline
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know about the of scientific inference Charles Darwin made for Common Descent? Yes?
Here it is:
"(From Ernst Mayr 1977 after Julian Huxley 1942)
"FIVE FACTS & THREE INFERENCES
DARWIN'S EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENT 1859
Fact 1:Potential exponential population increase
Fact 2: But populations in steady-state
Fact 3: Resources limited, esp. food, space, mates
Inference 1: Struggle for existence among individuals of the population
Fact 4: Uniqueness of individuals within population
Fact 5: Most parental variation inherited in offspring
Inference 2: Differential survival and reproduction = NATURAL SELECTION
Inference 3: Continued over many generations = DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION (i.e., evolution)"
What are the evidences that evolutionists draw from? The progression of increasingly complex life in the fossil record, homologies, so called vestigial organs, etc.
What are the evidences that creationists draw from? The same stuff just different (and better) interpretations. Radically new body plans appearing abruptly in the fossil record without transistional forms points to bursts of creation activity followed by stasis and small variation, followed later by another burst of new body plans with the body plans becoming more complex with each round of creation activity.
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mentioned the Avalon explosion that occured before the Cambrian. Did you see that?
The problem is that the Edicarian life forms do not have a direct link to the vastly different and diverse phlya in the Cambrian life. Therei s a big biological gulf between Edicarian and Cambrian life. Assumption must fill in the gaps
Where did the trilobite eye come from? What are its transistional ancestors from Darwins imagined creature with an eye spot?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trilobite eye is has an optical doublet. An Optical doublet is a device associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites came as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction. The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure.
Ask the hard questions about Darwinism regarding the trilobite eye.... what are the minisule incremental steps, each providing some advantage that would lead to perhaps the most complex eyes ever to exist on a creature?
Why aren't the precisely aligned crystals of calcite that form the Trilobite lens found in ancestral creatures? They should have fossilized previously just as they did in the Trilobites.
Faultline: "Anyone else care to comment?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, if Neal T wants to establish within science that 'God' is responsible, then he has to start explaining God as an interventionist agency within the parameters of science, otherwise it just stays as 'belief'. Only once he has accomplished this can he then move on to further explain other things, such as 'If God created trilobites, then he must have omnisciently known at the time that he created them that they would become extinct anyway three hundred million years later at the end of the Permian, so why did he bother to create them in the first place?'
Trilobites are, as it happens, a striking example of evolutionary forces at work, with more than twenty thousand species known, including more primitive early forms (Fortey, R. A., and R. M. Owens. 1999. 'Feeding habits in trilobites'. Palaeontology 42(3):429-65), and a few of whose fossil remains I happen to have sitting on my desk as I type this. Which begs the question 'Why, then, did God bother creating less efficient forms at all? Why bother with primitive traits and transitional forms (which do exist, much to the discomfort of the creationists' argument), if he knew what a better morphology would provide later on along the time line?' Isn't God all that good at 'designing' things, that it was all a bit of a hit-and-miss affair to begin with? Because it's a total fallacy that trilobites simply sprang fully-formed and perfectly trilobite-ish in every way during the Cambrian, which is one idea that Neal T is trying to push.
Well, these questions might sound somewhat flippant, but I wish to show just how complicated things very rapidly become once a sentient creative intelligence is ascribed as a causal basis from within science. The irony as I see it is that creationists always seem to imagine that just saying 'God did it' requires neither further proof nor explanation. In fact, as my above questions show, introducing a sentient creative intelligence into the mix makes the questions even more curly than ever.
Neal T: "Ask the hard questions about Darwinism regarding the trilobite eye.... what are the minisule incremental steps, each providing some advantage that would lead to perhaps the most complex eyes ever to exist on a creature? Why aren't the precisely aligned crystals of calcite that form the Trilobite lens found in ancestral creatures?" etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil you actually get around to having the common courtesy to clear up one or two long-standing questions that have been put to you here, you can safely forget all about having your own questions answered, Mr T.
Neal T: "What are the evidences that creationists draw from? The same stuff just different (and better) interpretations. Radically new body plans appearing abruptly in the fossil record without transistional forms points to bursts of creation activity followed by stasis and small variation, followed later by another burst of new body plans with the body plans becoming more complex with each round of creation activity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis 'interpretation' is unmitigated hooey. It is a typical creationist fairy tale that this is what happens. Why, we even have known primitive ancestral forms for trilobites (see Fortey and Owens, details in my comment at 04:56 PM on 06/24/09), which Neal T is so eager to show sprang fully-formed into existence. They did not. There might be, and are, any number of reasons (many of which have recently been supplied by Faultline) for gaps in the fossil record (but we do have transitional forms a-plenty). When taking into consideration the processes of fossilization, that such gaps exist is logical and to be expected. It's amazing that we have as much material as we do, which is a testimony to an unimaginable number of hours of fieldwork that qualified palaeontologists have put in over the decades.
Incidentally: how many hours of fieldwork have creationists clocked up? To what extent have creationists actually put in time and hard work (on the field trips in which I have participated, it was usual to make a start at five in the morning) getting down and dirty in some difficult and remote location to gather field data? Nah, they just sit at their computers whining about 'Darwinism', as Neal T does here.
So, Neal T, to answer your question (which is more than you ever do) "What are the evidences that creationists draw from?": creationists draw from evidence that has been collected by scientists who put in all the hard work while creationists sit back and ponder points about Darwin's tree of life, the Cambrian explosion, and other logical fallacies and spurious arguments.
Because were it not for all the work put in by legitimate science, creationists would not have any evidence to ponder in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal t
I asked
It was AFTER my consideration of the observable evidence for creation"
..........
WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD THAT BE EXACTLY?
I assume the following is YOUR EVIDENCE i.e you start with the same data but arrive at this conclusion
"Radically new body plans appearing abruptly in the fossil record without transistional forms points to bursts of creation activity followed by stasis and small variation, followed later by another burst of with the body plans becoming more complex with each round of creation activity. "
(just a note - I would not class creatures appearing over a 50 mill year timespan as "appearing abruptly")
"without transistional forms"
This is YOUR assumption for which you have no evidence (very difficult to prove a negative)
(absence of proof is not proof of absence)
So you start with a false assumption
"points to bursts of creation"
This is the same argument as M BEHE - i.e "it looks as if", therefore it was , "points to" therefore it was.
Just because something "looks as if" or "points to" is not evidence of anything, it is just an observation.
Since the basis for the "observation" (i.e."points to") is a false assumption (i.e "without transitional forms") then this is a meaningless premis
"new body plans "
"Plans" imply design - You have no evidence that any species was designed
A second baseless assumption.
"followed by stasis........., followed later by another burst"
You have NO basis on which to make such a statement
You have NOT shown ANY evidence as to the rate at which new creatures appeared
So I would say - your conclusion is
a) based on 2 false assumptions
b) is just an observation based in this false assumption
You started with the "fact" that during the cambrian explosion (lasting 10-50mill years!!!!) - many new species appeared.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE AS TO THE "HOW" your "creation model" accounts for them
- that is - HOW WERE THEY CREATED?
WITHOUT SUCH IT IS NOTHING.
WHAT YOUR WROTE IS JUST AN OBSERVATION BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. IT IS NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESISs
You imply design of creatures (by using term "body plan") You have not supplied ANY evidence that they were designed
SO far all you have presented is a circular argument.
1) They were created because the "creation model" created them
2) How does the "creation model" create them
3) Because the "creation model" creates things
. .
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I forgot the most important questions-
I presume your "creation event" does not require any precursors
Therefore
1) What initiates the "creation event" i.e what causes it to occur?
2) How long does the event take ? e.g. is it instantaneous?, or does it take some time (if so then how long)?, or does it vary in length (if so then depending on what?)?
3) How does the event create life?
.i.e. you have an initiator (1), that starts a process (2) , what is the process? (3)
4) does 1 event create 1 creature, or multiple creatures.
Since ALL of these questions relate ONLY to your creation model then :-
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO REFER TO DARWINS THEORY IN YOUR ANSWER
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You said, creationists draw from evidence that has been collected by scientists who put in all the hard work while creationists sit back and ponder points about Darwin's tree of life, the Cambrian explosion, and other logical fallacies and spurious arguments. "
This is another strawman argument from you. You are using rhetoric to suppose that creationists are not scientists. Some of the best scientists have been creationists. Most of founders of the various fields of modern science were creationists. Atheists have produced little of value. I don't consider rhetoric valuable unless someone is starting a career in acting.
So we have it, Neal T. We have primitive forms of trilobites that appear before the CE. We have plenty of transitional forms. There are expected gaps in the fossil record because of the tiny chance that each creatures has of becoming a fossil. Can someone give a rough estimate from scientific literature for the percent chance of fossilization?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is no wonder there are gaps. These gaps don't have to be filled in order to support Evolution. They are anticipated and explained.
So there we have it. The CE is not so mysterious unless you just ignore all the research that has been done. There are transitional forms. There are primitive trilobites that appear before and evolve.
The CE is just a period of fast(er) evolution with the added benefit that conditions were right for fossilization, making it seem that there were more species appearing. Scientists who get excited about the CE have elected to describe it as 'sudden,' although in terms of Evolution the CE lasted a hundred times longer than the entire species of homo sapiens has walked the Earth.
Not all species are preserved in fossils. Many will never be found. So stop demanding every single transitional fossil be found as proof.
To recap, Neal T., transitional fossils exist before, during, and after the CE. There is nothing mystical about it.
Faultline
Neal T. said: "Some of the best scientists have been creationists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T. it depends on how you describe scientists. To me, a scientist is one who follows the scientific method in order to analyze evidence and draw conclusions.
A creationist may hold a scientific degree, but so far all these creationists have done is to cherry pick evidence that supports their predrawn conclusions for a creator. Their work does not follow the scientific method.
Look up the scientific method and give some creationists' work a critical analysis. Then tell me if they are doing their job right.
Faultline
Genesis 1 gives a narrative account of the creation week in the sense that it tells us things that really happened. It is not written as a scientific treatise, but we can still find in it a basis for sound philosophy and science. One feature I want to bring out is the way in which God expresses a goal and that goal is carried out ("God said, let there be..."). It is by God's word (Greek: Logos) which directs the creative act. The term LOGOS has a rich meaning in Greek -- reason, word, logic. It is evident that the comos and life functions according to precisely tuned physics and the cell according to the complex LOGIC stored within the DNA. The creation model predicts that as scientists probe the cosmos and the cell the mathematics and science involved to explain function will increase exponentially. We live in a logic based universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Spirit of God is the actual power that is present to perform the act of creation. The Bible speaks of different methods of creation. 1. Creation from nothing as we are able to detect (creation of the universe). 2. Transformation (from dust to man. 3. Modification (creation of women from man, water into wine. 4. Multiplication (multiplying bread and fish). The Spirit of God can directly manipulate quanta.
All of this means that we should not be surprised to find "gaps" in the natural history -- gaps due to God's special actions.
Neal T: "I don't consider rhetoric valuable unless someone is starting a career in acting."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only presume that you post such comments, [A] In lieu of being able to say something more intelligent, and [B] In an attempt to deflect attention away from your failure to produce any evidence for what you claim.
Neal T: "You are using rhetoric to suppose that creationists are not scientists."
Then substantiate your claim by providing details of half a dozen peer reviewed papers in the published literature by scientists which specifically deal with creationism as a subject of their papers. Your failure to do so will be taken as an admission that there are no creation scientists.
Neal T: "The Spirit of God is the actual power that is present to perform the act of creation. The Bible speaks of different methods of creation. 1. Creation from nothing as we are able to detect (creation of the universe). 2. Transformation (from dust to man. 3. Modification (creation of women from man, water into wine. 4. Multiplication (multiplying bread and fish). The Spirit of God can directly manipulate quanta. All of this means that we should not be surprised to find "gaps" in the natural history -- gaps due to God's special actions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnsubstantiated religious belief. Unless you can verify what you claim within scientific parameters, as science it would make great hogwash.
Neal T, another reminder that you still have not supplied your copy/paste website source, neither have you provided any verifiable statistical evidence to support your claim for "the growing number of skeptical scientists" towards evolutionary theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisneal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are using rhetoric to suppose because that a scientist makes a statement as regards evolution then this is a valid, JUST becuase he is a scientist
A chemist or brain surgeon making a "meaningful" statement about evolution just because they are scientists or skilfull. I think not
Their making a statement as regards quantum mechanics would be just as valuelesss
"Genesis 1 gives a narrative account of the creation week in the sense that it tells us things that really happened"
Rhetoric!
It makes statements - statements are not evidence, or the basis of anything "really happening"
A statement "tells" us nothing except the belief of the author - belief is not fact.
"things that really happened" Now you are having a laugh
You have not provided 1 shred of evidence that genesis has any scientific basis
REf my earlier questions
When can I expect answers?
Darwin was better at rhetoric than at good science. He was great at taking a losing position and turning the tables. Unless someone really evaluates what he said, his states are like throwing red meat to those predisposed to naturalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is classic Darwin on the eye:
" To suppose that the eye with all its intimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different differences, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree".
He then proposed a story by which it "could have happened". As to the problems with how the whole process got started, he dismisses... "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life orginated".
If he wanted to support the shift from "I can imagine that it happened this way" to "I have a right to believe it could have happened this way", then "how it happened is just the question he ought to answer, but he never did that (or anyone else).
He can imagine an eye spot turning into a full fledged eye.
He is a master of providing zero evidence, but making the opposing party the one that needs to prove it couldn't happen!
Back to the trilobite. I'm not sure why it is supposed by Darwinists that the first trilobite fossils were considered "primitive". They had complex eyes and an exquisite body plan. Just tell me where the eye came from?
I know that you can imagine it in a general sort of fashion, maybe this, could be that, possibly this, perhaps that, easy to see if, etc. etc, but really how did it happen?
I say the eye had an intelligent creator, and this is a better explanation that some vague and foggy hand-waving generalization.
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "You have not provided 1 shred of evidence that genesis has any scientific basis"
Sure I have. Genesis 1:1... "In the beginning". The universe had a beginning according to the Bible. Modern cosmology models agree that the universe had a beginning.
Wow, I thought you were just avoiding questions until now. That statement just made me feel dumb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, I feel the need to clarify a couple of terms being thrown around by both sides of the argument. Neal, this is about evolution not "Darwinism." To continually refer to evolution as such discounts the works of every other scientist who has worked to prove/disprove this concept. The second term being used in two manners is creationist. For those arguing for science, "creationist" refers to those alive today who desire to interject religion into science as a subject. When Neal is using the term, he is referring to any individual with a belief in God regardless of how they seperated their beliefs and scientific approach.
Mirriam Websters Dictionary- "DARWINISM 1 : a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors — compare evolution 4, neo-Darwinism
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEVOLUTION - b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission "
I wonder if that includes hot air?.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaughing gravy, You said, "You have not provided 1 shred of evidence that genesis has any scientific basis" Sure I have. Genesis 1:1... "In the beginning".
No it doesn't
It says "in the beginning god created the heaven and earth"
i.e genesis says god did it -
All you have at present is a accepted event i.e the universe had a beginning
Cosmology has the big bang to explain the event - you dont
Since YOU have not provided evidence as to the existence of a god or how the "beginning" was accomplished, you are not fulfilling the second part of the verse
(Re-stating a fact is not evidence the passage has a scientific basis.
Just like a work of fiction stating a scientific fact is not evidence that the work has a scientific basis.
In this case the fact is only evidence of an event, not as to what/who caused it)
Gen 1.1 will only have a scientific basis if you can establish a causal relationship between your god and the event.
To do this requires evidence of your god, and evidence as to how it caused the event ( i.e. the beginning)
So far all you have is an event. You have no evidence that your god caused it..
Until you establish a causal relationship all you have is a statement, not evidence, not scientific.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I wonder if that includes hot air"
You should know, you're the expert in hot air
Neal T: "I wonder if that includes hot air?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your case, that's a resounding 'yes'. Neal T, in 'b', you actually gave a NON-BIOLOGICAL definition of evolution, and a secondary definition at that. That's the same tactic as creationists claiming that the everyday definition of the word 'theory' is the same as the scientific term 'theory'. I guess that tends to show how desperate you're becoming in casting around for things to prop up your non-existent case.
Try this one from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language instead:
"Evolution (biology)
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny."
Hmm.. still no statistical evidence for your assertion about "the growing number of skeptical scientists". I'm timing you out and calling it baloney. And I guess you're just plain old too embarrassed to name your creationist website source. Mind you, considering the idiocies that creationist websites crank out, who would blame you for being cagey about it? And still no citing of published papers by creationists in accredited sources, so I guess that also puts the kibosh on your 'creation scientists', because there obviously aren't any of those either.
Laughing gravy to Neal T: "You have not provided 1 shred of evidence that genesis has any scientific basis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T to Laughing gravy: "Sure I have. Genesis 1:1... "In the beginning."
In the beginning (almost a month ago in normal time, but of course to Neal T that's infinite eons) Neal T created something rather confusing. Neal T was without form, and void. He still is. And Neal T divided the light from the darkness. The light was the the light of human knowledge, uncovered with much sacrifice over many lifetimes. But Neal T shunned the light, and went to dwell in the darkness, which sort of looks vaguely like science, except that it's not science, because there you don't need to actually present any evidence, or answer any difficult questions, and you get to make up the rules as you go along, which suited Neal T a whole lot better than real science, because that's what he did anyway. And the light was called 'science', and the darkness was called 'creationism'.
From 'The gospel according to ambertooth', chapter 1, verses 1-7.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral times you have refered to the scientific agreement of gen 1.1 with the big bang as both refer to a "beginning"
However the gen 1.1 "beginning ", i.e. "in the beginning god created the heaven and earth" is not the same as the "beginning" as in the big bang
gen 1.1 states "in the beginning god created the heaven and earth" i.e.begins with the heaven AND earth.
1) It implies a "before", when a god existed BEFORE the heaven and earth "began" (in order that it could create heaven and earth)
AND 2) the earth was created AT THE SAME TIME as the heavens.
However in the big bang there is NO "before" the universe, there was NO time before the big bang, AND the earth WAS NOT created at the same time., but billions of years later.
So there is NO scientific connection between the "beginning" of the big bang and the "beginning" in gene 1.1.
i.e gen 1.1 has NO scientific basis
As has been previously stated you are selectively quoting from genesis, ignoring ANY verse/part of verse that does not fit
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou joke about Genesis 1:2-5, but evidence is also showing that the early earth was dark. The Bible speaks of the early earth being shrouded in darkness (JOB 38:9) and a desolate water world. Scientific models of the early earth tell of the same conditions.
I'll continue . Gen 1:6-7. Differentiation of the early atmosphere, also confirmed by scientific models.
Gen 1:9-10 Land Continent forms. Waters in one place. Geologists have evidence for the early earth having one large continent.
From the cosmos having a beginning in time to the conditions of the early earth, the Bible agrees with most scientific models.
Neal T, the Bible is irrelevant to scientific explanations of nature. Why do you insist that phrases from the Bible are evidence of creation by God? They're just words with no research or evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems as though you and fellow Darwinists do everything possible to exclude the supernatural, yet you claim that the study of origins should not intersect with faith or the Bible.
After you have excluded God from creation and nature, what kind of god or faith is left for you?
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey your reading the Bible!
The beginning refers to whole creation period from the initial origin (beginning of the heavens) and the beginning of the earth. I don't see where it explicitly says they were created at the same time.
The order is heavens and the earth. Not the earth and the heavens.
In an even more general sense, there is Biblical support to refer to the entire creation period and early events of mankind as being "in the beginning". Even the name of the book of Genesis means beginning although it covers much more than just the beginning of the heavens.
Neal T: "It seems as though you and fellow Darwinists do everything possible to exclude the supernatural, yet you claim that the study of origins should not intersect with faith or the Bible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see no difference between the two parts of your sentence. Excluding the supernatural is part of science, because science cannot explain the supernatural. If magic was real, the laws of physics would mean nothing, and therefore there would exist no reason to study them.
And yes, it is also true that the scientific study of nature should not intersect with the Bible or faith. This does not mean that a scientist has to be an atheist, however.
But you can not use the Bible as scientific evidence for creation. It is a reference for those who do not need scientific evidence for belief. Faith needs no evidence.
I wonder why so many Christians are constantly seeking scientific proof of God's work and very existence. Is it because they don't have the faith that it takes to believe without some scientific proof?
Faultline
Neal T: "Ambertooth, You joke about Genesis 1:2-5"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't joke about other people's religious beliefs, Neal T. I was joking about you. To me you have become a joke. Over the last few weeks you consistently have chosen to ignore any requests to provide anything in support of your claims. You are still not doing so.
My repeated requests to you to provide verifiable statistics to substantiate your claim about "the growing number of skeptical scientists" is one. My just-as-repeated request for your copy/paste web source is another. As is my other request for the details of peer reviewed papers by creationists about creationism in the accredited published literature to support your claim that there are such things as 'creation scientists'.
Not one of any of these claims, which you yourself made unprompted, have you been able to back up. So unless you can, then they are just claims, and no more than that. That anyone can claim anything is why claims have no meaning unless supported by substance.
I also have long given up on you producing anything of substance in support of your argument generally, as has serially been requested of you by others here as well as myself. I have come to expect that you go on obsessively attacking what you describe as 'Darwinism', although I have repeatedly pointed out that in science, mere negative criticism of an existing theory means nothing. In science, what counts is providing material to substantiate what you are for, not what you are against, as I also have now made clear in many comments to you.
I have also repeatedly made it clear, as have others, that the Bible (or any other scriptural or sacred text) is inadmissible as science. Were this so, then (as I also already have pointed out) you could simply submit your KJV and receive your doctorate. The reality confirms that this does not happen.
Yes, Neal T, I was joking about you. Anyone who fails to back up statements which they make as consistently as you do turns themselves into a joke. Like Faultline in his last comment, I sometimes seriously wonder why you and other creationists are not content with what faith already provides. True faith asks for no proofs. That is its great strength, and why it is called 'faith'. But when religious faith is mixed in with the incompatible methodology of science, the result is neither faith nor science, but an ugly hybrid with the strengths of neither.
ambertooth: "In science, what counts is providing material to substantiate what you are for, not what you are against"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must have been arguing with creationists too long! To correct my own statement: what really counts in science, of course, is going wherever the evidence and data lead you, without bias or preconceptions. That having been said, it's still a valid statement that in science, supplying evidence 'against' something has no meaning. So my point about Neal T's attacks on 'Darwinism' (which holds true for any attacks which creationists mount against evolutionary theory generally) remains unchanged.
The above also demonstrates why creationism is not science, because creationism, by its very nature, attempts to shoehorn evidence into existing preconceptions.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as you did with your choice of definitions, you fail to read/understand, or simply select what you like from, the entire writings. The entire sentence is Job 38:8-11 and it refers to clouds blanketing the sea in darkness, not "the earth being shrouded in darkness."
While we are here, based on your comments to this point, since God is omnipotent and his word is law then how are the ocean levels rising? After all Job 38:11 (KJV) states "And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?"
This is a simple example of why religion cannot be allowed into science. The "how" and "why" of every question can then be answered by "It's God's will." Then the religious leaders who should understand the scripture the best are suddenly scientific authorities as well. Hmm, seems like pre-Enlightment times all over again. Nothing like trying to set the world back 300 years.
As I said, the Bible is not a scientific treatise and was not meant to be, but what it says is accurate whenever it speaks of creation or nature if understood correctly. The Bible can inform and guide man in all aspects of life, including science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conflict is with Common Descent being argued as a philosophy. I show you scientific evidence that supports the Biblical teaching of the beginning of the universe and you dismiss it. However, you have no problem with imaginery scenario's to fill the huge gaps in explaining the Avalon and Cambrian Explosion. Instead of humbling admitting that there are things that you can't explain with your theory and that God could have had a hand in it, you turn Common Descent into a dogma and back it up with a kind of naturalistic religious fervor.
So, where did the trilobite eye come from?
After you resist any kind of supernatural explanation, what kind of a faith and god do you have? Do not be content with living in generalities. Ask the hard questions.
davashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, The "how" and "why" of every question can then be answered by "It's God's will." Then the religious leaders who should understand the scripture the best are suddenly scientific authorities as well. Hmm, seems like pre-Enlightment times all over again. Nothing like trying to set the world back 300 years.
This is an ungrounded statement and is based in myth. There maybe people who are not scientists who would take this approach but most of the scientists who founded the various branches of modern science were creationists.
Myth #2- You build a strawman argument that creationists resist science in general. The conflict is with Common Descent and this is primarily because the theory does not have enough evidence to support its grand claims. Most people can see through weak arguments. Perhaps you guys should consider that the arguments are weak because it didn't happen.
Modern science finds its roots in the Biblical teaching of a God of Reason and Consistency framing the universe in the same way with law and order that can be discovered.
How about that trilobite eye?
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU ONLY quoted part of genesis, even then you did not quote the whole verse.
SELECTIVE QUOTING !
It says heaven AND earth, It does NOT say heaven THEN earth
There is NO reason NOT to suppose they were made at the same time
It DOES NOT say they were made at different times, explicitly OR implicitly.
On the contrary I would say it EXPLICITLY says they were made at the same time.
There is absolutely NO reason for YOU to interpret it as you did except it is the only way you can tie it to scientific evidence..
(So you take genesis as sometime specific, sometime general.
Changing the context to fit your creation model.??)
Quoting genesis is also irrelevent in YOUR context.
You have repeatedly referred to YOUR creation model
THE WHOLE of your model takes as its presupposition a creator creating the universe etc
WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE EVIDENCE
1) That a creator exists
2) WHERE a creator exists.
3) HOW the creator created the universe.
WITHOUT SUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE NO BASIS for your creation model , the content of genesis is irrelevent.
As Faultline said
"the Bible is irrelevant to scientific explanations of nature. Why do you insist that phrases from the Bible are evidence of creation by God? They're just words with no research or evidence."
genesis is only a very small part of the bible. It is largely irrelevent, even in the context of the bible, as to the philosophical and moral aspects of the bible.
I would go further I would say
"Genesis is irrelevant to scientific explanations of nature. Why do you insist that phrases from Genesis are evidence of creation by God"
(Reading the bible -?
genesis is not the bible.
reading genesis is not reading the bible.
Obtaining the verse is not reading genesis.)
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should have added
The reverse is also true, the bible is also irrelevent as to the content of genesis
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "Genesis is not the Bible". It's the first book of the Bible! This is a silly discussion.
What about the trilobite eye?
I will now turn to address the 15 specific "answers" in the Scientific American article that this discussion is linked to.
The bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in.
The bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in.
The bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in.
The bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in.
The bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in.
Neal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will start by doing something that you refuse to do and that is answer the question you asked. I have no idea about the trilobite eye. However, rather than assume that it was designed by some supernatural force, I am okay with just not knowing exactly how the trilobite eye came into existence. If I chose to I could research it and form my own conclusion on how it came into existence but presently it just is not that big of a concern to me.
Now, as to my assertion that if "It's Gods will," were allowed to be considered science then religious leaders would assume the role of scientific leaders as well being unfounded. I point you to Daniel Houser, a 13 year old boy who is refusing medical (a science) care based on religious beliefs. We can also look to Copernicus whose heliocentric theory was not published until after his death. This fear is based on a literal translation of Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 104:5.
Next, I once again point to the two different uses of the term Creationist. Since you like Merriam-Webster so much I will use their definition as definition 1 - a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis. For definition two I begrudgingly refer to wikipedia since it provides a contextual definition - In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of natural biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth. Since definition 2 is clearly the correct use of the term for this debate, your statement that that the many of founders of modern science were creationists is without question misleading at best. Were they religious...yes. Did they have a stance on the evolution-creation debate...absolutely not since they were all dead.
Finally, I have never claimed that "creationists resist science in general." What I said was "The second term being used in two manners is creationist. For those arguing for science, "creationist" refers to those alive today who desire to interject religion into science as a subject. When Neal is using the term, he is referring to any individual with a belief in God regardless of how they seperated their beliefs and scientific approach." See, I never made any accusation that creationists were against science just that creationists want Creation taught as science. And that is really the problem here.
Dvashun, “See, I never made any accusation that creationists were against science just that creationists want Creation taught as science. And that is really the problem here.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I think it is a problem dvashun.
“Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.”(From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. 2008 National Academy of Sciences)
The Bible says that God was the creator of heaven and earth, life, and man. To push the narrow view of neo-Darwinism that does every imaginable thing to resist any kind of influence by God as the creator does not leave much difference between it and atheism. Darwinism by definition means that blind natural forces account for all of life. There is therefore no divine purpose to life and God is relegated to a role where he basically does nothing. This is absolutely unbiblical and Christians that hold to Darwinism really need to be aware that Darwinism completely rules God out of any kind of intervention in creation, cause or maintenance. The two do not fit together. They may have worked out a compatible scenario in their own minds, but it is not true Darwinism!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun said "I'm okay with just not knowing exactly how the trilobite eye came into existence. THAT'SIT!!! THAT'S IT!!!!
THAT'S IT!!!!!! THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH DARWINISTS-- THEY ARE TOO CONTENT WITH GENERALIZATIONS AND IMAGINING HOW THINGS COULD HAPPEN. When the rubber meets road and detail is required they fail and fall back on being content.
I'll tell you--- that is not me. I am not content to imagine nature doing something incredible on its own. It's a con job dvashun... dig into the detail and see what it is that has been observed that natural selection and random mutation can really do. The real world of the cosmos and life does not work on imagination, it requires a workable means.
Just as software problem and computer hardware can completely fail or not function because of one small glitch, life requries that same kind of accuracy to function.
THAT IS MY SINGLE BIGGEST COMPLAINT OF DARWINISTS EXPLANATIONS AND THAT IS THAT THEY REFUSE TO SUPPLY THE DETAIL TO SUPPORT COMMON DESCENT.
On the other hand we see intelligent engineers working with nature all the time to create impressive things. A technical society just didn't spring into existence with human engineering. Life is the most impressive thing and the human mind the most complex thing on earth. Human engineers often copy the examples of nature for their designs. It is not unreasonable to think that we were created.
Neal T: "Do not be content with living in generalities. Ask the hard questions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJaw-dropping hypocrite. Anyone who 'asks the hard questions' of you never gets a decent response. How about supplying the answers to the hard questions that myself and others have repeatedly asked of you? Statistics for your "growing number of skeptical scientists"? Your colpy/paste web source?? Accredited papers on creationism by 'creation scientists' in the published peer-reviewed literature???
No answers, Neal T? What's the problem? Questions too hard? You must be content to live in generalities.
Neal T: "THAT IS MY SINGLE BIGGEST COMPLAINT OF DARWINISTS EXPLANATIONS AND THAT IS THAT THEY REFUSE TO SUPPLY THE DETAIL TO SUPPORT COMMON DESCENT."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLive with it, you caps-locking hypocrite. You have consistently refused to supply any independently verifiable evidence or accredited data whatsoever for your silly creationist nonsense, as well as failing to provide any of the information mentioned in my previous comment, and which also has been repeatedly requested of you. All of the above information has practically been begged from you multiple times by various commenters.
Then dvashun declines to answer ONE single item, and you get stuck in with your caps lock and scream bloody murder. Grow up, you baby.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You said, "Genesis is not the Bible". It's the first book of the Bible!"
Correct ,
But it is not THE bible, it is a very small part of it.
As I said - genesis is irrelevent as regards the philosophical and moral aspects of the bible.
And, as the remainder of the bible does not add anything to the contents of genesis, the bible is therefore irrelevent as regards genesis.
"This is a silly discussion"
It is not a discussion,
You have repeatedly referred to a "creation model" and been asked for evidence for it - you repeatedly refer to genesis and/or back to darwin
However genesis presupposes the existence of a creator, plus the ability of a creator to create the universe.
Without evidence of the existence of a creator, or HOW it created things, genesis has no scientific basis, cannot be discussed scientifically, and to a very large extent irrelevent (as faultlne pointed out)
( i.e you have made 2 baseless assumptions as the foundation of your model)
To date though you have been asked many,many,many times you have NOT provided such evidence
Therefore there has been nothing to discuss
(This is exactly the position of M Behe,
He assumes a creator, and infers that the creator had the ability to create thing.
NO evidence of a creator,
NO evidence as to HOW things were created.
He too called his view scientific
(he calls a creator - a "designer", and things were not created but "designed"))
.In your latest post you say
"THAT IS MY SINGLE BIGGEST COMPLAINT OF DARWINISTS EXPLANATIONS AND THAT IS THAT THEY REFUSE TO SUPPLY THE DETAIL TO SUPPORT COMMON DESCENT"
WHAT AN OUTRAGEOUS HYPOCRITE YOU ARE
YOU HAVE PERSISTENTLY REFUSED TO SUPPLY ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR MYTHICAL MODEL. BUT DEMAND OTHERS TO SUPPLY DETAILS
I REPEAT - WHAT AN OUTRAGEOUS HYPOCRITE YOU ARE
"It is not unreasonable to think that we were created."
You can think/believe whatever you want - you can even believe the FSM created you.
But if you want it to be scientific then PROVIDE EVIDENCE
Once again you take a sentence entirely out of context Neal. I said I didn’t know, not that there was no answer. For creationists the default answer is always God, but that is not acceptable in science. There is a clear process for something to be considered science and a faith in God does not meet that criteria. There is nothing wrong with faith, it just is not science. As Laughing gravy reminds us, science requires evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn to a personal note that has very little to do with this discussion but has been brought up recently. I have never claimed to be the representative of all “Darwinists,” I am simply expressing my view on the subject. Neal, you place your faith and belief in a book that is known to be factually incorrect, which is fine. Then you read through and interpret it how you wish and pick and choose which parts of the book are relevant for you. That is fine too, as a personal choice. From your last post I gather that you feel a need to have an answer, right or wrong, for all of your questions and your faith offers you these answers. Good for you. I have a need for a correct answer for my questions. If that means that not all of my questions can currently be answered based on available information, I am okay with that. I prefer to accept a continued search over an answer from a questionable source. Without this search for answers based on factual, observable, and repeatable information we would still be in the dark ages because religion does provide an answer to all questions. It’s just not the right answer some of the time.
Laughing gravy, “However genesis presupposes the existence of a creator, plus the ability of a creator to create the universe”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom what I understand from the beginning of Genesis is God did not say it or do it. This is old news for Roman Catholics starting back in the early 50's. It does not dismiss that two people spoke to God. Many people still do pray today. This isn’t science, but the Pope recently remarked that God sustains the universe (not creates it) and that God created a spiritual and immortal soul which doesn't conflict with science because science doesn't deal with issues pertaining to God.
Laughing gravy and Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou assume Common Descent is correct even when you have no explanations for much of its grand claims. You categorically refuse to think about anything supernatural and would be content with natural causes (or aliens) popping complex life into existence out of thin air as long as God is not mentioned. New phyla appearing suddenly in the fossil record without evolutionary ancestry is not supposed to be a strong Common Descent argument.
You have an irrational view of the link between science and faith that is unworkable without compromising one or the other. There may be some creationist views that are not compatible with the evidence but nothing can surely top the mythical and supernatural powers that you assign to Mother Nature to form life from non-life and to grow new phyla overnight.
Let's again remember what I wrote before,"The bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in."
Dvashun, “See, I never made any accusation that creationists were against science just that creationists want Creation taught as science. And that is really the problem here.”
Nobody I knows wants "creation" taught as science.
“Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.”(From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. 2008 National Academy of Sciences)
ViewsofMars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to true Darwinism, God does not sustain nature. All life according to Darwinism is effected by blind forces of nature with no purpose or goal (i.e. the blind watchmaker of Dawkins). God sustaining is not compatible with Darwinism.
The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the earth. Even stretching this to mean that God directed natural selection for hominds to become human is against Darwinism. The whole purpose of Darwinism is to show that nature did it all and the supernatural had nothing to do with it.
So, you are left with either accepting the grand claims of Common Descent or the Bible. It is an either or choice in my opinion. Their concept is Common Descent = Science = Facts = Reality. Faith = Personal perferences and emotion = Unreality. It's a philosophy and power grab by those that hold a naturalistic and secular worldview.
I want to be on my position to those that just joined. I believe the evidence shows that some natural selection, random mutation and HGT occur in nature, but the extent is not nearly enough to account for biogenesis and common descent of all life.
Let's again remember what I wrote before,"The bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in."
Dvashun, “See, I never made any accusation that creationists were against science just that creationists want Creation taught as science. And that is really the problem here.”
Nobody I knows wants "creation" taught as science.
“Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.”(From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. 2008 National Academy of Sciences)
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S
The creation as in genesis violates
1) the first+second+third law of thermodynamics
+ 2) Neutons laws of motion
+ 3) Einsteins's general theory of relativity
+ 4) Pasteur's law of biogenesis
viewsofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "evolution is a fact". Evolution can mean many things... cars even evolve! What are you saying? Are you saying that COMMON DESCENT is a fact because all life is made of DNA and shares morphological features? Why isn't COMMON DESIGN be at least an equally good explanation?
How is COMMON DESCENT a fact for the two dozen new phyla that appear in the Cambrian fossil record without ancestry?
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You assume Common Descent is correct even when you have no explanations for much of its grand claims. "
You have NO evidence of any other process than evolution
"You categorically refuse to think about anything supernatural and would be content with natural causes (or aliens) popping complex life into existence out of thin air as long as God is not mentioned."
You categoricall refuse to supply evidence that there is a god, or that he did in fact do anything, or as to how it could have been done.
You may belief it , but it does not have a scientific basis.
So you now want science to consider the supernatural, perhaps then astrology? (M. Behe already considers astrology a science)
How do you propose science consider anything that does not have any scientific evidence to support it?
How would it investigate the "supernatural" at all as it is by definition "outside nature" ?
"natural causes (or aliens) popping complex life into existence out of thin air "
Stupid statement - Nowhere does science/evolution say life began this way, nor that when it began it was complex
THIS IS THE BASIS OF ID. not evolution.
"You have an irrational view of the link between science and faith that is unworkable without compromising one or the other. "
Sorry I must have missed something. I do not link science and faith at all - YOU DO. To me they are totally different things.
I do not see any conflict between them, and nor do many people of various faiths. It is only those who have a literal belief in genesis that have a problem.
"but nothing can surely top the mythical and supernatural powers that you assign to Mother Nature to form life from non-life and to grow new phyla overnight."
I must have missed something else. It is YOU referring to "mystical and supernatural powers"
Also this "life" from "non life".
Many forms of life begin with fertilisation of "egg" (which is not "alive" -i.e. is non-life) by sperm (which is also not "alive" - so is also non-life)
So everday we have "life" from "non-life"
(both egg and sperm are merely assemblies of bio-chemicals, do not think, reproduce, cannot self sustain, by all definitions "non-life")
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour reply to viewsofmars,
"You said, "evolution is a fact". Evolution can mean many things... cars even evolve! What are you saying? Are you saying that COMMON DESCENT is a fact because all life is made of DNA and shares morphological features"
Now you are being pedantic
You know very well that viewsofmars was talking about the evolution of different species
Dont try to get back to Darwin
The fact of evolution became accepted well before Darwin. Darwin only came up with the theory as to HOW it occured.
Neal T: "You assume Common Descent is correct..." etc. etc. blah blah blah.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer my questions, hypocrite. Accredited science papers by 'creation scientists'? What a joke that turns out to be. "Growing numbers of skeptical scientists"? They don't even exist. You're pumped full of more hot air than a dirigible, and still you want room for your creationist flummery. What was it that you said to Laughing gravy and myself? Oh, yes: "You have an irrational view of the link between science and faith that is unworkable without compromising one or the other."
Look in the mirror, Neal T. On second thoughts, don't bother. Self-scrutiny is not exactly a creationist virtue, any more than true religious faith is.
views of mars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said
“However genesis presupposes the existence of a creator, plus the ability of a creator to create the universe
This is because the whole of genesis consists of things supposedly created by a god (a creator)
However as a SCIENTIFIC premis genesis presupposes that
1) a god /creator exists
2) that the creator had the ability to create the things identified in genesis
IF (this is a big IF) you want to propose that genesis has a SCIENTIFIC basis then you MUST show evidence as the the existance of a creator AND HOW the things were created, otherwise they are just baseless assumptions
IF you want to believe genesis as a matter of FAITH , i.e you have FAITH that there is a creator, AND it has the ability to create things then there is no problem.
IF you do NOT believe in the LITERAL truth of genesis but have FAITH that there is a creator then there is no problem in your FAITH, nor you believing in the scientific theories of evolution
You also said
"Nobody I knows wants "creation" taught as science. "
Unfortunately creationists do (i.e those who believe in the literal truth of genesis)
As creationism was ruled as a religion and consequently could not be taught as a science in schools, creationists changed tactics by trying to rebrand creationism as "intelligent design"(id), but this was also ruled as a religion.
They did this in essence by refering to a "designer" in place of a god/creator, and referring to things as being designed i.e not created.
BUT they are still battling to get creationism/id taught as a science
Neal T: "It's a philosophy and power grab by those that hold a naturalistic and secular worldview."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood. Better that than having religion holding political power. Or would you like to go and live in Iran? Now there's a country where religion holds power, and look what is happening right there, right now. What, Iran not Christian enough for you? I have a handy time machine that will zap you back to fourteenth century Europe (or the next few centuries, because the Inquisition lasted that long). We all know what happened to those who tried to advocate knowledge that went against the Church's teachings, don't we? Just a moment, Sir, I'll measure you for your torture rack and stake. Oops, you're a little short, but we can make you longer...
Oh, yes, having religion in political power is a grand thing, Neal T. If you're into ruthless suppression.
The purpose of Common Descent is to show that the supernatural had no part in creating or maintaining or sustaining or intervening in any way. That is it's premise. It was formulated by Charles Darwin when the steamboat was cutting edge technology and the cell was viewed as a blob of carbon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou keep calling me a hypocrite, but I've been called worse. Usually those that scream it the loudest see it in themselves.
Common Descent is a hypothesis based on the primitive tools of the 1800's.
We're in the information age and it's time to leave the age of the steamboat to account for the complexity of life on earth, not a half-cooked notion by naturalistic and secular philosophers.
All of which, Neal T, is just another way of admitting that you have no answers to my questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe purpose of the Theory of Evolution was not to deny religion. The purpose of any scientific theory is to explain the natural world in objective terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow do you have any objective evidence that God created the universe or are you going to start yelling misconceptions about the Cambrian Explosion or quoting the Bible again?
Faultline
Laughing gravy said me, However genesis presupposes the existence of a creator, plus the ability of a creator to create the universe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This is because the whole of genesis consists of things supposedly created by a god (a creator)"
###
I did earlier reply to your question and once again I will restate, "From what I understand from the beginning of Genesis is God did not say it or do it. No Genesis does not mean a creator created the universe! This is old news for Roman Catholics starting back in the early 50's." And I did also mention that 'the Pope recently remarked that God sustains the universe (not creates it)'. All the rest of your remarks below are moot. Based on a false premise of what I wrote previously. By the way, I did say that the Pope has stated what God did *create* and that was a spiritual and immortal soul. He did not say God created the universe!
Again, I repeat, the bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Evolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in.
The remainder of your remarks are moot. Though you did mention creationists - - And while we are on the topic of creationists, which I am not nor are any of my Roman Catholic friends, you should be aware that the Faith Project Director for the National Center of Science Education (NCSE) is a creationist. And he has written a letter in the NEWSWEEK.WASHINGTONPOST mentioning the world which we as people of faith believe was created by God. (refer back to my comment above.) And also, do you realize that he has left out the Bahi Faith and Buddhist faith. (Im neither of those faiths.) Anyway, the question going around on the blogs is why does the NCSE need to have a Faith Project Director? Its on all the important blogs! Research it and check it out!
And remember I did leave a quote from Science, Evolution, Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, 2008 National Academy of Sciences. You should reread it.
Laughing gravy said me, “However genesis presupposes the existence of a creator, plus the ability of a creator to create the universe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This is because the whole of genesis consists of things supposedly created by a god (a creator)"
###
I did earlier reply to your question and once again I will restate, "From what I understand from the beginning of Genesis is God did not say it or do it. No Genesis does not mean a creator created the universe! This is old news for Roman Catholics starting back in the early 50's." And I did also mention that 'the Pope recently remarked that God sustains the universe (not creates it)'. All the rest of your remarks below are moot. Based on a false premise of what I wrote previously. By the way, I did say that the Pope has stated what God did *create* and that was a spiritual and immortal soul. He did not say God created the universe!
Again, I repeat, the bible isn't a science book! The Roman Catholics that I personally know aren't creationists. They don't believe God "created" everything. And they don't "see" God in everything. (I agree with them.) There are creationists that would like to convince Christians otherwise. Thus stereotype all Christians. Sad but true. This results in people poking fun at religious folks. Fortunately, the scientists I do know don't do that. They are just too darn smart! :)
Evolution is a fact. Science and technology is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in.
The remainder of your remarks are moot. Though you did mention creationists - - And while we are on the topic of creationists, which I am not nor are any of my Roman Catholic friends, you should be aware that the Faith Project Director for the National Center of Science Education (NCSE) is a creationist. And he has written a letter in the NEWSWEEK.WASHINGTONPOST mentioning “the world which we as people of faith believe was created by God.” (refer back to my comment above.) And also, do you realize that he has left out the Bahi Faith and Buddhist faith. (I’m neither of those faiths.) Anyway, the question going around on the blogs is why does the NCSE need to have a Faith Project Director? It’s on all the important blogs! Research it and check it out!
And remember I did leave a quote from Science, Evolution, Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, 2008 National Academy of Sciences. You should reread it.
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin should have stayed with Natural and Artificial selection. That is science. That would have been science. Common Descent a hypothesis rooted in a presumption of Naturalism.
Of course common descent is opposed to God. It comes with an edge against religion because it is a philosophy. The god of common descent is the unobserved and unproven forces of nature that can turn non life into life and engineer and innovate new phyla without ancestry. It claims the intellectual high ground but can't provide the details that a good science should provide.
Throughout the exchange with Neal T, I consistently have made it clear that what is accredited science has no requirement to justify itself (for the obvious reason that it already has gone through such a process in order to become accredited in the first place). But for my own curiosity I decided to check how much material specifically about common descent is included in Faultline's academically respected source, the Talk Origins archive. There is a huge amount of material on the website that deals with the specifics of common descent included over many pages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally, I don't copy/paste (although when I do, unlike Neal T, I always give my source), but here's a brief passage from the first page:
"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data."
Source: Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
Note reason (4) in the above passage, which covers what Neal T has been pushing here for the past month. All that the Bible says concerning its creation event is untestable ('the sun exists, God created it', is not a testable statement). And although what creationism proposes is superficially 'trivially consistent with biological data', it can readily be dismissed because of the testability factor. There is absolutely no way that the creation events as described in Genesis (they are spread over the first two chapters, with each chapter both partially overlapping and contradicting the events of the other, which hints at a dual original authorship) can be verified, or are accessible to scientific evaluation (saying things like "'in the beginning' supports contemporary scientific conclusions" has no meaning, because it's an after-the-fact assertion).
Note, Neal T, the quoted phrase "overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences", which is immediately followed by the referenced sources. I am still waiting for you to provide the same sort of referenced statistics for your "growing numbers of skeptical scientists". But you're not going to, now are you? Because, discounting a few scattered mavericks, there aren't any.
It is of no use. Neal T is never going to supply any list, nor any comprehensive scientific model, nor any evidence. He's just going to quote the Bible and claim that Darwin was wrong so the whole 100+ years of work by biologists is invalid, somehow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T if you can't say it, don't bother. Tell us who is in this list and where they have published papers in accredited science journals. Give us a comprehensive scientific model that describes divine creation.
Don't come back without it. If you don't like it, tough. Science is all about evidence and objectivity. Evolution has both, creationism has neither. If you can't supply evidence and analyze it through the scientific method, then you can't call creationism a science no matter how much you attack Darwin.
Faultline
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Again, I repeat, the bible isn't a science book! "
And I never said it was,, and I agree with you.
I said "genesis presupposes the existence of a creator, plus the ability of a creator to create the universe" This is fact.
If you have faith in genesis then this is irrelevent (but does not change the fact). But it has been said many times by others, faith is not science.
(I am not saying science is better or worse than faith , just that it adheres to different premises. This does not make it better or worse, just different)
If you (as neal t does) present genesis as a scientific model then it does matter. From a scientific point of view genesis rests on these 2 assumptions. Unless you can give evidence supporting these assumptions then genesis has no basis as a scientific theory.
This does not make it invalid as a faith.
Sorry my last post was addressed to visionofmars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaughing gravy on 06/25/09 to neal t, “You are using rhetoric to suppose because that a scientist makes a statement as regards evolution then this is a valid, JUST becuase he is a scientist A chemist or brain surgeon making a "meaningful" statement about evolution just because they are scientists or skilfull. I think not. Their making a statement as regards quantum mechanics would be just as valueless.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know nothing about science! Obviously, you aren’t aware that neuroscientists use quantum mechanics.
Faultline and Ambertooth and Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccredited scientists in your view are obviously those who believe in the philosoply of common descent. Those that don't obviously don't qualify even if they are neurosurgeons. According to Laughing gravy's previous posts, his car mechanic knows more about evolution.
You still haven't answered my question as to what kind of faith is left after all attempts to exclude God from creating, sustaining, or intervening in nature? are made?
Neal T: "You still haven't answered my question as to what kind of faith is left after all attempts to exclude God from creating, sustaining, or intervening in nature? are made?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me, there is only one answer, and that is 'pure faith'. This is the faith which lies beyond all religion, beyond human-created dogmas and doctrines, beyond any scriptures, beyond the limited human ability to define what God is or does, or what we imagine pleases or does not please God. The true experience of God is not limited by religion, or by the interpretation of texts, or by clinging to what we perceive those texts either to say or to mean, or by making assumptions on God's behalf for this reason. The 'God' which is excluded from "creating, sustaining, or intervening in nature" is the limited God as perceived by religion, and not the God which lies beyond.
Now have the decency to answer my questions. Or is it that creationists do not believe either in common courtesy or quid pro quo?
Laughing Gravy said, “genesis presupposes the existence of a creator, plus the ability of a creator to create the universe” This is a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you had a Roman Catholic bible from the 50’s with footnotes at the bottom of each page of Genesis then you would know it plainly states in the beginning of Genesis that “God did not say it or do it”. Only creationists believe that. Apparently, you would like to believe God created the universe, but I’ve already refuted it in my previous postings to this topic. Again, God did not *create* the universe. There is no such thing as a “watchmaker” God. Furthermore, if you trail back to my first posting to this topic which was to Neil, it was in rebuttal to his creationist remark.
Continuing on with my previous comment to Laughing Gravy about quantum mechanics.
NATURE|Vol 440|30 March 2006 ESSAY
Quantum mechanics in the brain
By Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp
The relation between quantum mechanics
Here is an excerpt:
“The relationship between quantum mechanics and higher brain functions is an entertaining topic at parties between a mixed, open-minded group of academics. It is, however, also a frequently asked question at international scientific conferences, in funding agencies and sometimes at the end of our lives, when thinking about ultimate truths. Therefore a well-founded understanding of these issues is desirable. The role of quantum mechanics for the photons received by the eye and for the molecules of life is not controversial. The critical questions we are here concerned with is whether any components of the nervous system - a 300o Kelvin wet and warm tissue strongly coupled to its environment - display any macroscopic quantum behaviors, such as quantum entanglement, and whether such quantum computations have any useful functions to perform. Neurobiologists and most physicists believe that on the cellular level, the interaction of neurons is governed by classical physics. A small minority, however, maintains that quantum mechanics is important for understanding higher brain functions, e.g. for the generation of voluntary movements (free will), for high-level perception and for consciousness. Arguments from biophysics and computational neuroscience make this unlikely.”
Ambertooth, there is no such thing as a “pure” faith unless you are an Intelligent Designer.
My apology, please note a correction in my previous posting. I meant to write, "If you had a Roman Catholic bible from the 50’s with footnotes at the bottom of each page of Genesis then you would know it plainly states in the beginning of Genesis that “God did not say it or do it”. Apparently, you would like to believe God created the universe, but I’ve already refuted it in my previous postings to this topic. Again, God did not *create* the universe. There is no such thing as a “watchmaker” God. Furthermore, if you trail back to my first posting to this topic which was to Neil, it was in rebuttal to his creationist remark."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comment in my previous posting that should have been omitted was 'Only creationists believe that'.
Thank you.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo your a Deist?
viewsofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a copy pf the New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible (1966) and it says, in the footnotes of Genesis 1:1, "Created: both the hebrew word and the context show that a real creation, ie. a making out of nothing, is meant. This hebrew word is used only in reference to God"
It requires more faith to believe in undefined and unobserved natural forces that only create in someone's imagination than in the God who has revealed himself in the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Ambertooth, So your a Deist?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, Neal T.. the creationist who likes to ask questions but never actually answers any. I have already answered your previous question. You want more answers? First have the courtesy to answer those questions already put to you. From this comment on, unless I see specific answers from you to the questions that now have been put to you multiple times here, any questions or further queries from you will remain unanswered by myself.
To start things off, produce an independent, validated statistical source (i.e: one that is not from a creationist website) for your claimed "growing numbers of skeptical scientists".
Quid pro quo, Clarice.
Neil T said, “It requires more faith to believe in undefined and unobserved natural forces that only create in someone's imagination than in the God who has revealed himself in the Bible.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil your comment is complete nonsense. Pure fabrication. A religious view, no matter what they may be, does not trump science. Your statement lacks facts. Here are two quotes from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Technology Review’s article, Nobel Causes, Cell biology and cosmology will never be the same, thanks to Andrew Fire, PhD '83, and George Smoot '66, PhD ' by Katherine Bourzac, January 12, 2007:
“He [George Smoot] co-led the research team behind NASA's COBE satellite, which made the first quantitative measurements of the initial conditions of the universe. Smoot's 1992 map of tiny temperature variations in cosmic radiation originating from about 14 billion years ago is the big bang theory's smoking gun. The minute fluctuations Smoot charted are thought to indicate the local concentrations of energy--the "seeds"--around which matter coalesced into the clusters of galaxies that make up today's universe”. “(p.1)
And, from the same article, “Astrophysicists say Smoot and Mather's announcement of COBE's results was a turning point for cosmology, when philosophical speculation about the universe's origins gave way to a science built on quantitative evidence. Smoot's map was subsequently verified by further balloon experiments and has since been enhanced by more sensitive measurements from WMAP, a NASA satellite still in orbit. Bertschinger likens Smoot and the other COBE scientists to explorers finding new continents. "You first find the continents and then explore the coastlines and make your maps more and more refined," he says.” (p.5)
###
Neal T's problem seems to be specifically with common descent, meaning he does not believe that vastly different animals have common ancestors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut he refuses to supply any evidence that God created all animals in full form. In fact, Neal T refuses to give any straight answers to any questions, he only asks more loaded questions and dodges the real issue.
Creationsists have no science and no model and no evidence to build anything even remotely resembling an alternate theory to the origin of species or the origin of the Earth and the universe.
Try anothers question, Neal T. Actually, a series of questions along the same line of thought. This one would be easy if you had an actual theory.
In your model, do new creatures appear fully formed out of nothing? Does God create them from the dust or from the air or does one animal give birth to another new species all in one jump? Why do so many hundreds of thousands of ancient species appear for such a short time (geologically speaking) then become extinct? Can you describe the set of laws that governs the spontaneous generation of new creatures and their extinction?
If the answer is, "God creates what He wants, when He wants, and how He wants" then you have a religion based in supernatural powers and there is no science in that whatsoever.
Faultline
In addition, no one addressed my comment regarding the need for scientific evidence for creation. I mean to say, isn't religion supposed to be believed through faith? Is it a sign of a lack of faith in God that people seek scientific evidence for His presence and His actions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is.
In my opinion, anyway. Having faith means not needing proof.
Faultline
Many factors influence the evolution of a plant or animal, but the most famous, discovered by Charles Darwin, is natural selection. Naturals selection is the idea that a plant or animal with more favorable traits will most likely survive to reproduce and have children with the same traits than those without it will. Natural selection cause things to evolve because it forces things to change so that they can survive in their environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNEal T i would like you to give me one good piece of evidence (you get browine points if your response doesnt have the word faith in it!) that can support, at all, creationism. O and pointing back to the hundred year game of telephone (the bible) doesnt count either ok?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA general observation: I have come across creationists before on Internet forums who behave in the identical way to Neal T. They remain obsessively fixated on specific aspects with which they disagree (for Neal T, that seems to be common decent and the Cambrian explosion). They provide any amount of what they imagine to be evidence 'against' what they object to, but are shy when it comes to actually providing evidence 'for' what they do accept. They always refer to evolutionary theory as 'Darwinism', or 'evolutionism'. They never take on board new information, no matter how many times something might be explained to them (that evidence based upon what the Bible says is not scientifically admissible is a typical case in point).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey totally ignore any direct questions put to them, no matter how many times the questions are repeated, and they tend to respond to a question, not with an answer, but by putting a question of their own (as Neal T has done to me here). Appeals to decency, courtesy, etc., mean nothing to them, because they seem to consider themselves removed from the values of others, and instead contrive their own standards for these values to justify their stance to themselves.
I have two points: Neal T in his style of comments is by no means unique for a creationist. In fact, in my own experience, his comments over the past month are typical of the way creationists 'debate' (which is not debate in any meaningful sense, because there is no free question-and response from their side).
My second point is this: if Neal T is typical of creationists (and in my experience he is), what does this say about creationism? On more laxly moderated sites than SciAm I have had all manner of foulness and vindictive abuse heaped upon me by creationists who object to my pro-science stance. But, although I choose not to engage in such free-for-all exchanges these days, in all those months, I never (with one single exception that comes to mind which I guess proves the rule) came across a pro-science commenter who was as foul-mouthed or as reluctant to respond with reasoned argument as a creationist could be.
Creationists seem to have a loathing, and even hatred, of those aspects of the biological sciences which appear to conflict with their religious beliefs on the one hand, and on the other they display a paradoxical craving for the respectability which they imagine that same science would confer on their beliefs.
Makes you think.
Faultline, "I mean to say, isn't religion supposed to be believed through faith? Is it a sign of a lack of faith in God that people seek scientific evidence for His presence and His actions?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline, members of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Vatican are of different religious faiths and non-religious scientists. Some are Nobel Prize winners. Stephen Hawking is also a member. (There aren't any creationists that are members.) For those of Faith they accept science since they don't see a conflict between their faith and science.
As far as creationists go, I’ve been battling them since 2003. I'm tired. The most important thing to remember is sock it to 'em with the scientific evidence with hope they will appreciate the information and learn.
ViewsofMars, I was specifically referring to creationists and how they seek to bolster a lack of faith by shoe-horning scientific misinterpretations into predrawn Biblical conclusions. It is great that a large number of scientists have faith and understand that there is no conflict between religion and science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the Biblical literalists have made Evolution and the Big Bang Theory their enemy in America and have preached how the Bible is to be taken as absolute, unswerving truth down to every last verse, word, letter, and comma. Through Evangelism, Biblical literalism has spread towards school boards where they hope to plant seeds of doubt in well-founded theories and leave room for religious belief in children.
So yes, hit them with the evidence and ask them for their own scientific model of creation, since all they want to do is attack Evolution. But I think it is hippocritical that creationists want to find scientific proof of spontaneous generation of life from dust and proof of a global flood 4,000 years ago and proof of the Earth's age at 10,000 years or less.
Why do Biblical literalists need science to prove what they should believe through faith? It would seem to me that their faith is weak, so they replace it with twisted science.
Faultline
Neal T's hope seems to be that if Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion, and since Darwin's "Tree of Life" has been modified over 100 years into a different "Bush of Life," then somehow that means that the whole theory is totally wrong and should be thrown out in favor of believing that God made it all and Evolution played no part in any of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice try, Neal. But we have good explanations for the evidence for the CE and the modification of Darwin's tree is based on new evidence. That is something that scientists do, they modify old models in light of new evidence. This in no way means that the whole theory is wrong, it means it is growing with more knowledge.
Faultline
I'm not a creationist nor do I personally know any creationists. If you accept evolution as I do and the Scientific Advisory committee for the Vatican who all accept *evolution* then there is no such thing as "creation science". I do know that the Bible is a historical document so we shouldn't take it as a myth. Archeologists assist in the discovery of documents and artefacts. There are expert theologians within the Vatican with two PhD's that have discussed biblical text.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the Faith Director, Peter Hess, of the National Science for Education is a creationist, tell me what you think about a creationist as a staff member for the National Center for Science Education. Not even the Vatican's Scientific Advisory Committee has a creationist as a member. Have you read Hess recent letter? I gave a source for it earlier on. Personally, his letter ticks a lot of people off. I'd be really interested in your opinion of his letter.
A list for skeptics of Darwinism is at www.dissentfromdarwin.org.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe list has grown over the years and is currently at about 18 pages long. According to the website: "Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which as an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan. - Nobel laureate Arno Penzias
"Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical" - Sir John Templeton
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have studied creation and evolution for many years. Here are some basic over looked facts. Our gene pools are a closed loop system with no new information being added. Birds are birds, dogs are dogs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMutations are not new information they are old information put in the wrong places (animals with legs where they shouldn't be) or mutiations are put in places that are somewhat helpful. Such as Darwins finche beaks. Alas it still rehashes orgional information. Gen:21 "Let them bring forth of their kinds." This fits they "micro" evloution very well, using existing information. What does not happen is "macro" evouliton changing into different kinds. This of course would take new information which isnt present. It can be added by man such a genetic mutiation but it does not happen naturlly. Did you ever wonder where the missing like is. A good reason why it is missing is because it is not there.
I am only trying to give a simple explantion of what is. A friend of Jesus
I could quote many who believe in a creator denying the evidence of Darwinism, but even honest evolutionists admit their explanations are speculations but their still not open to alternate accounts.... "We reject, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but WE MUST CONCEDE THAT THERE ARE PRESENTLY NO DETAILED DARWINIAN ACCOUNTS OF EVOLUTION OF ANY BIOCHEMICAL SYSTEM, ONLY A VARIETY OF WISHFUL SPECULATIONS"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwinists reject a creator for the origin of life not because they have a better or any detailed explanation of their own but because it does not suit their self-imposed and artificial philosophy of naturalism.
I forgot to give the credit for the "wishful speculations" of evolutionists quoted previously. It was Evolutionist and Biochemist Franklin M Harold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkeptical does not mean that it is wrong, it means more research is needed. I am certain that ambertooth, faultline, and the others discussing this with you would agree that more research is a good thing. Skeptical does not mean that it is not the currently accepted scientific theory until it is disproven. So even if the list has a million scientists sign, it still only means they want more research. The skeptic statement is carefully crafted to where, when carefully read, even those who fully support evolution would agree with that statement. Also, while I am replying to this post, several of the accepted doctorates required to sign the list can have absolutely no knowledge of evolution and still sign, not a strong point for your list.
On to the second post, the Templeton quote has no relevance in a discussion about science. It shows that he was a spiritual person and felt that there was great room for personal growth in spirituality that materialists did not consider. However, I doubt when asked what principles of economics guided his decisions on mutual funds did spirituality enter the discussion.
No Neal, a creator is excluded from the theory of evolution because there is no evidence that supports a creator. Once again, SCIENCE REQUIRES PROOF.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo comments to plain facts. Only fulff and daydreams. Say it isn't soooooo. A friend of Jesus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm not a creationist nor do I personally know any..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisViewsofMars, if you live in the US, chances are better than even you are acquainted with several, or at least those who believe creationists are right (a subtle distinction). You just don't know who they are. I suppose you could consider them closet creationists.
I notice you and others have spent a lot of time "conversing" with some of them here, Neal T most recently, with little apparent progress toward mutual understanding. Now, if you don't care one way or the other about that, then more power to you and I hope you have fun playing with them. On the other hand, if you would like to stop talking at each other, may I offer you a friendly suggestion?
Anybody who argues for creationism or ID is almost never interested in scientific evidence, almost by definition. Even if they say they are, assume they aren't. Answering questions as if they are doesn't help anybody. However, many of them are interested in Truth, as you are. That is your common ground, but you're looking for it in different places. You use the same words, but you aren't speaking the same language. Your results are little different than if Moses came down the mountain and started talking about recombinant DNA.
Specific suggestion: talk astronomy. Almost nobody argues for a flat Earth and a geocentric Solar System. After 500 years, Galileo finally convinced them, bless their fundie -thumping hearts. Nobody accuses astronomists of leading schoolchildren away from God. That's because they realize in this case Biblical Truth goes beyond a limited and simplistic literal interpretation.
Specific suggestion: show some humility. For me, the most important discovery of 20th-century Science is; there are some things Science can never know. Not not yet; never. Not later; never. Not because we lack some bigger better faster smarter whatevers; never. Quantum infinities put limits on what Science can ever know. Don't believe me Look up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the physical structure of a singularity, the Universe before the Big Bang, the terminal velocity of an unladen swallow (oops, forget that last one). My point is, if Science admits there are some questions it can never answer, so can you. And when you admit your own limitations, and see the Universe is more complicated that you can even imagine, and realize the Universe is by design unknowable, then perhaps, maybe, you will allow the possibility of someone else's imaginary friend.
Neal T: "A list for skeptics of Darwinism is at www.dissentfromdarwin.org."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe list is meaningless. Simply adding one's name to a list, whether one is a sophomore or a Nobel laureate, serves no purpose. If any one of the names on this list has actually published a worked-out hypothesis in the accredited literature for what, if they reject evolutionary theory, they specifically would PUT IN ITS PLACE, then I'd like to be provided with a cited reference to check.
Until such citations are presented, simply adding one's name to a list on the Internet to say what one is AGAINST, rather than providing verifiable evidence of substance for what one is FOR, is just plain old bellyaching in anyone's lexicon, and certainly cuts no crumpet in the sciences.
In any case, Neal T, as the site is managed by the Discovery Institute (now THERE'S a surprise..), it does not qualify under my stipulation that any source which you provide for your "growing number of scientist skeptics" must be non-creationist and impartial.
And agreeing with such an unobnoxious statement as "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" is hardly a struggle-of-conscience matter. It is (and clealy is intended to be) such an innocuous remark that even I would agree with the principle of such a generalized phrase, as I am sure any pro-science commenter here also would.
So it's back to the drawing board for you, Neal T.
"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been carefully thought out... The seemingly miraclous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidenced for cosmic design."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Physicist Paul Davies
Also, the myth surrounding Galileo vs. the Catholic church is not as simple of a story as it is often fictionalized. Ironically the Catholic church was holding their position mainly because BIG SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY of that era held the geocentric view.
"Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view that the Earth remained motionless at the centre of the universe" Wikipedia Galileo.
The Bible does not support the geocentric view, it can only be inferred incorrectly from it. Ironically, again in our time the Catholic church has become influenced by BIG SCIENCE but this time the dogma of evolution holds the political power.
It is the skeptics again, like Galileo of the past whose views will ultimately prevail over false science and false religion.
"The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design." - Cosmologist Edward Harrison.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I do not believe that any scientist who examined the EVIDENCE would fail to draw the inference that the laws of physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars." - Sir Fred Hoyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Harvard astronomy professor and senior astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Owen Gingerich
Quoting myself below from my last posting to the board and once again bumping it for a response about anyone having read Peter Hess letter? You can trail back to one of my earlier messages for finding out where it was printed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“I'm not a creationist nor do I personally know any creationists. If you accept evolution as I do and the Scientific Advisory committee for the Vatican who all accept *evolution* then there is no such thing as "creation science". I do know that the Bible is a historical document so we shouldn't take it as a myth. Archeologists assist in the discovery of documents and artefacts. There are expert theologians within the Vatican with two PhD's that have discussed biblical text.
“Since the Faith Director, Peter Hess, of the National Science for Education is a creationist, tell me what you think about a creationist as a staff member for the National Center for Science Education. Not even the Vatican's Scientific Advisory Committee has a creationist as a member. Have you read Hess recent letter? I gave a source for it earlier on. Personally, his letter ticks a lot of people off. I'd be really interested in your opinion of his letter.”
###
Fast response to jpill69’s snide and obtuse remarks– reread my comments above and do indulge yourself by reading my scientific contributions to this topic before making false accusations of what I should do, which I HAVE ALREADY DONE. I’m multi-disciplined in many areas of science. I am a science researcher! Again, I don’t *personally* know any creationists! Personally means face to face in real life not cyberspace. Jpill since you *think* you are so great at giving advise, you start showing me that you are capable of responding to creationists claims by providing them with scientific evidence. I already have here and elsewhere for over seven years on the Internet. Outside of cyberspace I’ve been involved with science for more years than I wish to count. And, please spare me your so-called friendly suggestions in the future. I’m an adult over 50 so I advise many scientists rather than having someone I don’t personally know on the Internet tell me what I should or shouldn’t do when it comes to science. Your assumptions about me weren’t based on truth. If you were a scientist doing that then you would be down the road so to speak as far as I would be concerned. Now, since you huff and puffed about what I should do let’s see you respond to Neal T’s erroneous claims. Of course, you will have to do some RESEACH not only the science but religious stuff as well to defend your position. Good luck. I’ll be waiting for YOU to do that with Neil. Bye the way, you mention the word “humble”. The majority of brilliant scientists that I personally know aren’t always that humble when dealing with creationists while on the Internet. :) Why should they have to be! This stuff has been going on for years and years.
Surely, out of 18 pages of doctors and scientists, someone in that group has published some research into the science that God created all life on Earth without the process of Evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGot any evidence for creation, Neal T? How about answering some questions about the science behind the creation? Try these:
1. In your model, do new creatures appear fully formed out of nothing?
2. Does God create them from the dust or from the air or does one animal give birth to another new species all in one jump?
3. Why do so many hundreds of thousands of ancient species appear for such a short time (geologically speaking) then become extinct?
4. Can you describe the set of laws that governs the spontaneous generation of new creatures and their extinction?
If the answer is, "God creates what He wants, when He wants, and how He wants" then you have a religion based in supernatural powers and there is no science in that whatsoever.
jpill69, I don’t have any imaginary friends. But, it seems dvashun made some critical errors in his statement before yours. Why didn’t you catch those errors? I suggest you take care of business by carefully examining what dyashun has stated below, which I have pasted in this message to you, and explain to him why his statement is false. I’ll be waiting and watching for you to do that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun said. “No Neal, a creator is excluded from the theory of evolution because there is no evidence that supports a creator. Once again, SCIENCE REQUIRES PROOF.
@Creationist (First 3 points, the rest is my opinion)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSource of information:
- The Bible
- Is a BOOK
- Could have been made by ANYONE
- Christianity orginated neighbouring 2 other religions
- The "Inteligent Designer" follows the same "chain of command" or "heirachy" that human life does. How conveniant.
- The Eye witnesses of "God" died thousands of years ago.
- There are many religions all based on the same principles but what makes "yours" the right one, if any are even right.
- Science is constantly subject to change following new evidence and discovery.
- Evolution is not saying how life began so no "Genesis arguements" please. It is explaining the transition between one species to another to survive in the ever changing world. Evolution can also be understood, at a microbiological level, by using anti-boitics to get rid of a bacterial infection. This usually works to kill off bacteria but sometimes it doesnt because it has mutated or Evolved so to speak, it follows the exact same principles as evolution has offered, does it not?
Also if "God" is so loving towards us, why would "the creator" place a black hole near our Sun and in the Centre of our galaxy?
It doesn't seem to be the sort of thing people see as a loving gesture.
Open to all opinions and extra details (i enjoy a good conversation)
Both sides of the arguement, not just pro-creationists or
pro-evolutionists please.
Did I hit a nerve. OK then...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you wrote you don't personally know any creationists. Twice. Without any mistakes. Good for you. You make your mother proud. Feel better? And I wrote chances are you are acquainted with many. Why do you deny it? Are you insulted by the likelihood that you shared some air with creationists? They aren't contagious, you know. For the record, I apologe for uncovering one of your personal problems on my first shot. I wasn't even trying, Honest.
Dismissing the rest of your extraneous BS to focus on a matter of importance...
According to the heading of the article on which this forum is based, it was originally published in July 2002. The first post I see in this forum is dated November 2007. You have stated how you have spent years providing creationists with scientific evidence. Yes, lots of time, lots of effort, lots of research. Everyone should get a medal, but doesn't seem to be doing the creationists any good, does it? Now, it's no skin off my nose if you want to do the same thing, over and over, and get the same results, again and again. If that's what you want. Is it? They say you are insane to expect anything different. Right? But IF you seek common ground, IF you seek dialog, IF you seek replies more productive than what you get in this forum and elsewhere, THEN you just might want to consider doing something different. IF...THEN..., a logical construct, no assumptions about anybody or anything, and nothing to get hysterical about. OK?
Finally, I acknowledge your challenge to me to do exactly what you do here, but I am uninterested in the results you get, and I know a different way.
Neal T: "It is the skeptics again, like Galileo of the past whose views will ultimately prevail over false science and false religion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone else noticed the way in which creationists have purloined the term 'skeptic' for their cause? For creationists, 'skeptics' are those who disagree with the accredited science (or at least, evolutionary theory specifically, because, with baffling inconsistency, they seem to find the rest of science just peachy). But, Neal T, I am a skeptic. I'm highly skeptical when it comes to creationist pseudoscience.
In any case, what you claim about Galileo and the Church is of course nonsense. The whole point is (and whatever you might say about the finer points of translation and interpretation of the Bible in the 21st century) that the Church then believed that the solar system (and the universe generally) was geocentric, as THEY believed scripture confirmed. It was Galileo's heliocentric model that was for this reason considered heresy, which is what he was charged with, as was Giordano Bruno for the same reason a few decades before (although, unlike Galileo, Bruno courageously refused to recant, and so had to endure the appalling consequences).
Bruno also had the astonishing insight to consider that the stars were actually other suns like our own, with their own planets orbiting around them. That was also deemed blasphemous heresy and included in the charges against him. So he burned for that idea as well.
Courageous voices like those of Bruno and Galileo were the voices of reason and knowledge (which we would now consider scientific reasoning) against the repressive dogmas of the Church authorities who clung to the authority of scripture. Which is why your analogy is out of whack. That time in history (and indeed, elsewhere in today's world) is a frightening example of what happens when religion gains political power, which is ultimately what the creationists' agenda is all about.
The light of knowledge was actively suppressed by the Church's authority in Europe for centuries, and only began to emerge after that authority was broken and the Age of Reason began.
ambertooth's three laws of applied religion:
Religion + Politics = Bad politics
Religion + Science = Bad science
Religion + Politics + Science = Bad religion
History demonstrates that when religion imposes itself either upon science or on politics, it's bad news.
Viewof Mars, besides changing the last word of my statement to evidence instead of "proof ," what is incorrect about that statement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGalileo said,
"I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruthwhenever its true meaning is understood." Galileo, in Drake, p. 181
Copernicus said,
"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'" Galileo, in Drake, p. 186.
These men were not opposing the Bible or belief in God as the creator, but the view of ARTISTOLE that had become the tradition of the Catholic church. Galileo even used Bible from the book of Job to support his position.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis argument with you has not been about the religious truth of the Bible or the existence of God, it is about providing evidence to support your model. The Bible is not acceptable as evidence even if it is the reason that research is done. As for the quotes you use, it simply provides evidence that Galileo and Copernicus believed that the Bible was not to be interpreted literally. Their religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific accomplishments. Pythagoras believed in reincarnation yet his influence in math still tortures teens to this day.
jpill69’s last message to me is nothing more than rhetoric. Jpill69 has failed to impress me and is all talk and no action when it comes to adding any significant contributions. He apparently likes to chitty chat rather than present any scientific contributions and is most definitely unaware that creationists inclusive of proponents of ID still want creation science taught in public schools within the U.S. and Europe. Whereas, dvashun has noted my challenge to jpill69, he has at least attempted to amend his original comment. .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the order in which the conversation went:
1. Views of Mars said, “jpill69, I don’t have any imaginary friends. But, it seems dvashun made some critical errors in his statement before yours. Why didn’t you catch those errors? I suggest you take care of business by carefully examining what dyashun has stated below, which I have pasted in this message to you, and explain to him why his statement is false. I’ll be waiting and watching for you to do that. [Please take note that jpill69 never did but rather rudely set his own agenda filled with rhetoric rather than do what he told me to do earlier.]
“dvashun said. “No Neal, a creator is excluded from the theory of evolution because there is no evidence that supports a creator. Once again, SCIENCE REQUIRES PROOF”
2. dvashun replied, “Viewof Mars, besides changing the last word of my statement to evidence instead of "proof ," what is incorrect about that statement?”
My response to dvashun’s is bravo as far as the usage of the word evidence. Now let’s examine your first statement further. You are speaking about the theory of evolution within the content of your original statement. We know for certain that “evolution is a fact”. Moving on to your comment (refer to #1) Best to use what I presented earlier from “Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. 2008 National Academy of Sciences” wherein it states, ‘supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science’. (2)
Your original statement read, “No Neal, a creator is excluded from the theory of evolution because there is no evidence that supports a creator. Once again, SCIENCE REQUIRES PROOF,” I would amend your statement by writing in the future by stating, “Science is based on the natural world since supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science.” The reason is that ‘Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.” (2)
1. 1. “What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.” [<<www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html>>]
2.2. “Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.”(From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. 2008 National Academy of Sciences)
Ambertooth said, “History demonstrates that when religion imposes itself either upon science or on politics, it's bad news.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that controversy does posit itself between the “The Religious Left” (google it) verses the “religious right”. (Peter Hess, again in the religious left bleacher.) And, like I implied before why does the NCSE need a Faith Director since ‘science and religion are separate’ according to Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. 2008 National Academy of Sciences.
Minor edit it brackets:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth said, “History demonstrates that when religion imposes itself either upon science or on politics, it's bad news.”
I agree that controversy does posit itself between the “The Religious Left” [Dispatches from the Religious Left] (google it) verses the “religious right”. (Peter Hess, again in the religious left bleacher.) And, like I implied before why does the NCSE need a Faith Director since ‘science and religion are separate’ according to Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. 2008 National Academy of Sciences.
ViewsofMars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile what you state is true, you jumped to the assumption that those criteria had not been addressed in this discussion. I assure, these have already been mentioned many, many times. Since you jumped in to the discussion well after the beginning, Neal has been challenged to provide evidence to support his creation model that includes a creator. If he is able to provide non-scriptural evidence of a creator then the creator would no longer be supernatural. Before interjecting yourself in a discussion it is best to know what has already been covered.
ViewsofMars, You act as if this is your own personal clubhouse, and I'm obliged somehow to pass your initiation. How quaint. Well, I won't play your little games. I refuse to be part of the problem. I don't owe you a thing. Get over it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisViewsofMars, you seem to think this is your own personal clubhouse, and I'm obliged somehow to pass your initiation. Well, I won't play your games. I refuse to become part of your problem. I don't owe you a thing. Get over it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun said, “ViewsofMars, While what you state is true, you jumped to the assumption that those criteria had not been addressed in this discussion. I assure, these have already been mentioned many, many times. Since you jumped in to the discussion well after the beginning, Neal has been challenged to provide evidence to support his creation model that includes a creator. If he is able to provide non-scriptural evidence of a creator then the creator would no longer be supernatural. Before interjecting yourself in a discussion it is best to know what has already been covered.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, dvashun I have read the previous discussions and if you agree with what I stated was true pertaining to my previous comment: “Science is based on the natural world since supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science.” The reason is that ‘Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist” then dvashun, all you are doing is allowing a controversy to exist. There is no controversy because ‘science is based on the natural world since supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science’. Don’t you realize that the whole argument with the Intelligent Design “Wedge” philosophy is to create controversy? All you are doing dvashun is feeding their philosophy. Are you a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement? Perhaps you didn't know that proponents of that movement are creationists inclusive of deists.
Views,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop being a hypocritical idiot. If you firmly feel that by participating in this discussion ambertooth, faultline, and myself are contributing to the Wedge strategy, then why did you bother to get off your high horse and put your two cents in. You did it for the same reason as everyone else on this forum, the topic is interesting and you have a strong opinion on the subject. So how do you have the temerity to voice your opinion and then reproach others on this thread for doing the same?
dvashun, you are lacking facts for your statement. I wasn't reproaching anybody. Just a gentle reminder as I expressed in my last posting. You apparently overreact and are very ulta sensitive. You have read far too much in my last posting. What an imagination! I didn't deal with Neil except for once about his religious issues vs other non-creationist's religious issues. Period end of story. Furthermore, I didn't in any way shape or form express my opinions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun, I haven't noticed you making any scientific contributions.
Looks like jpill69 has become a troll.
"Looks like jpill69 has become a troll."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust following your lead.
View,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever you view my reaction to you, allow me to introduce you to the facts of our exchange here.
1) You state that you weren't reproaching anyone yet in a reply to me you say "Don’t you realize that the whole argument with the Intelligent Design “Wedge” philosophy is to create controversy? All you are doing dvashun is feeding their philosophy. Are you a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement? Perhaps you didn't know that proponents of that movement are creationists inclusive of deists."
2)Reproach - verb (used with object) 1. to find fault with (a person, group, etc.); blame; censure.
3) You state "Furthermore, I didn't in any way shape or form express my opinions. "
4) Multiple times since 6/26 have you expressed your opinion on this forum, including the post in which you state that you did not express your opinions.
5)No one on this forum has made scientific contributions, it has all been discussion. Some people on this board have tried to clarify the criteria necesasry for scientific evidence and models, but no scientific contributions.
Your comments to me clearly found fault with my participating in this discussion and for you to come back with mock innocence is shameful. This is the last comment I will make to you outside relevant discussion of the 15 answers.
dvashun, I stand behind what I have stated in my last two postings to this topic. And in reponse to your #5 statement,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No one on this forum has made scientific contributions, it has all been discussion. Some people on this board have tried to clarify the criteria necesasry for scientific evidence and models, but no scientific contributions."
This #5 comment of yours leads me to believe that you aren't very familiar with science maybe this is why you like to deal with the religious stuff. Apprently you aren't aware that throughout our discussions I and others have been using scientific articles. Scientific articles are considered
"scientific contributions" by members who discuss science when debating false claims made by proponents of Intelligent Design (creationism) and creationists (creationism). If you read the article, "15 Answers to Creationists Claims" above then you will see at the bottom of page 1 this
[see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991]. John Rennie wrote the article and he is editor of Scientific American, " He holds a bachelor of science degree in biology from Yale University. After graduating in 1981, he worked for some years as a researcher at Harvard Medical School, before he began his career as a science writer." (Wikipedia). He uses Scientific American articles because it is backed up by scientic articles from peer reviewed journels. He is a smart man! ;-) Those of us that are interested in Science will back him up with old or new scientic articles.
dvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere in my quotes of Galileo and copernicus did they say they did not interpret the bible literally? Again you are either a poor reader or you deliberately twist what you read.
I find "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" very useful in my discussions about evolution. Admittedly, some people are not as impressed with this essay as I am, particularly Creationists. Not surprisingly, Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub codified what some people think is a fitting rebuttal. "15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense" takes up 65 pages, including footnotes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven its bulk, I would like to focus on just one answer for the moment. Richard Dawkin includes the argument in #8 in his book "The Blind Watchmaker", and specifically mentions the computer algorithm that builds coherent sentences from random letters in a surprisingly short time. I remember when I first read about it I was quite impressed at such a clever way to show how natural selection can druve the development of complex organisms. I also remember my disappointment when I first heard someone say it just shows the need for a designer. I admit it never occured to me until that very moment that some people don't see what is obvious to me. In this elegant solution to the Typing Monkeys Paradox, the computer's target sentence is merely a stand-in for natural selection; it doesn't matter what the target sentence is. To simulate Creationism, the computer only has to duplicate the target sentence on the first round, which is frankly not all that interesting. Since then I have found this logical hiccup is quite common among Creationists; both Neal T and Firstthings parrot the error in their posts in this forum. "15 Answers to John Rennie" also includes this mistake, along with many of the apparently obligatory incomplete quotes taken out of context.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conclusion that neither Galileo nor Copernicus believed in a literal translation comes from a) both held a heliocentric view of this solar system and b) Psalm 104:5 states that the earth never moves (the exact quote is "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.")
So while you did not express any specific statement about Galileo's and Copernicus' religious belief, I am able to draw logical conclusions on the information available. There is clearly a disconnect between their beliefs and what the bible literally states.
Neal T, I don't care. Do you have some answers to questions concerning your version of creation? If the scientific evidence really supported creation by God, you should be capable of providing some answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are my questions again, in case they got missed in the flurry.
1. In your model, do new creatures appear fully formed out of nothing? Or does God create them from the dust, or from the air, or does one animal give birth to another new species all in one jump?
2. Why do so many hundreds of thousands of ancient species appear for such a short time (geologically speaking) then become extinct?
3. Can you describe the set of laws that governs the spontaneous generation of new creatures and their replacement by new species that appear related?
If the answer is, "God creates what He wants, when He wants, and how He wants" then you have a religion based in supernatural powers and there is no science in that whatsoever.
Faultline
Neal, I was wondering if you would consider a different line of conversation. From the "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", are there any you particularly agree or disagree with? From the "15 Answer to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense", are there any that you particularly agree or disagree with? Please share your opinion with me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T earlier on made this comment to dvashun, Myth #2- You build a strawman argument that creationists resist science in general. The conflict is with Common Descent and this is primarily because the theory does not have enough evidence to support its grand claims. Most people can see through weak arguments. Perhaps you guys should consider that the arguments are weak because it didn't happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[snip] How about that trilobite eye?
From the National Center for BioTechnology Informtaion - PubMed:
Arthropod Struct Dev. 2006 Dec;35(4):247-59. Epub 2006 Oct 23. LinksThe eyes of trilobites: The oldest preserved visual system.
Clarkson E, Levi-Setti R, Horv�th G.
Grant Institute of Earth Sciences, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW, UK.
The oldest preserved visual systems are to be found in the extinct trilobites, marine euarthropods which existed between about 520 and 250 million years ago. Because they possessed a calcified cuticle, they have a good fossil record, and commonly the lens-bearing surfaces of their paired compound eyes are well preserved. The sublensar structures, however, remain unknown. Three kinds of eyes have been distinguished. Holochroal eyes, apomorphic for trilobites, typically have many contiguous small lenses, set on a kidney-shaped visual surface. Lens optics, angular range of vision, and ontogeny have been established for many compound eyes. Some pelagic trilobites have enormous eyes, subtending a panoramic field of view. Schizochroal eyes are found only in one group, the phacopids (Ordovician to Devonian). These have large lenses, separated from each other by cuticular material, and the lenses have a complex doublet or triplet internal structure, which could focus light sharply. The optics of phacopid eyes are becoming increasingly well known despite the fact that there are no direct counterparts in any living arthropods today. Schizochroal eyes are apomorphic for phacopids and were derived by paedomorphosis from a holochroal precursor. Abathochroal eyes are confined to a short-lived Cambrian group, the eodiscids (of which most representatives were blind). Less is known about them than other trilobite eyes and their origins remain obscure. Some trilobite groups had no eyes, but had other kinds of sensory organs. In Upper Devonian times several groups of trilobites independently underwent progressive eye-reduction leading to blindness, related to prevailing environmental conditions of the time. The last trilobites (of Carboniferous and Permian age), however, had normal holochroal eyes, which persisted until the final extinction of trilobites at the end of the Permian.
(<<www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18089074?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum>>)
p.s. Im sorry for an error in my previous posting. The article is 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense not 15 Answers to Creationists Claims . (A girlfriends husband died so I have been helping her get through it besides tending to my own obligations.)
The 16th Answer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my discussions with Creationists, and in the Creationist literature I have read, there seems to be a near-universal thread, that of viewing Evolution and the teaching of it as the work of Satan. When Science says divine intervention is unnecessary to create life and humanity, Creationists see it as threatening their special relationship with God. When Richard Dawkins says that evolution proves God doesn't exist, it only adds fuel to their fear. Creationists argue Science so badly because they are interested in Revealed Truth not Scientific Facts. Recent posts here only illustrate the futility; one side demands proof, the other side offers what is proof to them, the first side rejects the proof as irrelevant, repeat ad nauseum.
The challenge is Science and Faith are both incredibly persuasive forces, and any Society that chooses one over the other is the weaker for it.
jpill just said, Creationists argue Science so badly because they are interested in Revealed Truth not Scientific Facts. Recent posts here only illustrate the futility; one side demands proof, the other side offers what is proof to them, the first side rejects the proof as irrelevant, repeat ad nauseum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCosmic evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is a fact. There most definitely can be facts within a statement. Scientists look for evidence from observations. (What they see.) There is Proof Theory which is a branch of mathematical logic. Physics uses mathematical proofs.
jpill just said, When Richard Dawkins says that evolution proves God doesn't exist, it only adds fuel to their fear.
Do you have a source for that statement that Richard Dawkins said, That evolution proves God doesnt exist. Where and when did he make the statement? The reason I ask is sometimes I take it with a grain of salt if I read it in a newspaper whether it be from either side. : ) Ive contacted more editors of newspapers correcting their mistakes. My experience is that you have to do a lot of research to get to the real truth of the matter.
jpill just said, The challenge is Science and Faith are both incredibly persuasive forces, and any Society that chooses one over the other is the weaker for it.
I personally think that there is more to life than only Science and Faith.
jpill69 said to me some blocks back [snip]For me, the most important discovery of 20th-century Science is; there are some things Science can never know. Not not yet; never. Not later; never. Not because we lack some bigger better faster smarter whatevers; never. Quantum infinities put limits on what Science can ever know. Don't believe me Look up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the physical structure of a singularity, the Universe before the Big Bang, the terminal velocity of an unladen swallow (oops, forget that last one). My point is, if Science admits there are some questions it can never answer, so can you. And when you admit your own limitations, and see the Universe is more complicated that you can even imagine, and realize the Universe is by design unknowable, then perhaps, maybe, you will allow the possibility of someone else's imaginary friend.
It might behoove you to do some research in the future to avoid correction.
Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle: Heisenberg's original paper does not attempt to rigorously determine the exact quantity on the right side of the inequality, but rather uses physical argument to show that the uncertainty between conjugate quantum mechanical variables is approximately h (Heisenberg 1927, p. 175, eqn. 1) . (Eric Wesstens World of Physics, Uncertainty Principle, Wofram.com.)
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
The Universe before the Big Bang: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Anisotropies: their Discovery and Utilization, Nobel Lecture, December 8, 2006
by George F. Smoot. I present only two snippets from the lecture wherein he states within his lecture, T he Cosmic Background Radiation Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature anisotropies have revolutionized and continue to revolutionize our understanding of the Universe. The observation of the CMB anisotropies angular power spectrum with its plateau, acoustic peaks, and high frequency damping tail have established a standard cosmological model consisting of a flat (critical density) geometry, with contents being mainly dark energy and dark matter and a small amount of ordinary matter. In this successful model the dark and ordinary matter formed its structure through gravitational instability acting on the quantum fluctuations generated during the very early Inflationary epoch. Current and future observations will test this model and determine its key cosmological parameters with spectacular precision and confidence.
. . .According to Big Bang theory, our universe began in a nearly perfect thermal equilibrium state with very high temperature. The universe is dynamic and has been ever expanding and cooling since its birth. When the temperature of the universe dropped to 3,000 K there were insufficient energetic CMB photons to keep hydrogen or helium atoms ionized. Thus, the primeval plasma of charged nuclei electrons and photons changed into neutral atoms plus background radiation. The background radiation could then propagate through space freely, though being stretched by the continuing expansion of the universe, while baryonic matter (mostly hydrogen and helium atoms) could cluster by gravitational attraction to form stars, galaxies and even larger structures. For these structures to form there must have been primordial perturbations in the early matter and energy distributions. The primordial fluctuations of matter density that will later form large scale structures leave imprints in the form of temperature anisotropies in the CMB.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/smoot_lecture.pdf
jpill69 last post to Neal, I was wondering if you would consider a different line of conversation. From the "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", are there any you particularly agree or disagree with?
If you look at my previous post you will find your answer. Bye the way, I did give him the answer to his question, which he asked quite a while ago.
I would like to correct an error of fact. I recently wrote "When Richard Dawkins says that evolution proves God doesn't exist..." I can't find any reference that Dr. Dawkins said it or wrote it. Further, it's unlikely he said or wrote it, as Dr. Dawkins is a very good scientist and is very careful about what he labels "proof". I admire Dr. Dawkins and his works, and I do not intend to misrepresent his opinions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo society should force anyone to choose one over the other. Scientists should always understand that there is no such thing as proof that God does not exist, and ministers should always understand that faith and science are rooted in completely different aspects of human experience and are not mutually exclusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists should stop trying to fill a lack of faith with bad science. That is what happens when they try to enforce a rigid, literal interpretation of Biblical scripture. They insist that the Earth was created in six days about 10,000 years ago and that most animal species were wiped out by a flood that covered the Earth about 4,000 years ago. Rather than just believing it on faith, creationists use a brand of warped science to get people to believe.
Both science and faith are made weaker by their efforts.
Faultline
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm back after vacation and again I see a need to correct your errors in lumping everyone that believes the Bible and the Creator as strictly "young-earth creationists". The Bible simply does not give a creation date, and there are many who believe the creation days are not limited to 24 hours in length.
Geologists, even before Darwin, saw evidence of an old earth and they these were men that held to the view that God created the earth.
Darwinists need faith to fill in the enormous gaps in the fossil record that their theory predicts should exist. It does take great faith, for example, to believe the Trilobite eye and all the other complex creatures of the Cambrian age actually had a gradual evolutionary ancestry when the evidence for it is missing. Small multi-celled animals and worms from the previous Avalon explosion do not come close to showing direct links to the Cambrian. You must accept the
"evolution-of-the-gaps" faith because you do not have a leg to stand on.
I see your questions about the creation model from a previous post and I will respond. In the mean time, do you have anything to add to your previous post about the Cambrian Explosion? Do you not see that your evidence is weak? You are such a strong proponent of "hard Science", but how about showing us some "hard Science" in regards to the Avalon and Cambrian Explosions? Take away your statements that do not include "maybe", "probably", "possibly", and "could" and what "hard science" do you have? Do you believe in the evolutionary tale of the Cambrian Explosion because it has been shown that farmers can breed different varieties of tomatoes? What makes you tick Faultine? A worldview that sees evidence by faith when it does not exist?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDawkins did write: "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,” writes Richard Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
This highlights the fact that for some Darwinism is more like a pillar for a naturalistic worldview. Faith in evolution must fill the gaps in the evidence because more than just a theory is at stake, but a philosophy and lifestyle based on Darwinism. Darwinism gives atheists a moment of warm fuzzies.
Neal T, I don't care. I wasn't even addressing you and your old-Earth creationist beliefs. Faith is belief in something without scientific evidence. There is plenty of scientific evidence for Evolution, so believing that Evolution occurred during the gaps in the fossil record is not faith. All I meant was that it is hypocritical to prop up a lack of faith in creationism with bad science. This is because faith should require no proof, or it isn't faith after all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of which, do you have some answers to my questions concerning your version of creation? If the scientific evidence really supports creation by God, you should be capable of providing some answers.
Here are my questions again, in case they got missed in the flurry.
1. In your model, do new creatures appear fully formed out of nothing? Or does God create them from the dust, or from the air, or does one animal give birth to another new species all in one jump?
2. Why do so many hundreds of thousands of ancient species exist for such a short duration (geologically speaking) then become extinct?
3. Can you describe the set of laws that governs the spontaneous generation of new creatures and their replacement by new species that appear related?
If the answer is, "God creates what He wants, when He wants, and how He wants" then you have a religion based in supernatural powers and there is no science in that whatsoever.
Faultline
One of my favorite Sidney Harris cartoons is of two men standing in front of a chalkboard (I know, I know. It was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away). On the chalkboard, a large space separates two groups of dense equations. In the space is the phrase THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS . One man points to the phrase and says to the other, I think you should be more explicit here in step two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the debate against evolution (and that is what it is), both sides accuse each other of relying on hand-waving and dogmatic assertions. I suppose such exertions help disperse the hot air, but I think debates are more productive when both sides try to be less kinetic and more explicit.
I am looking at "15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense" by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D. Its purpose and format echo those of its namesake "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" by John Rennie. It seems to me these two essays offer a tailor-made opportunity to analyze what each side sees is wrong with the other. Given that both essays were written in 2002, and given the obvious passions on both sides of this issue, no doubt many people have already done so. Still, I havent seen anything, and maybe I will add something that hasnt been written before. So, where to begin? I might as well begin at the beginning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn their introduction, Thompson and Harrub establish their essays tone and spirit. They complain of Rennie being "long on verbiage", which I think is kinda ballsy considering their essay is a rather bulky 60 pages plus 5 pages of endnotes. They then proclaim what appears to me to be a tit-for-tat assertion of their position; they complain of Rennies biased view, belligerent attitude, and scientific elitism, and then say they will expose evolutionists' nonsense. It seems to me this kind of dogmatic hand-waving is acceptable in an introduction, but the body of the essay is supposed to back it up with something more explicit. And so the battle lines are drawn.
One important issue skews any effort to make useful comparisons. The problem is, despite their apparent similarities, these two essays arent really discussing the same thing, so Im not surprised that the two sides wind up talking at each other
For example, in his essay, John Rennie takes care to distinguish between the fact of evolution, which is that Earths biota changes over geologic time, and the theories of evolution, which are explanations of evolutions likely methods and mechanisms. Such a distinction is important if and only if you care about the difference. However, in their essay, Thompson and Harrub say evolution never happened. I want to emphasize their point; they dont say it happened differently, they say it didnt happen at all. According to them, the fossil record disproves evolution and proves Creation. If that is the case, it seems to me Creation and Intelligent Design cant be discussed as mere evolutionary theories, but as cosmological principles. It seems to me Thompson and Harrub shouldnt waste their time with small fry like Rennie and Darwin. They really should go after Hawking and Einstein. I'm sure they will do as well.
"Faith in evolution must fill the gaps in the evidence because more than just a theory is at stake, but a philosophy and lifestyle based on Darwinism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwinism as a lifestyle choice? You mean like homosexuality? Do they have evolution bars? Could be a genetic predisposition, and some are just born Darwinists and some are just born again :)
Seriously, if you see the Devil in Darwinism, no scientific debate will persuade you otherwise. It seems to me you have a similar problem as the Church did with Galileo, but they don't bother those pesky astronomists any more. Just as he is supposed to have said "yet it moves", I say to you "evolution happens".
The bottom line is that Common Descent has only been proved by those that can imagine it happening. Observable evidence and the fossil record frequently contradict the predictions of Darwinism. For those that are hypnotized by Darwinian explanations, they need to pause and think whether an alleged explanation increases their understanding of nature or if its appeal lies totally in well-sounding words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo repeat what I've said many times on this discussion. The problem is with COMMON DESCENT being unsupported by detailed scientific explanations. Evolutionists are content with generalizations, for example, about the Cambrian Explosion. The dogmatic assumptions and extrapoliations from small examples of natural selection and mutation to the sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil records is not science. The majority of Americans see through this baloney that is dished out as evidence.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGalileo believed in God as the creator.
Neal continues to bring Darwin into this discussion so I would like to present the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcerpt from NASA - ASTROBIOLOGY, Goal 3: Understand how life emerges from cosmic and planetary precursors, Perform observational, experimental and theoretical investigations to understand the general physical and chemical principles underlying the origins of life.
Origins and evolution of functional biomolecules. Life can be understood as a chemical system that links a common property of organic moleculesthe ability to undergo spontaneous chemical transformationwith the uncommon property of synthesizing a copy of that system. This process, unique to life, allows changes in a living molecular system to be copied, thereby permitting Darwinian-like selection and evolution to occur. At the core of the life process are polymers composed of monomeric species such as amino acids, carbohydrates, and nucleotides. The pathways by which monomers were first incorporated into primitive polymers on the early Earth remain unknown, and physical properties of the products are largely unexplored. A primary goal of research on the origin of life must be to understand better the sources and properties of primitive polymers on the early Earth, and the evolutionary pathway by which polymerization reactions of peptides and oligonucleotides became genetically linked.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g3.html
Neil T said, “Galileo believed in God as the creator.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T, your attempt to use a scientist like Galileo to demean the scientific endeavor put forth by many brilliant scientists of yesteryear and today in an effort to unite science with religion is fruitless. (Read my previous posting.) And, the logic you use to justify your observations in previous comments that lead to your recent comment is outrageous and surely shows a fragmented mindset. Science and religion are two distinct realms. I also would like from you a source for your quote of what you think Galileo said. I think you are making the same mistake theologians made long ago. “Thus in the words of Pope John Paul II, the theologians who judged Galileo were mistaken in transposing «into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question that in fact pertained to scientific investigation» (L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 3 Nov. 1992, pp. 1-2).”
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am going to respond to your two most recent posting at the same time in order to avoid double posting. At 12:23 you continue to attack accepted science without providing a scientific alternative. This tactic is never going to affect what is accepted as science. By all means, develop a new model that is based on evidence and that meets scientific criteria to replace the current Theory of Evolution and receive your Nobel prize. I certainly do not know every fossil form in existence but I am sure there are some "gaps." However, I do not think that they are so insurmountable that the changes cannot be attributed to the accumulation of thousands of small changes over millions of years.
As for your statement about Galileo, what specific evidence is there that Galileo was not only religious but that he expressly believed that God created everything. We already know he disagreed with specific passages of the Bible so I am just looking for something more than a belief in God to label him as a Creationist.
Faultline said, “Faith is belief in something without scientific evidence.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPope John Paul II said “Science is truth.” There should be no "conflict" between faith and science.
"Galileo believed in God as the creator."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPossibly, but Galileo knew God's representatives as sadistic murderers.
As you know, the Church took exception to Galileo teaching his scientific theories, not his religious beliefs, whatever they were.
"The problem is with COMMON DESCENT being unsupported by detailed scientific explanations"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, are you saying here that common descent is THE reason for evolution's fall from grace in your eyes? Are you saying here that if you found a way to accept common descent, then you would accept evolution and all of your other objections would fall away? If that is so, I am frankly surprised. You have expressed a number of objections to evolution, some of which have nothing to do with science, and most of which have nothing to do with common descent. For example, do you agree that common descent and the cambrian explosion are separate issues? Do you agree that the mechanics of the evolutionary process are independent of how life got its initial start?
Neal, just so you know, it's good to have you back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69 said, "Possibly, but Galileo knew God's representatives as sadistic murderers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to dismiss your ridiculous remark! If you are insinuating that Galileo was murdered then you are wrong. Galileo was not killed by anyone. He was sentenced to his VILLA to live out his life doing his research. Once again, you wish to cause conflict. You should do some research prior to making ridiculous remarks.
I don't know if you'll ever read this but macroevolution was already illustrated when some bacteria(or maybe it was yeast) evolved to be able to digest sodium citrate, something it absolutely hadn't digested before. The scientist who made the discovery was also archiving the generations of the bacteria and was able to replay the event time and time again. A little bit of googlin' will find the info for ya.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat discovery alone has shut up every creationist who I've spoken with who tried to tell me that macroevolution hasn't been proven. So take this brother, may it serve you well.....
Faultline said, No society should force anyone to choose one over the other. Scientists should always understand that there is no such thing as proof that God does not exist, and ministers should always understand that faith and science are rooted in completely different aspects of human experience and are not mutually exclusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline, you seem to be an open minded individual. Well, we know for a fact there isn't a mathematical proof for God.:-)I thought you might like to read what Professor Richard L. Gregory CBE, DSc, LLD, FRS, (Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 4JX, England. UK) wrote for the VATICAN PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE CONFERENCE (Casino Pio IV, 19-21 November 2001) entitled "Science in the Twenty First Century ,
Hands-on Science:
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/articles/hands-on-vatican-talk.pdf
I often think that those who wish to attack science never had any *Hands-on Science*.
Getting back to Galileo...John Paul II said to the SCIENTISTS ON THE OCCASION OF THE STUDY WEEK ORGANIZED BY THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES on October 2, 1984, "Centuries have passed since Galileos telescope penetrated the heavens and gave mankind a new vision of the universe. In his brief but fundamental work entitled Sidereus Nuncius, published in Venice in 1610, he spoke of the discoveries made by means of his telescope, but he added, being both a scientist and a believer, that he had made them divina prius illuminante gratia, preceded by the enlightenment of divine grace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've reported jpills last post to me as abuse and also have emailed to the webmaster of Scientific American my concerns. A personal attack such as jpill's to me is not worthy of comment.
echrichweiss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so fast on this one! The E. Coli in the experiment was still E. Coli, and MICROEVOLUTION (which is not controversial) took place after 30,000 generations of bacteria were unnaturally bathed in a low sugar, high citrate solution. Mike Behe writes about it in the "Edge of Evolution" and explains again here ... "www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/behes-multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/ "
In his new paper Lenski reports that, after 30,000 generations, one of his lines of cells has developed the ability to utilize citrate as a food source in the presence of oxygen. (E. coli in the wild cant do that.) Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (its not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a citrate permease which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cells membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions. (1)
Ehrichweiss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot is the E. Coli experiment not Macroevolution, it shows the difficulty and huge population sizes and generations required to produce a small change. Behe continues:
“… Lenski emphasizes in the paper is the historical contingency of the new ability. It took trillions of cells and 30,000 generations to develop it, and only one of a dozen lines of cells did so. What’s more, Lenski carefully went back to cells from the same line he had frozen away after evolving for fewer generations and showed that, for the most part, only cells that had evolved at least 20,000 generations could give rise to the citrate-using mutation. From this he deduced that a previous, lucky mutation had arisen in the one line, a mutation which was needed before a second mutation could give rise to the new ability. The other lines of cells hadn’t acquired the first, necessary, lucky, “potentiating” (1) mutation, so they couldn’t go on to develop the second mutation that allows citrate use. …. I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.
To get a feel for the clumsy ineffectiveness of random mutation and selection, consider that the workers in Lenski’s lab had routinely been growing E. coli all these years in a soup that contained a small amount of the sugar glucose (which they digest easily), plus about ten times as much citrate. Like so many cellular versions of Tantalus, for tens of thousands of generations trillions of cells were bathed in a solution with an abundance of food — citrate — that was just beyond their reach, outside the cell. Instead of using the unreachable food, however, the cells were condemned to starve after metabolizing the tiny bit of glucose in the medium — until an improbable series of mutations apparently occurred.
Neal T, Behe is a well known anti-evolutionist (a proponent of Intelligent Design). He hasn’t published anything in a peer-reviewed journal. Here is the document that debunks Behe. It is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 9, 2008 by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski*:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHistorical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.
At its core, evolution involves a profound tension between random and deterministic processes. Natural selection works systematically to adapt populations to their prevailing environments. However, selection requires heritable variation generated by random mutation, and even beneficial mutations may be lost by random drift. Moreover, random and deterministic processes become intertwined over time such that future alternatives may be contingent on the prior history of an evolving population. For example, multiple beneficial mutations will arise in some unpredictable order (1, 2), and those that are substituted first may differ from others in their pleiotropic effects and epistatic interactions (3, 4), thus constraining some evolutionary paths while potentiating other outcomes (5–9). These accidents of history may even determine the survival or extinction of entire lineages, given the capricious and sudden nature of some environmental changes (10–12). [READ ON…]
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full
###
viewofmars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see the point you are making about E. Coli. No one is doubting that mutation took place, but think about what it took to get the bacteria to get the relatively small mutations to allow citrate into its cell? 30,000 + generations of trillions of bacteria in an artificial environment. It serves as a great illustration of the limitations of natural selection and mutation.
Again no one is arguing that mutation and natural selection does not occur. The argument is extrapolating this to account for the Common Descent of all life. That's a leap and once again the evidence for Common Descent is still lacking.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me your last paragraph of this reply pretty well addresses your problem with Common Descent, and please correct me if I misinterpret the situation. (Allow me to clarify now that I am not claiming perfect knowledge of this subject so if I am ignorant of all the facts, again, feel free to correct me) You argue against Common Descent because there is, to you, a lack of evidence to support it. However to the scientific community that accepts Common Descent, it is the best interpretation of the evidence. Instead of evaluating what evidence does exist and postulating ideas based on this evidence, you insert your religious beliefs as the origin of life. These beliefs have no evidence to support them yet you hold them as true, which is absolutely fine, believe whatever you want to believe. But, this is why science and religion must not be intermingled as a subject. They operate under two different sets of rules. Science requires evidence be followed to a logical outcome while faith requires belief regardless of evidence for or against. You can religiously believe whatever you want, when it comes to science, the theories (forgive the loose use of the word) are limited to what the evidence points to.
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've noticed something very interesting in evolution literature and even within several posting on this discussion and that is evolutionists use religion to support their theory and then deny they do so. Let me explain.
On this discussion there have been posts that explicitly and implicitly question if God created things then why would he create parasites, why would he do this and not do that, etc, etc.
Darwinism is then based on a kind of NEGATIVE THEOLOGY.
The thinking goes kind of like this: if God exists, then he must only be beneficent and would not allow or create the evil in nature. Therefore, since evil is seen in nature, then God did not create nature. It's a form of Gnosticism.
Furthermore, the thinking goes along the lines that God wouldn't have created things this way. In other words, evolutionists do indeed make a religious statement when they say what a creator would or would not do in their view. THAT IS A RELIGIOUS STATEMENT.
Charles Darwin's writings often reflect this negative theology and I see this negative theology even in this discussion.
"Again no one is arguing that mutation and natural selection does not occur. The argument is extrapolating this to account for the Common Descent of all life. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, I would like to ask you a direct question. I understand you to say that you accept natural selection does occur. I also understand you to say you don't accept that natural selection created all of the different forms of life. So, in the continuous spectrum bound by these two endpoints, at what point do you believe natural selection stops working? In other words, if you accept as you say you do that natural selection works up to point X, what in your opinion prevents natural selection from working at point X+1?
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have seen and heard the statements you are referring to, while never in accredited literature, and I attribute the statements to a variety of causes. First, is an ignorant assumption that God in the Bible only did "good" things. Second, is in reply to a posting by a Creationist about how wonderful the world that God created is. There may be more but that is what I am coming up with off the top of my head. I am not sure if I would consider it a form of negative theology though. And then attributing these statements to "Darwinism" is just as incorrect as lumping all religious statements as "Christian." If you show me some of these statements and provide me wtih the source it would be helpful to your argument.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "....at what point do you believe natural selection stops working?"
It really depends on what you mean by X+1. If X stands for a particular gene or all genes and you add one mutation (+1), then to the best of my knowledge there is not a distinct point that says mutations can no longer take place. But this is reality leaves real life and imagination and speculation takes over. Let me explain.
The problem is that for a new organ such as a trilobite eye you need x+1+1+1+1+1.... with each +1 being retained by natural selection because of some benefit (+1 being one mutation). Keep in mind that the whole process is blind and natural selection does not know that it is trying to build a trilobite eye. Each +1 mutation not only needs to be selectable but it must also fit into the final form of the trilobite eye or assist in the process, which of course natual selection has no idea that the goal is an eye several hundred mutations down the road. To get from point A (no eye or a light spot) to point B (a trilobite eye) becomes exponentially difficult and unlikely as each mutation is added.
Think about what it would take to build a camera. First you need to have the right materals. Glass, plastic, metal, etc. Then each has to be shaped and sized correctly. Then precisely arranged together and assembled in a specific sequence.
Back to the trilobite eye. Each "component" of the trilobite eye itself would require multiple mutations to create. More mutations would be necessary for the correct shaping and sizing of components. More mutations would be necessary for correct arrangement and assembly in sequence (the instructions to assemble the components in the right sequence and at the right time).
Darwin said that he could imagine an eye spot turning into a complex eye through gradual steps, but to actually do this requires something that looks like X+1+10+150+1+200... A multiple mutation change at once (X+10) becomes exponentially unlikely. Can you prove that it could never happen. No. Just like I could never prove that you couldn't win the powerball lottery 50 times in a row. It just become more and more unlikely. The more unlikely, the larger the population size and the shorter the generations you need.
This is why Darwinism is almost impossible to falsify, because even the most unlikely scenario is imaginable and no one can prove that the evolutionary links to the trilobite will never be found or that they never existed!
Neal, if I may add my 2 cents?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, without meaning to get all Zen on you, in your context "evil" is a subjective term. By that I mean while you and I may see parasites as evil, from the parasites' point of view, they are fulfilling their destiny to use an ecological niche to make more parasites. If you believe all are His creatures, it seems to me you shouldn't expect Him to favor our point of view over the parasites' point of view.
Second, I have read the "negative theology" to which you refer, but I thought of it not as an argument against God, but as an argument against Creationism. The short version is; if you assume God is perfect, then His Design is perfect, yet we see objective flaws in the basic design of living things, flaws that are often duplicated across species. On the other hand, such flaws are expected if species evolved mechanistically without Divine Intervention. In order to resolve this apparent conflict, you can 1. reject God, 2. reject God as perfect, or 3. accept mechanistic evolution. In other words, you don't need to apply or reject theology to make sense of the natural world.
I hope I made this simple enough without being so simple I failed to make my point.
But the trilobite is not just an eye, but much more. And the trilobite was just one of hundreds of new creatures that appear in the Cambrian Explosions. So it's not just like you winning the powerball lottery 50 times in a row. You would also win in all 50 states 50 times in a row. But, not just you, but everyone in your immediate and extended family would all win the lottery too 50 times in row. It gets to the point were you say this is so unlikely that SOMEONE must be causing this to happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said; "On the other hand, such flaws are expected if species evolved mechanistically without Divine Intervention. In order to resolve this apparent conflict, you can 1. reject God, 2. reject God as perfect, or 3. accept mechanistic evolution. In other words, you don't need to apply or reject theology to make sense of the natural world."
To say, "such flaws are expected if species evolved mechanistically without Divine Intervention" is a religious statement about God's ability or intention." Any reference to what we think a Creator should have or have not done gets into the area of metaphysics and religion, even while contending that Common Descent is all just hard science.
There is good reason to believe that Darwin was not supporting atheism in his mind, but trying to reconcile his version of what a Creator should be with what he saw in creation. Since they did not fit in his mind, he erred towards a Gnostic view that God was not responsible for creation. In other words... do away with the creator to explain the so-called "flaws" in nature. Ultimately Darwinism is about God.
On a personal note I see more than science coming from Darwinists but a bitterness and sarcasm about why a creator would create a world like we have. This is a religious statement that assumes God should be or do something according to their view if he was really the creator. I see this as a main pole in the Darwinist tent and one of the main reasons why they reject a creator. Such a rejection is based on religious grounds. If one is not comfortable with a view of God as intentionally creating inferior creatures with flaws then naturalism is the alternative.
Neil said: Behe continues: & Lenski emphasizes in the paper is the historical contingency of the new ability. It took trillions of cells and 30,000 generations to develop it, and only one of a dozen lines of cells did so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI (Viewsof Mars) in my last post presented a scientific article from a peer-reviewed journal that debunked Behes claims. He misrepresented the following article. It was from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 9, 2008 by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski*: No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. If you take the time to read the *entire article* from the link
(http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full) I provided in my last post then you will clearly know that it debunks the snippets Neil T earlier used from Behes article.
Neal T, Michael J. Behe has never published any of his articles in a peer- reviewed science journal. None, zip zap nada that Im aware of. Entertaining his factious thoughts as you have presented here is pure nonsense. Not even the University he works at supports his diatribe from Uncommon Decent . Of course any one can write what they think about science, but as far as I know, the University has yet to endorse his non-scientific meanderings.
Neal T said to dvashun: I've noticed something very interesting in evolution literature and even within several posting on this discussion and that is evolutionists use religion to support their theory and then deny they do so. Let me explain. On this discussion there have been posts that explicitly and implicitly question if God created things then why would he create parasites, why would he do this and not do that, etc, etc. Darwinism is then based on a kind of NEGATIVE THEOLOGY. The thinking goes kind of like this: if God exists, then he must only be beneficent and would not allow or create the evil in nature. Therefore, since evil is seen in nature, then God did not create nature. It's a form of Gnosticism. Furthermore, the thinking goes along the lines that God wouldn't have created things this way. In other words, evolutionists do indeed make a religious statement when they say what a creator would or would not do in their view. THAT IS A RELIGIOUS STATEMENT. Charles Darwin's writings often reflect this negative theology and I see this negative theology even in this discussion.
Neil, you are the one that keeps bringing up theology. You said, evolutionists use religion to support their theory . I havent noticed that. But it appears you dont like evolutionists. Maybe because you like Behe who is a anti-evolutionionist . We should be discussing science. Accredited and well respected scientists with the scientific community today dont *use* God except for creationists which include proponents of Intelligent Design. (Of course, that would be Michael Behe.) Creationists often use creationism to justify their scientific findings. Often they distort scientific evidence and attempt to convince the public that it should be taught in schools. That is the truth. Personally, I do think that a scientist that implies God created it has a dualistic mind. (I sure dont see God doing it or creating it as far as the natural world goes.) Also, a scientist can believe in *the pink panther* as long as he or she doesnt try to tell the scientific community you have to believe it too. Plain and simple, SCIENCE doesnt have anything to do with personal religious beliefs.
p.s. I wish to thank whoever it was that deleted the post I reported as abuse made by jpill69. I did save a copy of it. Everyone knows that even scientists when debating dont use fowl, uncouth language. Attacks such as those are childish and damaging.
"It gets to the point were you say this is so unlikely that SOMEONE must be causing this to happen."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, if you haven't already, I highly recommend that you read Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker". It was the first book of his that I read, and it answers this very point far better that I could. The short version is; the eye evolved in incremental steps (X+1), where each step at the very least did no harm in the existing environment, and sometimes offered an advantage over the previous version. No target goal needed.
Neil T wrote to jpill69: There is good reason to believe that Darwin was not supporting atheism in his mind, but trying to reconcile his version of what a Creator should be with what he saw in creation. Since they did not fit in his mind, he erred towards a Gnostic view that God was not responsible for creation. In other words... do away with the creator to explain the so-called "flaws" in nature. Ultimately Darwinism is about God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, at this point I do take offense that you wish to attack Charles Darwin. You continue to distort the truth about Darwin in favor of your own religious beliefs. Darwin was an agnostic. He was a British Naturalist. Furthermore, Darwinism isn’t about God.
You can read about Darwin's Darwinism from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy(2.2) :
After we set out the theory in its Darwinian form, we can consider these reactions from those who apparently shared Darwin's philosophical norms about scientific theory, explanation and confirmation.
The theory can be set out as a series of causal elements that, working together, will produce the needed transformations.
After we set out the theory in its Darwinian form, we can consider these reactions from those who apparently shared Darwin's philosophical norms about scientific theory, explanation and confirmation.
The theory can be set out as a series of causal elements that, working together, will produce the needed transformations.
After we set out the theory in its Darwinian form, we can consider these reactions from those who apparently shared Darwin's philosophical norms about scientific theory, explanation and confirmation.
The theory can be set out as a series of causal elements that, working together, will produce the needed transformations.
1.Species are comprised of individuals that vary ever so slightly from each other with respect to their many traits.
2.Species have a tendency to increase in size over generations at an exponential rate.
3.This tendency, given limited resources, disease, predation, and so on, creates a constant condition of struggle for survival among the members of a species.
4.Some individuals will have variations that give them a slight advantage in this struggle, variations that allow more efficient or better access to resources, greater resistance to disease, greater success at avoiding predation, and so on.
5.These individuals will tend to survive better and leave more offspring.
6.Offspring tend to inherit the variations of their parents.
7.Therefore favorable variations will tend to be passed on more frequently than others, a tendency Darwin labeled ‘Natural Selection’.
8.Over time, especially in a slowly changing environment, this process will cause the character of species to change.
9.Given a long enough period of time, the descendant populations of an ancestor species will differ enough to be classified as different species, a process capable of indefinite iteration. There are, in addition, forces that encourage divergence among descendant populations, and the elimination of intermediate varieties.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/#2.2
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to evolutionists the eye not only evolved, but did so about 36 different times (CONVERGENCE) and often the same kind of eye came about in different environments. Dawkins book is not long enough to detail all the thousands of steps and mutations it took to produce an eye. He uses well sounding words and generalizations in order to support his atheistic worldview. Perhaps in a few years he will change his mind like former atheist Anthony Flew. Dawkins book is very much a negative theology book.
Viewofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature"
---- CHARLES DARWIN
"There seems to me too much misery in the world. I CANNOT PERSUADE MYSELF that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice".
---- CHARLES DARWIN
Perhaps you are an exception, but for Darwin and others it is a subtle form of religion cloaked in science.
"To say, "such flaws are expected if species evolved mechanistically without Divine Intervention" is a religious statement about God's ability or intention."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see how my statement is of evolution's abilities. Could you elaborate on how I'm making a statement of God's abilities?
"Dawkins book is not long enough to detail all the thousands of steps and mutations it took to produce an eye."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe subject was probabilities. Dawkin's book is plenty long enough for that. As for his theology, "The Blind Watchmaker" is about evolution, so he hardly mentions it. If you are really interested in learning about this subject, I really recommend that you look at his book more carefully.
"Attacks such as those are childish and damaging."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour confession and apology is accepted.
Neil T wrote a quote of Darwin: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature" ---- CHARLES DARWIN
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy Response to Neil is dont quote mine! THE COMPLETE WORKS OF CHARLES DARWIN ONLINE: [Darwin]TO J.D. HOOKER. July 13th, 1856. Here is the beginning of Charles Darwins letter to J.D. Hooker and I encourage everyone to read the entire letter:
My dear Hooker
Your letter, as usual, has been most valuable to me. I am delighted at what you say about Huxley's answer & I agree most entirely: it is excellent & most clear; I thought from the first that he was right, but was not able to put it clearly to myself. By the way do you remember Huxley's entry of Darwin, an absolute & eternal hermaphrodite :f2 he can find no certain case, nor have I ever been able. Apropos to my asking him whether the ciliograde acalephes could not take in spermatozoa by the mouth,f3 which takes in so much water, he gives me a sentence like our case of pollen, in which nature seems to us so clumsy & wasteful. He says The indecency of the process is to a certain extent in favour of its probability, nature becoming very low in all senses amongst these creatures . What a book a Devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature! With respect to crossing, from one sentence in your letter I think you misunderstand me:f4 I am very far from believing in hybrids; only in crossing of same species or of close varieties. These two or 3 last days, I have been observing wheat & have convinced myself that L. Deslongchamps is in error about impregnation taking place in closed flower;f5 ie of course I can judge only from external appearances. By the way R. Brownf6 once told me that the use of brush on stigma of grasses was unknown: do you know its use? [Please continue reading the entire letter.]
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1924.html#back-mark-1924.f2
Neil T wrote a quote of Darwin: There seems to me too much misery in the world. I CANNOT PERSUADE MYSELF that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice. ---- CHARLES DARWIN.
Neal, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin from Talk Origins - Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860:With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" [Please read on.]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part10.html
Neal states : Perhaps you are an exception, but for Darwin and others it is a subtle form of religion cloaked in science.
Neal, you are so very wrong!
Let me also bring to your attention letter Charles Dawin wrote to Doedes : Letter 8837 Darwin, C. R. to Doedes, N. D., 2 Apr 1873
Dear Sir
I am much obliged for the photograph of yourself and friend.f2 I am sure that you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home for rest. It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty.
With my best wishes for your success in life, I remain, dear Sir, | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-8837.html
jpill69 wrote, "Your confession and apology is accepted" which was in reponse to in my response to my comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisp.s. I wish to thank whoever it was that deleted the post I reported as abuse made by jpill69. I did save a copy of it. Everyone knows that even scientists when debating dont use fowl, uncouth language. Attacks such as those are childish and damaging.
jpill69, you are a troll and you should be the one to appologize to me. I owe you NO appology. Nor will you see one forth coming.
jpill69 said: Dawkins book is not long enough to detail all the thousands of steps and mutations it took to produce an eye. He uses well sounding words and generalizations in order to support his atheistic worldview. Perhaps in a few years he will change his mind like former atheist Anthony Flew. Dawkins book is very much a negative theology book.
Jpill69, Dawkins is a scientist! Richard Dawkins has never ever written a theology book! It seems you want to convert him. He is an adult. He can make his own decisions.
ViewsofMars, someone you know told me that your forum persona is just an act that serves a higher purpose. Which makes pefect sense, because no one can possibly be that... ridiculous, that word must be ok to use, you use it so often... and still have enough sense left to type. So I really don't mind your personal attacks and lies and distortions, because now I understand it helps in you true calling, whatever that may be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave a nice day.
Repeating once again from the previous page:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil said: Behe continues: & Lenski emphasizes in the paper is the historical contingency of the new ability. It took trillions of cells and 30,000 generations to develop it, and only one of a dozen lines of cells did so.
I (Viewsof Mars) in my last post presented a scientific article from a peer-reviewed journal that debunked Behe s claims. He misrepresented the following article. It was from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 9, 2008 by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski*: No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation . If you take the time to read the *entire article* from the link
(http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full) I provided in my last post then you will clearly know that it debunks the snippets Neil T earlier used from Behe s article.
Neal T, Michael J. Behe has never published any of his articles in a peer- reviewed science journal. None, zip zap nada that I m aware of. Entertaining his factious thoughts as you have presented here is pure nonsense. Not even the University he works at supports his diatribe from Uncommon Decent . Of course any one can write what they think about science, but as far as I know, the University has yet to endorse his non-scientific meanderings.
Neal T said to dvashun: I've noticed something very interesting in evolution literature and even within several posting on this discussion and that is evolutionists use religion to support their theory and then deny they do so. Let me explain. On this discussion there have been posts that explicitly and implicitly question if God created things then why would he create parasites, why would he do this and not do that, etc, etc. Darwinism is then based on a kind of NEGATIVE THEOLOGY. The thinking goes kind of like this: if God exists, then he must only be beneficent and would not allow or create the evil in nature. Therefore, since evil is seen in nature, then God did not create nature. It's a form of Gnosticism. Furthermore, the thinking goes along the lines that God wouldn't have created things this way. In other words, evolutionists do indeed make a religious statement when they say what a creator would or would not do in their view. THAT IS A RELIGIOUS STATEMENT. Charles Darwin's writings often reflect this negative theology and I see this negative theology even in this discussion.
Neil, you are the one that keeps bringing up theology. You said, evolutionists use religion to support their theory . I haven t noticed that. But it appears you don t like evolutionists. Maybe because you like Behe who is a anti-evolutionionist . We should be discussing science. Accredited and well respected scientists with the scientific community today don t *use* God except for creationists which include proponents of Intelligent Design. (Of course, that would be Michael Behe.) Creationists often use creationism to justify their scientific findings. Often they distort scientific evidence and attempt to convince the public that it should be taught in schools. That is the truth. Personally, I do think that a scientist that implies God created it has a dualistic mind. (I sure don t see God doing it or creating it as far as the natural world goes.) Also, a scientist can believe in *the pink panther* as long as he or she doesn t try to tell the scientific community you have to believe it too. Plain and simple, SCIENCE doesn t have anything to do with personal religious beliefs.
p.s. I wish to thank whoever it was that deleted the post I reported as abuse made by jpill69. I did save a copy of it. Everyone knows that even scientists when debating don t use fowl, uncouth language. Attacks such as those are childish and damaging. ###
jpill69 said to me: ViewsofMars, someone you know told me that your forum persona is just an act that serves a higher purpose. Which makes pefect sense, because no one can possibly be that... ridiculous, that word must be ok to use, you use it so often... and still have enough sense left to type. So I really don't mind your personal attacks and lies and distortions, because now I understand it helps in you true calling, whatever that may be.
Have a nice day.
Jpill69, there is absolutely no one that knows me that could have told you anything about me. So whomever it was that told you a lie and fabricated a story that you believed so you could again make a up a fabricated story about me is pitiful. Again, I havent personally attacked you or lied to you or made distortions. There is no evidence of such.
Truth is that one of my nicknames is Mars and I do observe but I also am fond of cosmology so I do like to look at the views of Mars.
Jpill69, wishing someone a nice day after you have continually shown me lack of respect is insincere. My level of trust in you is now void.
viewofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really expected someone to say something about Behe and not being peer reviewed or something along those lines (and you followed through as expected), because rather than give a reasoned rebuttal it's intellectually easier to just dismiss someone rather than deal with the issue.
Regardless of whether Behe or Santa Claus said it, the fact remains that it took thousands of generations and billions of bacteria in an artificial environment of low sugar and high citrate to push the relatively minor mutation forward. No one is arguing that this didn't happen, but it certainly is interesting to see the odds of a relatively minor series of mutations to occur. If a population of billions and 30,000 generations in a highly stressed environment causes a small mutation how in the world could any significant macroevolution take place within populations of mammals who have much lower populations and much longer generations? In addition, this blows Gould's punctuated equilibrium out of water because his theory depends on small isolated populations.
Don't be content with what the guru's on high tell us, just think about it for yourself.
ViewsofMars, I really admire how easily you pretend to be so... ridiculous. Like when you pretend to be incapable of following a thread. True genius! No doubt you have practicing for a very long time. Your dedication to your higher purpose is inspiring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave a nice day.
Faultline, here are my responses to your earlier questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU: 1. In your model, do new creatures appear fully formed out of nothing? Or does God create them from the dust, or from the air, or does one animal give birth to another new species all in one jump?"
ME: Creatures are made from the elements of the earth.
As far as one animal giving birth to another new species all in one jump is pretty much what Darwinists say about the Cambrian Explosion… unexpressed mutations from the Avalon explosion creatures suddenly being expressed at one time. Ouch!
YOU • 2. Why do so many hundreds of thousands of ancient species appear for such a short time (geologically speaking) then become extinct?"
ME: I think your trying to make a subtle religious statement here. You know why species go extinct. How come you don’t use Windows 95? It was designed just a decade ago.
YOU• 3. Can you describe the set of laws that governs the spontaneous generation of new creatures and their replacement by new species that appear related?
ME: Spontaneous Generation??? I think your confused with the ancient Greeks and the atheists and agnostics of the past who clung to this view because Christianity, since ancient times (Augustine, Gregory) has usually not believed in spontaneous generation but in the Creator.
As for the appearance of new creatures and species the fossil record is quite consistent with the new forms appearing without much in the way of ancestral links followed by relative stasis with variations. Some mutation and natural selection occurs but observable evidence that it forms new genera or above does not exist to my knowledge.
YOU• If the answer is, "God creates what He wants, when He wants, and how He wants" then you have a religion based in supernatural powers and there is no science in that whatsoever.
ME: If a Darwinist says that a Creator would not create life on earth as we see it that is a religious statement and not a scientific one. The statement is based on what their view of a creator should or should not be. Any kind of statement that gives an opinion on God is religious. If your response is why would God do this or that and not the other, etc, you are making a religious statement. I’m not saying you shouldn’t, just don’t deny it.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason that God keeps getting brought up in this discussion with you is because you keep interjecting a supernatural creator in the discussion. So, in reply to you the post states something about the rules of science excluding "God" or other supernatural creator. It is completely possibility to discuss evolution and science without discussing God. As an example I will point to this article, which states, "A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms." It is perfectly possible to discuss evolution without any mention of any supernatural beings, provided it is not interjected due to personal religious beliefs.
I need to clarify what I meant by "any kind of statement that gives an opinion on God is religious. " More accurately I meant that any kind of statement that gives an opinion about why God should have or not have created things in a certain way is a religious statement. I believe that a solid scientific inference can be made that creation by design follows more scientific facts than Common Descent and is a better model to predict future observations and discoveries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun said, "A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms."
In saying this then evolutionists become their own judge. The only possible conclusion is that common descent should not be taught in science classes, for Darwin's theory goes far beyond "scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation. It includes religious presuppositions outside of science that Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Miller and many others, including evolutionists in this discussion freely make. What is pathologic is that even while doing it, they deny that they are doing it.
WOW! Answers! Here we go! This is Q&A!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour answers:
#1: Creatures are made from the elements of the Earth.
ME: How vague. Could you be a little more specific of the process? In fact, you should be a whole lot more specific of the process if this is going to be a scientific theory. You seem to be claiming that every time a new species arrives on Earth, it was generated spontaneously from "the elements of the Earth." Whatever that is. WHAT IS THIS PROCESS that creates animal and plant matter?
2: You know why species go extinct.
ME: Of course I do. But that isn't what I asked. I asked what mechansim of creation explains why so many millions of species of plant and animal appear for such brief moments of geological time and vanish.
3: Spontaneous Generation??? ... [edit] As for the appearance of new creatures and species the fossil record is quite consistent with the new forms appearing without much in the way of ancestral links followed by relative stasis with variations.
Yes, if creatures are created from the elements of the Earth and there is no common descent, then creation by God means new species were spontaneously created. I think that much of your claim is obvious.
You claim that throuought Earth's prehistoric life, new species arrive on Earth and gradually replace some older ones without having evolved from the older life forms. I want you to describe the set of laws that describe how this happens. Don't dodge it, answer.
And I didn't ask you if the fossil record supported it. I want the hypothesis here. Maybe I'll ask for evidence if you actually provide a working hypothesis.
And thanks for responding. I just need to keep you focused on what I'm really asking for.
Faultline
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou keep using the word "spontanously" but this word means self producing or naturally occuring without external influence. This is certainly not a proper word to use for design and creation by God, but more closely related to abiogenesis. I'm not clear on what you are really asking. Are you asking for the process and procedure God used to create life? Scientific inference can tell us that something was designed without knowing the procedure in which it was accomplished. For example, I can see a nuclear missle and infer that it was designed and created by scientists without knowing how to do it myself. Of course, if nuclear missles were observed forming through natural processes then I would make a different inference. Seeing iron and fire in nature, however, does not lead me to extrapolate that nature can form a nuclear missle. Seeing amino acids in nature does not lead me to infer that bacteria (which is more complex than a nuclear missle) was formed by natural processes either.
In Answer #8 Rennie addresses argument from design, that life is so complex it must have been designed by intelligence. Thompson and Harrub repeat a common and understandable error about this subject in their essay. I have heard and read this same mistake repeated so many times it is just not funny anymore. So I think I’ll have some fun and see what I can say about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWilliam Paley wrote his concepts in 1802 in his book “Natural Theology”. He described a person taking a walk in a meadow, and finding a watch on the ground. Paley said that person knows instantly, simply by the watch’s apparent complexity, that it was created by a watchmaker. In fact, the odds are so vanishingly small of a pocket watch coming together just right all at once and working, it makes sense to accept that some intelligence had a hand in its creation. Paley then applies this argument to life and the entire Universe, to prove God’s hand in His Creation. Of course the logical flaw is that it must be one or the other.
Richard Dawkins used Paley’s argument to inspire his title “The Blind Watchmaker”. In this book, Dawkins provides a simple analogy to illustrate his case. (Please allow if I don’t describe it exactly. It still works out). Imagine an opaque bag with 100 pennies inside. All of the pennies except one have the same date. If you blindly pick out 1 penny from the bag, then what are the odds of choosing the unique penny? That’s easy, 1 in 100. Put the penny back in the bag, and try again. What are the odds now? Of course the odds for the second time (and the third, and the fourth etc) are all the same 1 in 100. That’s because you reset the initial conditions by putting the penny you took out back into the bag. So what are the odds of taking out the unique penny 100 times in a row? Just multiply the odds together; .01 multiplied by itself 100 times. This is a vanishingly small probability. It’s so small it’s reasonable to say it’s practically impossible. Even so it’s still huge compared to the odds of a pocket watch coming together by itself. Almost always, this is where Creationists say “gotcha" and walk away.
(continued)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut mutations don’t reset themselves. Evolution works incrementally, building on the past conditions. So to make this analogy a little more accurate, keep each penny you choose out of the bag. Now what are the odds of taking out the unique penny? The first time it’s still 1 in 100. But the second time is 1 in 99, and the third time is 1 in 98. The more pennies you take out, the greater the odds of choosing the unique penny, until on your 100th try, if you are so unlucky as to need it, your odds are certainty, because it’s the only penny left. So in this case it doesn’t matter how many times in a row you want to take out the unique coin. You can shoot for 100 times in a row, or a 1000. It doesn’t matter because fairly soon you will come to the point where it’s the only coin left, and then you are certain of it every time.
In this thought experiment, I describe a process that resets the initial conditions on each pass, and a process that accumulates changes from each pass. The first process models events that are practically impossible. The second process models events that are certain to happen eventually. So what does this have to do with evolution? Well, if you accept any change X in a species, no matter how small that change is, no matter how often you say it's just microevolution, then logically you must also accept the next equally small incremental change X+1, because it’s just as probable as the first change you already allowed. And the next change X+2. And the next X+3. And so on X+n. Until, eventually, you are certain to have accumulated enough changes to make a different species. Given enough time, evolution happens.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou post is interesting and worth a closer look. Let me look at how your probability thought experiment relates to mutation.
I think your saying that you can have many possible mutations that can take place, but only a few of them would be favorable to actually being selected and kept. Then the process becomes exponentially more difficult. Let me explain.
An eye would require much more than one mutation to form. In your analogy the one penny that you blindly reach for and finally select is selectable because it either offers some benefit that is kept or is harmlessly overlooked. IT IS NOT SELECTED BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE A USEFUL COMPONENT OF THE EYE. There is no ultimate goal in mutation to build new organs.
In real life genes can mutate and be selectable for various reasons. A little more accurate penny analogy would be to say that out of a bag of 100 pennies (random mutations) each one has a different date and the ones with a date divisible by 5 are selectable at the auction (a beneficial mutation) and can be sold. However, the complete set (an organ in our analogy) of pennies is much more valuable than selling the selectable pennies individually, although each penny is valuable in it's own right. But the complete set penny folder is only valuable if it meets the exact specifications of the buyers and they will only tell you (nature) if it meets their specs AFTER you have assembled your pennies (beneficial mutations). Their specs require that the pennies that are divisible by 5 are arranged in what you feel is an artbitrary manner and the sum of all the dates must equal 28,385. In addition, dates after 1935 are unexceptable. If only a buyer could have been standing by to guide the process of assembling the folder, but alas, you had no help.
What's the probablity of getting the right collection?
That is just for starters, because a functioning organ such as the eye would require not 20 or less mutations, but thousands and perhaps millions. There is no blueprint, no guide, no final goal. Nothing to tell you that the second mutation will be valuable in building a new organ 1 million years and 100,000 generations later. Or pat the 3rd mutation on the back and say, just hang in there because I'll need you in 300 million years, just stay focused.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a follow-up to my last post in response to your penny analogy, in the SCI AM article with this discussion, Answer #8 talked about the software that randomly produced the phrase "TOBEORNOTTOBE". Perhaps I'm missing something here that someone on the evolutionist side would enjoy pointing out me, but are these not GOAL ORIENTED and DIRECTED? In other words, they preserve letters that fit the final goal, but natural selection has no such luxury.
I've read all these comments. The best is: NerdType at 11:00 PM on 12/09/07, who says: The "controversy" between creation and evolution is false at its core. Over literal interpretation of creation coupled with the arrogance of scientific discovery is the core issue. What is a "day" to God? Do you supposed God to be standing on one point of the earth waiting to revolve to call it "a day". That's comical. Equally farsical is the presumption that the knowledge of evolution as observed scientifically somehow prohibits God from its orchestration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "controversy" between creation and evolution is false at its core. Over literal interpretation of creation coupled with the arrogance of scientific discovery is the core issue. What is a "day" to God? Do you supposed God to be standing on one point of the earth waiting to revolve to call it "a day". That's comical. Equally farsical is the presumption that the knowledge of evolution as observed scientifically somehow prohibits God from its orchestration
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil said: Don't be content with what the guru's on high tell us, just think about it for yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T, Im not a Hindu. I dont know any Hindu gurus. I told you earlier on in this topic of discussion, 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, that Im not a proponent of Intelligent Design and Im not a creationist. I dont support *creationism* and I dont believe in *creation science*. I dont see God in the cosmos. I dont believe God created everything. I dont see or believe God wrote the laws of nature. I dont see an *intelligent designer*.
I was thrilled to read that Professor Robert T. Pennock, an outstanding advocate for Science, won an award on May 15, 2009. The American Institute of Biological Sciences honors outstanding contributions to the biological sciences -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Dr. Robert T. Pennock will receive the Outstanding Service Award in recognition of an individual's (or organization's) noteworthy service to the biological sciences. Pennock is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Michigan State University, where he is on the faculty of the Lyman Briggs College of Science, the Philosophy Department, and the Department of Computer Science, as well as the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences and the Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Behavior graduate program. His research interests include the philosophy of biology and the relationship of epistemic and ethical values in science. He is also the author of Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. He testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal court case that found that intelligent design is no different than creationism and should not be taught in science classes. Pennock serves on numerous advisory boards and committees and is the chair of the Education Committee of the Society for the Study of Evolution and is currently working on a book examining how Darwinian evolution, as an abstract theoretical model, can be applied practically beyond biology.”
www.aibs.org/announcements/090515_aibs_honors_outstanding_contributions.html
viewofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe guru's I was speaking of are the academic Darwinists to whom many defer to rather than think for themselves. I really believe that most people that honestly evaluate the what the evidence really is will be very skeptical about the exaggerated claims of Darwinists concerning Common Descent. What they say is a bunch of baloney.
I guess the Declaration of Independence means nothing to you when it says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nope...these guys were religious at all.
Neal T: "You keep using the word "spontanously" but this word means self producing or naturally occuring without external influence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlaying the definition game is a tactic you've used before to try and deflect direct questions.
If God created life and did not do it through the process scientists have discovered called Evolution, then I'm asking you to describe your hypothesis for the process of creation. If it was not done through Evolution, did God just make them appear spontaneously from the dust or what?
You answered that life was created "from the elements of the Earth" and I said that was extremely vague. So describe it for me. After trilobytes were done and it was time for a new species, say, the first dinosaurs, to appear, did God just cause them to appear from "the elements of the Earth?" As dinosaurs were no longer able to survive, did God just decide to drop early mammals from the sky? Creating them from vapor? Is this your claim?
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying in detail. Don't dodge the questions by questioning me on the meaning of 'spontaneous.' If God made Adam from dust, that is definitely what I call spontaneous creation. So we're talking about the same thing, after all. Don't pretend I'm not.
Faultline
Im proud of all of you evolutionist that you have worked out your existent and have came to the conclution that you came from a rock. When you die you get to die be eaten by worm then become plant food. I get to go heaven with my Heavenly Father and you get to feed plants. I am sad for you and pray for you. Open your minds and eyes and look at the world that was designed by a perfect inteligent designer. God love you and so do I.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I wrote before, the point of the thought experiment is to show only one thing; incremental change, no matter how small each step, is sufficient by itself to make evolution of new species a certainty over time. There is no need to have all mutations happen in one heap. This answers your claim that complex life is practically impossible without Divine Intervention. The experiment proves your claim is false. Your changes do not help one way or the other.
As I wrote before, the computer model you question is not goal-drected in the way you mean. It is guided similar to that of evolution by natural selection. Changes that have a better fit are kept, changes that have a poorer fit are thrown away. This is another way to show how your alleged impossibility of creating new species is in fact inevitable.
renorodeo, where is it written that I have to deny Evolution to get into heaven? This is your personal belief that Evolution = atheism. Since God created Evolution and the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, there is no conflict between science and religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, why do I have to believe in Christ or the Hebrew God to get into heaven? There are other religions, you know. Each has its own path to salvation in the afterlife. Before you say it, I am not an atheist or a pagan. I'm agnostic.
Faultline
renorodeo, I'm glad that you found a belief that comforts you in this life. I won't take that away from you. But if your belief is based on a lie, how reliable is your comfort? On the other hand, wouldn't you be better off with a comforting belief that is compatible with reality?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T said to Fautline: As for the appearance of new creatures and species the fossil record is quite consistent with the new forms appearing without much in the way of ancestral links followed by relative stasis with variations. Some mutation and natural selection occurs but observable evidence that it forms new genera or above does not exist to my knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T, you may learn by exploring the Tree of Life
http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=3710
http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3
http://tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/whatisphylogeny.html
Renorodeo said: Im proud of all of you evolutionist that you have worked out your existent and have came to the conclution that you came from a rock. When you die you get to die be eaten by worm then become plant food. I get to go heaven with my Heavenly Father and you get to feed plants. I am sad for you and pray for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenorodeo, we didn’t come from a rock. You might like to look at my previous posting to the topic and learn something. Be sure to use those links. They are about *nature* (the natural world). Now, you needn’t get cocky by attacking people with snide remarks. It looks bad since you appear to love God. Remember, anything that is supernatural doesn’t pertain to science, but I do know many brilliant scientists that do believe in heaven. We most definitely should not be knocking down the scientific community because of their religious beliefs. Today, good scientists study the *natural* world and don't impose their religious beliefs on it.
To revisit a previous point for just a moment,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, copyright 2006, page 68:
"Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me 'Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?' I would have to answer yes..."
and on page 158:
"If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis - is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist."
Of course, I don't expect something as trivial as facts to change anyone's mind about anything.
jpill69, these statements come from a couple of atheists. Sorry to worry you but atheism exists. But science does not necessarily lead to atheism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does cause a problem in religion is when people attempt to force bad science into faith and try to find proof that God exists. When you do that, you're proving you really have no faith. Follow that road and you'll destroy faith in God with bad science.
Still waiting on answers from Neal T on my questions about his hypothesis.
Faultline
Faultline, as I cited, these statements come from one atheist, Richard Dawkins. I agree that bad science suggests poor faith, and that even good science can't prove God exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is why the Creationists' grasping at straws against evolution is pointless.
I am less certain on the complementary case, that science can prove God does not exist. That life will continue to evolve and the planet will continue to rotate without God's intervention, I have no doubt. That I say God is unnecessary for these things says nothing about God's existence one way or the other, and it's quite a stretch to say it proves He doesn't exist. That some scientists say it anyway is one reason for Creationist's concerns.
However, I have not finished reading "The God Delusion". Dr. Dawkins is persuasive and I want to understand his position as best I can.
Faultline said, " Since God created Evolution and the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, there is no conflict between science and religion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline , your statement is contradictory. First off, I disagree with you that God *created* Evolution. Only creationists make that statement. (I've commented on this before not too many posts ago.) Science is based on observation. Did you *see* God creating evolution? As far as you mentioning the Bible, is a historical book, which parts of it are most definately meant to be taken literally, and most definately some of it is backed up by findings made by archeologists, etc. The book is an account of people not pretend individuals. Just thought you should know. Also, science and faith shouldn't be in conflict unless we get into the realm of supernatural events. Bye the way, the bible isn't filled with just only supernatural events.
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "Furthermore, why do I have to believe in Christ or the Hebrew God to get into heaven?"
Christ said, that he was the way, the truth, and the light, no man comes to the Father except through him. His mission was a contradiction and nonsensical if he was simply one among many.
Jesus never forced anyone to follow him or believe him, but he made some very big claims. As C.S. Lewis, said, he was either a liar, a lunatic, or LORD , but NEVER did he leave us the option of just being one way among many paths.
Millions of early Christian were crucified and feed to the lions in the Roman Empire, because the said, "Christ is Lord and Him only". Rome did not usually have any gods or religion, but they attacked Christians because they would not worship any other but Christ.
viewofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe origin of species by common descent was NOT observed. Whether one believes in Creation or Common Descent, neither was observed.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can your x+1 concept of mutation produce a new organ? First, the development of a new organ needs multiple mutations and natural selection does not provide guidance or a goal.
What Dawkins and others who think along the same lines do not explain is the improbable assumption they make that each mutation selected is on the path towards the development of something amazingly complex such as a new organ. I am fully aware of the fact that mutations are incremental and do not necessarily "reset", but that is not answering my question.
Creating a new organ is not like making a rubber ball, but like building a new factory with an integrated system of various components and nano machines. One gene does not simply continue to mutate until an organ forms. A new organ requires mutations in many different parts of the DNA, all coordinated and controlled precisely. Natural selection is dumb. The chances of a monkey throwing paint on the wall and recreating the Mona Lisa is more likely than natural selecting creating a new organ. Dawkins would have you believe that only the paint from the monkey that sticks on the wall are those points that match the Mona Lisa. Fat chance.
Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm still not clear on what your point is about extinction. If your inferring that somehow bad design or poor planning caused extinction your giving a RELIGIOUS OPINION. Should I site the comb Jelly fish which are still living today, yet look exactly the same as their 530 million year old fossil from the Cambrian eon? Or perhaps the Nautilus from the Cambrian that still looks like a modern Nautilus? If extinction of species is some kind of a support for evolution what do species that haven't changed in 500 million years support? Oh, I forgot, since evolution can be made to fit any scenario other than a buffalo in the Cambrian fossil record it doesn't matter.
Neal, the answer I understood you were asking related to the apparent improbability of complex life. I described how small incremental changes (x+1) can accumulate over time and make complex life not just probable but inevitable. No improbable assumptions necessary. No guidance or direction required. It works as well for 1000 mutations as for 1 mutation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was at a loss to understand your apparent resistance. Thanks to your persistence, I think I have an insight into your objections to this answer and to evolution generally. I would like to explore this with you.
Do you think that the Universe was made for us? That any valid explanation of Creation must incorporate an inevitable genesis of Homo sapiens? Is it meaningful to consider a Universe that does not include human beings?
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis brings us full circle back to what your creation model is? If evolution, or Darwinism as you prefer, is not correct, then what is your hypothesis on how new species come into existence? Is it your opinion that Genesis describes the origins of life? Not necessarily a literal translation, but that God, from the Bible, created life and then has guided the physiological changes in species throughout history? If so, why and how?
Neal T: "I'm still not clear on what your point is about extinction."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne more time, I'm - NOT - talking about extinction. You're still dodging. I said before I'm not trying to make a point about why species die out. I asked what set of laws govern the rise of new species that replace the old ones after they have failed to survive.
If God created life and did not do it through the process scientists have discovered called Evolution, then I'm asking you to describe your hypothesis for the process of creation. If it was not done through Evolution, did God just make them appear spontaneously from the dust or what?
You answered that life was created "from the elements of the Earth" and I said that was extremely vague. So describe it for me. After trilobytes were done and it was time for a new species, say, the first dinosaurs, to appear, did God just cause them to appear from "the elements of the Earth?" As dinosaurs were no longer able to survive, did God just decide to drop early mammals from the sky? Creating them from vapor? Is this your claim?
You claim that throuought Earth's prehistoric life, new species arrive on Earth and gradually replace some older ones without having evolved from the older life forms. You claim it is impossible for the known process of natural selection to accomplish the gradual creation of a new species. I want you to describe the set of laws that describe how this happens. Don't dodge it, answer.
I want to know the nuts and bolts of your hypothesis.
Faultline
Jpill69 said: Faultline, as I cited, these statements come from one atheist, Richard Dawkins. I agree that bad science suggests poor faith, and that even good science can't prove God exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJpill69, A brief mention that might be helpful in the future taken from the PBS EVOLUTION Library, under Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution. I refer to #11 though I recommend everyone read 1 through 11. (PBS Evolution Library is a wonderful resource.)
11. Does evolution prove there is no God?
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.###
At this point I wish to move away from using the word *God* and strictly use science and defer any argument to scientific articles. I have repeatedly used throughout many of my previous postings scientific articles. I hope to continue onward in that direction with due respect to Scientific Americans article in which John Rennie has used science. I hope those who love science as I do might consider doing the same. Thanks!
Jpill69 said: Faultline, as I cited, these statements come from one atheist, Richard Dawkins. I agree that bad science suggests poor faith, and that even good science can't prove God exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJpill69, A brief mention that might be helpful in the future taken from the PBS EVOLUTION Library, under Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution. I refer to #11 though I recommend everyone read 1 through 11. (PBS Evolution Library is a wonderful resource.)
11. Does evolution prove there is no God?
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.###
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat09.html
At this point I wish to move away from using the word *God* and strictly use science and defer any argument to scientific articles. I have repeatedly used throughout many of my previous postings scientific articles. I hope to continue onward in that direction with due respect to Scientific American's article in which John Rennie has used science. I hope those who love science as I do might consider doing the same. Thanks!
[I added the link this time. :-)]
National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, Definitions of Evolutionary Terms:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdaptation:
The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation.
Chromosome:
A double stranded DNA molecule that contains a series of specific genes along its length. In most sexually reproducing organisms, chromosomes occur in pairs, with one member of the pair being inherited from each parent.
DNA:
Deoxyribonucleic acid. A large biological molecule composed of subunits known as nucleotides strung together in long chains. The sequences of these nucleotides contain the information that cells need in order to grow, to divide into daughter cells, and to manufacture new proteins. Changes in DNA result in mutations, which may be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious to the organism. If these changes occur to DNA in sperm or egg cells, they could be passed onto the next generation.
Evolution:
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.
Fact:
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples.
Fossil:
A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded, and preserved in the Earth's crust, usually in stratified rock.
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Scientific hypotheses must be posed in a form that allows them to be rejected.
Genomics:
A recent branch of genetics that studies organisms in terms of their complete genetic material, including genes and their functions.
Macroevolution:
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new species and broader taxonomic groups.
Microevolution:
Changes in the traits of a group of organisms within a species that do not result in a new species.
Mimicry:
In biology, mimicry is the superficial resemblance of one species of organism to another species or to a natural object in its surroundings. Some kinds of mimicry result in a selective advantage for concealment and protection from predators. Another type of mimicry enables protection to the mimic through its resemblance to another species that is toxic or in some other way dangerous.
Mutation:
A change in the sequence of one or more nucleotides in DNA. Such changes can alter the structure of proteins or the regulation of protein production. In some cases mutations result in the organism possessing these altered traits to have a greater or lesser chance of surviving and reproducing in a given environment than other members of its species.
Natural selection:
Differential survival and reproduction of organisms as a consequence of the characteristics of the environment.
Paleontologist:
A scientist who studies fossils to learn about ancient organisms.
Protein:
A large molecule consisting of a chain of smaller molecules called amino acids. The sequence of amino acids and the molecule's three-dimensional structure are coded by the instructions in DNA and determine a protein’s specific function in cells or organisms.
Population:
A group of organisms of the same species that are in close enough proximity to allow them to interbreed.
RNA:
Ribonucleic acid. A molecule related to DNA that consists of nucleotide subunits strung together in chains. RNA serves a number of cellular functions, including providing a template for the synthesis of proteins and catalyzing certain biochemical reactions. The structure of RNA is determined by the sequence of nucleotides on DNA.
Science:
The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.
Sedimentary:
Rocks formed of particles deposited by water, wind, or ice.
Selective breeding:
The intentional breeding of organisms with desirable traits in an attempt to produce offspring with enhanced characteristics or traits that humans consider desirable. This process is also known as "artifical selection" (compare with "natural selection").
Speciation:
The evolutionary processes through which new species arise from existing species.
Species:
In sexually reproducing organisms, species consist of individuals that can interbreed with each other.
Survival of the fittest:
A term that refers to the survival of only those organisms best able (fittest) to obtain and utilize resources, resulting in the evolution of organisms that are best adapted to the environment. Darwin used metaphorically to describe "natural selection." The phrase was invented by the 19th century philosopher Herbert Spencer It has been misapplied through history to explain and justify social and economic inequities in human populations ("social Darwinism") or as a method for improving the human condition through selective breeding (eugenics). Survival alone is insufficient for evolution— its reproduction— passing on of genes that really counts. Most modern biologists no longer use this term when describing or discussing natural selection.
Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.
Trait:
A physical or behavioral characteristic of an organism. ###
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/Definitions.html
Neil T said: viewofmars, The origin of species by common descent was NOT observed. Whether one believes in Creation or Common Descent, neither was observed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T, you need to learn about the scientific method. I’m providing you two links to websites that will help you:
From the first website (http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm):
The following steps make up the Scientific Method. These steps make up a method which may be used to logically solve problems in many other areas of life. Françesco Redi and Louis Pasteur used the scientific method to disprove the idea of spontaneous generation.
Observation:
A good scientist is observant and notices thing in the world around him/herself. (S)he sees, hears, or in some other way notices what’s going on in the world and becomes curious about what’s happening. This can and does include reading and studying what others have done in the past because scientific knowledge is cumulative. In physics, when Newton came up with his Theory of Motion, he based his hypothesis on the work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo as well as his own, newer observations. Darwin not only observed and took notes during his voyage, but he also studied the practice of artificial selection and read the works of other naturalists to form his Theory of Evolution.
[snip]
Research is cumulative and progressive. Scientists build on the work of previous researchers, and one important part of any good research is to first do a literature review to find out what previous research has already been done in the field. Science is a process — new things are being discovered and old, long-held theories are modified or replaced with better ones as more data/knowledge is accumulated. For example, the idea that the sun is at the center of our solar system replaced the idea that the earth was at the center of the universe, and the idea that ulcers are caused by stress has been replaced by the idea that ulcers are caused by bacterial infection. Scientists are human, too, and so these major changes are often controversial and accompanied by violent debate!
A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained. This definition of a theory is in sharp contrast to colloquial usage, where people say something is “just a theory,” thereby intending to imply a great deal of uncertainty. ###
From the second website (http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf) which I highly recommend everyone read in its entirety because it explains the errors of creationism and does it buy using the scientific method. It is entitled, SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. Here is Science:
Tiktaalik
A Case Study in Scientific Prediction
Using the principles of evolution, scientists have been able to predict what new fossils might be discovered. For example, scientists had found fossils of ancient fish that lived in shallow waters in earlier times and fossils of four-limbed land dwellers that appeared later in time. What happened in between?
Evolutionary theory predicts that there would be one or more creatures with characteristics of both the ancient fish and the later land-dwellers. A team of scientists decided to look in sedimentary rock in northern Canada that was deposited about 375 million years ago, about the time these intermediate species were thought to have lived, based on other evidence from the fossil record.
In 2004, the team found what they had predicted: the fossil of a creature with features of fish (scales and fins) and features of land-dwellers (simple lungs, flexible neck, and fins modified to support its weight). The bones in the limbs of this fossil, named Tiktaalik, resemble the bones in the limbs of land-dwelling animals today.
By understanding evolution, scientists were able to predict what type of creature existed and in what geologic layer it would be found. The discovery of Tiktaalik fills another gap in the fossil record.
Paleontologists searched this remote valley in north central Canada for a species intermediate between fish and limbed animals capable of living on land because they knew the sedimentary rocks there were deposited during the period when such a transition had taken place. [view picture]
Tiktaalik’s left and right fins had a single upper bone (the large bone at the bottom of each of these drawings) followed by two intermediate bones, giving the creature an elbow and a wrist, as in more recent organisms. [view picture of bones]
[snip]
Why Is Evolution Important?
The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most powerful achievements in the history of science. Evolution successfully explains the diversity of life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines.
Evolutionary science provides the foundation for modern biology. It has opened the door to entirely new types of medical, agricultural, and environmental research, and has led to the development of technologies that can help prevent and combat disease. Regrettably, effective science education in our schools is being undermined by efforts to introduce non-scientific concepts about evolution into science classrooms.
How Science Works
The study of evolution provides an excellent example of how scientists go about their work. They observe nature and ask testable questions about the natural world, test those questions through experiment and new observations, and construct explanations of evolution based on evidence.
As scientists gather new results and findings, they continue to refine their ideas. Explanations are altered or sometimes rejected when compelling contradictory evidence comes to light.
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
A good example is the theory of gravity. After hundreds of years of observation and experiment, the basic facts of gravity are understood. The theory of gravity is an explanation of those basic facts. Scientists then use the theory to make predictions about how gravity will function in different circumstances. Such predictions have been verified in countless experiments, further confirming the theory. Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence
The Theory of Evolution
Has Been Repeatedly Tested and Confirmed
We all know from our experience that biological traits pass from parents to offspring. This is the basis of evolution.
Sometimes traits change between generations. If a new trait results in an offspring doing better in its natural surroundings and producing more offspring that also inherit the trait, that trait will become more widespread over time. If the new trait makes the offspring less able to survive and thus leave fewer offspring, the trait will tend to fade from existence. Natural selection is the process by which some traits succeed and others fail in the environment where the organism lives. For every type of life we see today, there were many other types that were unsuccessful and became extinct.
Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process. The concept has withstood extensive testing by tens of thousands of specialists in biology, medicine, anthropology, geology, chemistry, and other fields. Discoveries in different fields have reinforced one another, and evidence for evolution has continued to accumulate for 150 years. ###
The genesis of this forum is the article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" With such an emphatic title, John Rennie implicitly invites attention from people whose concerns about science and religion are fundamentally intertwined. To ignore that part of their concerns is simply dishonest, and dishonors the intent of this forum, its founding article, and its author.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Rennie article 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense was written in 2002. Here are two comments by John Rennie in his article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
###
The ACLU's Challenge to Intelligent Design, Decision comes down: ACLU wins!, December 20, 2005
ACLU wrote:
Victory in the Challenge to Intelligent Design
"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.
The lawsuit was brought by the parents who objected to the decision by the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania to promote the teaching of intelligent design in their children's public school science classes.
Intelligent design, which cannot be tested by any scientific method, is a belief that asserts that a supernatural entity designed some complex organisms. Witnesses have demonstrated that such an assertion is inherently a religious argument that falls outside the realm of science.
As a longtime defender of religious liberty, the ACLU is leading the legal challenge against the activists and political lobbyists who are attempting to insert their personal religious beliefs into science education, as if it were science.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/index.html
On May 1, 2009 an article Eureka Alert (AAAS, the science society) appeared referencing an article in the May issue of BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Two statements from the AAAS article :
The studies say that more than 25 percent of biology teachers do not know it is unconstitutional to teach creationism. One third didn't major in biology in college and never studied evolution.
The authors are interested in working with high school biology teachers -- and particularly with college students who plan to teach biology -- to improve their understanding of evolution and develop best practices for covering sensitive topics such as human evolution and life's origins.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/uom-uom050109.php
I personally think at this point in time it best to improve the understanding of evolution and lifes origins by providing scientific peer-reviewed articles and continuing on with supporting the scientific findings as such was made by John Rennie. I dont find it necessary to debate with a creationist. There is enough scientific evidence to debunk their claim.
viewofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the scientific method. Fact: Life originated in the past and was not observed by humans. By the way, Spontaneous Generation was NOT a Christian or Creationist teaching, but started with the ancient Greeks and adopted by later scientists. Christian teachers such as Augustine and others did not support spontaneous generation on the basis of Bible teaching. Do not even start to imply that this rogue theory was Christian based. Also, Louis Pasteur was a Christian and believed in Creation by God.
Common Desent theory is loosely related to the failed theories of the past such as spontaneous generation (abiogenesis).
dvashun and Faultline,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I believe that Genesis is an accurate account of the creation of life. While Genesis is not written as a scientific treatise, when it speaks about nature it is accurate if correctly interpreted. I believe in the dual revelation from the Bible and the record of nature and they are not in conflict when correctly interpreted.
Genesis is a simple summary of major creation milestones that are relevant to mankind. It is not an all inclusive account of every act of creation, but highlights certain aspects of creation.
Sometimes the record of nature tells us what the Bible does not include, such as the age of the earth. From nature we can scientifically infer an intelligent creator, but not who he is.
The Bible tells us who he is. Sometimes the Bible and the record of nature speak of similar things, such as the both the cosmos and earth having a beginning, man being composed of dust, and life comes from life.
In the Bible we see that God created life by his WORD (Greek word LOGOS meaning LOGIC, PLAN, EXPRESSION OF THE PLAN, AND SPOKEN WORD). In the creation accounts we see phrases such as, "let the earth bring forth...", giving the meaning that life was made from existing elements through the design and creative acts of God.
If a four year old child asks their parent where they came from, the parent may say something like, "daddy and mommy met and got married and you came from the love between us". Later in life if the child studies biology he will learn about the biology of reproduction, the fertilization of the egg and its growth, etc. Would the child come back to his parents and tell them that they lied? No, he would understand that what his parents said was just a simple explanation and not a contradiction to biology. Yet, the child knowing about the love between his parents was an important fact to him that would not be in a biology textbook.
So it is with the Biblical account of creation. It is a simple summary of creation and not in conflict with the record of nature. The conflict comes with the interpretation of the Bible, the record of nature, or both.
In future posts I will show how the record of nature is misinterpreted by neo-Darwinists because of their bias towards a negative theology.
guys guys guys
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisevolution is a load of crap
it is not science, it is a belife about the past just like creation, creation fits the facts of life and evolution does not
instead of excepting everything that comes out of a scientist mouth, do what i did, research to prove them wrong, if u cant then except it, and i hvent had to except anything yet
the E. Coli "evolution" was not evolution, it was the E. Coli adapting to its surroundings, at the end of the test it was still E. Coli, it did not evolve into a diffrent bacteria or species of animal, it stayed E. Coli so therefore it is not evolution.
all ur transitional fossils, which is only a handful, are highly dissputable
the Pakicetus is said to have evolved into the Beluga whale and the Pakicetus had its nose at the front of the skull and the Beluga whale had its at the top of the skull, and the "transitional fossil" scientists found had its nose hole in the center of the skull this creature was called Aetiocetus, i mean what more could us creationists want, this is proof positive that evolution is a fact, except that the Aetiocetus is a early baleen whale and they are anywhere between 2-40 times the size of a beluga whale, if you look at baleen whale today, they are in no way shape or form evolving into a beluga whale
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73
dude, evolution is even wackier than creation in terms of how life started
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisat least creation goes along with abiogenisis
it is impossible for life to appear from non-life and yet evolution says thats what happens, so b4 u start saying we r crazy, look in the mirror
A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296.
Neal T, have you any answers to my questions? Dig deep. You still need to present a detailed hypothesis before it can be explored. So far, the only thing you've said is that living things come "from the elements of the Earth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I said it was a vague, noncommittal statement and you have yet to elaborate.
Faultline
"it is impossible for life to appear from non-life..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yet we are here, so by your own words all solutions have a serious problem, yes? The question is what do they do about it? Do they say "God did it" and just accept their ignorance, or do they study the problem and so expand our knowledge and understanding?
Did you read John Rennie's article? No comment about it one way or the other?
I looked at your link. All of the arguments I saw there were proved false years ago. If you are really interested in the questions and not just mindlessly repeating the same tired Creationist fantasies, try looking at some authoritive websites. Besides sciam.com, which you obviously know, I recommend www.talkorigins.org.
Faultline, I said more than living things come from the elements of the earth. Please see my previous post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk Neal, so now my next question for you is do you feel that God should be taught as part of science? I am not asking about your personal beliefs, but what should be taught in science courses at schools. After all, that is the real issue underlying these discussions anyway. I feel that there is no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe in, but religion is not science and there needs to be a clear distinction. Also, I am not asking for a specific, detailed, step-by-step creation hypothesis but I would like to know what your merging of creation/evolution/science is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisill check it out
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut please give me the exact links where they have proved all those things wrong on the link i gave you
there is no merging of evolution and creation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit just wont work
idk y but it just wont, they are 2 completely diffrent views on life, there is no similarity between them in my opinion
Neal T, I found this in your previous post:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Sometimes the Bible and the record of nature speak of similar things, such as the both the cosmos and earth having a beginning, man being composed of dust, and life comes from life."
So you are saying that man is made from dust. Is dust one of the "elements of the Earth?" Is all life made from dust?
But wait, you also said, "life comes from life." Since man is alive, how can that be true if man came from dust? Did not other forms of life come from elements of the Earth, which may or may not include dust?
I'm confused. The Bible, which is so clear to you, comes with an enormous amount of interpretation from so many angles. That's why the Christian religion is so deeply fragmented into dozens of specific faiths.
But don't let me saying that sidetrack the issue. I want to know what your hypothesis is.
So far, all Neal seems to be saying is:
1. Natural Selection occurs
2. But there is no common descent
3. Complex organs cannot evolve through mutations
4. Therefore Evolution is false
5. The only alternative is God created life (and other things) from the elements of the Earth (which may or may not include dust)
Take a stand for your hypothesis. But first, we need the details of your hypothesis.
Faultline
Hey DemonHunter17!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.talkorigins.org/
This site totally trashes all the junk science put out by creationists. You asked for proof they were wrong, so check it out completely. You did ask, after all. If you aren't serious about wanting to know what constitutes real science, then don't ask.
If you don't give http://www.talkorigins.org/ full consideration then I'll know you aren't really sincere with your request for information, you're only doing the puffed-up, chest-poked-out boasting from the position that "I'm right no matter what anyone else says" that is so common among creationists.
Faultline
i think ill just add this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin did not come up with evolution, he just popularized a certin view of how it happend
in the bible it says that the gentiles (greeks) believed in evolution, is it the same evolution that darwin popularized? i have no idea
and for evolution to work, there has to b a male and female of the same species at the same place at the same time, they both have to b fully functional and ready to go at the same time, they even have to know what to do with the "parts" they have to even have offspring, and since evolution is a long long process.... well u see what im getting at, plants and bacteria and things of that nature would b the only living things on earth right now if evolution was the case.
lets say a tiger is the first creature to evolve from this cell that popped out of nowhere, i know it wasnt but for this debate, it was.
since evolution is such a long process, it would die before a female of the same species got there
i already got that link and am checking it now
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut where is ur response to the whole baleen whale beluga whale thing
y arent u defending that?
ill tell u how its true man came from dust
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod breathed life into him, and since God is alive, we didnt come from dust we came from God, we are made up of dust, we didnt come from it, we came from God
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "should God be taught as part of science." Certainly the dogmatic way that evolution is often taught is a pile of propaganda and baloney that any good communist dictator would be proud of.
The theory of Common Descent goes beyond the evidence in making its claims. Since a reasoned scientific inference can be made that life was created, yes, creation should be presented based on the scientific interence. I see nothing wrong with just being honest with students and presenting the various views and let them think about it for themselves. Neo-Darwinists are nearly pathological about censoring out any kind of critical questioning of the theory of Common Descent.
As I've previously stated, Darwinism is based on a negative theology. This bias is does not lead to critical thinking but dumbs down the scientific method of discovery. The theory of Common Descent has actually harmed the pursuit of knowledge by only allowing one view to interpret the evidence.
Neil T said: As I've previously stated, Darwinism is based on a negative theology. This bias is does not lead to critical thinking but dumbs down the scientific method of discovery. The theory of Common Descent has actually harmed the pursuit of knowledge by only allowing one view to interpret the evidence. ###
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T, science doesnt need theology! Furthermore I totally disagree with what you have stated. Scientists around the world praise Darwin. Geneticists praise Charles Darwin! You are apparently knocking down The National Human Genome Research Institute by your comment. How dare you!
From The National Human Genome Research Institute:
Darwin at 200: How Geneticists View Him Today
February 12, 2009, marked the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and the 150th year since publication of his seminal work, On the Origin of Species. The renowned 19th century naturalist made observations on plant and animal life that set science on a new course, introducing evolution as the unifying concept in all of genetics and biology. Students of U.S. history will note that the date is also the 200th birthday of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) observed Darwin's life and accomplishments at events at the NIH's Bethesda campus and at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. Hear what geneticists at NHGRI have to say about Darwin's ideas, science and legacy.
http://www.genome.gov/27529500
###
Watch Darwin at 200: How Geneticists View HimToday by listening and watching this video from The National Human Genome Research Institute: http://www.genome.gov/Multimedia/Flash/videoPlayerCC.cfm?videoID=Darwin200
Definition for *EVOLUTION from the NHGRI:
The historical development of a biological group (as a race or species); a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
###
Be back later. And, apparently, Neil doesnt like to read or use the links I have previously provided him. I have more on the matter.
Viewofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, a religion needs a prophet and evolution has Charles Darwin as it's prophet.
demonhunter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat you wrote is not how evolution works, and it's not how evolution is taught. Where did you get such ideas?
Neal, are you deliberately regressing to dogmatic assertions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat part of there has to b a male and female of the same species present at the same time with all parts fully funtional to reproduce did u not understand? i was in no way telling u how evolution works
i was just saying that it is practically impossible for there to b a male and female of the same species present at the same time in the same place with all parts fully funtional to reproduce if evolution is correct
"i was just saying that it is practically impossible for there to b a male and female of the same species present at the same time in the same place with all parts fully funtional to reproduce if evolution is correct"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, that's what you said, and that's what I asked you about. Why do you think simply repeating yourself is an adequate answer?
"The theory of Common Descent goes beyond the evidence in making its claims"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you be more explicit here?
u didnt ask me about that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis is what u said
"what you wrote is not how evolution works, and it's not how evolution is taught. Where did you get such ideas?"
i wasnt telling u how evolution works or how it is taught
i have questions for u tho
1.Where did the universe’s original matter come from?
2.How did life begin?
3.Where are all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods?
4.Where did the dinosaurs come from?
As a software developer, I have never really understood evolution, because a program will simply not function correctly unless it is programmed exactly as intended. Try telling me how your random program is going to create a useful program. Yes, what does biology have to do with computers? Information follows the same principles everywhere! Without information in a specific format (protocol), interpretation will not be correct. Evolution is jargon upon jargon. Let's face it, the theory is already too old and too simple and advanced by religious scientists. Stop trying to build a theory based on non-variability and non-specificity. It's what makes an intelligent person look stupid. I'll be the first person to acknowledge my ignorance. Do you acknowledge yours? I get the impression not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a software developer, I have never really understood evolution, because a program will simply not function correctly unless it is programmed exactly as intended. Try telling me how your random program is going to create a useful program. Yes, what does biology have to do with computers? Information follows the same principles everywhere! Without information in a specific format (protocol), interpretation will not be correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is jargon upon jargon. Let's face it, the theory is already too old and too simple and is advanced by "religious" scientists. Stop trying to build a theory based on non-variability and non-specificity. It's what makes an intelligent person look stupid. I'll be the first person to acknowledge my ignorance. Do you acknowledge yours? Then why hold so fiercly onto one theory...does it matter...
"i wasnt telling u how evolution works or how it is taught"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? It seems to me when you write something like
"it is practically impossible for there to b a male and female of the same species present at the same time in the same place with all parts fully funtional to reproduce if evolution is correct"
you are in fact telling me how you think evolution works and doesn't work. Let's look at your statement more closely.
Obviously males and females have working parts and all that. So, according to you, I have no choice but to conclude evolution is wrong wrong wrong. Right? But I don't conclude that, because your statement is simply nonsense. In fact, I have never heard anyone say anything like it before, and believe me I have heard some real doozies. So naturally I am curious how you got such a notion into your head, because I can't imagine anybody teaching it to you.
I understand completely that you don't want to admit you wrote this. Of course, denying something so obvious makes it really hard to carry on an intelligent conversation.
Rolf,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also have a background in information systems and I totally agree with you. One thing that neo-Darwinists seem to assume is that random mutation is goal directed even while denying it.
Can you at the article above in Answer #8 and tell me what is wrong with the logic there with the monkey on the keyboards?
" Stop trying to build a theory based on non-variability and non-specificity. It's what makes an intelligent person look stupid"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you be more specific about what you are talking about here?
Who is telling you a random progam will generate a useful program? And what do you think that has to do with evolution?
"One thing that neo-Darwinists seem to assume is that random mutation is goal directed even while denying it. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, the only one in this forum who claims anything about goal direction is you. Are you saying you are a neo-darwinist?
i wasnt telling u how evolution works
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisim asking u how can it work if it takes sucha long time
and u didnt answer my questions either
are u avoiding them?
Rolf,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am unsure if you understand really what impact Darwin had on modern evolution. His contribution is that evolution, a concept that was around prior to him, was due to natural selection. There is no goal, it is simply that certain traits fit an environment more than others. Over time, the species with the beneficial trait outnumber those without the trait. Does this help explain why evolution is not "goal" oriented and how random genetic mutations lead to beneficial traits. No design, no guiding force, just random changes that result in a benefit.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the sake of honesty in science then the answer for creation is we don't know. Beliefs are not science. As I stated to Demonhunter evolution does not address the creation of life, just the manner in which species adapt. So to say that by teaching evolution there is some direct statement about how life began is a misunderstanding of what evolution is.
Demonhunter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you Dr. Dinosaur or just a zealot for his non-sense? While you did not direct your questions at me, I will provide you with answers. How you interpret them is up to you. First of all, evolution only deals with questions 3 and 4 but I will address all 4 questions.
1. The Big Bang Theory (yet another theory) is pretty much the accepted origin of all matter in the universe.
2. I don't know. There are several hypotheses on this (note the difference between theory and hypothesis), but there is not one that has gained widespread acceptance that I am aware of.
3. There are many, many, transitional fossils in the fossil record and only the uninformed believe in the "lack of evidence" proposed by literal interpretation Creationists.
4. Dinosaurs developed approximately 230 million years ago from the archosaur species.
There are answers to your 4 Power Questions. I suggest that you spend at least some time researching these questions outside of creationist web sites. Maybe take a Saturday and visit a museum of natural history. Also, what are your answers to the questions you asked and how old do you believe the Earth is? And last question, where, specifically, in the Bible does it state that the gentiles believe in evolution?
Demonhunter, I accept your word that you are not one of those people who are uninterested in reasonable dialog. There seem to be so many of them around here at the moment. Given your initial posts, however, I am unsure of exactly what it is you are asking. Please elaborate on your questions, give your understanding of the issues involved, explain your concerns about them, so I can better reply in a way meaningful to you. Can you do that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, Darwinists deny that natural selection is goal directed, that is what I said they do. But, in fact, goal orientation is what they do. For example, forming the combination of letters, "TOBEORNOTTOBE" is goal directed during the random generation process when specific letters that fit the final outcome are selected simply because they fit the final outcome.
There is a big difference between natural selection working on a beneficial trait and a species developing a completely new organ. Monkeys throwing paint on a wall may actually hit a few places that match the color points of the Mona Lisa, but it becomes exponentially more difficult with each throw to continue to "evolve" the painting towards an accurate replica. If Darwinists carried their concept of natural selection over into this Mona Lisa analogy, then only the paint color points that match the Mona Lisa will stick to the wall.
Please do not just tell me that Darwinists do not require natural selection to be goal oriented. Explain to me why it is not goal oriented and why my explanation above is wrong.
demonhunter's claim about the need for a male and female of a new species to be present at the same time is drawn from a misunderstanding of how Evolution works and the nature of species in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut this is the case in most creationist claims. They take a misunderstanding of an aspect of a theory and then knock down the misunderstanding. Much like a strawman fallacy.
First thing, demonhunter, you need to know what divides one species from another. Since zoologists don't have a concrete definition, good luck finding one.
It is easy to tell that an elephant and a turtle are different species. But what about the Indian elephant and the African elephant? What about a Scottish terrier and a Saint Bernard? The line is difficult to distinguish when it gets to animals who are intrinsically similar.
So how many genetic changes are required to declare that one species is a new one? Within a single species, such as dogs, there are extreme variations that might qualify.
The second thing to know is that Evolution refers to populations, not individual creatures. Whole species evolve, individuals do not.
One genetic mutation does not create a new species. Evolution does not even depend solely on genetic mistakes in the case of sexual reproduction. Each creature who has a male and female parent is different because of the mixture of parental traits. That small difference is all it takes for natural selection to begin working.
After a species reproduces for 100,000 years or so, with children being different from their parents, environmental dangers and competition from rivals are going to guide the changes until the population becomes a new species, unable to sexually reproduce viable offspring with the former.
Faultline
Neal T the only guide for Evolution is natural selection. Environmental hazards are going to select against traits that don't give a survival advantage and traits that do give a survival advantage will propogate. Enough traits stack upon each other until a new species is generated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Evolution is not random. It isn't like a computer program.
Faultline
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA reasoned scientific inference can be made based on natural evidence that life was designed by a Creator. This can be done without even opening the Bible.
Of course, if some are biased by a negative theological view that says, "God would not have created parasites, certain inefficiencies, etc", then the only interpretation allowed is a naturalistic one.
Evolutionists find the answers they are looking for. The so- called Vestigal organs is a good case in point. Evolutionists identify certain vestigal organs, not because they are, but because evolutionist say they are. Evolutionists decide that an organ is vestigal because it's function does not provide an important enough activity in their view. But it is all based on the view that vestigal organs are predicted by their theory. Interestingly, all organs identified by early evolutionists as vestigal have been found to provide a function. It is totally a subjective judgment based on the view that Common Descent has to be true according to it's supporters
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a hypothesis as to how a new organ, for example the eye, may have come into being. A simple organism, we'll call it a foo, eats something else, we'll call that food, that only exists in the absence of light. So the original foo has no way of distinguishing light from dark. Then a foo develops a spot that can receive light and it learns that food is where there is no light. We will call this one fooa. When fooa breeds, it produces ten more fooa's. This process repeats itself until a fooa has a mutation that seperates light into colors resulting in foob. Foob reproduces creating both fooa's and foob's. As these foob's reproduce over the generation, a mutation results in fooc which can form the colors into distinguisable shapes. See where I am going with this. These minor benign changes lead to the development of an eye. Eventually foox develops a hard shell to protect it from predators and now you have the trilobite suddenly appearing because the shell allows for the easier existence of fossil remains.
Granted this is just an idea but I hope this illustrates how minor genentic changes can eventually lead to a significant change. If not go ahead and rip it apart.
There have been a lot of questions asked since last I posted here. I thought it best to share with everyone a wonderful website that has provided to be helpful for Internet users.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProfessor Eric J. Chaisson is Director of Wright Center for Science Education. He is a Research Professor of Physics and Astronomy of Tufts University, a Research Professor of Education for Tufts University, an Associate, Harvard College Observatory, Harvard University and an affiliate-director, Massachusetts Space Grant Consortium, (1992-2008) MIT.
Professor Chaisson has a wonderful on-line tutorial that should be helpful in answering question(s). Wright Center for Science Education Cosmic Evolution From Big Bang to Humankind. You can use the mouse to your computer and click to the following topics, which you can further explore about the following:
Epoch 1- Particulate (Particulate Evolution)
Epoch 2- Galactic (Galactic Evolution)
Epoch 3- Stellar (Stellar Evolution)
Epoch 4- Planetary (Planetary Evolution)
Epoch 5- Chemical (Chemical Evolution)
Epoch 6- Biological (Biological Evolution)
Epoch 7- Cultural (Cultural Evolution)
Epoch 8- Future (Future Evolution)
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
You can learn about Biological Evolution (Epoch 6) if you click your mouse to these topics Early Cells, Ancient Fossils, Extreme Life, Recent Fossils, Darwin and Mendel, Path Toward Humanity, and Brain Evolution, etc.
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_bio.html
I've posted throughout my visit here many scientific articles that support John Rennie's article *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*. I do think that a review of them might be helpful though I leave it up to each individual if they choose to do so. The most important thing to me is that learning become fun though I also realize that there are some people who don't like science. I do love science and so do my colleagues. :-)
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to completely disagree that a design can be inferred from the natural evidence. We know that species adapt based on their environment. We know that these adaptations are due to mutations to the dna of the species. We can force these mutations to occur or not occur through specific breeding/pollination. All evidence supports a natural cause of these changes, not a supernatural designer. Are there some challenges in finding every single mutation over a billion year history? Yes. But that lack of evidence does not lead to a logical inference to some supernatural being. And this creator has designed...what is it exactly this creator designed anyway? Everything, the cell, what? Anyway, back to the natural evidence and a question I firmly believe I will regret, what natural evidence do you propose supports a creator? And please do not resort to irreducible complexity, there is no such thing, simply something that is complex.
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "But that lack of evidence does not lead to a logical inference to some supernatural being".
Sure, why should lack of evidence ever be considered a weakness of a theory? Unfortunately you are serious, but only because you are content to not consider alternatives.
Regarding your thought experiment of the foo creature. This is similar to Charles Darwin's light sensing spot thought experiment. It works in the imagination, but will it work in real life?
The problem I see first of all is getting to the light sensing spot. Going from nothing to a light sensing spot is more than a single mutation but involves several mutations in various areas of the DNA. Now the foo does not know that it can have a light sensing spot and natural selection is dumb, so the mutations that are beneficial and selected are not selected because they are trying to form an eye spot. Since multiple mutations are necessary to form a light sensing spot each one has to be selected for other reasons and then by sheer luck happen to be all the right ones to form a light sensing spot when the last mutation occurs.
I think your thought experiment has a much better potential of forming a light sensing spot if one mutation would do it, but this is not the case.
I wasn't going to talk about irreducible complexity, but now that you did, I certainly haven't seen anything that refutes it. My discussions with evolutionist Ken Miller about this were not fruitful either and he did little more than dismiss it with the usual generalizations. With regards to the IFT rafts in the flagella this is an example of an absolutely irreducibly complex system.
viewofmars... have you ever studied or considered the anthropic principle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not an either/or situation, just because there is some evidence missing does not another argument true by default. If I look at a color and it is not white, it is not black by the quality of not being white. And, to you, why does the light sensing spot require multiple mutations? Also, you have not answered my question as to what the creator designed. You are reverting back to answering questions with questions when we were starting to get a real discussion going.
Oh, one more thing, in your argument against the LSS (light sensing spot) you state that this is starting from nothing. That is not the case, to start from nothing would be to start from dirt. Since this is a living species it must have some genetic material (and no going to abiogenesis discussions, this is about evolution).
There are two comments that I would like to make.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. From Lehigh University under faculty member Michael J. Behe states:
My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them. [I have noted on the Internet that *Michael Behe* claims to be a theist evolutionist.]
2. It would be plain ignorant to think that my last posting below meant a theist evolution. Only creationists would call it a theist evolution or call themselves theist evolutionists. There arent any Roman Catholics that I personally know that would say it is a theist evolution or call themselves theist evolutionists. They arent creationists. As I mentioned earlier Pope John Paul accepted the theory of evolution.
And I thought you should know that there is NO mention of theist evolution or theist evolutionist within Vatican achieves.
Evolution is not an idea. Evolution is a fact as expressed in my previous posting.
Neal, I am sorry you have the impression I am "just telling you". I base my replies on my best understanding of your replies, so when you don't reply, what can I say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the meaining of "goal-directed", I am missing the distinction you are making. I don't see evolutionists talking about goals, other than the implicit goals of survival and reproduction. These implicit goals are established by the rules of natural selection. You have said natural selection is not goal-directed, and I agree. Natural selection can't "decide" to make an eye, for example. That would be an artificial goal, so you must be talking about something else, but I haven't read from you what it is. Did I misread you to say that evolutionists are assuming artificial goals for evolution? If so, what are the goals you say evolutionists are talking about?
Regarding your painting monkeys, from your description it seems to me you fundamentally misunderstand what evolutionists write. This is my understanding of what I have read: Instead of an artificial standard, natural selection uses the current environment to filter what genes pass on to the next generation. The result is a small incremental difference between the genes of individuals who succeed in reproducing themselves, and those who die childless. Make the environment stable enough for long enough, combine it with Mendelian inheritance, and add in an occasional random mutation to keep things interesting, and you have all the ingredients for evolution of species by natural selection.
Regarding the "TOBEORNOTTOBE" computer program, it is a relatively simple program designed to show only how apparently "practically impossible" outcomes are inevitable when incremental changes are allowed. It is not meant to be a comprehensive model of evolution. With that in mind, the letters of the alphabet take the place of genes, a random number generator takes the place of genetic mutations, and the target sentence takes the place of the environment. You say that the target sentence makes the program goal-directed. I agree only if you mean in the same way that natural selection is goal-directed. Given that any computer program is necessarily artifical, what else can it do to simulate the function of natural selection and at the same time satisfy your sense of non-goal-direction?
well for question 1 i know that the theory is the big bang, but where did the matter come from that formed the little sphere which then exploded?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquestion 2 is how do u believe the first life on earth came about?
question 3, im basically asking u for links on that one, and some pics too
and question 4 is basically the same lol
let me ask u something
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow is it that there are still comets in space if the universe and earth are both billions of years old?
the avrage comet has a life span of 100,000 years
so y are there still comets?
"the avrage comet has a life span of 100,000 years
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso y are there still comets?"
And where did you get that number from? Maybe they have an answer for you. If you find it, please be sure to post it here.
the reason i say that is since a comet is made up of ice and junk that is frozen into the ice, its gonna pass by the sun a few times and with that heat, it aint gonna last long
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut ive heard ppl say the Oort cloud is where they r comin from and it just so happens that it is out of sight from even our most powerful telescope
and these ppl beleive that it is a fact that there is a Oort cloud but they cant see it feel it hear it smell it or taste it but according to them its there
but that sounds a lot like God, the only diffrence to me is that God is alive and the Oort cloud isnt
i got it from a book called The Ultimate Proof of Creation
and its not evidence thats the ultimate proof either
see, its not a question of who has the right evidence, we draw diffrent conclusions from the same evidence so as to make the evidence fit the world view of creation or evolution so the question is not who has the right evidence, but its who has the right world view?
Demonhunter, you seem to have latched onto what I call the Klassic Kreationist Kwikie. So where you found those questions, did they bother to answer them? If so, are their answers any better than "God did it"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's no secret that Science doesn't have all the answers yet. And there are some questions Science can NOT answer, either because the questions are beyond the scope of Science, or because the very structure of the Universe denies some answers with absolute certainty. Nevertheless, the entire point of Science is not in the knowing, but in the finding out.
"Where did the Universe come from?" is a hard question, and not one that should be asked just to sound smarter. The only people who have a chance of finding answers are the people who look for them. Ignorance is not a sin, but accepting ignorance should be. To say "God made the Universe" begs the question; where did God come from? To say "God is eternal" also begs the question; how do you know God is eternal? To say "I accept it on faith" also begs the question; if you accept an eternal God on faith, why not accept an eternal Universe on faith and not bother God about it in the first place? To make God responsible for ignorance is the sign of a careless mind.
"so the question is not who has the right evidence, but its who has the right world view?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am humbled. That IMO is a deep, thought-provoking question. It deserves more time than I can provide at the moment. I would like to get back to you on it, if you don't mind.
How long would a comet last if it never comes close to a sun or star?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd where are the answers to my questions for Neal T?
Faultline
Let me restate, in case Neal forgot my question. I'm not giving up until I get clarification on what "from the elements of the Earth" means in terms of how God created life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisME, previously: If God created life and did not do it through the process scientists have discovered called Evolution, then I'm asking you to describe your hypothesis for the process of creation. If it was not done through Evolution, did God just make them appear spontaneously from the dust or what?
You answered that life was created "from the elements of the Earth" and I said that was extremely vague. So describe it for me. After trilobytes were done and it was time for a new species, say, the first dinosaurs, to appear, did God just cause them to appear from "the elements of the Earth?" As dinosaurs were no longer able to survive, did God just decide to drop early mammals from the sky? Creating them from vapor? Is this your claim?
You claim that throuought Earth's prehistoric life, new species arrive on Earth and gradually replace some older ones without having evolved from the older life forms. You claim it is impossible for the known process of natural selection to accomplish the gradual creation of a new species. I want you to describe the set of laws that describe how this happens. Don't dodge it, answer.
I want to know the nuts and bolts of your hypothesis.
Demonhunter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm pretty sure your reply was to me even though your post links to a different response so I will respond to your post.
1.Before the Big Bang? I don't know, I haven't read anything based on natural observations that can explain where the matter came from. However, this same line of questions can apply to a Creator as well, such as where did the creator come from? It is a never ending search for an origin, based on fact not faith, that is unaswerable at this time.
2. Again, I don't know. I'm not sure how life originated. I think that it is possible that there were bacteria on an asteroid that hit the earth. It is possible that the primordial ooze concept is correct where everything just came together perfectly. I came to terms many years ago that some questions just don't have answers at this time.
3. Here is a link to a list of transitional fossils, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html. From here you can search the names of the fossils for pictures.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719143512.htm. A google search for dinosaur triassic origins will provide more examples.
God didint make anything fall from the sky, he spoke them into existance, everything he created, he spoke into existance with his great power
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDvashun, I apologize if I replied out of turn. Keeping in mind the title of this forum's seminal article, clearly we both have an abiding interest in answering creationists' nonsense. For what it's worth, your replies are inspiring to me, and I can think of nothing I can say better than you. Going forward, I will take care to not step on other peoples' threads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand remember
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe right world view can have no contradictions, i cant remember what it is called but its the veiw that there are no absolutes, but that in itself is an absolute so therefore it contradicts itself
o poop, i cant remember any names now, but there is the worldview that ALL knowledge comes from obsevation, but that contradicts itself because the person cant observe the knowledge that lets them know that all knowlege is gained from observation.
First of all, I think that you all are looking at this from a very bias perspective. Maybe it is true that some people believe in creationism simply because the bible says so. But, it is also true that most people believe in evolution because their biology textbooks say it is true. Now, I love science, but I believe we ought to question everything. Just because we are taught something in biology class doesn't make it true. For example, at one point in time, it was the common consensus that the earth was flat. But, the truth was that it was round. Just because everybody believes something is science doesn't make it so. I think that people who say evolution is a pure solid fact and you can't prove otherwise are only looking at one side of the argument. Now, I've done some of my own reading on both sides of the argument. Let me present some of the arguments for evolution being inaccurate:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- There are not "transitional fossils" found in the fossil record between different classes of organisms. If evolution is accurate, then through natural selection, birds evolved from reptiles, and so did mammals, over a very long period of time. However, we do not have evidence of this in the fossil record. What was thought to be evidence was the bird Archeopteryx, or missing link. It exhibited characteristics of both birds and reptiles. What they don't tell you is that this bird, according to where it is found in the rock layers, became extinct millions of years before the transition should have occurred. Other missing links that have been found have proven to be either fraudulent or don't fit where they should.
- The Cambrian Boom. In the Precambrian period, there are a few primitive life forms, such as snails, bacteria, and worms. If evolution is accurate, there should have been a gradual increase in complexity and variety of organisms over time. However, as soon as you hit the Cambrian period, there is a sudden increase in the variety and complexity of organisms. These creatures are fully developed, complex life forms, and there is no transition at all as to how they evolved. If evolution was correct, there should be gradually more and more complex organisms evolving throughout time, not just suddenly appearing in the fossil record.
- No doubt some species probably did evolve. But, because the fossil record has a considerable lack of evidence supporting this theory, I think it is safe to question the validity that all species evolved from the same primitive life forms. Question rather than accept as fact.
but thats an absurd thought, in 4.5 BILLION years, a comet wont come across a sun or star? and even longer than that because thats just our solar sytems supposed age
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi agree with everything u say but the - "No doubt some species probably did evolve" i dont believe that evolution happend, just as people BELIEVE evolution did happen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisive heard that dogs have evolved because there are no long haired dogs in the hot places and no short haired dogs in the cold places so that proves that natural selection is evolution but thats just not true
what i beleive happend is there were 2 dogs both with medium hair that came off of nohas ark and they mated, now they had a gene for long hair and a gene for short hair, so they had offspring with short medium and long hair, so when 2 long haired dogs mate, they will produnce ONLY dogs with long hair because they do not have the gene that produces short hair because they got the long haired gene from both mom and dad, so they actually de-evolved, and then they went out into the world and nature selected the fittest for both the cold and hot enviornments
thats what i believe, call me stupid or ignorant if u want but i will not change for anyone
"the right world view can have no contradictions"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere are apparent contradictions resulting from incomplete knowledge or understanding, and there are inherent contradictions like you write about. One that I find amusing is nothing can be both all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time, because to be all-powerful it has to be able to not do what it knows it is going to do.
A7E5, the difference is you don't have to take a scientist's word. You can look it up for yourself. In fact, every good scientist will BEG you to find out for yourself. Whether you do or not is entirely up to you. Why don't you think that difference matters?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a very good thing to be skeptical, to question the data and the conclusions, and satisfy yourself. Its very destructive to be cynical, to question someone's motives. If you're going to make accusations of fraud, you need to back it up. At the very least, find out who, what, when, and where. DON'T just take the accusor's word, make them PROVE IT.
"i dont believe that evolution happend, just as people BELIEVE evolution did happen"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that is because of your world view. You believe what you believe. Your world view is magic. And as long as that is so, to you all science is just so much mumbo-jumbo good only for mind games. People don't have to BELIEVE evolution, they can prove it for themselves. That is my world view.
"but thats an absurd thought, in 4.5 BILLION years, a comet wont come across a sun or star?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize to all for jumping in here, but I just have to ask Demonhunter. How do you accept a 4.5 Billion year solar system AND Noah's flood? Just what do you really believe?
And while your answering that, how is it you find comets "absurd", but you seem to have NO problem with the idea of stuffing every species of animal onto a boat to live together for months without eating each other, while floodwaters rose higher than the tallest mountain and then disappeared without a trace? I mean, how come you're so skeptical of evolution when you can swallow that story whole without choking? Oh, and one more thing. Where's YOUR proof?
And while we're on the subject, just a bit of Bible trivia; how many animals of each kind was Noah supposed to put on the ark? Fair warning, it's a trick question.
Hi dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is something I understand i.e. that somehow we are here and that there build-up and similar traits. My point here is not that this is a scientific fact, but that the mechanisms of information are completely ignored. It is not enough to see similar traits and then build such a magnificent house of cards on this concept. I'm looking at this gigantic house and wondering why no-one bothered to consult the technician? As far as mutations are concerned e.g. in fruit flies, has anyone ever considered that no information is being lost, merely that the SAME program is using different variables to compensate for damages introduced to the structural elements? These things can only be answered when we start to be able to write our own biological codes from scratch. Unfortunate, but true. It means that we have a scientific community trying to introduce new philosophical points to each other. Maybe ID would not have been attacked so much if they'd come up with a theory called "non-randomness, we don't mention intelligence".
Regards, Rolf
Jpill,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo worries about responding to any postings, I just wasn't sure if Demons reply was to me. Most people on this thread have used the reply button so that it can be clear which posting they can reply to. He replied to some other posting and that is what my statement was about. But thanks for the courtesy.
Rolf,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do get your point about the same information being re-arranged over and over again. And my answer is that I don't know enough about the subject to make any substantive contribution on that matter. Having said that, I would like to bring up a point that has been brought up off and on throughout the thread. Pre-suppositions are not allowed in science, science only accepts natural evidence. This is why numerology, astrology, and phrenology are not science.
Personally, I have no concerns with people believing anything they want. However, belief is not science and the two need to remain separate. When people attempt to introduce a supernatural omnipotent creator into science then there can be no valid conclusions because the "creator" influence can never be measured. Articles like this one only exist because of people like Kent Hovind who spread out and out lies in his school and church. These people then in turn attack science based on this misinformation.
I would ask you this, Scientist "believe" life came from non-life correct? I am more than ready to leave that out of all textbooks until it is observed, tested and replicated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only agree that pre-suppositions are not allowed in science. Similarly however, since we have not mapped the "exact" mechanism at a microscopic level behind how similar traits come about (we have theories yes, but we've not reduced it to the technical level yet), we cannot suppose that an organism is evolving. If pre-suppositions are not allowed, then evolution is as guilty as ID unless the exact evidence is provided. I am only passionate about this, because evolutionists sound hypocritical in this regard, because they treat their theory as fact before it has been thoroughly investigated (I do not think we currently have the tools yet for a conclusive investigation, but we are getting there). Some ID proponents may be guilty of slander against evolutionists, however it is often not undue if they are the favourite targets for being piloried. The theory of evolution should be reduced to "the observation of similar traits" and nothing more until there is more evidence. The tenants of science will never be under threat, because science is about establishing facts and if necessary to alter the facts when additional evidence turns up. With the discovery of the generic code and microbiological machines, the things that were considered fact about evolution no longer stand up UNLESS these things are further investigated. For this reason, I stated that Evolution is outdated. Besides genetics, we've also had advances in information theory. I hope that the biology faculty was informed about all these advances... hmmm...ah yes, progress is what science is all about...
From the National Institute of Health:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists Analyze Chromosomes 2 and 4
NHGRI-Supported Researchers Discover Largest "Gene Deserts"; Find New Clues to Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Event
BETHESDA, Md., Wed., April 6, 2005 - A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest "gene deserts" known in the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes, researchers supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), reported today.
In a study published in the April 7 issue of the journal Nature, a multi-institution team, led by Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, described its analysis of the high quality, reference sequence of chromosomes 2 and 4. The sequencing work on the chromosomes was carried out as part of the Human Genome Project at Washington University; Broad Institute of MIT, Cambridge, Mass.; Stanford DNA Sequencing and Technology Development Center, Stanford, Calif.; Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, England; National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; Genoscope, Evry, France; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; University of Washington Multimegabase Sequencing Center, Seattle; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, Calif.; and Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, N.Y.
"This analysis is an impressive achievement that will deepen our understanding of the human genome and speed the discovery of genes related to human health and disease. In addition, these findings provide exciting new insights into the structure and evolution of mammalian genomes," said Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of NHGRI, which led the U.S. component of the Human Genome Project along with the DOE.
Chromosome 4 has long been of interest to the medical community because it holds the gene for Huntington's disease, polycystic kidney disease, a form of muscular dystrophy and a variety of other inherited disorders. Chromosome 2 is noteworthy for being the second largest human chromosome, trailing only chromosome 1 in size. It is also home to the gene with the longest known, protein-coding sequence - a 280,000 base pair gene that codes for a muscle protein, called titin, which is 33,000 amino acids long.
One of the central goals of the effort to analyze the human genome is the identification of all genes, which are generally defined as stretches of DNA that code for particular proteins. The new analysis confirmed the existence of 1,346 protein-coding genes on chromosome 2 and 796 protein-coding genes on chromosome 4.
As part of their examination of chromosome 4, the researchers found what are believed to be the largest "gene deserts" yet discovered in the human genome sequence. These regions of the genome are called gene deserts because they are devoid of any protein-coding genes. However, researchers suspect such regions are important to human biology because they have been conserved throughout the evolution of mammals and birds, and work is now underway to figure out their exact functions.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002.
In the latest analysis, researchers searched the chromosome's DNA sequence for the relics of the center (centromere) of the ape chromosome that was inactivated upon fusion with the other ape chromosome. They subsequently identified a 36,000 base pair stretch of DNA sequence that likely marks the precise location of the inactived centromere. That tract is characterized by a type of DNA duplication, known as alpha satellite repeats, that is a hallmark of centromeres. In addition, the tract is flanked by an unusual abundance of another type of DNA duplication, called a segmental duplication.
"These data raise the possibility of a new tool for studying genome evolution. We may be able to find other chromosomes that have disappeared over the course of time by searching other mammals' DNA for similar patterns of duplication," said Richard K. Wilson, Ph.D., director of the Washington University School of Medicine's Genome Sequencing Center and senior author of the study.
In another intriguing finding, the researchers identified a messenger RNA (mRNA) transcript from a gene on chromosome 2 that possibly may produce a protein unique to humans and chimps. Scientists have tentative evidence that the gene may be used to make a protein in the brain and the testes. The team also identified "hypervariable" regions in which genes contain variations that may lead to the production of altered proteins unique to humans. The functions of the altered proteins are not known, and researchers emphasized that their findings still require "cautious evaluation."
In October 2004, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium published its scientific description of the finished human genome sequence in Nature. Detailed annotations and analyses have already been published for chromosomes 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, X and Y. Publications describing the remaining chromosomes are forthcoming.
The sequence of chromosomes 2 and 4, as well as the rest of the human genome sequence, can be accessed through the following public databases: GenBank (www.ncbi.nih.gov/Genbank) at NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI); the UCSC Genome Browser (www.genome.ucsc.edu) at the University of California at Santa Cruz; the Ensembl Genome Browser (www.ensembl.org) at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and the EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute; the DNA Data Bank of Japan (www.ddbj.nig.ac.jp); and EMBL-Bank (www.ebi.ac.uk/embl/index.html) at EMBL's Nucleotide Sequence Database.
NHGRI is one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The NHGRI Division of Extramural Research supports grants for research and for training and career development at sites nationwide. Additional information about NHGRI can be found at www.genome.gov.
http://www.genome.gov/13514624
ArchaeologyInfo is a wonderful website that continually updates new found HUMAN species. You can review HUMAN ANCESTRY: SPECIES and 'elect a species of hominid from the human evolution timeline', or 'from the list at right, to view a hominid species article and image' and the website provideds new hominids. I encourage everyone who loves science to explore this incrediable website! Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm
"With the discovery of the generic code and microbiological machines, the things that were considered fact about evolution no longer stand up..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRolfdbecker77, I am ignorant of what you and Dvashun seem to be familiar with. Could you elaborate on your point above, or at least provide a link or context, so that I might get a handle on how you think evolution no longer stands up?
Hi jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've done a brief search, but here's an example of a machine for repairing the DNA:
http://www.hhmi.org/news/alt2.html
I'm sure you can find other examples where many different "machines/mechanisms" are responsible for building proteins from building blocks using templates i.e. proteins do not just build themselves.
These are examples of microbiological machines.
You should also bear in mind that DNA is not the actual program, since a program cannot fix itself i.e. who is to say which is the correct program if it can? If a program fixes itself, it will inevitably do irreparable damage to itself over the long run.
It is further complicated by the new field of epigenetics, which means that DNA does not seem to be completely controlling heredity.
So far the human genome project concentrated on characteristics that are controlled by our genes, but characteristics are merely data. Actual functions and intersystem mapping and communication are far more interesting and complex. In such a system, one component cannot talk to another unless there is a fixed means of communication. We have barely scratched the surface.
I see a tendency amongst evolutionists to look at characteristics (e.g. is one chromosome missing etc.) and to not concentrate on the functional aspects, which are by far the most interesting.
Rolf,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the pre-supposition you are saying evolution is based upon? And advancing technologies do not remove the facts of evolution unless they produce specific results that are contradictory to current results. To this point epigenetics has not done so, it has just offered a new layer to explore. As an example, when the reflecting telescope was invented the knowledge gained from the refracting telescope was not discarded, it was built upon. So lets not throw the baby out with the bath water in this matter.
Rolf, I don't mean to come across as thick-headed, but it would help me immensely if you would provide an example - just one example - of how the study of microbiological machines shows that "evolution no longer stands up"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think my last two posting support Howard Hughes Medical Institute:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biological definition of a species is based on reproductive compatibility in the wild. If two organisms can naturally mate and produce fertile offspring in nature, they're considered members of the same species. This definition of species thus doesn't apply to fossil material, for which reproductive compatibility isn't known or can't be tested. So the short answer to your question is that scientists could not distinguish breeds within a species from different species just by examining similar fossils.
However, a lot is known about the range of morphological variation present within members of a living species. In general, nondomesticated species have a very limited range of morphological variation. Your dog example involves a species that has been radically altered by human breeders through artificial selection. In species of animals not subjected to artificial selection, one almost never sees as much morphological variation as we find in different dog breeds.
So scientists assign a species name to fossils by inference, considering the typical amount of variation seen within natural species and the similarities and differences to living species and preexisting known fossils. If a fossil looks significantly unlike any recorded live species or fossil species, it's usually given a new species name. However, new fossil discoveries continually improve this nomenclature. Species assignments of fossils are based on comparative evaluations of what's known when they are discovered; it's therefore common for subsequent fossil discoveries to contribute to revisions of the species names given to older fossil material.
Although DNA sequence data doesn't address the biological species definition of reproductive compatibility, it does provide a powerful data set to help evaluate species assignments. Although there is not yet a lot of DNA data from fossils, there's a lot of data on the typical DNA sequence divergence seen between members of the same species. Thus, DNA data can be used to infer species relationships. As far as the prevalence of fossil DNA evidence, recent research that used cheaper DNA-sequencing technologies successfully recovered significant portions of DNA from extinct organisms such as the cave bear and Neanderthal hominids. In the future we will have DNA data for more fossil material. Already scientists have begun to build a powerfully detailed DNA data set for studying the relationship between different fossil and living taxa, and it will undoubtedly improve our understanding of the tree of life of organisms both past and present.
http://www.hhmi.org/askascientist/answers/generally_members_of_a_species_have_different_dna_makeup_from_other_species_however_as_i_understa.html
###
Sorry to jump in but I have little time so I will address what Rolfdbecker 77 said: I've done a brief search, but here's an example of a machine for repairing the DNA: http://www.hhmi.org/news/alt2.html
Rolfdbecker77, the articles date was June 15, 2000 and titled DNA-REPAIR
MACHINE MAINTAINS GENOMIC STABILITY. Ive read the article in its entirety and know that the article doesnt imply as you have suggested a machine for repairing the DNA. The article is about a new chromosome imaging technique used with a microscope to detect, distinguish, and label
broken pieces of DNA or Chromosome rearrangements.
Dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as ID presupposes that there is an intelligent agent that is responsible for the similar traits, evolution presupposes that these traits are the result of a natural selection process. Evolution bases this view on what it sees on the surface where characteristics are seen to be changing e.g. a bird grows a larger beak than the previous generation. Because no-one has witnessed an intelligent agent, it does not make sense to include one when changes in characteristics are witnessed. The natural selection process is or "has become" a presupposition in light of what we know today, because we can look into the cell and can investigate further. Why continue assuming that the traits are a result of a natural selection process? We no longer need to rely on the observable changing macroscopic features. Who says anything is being changed at the functional level anyway? If evolution wishes to be a viable theory it needs to demonstrate itself conclusively at the microscopic level, otherwise it's like looking at a car with bigger wheels and saying it travels faster because it has bigger wheels. Why is evolution operating at such a simple level when science has advance so much? Have we gained knowledge about nature by assuming a natural selection process?
jpill69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's simply my opinion that since we're discovering more on the microscopic level, we've become more able to demonstrate evolution. But I don't see how evolution has been demonstated. Maybe you can provide me with evidence that shows a completely mapped out biological function that has come as a result of evolution? Assuming evolution at the macroscopic level is like looking through the eyes of a scientist in the 18 hundreds and not knowing anything else. It does not stand up, because the evidence is unsatisfactory for me (maybe its satisfactory for most scientists, but hey, good for them then). I prefer something more concrete and a more complex and sound explanation.
ViewsofMars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFair enough, the article is not conclusive as an example demonstrating microscopic machines. I'll try to find a better example when I have the time.
"Maybe you can provide me with evidence that shows a completely mapped out biological function that has come as a result of evolution?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI might if I knew what you were talking about. I already admitted my ignorance of your terms. I ask you once again for clarification.
"I would ask you this, Scientist "believe" life came from non-life correct? I am more than ready to leave that out of all textbooks until it is observed, tested and replicated."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismjknoxville, I share your frustration over the inability of Science to answer every question. Setting aside for the moment the functional distinctions between life and non-life (which is a subject worthy of its own forum). The assumption is Earth was created lifeless. At the present time we see life all around us. Even as I admit Science doesn't know how it happened, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that life arose from non-life at some point in the past. Fortunately, an explanation of the process of evolution does not depend on the specifics of how life on Earth first got started.
jpill69, Often we creationist are accused of using faith statements. Any assumption or statement where a scientist says "I believe" that is a statement of faith in and of itself. With all honesty, how is it reasonable to conclude life from non-life when it can not be observed, tested or replicated? Thanks for your kind response, others I have dealt with are not so kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Any assumption or statement where a scientist says "I believe" that is a statement of faith in and of itself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand how scientists' authority can elevate their opinions on all issues. Also scientists are often practiced in the art of persuasion, and so their opinions can receive more weight because of that. Nevertheless, I make a distinction between faith and belief. So when a scientist says "I believe", I understand him to be saying nothing more than "this is my opinion", without expecting people to accept him without question or evidence.
"With all honesty, how is it reasonable to conclude life from non-life when it can not be observed, tested or replicated?"
If this is an honest question, I have an honest answer. You ask again, so I assume my first answer was inadequate. Let me use a situation from ordinary life: It's morning. You have children. You see they are still sleeping. You take a shower. After you finish, you see your children dressed and eating breakfast. Without actually observing it, you can still righfully conclude that at some point inbetween your two observations, they woke up. You don't know exactly when or how, but you don't really care because they are late for school :)
That is the point I made before. We assume Earth originated sterile, and we now see an abundance of life. As before, we don't know exactly when or how, but we can rightfully conclude that at some point inbetween, life woke up. Even if we speculate that life came from elsewhere, we would still need to explain how life started there.
Creationists seem to think that abiogenesis is a nail in evolution's coffin, but its not. I don't need to worry about how life got started in order to study how life adapts to changing environments. They are two separate questions, and their answers are independent of each other.
Finally, please note the difference between things that are not proved, like abiogenisis, from things that can not be proved. However you define the terms, there is nothing inherently different about the chemistry of life, and I believe (!) that in my lifetime someone will create life using non-life processes.
mjknoxville
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"With all honesty, how is it reasonable to conclude life from non-life when it can not be observed, tested or replicated?"
What's your problem. ?
Fact - Life is here.
Whether you believe in evolution or creation, life came from non-life.
mjknoxville said to jpill69: With all honesty, how is it reasonable to conclude life from non-life when it can not be observed, tested or replicated?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMjknoxville, maybe this article will be helpful in better understanding the question you asked. The internationally known, peer- reviewed journal Science on January 9, 2009 had a publication entitled, EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS: On the Origin of Life on Earth (198-199) by Carl Zimmer. He has a great blog with the article on it so Im going to place what Carl has written here because he contributes articles to Scientific America and this year marks Darwins 200th year! And, we have to celebrate with a hip, hip hooray:
On the Origin of Life on Earth
By Carl Zimmer
Science, January 8, 2009
An Amazon of words flowed from Charles Darwin's pen. His books covered the gamut from barnacles to orchids, from geology to domestication. At the same time, he filled notebooks with his ruminations and scribbled thousands of letters packed with observations and speculations on nature. Yet Darwin dedicated only a few words of his great verbal flood to one of the biggest questions in all of biology: how life began.
The only words he published in a book appeared near the end of On the Origin of Species: "Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed," Darwin wrote.
Darwin believed that life likely emerged spontaneously from the chemicals it is made of today, such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. But he did not publish these musings. The English naturalist had built his argument for evolution, in large part, on the processes he could observe around him. He did not think it would be possible to see life originating now because the life that's already here would prevent it from emerging.
In 1871, he outlined the problem in a letter to his friend, botanist Joseph Hooker: "But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
Scientists today who study the origin of life do not share Darwin's pessimism about our ability to reconstruct those early moments. "Now is a good time to be doing this research, because the prospects for success are greater than they have ever been," says John Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. He and others are addressing each of the steps involved in the transition to life: where the raw materials came from, how complex organic molecules such as RNA formed, and how the first cells arose. In doing so, they are inching their way toward making life from scratch. "When I was in graduate school, people thought investigating the origin of life was something old scientists did at the end of their career, when they could sit in an armchair and speculate," says Henderson James Cleaves of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C. "Now making an artificial cell doesn't sound like science fiction any more. It's a reasonable pursuit."
Raw ingredients
Life--or at least life as we know it--appears to have emerged on Earth only once. Just about all organisms use double-stranded DNA to encode genetic information, for example. They copy their genes into RNA and then translate RNA into proteins. The genetic code they use to translate DNA into proteins is identical, whether they are emus or bread mold. The simplest explanation for this shared biology is that all living things inherited it from a common ancestor--namely, DNA-based microbes that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago. That common ancestor was already fairly complex, and many scientists have wondered how it might have evolved from a simpler predecessor. Some now argue that membrane-bound cells with only RNA inside predated both DNA and proteins. Later, RNA-based life may have evolved the ability to assemble amino acids into proteins. It's a small step, biochemically, for DNA to evolve from RNA.
In modern cells, RNA is remarkably versatile. It can sense the levels of various compounds inside a cell and switch genes on and off to adjust these concentrations, for example. It can also join together amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Thus, the first cells might have tapped RNA for all the tasks on which life depends.
For 60 years, researchers have been honing theories about the sources of the amino acids and RNA's building blocks. Over time, they have had to refine their ideas to take into account an ever-clearer understanding of what early Earth was like.
In an iconic experiment in 1953, Stanley Miller, then at the University of Chicago, ignited a spark that zapped through a chamber filled with ammonia, methane, and other gases. The spark created a goo rich in amino acids, and, based on his results, Miller suggested that lightning on the early Earth could have created many compounds that would later be assembled into living things.
By the 1990s, however, the accumulated evidence indicated that the early Earth was dominated by carbon dioxide, with a pinch of nitrogen--two gases not found in Miller's flask. When scientists tried to replicate Miller's experiments with carbon dioxide in the mix, their sparks seemed to make almost no amino acids. The raw materials for life would have had to come from elsewhere, they concluded.
In 2008, however, lightning began to look promising once again. Cleaves and his colleagues suspected that the failed experiments were flawed because the sparks might have produced nitrogen compounds that destroyed any newly formed amino acids. When they added buffering chemicals that could take up these nitrogen compounds, the experiments generated hundreds of times more amino acids than scientists had previously found.
Cleaves suspects that lightning was only one of several ways in which organic compounds built up on Earth. Meteorites that fall to Earth contain amino acids and organic carbon molecules such as formaldehyde. Hydrothermal vents spew out other compounds that could have been incorporated into the first life forms. Raw materials were not an issue, he says: "The real hurdle is how you put together organic compounds into a living system."
Step 1: Make RNA
An RNA molecule is a chain of linked nucleotides. Each nucleotide in turn consists of three parts: a base (which functions as a "letter" in a gene's recipe), a sugar molecule, and a cluster of phosphorus and oxygen atoms, which link one sugar to the next. For years, researchers have tried in vain to synthesize RNA by producing sugars and bases, joining them together, and then adding phosphates. "It just doesn't work," says Sutherland.
This failure has led scientists to consider two other hypotheses about how RNA came to be. Cleaves and others think RNA-based life may have evolved from organisms that used a different genetic material--one no longer found in nature. Chemists have been able to use other compounds to build backbones for nucleotides (Science, 17 November 2000, p. 1306). They're now investigating whether these humanmade genetic molecules, called PNA and TNA, could have emerged on their own on the early Earth more easily than RNA. According to this hypothesis, RNA evolved later and replaced the earlier molecule.
But it could also be that RNA wasn't put together the way scientists have thought. "If you want to get from Boston to New York, there is an obvious way to go. But if you can't get there that way, there are other ways you could go," says Sutherland. He and his colleagues have been trying to build RNA from simple organic compounds, such as formaldehyde, that existed on Earth before life began. They find they make better progress toward producing RNA if they combine the components of sugars and the components of bases together instead of separately making complete sugars and bases first.
Over the past few years, they have documented almost an entire route from prebiotic molecules to RNA and are preparing to publish even more details of their success. Discovering these new reactions makes Sutherland suspect it wouldn't have been that hard for RNA to emerge directly from an organic soup. "We've got the molecules in our sights," he says.
Sutherland can't say for sure where these reactions took place on the early Earth, but he notes that they work well at the temperatures and pH levels found in ponds. If those ponds dried up temporarily, they would concentrate the nucleotides, making conditions for life even more favorable.
Were these Darwin's warm little ponds? "It might just be that he wasn't too far off," says Sutherland.
Step 2: The cell
If life did start out with RNA alone, that RNA would need to make copies of itself without help from proteins. Online in Science this week, Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California, have shown how that might have been possible. They designed a pair of RNA molecules that join together and assemble loose nucleotides to match their partner. Once the replication is complete, old and new RNA molecules separate and join with new partners to form new RNA. In 30 hours, Lincoln and Joyce found, a population of RNA molecules could grow 100 million times bigger.
Lincoln and Joyce kept their RNA molecules in beakers. On the early Earth, however, replicating RNA might have been packed in the first cells. Jack Szostak and his colleagues at Harvard Medical School in Boston have been investigating how fatty acids and other molecules on the early Earth might have trapped RNA, producing the first protocells. "The goal is to have something that can replicate by itself, using just chemistry," says Szostak.
After 2 decades, he and his colleagues have come up with RNA molecules that can build copies of other short RNA molecules. They have been able to mix RNA and fatty acids together in such a way that the RNA gets trapped in vesicles. The vesicles are able to add fatty acids to their membranes and grow. In July 2008, Szostak reported that he had figured out how protocells could "eat" and bring in nucleotides to build the RNA.
All living cells depend on complicated channels to draw nucleotides across their membranes, raising the question of how a primitive protocell membrane brought in these molecules. By experimenting with different recipes for membranes, Szostak and his colleagues have come up with protocells leaky enough to let nucleic acids slip inside, where they could be assembled into RNA, but not so porous that the large RNA could slip out.
Their experiments also show that these vesicles survive over a 100�C range. At high temperatures, protocells take in nucleotides quickly, and at lower temperatures, Szostak found, they build RNA molecules faster.
He speculates that regular temperature cycles could have helped simple protocells survive on the early Earth. They could draw in nucleotides when they were warm and then use them to build RNA when the temperature dropped. In Szostak's protocells, nucleotides are arranged along a template of RNA. Strands of RNA tend to stick together at low temperatures. When the protocell warmed up again, the heat might cause the two strands to pull apart, allowing the new RNA molecule to function.
Now Szostak is running experiments to bring his protocells closer to life. He is developing new forms of RNA that may be able to replicate longer molecules faster. For him, the true test of his experiments will be whether his protocells not only grow and reproduce, but evolve.
"To me, the origin of life and the origin of Darwinian evolution are essentially the same thing," says Szostak. And if Darwin was alive today, he might well be willing to write a lot more about how life began.
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1231454030&archive=&start_from=&ucat=12& ###
LOL! Oh my, I'm fifty years ahead of time! (It must have been that last shot of Donjulio 1849 Tequllia.) I do appologize, I meant to write in my last post 'Darwin's 150th year'. If I'm not around for the 200th be sure to know I celebrated it early by accident. LOL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRolf,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo say that the observations of species adapting to their environment is evidence of natural selection, it is not a pre-supposition. That is like saying that using arithmetic to arrive at the conclusion that 2+2 = 4 is not math because prior to reaching the answer there was not a proof that saying it is possible to add numbers together. Like I stated before, improvements in technology do not invalidate work done prior to their existence. If these improvements lead to observations or evidence that contradict existing knowledge then the prior evidence needs to be re-examined.
Right now the Human Genome project is mapping human DNA so science is providing the microsopic evidence you want, just not on birds currently.
Sorry, I just observed an error in my last post. Yesterday, I was reading an article from Scientific America dated January 2009 entitled, Darwin's Living Legacy--Evolutionary Theory 150 Years Later after having a shot of Donjulio 1849. Truth is we are celebrating in the year 2009, Charles Darwins 200th Birthday Anniversary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI posted this around 7 days ago and wish to repeat it again since I noticed Dvashun has mentioned the Human Genome project:
From The National Human Genome Research Institute:
Darwin at 200: How Geneticists View Him Today
February 12, 2009, marked the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and the 150th year since publication of his seminal work, On the Origin of Species. The renowned 19th century naturalist made observations on plant and animal life that set science on a new course, introducing evolution as the unifying concept in all of genetics and biology. Students of U.S. history will note that the date is also the 200th birthday of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) observed Darwin's life and accomplishments at events at the NIH's Bethesda campus and at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. Hear what geneticists at NHGRI have to say about Darwin's ideas, science and legacy.
http://www.genome.gov/27529500
###
Watch Darwin at 200: How Geneticists View Him Today by listening and watching this video from The National Human Genome Research Institute: http://www.genome.gov/Multimedia/Flash/videoPlayerCC.cfm?videoID=Darwin200
Definition for *EVOLUTION from the NHGRI:
The historical development of a biological group (as a race or species); a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=evolution
###
I am thrilled to announce that the website Virtual Fossil Museum is incredible! I encourage everyone to explore the subject matter. It has photographs of fossils and enables tree-thinking as you examine the natural world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.fossilmuseum.net/index.htm
Here’s one from the Virtual Fossil Museum that is of great interest:
Transitional Fossils and Evolution. (It is still under development.)
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/transitionalfossils.htm
PBS discusses transitional fossils. Be sure to *LAUNCH INTERACTIVE* at the left of the web page then examine for yourself the fossil evidence.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-flash.html
###
Nice article, and great information. Formation of DNA by natural selection, random chance? you reach a problem with ireducible complexity. Miller's experiment is up for debate. I appreciate the article and will continue my studies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne can only unfortunately work with the knowledge that one has at the time, as Darwin and his contemporaries had to.
I believe it does invalid the work in the modern context, because we are less certain what the components of the equation 2+2 are. Previously, all one dealt with was the visible characteristics with little knowledge of the workings of the cell. We could say that a red bird plus a yellow bird gives a bird with mixed colours or that a bird grows a shorter beak because it does not need to break big nuts anymore. We could test this by demonstrating the number of proximal similarities and small variations over time.
However, a gap in our knowledge has been discovered due to our technological advances. We are now able to produce evidence at the molecular level, so what I am referring to is the demonstrated construction of new information from random processes at the molecular level. We are not sure if the variables are being modified at the molecular level or if the functional systems are being modified. The difference is whether a new function is being added or whether a variable is being modified. If an animal adapts as in the above example, but no new function is being added, then there is no evolution involved, because evolution assumes the progression from the simplest to the most complex form, which can only proceed with new functions being added.
I am not saying that Darwin's work is invalid because what he is saying does not add up. I am saying that for a modern person, his explanation and tests are really too simple to fit in our modern world, which is built upon verifyable information. The information in the above paragraph has not been verified i.e. that new useful functions can be added biologically through random selection. This is my opinion at least and I can see where I would differ from others' opinion on this. I am very concerned about the defensive manner in which evolution is treated as though it were something holy.
"One that I find amusing is nothing can be both all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time, because to be all-powerful it has to be able to not do what it knows it is going to do."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell, being all powerful means that u can do whatever u want to do and r confined to no laws we make up for worldviews
and u HAVE to b all knowing to b all powerful because u have to b able to concieve that u have this immense power
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU WROTE LAST WEEK:
"I have a hypothesis as to how a new organ, for example the eye, may have come into being. A simple organism, we'll call it a foo, eats something else, we'll call that food, that only exists in the absence of light. So the original foo has no way of distinguishing light from dark. Then a foo develops a spot that can receive light and it learns that food is where there is no light. We will call this one fooa. When fooa breeds, it produces ten more fooa's. This process repeats itself until a fooa has a mutation that seperates light into colors resulting in foob. Foob reproduces creating both fooa's and foob's. As these foob's reproduce over the generation, a mutation results in fooc which can form the colors into distinguisable shapes. See where I am going with this. These minor benign changes lead to the development of an eye.
THE PROBLEM I SEE WITH YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS THAT IT OVER-SIMPLIFIES THE TASK OF CREATING A NEW ORGAN.
EACH NEW LETTER IN YOUR FOOA... FOOB CREATURE CAN NOT BE A SINGLE MUTATION. THINK OF EACH LETTER AS REPRESENTING ONE VOLUME OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA. NOW IN ORDER TO GET TO A FOOB YOU HAVE TO MUTATE A WHOLE VOLUME OF DNA, including the HOX genes precisely.
I am convinced that the DETAILS will be what eventually dooms neo-Darwinism to the ash heap of science history.
"and u HAVE to b all knowing to b all powerful because u have to b able to concieve that u have this immense power"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? I suppose as long as you believe you do...
How's that Noah thing working for you? Still find that credible and internally consistant?
"EACH NEW LETTER IN YOUR FOOA... FOOB CREATURE CAN NOT BE A SINGLE MUTATION. THINK OF EACH LETTER AS REPRESENTING ONE VOLUME OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA. NOW IN ORDER TO GET TO A FOOB YOU HAVE TO MUTATE A WHOLE VOLUME OF DNA, including the HOX genes precisely. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, even assuming for the sake of argument that each step requires multiple "mutations", or more precisely multiple changes in DNA, the process of incremental change allows exactly that to happen. Your answer is simply "it won't work". It seems to me that your objection is based on complexity that must appear "functionally all at once". Why do you assume that?
mjknoxville said, "Nice article, and great information. Formation of DNA by natural selection, random chance? you reach a problem with ireducible complexity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMjknoxville, I should tell you that Ive never been a fan of the *Intelligent Design* movement. Im not a creationist. And, you seem to be confused so let me help you by telling you that chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life. By your comments, I honestly dont think you understood the entire article that I earlier presented entitled "On the Origin of Life on Earth" by Carl Zimmer that was published January 8, 2009 in the peer-reviewed journal Science.
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1231454030&archive=&start_from=&ucat=12&
rolfdbecker77
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If an animal adapts as in the above example, but no new function is being added, then there is no evolution involved, because evolution assumes the progression from the simplest to the most complex form, which can only proceed with new functions being added."
I would say that this statement you made lies at the heart of your problem
You say
"because evolution assumes the progression from the simplest to the most complex form"
NO IT DOESN'T
The ONLY thing that determines evolution (by natural selection) is the "suitability" of the species to its environment.
The species with the characteristics most suitable to its environment will tend to survive in preference to a species with less suitable characteristic. (This does NOT mean that either will survive and not become extinct).
Whether a species is more or less complex than the other is IRRELEVENT.
Whether a species has more or less functions than the other is IRRELEVENT.
(for example - if a species can see whereas another cannot and both come to live in perpetual darkness, the ability to see would be" irrelevent in determining which species survives)
IF there is no change in the environment then both species could continue as before.
(I use the term species to mean either totally different species, or variations within the same species)
I was trying above all to say Thank You for the article!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProfessor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop"
mjknoxville,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists are biased against considering a creator God for the origin of life. This bias is very evident in orgin of life studies. Though they have NO evidence for chemical evolution evolving into life, they refuse to even entertain an alternative to naturalism.
We can make reasonable inferences based on what we have observed in the past but nothing even remotely close to life forming from chemical evolution has been observed either in nature or in the lab.
On the other hand a reasoned scientific inference can be made that since we do not observe life forming from chemical evolution and since basic life requires complex DNA information encoding and since information encoding has only been observed to originate from an independent intelligent agent, then an intelligent Creator is necessary for the origin of life.
There has been mention of 'how the eye came into being'. This article is helpful:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSquid Pax-6 and eye development
Stanislav I. Tomarev * , †, Patrick Callaerts ‡, Lidia Kos §, Rina Zinovieva ¶, Georg Halder ‡, Walter Gehring ‡, and Joram Piatigorsky *
*Laboratory of Molecular and Developmental Biology, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-2730; ‡Department of Cell Biology, Biozentrum, University of Basel, Switzerland, Klingelbergstrasse 70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland; and §Laboratory of Genetic Disease Research, National Center for Human Genome Research, Bethesda, MD 20892-2730
Abstract:
"Pax-6 in vertebrates and its homolog eyeless in Drosophila are known to be essential for eye development. Here we investigate the role of Pax-6 in eye development in another major systematic group, molluscs. We demonstrate that alternatively spliced RNAs derived from a single Pax-6 gene in the squid (Loligo opalescens) are expressed in the embryonic eye, olfactory organ, brain, and arms. Despite significant sequence differences between squid Pax-6 and Drosophila eyeless in the region outside the paired- and homeodomains, squid Pax-6 is able to induce the formation of ectopic eyes in Drosophila. Our results support the idea that Pax-6 related genes are necessary for eye and olfactory system formation throughout the animal kingdom."
You can read the entire article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/6/2421.full?sid=496d4157-46f1-457f-825e-7aeca380c9dc
I've presented for almost a month many scientific articles wherein there were trees for learning. Perhaps it would be a worthy pursuit to examine them.
###
mjknoxville, I never denied you didn't like the article. But you continue to be switch hitting the information within your postings. Anyone who has read our exchanges would know that to be the truth! You appear to me to be typical of an I.D.'er. Are you a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement?
"The difference is whether a new function is being added or whether a variable is being modified. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrolfdbecker77, so that I am sure I better understand, I would like to paraphrase your point. You identify two methods for genetic variation of populations over time. One is a change in percentage of genes within the population. The other is changes, or mutations, in the genes themselves. You assert that the new microbiological machines uniquely provide a means of testing for the difference. My impression is you think the difference is significant to the debate over microevolution vs macroevolution, of created species vs evolved species. How am I doing so far?
You then assert in at least two separate posts that the evolutionists'failure to use these new tests is evidence that evolution "no longer stands up". You assert this as if it is a self-evident truth, without explanation or example. And when I asked you for them, you provided neither.
Then in your latest post, you make a number of assertions that are at the very least factually questionable, the most obvious to me being the creationists' strawman argument "evolution assumes the progression from the simplest to the most complex form". Finally, you assert yet another self-evident truth about "the defensive manner in which evolution is treated as though it were something holy."
My impression is you are trying to make a case against evolution but using new technology to hide your confusion about evolutionary theory. Ckearly you have a keen and inquiring mind, but it seems to me that your political agenda is getting in the way of reducing your ignorance.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you thought about the details of these incremental mutations? Look at anything in your house that has several parts. How would you incrementally build one of them with the stipulation that at the end of each incremental building step you have a useful something. Can you try this thought experiment and report back to me? I would be interested in your results.
" Can you try this thought experiment and report back to me? I would be interested in your results. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, it is my experience that it is the nature of Creationists' challenges to redefine their terms after the challenge is accepted and met. I'm not saying you would stoop to such an artful dodge, but if I am going to accept your challenge, it would be in both our interests if you would stipulate how complex you will accept said incremental step to be. Also, please give an example of what you consider to have "several parts", so that I might better choose among its peers.
Neal T, using your own standards, nobody has ever seen God spontaneously create a new species without ancestors. QED
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not have a clue what you are referring to when you mention redefining terms. Anyways, I brought up the household item thought experiment as perhaps a way to help you understand what I mean by "incremental" mutations becoming exponentally difficult to create a new organ.
Below are the parts of the human eye. There are 30 of them. In your thought experiment though, that I suggested, perhaps something in your house simple that has at least 6 parts may be sufficient. A part is something that is not an assembly but a basic component (a screw, a nut, a molded plastic top, a button, plate of glass, a piece of wire, etc).
Eye Components:
posterior compartment
ora serrata
ciliary muscle
ciliary zonules
canal of Schlemm
pupil
anterior chamber
cornea
iris
lens cortex
lens nucleus
ciliary process
conjuntiva
inferior oblique muscule
inferior rectus muscule
medial rectus muscle
retinal arteries and veins
optic disc
dura mater
central retinal artery
central retinal vein
optical nerve
vorticose vein
bulbar sheath
macula
fovea
sclera
choroid
superior rectus muscule
retina
"In your thought experiment though, that I suggested, perhaps something in your house simple that has at least 6 parts may be sufficient. A part is something that is not an assembly but a basic component (a screw, a nut, a molded plastic top, a button, plate of glass, a piece of wire, etc)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am still unclear of your expectations. In my "evolutionary development" of this household item, do you expect me to "create" each individual component fully formed? Or do you expect me to "evolve" each individual component from previous parts? If the latter, how large or how small an incremental change from the previous "generation" do you expect me to use?
If you don't believe in God, you'd better hope you're right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd how is your political agenda standing in the way of your ignorance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you understood what I wrote, then you would note that I distinguished between adaptation and evolution. In no way did I mention microevolution, because my comments indicate that microevolution may not exist according to the way I've defined adaption.
It seems to me that ignorance increases with age, since you don't know how old I am.
Who's to decide what is factually questionable. "Enlightened" persons like you, I assume?
Go out an write an evolving computer program. Good luck!
TO whoever is interested
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisref Neal T
Be aware that neal t will NEVER provide ANY scientific evidence to support his statements regarding creationism/id
He has been asked many many many times by several people.
NEVER has he provided such evidence.
His arguments ALWAYS refer back to Darwin. NEVER will be present any evidence FOR creationism/id.
He will continue DEMANDING YOU present evidence and rebut HIS statements on Darwin evolution.
BUT WILL CONTINUALLY REFUSE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE FOR creationism/id
You are right jpill69 - neal t does redefine terms
He defines his own opinion as fact.
He defines science as opinion and assumption
He defines fact as anyones opinion or assumption
As you have already noticed he says
"Can you try this thought experiment and report back to me? I would be interested in your results"
He is doing this because he wants you to do all the work.
Whilever you are responding to HIS demands HE does not have to present any evidence supporting HIS claims for creationism/id
You said
" I'm not saying you would stoop to such an artful dodge"
I believe neal t does stoop. He will do whatever is necessary to avoid answering questions.
Neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI refer back to the same questions you have been asked many,many times
1) Provide ANY scientific evidence that ANYTHING WAS IN FACT "DESIGNED", Not that it "appears as if" , not that "it looks like", but WAS IN FACT WAS "DESIGNED"
2) Provide ANY scientific evidence as to the existence of a "designer"
3) Provide ANY scientific evidence as to HOW the "design" was carried out (that is - a causal link)
4) Provide ANY scientific evidence as to WHEN the "design" was carried out.
rolfdbecker77
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"then you would note that I distinguished between adaptation and evolution. In no way did I mention microevolution, because my comments indicate that microevolution may not exist according to the way I've defined adaption"
(Note - Very good - defining yourself out of a corner)
The distinction adaptation/microevolution vs macroevolution are irrelevent in evolution (by natural selection. ), There is just evolution (by natural selection)
(sorry - I keep adding the (by natural selection) because many people seem to confuse the start of life (i.e. life evolving) with evolution (by natural selection) as proposed by Darwin)
So, as far as evolution (by natural selection) goes, it is not particularly relevent whether or not you believe microevolution/adaption exists.
You mentioned earlier a bird growing a longer beak.
An individual growing a beak is not the same as there being a species evolving (or a new species) with longer beaks
As evolution would say - a longer beak may give an advantage in survival (for many possible reasons). Over time birds with longer beaks would tend to survive in preference to those with shorter beaks.
Result over time - larger proportion of birds with larger beaks (possible (but not certain) dying out of birds with shorter beaks. Since they are still the same species then the species has not become extinct)
It is irrelevent whether you call this "adaptation" or not, the result is the birds evolved to have longer beaks.
That is - they evolved by natural selection.
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarlier You identified parts of the eye and implied a request to explain how they evolved
Stupid
You have started at the end point and are asking how the specific parts got there. (Do I hear irreducible complexity ?)
You have been told many many times
Evolution does not work to a goal, ie. its aim IS NOT to produce an eye.
Evolution ONLY says that the creatures with the most beneficial attributes will tend to survive in preference to those with less beneficial attributes.
Evolution HAS NO IDEA HOW a species will evolve or whether this will lead to an eye(1) or eyes(several) or none (0 eyes).
It has NO IDEA idea how many parts will make up a function (e.g. eye) or what contribution each part will make, or the efficiency the function for each iteration of evolutionary changes.
Evolution only says that if there is an evolutionary change (evolution DOES NOT say that there WILL be a change) it will be more beneficial to the creature than before. Thus for example a creature with eyes may lose the eye function if its habitat becomes dark( e.g. a cave , bottom of the sea) where the ability to see becomes less important (In such an environment creatures with better hearing (for example) would survive better than those with good eyesight)
Over time the species will tend to evolve with better hearing, and possibly lose the eye function.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID, "I am still unclear of your expectations. In my "evolutionary development" of this household item, do you expect me to "create" each individual component fully formed? Or do you expect me to "evolve" each individual component from previous parts? If the latter, how large or how small an incremental change from the previous "generation" do you expect me to use?"
Great question. For this simple thought experiment go ahead and assume that the most basic parts are already sized and shaped correctly, but not yet assembled. What I mean by a basic part is something that is not yet assembled. For example, assume that a spring is sized and shaped correctly, but not yet attached to a screw or gear. Or, a gear is sized and shaped for what you need but not yet attached. Think of a basic part as what you would get if you completely disassembled your household item.
You have an advantage because we can assume your parts are sized correctly and you have a goal. In this simple thought experiment just show that you can build something with six or more parts with the stipulation that each incremental addition of a basic part (screw, wire, molded plastic, etc) produces a useful something on your way towards the fully assembled household item.
If I'm not clear on my expectation it is not intentional and I would be glad to clarify more because I really am interested in your results. I'm not trying to lay a trap or trick you. My intention is to get you thinking about the details of the evolutionary process, and maybe I can learn something too.
rolfdecker77,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have found that the word "evolution" is a slippery word and it means different things to different people. It is very important to understand that neo-Darwinists thrive in keeping explanations general and open ended. They see evolution as simply being change over time, and this includes adaption, change in color or size of organs, etc.
The real problem with Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and "evolution" is the theory of COMMON DESCENT. Neo-Darwinism includes Natural Selection, Mutation, Horizonatal Gene transfer, and genetic drift. All of these occur to some extent. But these are all inadequate explanations for their theory of COMMON DESCENT. As long as they can keep you talking about bird beaks and growing bigger and more resistant tomatoes they avoid the real issue. Their case of COMMON DESCENT is weak and based on bias and assumptions. When asked to provide details on how new organs evolved (the eye for example) and where the ancestral fossils for these eyes are, they depart from observation and evidence and substitute generalities, hand-waving explanations and speculation.
Neal T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are off again
"I'm not trying to lay a trap or trick you"
No you are tring to avoid answering ANY questions regarding YOUR evidence FOR intelligent design
Again
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING WAS IN FACT DESIGNED?
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE AS TO HOW THIS DESIGN OCCURED?
I have found that creationists/id to be VERY slippery. It is very important to understand that neo-creationists/id will avoid at any cost providing ANY evidence to substantiate their claims for creationism/id
ref neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow there speaks a real hypocrite+bigot
"Their case of COMMON DESCENT is weak and based on bias and assumptions. When asked to provide details on how new organs evolved (the eye for example) and where the ancestral fossils for these eyes are, they depart from observation and evidence and substitute generalities, hand-waving explanations and speculation."
neal t's evidence for intelligent designs is non-existent but he criticises the evidence for evolution.
He ignores any requested to provide such evidence, but criticises evolutionists for failing to provided evidence for HIM.
For example - Does he provide evidence as to HOW intelligent design created the eye ? - NO WAY
He criticises that they depart from observation....etc. when when HE does NOT provide ANY evidence AT ALL, OF ANY KIND to support id.
The list of his assumptions and prevarication is endless. (I suggest anyone curious read his previous posts and responses for the past - say 2-3 months)
Personally I have no intention of following ANY of his demands UNTIL HE PROVIDES EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATION/ID
(dont be misled by his statement that "he may learn something too" He has NO INTENTION of doing so. His sole intention is to continue to avoid answering questions but peddle his beliefs)
jpill69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisref neal t
From what he said
"You have an advantage because we can assume your parts are sized correctly and you have a goal. In this simple thought experiment just show that you can build something with six or more parts with the stipulation that each incremental addition of a basic part (screw, wire, molded plastic, etc) produces a useful something on your way towards the fully assembled household item.
No doubt you will notice that he has put all the work onto you to try to explain evolution, via a scenario that he has set.
He has also made a number of (false) assumptions as to how evolution works (so as to fit in with id)
He has made NO attempt to supply ANY evidence as to HOW his alternative of id created a living organ/function (but will no doubt try to use the analogy to explain how id is a better explanation the evolution (but will present no evidence to support id), and ignoring his false assumptions as to how evolution works)
Lets try a thought experiment with him
Neal t
Please explain HOW any living organ/function came to occur from nothing, with no previous ancestry.
I will make it easy - You do not have any specific goal to achieve, BUT you cannot assume anything.
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have provided evidence, but have you considered that you are so biased that the only way you see the evidence is what will support your view? The evidence is all around you. I will go so far as to saw that all the evidence that evolutionists use to support their theory of common descent actually fits the creation model better or is neutral.
Furthermore, I challenge you to name one area of support for common descent and I will show you how it is either neutral support or a better support for the creation model.
"It seems to me that ignorance increases with age, since you don't know how old I am.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems I have hit a nerve. Did I even mention age? Is this what you were thinking of when you expressed concern over "the defensive manner in which evolution is treated as though it were something holy."?
"Go out an write an evolving computer program. Good luck!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have written several, so I need no luck. Thanks anyway.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother clarification on my prior post regarding the suggested thought experiment. If you wanted to use a smaller household item and then add several part to it, that would be okay, but the stipulation would still be there that each incremental addition of a part would result in something useful. How's it coming along?
Laughing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlad to see you are back.
Neal,
If you posted evidence, I must have missed it. Can you please re-post.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have provided evidence",
No you havent - The nearest you came was to make a partial quote from someone. Quotes are not evidence
You have NOT presented ANY evidence that supports your belief in id.
You have NOT presented ANY evidence that ANYTHING WAS IN FACT designed.
(The closest you came was to imply things "look like" or "appear as if". YOU DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS.)
You HAVE NOT presented ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND as to HOW things were "designed"
You HAVE NOT presented ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND as to WHO did the designing
You say
"The evidence is all around you"
NO THIS IS DATA.
The fact that creatures exists is data. I agree that life exists.
What is required is an explanation (WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT) as to HOW this came to be.
We already have one explanations as to HOW this came to be (evolution+ evolution (by natural selection)), with supporting scientific evidence.
You are proposing another - that is- ID
It is up to YOU to provide the supporting evidence for this
ID assumes a "designer"
ID assumes that things were "designed"
ID assumes that the "designer" had the capability to carry out the "design" (ID makes NO attempt to explain HOW the design was carried out- It just ASSUMES it was)
NOW YOU (THIS MEANS YOU) PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THESE ASSUMPTIONS.
"I challenge you to name one area of support for common descent and I will show you how it is either neutral support or a better support for the creation model."
Now you are having a laugh
You ask ME to substantiate evolution (by natural selection) so that you can discuss it ????????
NO - THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ID. THEN WE CAN DISCUSS YOUR EVIDENCE.
(You can forget this "common descent" figment of your imagination.)
Personally I am open minded. Present the evidence and I will examine it (I cant speak for others)..
I dont see how it is bias to demand that YOU present evidence to support your belief.
I also don't regard it as scientific to accept your opinion and assumptions as having the same status as scientific evidence.
YOU obviously accept opinion and assumption as fact - I do not.
(I do not assume scientific evidence as absolute fact - just that it is the best available at the time - It certainly beats opinion or assumption )
but have you considered that you are so biased that the only way you see the evidence is what will support your view? The evidence is all around you.
dvashun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi
Thanks
Unfortunately I will have to go away again shortly (I dont know for how long (I never know) so I have a lot of catching up to do.
P.S
neal t HAS NOT presented ANY EVIDENCE- (I dont think he knows what constitutes evidence)
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes you missed the evidence presented for a creator. Evidence is all around you. The same evidence that is used by neo-Darwinists to support the theory of Common Descent is either neutral or better supports creation.
So, here's the challenge to you or anyone reading this discussion. Name any area of support for common descent and I will show you how it is either neutral or supports creation better.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So, here's the challenge to you or anyone reading this discussion. Name any area of support for common descent and I will show you how it is either neutral or supports creation better. "
No - Heres a challenge for you
Present ANY evidence that supports your ID
Remember evidence requires a causal connection between your data (which is all around you) and your creator/ID
What you see around you is data. ie.e the fact that life exists., the fact that fossils exist. This is not evidence, its just data that requires to be explained.
Everyone uses this same data.
Now YOU show evidence as to HOW how life came to be.
If you are proposing ID as an alternative to evolution then that means that you have to supply actual evidence (not opinion) that a creator exists.
Actual evidence that the data (ie.e life) was actually created by your creator (not opinion or assumption)
Actual evidence as to HOW your creator created anything.
(again -not your opinion)
Without this you have nothing but your opinion and assumptions. in fact you have nothing but your belief in id.
Nothing wrong with this except it aint scientific.
(I am NOT implying the science is better or worse than belief systems, just that they are different concepts and have different requirements)
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I am thinking about it, as I hope you are. That is the point of thought experiments, to think about them, yes? I can only hope you are as patient with me as Dvashun and Faultline are with you.
Also, since you mention it repeatedly, I think it likely our opinions on what function is useful will likely differ, so I would like to establish ahead of time some objective test to qualify a change that "results in something useful". Any ideas?
Laughing gravy, I try to be gentle with anti-evolutionists. Their real concern is with faith and God, and they perceive evolution as a threat to that, so they have only an indirect interest in evolution. I expect them to be confused about evolution and its theories. I expect them to be unconvinced by discussing just the facts. They haven't disappointed me yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the useful information regarding how they view evolution. At the start I never suspected such a broad view of evolution, otherwise I would not have commented. I recommend therefore that you do the same. It seems to merely be a brawl anyway (and don't we like participating sometimes too!)
Peace and love to all.
Yet another member of the choir preaching to his fellows...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a grouchy potatoe you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt depends who I am responding to whether I am gentle or not.
I agree that some are concerned with their beliefs and their perceived threat from evolution.
HOWEVER some want their beliefs taught on the same basis as science and as fact (creationists/id want it their belief taught exclusively against any other belief )
Personally I would agree that there is no reason that religious beliefs should not happily coexist with science,they are completely different concepts with different aims. This is not relevent to some. (The "wedge" document clearly indicates their intentions of creationists)
To these I have no intention to be gentle, especially as they are posting on a scientific web site. I expect,no I demand, that they present evidence to support their case.
Personally I have no intention in endlessly presenting the evidence for evolution. Whilever we do that we give more scientific credence to ID.
They can believe in ID as much as they want but there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support it from a scientific perspective, but they are still trying to present it as having scientific credentials.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, here is another problem. The world and all of its life is amazing yet it is not evidence of any supernatural creator. Basically what these months of discussions come down to is the way we perceive the world. The way it seems to me is that you look around and see a bird and presume that it is so wondrous that it could only reach that state by design. I see a bird and wonder how it came to that state. When the data (fossils, earlier skeletons) shows how the species has adapted there is a compelling case for evolution. When the argument for creationism/ID is based on a book that has many factual errors, I have to view the rest of the book in that light.
rolfdbecker77,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy participation is related to a research project. With Laughing going away for awhile, the discussion should move away from personal attacks to more of a discussion about ideas. I hope you stay in, as I thought your comments were good.
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "Basically what these months of discussions come down to is the way we perceive the world. The way it seems to me is that you look around and see a bird and presume that it is so wondrous that it could only reach that state by design. I see a bird and wonder how it came to that state. When the data (fossils, earlier skeletons) shows how the species has adapted there is a compelling case for evolution. When the argument for creationism/ID is based on a book that has many factual errors, I have to view the rest of the book in that light."
I think you did a good job summing up the different world views. It looks like intelligent people from both sides can look at the same data and draw different conclusions.
You see adaption and find that it is compelling evidence for Common Descent of all life. Am I understanding you correctly? This is where evolutionists lose me.
What justifies making the huge leap from adaption (small scale change) to large scale evolution? If I practice the long jump, I know I could improve my jumping distance incrementally. If my jumping distance for the first 3 months of practicing improves 1 foot per month, can I accurately predict that in 30 months I will beat the world record? Or that in 50 years I will be able to jump the Grand Canyon? Observation tells me that there are upper limits to my ability and observation also tells us that while small scale change in life happens there are bounds and limits. So what exactly in your observation justifies your extrapolation from small scale to large scale change?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your thought experiment, something useful could be many things and I don't want to be too strict as long as it is not too far fetched, and is reasonably suited to a purpose or provides a benefit of some kind.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen on the one hand someone asks for answers, progresses to demanding answers, then when the demands are not met claiming this proves their own belief, or that their own belief explains better.
But on the other steadfastly refuses to supply ANY evidence that supports their own belief when asked by several people over a long period of time.
I call this hypocricy., and the person a hypocrite. If you can think of a better term then lets hear it.
Just pointing out this fact I do not regard as a personal attack, it is just fact.
For example you ask
"What justifies making the huge leap from adaption (small scale change) to large scale evolution?"
You ask a response from other people
We ask
"What justifies you making the assumption that ID was responsible for life when you have NO evidence that ID actually exists, or any evidence as to a mechanism as to HOW it created life.
To date YOU have been answered many many times
TO date YOU have NEVER responded to requests for evidence that supports creation/ID.
You have replied with your opinion and assumptions, but no evidence
To date you still claim that your belief (with zero evidence to support it) explains life better than evolution (with substantial but incomplete evidence)
This I call bigotry, again if you can think of a better term then lets hear it
To make people aware of this I do not regard this as a personal attack - just pointing out facts.
If you could supply any evidence that supports creation/ID I would LOVE to discuss it, but I dont see any point in responding to your diatribes on evolution, or repeatedly defending it, especially from someone with NO scientific alternative.
If you dont believe evolution - fine, believe in ID as much as you want
But dont pretend or imply it is a scientific alternative, because without the evidence that you refuse to supply is is just a belief, not science.
(Again I am not implying science is any better than a belief, just that it is different, and has different aims/requirement. There is no reason why the 2 should not co-exist, It is just that evolution is science, and ID is not)
Laughing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are too busy writing attack responses to look at the evidence I presented. I can keep presenting evidence, but how can I take you seriously that you will actually read it, think about it and discuss it?
Some people see it that way when I point out their intellectual dishonesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your reply to me you state, "I think you did a good job summing up the different world views. It looks like intelligent people from both sides can look at the same data and draw different conclusions." However you are not drawing a conclusion, you are making an assumption and treating that assumption as fact/evidence. That is why in your mind you are providing evidence but this is not evidence. This is what has been perpetually frustrating to Laughing, Ambertooth, Faultline, and myself.
Now for your small scale (microevolution) vs large scale (macroevoluion) argument. There is no such distinction for evolution by natural selection. There is just adaptation based on the environment for billions of generations. There are transitional fossils that demonstrate the incremental changes for what you describe as large scale change.
As for your long jump example, I will use another track and field event as an accurate reflection of incremental change. In 1968 Jim Hines became the first human to run a sub 10 second 100 meters, last year Usain Bolt set the new record at 9.69 seconds. So, in two generations there has been an increase in the running ability of specific human populations. Eventually, there will be a sub 9 time. These increases are incremental not due to one individuals training but the trait(s) that allows faster speed is incrementally changing allowing increased run speed. That does not mean all humans are faster, but certain populations are. I am pretty sure you understand the distinction and are simply being obtuse with this example.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is of no interest whether or not you take me seriously
However as far as your evidence goes - No you havent supplied evidence - To date I dont regard you have having supplied anything except your own opinions and assumptions
I say again (I am getting tired of this)
You have not yet shown evidence that a creator exists. (not that it looks like)
You have not shown any evidence that anything WAS designed (again , not that it looks like it was)
You have not shown any evidence as to HOW anything was designed
In another forum I repeatedly asked for the same evidence
Your ONLY response was a partial quote from a paper containing the word "design" - this you regarded as evidence.
No matter that even your quote was only PART of a summary regarding the EVOLUTION of the organ concerned
No matter that the WHOLE of the paper was a study of the EVOLUTION of the organ
No matter that the quote in itself is meaningless as evidence without the remainder of the paper.
No - the fact that it contained the word "design" you regarded as evidence for ID
From this I conclude that as far as you are concerned any paper containing the word "design" is a paper supporting ID.
This from someone who has repeatedly gone into great depths analysing/criticising/demanding the evidence supporting evolution, but is willing to accept the absolute flimsiest of pretext to support his own claims.
This again I regard as hypocricy.
What was your response to my comments to your evidence (ie, as above) ?
You returned to your claims for ID, BUT now you say you have produced evidence to support it.
And now you have the affrontary to claim personal abuse.
You say the evidence is all around .
Life is all around -This is the starting point for anyone presenting a theory as to how this came to be.
The existence of life in itself is just an observation, a fact if you will., it does not explicitly support any theory. It is there to be explained.
Any theory must present evidence as to the existance of a cause (this in the case of ID since the cause is external to the observation), and evidence as to a causal link between the cause and the observation (that is - how did the "cause" create the observation - i.e.life)
Since ID explicitly rules out evolution of "new" species from "old" species then if you wish to claim that life is a result of ID that you must
1) Present evidence that a creator exists - (otherwise it is just an assumption )
2) Present evidence that anything was in fact designed (not that it looks as if)
3) Most importantly - present evidence as to HOW anything WAS created.
If you want ID to be regarded scientifically then this evidence MUST be to the same degree of validity/credibility/extent as you require of evolution.
Maybe you can explain in full detail the intellectual dishonesty involved. I think we are all quite interested to know how I have been.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you ignored my detailed explanations the first time, and the second time, and the third... what assurance do you provide that you will be any different next time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, thank you for your explanation. From it I think I understand your concern to the incremental changes argument. TO paraphrase, what you describe is a case of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdiminishing returns. Given any particular design, there will always be an upper limit that it can't go beyond. Absolutely yes, for any given individual, and for any given species, there is a limit to their performance they can't go beyond. You and I absolutley agree 100% on that point. Hooray!! Then a miracle occurs :) Now, I hope we can now progress from here...
Limits are a consequence of design, among other things. In your example, you might gain a few more inches by changing technique. You could also use your brain to make a tool like a pole to help you jump farther, but I digress. In the main, your upper limit is set by physics. However, all other things being equal, someone with faster-contracting muscles will jump farther than you. Or someone with a lighter body. Or someone with stronger ligaments. Or someone with bigger feet. In fact, I can think of many different ways the human body could be changed to optimize its jumping ability. So, even as we agree that your body has an upper limit, I have to say it's not only beside the point, but avoids the actual question altogether.
How many different designs can life have? Even a casual census of life on Earth reveals literally millions of species, each one uniquely but INCREMENTALLY optimized
to take advantage of its environment, each one is only INCREMENTALLY different from the species it came from. And I'm pretty sure the existing count doesn't even begin to exhaust all of the possible designs life on Earth could have.
So, the relevant question for you, Neal, is by what objective standard, something not based on your own personal credulity, can you say that THIS change (x+1) is small and therefore acceptable to you, but THAT change (x+n) is large and therefore requires Divine Intervention?
Neal, please excuse my apparent impatience, but I have another way to phrase my question so that I am clear. I'm not setting a trap, I just want to make sure we agree on what we disagree on :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease keep in mind we are discussing changes in design, not performance levels. Imagine a basic design, which for convenience sake I represent as (x). Now, you already said that you accept small changes in design, which I represent as (x+1). You also said that you do not accept large changes in design without Divine Intervention. Imagine in your mind the smallest possible change that still qualifies for you as an unacceptably large change, which I represent as (x+n). I use a variable here only because I don't know how much change you do not accept. So, at this point, we have 3 cases; a base design (x), an arbitrarily small but acceptable change in design (x+1), and an arbitrarily larger change in design that is just barely unacceptable to you (x+n). I hope you are still with me, because this really is a fairly simple logical exercise. Given the above, there is a fourth case, represented by (x+n-1) whose change in design is smaller than your barely unacceptable third case, which means the change is by your own definition acceptably small to you. The only difference between the third case and the fourth case is the incremental change you accepted in the second case. So what is your objective basis for accepting an incremental change between the first and second cases, but not the exact same incremental change between the third and fourth cases?
dvashun and jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou missed my point regarding my long jump analogy. Given your interpretation of the analogy, it was not clear and got things side tracked in the wrong direction. Let me clarify.
My long jump analogy ONLY concerned making unreasonable extrapolations. I did not mean for the analogy to be understood as some kind of explanation of individual vs population performance. I understand that natural selection works in populations over many generations.
First, jpill69, the incremental mutations still need to provide some sort of benefit each step of the way. X+n needs to be beneficial and X+n+1 also needs to be beneficial. The benefit that a "+1" may give probably will have nothing to do with the function it needs to perform within some kind of future new organ. There is no goal with natural selection. It becomes exponentially more improbable as more mutations are added.
There does not seem to be a hard limit to genetic change, but for practical purposes in real life it becomes exponentially so improbable that we do see limits. For example, dog breeding has been happening for thousands of years, yet we still have dogs. The dogs are so varied that if all we had were fossils of dogs they would probably be labeled as different species. But we know that they are still dogs because they can be observed in real time.
The runners that broke the 10sec time in the 100 meter dash do not have any new organs, they are still genetically homo sapien, right? They may have longer muscles, etc, but who argues with that? Are you saying that eventually someone will be born who has wheels and a motor and can go from 0 to 60mph in 2.5 seconds? No, evolution will claim that their will be intermediates, right? I know that sounds ridiculous, but according to evolutionists new organs can be incrementally formed over generations.
What we see in life now and in the fossil record is a mosiac of millions of different creatures. Creatures with new organs appear abruptly in the fossil record followed by small scale variation. Darwin predicted an innumerable host of incremental species with incrementally forming organs and his prediction was wrong. For example, the trilobite eye appears suddenly in the fossil record, yet there should have been hundreds of incremental stages over many generations. Wh
What you are left with is not observation of small scale change adding up to new organs and new body plans, but rather wild speculation that mutations (basically genetic accidents) perform miracles.
Neal, the logical error that you made with your "long jump" analogy is same logical error that you still make regarding unreasonable extrapolations, and for that matter is the exact same logical error all anti-evolutionists make with their "practically impossible" arguments. In all these cases, there is an implicit and false assumption that every new change must recapitulate all previous changes, when in fact every new change BUILDS on all previous changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat you missed the entire logic of my last post is evident from your (x+n+1) error. That you refuse to accept how random mutations work is evident from your insistance that every change must be beneficial. That you still believe, even after all this time, that evolutionists argue wholesale changes in a single jump is evident from your "wheels and motor" sarcasm.
I don't know if you won't accept even the simplest concepts because you have a fundamental fear of them, or because you are simply incapable of understanding them, or whatever. It doesn't matter anymore, the net effect is the same; you want to argue that life on Earth is created by magic. If you really believe your cause is best served by making flat-earthers sound smart, no amount of logic or reason or persuasion I can offer you is going to change anything.
Neal, I support your efforts that test peoples' beliefs. You are the genesis of most of the comments here. Without people like you, people like me would have a harder time finding an excuse to write about our favorite subject.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarlier you issued a challenge
"So, here's the challenge to you or anyone reading this discussion. Name any area of support for common descent and I will show you how it is either neutral or supports creation better."
I have got an easier one.
Lets assume there is no such thing as the theory of evolution - it does not exist.
Now lets take your favourite organ - the eye , specifically the trilobite eye.
You now propose a hypothesis as to where the eye came from.
You said you would show how your hypothesis is "neutral or better than evolution", I have made it easier - You dont have any competition.
Now go ahead - tell us how your hypothesis explains where the trilobite eyes came from.
Remember :-
1) the theory of evolution does not exist- so you have nothing to compare your hypothesis against.
2) we all know that the trilobite had eyes, we all know they were optically sophisticated - your hypothesis has to explain HOW it acquired them.
3) evidence is required, and you must identify any assumptions you make and why they are valid.!!!!
Just 1 question
You frequently say the trilobite eye appeared suddenly in the fossil record
Do you mean
a) that species of trilobites without eyes (of any sort) already existed and then suddenly a new species (1 or several) of trilobite appeared with eyes?
or b) that a completely new species (1 or several) (trilobite) appeared with eyes, where trilobites had not existed before?
or c) something else - if so please clarify.?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggested the thought experiment with a household item in order to show the difficulty of incrementally building something one piece at a time. I was being sarcastic with the motor example, but not too much because a motor is exactly what the flagellum on on some bacteria and eukaryotic cells use (the most efficient motor ever to exist on earth).
The motor example is ridiculous right? I propose that it is impossible to show the incremental formation of a motor.
You speak of mutations BUILDING on previous changes. What exactly are they building if natural selection is blind? What exactly do all of these partial building projects in nature look like? Do not organs appear fully formed? This is why I suggested looking at a simple household item to see the difficulty of BUILDING on previous changes. You are right though, not all mutations are beneficial, the majority are harmful to the organism.
You mention magic and flat earth, etc. These are ridiculous statements and are typical of neo-Darwinists attacking strawmen, I would prefer to talk about the thought experiment. If a change is useless or harmful, then will it be selected?
Laughing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrilobite fossils, along with at least two dozen different phyla show up in the Cambrian fossil record suddenly without a direct line of ancestry. The fossil record shows a sudden explosion in new body forms followed by small scale variation.
Complex new body plans require a large amount of new DNA encoding. No chemical basis exists for the encoding of new body plans. An improbable sequence of mutations within the Avalon and Precambrian life is not demonstrated in the fossil record. From observation in the field of information theory, goal driven encoding of information that is imposed on the chemical structure of its storage unit, always originates from an outside intelligent creator. Mankind does not possess the knowledge and technology to recreate the trilobite or its eye. Thus the knowledge of the creator of the trilobite far exceeds the current knowledge of man. This is not to preclude research into how the eye would have functioned.
A scientific interence can be made that the trilobite originated by special creation. Some variation and loss of function occured through genetic drift, mutation, and environmental pressures.
If you want to discuss specific points I would like that, but I you need to show that you are willing to discuss and not attack and call names.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Trilobite fossils, along with at least two dozen different phyla show up in the Cambrian fossil record suddenly without a direct line of ancestry"
Sorry this is an argument against evolution
Did I not make it clear?
Evolution does not exist, so this statement is irrelevent.
"Complex new body plans require a large amount of new DNA encoding. No chemical basis exists for the encoding of new body plans. "
Sorry this is also an argument against evolution so is not relevent.
Are you talking about trilobites or the trilobite eye? (It doesn't particularly matter which, but it is nice to know)
From this statement I infer that you are saying that trilobites appeared suddenly in history with absolutely no ancestry.
Is this correct?
"An improbable sequence of mutations within the Avalon and Precambrian life is not demonstrated in the fossil record. "
- you are arguing against evolution again - so this is not relevent
"From observation in the field of information theory, goal driven encoding of information that is imposed on the chemical structure of its storage unit, always originates from an outside intelligent creator."
what "goal driven encoding of information"?
What "chemical structure"?
What "storage unit" ?
What "outside intelligent creator"?
"Mankind does not possess the knowledge and technology to recreate the trilobite or its eye."
We know mankind does not possess the knowledge - So what?
"Thus the knowledge of the creator of the trilobite far exceeds the current knowledge of man. "
You have made an enormous leap in assumptions here.
Who said a creator exists or that trilobites were created?
This statement assumes a "creator" created them,
BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWING -WHERE THEY CAME FROM
We know they came from somewhere, but where?
If you are saying a "creator" created them, then where is the evidence to support this?
"This is not to preclude research into how the eye would have functioned."
What has research into how it functioned got to do with the problem of where it came from?
The problem is that you are supposed to be showing where it came from, not how it functioned.
"A scientific interence can be made that the trilobite originated by special creation. "
Sorry - you lost me
On what basis do you infer that it was created?
All you have said so far is
1) that man could not have created it. (but we already knew that)
2) the "knowledge of the creator exceed the current knowledge of man"
But this assumes the existence of a "creator"
Your inference then goes further and assumes that
1) your "creator" created trilobites
2) that your "creator" had the ability to create them
You have made no attempt to show that your "creator" actually created trilobites - You have just assumed it did.
You have not made any attempt to explain HOW your assumed creator created the trilobites (or eye)
So you have assumed a creator and then inferred from your assumption that your "creator" created the trilobites (or eyes)
You have not shown any evidence that a)in fact a "creator" exists, or b) evidence that trilobites (or their eyes) were in fact created by your "creator" and then c) presumed "your creator" somehow created trilobites
"scientific inference" requires a logical deduction from the scientific evidence
So far you haven't produced any scientific evidence and made assumptions with no foundation
So I would say so far your inference is neither scientific nor logical, but a circular argument.
2 questions
You say trilobites were created
1) Were all species of trilobite created at once, or over a period of time
2) How long did it take for trilobites to be created. was it instantaneous or did it take say 1 second, 1 minute or whatever.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I should have said
You have made no attempt to show that trilobites were created - You have just presumed they were
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjust 1 thing - not relevent to your post
You said
"Complex new body plans require a large amount of new DNA encoding"
This is not a correct statement,as it is not necessarily true.
Significant changes in body structure/function can result from relatively minor changes in dna.
(it also is prejudicial as "plans" imply design, - You haven't shown design)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnbelievable! This one thread has running for almost two years now. I have managed to plow my way through over 1300 comments (and still growing) starting at number one. I thought I had seen every level of hubris and stupidity that there could be on sites such as Talk Origins and Panda’s Thumb – it’s sort of expected there, although they certainly do not advocated it. However, I was totally unprepared to see so much of the same on SciAm. Frankly, after reading “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense,” I expected few comments to be posted (I neglected to notice the little indicator at first – 1273 at that time). If not for a few dimwits, this thread could have (and should have) ended months ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe profound level of ignorance, not just of evolutionary theory, but also of science in general is nothing short of astounding. Some of the grammar is so bad it is almost impossible to find a coherent thought in it. As a deaf person, I am very conscious of the fact that English is not everyone’s first language – it’s not mine. However, when it is obvious that the person posting does, in fact, understand English as their primary language, they should be able to construct a reasonably coherent sentence. Some of what have read (or tried to read) wouldn’t pass the muster of 2nd grade. Why would they possibly expect to be taken seriously by any intelligent, knowledgeable, educated person? Apparently, they do. Anyway, it’s sad to realize that some of the trash I’ve read in this thread is the end result of an American public education. It certainly isn’t indicative of the one I received. Here’s a real jim-dandy example:
“What a bunch of Evolutionary Nonsense. Explain how something could come from nothing. Explain how something as complex as life could just happen. Explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Explain the lack of transitional forms all around us. Not a one, unless you were to count James Carville. Explain the absolutely brilliant design of every living creature generated from your half-baked mutation theory. Last time I looked mutations were nigh onto 100% detremental. Too bad you are so blind you can't recognize pseudo science when it is right in front of you. I expect a lot more from our so called intellectual elites.” (Post #165 by Tbone_Whiz at 01:24am on 05/04/08)
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’ve read some posts that have left me with a first impression of some poor dope squatting against a brick wall, chugging down a Mt. Dew and a Marlboro, on a fifteen minute break between the next oil or tire change contemplating on whether or not he’ll get laid after the football game on television, not some mystery of the Universe. How does someone like that even end up on science site like this? It’s mind-boggling! I guess it must just be the result of …chance? Maybe a slight little error in the fingers while searching for some sports statistics. You know, that occasional drop-in with a few nonsensical babbles and never heard from again. Sort of reminiscent of the vast majority of mutations …neutral, not “nigh onto 100% detremental.”
After reading 1300+ posts, I have had to take pause a number of times to ask myself why I am even bothering to pursue a formal education. I am 21 years old, I have a full time job, a four year old daughter, I am placing a tremendous burden on some family members, and a Ph.D. in astrophysics is years away. I should just take the easy route and declare myself now an expert. It could save years of work! I could have my choice of any observatory or laboratory anywhere in the world! Apparently, from some of the comments I have read, a formal education and a lot of field experience in a particular branch of science is not a prerequisite to being an expert in that field. Obviously, anyone operating a bulldozer for eight hours a day and spending the remainder of his or her conscience hours guzzling Miller-lite and watching professional wrestling can also be a real expert in modern evolutionary synthesis, astronomy, physics, chemistry, you name it. Amazing! Who’da thunk?
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what about all those tens, hundreds of thousands of “real scientists?” You know, the people who have devoted their entire adult lives to study and research in a particular field of science - often, specializing in one or two aspects of that field. What about them? Two possibilities: 1) they’re all just a bunch of ignorant morons who don’t know anything. 2) they’re covering up the real truth! It’s a carefully guarded secret (only the entire world knows about it) within the global science community to …disprove “please insert your favorite supernatural deity here!” That’s why they won’t let any kind of creationist claptrap be published in any of their peer reviewed journals; the masses might discover the real truth that these evil scientists have been covering up for 150 years. We will ignore the fact that almost all science journals have a relatively low subscription circulation – appealing mostly to people who have a vested interest in the subject content of the respective journal. I mean, just how many people do you suppose subscribe to “Evolution Journal?” Probably millions, right? Each issue thicker than Webster’s latest dictionary and just chock full of LIES! Oh, and ignore the fact that there is no shortage of creationist twaddle peddled around in the popular press; no one reads the popular press anymore. That’s why it’s popular. Everyone is sucking up all those thick science journals full of lies. Well, that certainly explains why creationists considerably outnumber those who accept evolution as a fact …at least, here in the United States. Seriously, that makes about as much sense of some of BS I’ve read on here. In this case, “BS” is not an acronym for Bad Science.
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, what the hell. For all you creationists out there, you have nothing to worry about anyway. So say:
laserlover at 02:52 AM on 04/10/08 – Post #76
“This article is pure conjecture.Operative wording within contain many,"would have,could have,possibly,may have.As a former evolutionist I tell you that the religion of Darwinism will be dead in 10 years.”
Ok, laserbrain. I’ll take you up on that. $100,000.00 says that you are dead wrong. You have eight years and nine months left. That should be just about right. I should be finishing up on my Ph.D. about then and $100,000.00 should cover the bulk of my educational expenses. We can discuss later where you can send my check. On second thought, make it cash – I don’t trust you. And by the way, stop lying for Jesus – you were never an evolutionist. You never have, you don’t now, and you never will have the slightest inkling of an iota of one little clue about evolutionary biology – or any other discipline of science. Just make sure you my $100,000.00 (in cash) on April 10, 2018.
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no debate here, no controversy. It’s little more than an inane argument over a perceived thread that doesn’t exist. No one is attempting to take anyone’s religious freedoms away or disprove God – certainly not scientists. Science makes no judgments about the supernatural one way or the other; it can’t. Scientists are not lying to anyone (that’s a creationist hallmark). Why would they? How could they? The evidence and facts are the evidence and the facts. They cannot be dismissed by any amount of hand waving. Because some individual doesn’t understand the evidence is irrelevant – it simply demonstrates that that individual lacks the formal training to understand the facts and evidence. If fact, most people are probably unaware of most of the facts and evidence – they know only a small fraction of what actually exists. You can stop bringing up trash like “Piltdown Man,” “Nebraska Man,” “Haeckel’s Embryos,” etc. First, these frauds are extremely rare in science. More importantly, invariably each was exposed by other scientists. Read that! BY OTHER SCIENTISTS – Not by any wacko creationist or intelligent design proponent! None of these things are presented in any science textbooks currently in use at any public school in the U.S. I challenge anyone who says different. Provide the name of the textbook (complete with the name of the publisher), the school district, and the state.
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere in the United States, people are free to believe anything they wish. But, from the purview of science one’s religious convictions are as irrelevant as a penguin’s little piss hole in the snow of Antarctica. Unlike creationism, in all its forms (including intelligent design), science is not a belief system. It is based on evidence. Evidence is subject to analysis, review, observation, and experiment. All science, including evolution, is constrained to the same standard of methodology and review. You can’t say that about creationism. It invariably defers to the supernatural – always. As such, it has no value to science. Specifically, intelligent design is not an alternative “theory” to evolution – it’s not a theory at all. It is religiously motivated, however. It is not useful to science and has no place in the science curriculum. To do so is equivalent to a teacher saying that a particular religious view may be correct. That is a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment – and that is the end of that. No amount of Behe’s debunked “…Black Box” fantasies, Bill Dembski’s flawed, twisted, and totally refuted mathematics, unqualified opinion, babbling biblical verses, or just plain general belly-aching is going to change the real science. A science class is for teaching science and that includes the science of evolution. The time spent on evolution in most schools is miniscule as it is. No one is forcing students to “believe” it – they can believe or disbelieve, accept or not accept …their choice. One thing that will and should be required is that they provide the correct answer on the test regardless of whether they “believe” it or not. “Fair and balanced” is not in the equation. It not for untrained, unqualified high school students to decide which theory is best or more appealing. There is only one qualified theory (evolution) and that is what is taught.
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think almost every creationist crapping point that exists has been brought up at one point or another. I lost count how many times I read “…no transitional fossils.” I am certain that every creationist nitwit that raised this fallacy wouldn’t recognize a transitional fossil (other than reading the taxonomical label) if one jumped up, identified itself, and proceeded to bite them on the backside. I have to wonder if any of these people ever stepped foot in a museum of natural history or science. The shrinking Sun; this one really caught my eye. Not only is the author clueless, he is a liar as well.
BigBangBang at 07:16 AM on 03/05/09 – Post #477
“I did provide proof that the earth is less than 10,000 years old even if the sun is not shrinking at a rate of 5ft/hr it is still shrinking. The first law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow for expansion. If the sun was only shrinking at a rate of 1ft/hr over a 4.6 billion year time period the sun would still have been so large that it would have reduce the distance between the earth and the sun to the point no life could exist. So let’s say that the sun is shrinking at a rate of only 20% of the original rate of 5 ft/hr. Now the sun is only shrinking at 1 ft/hr. That would be 1.659 miles per/year. The distance between the earth and the sun is 93 million miles. This would mean that distance would be zero miles in only 56 million years. Not quit the 4.6 billion is it. This is giving a large error for the original shrinkage rate. The rate would have to be less than .15 inch/hr in order for the distance between the sun and the earth to be zero. Life would also not exist at a distance much outside of 93 million miles plus or minus 10 million miles. Distance from the sun 93,000,000 miles + 10,000,000 would make the temperature to cold to sustain life and 93,000,000 miles – 10,000,000 would make the temperature to hot to sustain life. So in order for the earth to be 4.6 billion years old the sun would have to be neither shrinking nor expanding. If it is not shrinking then the first law of thermodynamics is not a law at all, but just a theory and one that must be false.”
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSet aside for the moment that this creationist claptrap was refuted along ago. The best current evidence is that the Sun is a long period variable and that it goes through cyclic periods of expansion and contraction. I will excuse the author’s ignorance about the stellar mechanics of pulsating variable stars. It is clear that the author does not have even a vague understanding of thermodynamics (not to mention scientific definitions – see the end of post #476). What is not excusable is the author’s blatant lying in an attempt to be credible. In post #476, he refers to his “thermodynamics background.” This idiot has absolutely no background or understanding of thermodynamics. “Law verses Theory – Law wins every time.” Good grief! Who was he trying to kid?
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt’s been interesting reading the blathering of one creationist twit after another as they fade away into oblivion after a half dozen or so posts of nonsense; blown away by a few people who actually know something about science. All but one, that is. It pops in at post #735 like a virtual particle out of the vacuum and he’s still going! Apparently, Neil T never received the quantum “memo” that says virtual nitwits are only suppose to hang around for a very short time and then disappear back into the void. This 21st century Dr. Frankenstein has almost singlehandedly dug up every rotting corpse of creationist and intelligent design claptrap that there is, replete with his personal serving of biblical verse. He continues to send jolts into old piles of long dead bones hoping to resurrect them into some grand new revelation never noticed before (AH! EVOLUTION IS DEAD!). Every time he brings one back to life, ambertooth, Laughing gravy, or some other science savvy author puts it back in the grave and buries it again. I would think that after being made the fool a dozen times he would have taken the hint like so many others and just …vamoose! Nope. I think he’s been taking cues from a few of people over on Panda’s Thumb. Conclusion: another intellectual masochist. How much damage can one brain sustain and keep functioning? After almost two months of incessant yammering, after repeated requests, he still hasn’t provided one single piece of tangible evidence in support of creationism/ID as a useful scientific tool. There is definitely a job waiting for him at the Disco Tute. No need to provide a bunch of examples; it’s on the record. How much longer, Neil? We’re still waiting for that evidence.
Cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill, there is a frightening side to all this. Lists of “scientists” abandoning evolution theory are little more than misleading creationist propaganda. Podiatrists, electrical engineers, brain surgeons, mathematicians, etc. don’t cut it. The only scientists that count are the ones directly involved in biological research. And they are not dropping liking flies in a mist of bug spray. Just the opposite, in fact. Evolutionists and evolutionary theory are as robust as ever. Having said that, it’s no secret that the general populous of the Unites States is largely science illiterate. It’s pathetic. The creationists, the evolution deniers, appear to have a significant majority. Of course, this flows over into the political arena – particularly local and state school boards. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to bamboozle a naive and sympathetic public to get creationism (of course, they call it intelligent design theory) into the science class. It’s scary what’s going on in Texas right now; out with one crazy creationist and in with another. It’s an unforgivable disservice to the science education of the kids in the effected school districts and it has wasted millions of dollars in court fees. Like Neil T, they don’t seem to learn the lesson of losing a battle in court – they always come back for another round. Sad.
There is a bright spot, though. I know that at the end of day enough kids will filter through and go to a career in science. We’ll be the contributors that will keep science and technology merrily moving along so that people like Neil T and company can continue to have all the new toys they take for granted, be benefactors of new breakthroughs in medicine, and keep coming on sites like this to trash the shit out of the science that provides it. Yes, Neil T and people like him will always be end product consumers of other peoples work, never having the foggiest understanding of any of the underlying science – just users sucking it up …never contributors.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3 more questions
You said
"A scientific interence can be made that the trilobite originated by special creation.
What is "special creation"
"Some variation and loss of function occured through genetic drift, mutation, and environmental pressures."
How did the "variation and loss of function" take place?
Why did it take place.(that is - why did "genetic drift, mutation and environmental pressures" affect the function)?
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 last question
You said
"Trilobite fossils,................................ show up in the Cambrian fossil record suddenly"
From this I infer that you believe trilobites did not exist in any form prior to the dating of the earliest fossils
(obviously allowing for inaccuracies in the dating techniques - offhand I have no idea what that is, but lets say +/- 10mill years)
So - do you conclude that trilobites did not exist in any form say 10 mill years before the date of the earliest fossil found?
If not then how long before the earliest fossil found would you say they appeared. ?
(I assume you will be posting the methodology as to how trilobites were created later. )
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry but I have read the following statement several times and still cant understand what you are trying to say
"From observation in the field of information theory, goal driven encoding of information that is imposed on the chemical structure of its storage unit, always originates from an outside intelligent creator."
Could you please explain.
Laughing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes). So when I said that the trilobite eye appeared suddenly it was just to emphasize the compound eyes, not to infer that the earliest trilobites did not have eyes.
I guess I am at a lose to understand what you would consider evidence for creation. The trilobite and Cambrian explosion is simply ONE AREA of evidence for special creation. However, the sudden appearance of complex life forms in the Cambrian is best explained by special creation. The scientific method includes looking for the best available explanation, does it not?
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you are in school, you may want to take English over again to better understand what a sentence fragment is and also what a run on sentence is. Your posts contain a lot of attacks but nothing of substance relating to the discussion of the evidence, natural selection or mutations. You make ungrounded assumptions about our jobs and what we drink.
I am about curious about the psyche of Darwinists that puts them in attack mode by belittling others. It is usually as perdictable as the sun rise. In my professional experience this is usually a sign of weakness.
Many intelligent and thoughtful people are skeptical of the claims of Darwinism that all life is related through Common Descent. You have hammered the young earth creationists, but perhaps you would rather like to join the discussion about why the trilobite and a host of other new body plans appear suddenly in the Cambrian fossil record. What specifically does the field of your study bring to the discussion of evolution?
Laughing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "Significant changes in body structure/function can result from relatively minor changes in dna".
Certainly a mutation in the HOX region can had or remove a limb, etc. Can you give an example of a brand new body structure that the animal did not possess before? For example, a mutation can add extra wings to a fruit fly, but it already possessed the code for the wing. I would be interested in an example of a completely new structure.
Interestingly evolutionists use the terms "plans", "design", and "engineering" in their articles. I have been curious about that too.
Thanks
Laughing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecial creation is just another way to say creation, but my way of emphasizing the creation event being specific and purposeful in its design.
Variation and loss of function occur through natural selection and adaption given various environments that the trilobite lived in. As I've stated many times, I do believe that natural selection occurs in nature to some extent. From the fossil record it appears that certain trilobites eventually lost eye function. The difference between my view of natural selection and the standard theory of common descent is that in my view change is limited to the small scale variety. Small incremental changes in the direction of the formation of a new body plan or even a new organ become exponentially improbable, because natural selection is unguided.
There are several ways that DNA can be viewed as biological information systems. Below is a nice summary of this concept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions - the information - for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive. Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis,’’ according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Bill Gates has noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.’’
This discovery has made acute a longstanding scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed or solved: the mystery of how the very first life on earth arose. To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information in DNA needed to build the first living cell on earth. Yet modern scientists who argue for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes have failed to explain the origin of the information in cells. Instead, they argue for design because systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes.
DNA functions like a software program. We know that software comes from programmers. Information - whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal - always arises from an intelligent source. So the discovery of digital code in DNA provides a strong scientific reason for concluding that the information in DNA also had an intelligent source." - Stephen Meyer
Neil T,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’ll be the first to admit it was an unforgivable long rant. Sometimes, the thoughts start flowing and the fingers won’t stop. I am familiar with sentence fragments, however, and when used during informal dialogues, fragments are common and acceptable. By the way, you spelled predictable wrong. However, we won’t quibble about that.
What I am studying would probably bring little to a discussion on evolution. Biology is just a recent hobby, so I can’t claim any expertise. In fact, I make no claim to be an expert on anything. I don’t have that kind of experience – yet. As to hammering on YEC’s, actually I was hammering on creationists in general – like you. You’re a creationist, Neil, regardless of how you choose to categorize yourself. What is your profession? It certainly isn’t biology, or any other field of science. I’m curious about the psyche of people like you who use terms like “Darwinists” and “Darwinism.” It’s usually a sign that they know little or nothing about evolution or common descent and that includes many of the intelligent and thoughtful ones that you mention. Those are terms that creationists usually apply to people that prefer facts and evidence over unsubstantiated, unverifiable myths. (See Genesis 1, 2, or both as reference) Michael Behe, one of the leading proponents of ID, accepts descent with modification. What’s your problem with it?
But, you miss the point. It is not your religious views I am criticizing, Neil. What I am critical of are people like you who continually attempt to twist creationist claptrap (specifically in the disguise of intelligent design) into a scientifically useful explanatory tool (like real scientific theories), then conning (i.e. deceive, mislead, dupe, lie) a generally uninformed public that it does have scientific value, and ramming this pseudoscience into a public school science class. That is what I am criticizing and what I am fighting. If you think that intelligent design is religiously motivated, not a valid scientific alternative to modern evolutionary biology, and should not be taught in a public school science class, then we have no argument. Just say so.
Neil T,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the meantime, perhaps I can add something meaningful to discussion – or not. I will let you and\or others decide that. At any rate, I will have to jump into the same canoe Laughing is paddling around.
"From observation in the field of information theory, goal driven encoding of information that is imposed on the chemical structure of its storage unit, always originates from an outside intelligent creator."
I don’t understand what you are implying here, either. Without forcing me to backtrack through two or three dozen posts that I may have skipped at the end out of exasperation, I don’t see how this relates to evolution, since nothing in evolution is “goal driven.” What is the “goal” of evolution? Again, please explain how this relates to evolution. So far, you haven’t done so.
Thank you, Neil.
Neil T. said to Laughing:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“I guess I am at a lose to understand what you would consider evidence for creation. The trilobite and Cambrian explosion is simply ONE AREA of evidence for special creation. However, the sudden appearance of complex life forms in the Cambrian is best explained by special creation. The scientific method includes looking for the best available explanation, does it not?”
The answer to “…what you would consider evidence for creation” is a testable and independently verifiable hypothesis for you claim – specifically, creation (or special creation – whichever). After repeated requests, Neil, you have not provided one single piece of tangible evidence nor a hypothesis, let alone a “creation theory.” In what way are trilobites and the Cambrian “explosion” evidence for special creation? What processes and mechanisms of “special creation” explain trilobites and the proliferation of new phyla better than evolution? I mean, besides saying “God did it.” “God did it,” Neil, is not an explanation of anything. How could you possibly challenge that? For all I know, God DID do it! I wouldn’t dispute that for a moment. My problem is, how do I conduct a scientific test to verify that God did it? Do you have any suggestions? One would do. The “best available explanation” has to be one that can be tested, verified, and possibly falsified. How do you falsify God? On the other hand, evolution does explain the Cambrian Explosion and trilobites – without the need for any supernatural intervention. Let’s have a look, because these are things that are facts and evidence that can actually be tested, examined, and verified.
The Cambrian spans a period of almost 60 million years. That’s almost as long as the dinosaurs have been extinct. The “sudden explosion” portion is estimated to cover a period of five to ten million years. Five million years is hardly sudden by any standard. Yes, it is a relatively short time in geological terms, but five million years is more than ample for evolutionary processes. Terms such as “sudden” and “explosion” are misnomers. Creationists use terms like these in ways that dupe people into believing that the “Cambrian Explosion” was a six-day event. On the fourth day of the sudden explosion (special creation), “God said, ‘Let there be trilobites, with fully formed eyeballs and body plans never seen before – POOF! – and there were trilobites, and they were good.’” Well, not too good. Certainly, it didn’t escape your notice that several years ago the poor things, along with 93% of all other marine species, went belly up with the mass extinction that occurred at the end of the Permian. In my opinion, that doesn’t speak too well of a Grand Supernatural Designer. It seems to me, if all species were specially designed, nothing would become extinct. That doesn’t appear to be the case. Does your “creation model” have an explanation for that, or does that require a separate “extinction model?” Evolution doesn’t have a problem with extinction. I also want to point out that the Cambrian was not the only period to witness a “sudden” radiation of new forms. A similar occurrence took place during the Ordovician (taxonomically, this “explosion” was more at the family, genus and species levels, rather than the phyla level of the Cambrian). I guess you could call that Genesis 2, yes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists also like to use terms like “fully formed” – more “evidence” of POOF. Exactly what does “fully formed” mean? Can you define that, please? Fully formed as opposed to …what? Not fully formed, half formed, semi-formed? Would you expect them to NOT be fully formed? I’ve never been in a museum of natural history and seen a fossil of an animal that was not fully formed. What would a fossil of a not fully formed animal be? Oh, I know. That would be one of those transitional things that don’t exist (only they do – and fully formed, too).
Neil T said to Laughing:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“The trilobite and Cambrian explosion is simply ONE AREA of evidence for special creation. However, the sudden appearance of complex life forms in the Cambrian is best explained by special creation.”
“Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes). So when I said that the trilobite eye appeared suddenly it was just to emphasize the compound eyes, not to infer that the earliest trilobites did not have eyes.”
“Certainly a mutation in the HOX region can had or remove a limb, etc. Can you give an example of a brand new body structure that the animal did not possess before? For example, a mutation can add extra wings to a fruit fly, but it already possessed the code for the wing. I would be interested in an example of a completely new structure.”
What you are trying to imply, Neil, is that before the Cambrian life on Earth was simple, just casually going along, perhaps barely hanging on. Then, suddenly, God gets bored and BOOM! Take trilobites, for example (since you bring them up). You are saying that they suddenly appear in the Cambrian strata. It’s a new body plan never seen before, and eyes (compound eyes of calcite), and (very important for you, Neil) no ancestral forms. They just spring up out of nowhere and not an ancestor to be found! Well, so much for common descent. One of the major foundation pillars of evolution theory is swirling down the commode. That’s definite evidence for POOF! What else could it be?
It’s time for some facts, Neil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Complex life did not originate in the Cambrian. There are abundant fossils of complex organisms that predate the Cambrian.
2. There are numerous transitional fossils present in the Cambrian. Take trilobites, for example. There are several good ancestral candidates of trilobites, in particular Parvancorina, a late Precambrian arthropod. (Common descent is alive and well)
3. Early complex animals of the Precambrian may have been nearly microscopic. Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
4. Active predators began to develop in the late Precambrian. It’s not unlikely that this could have prompted the coevolution of hard parts on other animals – such as the ancestors to our trilobite friends.
5. Trilobites were not the first animals to have eyes. Calcite deposition was very prominent in the Cambrian. Again, it’s not unlikely that trilobite predecessors may have co-opted this condition in the early development of compound eyes.
6. Whether you wish to accept it or not Homeobox (HOX) genes are very influential in body plans and trace back to Cambrian period.
7. The Cambrian began shortly after the end of a global ice age. A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the ice age would have opened many new niches for life to evolve.
8. As for the cause of the “explosion,” you might want to read this link. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/07/12/was_the_earth_green_before_the_cambrian
The Cambrian “explosion” (or trilobites) is not the great, unsolved mystery you seem to think it is. Modern evolutionary theory explains it pretty well. And it doesn’t require any of your supernatural magic. That’s what real scientists do, Neil – research and gathering evidence. That’s something creationists never do. That’s why I don’t want your version of “science” in the public classroom. By the way, you should stop quoting Myer’s ID claptrap; it’s wrong. DNA is not anything like a software program and Bill Gates is not an evolutionary biologist.
I hope I added something to the discussion.
Thank you. It’s late and I have another very busy day tomorrow (which is already today). Goodnight.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery impressive post, especially from someone who is new to biology.
On a related topic, you might find the following interesting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This is to an article titled "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"
As you probably know, Macroevolution and The Cambrian Explosion are among the major issues that Creationists use to prove that evolution is just a front for promoting godless materialist lifestyles.
To jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the link, but I have already read it numerous times. As for creationists proving anything, in any dialogue I have had with one (regardless of the medium) the only thing they have managed to prove is their profound ignorance of the subject matter. And perhaps that the Disco Tute is a good PR firm for duping a lot of people with creationist (ID) BS.
To jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the link, but I have already read it – numerous times. As for creationists “proving” anything, in any dialogue I have had with one (regardless of the medium) the only thing they have managed to prove is their profound ignorance of the subject matter. And perhaps that the Disco Tute is a good PR firm for duping a lot of people with creationist (ID) BS.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou had many questions, and I will try to get to them one by one beginning with your oldest post first.
Darwinism (Merriam-Webster Dictionary): a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors compare evolution 4, neo-Darwinism
I am aware that modern evolutionists tend to distance themselves from that term, but it is still an appropriate term for the subject at hand since the foundation of evolution is still natural selection. Evolution is a slippery word and means different things to different people. What evolutionists have for evidence of common descent is just not credible for an unbiased thinking person. If they have evidence they need to really show what they have.
Common Descent is often taught as a dogma with subjective arguments used as support. I say, give the students the other side of the argument and show all the weaknesses of the theory and let them think for themselves.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize. Given that it's a relative term, I should not take your phrase "recent hobby" too literally, yes?
As for the apparent and oft-demonstrated ignorance of the loyal opposition, in all of its various incarnations, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, we all start out ignorant about everything, and given our finite time and capacity, we all end up only slightly less so. On the other hand, when people repeatedly wallow in their ignorance and use it as a shield against facts and reason, a different adjective comes to my mind. I can't imagine how anybody really believes that a good way to argue for Creation intelligently is to argue against evolution stupidly.
Neil T said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Common Descent is often taught as a dogma with subjective arguments used as support. I say, give the students the other side of the argument and show all the weaknesses of the theory and let them think for themselves.”
From Merriam-Webster online dictionary – DOGMA
“1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church”
Nothing ambiguous here. Common descent is just opinion. Sorry, you lose. Common descent is an established scientific fact (as facts go in science - smile). But, you show your true colors here, Neil. It’s “Teach the controversy.” What weaknesses? I guess you missed Kitzmiller vs Dover.
Neil T,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T said:
“I am aware that modern evolutionists tend to distance themselves from that term, but it is still an appropriate term for the subject at hand since the foundation of evolution is still natural selection. Evolution is a slippery word and means different things to different people. What evolutionists have for evidence of common descent is just not credible for an unbiased thinking person. If they have evidence they need to really show what they have.”
In typical creationist fashion, Neil, you manage to be disingenuous. It was not your use of the terms that was objectionable. It was the context that they were used in. No one, especially no scientist, worships Darwin. Darwin has been dead for 127 years. Like many scientists before and after, Darwin constructed a hypothesis based on years of observations and research to explain the facts as he understood them. That hypothesis has been tested rigorously for 150 years. It has withstood the test of time – get over it. In the years since Darwin, the original hypothesis has been assimilated into a much larger and powerful theory of modern evolution synthesis. Common descent is support by several lines of evidence (evidence is an important commodity in science). In addition to the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy and physiology, biochemistry, all support common descent. Most of these areas were unknown to Darwin. Natural selection is equally supported by many lines of independent evidence. It’s all available for you see and read – none of it is secret. You are hardly unbiased, Neil. You are very biased – your bias is a perceived, imaginary threat. It doesn’t exist.
Evolution is not a “slippery” word. There is nothing equivocal about the term as used in this dialogue – everyone knows what it means. If you think that biologists don’t have credible evidence for common descent, then the burden of proof is on you. State your objections and provide credible evidence to support them. I have read your posts. You have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence for your objections and you have been unwilling (or more likely unable) to give any.
To jpill69:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69 said:
“Keelyn,
I apologize. Given that it's a relative term, I should not take your phrase "recent hobby" too literally, yes?
As for the apparent and oft-demonstrated ignorance of the loyal opposition, in all of its various incarnations, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, we all start out ignorant about everything, and given our finite time and capacity, we all end up only slightly less so. On the other hand, when people repeatedly wallow in their ignorance and use it as a shield against facts and reason, a different adjective comes to my mind. I can't imagine how anybody really believes that a good way to argue for Creation intelligently is to argue against evolution stupidly.”
It is comparative recent – 8 years. It started with 10th grade biology 2001. That’s fairly recent. Anyway, I agree 100% with everything you said.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID, " Complex life did not originate in the Cambrian. There are abundant fossils of complex organisms that predate the Cambrian..."
RESPONSE: I did not say that complex life originated in the Cambrian, only that many new phyla originated in the Cambrian Explosion. I did mention in previous posts the Avalon explosion which preceeded the Cambrian Explosion.
You are inflating the evidence for transistional fossils in the Cambrian in your response. Even Darwin and modern evolutionists struggle with the phylogeny of trilobites and the host of other new body plans found in the Cambrian. Perhaps you should read evolutionist Gould "Wonderful Life".
Parvancorina is considered to be a possible "ancestral candidate" to the trilobite by evolutionists, not because the evidence is compelling, but because evolution needs ancestors. It is evolutionists, who with uncertainty, draw the dotted lines between the parvancorina and the trilobite and rely on thought experiments to fill in the details. It is within the bounds of science to be imaginative and to use thought experiments, but it is dishonest to inflate them to the status of evidence.
In my view, all of life is complex and it began very early in earth history. Even single celled life forms are extremely complex. A single cell is still more complex than any computer or machine yet devised by man. Whether we are talking about the first single celled creature, the Avalon explosion, or the Cambrian explosion, the theory of Common Descent falls short of explaining the sudden appearance of new body plans. So much of what evolutionists use as support is subjective and other explanations are as good or better.
Have you ever played the board game CLUE? To make an analogy, it is like all of the clues are saying that it was Ms Scarlet in the Kitchen with a knife, and evolutionists are insisting that it was Mr Mustard in the Library.
To Neil T;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am on a very short break so:
Neil said:
“In my view, all of life is complex and it began very early in earth history. Even single celled life forms are extremely complex. A single cell is still more complex than any computer or machine yet devised by man.”
Response: No argument. So what? Your point?
Neil said:
“So much of what evolutionists use as support is subjective and other explanations are as good or better.”
Response: WHAT other explanations? Do tell.
Neil said:
“…it is like all of the clues are saying that it was Ms Scarlet in the Kitchen with a knife, and evolutionists are insisting that it was Mr Mustard in the Library.”
Response: Here is your opportunity, Neil, to start naming what those “clues” are that modern evolutionists are ignoring. Then, please tell exactly what conclusion(s) you arrive at from those “clues.”
Later. Have to go.
yes i do lol, but that is not a worldview
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy worldview tells me this is true, but noahs story is not a worldview
i have a serious question for u now
how does, in the evolution worldview, morality, laws of logic, and uniformity of nature fit in?
i mean, if we are all chemical accidents, y should we care what one does to another? and y should we conform to 1 set of UNIVERSAL laws? since there is no God in the evolutionary worldview, well for most anyways, then that means man made his own rules and they will b diffrent from anothers, so y should their b punishment for any "crimes" commited since morality is a personal choice?
1 law of logic is the law of non-contradiction, if evolution is true, then how would we know that a contradiction will ALWAYS b false, we could only say they have only been false in our experience, and we have a limited 1 at that, and we dont know what will happen in the future
and uniformity of nature only makes since in a biblical worldview, God has said that he will uphold the universe with his power and do so in a consistent way
now u may say "we know uniformity works because it has in the past" well, we dont know what the future holds so u cant really use that
i could reply to that in this way "well, since i have never died in the past, then i wont die in the future" we both know that this is not possible
that was to u jpill69 lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution in action? "." goes extinct and "," fills the niche?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: In my opinion, that doesn’t speak too well of a Grand Supernatural Designer. It seems to me, if all species were specially designed, nothing would become extinct.
RESPONSE: Your statement is theological and not scientific. This is a common Darwinist argument against creation, but it is solely a subjective argument based on a negative theology. It seems that Charles Darwin was strongly motivated by the kind of statement you made. The tradition continues.
Why don't you use Windows 95? Was it designed? You assume that the Creator must follow your constraints and criteria for what a good design should be. That may be your view, but it is a religious view of what a Supernatural designer should have done and has nothing to do with science.
Evolutionists have a grand imagination when it comes to envisioning evolutionary just-so stories, but seem to be hung up on a narrow criteria of how a Supernatural Designer should have done it.
Engineers actually have a term they use called "Planned obsolescence" or "built-in obsolescence". There are many reasons that humans design things the way they do. Why should a creator be limited to YOUR CRITERIA?
If extinction is an argument against creation, then what do you do with the Comb Jellyfish and Nautilus that have survived unchanged since the Cambrian eon?
Evolutionists are biased in their view when they make subjective judgments about the fitness or inefficiency of design. A great pillar of emotion support arises for evolutionists when they say or think, "Evolution must be true, because a creator would not have done that!" Check it out, that kind of philosophy formed Charles Darwin's worldview as it did his disciples over the last 150 years.
Back to the most basic evidence for a Creator.
1. FACT: DNA forms the basis of all living things
2. FACT: DNA contains encoded information that controls the formation, maintenance, and reproduction of life.
3. FACT: It is always observed that encoded information originates from an intelligent author (creator).
SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE: DNA originated from an intelligent creator.
I don't understand Creationists' insistence of a distinctive "evolution worldview", as contrasted to any other natural science. I do recognize an ideal "scientific worldview", which is not the same as a "logical worldview", which I think is what you are referring to, the main difference being that reasoning can follow the rules of logic and be internally consistent and still be nonsense and unscientific, because its initial assumptions remain untested, familiarly called GIGO, and continues to be demonstrated in this forum. I do understand that Creationists feel their faith is threatened by evolution, mainly because they say so compulsively. Given their typically poor understanding of evolutionary theory, I assume at least part of their fears are based on that misunderstanding. As for the rest of it, all I can say is if their faith is threatened by facts, then they have placed their faith on a weak foundation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolutionary worldview" is more properly encompassed within and termed as "scientific naturalism". It's the view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.
Ironically, the theory of Common Descent relies on metaphysical assumptions and subjective arguments for support. Metaphysical assumptions are based heavily on a negative theology that is most often revealed as "I can't see how a Creator would do that" type of thinking. This negative theological edge to Darwinism is not just imagined by Creationists, but is evident throughout the writings of Darwin and other famous evolutionists throughout the last 150 years.
Scientific naturalism makes an ungrounded assumption that everything in the universe can be explained without God, while at the same time using "God wouldn't do that" arguments. As if their criteria of what a creator should have done is scientific. From the time of Darwin, those that spoke of Common Descent often express this "God wouldn't do that" theology in one form or another. I see it often on this discussion.
I do not consider myself to be ignorant of evolutionary theory nor complusive. Why do you follow the evolutionary mantra of attacking our intellect? Do you not understand that it is a sign of a weak argument? Go ahead a speak specifically to my arguments and try to tear them apart, but let go of the silly mantra of intellectual superiority.
If you do not want to follow through with the thought experiment, perhaps you would like to discuss specifically my previous post regarding DNA and how it requires a Creator. Go ahead and take your best shot.
I don't understand Creationists' insistence of a distinctive "evolution worldview", as contrasted to any other natural science. I do recognize an ideal "scientific worldview", which is not the same as a "logical worldview", which I think is what you are referring to, the main difference being that reasoning can follow the rules of logic and be internally consistent and still be nonsense and unscientific because its initial assumptions remain untested, familiarly called GIGO, and continues to be demonstrated in this forum. I do understand that Creationists feel their faith is threatened by evolution, mainly because they say so compulsively. Given their typically poor understanding of evolutionary theory, I assume at least part of their fears are based on that misunderstanding. As for the rest of it, all I can say is if their faith is threatened by facts, then they have placed their faith on a weak foundation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour last post looks like a bad science fiction movie where the alien robot begins to melt down when confronted with questions that do not compute with its program.
To all, I apologize for my previous double post. I try to avoid them. I am not always successful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, my comments were not directed to you. That you see yourself in them anyway says more about you than anything I could point out. But since you ask me directly, I will say this. To be gratuitously controversial and provocative, to conflate opinion and facts, to chronically ignore comments and questions directed to you, to be generally unresponsive to mutual dialog, that's one way to play the game. But then to whine about all those nasty people attacking innocent little you all the time for no good reason, that's just pathetic.
As for your concern of my weak argument, I will attend to the mote you see in my eye.
Regarding our little thought experiment, I expected a mutual effort. That you repeatedly refused to help define what you consider to be a useful change suggested to me a lack of commitment. I have the impression you are going to pull a Hovind and reject anything I come up with because it doesn't meet the standards you refused to define ahead of time.
Regarding your DNA evidence, I will address it in a separate post. In the meantime, I invite you once again to make a testable distinction between microevolution and macroevolution (x+n-1). Of course, I realize I am not the first on your list of people you haven't answered yet, but I just wanted you to know I knew I was on it.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. FACT: DNA forms the basis of all living things
2. FACT: DNA contains encoded information that controls the formation, maintenance, and reproduction of life.
3. FACT: It is always observed that encoded information originates from an intelligent author (creator).
SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE: DNA originated from an intelligent creator.
My reply:
I question your fact 1. There are RNA viruses with no DNA. There are prions which are simply proteins without no nucleic acids of any kind. You may choose to exclude these by definition as living things, but then by doing so you create by definition examples of non-living things that contain encoded information. Alternately, you may choose to include them by definition as living things, but then by doing so you have to redefine what it is that forms the basis of all living things. Decisions, decisions.
I question your fact 2. DNA is comparable to a recipe for a 7-course meal. The process is comparable to a cell that needs to make soup. DNA is only one element of a multi-step process. DNA can not and does not control the process any more than a recipe controls baking a pie.
I question your fact 3. You have identified only ONE example (DNA), and you can never be sure that you have identified ALL WAYS. There may be contrary ways you don't know about, because of innocent ignorance or less charitably because you haven't even bothered to look. That is the fatal flaw in relying on God to fill in the gaps of your knowledge. Whenever you accept "God did it" as a final solution, you stop thinking about the problem, and then somebody else comes around to do your thinking for you and knocks your faith right out from under you.
I question your inference. DNA is an element in your set of all encoded information that originates from an intelligent creator. Which is also your inference. You already included your inference in your fact. So you are arguing a tautological A=A. I expect better than that.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it is my background in information systems that continues to remind me that functional change just does not occur without the underlaying program or code being just right. Those without such training do not tend to see the big picture and do not care about the details. Darwin and early evolutionists could not see the details to even begin to comprehend them. Today we can and evolutionists should not be upset when skeptics demand the biochemical details of just how new organs come into existence.
Microevolution are small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change below the species level
These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, artificial selection, gene flow and genetic drift.
Evolutionists see macroevolution as the compound effects of microevolution. An organ is not simply a couple of parts cobbled together, but rather a system of many interdependent and precisely organized parts that communicates with the other systems of the body.
As for the thought experiment I thought I did answer your question on useful change, but perhaps you missed it so here it is again: consider a useful change as really anything that has some practical value or adds a new or better functionality.
Neal said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour last post looks like a bad science fiction movie where the alien robot begins to melt down when confronted with questions that do not compute with its program.
My reply:
I think it's a great science fiction movie :)
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it is my background in information systems ...
My reply:
I think it's more likely your inability to distinguish between artificial systems and real life. This isn't The Matrix.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...evolutionists should not be upset when skeptics demand the biochemical details of just how new organs come into existence.
My reply:
As this is the first time anybody has made any request in this forum for biochemical details of new organs, this is just a stupid way to hide your responsibility for all the BS you pull in here.
I hate these late night, multi-post replies. They are so time consuming – but you leave little choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil said:
“RESPONSE: Your statement is theological and not scientific. This is a common Darwinist argument against creation, but it is solely a subjective argument based on a negative theology. It seems that Charles Darwin was strongly motivated by the kind of statement you made. The tradition continues.”
Response: [to first sentence] Um …no kidding. Apparently, you didn’t understand the sarcasm. [to second sentence] What? Did you just make that up (negative theology)? [to third and fourth sentences] Like the vast majority of scientists before and during Darwin’s life, and so many after, Darwin was a creationist in the broadest sense. So, please provide some examples of the “tradition.”
Neil said:
“Why don't you use Windows 95? Was it designed? You assume that the Creator must follow your constraints and criteria for what a good design should be. That may be your view, but it is a religious view of what a Supernatural designer should have done and has nothing to do with science.”
How do you know I don’t use Windows 95? A lot of people still Windows 95. Don’t compare man-made constructs to how nature operates. I was assuming nothing. Again, I was being sarcastic because you were being so unscientific (like you are now). Let’s have an understanding. I am an agnostic. I do not take a stance about God (creator, supernatural designer, whatever) one way or the other. Maybe there is …maybe there isn’t. To me, either position is equally valid. I have seen no evidence to validate either claim. I honestly do-not-know. Furthermore, I honestly don’t care. If there is, fine. If there isn’t, fine. Either is equally ok. I have no “criteria.” What I do care about, however, is truth - whatever that truth is. I despise a lie (or a liar). The burden of proof is on the claimant. You, Neil, are a claimant – so, the burden of evidence is on you. So far, you have provided none.
Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Evolutionists have a grand imagination when it comes to envisioning evolutionary just-so stories, but seem to be hung up on a narrow criteria of how a Supernatural Designer should have done it.”
And that, Neil, is a lie. Evolutionary biologists, like all other credible scientists, do not allow the supernatural, regardless of their religious beliefs, to enter into their science – so there is no “criteria of how a Supernatural Designer should have done it” to begin with. There is a part of the scientific methodology that you just don’t seem to grasp – and that is, the supernatural is not allowed!
Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Engineers actually have a term they use called "Planned obsolescence" or "built-in obsolescence". There are many reasons that humans design things the way they do. Why should a creator be limited to YOUR CRITERIA?”
Well, I have already addressed the “creator” and “YOUR CRITERIA” crap. Anyway, I think this goes back to something I inquired about, but you never elaborated on. Something about “goal driven encoding” or some such nonsense. I guess that is currently in abeyance. Engineers are rarely scientists (although, some of them would like to think they are). My dad is an electrical engineer – he has worked all his life in maintenance, inspection, and repair of high voltage lines for a number of power companies. He’ll tell you, he’s not a scientist. “Build-in obsolescence” is very goal driven – as in let’s make a PROFIT. Companies like to make profits. Ever wonder why oil, mining, biotech, or pharmaceutical companies never recruit creationists? There is no profit in it – if there was, the Disco Tute would be sucked dry. No, goal driven (profit) oriented companies recruit real scientists – to help them make money! However, this has nothing at all to do with evolution, so I don’t understand why you bring it up.
Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Jellyfish and Nautilus that have survived unchanged since the Cambrian eon? If extinction is an argument against creation, then what do you do with the Comb”
It wasn’t. But, even if it was, I don’t see your point. Nautilus is the common name of a family of marine animals, Nautilidae. They are all that remain of an entire subclass, Nautiliodea – all the other orders of Nautiliodea are permanently preying about in “Nautilus Heaven;” i.e., they are extinct. Yes, yes, they are called “living fossils.” So what? I wouldn’t read too much into that. Nautilidea have certainly had some evolutionary change in 500 million years. The only reason why the Nautilus has remained relatively unchanged since the Middle Cambrian is because …they haven’t had to. The Nautilus fills a nice little niche in the marine environment and has made what little change has been necessary to adapt and survive. There are countless bacteria that have remained “unchanged” for two billion years or more – for the same reason. There is no ultimate goal to achieve other than to survive.
As to “what do you do with the Comb,” the first thing that comes to mind would be my hair (ha, ha. Just a little joke). I am assuming you are referring to Comb jellies. Once again, you over generalize. Comb jellies refer to an entire phylum of marine animals, Ctenophora. I’m not sure what you are talking about here. There are a number of body types in this phylum, there have been many extinctions, and the fossils from the Cambrian and Devonian periods are very different from any modern living species. Jellyfish are actually members of a separate phylum, Cnidaria. Again, there are several different morphologies and there have been many extinctions. That jellyfish have evolved little over time is because, like the Nautilus, they have been successful as is.
Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Evolutionists are biased in their view when they make subjective judgments about the fitness or inefficiency of design. A great pillar of emotion support arises for evolutionists when they say or think, "Evolution must be true, because a creator would not have done that!" Check it out, that kind of philosophy formed Charles Darwin's worldview as it did his disciples over the last 150 years.”
Nice out of context use of the word “designed.” And there is no such thing as an “evolutionist.” Evolution is not a religion; it is a concept of biology. Anyway, it’s just another lie you have made up to comfort yourself; evolutionary biologists make no such judgments. Frankly, the fitness or inefficiency of a species (and I have to “steal” this from a post someone else made – but, I don’t think he’ll mind) comes down to one fairly simple thing – who’s most likely to get laid! So, you check it out and provide some examples of this “philosophy” that you make up.
Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Back to the most basic evidence for a Creator.
1. FACT: DNA forms the basis of all living things
2. FACT: DNA contains encoded information that controls the formation, maintenance, and reproduction of life.
3. FACT: It is always observed that encoded information originates from an intelligent author (creator).
SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE: DNA originated from an intelligent creator.”
1. If you don’t consider viruses (and possibly prions) as “living”
2. A misconception of how DNA handles information
3. LIE, and it looks a lot like something right out of the mouth of ID\creationist Steve Meyer (or a number of other IDiot proponents) and his total misunderstanding of information theory. It’s an old argument, it’s been hashed more times than grandma’s corn beef and potatoes, and as I have stated before – it’s wrong. Research has shown that variation and selection can increase information in the genome. The biochemistry of DNA shows that it probably was not the original blueprint of life. RNA is much more simple then DNA and chemistry is not a random process. It is not that difficult to produce self-replicating molecules in the laboratory. Once again, the information on this is widely available (it’s not a secret) and you can do the work of searching it out yourself. Of course, you won’t because you are already in denial and any information not to your liking will be summarily dismissed.
SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE: DNA originated from natural chemistry (no need for the dabbling fingers of an unknown supernatural designer). That falls within the parameters of scientific methodology.
Scientists DO see the dots and connect them. Those dots are evidence. All you see is a big blob; unknown, indefinable, not testable, and capable of anything you want to attribute to it. If there is no scientific explanation (yet), the only possible alternative is …blob. That’s your concept of science.
To jpill69:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said.
To jpill69:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said, again.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: " Ever wonder why oil, mining, biotech, or pharmaceutical companies never recruit creationists? "
RESPONSE: I am a creationist and I worked for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Your statement is ridiculous as there are many people who are creationist who are employed in these companies.
YOU SAID: And there is no such thing as an “evolutionist.”
RESPONSE: Really?
Merriam-Webster. EVOLUTIONIST: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution.
As a college student you should really consider making use of the dictionary.
I will stop here in correcting your errors, because I am very interested in your response to by scientific inference, and will respond in the next post.
They didn't recruit you (or anyone else) for your "creation science." I have no disagreement with Webster's definition - but, in the context that you always use the word (evolutionist) it's clear to everyone what your implication is - to you it's a religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will be gone several days at a horse show. Maybe, in the time I am gone, you will have some actual evidence to post (for once).
Later
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMicroevolution are small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change
below the species level
These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, artificial selection, gene flow and genetic
drift.
My reply:
Ok, I can accept describing microevolution as changing allele frequencies. If I restrict genetic change to just that, there are limits to the kinds of changes I can expect in a population, which are reversible over generations. except in the case where specific genes are eliminated altogether. So, in this case, your objections to macroevolution make sense.
It seems to me you would put mutations in a different class, because that is changing the actual genetic information itself. Mutations are typically irreversible and cumulative, and so allow arbitrarily large changes by increments. Are you sure you want to include mutations as a part of microevolution?
Neal wrote:
Evolutionists see macroevolution as the compound effects of microevolution. An organ is not simply a couple of parts cobbled together, but rather a system of many interdependent and precisely organized parts that communicates with the other systems of the body.
My reply:
You seem to think that macroevolution is about creating whole new organs from scratch. It is not. Macroevolution is about MODIFYING existing organs AND processes to meet the demands of changing environmental conditions AND behavior. If you are really from Information Systems, you should know all about modular design and applying existing components to meet new requirements and satisfy novel demands. Everything in Information Systems is treated as a black box; specify input, output, properties and process, and don't worry about what goes on inside. What you describe sounds to me like Assembly Language. Tell me, Neal, when was the last time you coded a database query in Assembly?
Neal wrote,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the thought experiment I thought I did answer your question on useful change, but perhaps you missed it so here it is again: consider a useful change as really anything that has some practical value or adds a new or better functionality.
My reply:
Yes, I saw your previous reply. Reposting the same answer doesn't help. Practical value for who? As defined by who? Better for what? Who decides? As I said, I would like to have an OBJECTIVE definition, meaning something I can use on my own with a likely chance you will accept it. I also pointed out that evolution accepts neutral changes, so you should consider that as well.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first programming language I coded was IBM Assembler. If you have written computer code then perhaps we may have a basis for discussing the similarities between computer code and DNA. There are some interesting similarities.
YOU SAID: If you are really from Information Systems, you should know all about modular DESIGN (emphasis mine) and applying existing components to meet new requirements and satisfy novel demands.
RESPONSE: Yes, I have used modules when I coded, but just as you say, the modules were DESIGNED. DESIGNED!
Even with all of the high level programming languages available, intelligent designers are still needed in order to satisfy the demands of IS customers. If you have programmed then you know that brand new system software usually requires more than just putting pre-existing modules together and tweaking them.
To an application programmer the Server is often a black box, but not to the Computer Engineers, hardware techs, and operations support. These people do know what is in the "black box" and it is complex and precisely designed and manufactured.
If you have programmed, then you know that one bug can bring a whole system down or cause a program to fail. There is absolutely no free lunch, but Murphy's Law is with you all the time.
Perhaps your black box view of computer servers is carrying over into biology and leading you to an oversimplified view of what it really takes to get a functioning system up and running and maintaining it.
Since a single celled animal is more complex than a computer server, perhaps a computer server would be a good thought experiment for you to build incrementally. You can use hardware and system software modules, but remember that these modules don't just fall from the sky, they too have to be incrementally manufactured at least once before you can use them. As you build, remember that each step of your assembly (hardware and software) must be functional in someway. By the way, what comes first, the hardware or the software?
May I suggest another approach. Ask the creationists, on what Bibical grounds does he object to the theory of evolution. Chances are he will not be able to provide anything and that, in and of itself ,weakens his arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, some of the more astute creationist will provide 2 reasons: 1) God created the universe. It didn't jut happen by chance and 2) the Bible says each after its own kind (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution). Be sure to get a clarification on the second point. The answer will be probably be that they believe in changes within species, not across.
Then you can respond "Well then you don't believe that God is all powerful?" And the creationist will ask why do you say that? The answer is that you are saying that randomness is outside of God's control (by the way, there are numerous scriptures that clearly state that randomness is within God's control). The second reas0n is that since God delegated to man the authority to name the species, then God, according to their reasoning, can only make changes to living organization within the scope of the definitions that we give to a species. Therefore, God is not sovereign, man is. Also, a logical conclusion is that man is God.
The Theory of Evolution does not make any such blasphemous claim.
JHryals,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you kidding?
I object to the theory of evolution on both scientific and Biblical grounds because it proposes that all life is related by COMMON DESCENT through unguided natural processes rather than creation by God. The Bible makes it clear that God created the world and life. Darwinists make it clear that evolutionary processes are completely unguided and that these processes alone are totally responsible for all life.
The evidence for COMMON DESCENT is totally subjective in content and lives only in the imagination of what evolutionists think could of happened.
Regarding species. First, the Bible does not use the word species. Second, just because God allowed Adam to name the animals and gave him some authority, does not mean that God is not sovereign.
YOU SAID: "since God delegated to man the authority to name the species, then God, according to their reasoning, can only make changes to living organization within the scope of the definitions that we give to a species"
RESPONSE: Scientists have not even clearly defined what a species is. More importantly God can do what he wants to do.
I maybe able to name a project within the company I work for, but that does not mean my bosses can't have ultimate control over the project, does it? Your argument is flawed.
JHryals wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I suggest another approach. Ask the creationists, on what Bibical grounds does he object to the theory of evolution.
My reply:
My impression is that Creationists interpret the Bible more literally or superficially than is required, and evolution is only the most recent whipping boy in their general opposition to godless Science.
Neal, it seems to me that by objecting to other people making metaphysical arguments, you must also constrain yourself as well. Conversely, by making metaphysical arguments yourself, you must also allow others to do as you do. One way or the other, but not both. Which way are you going to play?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might think you object to evolution on scientific and biblical grounds, but you have yet to post in this forum a single coherent argument either way. You say God can do what he wants to do. Do you recognize no constraints to God's hand? If so, you presume a Universe run by magic. Such a Universe would look very different than the one we see. If Science has proved anything it is that the Universe is overwhelmingly rational. If in fact God created this rational Universe, it exists only because He restrains Himself from breaking His own rules. If in fact God gave us life and a mind and free will, you dishonor His gifts every time you accept your ignorance and settle for "God did it" as a final answer.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: My impression is that Creationists interpret the Bible more literally or superficially than is required, and evolution is only the most recent whipping boy in their general opposition to godless Science.
RESPONSE: "General opposition" to godless science? You are exaggerating the Creationist arguments. Most fields of science and even the majority of biologists do nothing with the theory of common descent in the everyday world. There is no opposition from Creationists to Science in general except when Evolutionists overstep the evidence and make the unsupported claim of univeral common descent of all life.
Had Darwin simply followed the evidence and stopped with Natural Selection, no one would have argued with him. But he didn't. He went beyond the evidence and imagined that the theory of Common Descent accounted for all living creatures.
Do you understand that the theory of Evolution today means that there was NO CREATOR? Everything is accounted for by nature and everything is unguided?
Furthermore, do you understand that the Bible speaks of God again, and again and again as being the CREATOR? On what basis of any kind of interpretation, can you understand that this is compatible with unguided evolutionary theory?
Some have tried to propose theistic evolution, but this is a contradiction in terms, when you understand that evolution is unguided. Something can not be both guided and unguided.
When God does restrain himself, it is because He chooses to do so. Because God is rational, then his creation is based on reason.
The most straightforward explanation for the origin of complex information encoded within DNA is that it required an author or creator.
DNA has never been observed to form via unguided natural processes.
So is it the evolutionist or the creationist who requires more blind faith?
1. The creationist sees complex information encoded in DNA and connects this with the real world where encoded information always has an intelligent source.
Or, the evolutionist who sees complex information encoded in DNA and has never observed DNA created by natural processes.
Neal, you are being stupid again. At your insistence, both Keelyn and I caught your DNA logic trick. But instead of admitting your error, you simply ignore our replies and continue to post as if you don't know you are wrong. You can NOT use DNA as an example for guided design until you first PROVE it is an example of guided design, and you haven't even tried to do that yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of mindlessly regurgitating the same stupid tripe over and over, try something different. You say you have this huge problem with Common Descent. Fine. Click on this website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
It is an essay titled "29+ Evidences for Common Descent". Read it. Understand it. Then pick any one of the 29+ evidences and tell me what you agree and disagree with and why.
Also, on the issue of metaphysical arguments, I expect a response from you on your attempts to be the only one around here who can say what God can or can't do. Also, I am still waiting on an affirmative response to (x+n-1).
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations, you have won the debate with one of the oldest slight of hand tricks in the book. If you cannot defeat someone's argument, then restate the proposition so that you can logically defeat the argument. You have done a masterful job of doing that. Therefore you have defeated me, but you have not defeated the argument or strengthened your case that either Evolution is fatally flawed or that Creationism is only reasonable alternative for science.
By the way, I am a Christian myself and I believe that "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth". I just happen to disagree with you that Evolution contradicts the Bible. Frequently, people think that because I do not believe that the Theory of Natural Selection conflicts with the Bible, that I believe in Evolution rather than the Bible. Your statements imply that you believe that. To me it is not an either/or choice. At present Natural Selection is the best theory available to explain how we get the variety of life forms on this planet. Is it flawless? No. But until it is either it is disproven or a better theory is developed, it is the prevailing theory.
The Bible tells us who created all things. Science trys to describe how. Natural selection does not exclude God. God is almighty. He wills what the outcome of tossing the dice will be. If he wanted to use random variation in bringing things into being as He pleases, He can do that. After all, He is God.
One principle the Bible teaches is humility. You state without requesting any clarification that my argument is flawed. That, in and of itself, shows a bit of arrogance. But the derisive beginning of your response ("Are you kidding?") leaves no doubt. Your further reply using the example that of your boss giving you the authority to rename a project clearly shows to me that you did not understand my argument. Admittedly I may not have done a good job of stating the argument. But my argument required considering 2 premises simultaneously rather than not just one. Combining the 2 premises that God delegated to man the authority to name the plants and animals, and according to Creationism, organizisms can only change within species leads to the conclusion that God has delegated to man His sovereignty. Also what is import to the argument is not how a species is defined, but who does the defining. Defining a species creates parameters. I do not believe that God is limited to man's parameters.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations, you have won the debate with one of the oldest slight of hand tricks in the book. If you cannot defeat someone's argument, then restate the proposition so that you can logically defeat the argument. You have done a masterful job of doing that. Therefore you have defeated me, but you have not defeated the argument or strengthened your case that either Evolution is fatally flawed or that Creationism is only reasonable alternative for science.
By the way, I am a Christian myself and I believe that "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth". I just happen to disagree with you that Evolution contradicts the Bible. Frequently, people think that because I do not believe that the Theory of Natural Selection conflicts with the Bible, that I believe in Evolution rather than the Bible. Your statements imply that you believe that. To me it is not an either/or choice. At present Natural Selection is the best theory available to explain how we get the variety of life forms on this planet. Is it flawless? No. But until it is either it is disproven or a better theory is developed, it is the prevailing theory.
The Bible tells us who created all things. Science trys to describe how. Natural selection does not exclude God. God is almighty. He wills what the outcome of tossing the dice will be. If he wanted to use random variation in bringing things into being as He pleases, He can do that. After all, He is God.
One principle the Bible teaches is humility. You state without requesting any clarification that my argument is flawed. That, in and of itself, shows a bit of arrogance. But the derisive beginning of your response ("Are you kidding?") leaves no doubt. Your further reply using the example that of your boss giving you the authority to rename a project clearly shows to me that you did not understand my argument. Admittedly I may not have done a good job of stating the argument. But my argument required considering 2 premises simultaneously rather than not just one. Combining the 2 premises that God delegated to man the authority to name the plants and animals, and according to Creationism, organizisms can only change within species leads to the conclusion that God has delegated to man His sovereignty. Also what is import to the argument is not how a species is defined, but who does the defining. Defining a species creates parameters. I do not believe that God is limited to man's parameters.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations, you have won the debate with one of the oldest slight of hand tricks in the book. If you cannot defeat someone's argument, then restate the proposition so that you can logically defeat the argument. You have done a masterful job of doing that. Therefore you have defeated me, but you have not defeated the argument or strengthened your case that either Evolution is fatally flawed or that Creationism is only reasonable alternative for science.
By the way, I am a Christian myself and I believe that "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth". I just happen to disagree with you that Evolution contradicts the Bible. Frequently, people think that because I do not believe that the Theory of Natural Selection conflicts with the Bible, that I believe in Evolution rather than the Bible. Your statements imply that you believe that. To me it is not an either/or choice. At present Natural Selection is the best theory available to explain how we get the variety of life forms on this planet. Is it flawless? No. But until it is either it is disproven or a better theory is developed, it is the prevailing theory.
The Bible tells us who created all things. Science trys to describe how. Natural selection does not exclude God. God is almighty. He wills what the outcome of tossing the dice will be. If he wanted to use random variation in bringing things into being as He pleases, He can do that. After all, He is God.
One principle the Bible teaches is humility. You state without requesting any clarification that my argument is flawed. That, in and of itself, shows a bit of arrogance. But the derisive beginning of your response ("Are you kidding?") leaves no doubt. Your further reply using the example that of your boss giving you the authority to rename a project clearly shows to me that you did not understand my argument. Admittedly I may not have done a good job of stating the argument. But my argument required considering 2 premises simultaneously rather than not just one. Combining the 2 premises that God delegated to man the authority to name the plants and animals, and according to Creationism, organizisms can only change within species leads to the conclusion that God has delegated to man His sovereignty. Also what is import to the argument is not how a species is defined, but who does the defining. Defining a species creates parameters. I do not believe that God is limited to man's parameters.
Sorry for the multiple posts (of the same reply). My PC was giving me trouble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not God starting the "big bang," resting after all that, then
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisobserving evolution taking place? Everybody's happy except the
Bible literalists.
Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“I object to the theory of evolution on both scientific and Biblical grounds because it proposes that all life is related by COMMON DESCENT through unguided natural processes rather than creation by God. The Bible makes it clear that God created the world and life. Darwinists make it clear that evolutionary processes are completely unguided and that these processes alone are totally responsible for all life.”
Boo hoo! Neil objects! On what grounds? “Because Bible says blab, blab, blab …” So what? We are discussing science not theology. Does Neil have any tangible, testable evidence that “God created the world and life” as stated in his Bible? I’ll save you, and him, the trouble of searching – the answer is no. However, since there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support common descent, objection overruled.
Of course, Neil will insist that the evidence doesn’t exit. Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“The evidence for COMMON DESCENT is totally subjective in content and lives only in the imagination of what evolutionists think could of happened.”
Notice that Neil offers up no evidence to support that statement. Neil has demonstrated again how he makes things up to comfort himself against an imaginary threat to his precious religious beliefs. Neil has no problem dismissing huge volumes of actual evidence with a simple wave of the hand. As I have said before, scientists can see the dots and connect them – Neil sees only a big blob. Definition of the blob? No definition – it’s unknown, it’s not scientifically testable, and it can do anything Neil decides it can do.
The fossil record – it doesn’t mean a thing. Despite the fact that you can see speciation virtually materialize before your eyes (connect the dots), it’s just the subjective imagination of some dumb paleontologist(s). Never mind the fact that common descent (in the absence of the blob) is the best explanation of biogeography. Granted, the fossil record is scarce. Granted, the fossil record has gaps, particularly transitional fossils– transitional fossils are scarce. No one is disputing that. In fact, it is this scarcity of fossils that Neil uses as an argument when he quoted Gould in an earlier post. Gould (and Eldredge) proposed the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium to explain this scarcity (you can investigate it separately). Neil is very careful (or perhaps very sloppy?), however, not to mention that Gould and Eldredge were not disputing common descent, they were just presenting a possible explanation to account for the scarcity of transitional fossils. Nevertheless, considering how rare the process of fossilization is, the fossil record is still very rich. But, that doesn’t matter to Neil - fossil record …dismissed.
Neil is just as quick to dismiss the evidence from comparative biochemistry (DNA sequencing in particular), geographical distribution, comparative anatomy. I won’t go into the specifics of any of those areas in the interest of time and space, but all are free to investigate and judge for yourselves. Neil dismisses anything that may be perceived as conflicting with blob. The reason why Neil has to dismiss all the evidence is because it comes down to that speciation thing. Divergence, common descent, and speciation all go hand in hand. That’s why most creationists have to construct a magic barrier (that doesn’t actually exist) between micro and macroevolution. No natural process can possibly breech this barrier – only the magical intervention of blob can do that. The very thought of having something genetically in common with a housefly is more input than Neil’s blob mentality can process. Of course, a lot of evidence exists for speciation – jpill69 provided a link to 29+ evidences – and speciation has been observed, but Neil will just that off. Notice, however, that Neil never provides any credible evidence to support his hand waving. What Neil is saying is – “I don’t need no stinkin evidence. I have blob!” And he will insist, demand, that it’s science, all science, and nothing but science. Then, he’ll offer up some biblical reasoning like this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil said: “Scientists have not even clearly defined what a species is. More importantly God can do what he wants to do.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd also: “Regarding species. First, the Bible does not use the word species. Second, just because God allowed Adam to name the animals and gave him some authority, does not mean that God is not sovereign.”
Of course, if Neil understood anything about taxonomy and cladistics he would know why “species” is loosely defined. But, he doesn’t. Ironically, he refers to the fact that the Bible does not use the word species. Right. It uses the word “kind” which has no definition at all! Whenever creationists have been pressed to give criteria for “biblical kind,” they have come up empty handed. The best they can do is sort of like this; if it kind of looks like a dog, and kind of barks like a dog, and kind of growls like a dog, that is a “dog kind” (about 47 species). And if it kind of looks like a cat, and kind of meows or roars like a cat, and kind of purrs like a cat, that’s a “cat kind” (about 34 species). Then there is the elephant kind, the horse kind, the kangaroo kind, the bear kind, a whole plethora of kinds. Those would all come under the heading of the “animal family.” Then, under the “bug family” you have the ant kind (8000+ species), the bee kind (20,000+ species), the spider kind (40,000+ species), and on and on. But that’s ok, because Neil is now going to give a precise definition of “biblical kind.” The [un]Discovery Institute, Center for Creation [non]Research, Creation [pseudo]Science Institute will all be elated (and jealous). They have never been able to accomplish that task.
Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“"General opposition" to godless science? You are exaggerating the Creationist arguments. Most fields of science and even the majority of biologists do nothing with the theory of common descent in the everyday world. There is no opposition from Creationists to Science in general except when Evolutionists overstep the evidence and make the unsupported claim of univeral common descent of all life.”
Obviously, Neil is unaware of the fundamentals involved in viral and bacterial resistance research (he can investigate on his own time). Odd for someone who works in the pharmaceutical industry. He says he is involved in information systems, but … “Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.” (Caddyshack 1980) Anyway, notice again how he never offers up any evidence or examples to substantiate his claim that “…Evolutionists [sic] overstep the evidence and make the unsupported claim of univeral [sic] common descent of all life.”
Neil said:
“Had Darwin simply followed the evidence and stopped with Natural Selection, no one would have argued with him. But he didn't. He went beyond the evidence and imagined that the theory of Common Descent accounted for all living creatures.”
Imagine that. Looks like he was correct.
Neil said:
“Do you understand that the theory of Evolution today means that there was NO CREATOR? Everything is accounted for by nature and everything is unguided?”
So what?
Neil said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Furthermore, do you understand that the Bible speaks of God again, and again and again as being the CREATOR? On what basis of any kind of interpretation, can you understand that this is compatible with unguided evolutionary theory?”
Again, so what? Evolutionary theory does not have to be compatible with Neil’s bible. We are discussing science, not theology.
Neil preached:
“When God does restrain himself, it is because He chooses to do so. Because God is rational, then his creation is based on reason.”
How does he know that? God could just as easily choose to be unreasonable, irrational, and unrestrained. Why does Neil think he can be the only one to decide what God can choose or not choose?
Neil said:
“The most straightforward explanation for the origin of complex information encoded within DNA is that it required an author or creator.”
And Neil is still wrong. And no amount of Dembski’s minced up mish mash of mangled mathematics is going to resurrect flawed “complex specified information” fallacies and make them right. But, like the good creationist, he’ll kept on repeating it. See:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/de-novo-origina.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/01/information-in.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/comments-on-dem.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/how-does-evolut.html
And from there, you can find all kinds of other rebuttals to CSI.
Neil said:
“DNA has never been observed to form via unguided natural processes.”
That does not mean, in any way, that it can’t.
Neil said:
“So is it the evolutionist or the creationist who requires more blind faith?”
Neil doesn’t seem to understand he is posting on a science site.
With that, I will close my participation in this …discussion.
Thank you.
However, when I see Neil, or someone like him, elected to a local or state board of education, I will be working tirelessly to have him removed when he inevitably tries to introduce creationism (or ID) into the science curriculum, because kids need and deserve the best science education we can provide.
Neelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith that, I will close my participation in this &discussion.
My reply:
I understand, but I will miss your contributions.
kfcs wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not God starting the "big bang," resting after all that, then observing evolution taking place? Everybody's happy except the Bible literalists.
My reply:
I understand the appeal, but I personally would be uncomfortable with yet another "God of the Gaps" argument, and I know lots of people unhappy with no place for a personal God. Hence the impasse illustrated here.
JHryals wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, I am a Christian myself and I believe that "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth". I just happen to disagree with you that Evolution contradicts the Bible.
My reply:
As do I. Once I realized there could be more to the Bible than the shallow, simpleminded, literal interpretion allowed, I didn't have to choose between it and the material physical evidence of how God works.
Creationists believe they have the answer to everything by virtue of archaic imagination codified in ancient texts written by largely unknown or unidentifiable authors, none of whom even knew the earth was round or that the New World existed yet all of whom purported to be all knowing with respect to the earth's origins. Evolutionists went the other way around. They observed the fossil record, the biogeographic evidence before them, and formulated hypotheses based on these observations, continuously with the humility of adapting to new improved versions of the hypotheses as new evidence shed additional light. The creationist was brainwashed; the evolutionist has to be convinced before succumbing to adopt the theory. If there is a God who created all things, and belief in this God is a prerequisite to going to heaven, then why did God create so many of us who choose not to believe in him because we are limited to the senses purportedly created, only to destroy what the god purportedly created. In other words, if you don't like the product of a creation, do you blame the product or the creator? Does god give a product defect warranty for the brains of all of us who cannot honestly adopt blind faith of any subject matter or being absent some concrete evidence? I can have blind faith that UFO's exist and that life exists outside our solar system, purely based on the number of planets that exist, but I cannot in good conscience fault someone for refusing to adopt this belief unless and until concrete evidence is actually presented in support of my hypothesis. A dinosaur bone is a dinosaur bone. The authors of various ancient texts did not have access to the technology to dig these up and did not know they existed, so there is a huge gap in the "history" of life on earth as told flippantly in biblical texts. Why would you make a dinosaur and then make it go extinct? Why would you make anything only to destroy it? And why would you create a fallen angel, the devil, and allow him to exist. If the devil was god's making, then it was his screw up and he isn't so perfect after all. He made every ax murderer and every child molester on the planet, if you take that theory to its conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismbesq,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it about evolutionists that cause them to attack the intellect of those that disagree with them? This is getting so predictable, it is laughable.
Some of the greatest people of science have believed in a creator... Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur...
also, some of the greatest discoverers believed in a creator...
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS (who believed in a creator) said in a prayer taken from a letter to the sovereigns of Spain, dated October of 1492, we read: "O Lord, Almighty and everlasting God, by thy holy Word Thou hast created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea. . . ." And later, "(May you) . . . be well received before the eternal Creator, to whom I pray. . . ." (Las Casas' abstract of Columbus' Journal of the First Voyage.
Columbus, in his own words, was inspired by the book of Isaiah to sail the world.
All the support given for Common Descent is not hard science but subject opinion. The fossil record reveals new phyla without direct ancestry. The Avalon and Cambrian fossil records are clear examples of this. The direct ancestor to homo sapien has not been found. Origin of life research has not shown how DNA can be formed through unguided chemical evolution.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, let's discuss DNA. I do not avoid comments, its just that there are many to reply to.
Before I do, though, I really am interested in how one can believe in a creator and Evolution (as in Common Descent) as it is defined in textbooks. What role do you feel God had in creation? Do you think that he is active in your life?
Now back to DNA. No man was around to see the first single cell animal form. Evolutionists do not know how it happened and they have never seen it happen in nature in order to understand the process. Biologists can study animals to see how the function, but no one has ever seen DNA form through chemical evolution.
Knowing how something functions is a different subject than knowing how something was made. I can understand how a car works without understanding the manufacturing process.
If something looks designed (which DNA does), then why not entertain the idea that it was designed? There are complex biomachines, such as the bacterial flagellum that are made up of components that stand as direct analogs to the parts of a man-made motor, including a rotor, a stator, drive shaft, bushing, univeral joint and propeller. A flow of positively charged hydrogen ions flows through the membrane to rotate the motor. The motor is more efficient than any man-made motor.
Evolutionists have attempted to show how this motor evolved, but again it was very heavy on thought experiments and little detail on how it actually would have evolved. But alas, they are content with their imagination.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say that I am wrong about DNA being designed, but you don't say exactly why I am wrong. Evolutionists do not have an explanation for how DNA came to look like it was designed.
You attack the intellect of Dembski, but provide nothing more than some links.
By the way, new research on the thumb of the Panda has been shown it to be an effective design.
Of course I know Gould is an evolutionist. That's why I quoted him. You would not believe a creationist who suggested the lack of transistional fossils. Goulds punctuated equilibrium theory makes it clear that the fossil record is not what Darwin predicted. Perhaps one should think of another alternative... that the intermediates never existed.
You bring up viral bacterial resistence. I posted on this in detail previously. Interestingly, that is the extent of evolution. You are arguing against a strawman again. This is small scale change. Surely if all of life hinges on this concept of COMMON DESCENT, you could have given better support than simply bringing up bacterial resistance. That's the part of evolution that NO ONE argues about.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, remember that kids should be told the weaknesses of a theory, and that good science challenges its theories. There will always be those that can see through hype and look at bacterial resistance and wonder why anyone would make the leap of faith into full blown common descent theory from that.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it about evolutionists that cause them to attack the intellect of those that disagree with them? This is getting so predictable, it is laughable.
My reply:
Can't attack something you haven't shown. On the other hand, you have shown "pity poor me" , "lie until it hurts" , "illogical fantasies", "ignore the facts", "nobody but me knows anything", and of course the always popular "when anybody points out the above, just accuse them of being mean, corrupt, godless evolutionists and/or child molesters. God will forgive me". All very funny to you, I suppose, but it definitely discourages dialog, which I now realize is your intention.
Let me know if you ever finish your homework assignment on Common Descent. After that, you can look up self-organizing systems.
Have a nice day.
mbesq wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists went the other way around. They observed the fossil record, the biogeographic evidence before them, and formulated hypotheses based on these observations, continuously with the humility of adapting to new improved versions of the hypotheses as new evidence shed additional light.
my reply:
I agree. It takes hard work and dedication to find real answers, which might explain why Creationists don't bother; it's so much easier to just mindlessly spew "God did it".
I noticed a number of your questions are of a spiritual nature. You might be interested in reading this essay:
http://www.hpcisp.com/~kls/Debate.html
It's written by a believer who also recognizes the damage done to the Body of Christ when people make arguments that reject the material evidence of God's creation.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, remember that kids should be told the weaknesses of a theory...
My reply:
Practice what you preach.
what i dont understand is if evolution is pure fact, y is all of the scientific evidence not put into textbooks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisu never see any scientific evidence that goes against evolution when there is plenty of it
that is called deception by omission
y not let the kids see all of the evidence (what supports evolution and what goes against it) and let them decide for themselves? redshift is a perfect example
everything we see in the universe is redshift, hence, supporting the big bang theory, but the big bang predicts a homogeneous universe meaning that no matter where u r in the universe, it will all look the same, so we should see little marks all up and down the red side of the spectrum, but what we actually observe is distinct quanta, we look out 1 million light yrs and see galaxies, but there r no galaxies in between our galaxy and the ones that r 1 million light yrs out, then we look out another million light yrs and there r more galaxies, but none between them, and the hubble space telescope has confirmed this to how ever far it can see, so the observable evidence suggests that we r somewhere within 1 million light yrs of the center of the universe, but u will never see that in a science text book
Demonhunter17 wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat i dont understand is if evolution is pure fact, y is all of the scientific evidence not put into textbooks
u never see any scientific evidence that goes against evolution when there is plenty of it
that is called deception by omission
My reply:
That you turn a blind eye to all that is available just for the asking is not deception, but simply the arrogance of your ignorance.
Demonhunter17 wrote:
...so the observable evidence suggests that we r somewhere within 1 million light yrs of the center of the universe, but u will never see that in a science text book
My reply:
You didn't figure all this out by yourself. You read about it, thus disproving your own accusation. How's it feel to shoot yourself in the foot?
Charles Darwin was to science as Bernie Madoff was to the financial investment industry. The Theory of Common Descent is simply SMOKE and MIRRORS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Theory of Common Descent is simply SMOKE and MIRRORS.
My reply:
You sure don't have to worry about your intellect showing here. Thanks for proving my point for me.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMBESQ SAID: They observed the fossil record, the biogeographic evidence before them, and formulated hypotheses based on these observations, continuously with the humility of adapting to new improved versions of the hypotheses as new evidence shed additional light.
YOU SAID: I agree. It takes hard work and dedication to find real answers, which might explain why Creationists don't bother; it's so much easier to just mindlessly spew "God did it".
RESPONSE: I don't see "humility" in the work of evolutionists, but men that are determined to make the evidence fit their presumptions.
The Fossil Record and biogeographic evidence is mentioned.
There are serious problems with both.
FOSSIL record - The biological "big bangs" like the Avalon and Cambrian are not what evolutionists predicted. Throughout the fossil record, new animals are found in the fossil record as discrete forms of life without intermediates. Determining intermediates is very subjective in nature. For example, if archeologists find two human skeletal fossils buried together without DNA present, it would be a subjective conclusion to say that they were from the same family. Now consider, how much more subjective it is to say that two animals that are separated by hundreds of miles, are related as intermediates. Living animals with similar structure have been shown to not be related because of DNA comparisons. So, how can evolutionary relationships be conclusive when only fossils are left to interpret? They get interpreted from an evolutionary viewpoint, because evolution is presumed to be true. It becomes a kind of tautology to use fossils as evidence.
Smoke and mirrors begins to come into play with some interpretations. Whale evolution is said to be well supported, however, it is not direct intermediates that they have fossils of, but cousins of the imagined direct intermediates. Somehow this get muddled unless one carefully reads what they say. The direct ancestor for homo sapiens does not exist in any fossil collections, instead the various hominds are said to be related to the direct intermediate. What is happening is that the neat little tree of life that Darwin theorized is looking more and more like a bush with uncertain roots.
The fact that evolutionists are comfortable with the biological big bangs and missing intermediates shows that the theory apparently does not really need them as support anyways. Evolution theory can accommodate nearly anything that is observed or found or not found in the fossils.
.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...blah blah blah...
My reply:
Your repetitive comic-book creationism remains unpersuasive. Let me know if you care to do something more than preach to the choir.
jpill69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContinued... SMOKE AND MIRRORS OF EVOLUTION.
The problems with biogeographic evidence.
The marsupials of Australia and placental animals are supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor. Yet this common ancestor supposedly evolved in Australia into hundreds of distinct types including wolves, flying squirrels, rats, anteaters, cats, and mice while at the same time evolving as placental animals (cats, anteaters, rats, mice flying squirrels, wolves, etc) in other places. Evolution apparently repeated itself hundreds of time separately for the marsupials and placental animals. For example, the marsupial wolf looks like a placental wolf, the marsuipial flying squirrel looks like the placental flying squirrel, yet they supposedly evolved from different lines.
Animal and plant life resembles a complex mosaic. The platypus is a perfect example of this mosaic. It is an egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal.
Convergence means that evolution has reoccured many, many times in the same way. On the one hand evolution is a random process. On the other hand evolutionists have no problem with convergence and the same random process repeating itself sometimes dozens and scores of times.
Evolutionary theory is able to accommodate randomness or non-randomness (convergence). It is able to accommodate so-called inefficient mechanisms in animals, yet also accommodate for the highly efficient mechanisms in animals.
Common Descent lacks emprical evidence, yet makes for great rationism as long as one is not too interested in the details.
Seriously, if someone wanted to learn how to make a weak argument sound great, they should really study the works of Charles Darwin.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif someone wanted to learn how to make a weak argument sound great, they should really study the works of Charles Darwin.
My reply:
and if someone wanted to learn how to make a weak argument sound even worse, they should really study the works of Neal T.
What amazes me is that you don't even care how dumb you sound.
I wasnt going to reenter this thread, I havent checked it since my last post, but I see Neil spewing lies through his creationist fingers again. Normally, I wouldnt care. Its fine with me if Neil wishes to wallow aimlessly about in his delusions about evolutionary biology. However, when one of his lies involves something I said, I cant let it go unaddressed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil said (in part):
Of course I know Gould is an evolutionist. That's why I quoted him. You would not believe a creationist who suggested the lack of transistional [sic] fossils.
Excuse me? A lack of transitional fossils? Who used the term LACK? Not Gould. Not I. Oh! It was Neil. Notice how he conveniently substitutes words (LACK for my original use of SCARCE) and then arrives at a FALSE (in other words, Neil lies) premise:
Perhaps one should think of another alternative... that the intermediates never existed.
Sorry. Please see:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
In fact, here is partial list of transitional fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Transitional_Fossils
There is no need to think of another alternative. Of course, even if Neil bothered to check the links provided, he would vehemently insist that these are not actual intermediate fossils. He would say that they are just fully formed and separately CREATED KINDS. But, Neil wouldnt recognize an intermediate fossil if one came to life, identified itself as one, and proceeded to bite a piece out of his ass. No matter Neil isnt a paleontologist and his self-delusions and denials are irrelevant. They are transitional fossils and that is the end of that. No need to preach to the choir here you already know. And I would never preach to the anti-choir (like Neil), because they dont want to know. However, for those who may have just dropped by casually (and managed to stomach their way this far) and are genuinely meandering about the center, the above is an example of how the delusional creationist mind works lie and deny. Facts and evidence simply are not important to people like Neil. He wonders why evolutionists (in other words, people who are reasonable, rational, and take facts and evidence seriously) tend to attack the intellect of those who disagree with them. One reason might be exasperation with those who so easily dismiss reality there is a limit to how far DUMB (and lies) can be tolerated.
Creationists are fond of pointing out that many of science’s greatest contributors believed in a “creator.” Ergo, creationism (or intelligent design) is valid science. Wrong. Neil simply doesn’t understand that facts and evidence are not dependent on the personal beliefs of the inquirer. His entire discourse, in an earlier post, about Newton, Pasteur, and Columbus is a non sequitur. As far as the facts are concerned, it would not have mattered one iota what they believed. Want more examples of Neil’s lying? They’re in the same post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. “All the support given for Common Descent is not hard science but subject opinion.” That’s a lie.
2. “The fossil record reveals new phyla without direct ancestry. The Avalon and Cambrian fossil records are clear examples of this.” That’s a lie.
3. “The direct ancestor to homo sapien [sic] has not been found.” That’s a lie.
And this:
“Origin of life research has not shown how DNA can be formed through unguided chemical evolution.” (please see: http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Evolution-Of-DNA.html and http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/39) Of course, Neil’s one and only alternative explanation is, “Ergo, DNA must have been intelligently designed.” Although the statement is not technically incorrect, Neil fails to conclusively demonstrate that DNA could not have evolved naturally, nor does he provide any testable process or mechanism (as usual) to show how DNA was “intelligently designed.” What Neil is essentially saying is, “Forget the scientific research. God did it, don’t question it, the end. Next problem, please.” That’s science by Neil and he would be perfectly comfortable teaching kids exactly that in a science class. That’s the type of mantra that stops science in its progressive tracks. Odd, because Neil obviously has some understanding of the basic tenets of scientific methodology (he has posted them several times). But then, he blatantly ignores one of the most important tenets – natural phenomena must be explained by testable naturalistic, not supernatural (cannot be tested), means. In Neil’s “science,” the supernatural has a comfortable and valid place, even though he has no means of scientifically testing for it.
Here are some more fractured fairytales by Neil:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“No man was around to see the first single cell animal form. Evolutionists do not know how it happened and they have never seen it happen in nature in order to understand the process.” In other words, “Were you there?” No, but the evidence (the evidence Neil ignores) was there and it can be, and is, studied.
“If something looks designed (which DNA does), then why not entertain the idea that it was designed?” First, it (DNA) doesn’t and secondly, see above under “God did it.”
“There are complex biomachines [sic], such as the bacterial flagellum that are made up of components that stand as direct analogs to the parts of a man-made motor, including a rotor, a stator, drive shaft, bushing, univeral [sic] joint and propeller” and “Evolutionists have attempted to show how this motor evolved, but again it was very heavy on thought experiments and little detail on how it actually would have evolved. But alas, they are content with their imagination.” Both statements are lies – the bacterial flagellum is not like a man-made motor. Neil is diving into the ID scum pond again and drudging up discredited notions as if they were new found treasure. (See: http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of.html and http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of_17.html and http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html and http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Bessette.cfm - and there are many more links I could have included)
“By the way, new research on the thumb of the Panda has been shown it to be an effective design.” By now, you have probably noticed that Neil doesn’t say what this “research” is or where to find it. Is the DI, or CSI, or ICR doing some actual field research? Maybe the “research” is still a secret. Well, maybe next time we can read about the “research.”
MORE FRACTURED FAIRYTALES by Neil:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“You say that I am wrong about DNA being designed, but you don't say exactly why I am wrong. Evolutionists do not have an explanation for how DNA came to look like it was designed.
You attack the intellect of Dembski, but provide nothing more than some links.”
Well, had Neil bothered to read the information contained in those links …
Of course, I don’t really expect a creationist like Neil to be interested or concerned with real facts and evidence.
Anyway, I won’t rehash the rest of Neil’s redundant fallacies (like no hominid transitional fossils, biological “big bangs,” etc.), but he is terribly mixed up about convergent evolution. Consider:
“The marsupials of Australia and placental animals are supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor. Yet this common ancestor supposedly evolved in Australia into hundreds of distinct types including wolves, flying squirrels, rats, anteaters, cats, and mice while at the same time evolving as placental animals (cats, anteaters, rats, mice flying squirrels, wolves, etc) in other places.”
Did this come from some ICR memo or did he just make it up? No wonder Neil sees smoke (and mirrors). His delusional mind must be in a meltdown. Well, marsupial and placental animals did evolve from a common ancestor – that part is right. But, what is this Australia nonsense all about? Mammals diverged into two distinct groups (marsupial and placental) more than 110 million years ago. There was no Australia at that time; Neil will have to wage a delusional war against geology and plate tectonics next. At that time there was one large land mass, Pangea. That land mass broke apart forming Laurasia and Godwana. Godwana eventually broke apart, Australia being one of the three pieces. Convergent evolution simply says that evolutionary change in two or more unrelated organisms may result in the independent development of similar adaptations to similar environmental conditions. What is so unusual or unexpected about that? Anyone (except Neil) who takes the time to investigate marsupial and placental evolution will see that it is well documented and not a great mystery. Divergent, parallel, and convergent evolution are easily accommodated by modern synthesis theory – despite Neil’s delusions to the contrary.
I really like this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Also, remember that kids should be told the weaknesses of a theory, and that good science challenges its theories.”
I agree with that. Let’s find out what all those “weaknesses” are.
FINAL CHALLENGE to Neil (if he is successful I will leave permanently. If not …)
Neil needs to give a complete assessment of everything he believes is wrong about evolutionary biology. But, it’s not enough to just give a list of delusional complaints. Each problem or error must be backed up with evidence and research describing specifically why it is wrong. Saying common descent lacks empirical evidence is not sufficient – he must demonstrate specifically what is lacking and why. However, simply attacking evolution is not enough. Neil is a creationist – a proponent of Intelligent Design. That’s what he wants crammed into a science class and taught to kids as legitimate valid science. Therefore, Neil must also demonstrate why ID is valid science. It’s not enough to say, “Something looks designed, so it is designed – intelligently.” Neil must provide the evidence and research describing the processes and mechanisms of HOW it was intelligently designed. Saying “God did it” isn’t good enough (that’s not science). He must provide supporting evidence that can be tested. Frankly, I don’t think he’s up to the task. It’s so much easier to propagate regurgitated creationist lies; and he has been very good at that.
In the meantime, here’s a challenge for everyone else that may drop by. Again, to be fair, answers must be backed up with evidence. It’s not enough to just give an answer.
Here it is:
How many layers of aluminum foil does Neil have wrapped around his head? (Hint: at least one)
I’ll start. Answer: 172. Evidence: That’s how many ignorant (frequently stupid), or wrong, or delusional posts Neil has made so far.
Keelan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHome run! You smacked that ball right out of the park.
The most frustrating thing for me is, for too many people, their science education is so poor, Neal's arguments sound perfectly reasonable. If 'evolutionists' really thought what Neal said they did, I wouldn't believe in evolution either. No wonder so many people think evolution takes an act of faith. No wonder they see no problem with teaching Intelligent Design instead; it's just another opinion; it's only a theory. Hoo boy.
I'm not too sure how many 'true' creationists read forums like this one. I am more concerned about those who really do accept evolution on faith, because they are the ones who are tempted by the false gods Neal offers. For those people especially, I would like to offer the following: You have a mind. Honor His gift and seek the knowledge of His Universe. It is infinite. No matter how much you know, there is always more. By necessity we all make decisions with imperfect knowledge, and we have faith that we make the right choices anyway. Science and faith are complements, not opposites. Don't choose one over the other. You are strongest when you use both.
This is slightly off-topic, but I ran across this interview of Philip Johnson, who is known as the father of Intelligent Design. He gives a cogent description of what he thinks it's all about, including his reaction to the Dover trial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html
Since when is faith even a virtue? Why is it even considered virtuous to believe without proof? Being a good person is a virtue. Taking care of each other is virtuous. Believing everything you are told is gullibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTruthwithproof wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieving everything you are told is gullibility.
My reply:
I agree with you 100% :)
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used the word "lack" in regards to transistionals as the dictionary defines the word "lack": to be short or have need of something".
Gould did say in 1997: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
The terms "scarce" or "extreme rarity" in regard to the evolutionists transistional fossils is not a boon of support for the theory. Charles Darwin said, "Innumerable transitional forms must have existed. But why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory."
In 1979, the senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson, agreed with Gould, when asked why he didn't have any illustrations of transitional forms in his book:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
In 1984 Gould wrote the following:
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution'
Of course this is why Gould promoted his idea of punctuated equilibrium.... evolutionists needed a hypothesis to account for the billions of missing transistional fossils.
I did check out your transistional fossil links and I found the tiktaalik link. The Scientist reported that the quality of the Tikaalik specimen was poor and that the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint parallel to each other. The Wikipedia illustrations were very general with comic like illustrations. Several had missing dates. The colors were an interesting touch. I didn't realize they could determine color from fossils. The main page left the impression that these were direct links, when a more thorough investigation reveals that most are not considered direct links by even evolutionists, such as with the hominds.
It's been a long while (6/26/09 thro 7/21/09) since I last posted to this topic so let me begin by replying to what Neal T said, "Charles Darwin said, "Innumerable transitional forms must have existed. But why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil T has distorted the truth about what Charles Darwin said in Chapter 6 - Difficulties on Theory.
I quote from it, "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote.
"But it may be urged that when several closely-allied species inhabit the same territory we surely ought to find at the present time many transitional forms. Let us take a simple case: in travelling from north to south over a continent, we generally meet at successive intervals with closely allied or representative species, evidently filling nearly the same place in the natural economy of the land. These representative species often meet and interlock; and as the one becomes rarer and rarer, the other becomes more and more frequent, till the one replaces the other. But if we compare these species where they intermingle, they are generally as absolutely distinct from each other in every detail of structure as are specimens taken from the metropolis inhabited by each. By my theory these allied species have descended from a common parent; and during the process of modification, each has become adapted to the conditions of life of its own region, and has supplanted and exterminated its original parent and all the transitional varieties between its past and present states. Hence we ought not to expect at the present time to meet with numerous transitional varieties in each region, though they must have existed there, and may be embedded there in a fossil condition. But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. But I think it can be in large part explained.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
Here is some additional information that should be helpful.
The secrets of Darwin's dinobird
A keystone of evolutionary history, the Thermopolis Archaeopteryx fossil, visited SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in December 2008 to undergo a revolutionary type of analysis. Using intense X-ray beams, scientists searched for characteristics of the "dinobird" that have eluded all previous scientific analyses.
Researchers at SLAC's Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL) are attempting to uncover secrets of the Archaeopteryx hidden from view since the creature sank to the bottom of a shallow lagoon and became entombed in limestone some 150 million years ago. Only ten Archaeopteryx fossils have been found and studied. These specimens have undergone extensive visual analyses and even CT scans in the past, but never anything as comprehensive as the X-ray imaging researchers utilized at SSRL. Here, researchers made the first maps of the chemical elements hidden within one of the best preserved specimens, possibly including remnants of soft tissuenot just bone.
Archaeopteryx holds a unique place in history. A century and a half ago, just a year after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, the discovery of this fossilized half-dinosaur/half-bird species provided the strongest evidence yet for the theory of evolution. Approximately 16 by 16 inches in size, the Thermopolis specimen was originally discovered near Solnhofen, Germany, and is now owned by the Wyoming Dinosaur Center.
By tuning SSRL's hair-thin X-ray beam to specific energies and sweeping it across the fossil, researchers have revealed detailed maps of the chemical remains, which are currently being analyzed. This technique, called X-ray fluorescence imaging, is more commonly applied to very small samples, but has recently been used on historical documents including the Archimedes Palimpsest and a van Gogh painting.
In addition to offering an entirely new view on a long-extinct animal, this work may also reveal more about fossilization itself. By understanding how fossilization occurs and what exactly is preserved in the process, researchers will be able to deduce much more about ancient organisms and evolution.
http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2009-02/dnal-tso020509.php
###
Nature is a internationally known peer-reviewed journal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature. 2008 Oct 16;455(7215):925-9. LinksThe cranial endoskeleton of Tiktaalik roseae.
Downs JP, Daeschler EB, Jenkins FA Jr, Shubin NH.
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, USA.
Among the morphological changes that occurred during the 'fish-to-tetrapod' transition was a marked reorganization of the cranial endoskeleton. Details of this transition, including the sequence of character acquisition, have not been evident from the fossil record. Here we describe the braincase, palatoquadrate and branchial skeleton of Tiktaalik roseae, the Late Devonian sarcopterygian fish most closely related to tetrapods. Although retaining a primitive configuration in many respects, the cranial endoskeleton of T. roseae shares derived features with tetrapods such as a large basal articulation and a flat, horizontally oriented entopterygoid. Other features in T. roseae, like the short, straight hyomandibula, show morphology intermediate between the condition observed in more primitive fish and that observed in tetrapods. The combination of characters in T. roseae helps to resolve the relative timing of modifications in the cranial endoskeleton. The sequence of modifications suggests changes in head mobility and intracranial kinesis that have ramifications for the origin of vertebrate terrestriality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18923515?log$=activity
Let's remember that *Science* doesn't deal with the supernatural. And rightfully so after what I have been reading from some participants posting to this topic of discussion which is "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense".
JHryals wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, I am a Christian myself and I believe that "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth". I just happen to disagree with you that Evolution contradicts the Bible.
jpill69 replyed:
As do I. Once I realized there could be more to the Bible than the shallow, simpleminded, literal interpretion allowed, I didn't have to choose between it and the material physical evidence of how God works.
ViewsofMars replay to JHryals & Jpill69: ‘Death Star’ Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy’- From NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/photos07-139.html
I thought God was about Love.
't mind destroying gal
ViewofMars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelow is the source of research on the Panda's Thumb. Gould wrote extensively on how sub-optimal the Panda thumb was. But he has been proven wrong, even by fellow evolutionists. Gould subtitles one of his articles " When nature uses a Tinkertoy approach, evolution's role becomes more apparent"
Now for the rest of the story...
Scientific Correspondence
Nature 397, 309-310 (28 January 1999) | doi:10.1038/16830
Role of the giant panda's 'pseudo-thumb'
Hideki Endo1, Daishiro Yamagiwa2, Yoshihiro Hayashi2, Hiroshi Koie3, Yoshiki Yamaya3 & Junpei Kimura3
The way in which the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, uses the radial sesamoid bone — its 'pseudo-thumb' — for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The bone has been reported to function as an active manipulator, enabling the panda to grasp bamboo stems between the bone and the opposing palm2,6, 7, 8. We have used computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and related techniques to analyse a panda hand. The three-dimensional images we obtained indicate that the radial sesamoid bone cannot move independently of its articulated bones, as has been suggested1, 2, 3, but rather acts as part of a functional unit of manipulation. The radial sesamoid bone and the accessory carpal bone form a double pincer-like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity.
It's a great design, but since evolution is assumed to be true, then evolution can accommodate Gould's tinkertoy concept of the thumb or Hideki Endo's extraordinary manipulation system.
Neal T submitted Scientific Correspondence - Nature 397, 309-310 (28 January 1999) | doi:10.1038/16830 which is outdated material and just correspondence. It is not valid as scientific evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've located a more recent document from a peer-reviewed journal named Science - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 10;103(2):379-82. Epub 2005 Dec 30.
Evidence of a false thumb in a fossil carnivore clarifies the evolution of pandas.
Salesa MJ, Ant�n M, Peign� S, Morales J.
Departamento de Paleobiolog�a, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Jos� Guti�rrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain.
The "false thumb" of pandas is a carpal bone, the radial sesamoid, which has been enlarged and functions as an opposable thumb. If the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) are not closely related, their sharing of this adaptation implies a remarkable convergence. The discovery of previously unknown postcranial remains of a Miocene red panda relative, Simocyon batalleri, from the Spanish site of Batallones-1 (Madrid), now shows that this animal had a false thumb. The radial sesamoid of S. batalleri shows similarities with that of the red panda, which supports a sister-group relationship and indicates independent evolution in both pandas. The fossils from Batallones-1 reveal S. batalleri as a puma-sized, semiarboreal carnivore with a moderately hypercarnivore diet. These data suggest that the false thumbs of S. batalleri and Ailurus fulgens were probably inherited from a primitive member of the red panda family (Ailuridae), which lacked the red panda's specializations for herbivory but shared its arboreal adaptations. Thus, it seems that, whereas the false thumb of the giant panda probably evolved for manipulating bamboo, the false thumbs of the red panda and of S. batalleri more likely evolved as an aid for arboreal locomotion, with the red panda secondarily developing its ability for item manipulation and thus producing one of the most dramatic cases of convergence among vertebrates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16387860?log$=activity
And Neil T, I'm not a fan of the Intelligent Design Movement. Never have been and never will be.
I'm support the following:
Biochem J. 2009 Jan 1;417(1):29-42
Darwin, Dover, 'Intelligent Design' and textbooks.
Padian K, Matzke N.
Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140, USA.
ID ('intelligent design') is not science, but a form of creationism; both are very different from the simple theological proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe. Its current version maintains that a 'Designer' must intervene miraculously to accomplish certain natural scientific events. The verdict in the 2005 case Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. (in Harrisburg, PA, U.S.A.) was a landmark of American jurisprudence that prohibited the teaching of ID as science, identified it as religiously based, and forbade long-refuted 'criticisms of evolution' from introduction into public school classes. Much of the science of the trial was based on biochemistry; biochemists and other scientists have several important opportunities to improve scientific literacy and science education in American public schools ('state schools') by working with teachers, curriculum developers and textbook writers.
PMID: 19061485
viewofmars,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID REGARDING PANDA'S THUMB ... "These data SUGGEST that the false thumbs of S. batalleri and Ailurus fulgens were PROBABLY inherited from a primitive member of the red panda family (Ailuridae), which ... Thus, it seems that, whereas the false thumb of the giant panda PROBABLY evolved for manipulating bamboo, the false thumbs of the red panda and of S. batalleri more LIKELYevolved as an aid for arboreal locomotion, with the red panda secondarily developing its ability for item manipulation and thus producing one of the most DRAMATIC cases of CONVERGENCE among vertebrates."
My point was that evolutionists dismissed Gould's idea that the Panda's thumb was sub-optimal. My point wasn't that evolutionists don't believe it evolved, because whether something functions with extraordinary efficiency or appears to be inefficient does not matter in proving evolution. The theory of evolution has been fitted to accomodate nearly any observation.
Regarding your quote, it is interesting how many times disclaimers like "probably" or "suggests" are used. In other words they think it might have happened according to their suggested scenario. Repeated evolution (convergence) of random processes is not a problem either, because evolution is random but is also capable of DRAMATIC convergence also. Gould's tinkertoy thumb concept was proposed as great proof of evolution, but the opposite of his conclusion is not problematic either. Evolution apparently does not need such evidence that Gould proposed, yet he did anyway. It is just another example of a failed prediction when the details were flushed out.
Did you have a point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill said, I'm not too sure how many 'true' creationists read forums like this one. I am more concerned about those who really do accept evolution on faith, because they are the ones who are tempted by the false gods Neal offers. For those people especially, I would like to offer the following: You have a mind. Honor His gift and seek the knowledge of His Universe. It is infinite. No matter how much you know, there is always more. By necessity we all make decisions with imperfect knowledge, and we have faith that we make the right choices anyway. Science and faith are complements, not opposites. Don't choose one over the other. You are strongest when you use both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDont feed me that nonsense. Im not a creationist you preacher. I hope I have made my point very clear to you, jpill. Rennies article is about creationists like you and Neil T. You both continue to create controversy when none exists. You two continue to preach on this message board. Im sick of it! Neither of you know much about science, which has absolutely nothing to do the supernatural. In my opinion you both are spin doctors attempting to derail a topic that has continued when it should have ended over a month ago. And you along with Neil T dont have the right to impose your religious viewpoint on others. The topic of discussion isnt about religion. Its about creationists like you and NealT that dont know much about science. Neil T cant even fully grasp the scientific articles I present and has been caught quote-mining and continues to distort the truth in an effort to slam dunk well-respected scientists. Furthermore, science and religion are most definitely different. I sure wouldnt say they compliment each other since science has nothing to do with the supernatural. Obviously, you couldnt grasp my point made in the last message to you so why should I expect you to understand this one.
p.s. I noticed having problems when posting earlier on. After looking at it now I realize text missing from 't mind destroying gal'. Please ignore that.
ViewsofMars wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sick of it!
My reply:
Take two pills and call me in the morning.
Despite the risk of further inciting those who are clearly delusional and/or functionally disabled, I submit the the following to everyone else:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQ: Where do you come from personally on this topic?
Miller: I think that faith and reason are both gifts from God. And if God is real, then faith and reason should complement each other rather than be in conflict.
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html
PBS interview of Ken Miller, professor of Biology at Brown Uninversity and co-author of "Biology"
I recommend again this excellent website to all who are interested in knowing what they are talking about.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of evolution has been fitted to accomodate nearly any observation.
My reply:
Obviously, You haven't even read "29 Evidences For Macroevolution" yet. If you had, you would know you are simply repeating yet another commom but proven false argument. Wny haven't you done your homework, Neal? Are you afraid that you might actually learn something?
Your specific example in this case is the Panda's thumb, that some 'evolutionists' describe it as "the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution" and others describe it as "a tinkertoy approach". Your representations to the contrary, anybody who bothers to understand what they read knows there is no contradiction here. What is extraordinary is not the Panda thumb's abilities, which in comparison to human thumbs are a bit tinkertoy-like, but that the Panda's thumb evolved from a wristbone into a functional sixth digit. Imagine that, not a created organ from whole cloth, but a functional new organ evolved and adapted from a pre-existing part. And what do we call that, Neal? Can you say "macroevolution"? I knew you could.
You would be better off if you stopped quoting 'evolutionists' to disprove evolution. It's kinda like quoting Lutherans to disprove the existence of God. Either you fundamentally misrepresent the point, as in this case, or you fundamentally misrepresent the context, as with your quotes on punctuated equilibrium. In any case, you just end up sounding dumb.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have had discussions with Dr Ken Miller and I'm curious why you like his web site. He believes that God created the universe in the beginning in just the right way so that everything has evolved according to a predetermined plan. So he believes in a creator in the sense that God got things started. Your previous comments were vague and seems to suggest that you do not believe that God got things started in the beginning. Perhaps you could clarify for us, if you believe as Dr Miller, or something else.
Here's an announcement from IBM this week regarding the future of microchips. I think mankind will benefit more and hard science will progress faster when DNA and life is looked at from a design viewpoint than from a Gould tinkertoy viewpoint. Much knowledge and advancement in nanotechnology can be made from copying the logic and brilliant design of the DNA and the various nanobots of cellular systems...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBaritbart.com news...
"IBM said it was looking to DNA "origami" for a powerful new generation of ultra-tiny microchips.
The US computer giant collaborated with California Institute of Technology researchers to develop a way to design microchips that mimic how chains of DNA molecules fold, allowing for processors far smaller and denser than any seen today.
"This is a way to assemble an electronics device of the future," said Bill Hinsberg, manager of the lithography group at IBM's Almaden Research Center in California, on Monday.
JPill stated, "Miller: I think that faith and reason are both gifts from God. And if God is real, then faith and reason should complement each other rather than be in conflict."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJPill said earlier, "Science and faith are complements, not opposites. Don't choose one over the other. You are strongest when you use both."
Jpill69, there is a big difference between what you wrote and what Ken Miller wrote. Like I earlier said, science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Who cares what Ken's religous belief is. He sure doesn't represent all religous folks as I can see by your comment compared to his. And just because Ken was in the the Dover Trail as a biologist doesn't mean he speaks on behalf of all religous folks nor does his books reflect all religous folks. From what I understand, some of his writings aren't supported by the United States Bishops office. And, Haught who was also in the Dover Trial too, though a theologian doesn't speak on behalf of all reglious folks. His most recent remarks surely go against the very church he belongs to. My point is mainly that science and religion are two distinct separate entities. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Most religious views infer God. Science doesn't need God to explain the Natural world.
This is my last post here. I've recently left some messages and quite a few from a month ago.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have had discussions with Dr Ken Miller and I'm curious why you like his web site.
My reply:
Please note the URL I posted is not to Ken Miller's website but to a PBS website relating to the Dover School Board trial. Regarding my opinions on theology, I agree with Ken Miller's opinion as expressed on that website. Further, I I have already posted my opinions here when I felt they were relevant. In review, evolution, evolutionary theory, and any realistic evolutionary worldview, do not threaten faith or the existence of God, which I understand is in direct contrast to your expressed opinions.
ViewsofMars:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, I am reasonably confident of my scientific facts, in part because I double-check them before I post. Given your overt hostility, I expect you to pounce on and wave about with glee any mistakes you think you find. That you do not says you have not, and you are simply posturing for effect. Nevertheless, I accept my fallibility, and I have demonstrated my willingness to explicitly acknowledge any
errors that slip out. On the other hand, you have demonstrated an irrational unwillingness to acknowledge your mistakes, to the point of pretending you don't notice being corrected. This is another characteristic you have in common with Neal, which demonstrates a fundamental dishonesty and lack of commitment to rational dialog.
Regarding what you think is off-topic, we had his 'discussion' before. I am unaware of any authority you have to make such decisions. More to the point, the title of the seminal article is "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"; creationist nonsense has an explicit title role here. Further, every Creationist I have talked to and read about, spontaneously volunteers their fear of an "evolutionary worldview" of godless immorality. Simply reviewing the facts of evolutionary theory pointlessly ignores this fundamental motivation.
Finally, I can't imagine anybody has a gun to your head forcing you to read from and/or post to this forum. That you do so anyway puts the lie to your expressed feelings of disgust.
Have a nice day.
ViewsofMars wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is a big difference between what you wrote and what Ken Miller wrote.
My reply:
If only you bothered to say what you think it is
ViewsfMars wrote:
Who cares what Ken's religous belief is. He sure doesn't represent all religous folks
My reply:
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Do you even care who Ken Miller is? He DEFENDED evolution and OPPOSED ID in the Dover trial.
ViewsofMars wrote:
Science doesn't need God to explain the Natural world.
My reply:
We agree. Science has no business in the spiritual world.
jpill69, keelyn and others:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"29 evidences for macroevolution" from talkorigins.com.
Jpill69, it is evident that the authors of talkorigins took a lot of time to lay out their case. It's been awhile since I visited their site. It's probably as good as it gets for arguing the case for the theory of common descent, so this will be very helpful for me to tear apart.
I'll begin with their 1.1 prediction regarding the unity of life. While the theory of universal common descent could predict a common genetic code, more generally, evolutionary theory and abiogenesis does not. One of the things evolutionists do agree on is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about how the genetic code came about (Orgel 1998, etc). Because the code is chemically arbitrary, it holds no competitive advantage over any other code. Crick and Orgel are surprised that there aren't multiple codes in nature. So the universality of the genetic code is not good evidence for evolution. If the code is arbitrary, then why should there be just one? On the other hand, if multiple codes were found in nature, evolutionary theory would be able to accommodate that too. In 1979 minor variations in the code were found and this was explained by the continuing evolution of the universal code.
If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used for evidence for the theory.
It is often observed in the real world that the same designer will use the same components or logic for various product models (cars, computers, cell phones, etc). So the universal genetic code is not evidence against design. However, the existence of code implies that two distinct entities - the sender and receiver must know the code before the message is sent. What came first the sender or the receiver is a paradox that evolutionists have not settled, however, as they say the "simple" solution is just over the next hill ...so is more government funding too!
Does anyone seriously think that if another code was discovered that macroevolution would be proven false?
So their 1.1 conclusion of a universal code is not good evidence for or against macroevolution.
Neal, you are starting on a very sour note. Whether you know it or not, you are following almost verbatim a script written by Ashby Camp way back in 2001. Not surprisingly, Douglas Theobald already posted an extremely good rebuttal here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
So I am torn how to proceed. On the one hand, Dr. Theobald answered far better than I could, and I would be mostly repeating what he already wrote. On the other hand, your
expressed intent is to "tear apart", and judging from your comments, you didn't bother to first understand what you read. That was the second part of your homework assignment. I am disappointed.
Neal wrote:
While the theory of universal common descent could predict a common genetic code,...
My reply:
As stated, Common Descent expressly predicts a common genetic code. Not "could" but "does".
Neal wrote:
...more generally, evolutionary theory and abiogenesis does not.
My reply:
You have written before that you assume Common Descent to be an integral part of evolutionary theory. So by your definition evolutionary theory also expressly predicts common genetic code. Regarding abiogenesis, it's possible but I think unlikely, that life started with several genetic codes. Common Descent is concerned only with the last common ancestor forward.
Neal wrote:
One of the things evolutionists do agree on is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about how the genetic code came about (Orgel 1998, etc).
My reply:
Any uncertainty of origins do not interfere with analysis of the process, so I don't see a point here.
Neal wrote:
Crick and Orgel are surprised that there aren't multiple codes in nature.
My reply:
Totally false. As stated, biologists predicted before its discovery there is a common genetic code. Watson and Crick used that prediction as a simplifying assumption to help discover and identify what the code actually is.
Neal wrote:
If the code is arbitrary, then why should there be just one?
My reply:
As stated, since a mutation that changed even one word or letter of the code would alter most of a creature's proteins, it looked sure to be lethal." (Judson 1996, p. 280-281)
Neal wrote:
On the other hand, if multiple codes were found in nature, evolutionary theory would be able to accommodate that too.
My reply:
Totally false. As stated, this is one of the potential falsifications of Common Descent.
(to be continued)
(continued)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal wrote:
In 1979 minor variations in the code were found and this was explained by the continuing evolution of the universal code.
My reply:
As stated, there are indeed minor variations, not even of the proverbial "exception proving the rule" class. They aren't overlapping triplets, or identical triplets defining different amino acids. There is no accomodation here.
Neal wrote:
If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used for evidence for the theory.
My reply:
You repeat Camp's equivocation. As stated, Common Descent predicts specific possible outcomes (A and B). Further, Common Descent limits the range of each outcome and
still be considered evidence.
Neal wrote:
So the universal genetic code is not evidence against design.
My reply:
There IS no evidence against design. As you have argued many times, God can do whatever He wants. Which is precisely why ID is scientifically useless.
Neal wrote:
However, the existence of code implies that two distinct entities - the sender and receiver must know the code before the message is sent. What came first the sender or the receiver is a paradox that evolutionists have not settled.
My reply:
Yet another chicken/egg false paradox. I can't blame this one on Camp. A rhetorical answer says it depends entirely on your definitions of sender and receiver. An engineering solution is simply an iterative process. Nobody has to waste any more time settling this one.
Neal wrote:
Does anyone seriously think that if another code was discovered that macroevolution would be proven false?
My reply:
Why would anyone seriously think otherwise?
Neal wrote:
So their 1.1 conclusion of a universal code is not good evidence for or against macroevolution.
My reply:
Get back to me after you take the time to first understand what you read.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the evidences for macroevolution that talkorigins uses are ones that I have seen and researched for the last 25 years, so they are not new to me.
Regarding the universal genetic code, Crick said, "There is no reason to believe, however, that the present code is the best possible, and it could have easily reached its present form by a sequence of happy accidents. "
It was the common view of biologists in the last century to say that the code was selected arbitrarily. The junk DNA crowd, including Ken Miller, follow this same line of thought.
Even you jpill69, said "Regarding abiogenesis, it's possible but I think unlikely, that life started with several genetic codes. Common Descent is concerned only with the last common ancestor forward." So even you hold out the possibility (an unlikely one) that there could have been more than one code.
If another code is found, then evolutions could say, that it was caused by mutation or something else. I could certainly see them saying something like, "this new data suggests that our original view of common ancestry is more complex than we used to think". Or, "since the DNA is arbitrary and not even the best, nothing is to prevent another line from existing, etc, etc."
It is just as easy to say that a Designer wanted to show that all of life had the same Designer. The universal genetic code only becomes evidence for macroevolution if you assume it to be true anyway.
A comment on a statement made by ViewsofMars:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this&a topic that has continued when it should have ended over a month ago.
That is an indisputable fact! In fact, I might suggest (hopefully Neil will excuse my use of such a transitive verb as suggest ) it should have ended several months ago &or more. This topic should have received a few comments of praise and that should have been the end of it.
Science and religion are totally different in my opinion, they do not compliment one another at all. VoM is correct to point out that the original topic was not about religion; no, it was about creationists lies and distortions contaminating science and attempting to feed that contamination to susceptible minds, especially the talented young minds who may already be on the road to non-science careers, courtesy of parental ignorance. Dont misunderstand me. I think parents have a right to lie to their kids about certain things (up to a point). I think it is wrong, but it is their kids. I dont lie to my daughter. However, its one thing when it is parents lying to their own kids when it is a teacher lying to a group of someone elses kids, its not only wrong, its intolerable.
See this example:
http://creationmuseum.org/special-events/science-fair/guidelines/
Pay close attention to guidelines 3 and 4. Ken Ham and the Creation Museum are running a science fair (again). Thats a pathetic joke. To quote Richard B. Hoppe from the Pandas Thumb article:
Those kids dont have a chance. This is part of Ken Hams solution to the Already Gone problem he sees: The abandonment of fundamentalism by young people whose doubts start in middle school and high school. Hams solution is simple: Lie to them earlier and more often.
(The article at Pandas Thumb is here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/08/aigs-creation-s.html and the Already Gone article is here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/state-of-the-nation )
True, Ham is mostly playing to his minions, but there are plenty of teachers in the public venue (science teachers included) who promote this sort of nonsense. I agree with Hoppe tell kids (and anyone else) that they are being lied to in the plainest possible terms and as early as possible.
Never trust a creationist who is quoting a scientist, especially a distinguished scientist. They cant even quote themselves accurately and if they are quoting a scientist you can bet the light of the Sun that it is either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented and distorted (as in Quote Mined). Compliments to VeiwsofMars for calling Neil out on his distortion of what Darwin said. Its a quote mine creationists have used ad nauseum to try and misrepresent Darwins views and Neil continues to promulgate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, he doesnt stop with Darwin. Neil goes on to misrepresent (with well known quote mines) Gould and Patterson. It is so predictable and tiresome. Im not going to quote Gould and Patterson here in full context, but you can read both at these links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html (Gould)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html (Patterson)
Each is an exquisite ass whipping of Neils quote of creationists quote mining. In the first link, please see Quote #3.2 and pay close attention to Goulds words in the last paragraph.
Neil is still finished, though. I provided links to one of the best transitional fossils around (Tiktaalik) and Neil comes back with:
I did check out your transistional [sic] fossil links and I found the tiktaalik link. The Scientist reported that the quality of the Tikaalik [sic] specimen was poor and that the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint parallel to each other. The Wikipedia illustrations were very general with comic like illustrations. Several had missing dates. The colors were an interesting touch. I didn't realize they could determine color from fossils. The main page left the impression that these were direct links, when a more thorough investigation reveals that most are not considered direct links by even evolutionists, such as with the hominds [sic].
Wondering where Neil got that first sentence? Wonder no further:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/the_rise_and_fall_of_tiktaalik.html
The University of Chicago has entire web page dedicated to Tiktaalik and Neil pulls up B(ull)S(hit) from the Disco Tute (check paragraph 4). What a surprise! That should give you some idea of how Neil investigates go to creationist websites. Ill leave it to others who may be reading to take the initiative to go to the abundant SCIENCE websites for more thorough investigation.
I want to take an opportunity here to reiterate that I am not criticizing anyone’s religious beliefs – I respect people’s beliefs, including Neil’s. If Ken Miller (and I have a lot of respect for Dr. Miller) believes that God (or whatever supernatural title), “created the universe in the beginning in just the right way so that everything has evolved according to a predetermined plan,” that’s fine with me. It could be; I don’t know. However, there is no scientific evidence to support that the Universe was “fine-tuned” in any way. Regardless of HOW the Universe came into existence, from the earliest moment that we can scientifically study it (the Planck Dimensions currently) there can be no deferring to the supernatural for explanations. Dr. Miller has never invoked God as an “explanation” to a scientific question (as Kitzmiller vs Dover clearly illustrated). The supernatural (ID) gives only an off-the-shelf answer. Explanations require testable, falsifiable hypotheses …and that is that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, about this IBM announcement on new nanotechnology – it’s utterly fascinating. I would love to see the physics involved. However, the article http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=upiUPI-20090817-111555-1929&show_article=1 makes absolutely no mention about “when DNA and life is looked at from a design viewpoint” or “copying the logic and brilliant design of the DNA.” Now, I wonder where that came from? Oh, that’s Neil adding stuff that wasn’t in the article. Cute. But, so what? What does that have to do with evolution? It doesn’t discredit evolution in any way nor does it give any support to ID. We already know that micro and nano chips are intelligently (human) designed – but, there is no evidence that DNA is. Besides, DNA contains a lot of “junk.” Do you suppose IBM plans to include junk in their “DNA” circuit boards? Well, just a thought …but, I’m sure the IBM people have considered that.
I was going to comment on Neil’s obvious misunderstanding of “29 Evidences for Macroevolution 1.1,” but I think jpill has that well in hand. I’ll let him handle it. Good, because my break is almost over. But, this part from Neil:
“It is just as easy to say that a Designer wanted to show that all of life had the same Designer.”
Yes – it sure is easy. In fact, too easy.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the evidences for macroevolution that talkorigins uses are ones that I have seen and researched for the last 25 years, so they are not new to me.
My reply:
If so, then you know your arguments here are logically flawed and factually weak. I confess I do not understand your intentions. Why settle for a fool's cap? Are you acting the cynical provocateur just for sport? Or do you incite scorn as a means of cyber-mortification?
Neal wrote:
If another code is found, then evolutions could say, that it was caused by mutation or something else. I could certainly see them saying something like, "this new data suggests that our original view of common ancestry is more complex than we used to think". Or, "since the DNA is arbitrary and not even the best, nothing is to prevent another line from existing, etc, etc."
My reply:
What basis do you have for making such a pointless accusation?
Neal wrote:
It is just as easy to say that a Designer wanted to show that all of life had the same Designer. The universal genetic code only becomes evidence for macroevolution if you assume it to be true anyway.
Sigh. It is ALWAYS easier to say "God did it". It is ALWAYS easier to claim conspiracy. Then you can just turn off your brain. Contrary to your assertion, Science does not assume macroevolution to be true. A lot of work went into identifying the common genetic code. The gene sequencing of thousands of species only adds to the evidence for it. You dishonor the efforts of Watson, Crick, and thousands of people who didn't settle for the easy way.
Keelyn and others,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA brief response to Keelyn... The universe is fine tuned to support physical life. Dozens of physical parameters from the gravitation force constant to the cosmological constant must be so close to their present values that the slightest variation would render life physically impossible. That Keelyn would say, "there is no scientific evidence to support that the Universe was “fine-tuned” in any way", refutes plain empirical evidence. These physical constants are measurable and precisely determined.
Back to COMMON DESCENT and the 29 EVIDENCES FOR MACROEVOLUTION article.
Common Descent is based on a first common ancestor that no one has found evidence for. The first cells in the fossil record are prokaryotes (Bacteria) and these are already complex and they look like Bacteria that exists today. The other type of cell is called a eukaryote. This is more complex and have a nucleus and many molecular machines within the cell. The DNA differences between the two cell types are huge. Evolutionary thought was that somehow the prokaryotes formed a community and became eukaryotes. That's imaginative, but it would be like duct taping Volkswagon Bugs together to make an Airbus jetliner. They are very distinct. No intermediates exist between them. Others have thought that some progenitor that we have no fossil evidence of produced both types of cells. So you have a theory of universal common descent that does not know what the first progenitor of life was and where the most basic cell types, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, came from.
ViewsofMars wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa topic that has continued when it should have ended over a month ago.
Keelyn wrote:
That is an indisputable fact! In fact, I might suggest (hopefully Neil will excuse my use of such a transitive verb as "suggest") it should have ended several months ago &or more. This topic should have received a few comments of praise and that should have been the end of it.
My reply:
And yet you add to it anyway. Several times in fact. I guess some of us just can't help ourselves :)
Keelyn wrote:
VoM is correct to point out that the original topic was not about religion; no, it was about creationists' lies and distortions...
My reply:
I see a difference between religion, God, and The Bible. It seems to me I have not mentioned religion specifically, nor do I advocate that it be discussed in this forum. Nevertheless, I believe it's impossible to have a thorough discussion about creationism, creationists, and their political efforts without at least a passing nod to all three. I am sorry that you feel I have gone off-topic, but I sincerely and emphatically disagree.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists are just as quick as to say evolution did it as the ancient Druids were to predict the future based on bird calls. It is nothing for evolutionists to empower their theory to do whatever they can imagine it might do. I see this in their articles frequently and wonder how such saltations are accepted.
For example if an animal needs advanced sonar, why evolution is perfectly capable of fitting it for its needs, etc, etc.
You seem to think that evolutionists are the ones that do all the heavy lifting and research while those that believe in a creator don't. What evidence do you have to support boastful concept? Certainly the recorded history of science tells us that the majority of the founders of all the branches of science believed in creation. I would counter than evolutionists have latched unto the work of creationists and hijacked it.
Fathers of science who were creationists:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Some of the scientists since Darwin who were creationists:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLouis Pasteur, the great biologist who not only rejected evolution but actively debunked it in France, using his famous experiment demonstrating that life comes only from life to push home the fact that evolution starting from non-living matter was founded on a mistaken postulate.
Richard Owen, one of the greatest English zoologists and paleontologists of the day, and a direct and strong foe of Darwin.
James Joule, the famous physicist.
George Stokes, the fluid mechanics pioneer.
Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics.
Rudolph Virchow, the founder of pathology.
Lord Kelvin, among the greatest of physicists and an outspoken foe of evolution.
Bernhard Riemann, the mathematician.
Joseph Lister, who gave us antiseptic surgery and along with Pasteur's work saved innumerable millions of lives.
J.C. Maxwell, the electrodynamics pioneer.
taken from here because it has a nice summary, but support for the list is a matter of historical record...
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cscient.html,
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe DNA differences between the two cell types are huge.
My reply:
The same 4 nucleic acids, the same deoxyribose-phosphate backbone, arranged in the same double helix, using the same non-overlapping triplet code, for the same 21 amino acids.
You need to be more specific right here.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists are just as quick as to say evolution did it as the ancient Druids were to predict the future based on bird calls.
My reply:
Mebbe so. But 'evolutionists' can prove it.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to think that evolutionists are the ones that do all the heavy lifting and research while those that believe in a creator don't. What evidence do you have to support boastful concept?
My reply:
As you know, I do not consider all, or even most, who believe in a Creator to be Creationists, any more than I consider all who believe in science to be scientists. So your strawman doesn't work on me. Nevertheless, you make a valid point despite yourself. There are those who believe in a personal creative God and use their faith to inspire them to do good science. Obviously they do not use "God did it" as a final answer. And because I am feeling especially charitable at the moment, I also acknowledge there are those who oppose evolution and still do good science in their area of expertise. To what degree their opposition is based on religion vs science is an open question.
With that said, I leave it to you to decide if you still feel justified in slandering those who work to discover and understand the basis of life.
Regarding your passion for Pasteur and his position on spontaneous generation, you surely know that sword cuts across both Creation and Evolution, as both assume an initial condition of life from non-life.
To jpill69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we have a misunderstanding and I’d like to clear that up. I’m not going to include a bunch of quotes – you know what was said. You are right …I do keep adding to it and for exactly the reason you made. Unfortunately, the comments section only allows for 2573 characters (or so it indicates), so I didn’t enter the qualifier at the end of my post, which was:
“I make no compromise or accommodation for religion in science – zero. I sometimes wish I had sat on my fingers and not made an initial post here, but when I read someone posting distortions and lies about science, I can’t just sit idly by and not try to correct it – some innocent person might also be reading those misrepresentations and they should be able to read about the scientific truth. It’s not religion or anyone’s religious beliefs that I am critical of – it is the relentless attempts by some people to contaminate science with their beliefs.”
I should have added somewhere in that post, “in a perfect world.” It’s not perfect, so when I see crap being spilled about I feel I (like you do) have an obligation and responsible to clean it up. And with topics like this one – you know there will always be crap spilled. So, we keep adding J
Frankly, I’m a bit bemused at VoM’s referring to you as a creationist – that hasn’t been my impression at all. My use of the term “creationist” here is one who mixes their religious views in with their science – I haven’t seen you do that …just the opposite in fact. True, we do not share the same religious convictions …you have made it clear in other posts that you believe in a god (I absolutely respect that) and I have made it clear that I am an agnostic (as pure as they come, I think). I did not think that you had gone off topic (at least, no more than others, including myself, my have). If you are referring to your post on Phillip Johnson, I had every intention of responding to that – but, I got thoroughly sidetracked. As the granddaddy of the ID movement, he is hardly off topic. And yes, just to say now, I had seen the interview. I have read a lot of garbage by Johnson. The best point to make is that Johnson himself admits that ID is religiously motivated and not a scientific theory – not that he meant to admit it to everyone (see the Wedge Strategy people).
It’s not easy taking hardcore creationists to task all alone – I think you have a splendid job at putting certain creationists in their place (wherever that is).
So now, Neil feels qualified to give brief (and erroneous) lectures on the Anthropic Principle. Fortunately, I have bona fide professors to give me physics lectures. Unfortunately, he gets it totally wrong. I will lay it out again. He is correct when I say there is no evidence (scientific) that the Universe was intelligently fine-tuned for life and it doesn’t refute the empirical evidence at all. There is no dispute that a change of physical constants in this Universe would make life as we understand it impossible. However, to imply that it was deliberate is again not testable. The physical constants of this Universe may well be the current result of immeasurable trails and errors (a coincidence). So, it is up to Neil to demonstrate with testable hypotheses otherwise before it goes into a science class. I wonder if he has one. If not, then he is not conducting science (even though he may be correct).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, Neil’s grocery list of “creationist scientists” is meaningless. First, their personal religious beliefs have no bearing on any facts, evidence, or data. Second, not one of them ever used God as an “explanation” to a scientific enquiry – not ever. I’m not going into an in depth analysis of each person Neil waves around, but a quick research of Pasteur tell me that he didn’t “debunk” evolution. In fact, Pasteur had little to say about it. More creationists distortions. Anyway, it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m going to bed. I’m certain jpill can adequately make mincemeat of any of Neil’s claims. I have to be up at 6:00 am.
I see Louis Pasteur and his works as the ANTITHESIS of his contemporary Charles Darwin. Young Darwin sailed the oceans doubting his faith and arguing with the captain of the HMS Beagle over religion. Young Pasteur saw it his calling from God to benefit mankind through his long hours of scientific research in the lab.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOUIS PASTEUR-
"He is best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and preventions of disease. His discoveries reduced mortality from puerperal fever, and he created the first vaccine for rabies. His experiments supported the germ theory of disease. He was best known to the general public for inventing a method to stop milk and wine from causing sickness - this process came to be called pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of microbiology, together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. Pasteur also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the molecular basis for the asymmetry of certain crystals" - Wikipedia
HE DID ALL OF THIS GREAT BIOLOGY WITHOUT ACCEPTING DARWINS THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Pasteur did not see any conflict between science and religion. In fact, he believed that ‘science brings men nearer to God’. In his work as a scientist, he saw evidence of design, not randomness. Pasteur stated that: ‘The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator’.
Every time you drink a glass of milk, think of Louis Pasteur, chemist and microbiologist and BELEIVER IN THE AWESOME CREATOR GOD.
Neil continues to try and conflate evolutionary theory with abiogenesis. Nothing in Neils last post about Pasteur discredits evolution in any way. For those who like an accurate accounting of Pasteur on both of these separate issues:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
This is not for Neil to read it wouldnt do any good &hes too far gone. Its for others who might like to learn some history.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh the SLIPPERY word of EVOLUTION what art thou?
To avoid falsification in regards to first life you argue that evolution theory does not include the origin of first life (as does talkorigins).... However, not all evolutionists have gotten the word yet that it would be better to avoid the mix.
Here are some textbook examples where origin of life is included in evolutionary theory:
"Life may have evolved from inanimate matter, with associations among molecules becoming more and more complex. In this view, the force leading to life was selection; changes in molecules that increased their stability caused the molecules to persist longer. In this text, we & attempt to understand whether the forces of evolution could have led to the origin of life and, if so, how the process might have occurred. "
- George B. Johnson, Jonathan B. Losos, The Living World 5th ed (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), 342.
"Though evolutionists do not know how the first cell could have evolved, they refer to the hypothetical processes leading up to the first cell as chemical evolution, and subsequent processes as biological evolution. "
Regarding LOUIS PASTEUR, his life's work is a testimony that great BIOLOGY WAS PERFORMED without him believing in evolution. Several on this site have attacked those that believe in the CREATOR GOD as not being real scientists, AND that only evolutionists are the ones that do all the hard work of scientific research. LOUIS PASTEUR work disproves this myth.
Pasteur stated that: The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.
Have another MILK... CHEERS!
Neat T
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease get facts correct
Pasteur did not demonstrate that life comes only from life
(That is trying to show a negative. i.e that it could not come about by some other means.)
ALL he demonstrated was that HE could not manage to create COMPLEX life from non-life.
Notice the "HE" and the "COMPLEX".
You may not be aware that COMPLEX life is NOT the same as life.
Secondly the fact that HE could not do it does not mean it is not possible - it just means that HE could not do it.
oh by the way
How EXACTLY do creationists believe life came about.
From what EXACTLY, and HOW exactly
You also produced a long list of scientists who YOU claim were creationists.
Presumptuous.
Belief in a creator did not make them literal creationists.
Also most were dead LONG before evolution was even dreamt of. To a large extent their belief is irrelevent when there were no other theories for them to consider
Quoting one paragraph (if it was the whole paragraph) from one textbook and Neil has thus “proven” that biologists now consider evolution an origins of life theory. Remarkable. Of course, it would help to read the entire context of the passage (creationists are notorious for taking things out of context). So, at my first opportunity I will get a copy of the textbook and read page 342 (and 341 and 333 …perhaps the entire chapter or the entire book) and report. In the meantime, evolution (like Lambda - CDM) is not an origins theory. Chemical evolution and biological evolution are not the same thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think wonderer25 pretty well summed up the Pasteur thing. I’d like to add my own perspective, however.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) A person would have to be utterly demented, a total loon, to dispute that Pasteur was not a creationist. You would be hard pressed to find a pre-twentieth century scientist who wasn’t a creationist. That is, in the most general sense of the word – they openly professed a belief in some deity. Well, no surprise there. But, for the umpteenth time, so what? Their personal religious beliefs do not change facts, evidence, or data in any way.
2) None of the experiments that Pasteur conducted, none of the novel developments he produced (pasteurization, rabies vaccine, etc.) required a belief (or more accurately an acceptance, since science is not a belief system) in evolution theory one way or the other. Pasteur’s experiments really had nothing to do with Darwin’s theory. There is little, if any, connection between evolution and boiling milk.
3) As wonderer25 has already pointed out, the only thing Pasteur demonstrated was that complex life does not spontaneously arise from inanimate matter. (I would say that that is undoubtedly correct – complex life)
4) No one is attacking people, scientists or not, because they believe in God. (Not I, anyway) The vast majority of scientists today openly admit a belief in God – and many of them perform real scientific research. (Neil is attempting disprove a “myth” that doesn’t even exist. Can anyone say straw man?)
5) Again, for more umpteenth times, Pasteur, nor any other real scientist, ever invoked God as an “explanation” for any scientific inquiry. The results of their inquiries may well have enhanced their appreciation of “God’s Creation,” but never was God used AS an explanation. That’s the difference between real scientists and pseudo scientists like Behe, Wells, Dembski, and all the other “creation scientists” and “ID scientists” (their BS’s, MS’s, and Ph.D.’s not withstanding).
6) Real scientists ARE the ones who do all the hard work. All the research, all the field work, all the publishing of REAL scientific papers in REAL scientific journals (like Pasteur did) is done by REAL scientists (and most of them believe in God).
I think Neil should take a break from posting about his perceived weaknesses of evolutionary theory and start posting about all the massive amounts of research currently being conducted in “creation science” and intelligent design. A daunting task, so I hope he has a glass of Milk of Magnesia handy.
Cheers.
Neal, your method of repeating false assertions continues to serve you and your cause poorly. Pasteur's germ theory and its application was singularly instrumental in getting western medicine out of the hands of religious quacks. Before him, western medicine was based on the assumption that disease was God's punishment for sin. As a direct result, nobody bothered to learn the actual causes of disease, and each case was treated uniquely with no concept of what was actually going on. To this day, some people still cite Biblical verses to justify refusing medical treatment and risk their childrens' lives as proof of their faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a result of religious-based medical and social dogma, public health and sanitation was practically non-existent in Europe for most of its history. The idea was that suffering on Earth would be rewarded in Heaven. Up to the 19th century, the citizens of christian Europe were far more likely to get to Heaven from epidemic diseases than their counterparts in pagan Rome, a fact made even more pathetic because it was so preventable.
Individual medical treatment fared no better. Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. and Ignatz Semmelwiess independently recognized empirical evidence that childbed fever was a direct result of doctors infecting their patients by examining them with unclean hands. Semmelweiss' evidence was particularly compelling. He was the chief resident of Vienna Obstetric clinic, which offered free care for poor expectant mothers. He noticed that up to 15% of the patients giving birth there died of childbed fever (in other clinics the rate was as high as 40%). This was compared to a death rate of about 2% for midwives. The infection rate was about 3 times higher, meaning that patients at the clinic could expect to become infected. It was so bad that many homeless women preferred to give birth on the street rather than go to hospital. Semmelweiss implemented a regimen of compulsory hand-washing, and the infections and resultant deaths plummeted. Even so, such proof did not stand up to doctors' faith in themselves, who believed that as gentlemen, their hands were implicitly clean. So new mothers continued to suffer and die needlessly until Pasteur finally proved Streptococcus as the infectious agent in 1879.
Such are just some of the sad consequences of concluding that "God did it".
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt’s more rational to see that the aptitude and interest in scientific discovery is not a product of religion so much as an expression of someones personality. Refusing to see this is to fall into the silly, eye-rolling attitudes of those who claim that there has never been any good to come out of religion.
Neal, if it's eye-rolling attitudes you're worried about now, how about admitting to the hyperbole and bombast that arise spontaneously from your corner?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswonderer25, keelyn and others:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWonderer25 said: "ALL he demonstrated was that HE could not manage to create COMPLEX life from non-life.
Notice the "HE" and the "COMPLEX".
You may not be aware that COMPLEX life is NOT the same as life.
Secondly the fact that HE could not do it does not mean it is not possible - it just means that HE could not do it."
RESPONSE: Your right, I am not aware of any life that is not COMPLEX. In my view there is no such thing as SIMPLE life and this includes prokaryote cells. These are less complex than other animals for sure, but they are nevertheless complex. Modern technology has opened up our understanding of the cell and the cell has been likened unto a factory of precisely functioning machines operating in a coordinated and systematic fashion. It's design reflects on the brilliant design of an awesome God and Creator.
Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation. Life comes from life. Abiogenesis research has not come close to explaining the formation of DNA from non-living matter or the steps from non-living matter to DNA.
Prokaryote cells appear early in the fossil record without ancestry or intermediates before it. Eukaryote cells also appear later in the fossil record without intermediates between it and prokaryote cells. If you have any fossil evidence that show otherwise, please inform us.
If chemical and biological evolution is assumed to be true (which it is by evolutionists) and in order to be falsified one has to show that non-living matter could never become living under any circumstances is impossible to falsify since there are an infinite number of circumstances. So, rather than relying upon empirical evidence, it relies on an assumption of being true until proven false in an infinite number of circumstances. This is one of the reasons evolutionary theory is more an argument based on rationalism then a scientific one.
The following link shows an animation of some of the complex processes within the cell. Perhaps you know of more complete animations on the net. A trip into the cell is always fasinating to me and perhaps you would enjoy it to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.signatureinthecell.com/
Yes, exactly as I expected. I so much as predicted it to myself. Neil has reloaded his gun from the same box of dud ammunition. From Neil:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern technology has opened up our understanding of the cell and the cell has been likened unto a factory of precisely functioning machines operating in a coordinated and systematic fashion. It's [sic] design reflects on the brilliant design of an awesome God and Creator.
Precisely functioning machines? Its hardly precise (or machinery) &all kinds of things can and do go wrong all the time. Thats the reason my younger brother died of acute myeloid leukemia and age 14. Thats real brilliant designing, huh? I might expect something like that from a human designer but not an awesome God and Creator.
And this:
Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation. Life comes from life. Abiogenesis research has not come close to explaining the formation of DNA from non-living matter or the steps from non-living matter to DNA.
Hooray! I wonder if Neil has considered all the job opportunities here. Probably not. Its so much easier to say, God did it! Stop trying to figure it out. Fortunately, thats the difference between scientists and Neil. Again, what Neil is implying here is that science has not firmly established how life FIRST got started, therefore, all of evolution unravels. Sorry. Evolution is about what has happened AFTER life first got started; for the umpteenth time (because it fails to penetrate Neils aluminum head shielding), evolution is not an origins theory.
And this:
I am not aware of any life that is not COMPLEX. In my view there is no such thing as SIMPLE life and this includes prokaryote cells.
Well, ok. So, Neil is dazed. Thats his problem. Others dont see the biological same complexity.
This:
If chemical and biological evolution is assumed to be true (which it is by evolutionists) and in order to be falsified one has to show that non-living matter could never become living under any circumstances is impossible to falsify since there are an infinite number of circumstances. So, rather than relying upon empirical evidence, it relies on an assumption of being true until proven false in an infinite number of circumstances. This is one of the reasons evolutionary theory is more an argument based on rationalism then a scientific one.
Well, its late and this leaves me a little dazed. I have no idea what Neil means by this. Maybe he will clarify it for me at some point.
I will end with this from Neil:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Prokaryote cells appear early in the fossil record without ancestry or intermediates before it. Eukaryote cells also appear later in the fossil record without intermediates between it and prokaryote cells. If you have any fossil evidence that show otherwise, please inform us.”
For anyone interested (not Neil – there is too much COMPLEXITY), something better than a fossil record (I think).
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html
(P.S. – I have read Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell,” and his ID\creationist claptrap has been debunked ad nauseum)
Contrary to shallow comic-book Creationism, there are in fact abundant and well-documented transitional fossils that are compelling evidence for macroevolution and evolutionary theory. Instead of obsessively focusing on the eye, which has no hard parts that can be easily fossilized, I hope reasoning people will listen to the evolution of the unique mammal ear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf the many features that all mammals share, one is that all mammals have only one bone in their jaw, called the dentary. Another is that all mammals have three very tiny bones in their middle ear, called the incus, malleus, and stapes. Reptiles have only a stapes between the external and inner ear. Instead, their external eardrum connects to two bones of the lower jaw, and its typical for reptiles to rest their jaw on the ground to pick up vibrations from it. Based on developmental comparisons between reptile and mammal embryos, Ernst Gaupp and Karl Reichert in 1837 discovered that the embryological structures which grew into the incus and malleus of the mammal middle ear were the same structures that grew into the reptile quadrate and articular bones of the reptile lower jaw, including the associated muscles and nerves. So a testable hypothesis is that if mammals developed from ancestral reptiles, we should find transitional forms from the pure ancestral reptile ear and jaw to the modern mammal ear and jaw. Not surprisingly, that is exactly what we find. From ancestral amniotes to synapsids to pelycosaurs to therapsids to cynodonts to the first true mammals, a development spanning about 200 million years. From a design that emphasizes multiple jaw joints to a design that emphasizes enhanced auditory sensitivity, frequency range, and directionality. A consequence of selective pressures and random mutations resulting in the modification of existing forms to create new species via natural selection. As suggested by comparative embryology and anatomy and confirmed by paleontology, without any untested assumptions and lacking any apparent supernatural intervention.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProkaryote cells appear early in the fossil record without ancestry or intermediates before it.
My reply:
There is honest skeptical inquiry and there is simply hubris. Frankly, I am amazed there exists identifiable fossil traces 3.5 Billion (yes, with a "B") years old of incredibly tiny bacteria. For you to insist on identifiable evidence of even older and presumably even smaller lifeforms is simply unreasonable. Just what do you propose such fossils would look like, Neal? What would they be fossils of, exactly? If you can't answer that, you have no justification here.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation"
No he didn't
He performed an experiment where he failed to produce complex life from non-life
The fact that HE did not do it does not PROVE anything
So this is a lie.
(Also he was looking for COMPLEX life - perhaps he produced non-complex life but did not know it - no-one will ever know)
Secondly
So it is your view that there is no such thing as simple life ?
If you wish to attempt to introduce a definition of life then go ahead, but until you do your view is irrelevent
"It's design reflects on the brilliant design of an awesome God and Creator."
Presumptuous - You have not shown ANY evidence of design
"..................If you have any fossil evidence that show otherwise, please inform us. "
Sorry I fail to see any logic here
Are you saying lack of fossils PROVES spontaneous creation of Prokaryote and Eukaryote cells ?
Lets assume for the moment they were spontaneously created.
What EXACTLY is spontaneous creation.?
How and under what circumstances does is occur?
How long does it take ? -
that is - Is it actually spontaneous ie.e takes 0 time, if not then how long does it take?
Of course you should supply evidence for your assertions.
You still havent answered the questions
HOW did life start according to creationism/id. ?
That is - ACTUAL scientific evidence of the mechanism as to how life was created.
WHERE did the material come from ?
IF you have ANY SCIENTIFIC evidence as to HOW life came about, or WHERE the material came from then please supply it.
Over the past months you have been repeatedly asked for evidence, and have promised to supply it many time, but so far have supplied none.
Were all your promises just lies?
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If chemical and biological evolution is assumed to be true (which it is by evolutionists) and in order to be falsified one has to show that non-living matter could never become living under any circumstances is impossible to falsify since there are an infinite number of circumstances."
Paraphrasing this -
Evolution is not falsifiable as you cannot PROVE that non-life cannot become life, as there are an infinite number of circumstances)
So on the one hand you say "Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation"
On the other you say it cannot be PROVED non-life cannot become life.
So in fact you agree with me that Pasteurs experiment DID NOT prove spontaneous generation could not occur.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Abiogenesis research has not come close to explaining the formation of DNA from non-living matter or the steps from non-living matter to DNA."
You are presuming that DNA is an absolute requirement for life.
Maybe it is, maybe it isnt.
Perhaps life can exist without DNA
No- one knows (and this goes for you too.)
To present is as a de facto requisite for life is a stupid argument.
Keelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrecisely functioning machines? It's hardly precise (or machinery) &all kinds of things can and do go wrong all the time. That's the reason my younger brother died of acute myeloid leukemia and age 14. That's real brilliant "designing," huh? I might expect something like that from a human designer but not an "awesome God and Creator."
My reply:
In a lighthearted moment, I will comment on the twisted sense of humor God must have to create mosquitos and bald heads, two of my personal pet peeves. But I also know a developing Universe causes real human suffering. It sounds like your brother's death was fairly recent, and I am sorry for your loss.
Keeyln,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry about your little brother. My family has also suffered lose from cancer, as have other families. When disease hits home it is very difficult and even those with strong faith do ask why. I can't think of a more sad or difficult time in my life. Even the man Job in the bible asked why stuff was happening to him. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I know that for me I see much more beauty and wonder to life than disease and tragedy.
Charles Darwin writes extensively on the problem he had with the "evil" that he saw in nature. For him it was easier to rationalize that God would not have created things as they are, but the evil in nature was easily explained if it was all the result of the random processes of nature itself. Some of his writings on this subject include more references to God than sermons heard in many churches on Sunday morning.
But, I can't deny the fact that many things in life are strong, efficient and beautiful. What about the people that live to be a 100 and have hardly been to see the doctor? I've found that most people function well for a long time if they practice healthy life style choices. I have also seen healing as a direct result of prayer. I have seen a 2 inch skin melanoma on my fathers face turn pale while my mother and I and him prayed and within a few days disappear without leaving any kind of mark. My father had a history of skin melanoma, in which the previous ones had been removed by surgery.
Keelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html
My reply:
Great link! As one of those who has likely come across that way, I thank you for pointing out a way to be less rhetorical and hopefully more persuasive.
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral weeks ago you asked what evidence would be acceptable to show creationism/id
The starting point is for you to show any scientific evidence you can. THEN we will examine if it holds water or not.
So far you have produced none at all.
All you have produced is the fact that life exists. No explanation, never mind evidence, as how life came to be. (It is also a circular argument).
Just because something "looks like" or "appears as if" is not evidence.
Fine - You believe life was "spontaneously" created (Is this correct ?)
Now go ahead - give any evidence you can as to the mechanics of this process
For example -
1) what do you mean by "spontaneous"?
Do you mean instantaneous, or over a short period of time, if so then how long.?
i.e. was it a process , or an instantaneous event
2) What exactly caused this "spontaneous creation". i.e what was the causal agent?
3) What precipitated the event. ?
4)Where did the material for the event come from? i.e did it come into being at the same time as life was created, or did it already exist.?
5) I see you believe in the principle that life cannot come from non-life.
So this begs the question.
If you believe this then how can you believe in the "creation" of life, as this, by definition, means that before the "creation" of life, life could not have existed and therefore must have come from non-life.?
6) You referred to the creation of DNA as a requisite of life.
Does whatever you propose created life have DNA?
Somewhat of a paradox I would say.
So far you have explored the farthest reaches of the evidence behind evolution.
In all your exploration have you not found any actual scientific evidence that supports creation/id ?
Surely there must be some somewhere, or have you not found any yet ?
To Neil:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts a little off-topic, but its not the first time in this thread. I agree with you that many things in life are strong and beautiful. In fact, I think all of nature is strong and beautiful. Efficiency is often something else again. Sometimes nature is very efficient and sometimes it appears very inefficient. But, I know that by any human standards, nature can be cruel. To paraphrase PZ Myers, the Universe is a nasty place. Step outside your little support box for just a moment, and virtually everything in the Universe will eat you up if you let it. It wont think about it. It wont be bias about it. It wont have any remorse about it. It wont see any morality about it. It will just do it, because thats how nature operates. Sometimes, it causes a person to be born totally deaf (at worst a minor inconvenience). Sometimes, it snatches the life away from some kid that has done nothing wrong. And sometimes, it forces some people to go through a long life far from fitting the arbitrarily established norm. Im glad that you feel prayers worked for you. But, prayers are inconsistent. They didnt work for my parents and not from any lack of calling on them. Theyve had five years to wonder why. Its not because of any supernatural malevolence, its just because thats the way nature works. Some things get an extra chance and some things dont. However, I have no doubts about your sincerity.
To jpill:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislol. You can be funny sometimes. That made me laugh. The mosquitoes I can understand (although, we both know that even mosquitoes have a place). But, “bald heads?” Ok, why are bald heads a peeve for you? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. lol
P.S. – Glad you enjoyed the link.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome women like bald men. Maybe that explains everything. If a guy doesn't have anything else going for him, being bald may be his ticket.
Neil’s creationist presumptions are showing again with no evidence of support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill said:
“…on the twisted sense of humor God must have to create mosquitos and bald heads, two of my personal pet peeves.”
Neil said:
“Some women like bald men. Maybe that explains everything. If a guy doesn't have anything else going for him, being bald may be his ticket.”
Note that jpill was not gender specific; Neil simply assumes that jpill meant men. It would be just as valid to assume that jpill was referring to female bald heads and conclude, “Some men like bald women. Maybe that explains everything. If a girl doesn’t have anything else going for her, being bald may be her ticket.”
Also, jpill was not specific to sexual orientation. That could provide at least two subset conclusions, “Some men like bald men. Maybe that explains everything. If a guy doesn't have anything else going for him, being bald may be his ticket,” or, “Some women like bald women. Maybe that explains everything. If a girl doesn't have anything else going for her, being bald may be her ticket.”
Finally, jpill was not even species specific. Neil only assumes that jpill meant human heads. However, since jpill used “mosquitoes” and “bald heads” in the same sentence, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that jpill was referring to bald headed mosquitoes, possibly of either gender (and sexual orientation?).
Clearly, the only conclusion that meets all the criteria of the evidence is, jpill has personal pet peeves about mosquitoes and bald heads.
(Sometimes, it’s anything for an argument!) lol
Bald headed mosquitoes. lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTO all readers out there
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may have noticed that the vast majority of posts on this are regarding Darwins theory of evolution
Do you ever wonder why this is this ?
After all there are several "research establishments" supporting creationism/id.
Has anyone actually read any , and I mean ANY, actual scientific evidence that supports creationism/id.
Surely you would think that for all the funding and supposed "research", these establishments would have come up with SOME evidence.
BUT NO , so far there has been ABSOLUTELY NO scientific evidence presented by ANYONE that supports creationism/id
Remember evidence FOR a "theory" does not consist of evidence AGAINST another theory
( I use the term "theory" VERY loosely for creationism/id )
So the question now arises
What exactly is the purpose of these supposed research establishments?
(they are certainly not doing any "research")
The answer is in the "wedge strategy" - a document written by the "discovery institute"
(Now theres an misnomer if ever there was one.)
It is evident that the stategy is that, because there is absolutely 0 chance that creationism/id will be taught as a science under the present rules/procedures of science, then they intend to discredit these rules/procedures until creationism/id CAN be taught on the same basis as a science.
M BEHE at the dover trial acknowledged that under his view of science, astrology,tea leaf reading, palm reading, and many others could be taught as a science.
Under the strategy creationists/id will persistently question everything to do with evolution etc.
to the nth degree and DEMAND answers, with a lack of answer will state that this is as a result of a failure of whichever evolution theory applies.
But on the other hand will ignore ANY demands or evidence that supports creationism/id.
Several writers (one of whom is still posting) have repeatedly ignored demands for evidence over several months now. All of them repeatedly revert to the examination of the evidence FOR evolution (begining of life, evolution by natural selection, whichever scientific theory covers the subject),
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you found any evidence for creationism/id yet?
It’s my understanding that the Biologic Institute (the “research” arm of the “un”Discovery Institute) is currently in the process of producing great gobs of “research” (i.e., they are frantically busy making shit up) in support of Intelligent Design. However, the “research” is being kept secret (i.e., they don’t want to chance anyone discovering that they are just making shit up) until it be can published in their journals (i.e., popular press releases and books). 2009 is supposed to be a BIG year in ID research. Four months left to go – still waiting. So far, the DI has been doing its typical PR routine of touting the same old perceived weaknesses in evolutionary theory over and over and presenting absolutely no scientific evidence of ID whatsoever. Is anyone surprised? Meyer’s new book, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design,” is supposed to be the newest great “masterpiece” for ID, but it’s really just that same old tired argument from ignorance – “it’s just too damn complicated, it must be the result of …you know who.” I’m certain that Dawkins’ new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth,” will put Meyer to shame (of course, that doesn’t take too much).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T seems to have given up on enlightening the unrepentant heathens here, and is busy spreading his unprovable dogma in other forums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn, regarding bald heads, as an ower of a chrome dome, my prejudice is from personal experience. As a famous (and bald!) humorist once noted "I wouldn't pet a dog with mange."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your link:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html
I would like to make one small comment. Nick Matzke makes the point that the Origin of Life (OOL) is one of the "Big Questions". He goes on to say that evolutionists' standard answers are "disingenuous" because, and I quote Nick:
They are basically lazy, all-too-easy responses relying on hair-splitting technicalities or nearly philosophical assertions of the even if the creationists were empirically correct on this point, which they arent but Im too busy to back it up right now, it wouldnt matter variety.
Nick then goes on to describe some of the recent research related to OOL.
My reply is it seems to me Creationists regard all scientific answers as disingenuous, in my opinion because the answers don't address Creationists' motivating concerns. So I suspect his new answers would be equally unsuccessful with Creationists. Whether his new answers fare any better with the non-creationist but skeptical public is unclear. My impression is the evidence he cites is also on the technical side (can you say V1Vo-ATPases? I knew you could), and only something like manufactured protoplasm launching out of the testtube and sucking the beautiful but helpless lab assistant's brains out is going to make any difference.
Of course, I might have become somewhat cynical on this point.
jpill69 said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“…Creationists regard all scientific answers as disingenuous, in my opinion because the answers don't address Creationists' motivating concerns. So I suspect his new answers would be equally unsuccessful with Creationists.”
I would agree with that, which is why I no longer attempt to persuade hard-core creationists of anything. I’m more concerned with those who are more open-minded to reality.
Which reminds me – do you know in which forums Neil is flaunting his creationists BS now? I don’t necessarily want to engage; sometimes it’s more fun to just observe for a while and watch things build up.
Neal T, Laughing Gravy, and Ambertooth are currently playing with each other here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darwins-living-legacy
I am someone who makes an effort to test my own opinions. I believe one of the best ways to do that is to understand sincere but contrasting opinions. To that end, I share with others this link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27
James Tour holds multiple professorships at Rice University, so his academic and scientific bonafides are unimpeachable. However, he is also a Messianic Jew, and one of the original 100 signatories of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwin". He is very clear that he does not agree with ID, but he is also uncomfortable with macroevolution. He also says that his public questioning of evolution has caused him some professional problems.
I would love an opportunity to discuss with him his concerns. I would ask him the same questions I have asked Neal T, only I would expect to get more coherent answers.
I watched Dawkins' explanation of the evolution of the eye that jpill69 provided the link to on the Darwin Legacy discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFIRST of all, he started with the light sensitive spot and said nothing about how evilution (as he pronounces it) formed this. His English accent reminded me of a scene from one of my favorite movies, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, where this English fellow enters instructions into the computer in order to find the golden ticket. LOL
Anyway...
The light sensitive spot can not just be taken for granted. It too is a precisely functioning system with multiple parts. I would have liked him to tell in detail how evolution formed the light sensitive spot. Where are the intermediates from blind creatures to the light sensitive spot? My next post will include basic details of the structure and function of the light sensitive spot.
SECONDLY, he does not mention any existing creatures that just have the concave opening around the light spot. If someone knows of any, please inform me as Dawkins should have in his presentation. He mentions the Nautilus, but this animal already has the eye cover with the small hole and it has not changed in 500 million years with fossils from the Cambrian eon.
THIRD, the same eye technology occuring in different creatures, such as humans and the Octopus is not explained other than eye evolution is so simple it could happen again and again.
FOURTH, he mentions Mount Improbable and that nothing can go down Mount Improbable. Really? How about sighted creatures loosing their eyesight? What does he mean? That evolution must either stop or proceed to a more advanced structure is not based on science.
FIFTH, he keeps the eye simple to fool the masses. I felt sorry for those children who were being deceived by his well sounding words and not being taught what the eye really is.
In summary, he does not mention how the light sensitive spot came about. He mentions the curvature and the light hole and the basic lens. How about the rest of the story...
posterior compartment
ora serrata
ciliary muscle
ciliary zonules
canal of Schlemm
pupil
anterior chamber
cornea
iris
lens cortex
lens nucleus
ciliary process
conjuntiva
inferior oblique muscule
inferior rectus muscule
medial rectus muscle
retinal arteries and veins
optic disc
dura mater
central retinal artery
central retinal vein
optical nerve
vorticose vein
bulbar sheath
macula
fovea
sclera
choroid
superior rectus muscule
retina
To jpill:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I certainly respect Dr. Tour’s academic credentials (although, I want to point out he is not a biologist), I frankly find his signature to the Disco Tute’s “Dissent From Darwin” list (regardless whether or not he disagrees with Intelligent Design) to be a slap in the face to the real science he professes to practice. Signing on to anything that the DI (an organization with a clear-cut religious agenda – Christianity, specifically …let’s not try to kid anyone) spins out is a slap to real science, in my opinion. I will be the first to say (again) that I am an amateur when it comes to biology – it is not the field of science that I am studying – but, it seems to me that Dr. Tour, like so many others (for what ever reasons), has fallen into that proverbial hole of misconception; that there is some magic demarcation line between micro and macro evolution. There isn’t. Modern evolutionary synthesis makes no such distinction. I don’t know what else to say – that is the bottom line. If Dr. Tour has a problem with this, then it is his problem. The rest of the professional biological community doesn’t have this problem – they already know there is no distinction. So, perhaps (just maybe), Dr. Tour needs a few more lessons in intermediate evolutionary theory. Just a thought.
So now, Neil has reduced himself to ridiculing ones local accent or dialect. Its my understanding that here in the U.S. northerners make fun of southern accents (wouldnt you know, I would be currently living in the middle of those funny accents). Of course, southerners (and others) make fun of downeast Maine accents (having formally lived in Maine for 7 years, I would know that). Although I cannot personally attest to what either accent actually sounds like, I can say that making note of local enunciations is hardly constructive to any serious discourse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway &
Back to eyeballs &again. Neils latest post is reason number 180 (+ whatever it is) why I no longer engage hard-core creationists directly. For anyone interested, please start with photoreceptive proteins, which can be found even in unicellular organisms, and work your way UP. Typically, creationists start at the top and work their way DOWN. No wonder they are so continuously confused.
By the way, attacks on evilution aside, any report yet on some actual scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design? Any published peer-reviewed articles in any leading science journals yet? Anything on the fantastic research being conducted at the DI, ICR, CSI? Anything? I read that the Biologic Institute recently recruited three new young-earth-creationists maybe they will come out some new groundbreaking research soon. You think?
Neal, your entire reply is completely irrelevant. You have asserted repeatedly and without evidence that the EYE is irreducibly complex, that the ENTIRE EYE must appear complete and all at once, that any portion of the eye is entirely useless without ALL of the eye, thus proving (to yourself) the impossibility of evolution and the infallibility of Intelligent Design. Now that Dr. Dawkins handily proves your
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisassertion entirely false, you now pretend that you really meant some smaller part of the eye is irreducibly complex. That is simply a lie, and you know it. You continue to demonstrate your intellectual disabilities.
Whether or not Euglena have simple light-sensitive spots, whether or not Planaria have concave eye-cups, whether or not Nautilus have eye covers (you're wrong, Dr. Dawkins is right), these transitional forms do not have to actually exist in order for their functionality to be acknowledged. Dr. Dawkins has shown that the eye is NOT irreducibly complex. Despite your pointless fixation with his accent, his demonstation is convincing to any reasoning mind.
Can you at least try to know what you're talking about before you post again?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDawkins proved that you can improve a spot of light on the wall by adding a concave enclosure, a hole and a lens. Unfortunately that is not what a real eye is. It is like a man showing up to bid on a new world class skyscraper project and bringing a box of legos to prove he is qualified.
Dawkins is building a strawman experiment. He needs to build a real eye as a starting point, not a box with a hole and lens. A real eye has many parts...
posterior compartment
ora serrata
ciliary muscle
ciliary zonules
canal of Schlemm
pupil
anterior chamber
cornea
iris
lens cortex
lens nucleus
ciliary process
conjuntiva
inferior oblique muscule
inferior rectus muscule
medial rectus muscle
retinal arteries and veins
optic disc
dura mater
central retinal artery
central retinal vein
optical nerve
vorticose vein
bulbar sheath
macula
fovea
sclera
choroid
superior rectus muscule
retina
The real thing is nothing like his presentation. He needs to go much further even in his imagination. The intermediates are missing and convergence of eye design is spread over all different kinds of species. Why am I wrong to insist that he provide more details?
Actually I like the English accent. Dawkins' demeanor and words just brought back a funny scene from a very good movie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn, I absolutely agree with you about DiscoTute, and I totally realize Dr. Tour is not a biologist, and that he had to know what he was getting into bed with when he signed the "Dissent From Darwin". I agree, I agree, I agree...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut....
How do you know what you're opposed to if you don't listen to the opposition?
Dr. Tour is not the only one. Are you really so sure you know WHY a highly trained scientist would do that? Are you really so insulted that you can't even listen to his point of view?
neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why am I wrong to insist that he provide more details?"
For several months I and many other people have insisted you present evidence for id/creationism, you can now add irriducible complexity to the demands
To date YOU have ignored all these demands.
You insist other people provide details.?
YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE DEMANDED
Neal, it seems to me you are saying that Dr. Dawkins would have to use a real eye in order to convince you. Why? The purpose of Dr. Dawkins demonstration is to show how a less-than-complete eye still provides useful functionality. He doesn't need or even want to copy a real eye in all its biological detail. You can't be that unfamiliar with simplified models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, Dawkins doesn't need or even want a copy of a real eye in all its biological detail because he can't do it....
Detailed models of the eye exist from optometry schools. Why didn't he use one of those starting from scratch and show how the addition of each of the 30 parts of the eye evolve one part at a time??? Yes, one part at a time, just as he did with his box, but using something realistic.
I mean, his box is something that Fred Flintstone might use, but come on, this is the 21st century. Evolutionists are constantly trying to take the high ground of scientific evidence and models, etc. If Dawkins was selling bionic eyes based on this model with the promise of delivering a functioning eye, would you invest or want to see more details?
To jpill:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, my original response was hurried due to time constraints of the moment. I no longer have that constraint. So, let me try and clarify myself. I absolutely agree that one should always listen to the opposition – otherwise, how would you even know that they are the opposition, not to mention how to form a strategy against it? Of course you listen to the opposition – intently. Having said that, I am not certain that I would consider Dr. Tour as the “opposition.” I read the read the article you provided in the link, so I may quote from it directly from time to time. I will do my best not to intentionally quote Dr. Tour out of context – a typical creationist tactic.
First of all, let me say that I am not personally insulted by any of Dr. Tour’s remarks – I realize he is totally sincere. I don’t believe that any credible scientist would feel insulted, either. That’s not what I meant. The insult was not towards any one individual (myself) or any group for that matter – rather, the insult was against good science itself. As you said yourself, Dr. Tour could not possibly be naive enough not to realize the bed companions he was cozying up to under the blankets. The Discovery Institute has a long and notorious reputation, whether intentional or not (decide for yourself), of undermining good science. Dr. Tour is supposed to be a good scientist. Deliberately associating himself with that organization (as an original signatory of the “Dissent from Darwin” list) undermines his credibility in my opinion. And not just my opinion – apparently he has taken some flak from his own peers. I’m not surprised.
To jpill cont.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe good doctor is very candid from the very beginning that he speaks from a lay position. He has no formal training in biology. From what I can gather from the article, his entire premise is formed around his “problem” with macroevolution. I can see that I don’t need to quote Dr. Tour – I will paraphrase myself; Dr. Tour has evidently fell victim to that proverbial hole of misconception - he doesn’t seems to realize (from the dozen or less books he has read) that there is no magic line between micro and macroevolution. It doesn’t exist. No wonder he is getting flak from some of his peers in the life sciences. I see him in a rather murky position. He doesn’t want to be labeled as a proponent of Intelligent Design (although, he signs on to the ‘Dissent from Darwin’ list), but he has a problem with macroevolution. And he admits that he is a layperson in the field of biology (which has a myriad of sub-specialties). Now, if you are not going to endorse the religious agenda (Intelligent Design), and if you are not going to accept the rigorously tested and established mainstream science (modern evolutionary synthesis), then you need to advance your own hypothesis to explain the facts. And if you are not going to do that, then frankly my advise is to say, “I really don’t know enough to have an informed opinion on that,” shut the fuck up, and stick to your own field of expertise.
You might want to enlighten yourself (if you haven’t already – it wouldn’t surprise me if you have) to “Steve” list. It’s a counter to the “Dissent from Darwin” list. You can find it here:
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve
If you wish to continue this specific dialogue with me, you can send an email to:
keelyn_87@yahoo.com
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDetailed models of the eye exist from optometry schools. Why didn't he use one of those starting from scratch and show how the addition of each of the 30 parts of the eye evolve one part at a time??? Yes, one part at a time, just as he did with his box, but using something realistic.
My reply:
In cases where you want to show the advantages of different designs, it's best to focus on the relevant differences and ignore the obscuring details. That is the intent behind simplified models. No reasonable person has a problem understanding this.
In your case, you have a superficial comic-book understanding of evolutionary theory that blinds you to reason. You repeat again your expectation that 'evolutionists' should argue as if they believe separate nonfunctioning parts would develop independently toward a unifying functioning form. But evolution does not and can not work that way, and Dr. Dawkins know it. Don't expect him or anybody else to argue your strawman for you.
Keelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Tour has evidently fell victim to that proverbial hole of misconception...
My reply:
Because I admire you and respect your contributions to this forum, and because I expect others would like to turn it into a lie, I will not add to this after this post. But I raised the subject here and I am obliged to reply here.
There is no doubt that an overwhelming majority of all scientists, and not just biologists, affirmatively support evolution, evolutionary theory, common descent, macroevolution, and the teaching of same in science classrooms everywhere. I fully recognize that even the 700+ scientists DiscoTut claims is but a small fraction of the total number of living scientists. Further, there is real doubt that all of the signatories are real scientists and all of them actually signed. But I am obliged to test my hypothesis. As you know, it's impossible to prove something true for all cases, but to prove something false takes only one. Therefore, I seek out those who disagree with me. Dr. Tour appears to be one. I respect that you have found a final answer for yourself. Perhaps you know more than me and I seek confrontation for its own sake. Nevertheless, I hope you will respect that I continue to seek a final answer for me.
For anyone interested
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as a matter of interest I counted 740 people who supposedly signed the "Dissent from Darwin" as of 2008 (from the list available on the site)
Of these 81% were supposedly in the US, 19% rest of the world.
Interesting that a PEWRESEARCH survey indicated that 81% of US scientists agreed with evolution. (though its definition of scientist is somewhat looser than the site)
(Wonder what the %age of scientists in the rest of the world agree with evolution.?)
It is also interesting that in order to add your name to the list you send an e-mail .
How the site verifies the existence and authenticity of the sender, I have no idea.
For those who are impressed by the claims of the dissent from darwin site
There is an opposing site for scientists who support Darwin
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve
This is a list of all scientists who have added their names that they agree with Darwin.
BUT the condition is that their first name MUST be Stephen.
As of August 2009 over 1100 Steves have added their support
REMEMBER These are ONLY the scientists with Stephen as a first name
Makes the Dissent from Darwin look pathetic doesn't it !!!
Laughing Gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMakes the "Dissent from Darwin" look pathetic doesn't it !!!
My reply:
As written, it is hardly a ringing endorsement of ID. That both sides interpret it that way anyway gives it more meaning than it really deserves.
It just goes to show you what a pathetic PR game the Disco Tute plays. There is little verification process in involved; some of these scientists qualifications are dubious at best they had to pare a lot of fakes that were deliberately added (Elmer Fudd for one, I believe), and they started doing a real check only after the phonies were pointed out to them three dozen times (or more).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts shockingly lacking with biologists and others in related fields of the life sciences. But, the Disco Tute toots that:
Signers of the Dissent List have signed the list because it is their professional opinion that the evidence is lacking for the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less. So says Rob Crowther, Director of Public and Media Relations at the DI.
Hmmm. Professional opinion? By what qualification does a physicist, or a mathematician, or a chemist, or a meteorologist, or an assistant professor of alternative medicine, form a PROFESSIONAL opinion about something that is clearly outside their area of expertise, especially when it conflicts with the overwhelming majority of those scientists who actually work in biology and other related fields? Well, thats how the liars at the DI manage to fool an uninformed public. Its reprehensible.
If that is a quote from the DI then Rob Crowther should get his facts straight
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not what the subscribers are agreeing to. It is similar but I would say is significantly different.
Dr. Ralph Seelke is a Professor of Biology at the University of Wisconsin/Superior, and a signatory of the Dissent From Darwin. He appears to be active in several anti-Darwin and anti-evolution causes, and claims to have an experiment that proves naturalistic mechanisms can't support macroevolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Laughing gravy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/doubts_about_darwin_stem_from.html
Paragraph three. I guess Robby needs to get his "facts" straight. But then, he is the Director of Public and Media Relations. You would think he would already have his facts straight.
To jpill:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, jpill, I do respect (and admire) you comments, but I’m not quite sure where you are going with this (Tour and Seelke). I already commented on Dr. Tour. Dr. Seelke, well, who knows – maybe he is suffering from biologyitis of the gonads or the neurons; some progressive disease that attacks only biologists when they start to get old. Of course, it could be he is suffering from some ulterior "disease" of the wallet. It seems that he helped co-author a book, "Explore Evolution," along with that "brilliant brainchild" of the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer (and Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul Nelson – all IDC'ers) and was an "expert" witness of six at some hearings of the SBOE in Texas about supplemental material for biology classes. One of those supplementary articles was (surprise!) the book, "Exploring Evolution." It was one more backdoor attempt at getting ID crammed into the science class. Can you say, "I smell money?"
He is not a very prolific publisher and despite his claim to "have an experiment that proves naturalistic mechanisms can't support macroevolution," he has not published a single article in any peer reviewed journal to substantiate it. Again, I think he suffers from biologyitist – like any disease, it doesn't affect every biologist, just a few. The list is way to long, so just go here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
and type in "Seelke" under search scienceblogs in the upper right. You will get all kinds of juicy info about the good doctor.
All- I need to leave this discussion for now and will not be posting for awhile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as evidence for Creation, I pointed to the sudden appearance of complex prokaryote life in the fossil record. No progenitors are identified.
Eurkaryote life appears later in the fossil record with no intermediates between it and prokaryote.
Then comes the multi-celled animals of the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, which are complex creatures with various and differing body plans. Again, no progenitors have been identified for these other than some speculation because evolution is assumed to be true.
Darwin perdicted an innumerable host of intermediates, but there is nothing in the fossil record for the honest observer to see anything near an innumerable host of intermediates. Indeed, even the eye as Dawkins teaches advanced a step at a time, but again, only a couple possible progenitors were identified. The eye has many parts and the slow evolution of eyes is not seen in the fossil record. Also, we see the same kind of eyes in different so-called evolutionary lines (human and octopus eye are the same). Saltations is what must happen for evolution to be true, but saltations are not an option for evolutionists. Life is a mosiac that shares various design features across the spectrum. Take the platypus as a prime example.
Funny that evolutionists insist that natural processes evolved chemicals to form the first life, yet they do not know how it happened. Yet, many on this site have asked how the creator created. The word "spontaneous creation" has also been thrown around this discussion. What is that? Spontaneous Generation refers to natural processes forming life WITHOUT AN OUTSIDE agent. Look it up. This is not what I am claiming for creation. I am claiming that God, in his knowledge and power, formed life.
If Dawkins claimed to have formed life from ordinary chemicals, I'm sure that you would be content in believing him if he put together a presentation with a box and a couple add-on's. I would not be content and that is what makes us think differently.
For now, farewell and best wishes until later.
Briefly, to anyone who has read Neil's last post, please understand that paragraphs 2 through 6 are utterly false, as has been pointed out to him numerous times on this thread, but it hasn't (and apparently can't) penetrate the tin foil. But, even if they weren't false, none of it would be evidence for creation - Neil's 'either or' concepts don't wash.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo to all, please wish Neil a bonny farewell. Hopefully a permanent one.
neal t has again reverted to typical creationist arguments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo fossil link has been found that connects species A and species B (i.e a transitional fossil)
according to creationists. Never mind that they omit to define what constitutes a transitional fossil.
So low an behold , whatever fossils are found they deny they are transitional.
(Transitional fossils - After over 3 BILLION years (for prokaryotes), !!!!!!!!!, - we should be so lucky)
Creationists therefore imply it does not exist
Therefore evolution is proved wrong,
Therefore species B was created.
(Zero out of 10 for logic)
So lack of positive evidence for theory A = proof of B
Just a reminder - creationism/id is not even a theory - NO-ONE hads presented ANY evidence to support it)
It is also a stupid premise (who says there isn't an as yet unknown C)
Again he claims that a know fact is evidence of something, in his case and terminology "creation events" in the Avalon and Cambrian explosions.
(These "explosions" lasted around 20 -40 MILLION years. - Thats 1000+ times longer than evolution estimates homo sapiens has existed.)
On what does he base this - He claims that because no fossils have been found that no progenitors exist, therefore many new creatures were "created."
So he used the same argument as before -
lack of positive evidence for A = proof of B
The fact that it is quite possible that the progenitors may not have left ANY fossils (not all creatures fossilise) does not come into his thinking.
And what evidence does he present that the "new" creatures were in fact created. - NONE
Does he present evidence as to HOW they were created - NO
Does he present evidence that a creator existed - NO
Does he present evidence that the creatures were actually created (e.g. could not have evolved) - NO
So the ONLY evidence he has are the explosions themselves -
In fact he has no idea (i.e scientific evidence) as to show how the species were created, or that they were in fact created. He just presumes they were.
Without such evidence I could equally claim that my cat created both "explosions" and all life.
(There is a lot more evidence that my cat exists than a creator). I have no idea how he could have done it , but then neither has neal t.
Anyone can make any claims they like .
In the scientific world claims without scientific evidence to support them are worthless.
This is the current situation as regards creationism/id.
Now he uses a typical argument used by creationists. That evolution answers the requirements if creationism/id
He has persistantly demanded that evolution explain how the eye evolved.
He has persistently ignored posts by jpill that this a strawman argument in that he is expecting evolution to explain creationism.
Of course (he asserts) failure to explain creationism requirements = failure of evolution
In all cases does he attempt to explain how whatever organ he is talking about came to exist --- NO
His sole argument - he doesn't believe evolution, therefore creation did it.
Its a return to the - any unanswered question -> god did it scenario.
Nothing wrong in believing it , BUT IT AINT SCIENCE.
He is also taking a paradoxical position.
Questioning evolution, but is content to assume the existence of a creator (with no evidence) , is content to assume that life was created (with no evidence)
Questioning one but not the other.?? WHY NOT ?
Hold your horses
I would say this is clear evidence that he believes evolution to be a science (because he questions it), but creationism/id to be a religion (he doesn't attempt to explain anything as regards creationism/id because it is his belief)
Neal t claims 25 years (or was it 35 years ?) of research.
You would sure think in all this time he would have found some evidence to support his claim for creation. But though he has been asked many times he has not produced ANY evidence (nor has anyone else). All he has done is restate known facts (Perhaps hes hiding the evidence ?).
This in essence is the problem with creationism/id.
NONONE HAS EVER PRODUCED EVEN JUST ONE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS IT.
Sure they believe it - BUT BELIEF AINT SCIENCE.
A typical piece of misinformation by neal t
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Funny that evolutionists insist that natural processes evolved chemicals to form the first life, yet they do not know how it happened. "
What he omits is that evolutionists have a hypothesis as to how it occured - and experiments to show how the very basic building blocks of life could be formed in the right atmosphere.
These being the very first steps to showing how life could have evolved.
To say that evolutionists do not know how it happened is misinformation
Evolutionists have an hypothesis as to the "how" and experiments are continually being carried to expand the evidence to show the "how",( and I have no doubt will continue for into the future, until a final solution is found)
neal t then goes on to say
" Yet, many on this site have asked how the creator created. "
A very reasonable question, but what exactly do we have from creationists/id ? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Creationists have absolutely NO IDEA as to how life was created.
(its the - we havent a clue - so god did it - end of story, scenario)
(Remember - for creationists evolution does not exist. Therefore every new species MUST have been created. So creationists have to explain HOW, say an elephant, was created.)
For all the creationists supposed "research institutes" NONE are carrying out any research as to HOW life was created. THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHERE TO START.
(This begs the question - What exactly ARE they doing?)
So on the one hand (evolution) we have an hypothesis as to the how, and continuing experiments to expand/prove the hypothesis.
On the other (creationism) - we have absolutely nothing, no idea as to the how, nothing
Laughing gravey said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This begs the question - What exactly ARE they doing?"
I think you already answered that question, Laughing. They developing very good PR campaigns to con a science illiterate general public (for the most part) into believing:
"...god did it - end of story, scenario."
Having a clue of HOW the supernatural did it - that's just not important. The important thing is to con people into believing that "god-did-it" is just as scientific as materialistic evolution - or materialistic evolution is just as religious as "god-did-it" (IDC) ...whichever way manages to get it slipped under the public school backdoor and into the science classroom. Unfortunately, the IDC crowd seem to keep having these temporary successes. Temporary because every time they are successful, they stir up a legal challenge. of course, they always lose, but so does the school district - thousands of dollars wasted on the courts that could have used for good science education (or just good education in general). So every single time it is the students who lose. The kids are the first real victims - the rest of the public are secondary victims eventually, because a lot of these kids who might have a promising career in a field of science (especially the life sciences) probably won't persue one - the teachers lose their incentive to encourage them. It's pathetic.
There was a time when William F. Buckley Jr. hosted a series called Firing Line, devoted to political and philosophical discussion and commentary. As a subset, there were the Firing Line Debates, where Mr. Buckley assembled power-hitter dream-teams to represent two sides of an issue and then had them intellectually bash each other for two hours in a round-robin debate format.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn 12/24/1997, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, David Berlinski, and William Buckley himself squared off against Ken Miller, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, and Barry Lynn on this resolution: The Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation. Even after 12 years, the arguments haven't changed a bit.
You can find a complete transcript, and a link to a Real Audio file, here:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm
or
creationevolution.com
Try reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". Couldn't hurt to give it a chance. Unless you only have presupposed ideologies that would prevent you from having an open mind about its evidence for creationism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Try reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". Couldn't hurt to give it a chance. Unless you only have presupposed ideologies that would prevent you from having an open mind about its evidence for creationism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy evidence do you mean scientific evidence?
If so then please quote just one piece of this evidence (you would be the first)
(I assume you know what constitutes scientific evidence, it is not the same as someones opinion, belief, or assumption)
Try reading, "Origin of species" ,
Couldn't hurt to give it a chance unless of course you have a presupposed faith/closed mind
To HowMuchFaithDoYouNeed,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the Firing Line Debate which I which I referred to earlier, Mr. Buckley concluded with a quote from Benjamin Disreali. He said:
"What is the question now placed before society? The question is this: Is man an ape or an angel? I, my Lord, am on the side of the angels."
This I believe gives a good sense of anti-evolutionists. They are not against the science but the philosophy they perceive. They see evolution as both the cause and consequence of evil in the world. So they post blogs blaming evolution for Columbine.
The fact is that evolution says no more about mankind's relationship to God than does Heliocentrism. If your Faith is threatened because of some material fact, then, bluntly put, you do not have enough faith.
Disreali declared a false dichotomy: mankind is both material and spirit. If you understand the Trinity, surely you can deal with that duality.
Hello idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right. this hasn't been a christian country but the laws and constitution were founded by righteous men of faith. Did you ever stop to realize that many of our laws are commandments given by God to men to keep us from being complete savages? And you're right in saying our school system is falling apart. Its been falling apart ever since prayer and God were taken out. Think about that for one second. When our country was founded, we taught godly principles in school and now we teach this evolution crap to our kids. Evolution is not a fact proven time and time again. Facts dont have to be proven because they are truth. Evolution is a theory which is fact and hypothesis all rolled into one. Darwin couldnt find all fact in his research so he filled in his holes with "Educated guesses." You're wrong again when you say we have a low standard of living. The citizens of the United States of America enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. Even the poorest people in the U.S. still enjoy a higher standard of living than over half the world. Take a good look at why our system is failing. God has been removed from it. That is probably the biggest mistake any country could make. You know what Great Britain had said the secret of her power was many years ago? Probably not because you dont know squat....she said it was the Bible. Not the Koran or finding the missing link in evolution. Think about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would say you give a good example as to the failure of the system
You display nothing but your ignorance (nothing wrong in ignorance - its just a lack of knowledge) and your prejudices
There are many countries in the world with a greater religious following than the US but have a lower standard of living. (Perhaps they have a better quality of life ?) So there is no link between religious following and standard of living.
Could it be that the citizens of the US have lost the spirit of adventure, the drive, the "get up and go" of earlier generations, just content to live off this higher "standard of living".? (Much like a parent striving to acquire millions in savings by hard work and endeavour, just for it to be squandered by their idle offspring).
Could it be they are hiding behind "religion" ? (the "If it is "gods" will then whatever happens will happen" mentality)?
(One thing - standard of living is just a measure of how much "stuff" you have , how many cars, how many t.v.s and so on. What about "quality of life" ? this is a measure as to how good life is (you dont need several automobiles in order to enjoy life). There are many countries which have a far higher quality of life than the US but lower standard of living (ESPECIALLY the poorest). Sure they have fewer vehicles etc , but so what?)
"Take a good look at why our system is failing"
Yes I would take a good look at the system if I were you, IF it is failing it has nothing to do with evolution (or the teaching of)
If you really want some science, google; star of Bethlehem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, and by the way, if you don't want your tax dollars wasted on anything unconstitutional in school, have your child stand and say the pledge of allegiance !
Are these 2 sentences supposed to mean something?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI reckon it is only a matter of time before the pledge of allegance is challenged as unconstitutional.
Other people might find interesting this hour-long clip of Ken Miller sharing among other things his experience as an expert witness in the Dover ID trial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Perhaps VoM will watch this and get a better-informed understanding of what Dr. Miller does.
There are also shorter segments of the same lecture.
Although I thought the entire lecture was interesing, I particularly enjoyed where, contrary to the mindless chatter of anti-evolutionists, he mentions the overwhelming abundance of transistional forms in the fossil record between reptiles and mammals, to the point where paleontologists argue about whether to classify them as reptile-like mammals or mammal-like reptiles. To quote Dr. Miller, this only proves paleontologists will argue about anything.
Yes, I do mean scientific evidence. But not just scientific; the book goes through philosophical, common sense, observations about the first life, the beggining of the universe, and so much about the complexity of life and how none of what exists today came out of nothing and by nothing. It is impossible. The book begins with whether we can know truth or not and builds off of that with the cosmological argument for the existence of a Creator and the teleological argument. The book is one that everyone should read honestly, whether you choose to believe in a Creator or not is up to you after reading it. All scientific evidence points to a Creator. I'm not bashing anyone's beliefs I just want you guys to read this book with an open mind and see what evidence it has to offer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I do mean scientific evidence. But not just scientific; the book goes through philosophical, common sense, observations about the first life, the beggining of the universe, and so much about the complexity of life and how none of what exists today came out of nothing and by nothing. It is impossible. The book begins with whether we can know truth or not and builds off of that with the cosmological argument for the existence of a Creator and the teleological argument. The book is one that everyone should read honestly, whether you choose to believe in a Creator or not is up to you after reading it. All scientific evidence points to a Creator. I'm not bashing anyone's beliefs I just want you guys to read this book with an open mind and see what evidence it has to offer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowMuchFaithDoYouNeed wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll scientific evidence points to a Creator.
My reply:
Your statement is too vague to be meaningful. What kind of Creator do you have in mind? Do you mean a Creator limited by your magination? Or do you mean a Creator that is beyond not just what you imagine, but what you can imagine.
I don't mean to bash your beliefs, but if you look at the Universe with an open mind, the evidence will never let you be satisfied with that final answer.
To All:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a link, a book, and a quote, from Dr. Ken Miller, one that I think challenges at the same time all naysayers and provocateurs, from anti-science creationists to the anti-religious evolutionists:
The link is:
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html
The book is (no surprise here):
Finding Darwin's God by Dr. Ken Miller
and the quote is:
"In many respects, evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God."
HowMuchFaithDoYouNeed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Yes, I do mean scientific evidence. "
I'm sorry but whether you mean it or not there is no scientifc evidence either that a creator exists, or that the universe or life was created.
It is important to realise that this does NOT mean that a creator does or does not exist. It just means there is no scientific evidence that it does.
The book can go through whatever it likes into the beginning of the universe, complexity of life, whatever., but there still isn't any scientific evidence for a creator, or that anything was created.
I notice that you say the book uses common sense.
Unfortunately this is notoriously unreliable as to the evaluation of anything.
I will give one example
If the sun were to be instantly removed it would continue to be seen on earth for 8.5 minutes (about) AND the earth would continue to orbit the now non-existent sun for the same time before flying off into space.
It is also true the other way around.
If after 8.5 minutes.you were to put the sun back it would not be seen until 8.5 minutes later AND it would be 8.5 minutes later before the earth would return to sun orbit.
(This is because it takes around 8.5 minutes for light AND gravity from the sun to reach/affect the earth)
I'll bet common sense would not have told you this, But science would.
So I would say that using common sense is a very unreliable method of trying to understand the universe.
HowMuchFaithDoYouNeed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this".......philosophical, common sense, observations about the first life, the beggining of the universe, and so much about the complexity of life and how none of what exists today came out of nothing and by nothing. It is impossible. "
If you want to rely on philosophy, common sense, and observations (I assume coming to common sense conclusions), then of course you will conclude that it is impossible.
The problem is that none of these are a scientific approach.
Science says it is possible.
And I am afraid you are completely wrong if you believe "All scientific evidence points to a Creator"
There is NO scientific evidence that points to a creator.
Hello Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to change the subject or anything like that, but do you use something other than IE or similar web browser to keep track of all the discussions you contribute to? I am looking for something for myself.
Everyone here - admit it. You'd all love to jab a creationist in the eye with pencil. I would. A great day out, for sure!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisleopardsqueezy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you see as personal hostility is really the result of two sides who passionately argue over the answer, but haven't yet agreed on the question.
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is NO scientific evidence that points to a creator.
My reply:
I would be interested in your elaboration on this assertion. Do you believe this is true as a simple matter of defintion, because evidence of a supernatural being is beyond the scope of natural science? Or do believe this is true because you accept in principle the possibility of scientific evidence for a creator, and have affirmatively sought out such evidence and found none? If so, can you give examples of the kinds of evidence you looked for? Or do you believe this is true because of some other reason(s)? If so, what might they be?
jpill69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I would be interested in your elaboration on this assertion. ...."
Why ?
If you wish to say there is scientific evidence that points to a creator then go ahead, elaborate.
"What you see as personal hostility is really the result of two sides who passionately argue over the answer, but haven't yet agreed on the question."
Personally I would have said there are 2 answers to 2 different questions. Neither answers the questions of the other.
The hostility is the the result of one side trying to reduce it to 1 question
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy?
My reply:
Why not? I find your assertion interesting enough to make my reply worthwhile, and ambiguous enough to make my questions necessary. Do you have a problem with me asking?
Laughing gravy wrote:
The hostility is the the result of one side trying to reduce it to 1 question
My reply:
Can you elaborate on what you think that 1 question is?
"There is NO scientific evidence that points to a creator."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cannot see any ambiguity here.
If you think it is incorrect then by all means present any evidence you regard as both scientific and points to an creator if you wish.
"Can you elaborate on what you think that 1 question is?"
No
"Can you elaborate on what you think that 1 question is?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you mean can I, or will I,
The answers are yes and no respectively
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think it is incorrect then by all means present any evidence you regard as both scientific and points to an creator if you wish.
My reply:
Whether or not I think your statement is incorrect depends on why you posted it, as I made clear by my questions. Certainly anybody posting such an emphatically absolute assertion should have no problem defending it, so I am bemused by your reluctance. It often happens, when people are asked to think about what they wrote, they decide to be not so emphatic or absolute after all.
I am happy to accept your invitation to present whatever evidence I might have on any topic, once I know what it is you want, by answering my questions. Of course, if you want to be like other posters who make emphatically absolute assertions and don't answer questions, you can continue doing that as well. It's really up to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is there to defend.?
To date no-one has produced any scientific evidence that points to a creator.
That is fact.
Your questions and my opinions are irrelevent as to this statement
As an emphatic statement its an easy one to refute.
Just producing ANY scientific evidence would refute it.
As so often happens when asked to produce such evidence there is evasion.
"Whether or not I think your statement is incorrect depends on why you posted it, as I made clear by my questions. "
I posted it because as of this moment it is a correct statement.
WHY I posted it is irrelevent as it does not change whether it is correct or not, so your questions were irrelevent.
If you believe it incorrect then it is easy to refute.
Why your reluctance to post whatever YOU regard as scientific evidence.
I am not bemused by such reluctance, this is often the case.
"when people are asked to think about what they wrote, they decide to be not so emphatic or absolute after all. "
Not at all
I reiterate
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO A CREATOR
I dont see how I can be more emphatic or absolute.
"I am happy to accept your invitation to present whatever evidence I might have on any topic, once I know what it is you want, by answering my questions. "
I want you to present whatever YOU regard as scientific evidence, NOT what I regard as scientific evidence.
Your prevarication about your questions/my answers is just an evasion.
Its very easy to prove my statement incorrect. Just present such evidence as YOU believe scientific.
Its really up to you, not me,
Until you present such evidence then my statement stands as correct.
"Of course, if you want to be like other posters who make emphatically absolute assertions and don't answer questions, you can continue doing that as well"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA noticeable tactic of creationists/id
Ask numerous questions , in minutest detail and demand answers. but NEVER answer the key question from evolutionists.
WHERE it the scientific evidence for a creator/creation/id
"I am happy to accept your invitation to present whatever evidence I might have on any topic, once I know what it is you want, by answering my questions. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCourse you are, but I note the sting in the tail.
You imply you are happy to present evidence AFTER I answer YOUR questions.
Why the sting?
Do you have a problem with presenting whatever evidence you possess. ?
Do YOU regard it as scientific evidence or not?
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou imply you are happy to present evidence AFTER I answer YOUR questions.
My reply:
I do not imply it. On the contrary, I stated it explicitly. Why are you so reluctant to answer my questions? Do you think your statement is scientifiic or not?
I stated that "there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour response - Several questions relating to what evidence I had examined, what criteria I used to determine if it was scientific or not.
Why ?
We could spend several weeks discussing my answers to your questions, no doubt with you raising more, then more, then more........
(This is the same tactic used many many times by creationists/id
Refuse to supply such evidence until others supply answers to endless irrelevent questions.
Result - no evidence presented that supports creation/id)
To what purpose?
I cannot PROVE that no evidence exists. (you cant prove a negative)
The easiest way to show this statement to be false is to present scientific evidence to the contrary.
But no you now state you will only supply such evidence AFTER I have answered YOUR questions.
Why ?
Why are you reluctant to supply such evidence? In fact refusing point blank
The only answers you need, and which are already in your possession are
Do YOU have evidence to the contrary?
Do YOU believe it to be scientific evidence?
Answer "yes" to both these questions and the simplest path is to present your evidence.
Perhaps it is scientific evidence, perhaps it is evidence I have already examined. Who knows?
Certainly no-one will know until you present it
Me answer your irrelevent questions?
Do you have a problem answering mine?
It is not relevent whether my statement is scientific or not.
Either the evidence exists or it doesn't
I say it doesn't
Up to you to prove it does, using what YOU believe to be scientific evidence. Quite simple
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour questions and my opinions are irrelevent as to this statement
My reply:
To the contrary. If you believe your statement is true by definition, then you believe all possible evidence is excluded by definition. I have no interest in dividing by zero. On the other hand if you believe your statement is true by affirmative research, then what YOU believe to be scientific and what YOU believe to be evidence are whatmatters, and what I believe is totally beside the point. YOU wrote the assertion, not me. Simply making an assertion is not evidence. Making an emphatic assertion is not evidence. Repeating an assertion is not evidence. Asserting an assertion is a fact is not evidence. Its hardly scientific or reasonable to expect others to accept your assertion simply because you say so. Do you consider yourself infallible?
Laughing gravy wrote:
Its very easy to prove my statement incorrect. Just present such evidence as YOU believe scientific.
My reply:
Nonsense. If I said my evidence is my belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, you should quite rightly and instantly reject my belief as neither scientific nor evidence. YOU wrote the assertion, not me. Only YOU can say what YOU consider to be evidence against it. The more you prevaricate the more it sounds like you haven't even thought about what such evidence should look like, nevermind actually bothered to look for it, making your repeatedly, emphatically asserted lack of evidence a consequence of nothing more than intellectual laziness and dishonesty. Is that really what you want to do?
As I said, I can think of many reasons why you would post a statement like "there is NO scientific evidence that points to a creator". Some of those reasons relate to initiating dialog, and some of those reasons relate to imitating Bill O'Reilly. One way to find out is to ask a simple and direct question "What do you mean?" When you explicitly refused to answer, that said more than anything else you wrote. At the very least, it says other posters don't have to take seriously your demands they must answer your questions. Regarding this particular thread, it says your interest in a mutually respectful interchange of ideas is inadequate. Perhaps you will be more rational another time.
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cannot PROVE that no evidence exists. (you cant prove a negative)
My reply:
And that is precisely why its such a Bad Idea to imply that you can.
And that is precisely why its such a Bad Idea to imply that you can."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said "there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator"
This is a correct statement.
I said that I cannot prove none exists
But what I can say is that so far no-one has produced any.
So as of now "there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator"
"To the contrary. If you believe your statement is true by definition,"
Rubbish
Evidence exists or it doesn't whether I believe it exists or not.
"then you believe all possible evidence is excluded by definition. "
Now who's being irrational
So far no-one has produced any evidence so how can I exclude it, by definition or otherwise?.
I cannot exclude that which does not exist.
"On the other hand if you believe your statement is true by affirmative research, then what YOU believe to be scientific and what YOU believe to be evidence are what matters, and what I believe is totally beside the point."
Again irrational
I do not decide what is or is not scientific evidence,
What I believe to be evidence is not relevent
I stated there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator.
So far no-one has produced any such evidence anywhere.
If you wish to say my statement is incorrect - i.e that there IS scientific evidence by all means present it.
You said that you would not present it until I had answered YOUR questions
But YOUR questions are irrelevent to my statement. so there is nothing to prevent you presenting such evidence as you have, especially if you believe it to be scientific.
"Simply making an assertion is not evidence. Making an emphatic assertion is not evidence. Repeating an assertion is not evidence. Asserting an assertion is a fact is not evidence. Its hardly scientific or reasonable to expect others to accept your assertion simply because you say so. "
Neither statements or assertions are evidence, they are just that, statements, or assertions..
Accept the assertion or not is up to you.
But until such evidence is forthcoming then it stands as fact. (and a fact is not evidence)
"Do you consider yourself infallible?"
I do not - Do you?
"Nonsense. If I said my evidence is my belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, you should quite rightly and instantly reject my belief as neither scientific nor evidence."
Misinformation.
If you could substantiate your belief with scientific evidence then I would not reject it.
"Only YOU can say what YOU consider to be evidence against it. "
Rubbish again
I do not decide what is scientific evidence.
Personally I would consider ANY evidence presented. THEN evaluate whether it is scientific or not.
"The more you prevaricate the more it sounds like you haven't even thought about what such evidence should look like, nevermind actually bothered to look for it, making your repeatedly, emphatically asserted lack of evidence a consequence of nothing more than intellectual laziness and dishonesty. Is that really what you want to do?"
Prevarication ? You ask irrelevent questions and refuse to present evidence until they are answered.
What I would like is for someone to put forward scientific evidence that points to a creator.
I should look for it ??? -- WHY.There are many others better qualified and have better resources to look for it - I would presume if the evidence can be found then they will find it far quicker than I
What it will look like I have no idea.
You imply you are interested "in a mutually respectful interchange of ideas" yet still avoid providing any evidence of a creator Is this not a contradiction or is it evasion again ?
"One way to find out is to ask a simple and direct question "What do you mean?" When you explicitly refused to answer, that said more than anything else you wrote."
The problem is you didn't ask a simple direct question - You asked irrelevent questions.
Why did you not just ask me a simple direct question as to what I meant?
You asked irrelevent questions and demanded I answer before supplying evidence - evasion.
Your evasion says more than anything
"At the very least, it says other posters don't have to take seriously your demands they must answer your questions. Regarding this particular thread, it says your interest in a mutually respectful interchange of ideas is inadequate."
The ONLY question I ask/demand is for proponents of creation/id to proved SCIENTIFIC evidence.
Personally I not that interested in ideas not supported by scientific evidence (sometimes such ideas are interesting). Perhaps you are - fine you carry on.
Interchange would be fantastic, but I wont hold my breath until creationists/id reciprocate with scientific evidence.
BUT I will continue to point out their evasion/prevarication should they persist in asking stupid/irrelevent questions to avoid providing such evidence
"Perhaps you will be more rational another time"
I find it perfectly rational to require others to supply scientific evidence, Apparently you dont.
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo far no-one has produced any evidence...
My reply:
You are simply asserting yet again an opinion you admit you can't possibly prove.
Do you know what your evidence should look like? Have you even bothered to test your assumption? Based on your refusal to answer, I can reasonably assume the answers are "no". If you won't do it for yourself, why should anybody else do it for you?
Laughing gravy wrote:
...so how can I exclude it, by definition or otherwise?.
My reply:
Don't be dense. By definition, by fiat, by arbitrary declaration. As in saying for example division by zero is not allowed by definition. As in saying for example supernatural evidence is not scientific by definition.
Laughing gravy wrote:
The ONLY question I ask/demand is for proponents of creation/id to proved SCIENTIFIC evidence.
My reply:
Then save your demands for them. I am not, and have not, so they are irrelevant to me. That you assume I am because I question your non-scientific assertion, and despite all evidence to to the contrary, says a lot about you.
You think a lot like Neal T.
"You are simply asserting yet again an opinion you admit you can't possibly prove. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no scientific publications,
There is no scientific literature.
There are no scientific theories.
No evidence of any scientific nature has been presented anywhere,anytime
(Dont think I missed anything.?)
FIne - I may have missed something somewhere, (but I dont think so).
You want me to PROVE that nowhere in the universe such evidence exists, or that at no time in the future it will be found and presented.?
Fine - at sometime in the future such evidence MAY be found and presented.
BUT AT THIS TIME THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO A CREATOR.
This MAY change at SOMETIME in the future.
BUT at this time it is a correct statement.
Do you know what your evidence should look like?
(Its not my evidence).
Yes it should look like scientific evidence.
No I stand corrected - It SHOULD be scientific evidence if it is presented as scientific evidence..
Have you even bothered to test your assumption? "
My assumption of what,- that there is no evidence?
I look in all the places I can think of - find no evidence.
You want me to look in places I cant think of.?
You want me to search the earth to look for , What exactly ?, - a lack of evidence.?
What exactly does a lack of evidence look like, so I will know it when I find it?
You believe that unless you can PROVE that no evidence exists then it is incorrect to say that as of now there is no scientific evidence
And you believe this is a rational position.?
Based on your refusal to answer, I can reasonably assume the answers are "no".
I dont see how you can "reasonably assume" anything
" If you won't do it for yourself, why should anybody else do it for you?"
You expect someone to go looking for evidence to disprove someone else's belief, when they refuse to supply any evidence to support their beliefs. ?
WHY, - In order to PROVE that the evidence doesn't exist. ????
And you think this is a rational position?
If someone wishes to present a scientific theory (of any kind) I expect them to provide the evidence to support it. I would not expect others to search for evidence to DISPROVE it, before such evidence is produced.
"As in saying for example supernatural evidence is not scientific by definition."
I did not say or imply supernatural evidence is not scientific - YOU DID.
As it happens I agree with you.
BUT it is not non-scientific because it is supernatural.
It is supernatural because it cannot be examined scientifically.
If a scientific method could be devised by which the supernatural phenomena could be examined then it would cease to be supernatural.
Now who's being dense. Can you not read.
I cannot exclude (for whatever reason) that which does not exist.
I can only exclude such evidence AFTER it has been presented.
So far NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY ANYONE THAT POINTS TO A CREATOR.
The FACT that no-one has presented such evidence is not my fault
"Then save your demands for them. I am not, and have not, so they are irrelevant to me".
Fine, but I never said you were
"That you assume I am because I question your non-scientific assertion,"
An assertion is neither scientific nor non-scientific.
The fact that you believe an assertion is either scientific or non-scientific says a lot about you.
" If you won't do it for yourself, why should anybody else do it for you?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou expect someone to go looking for evidence to prove someone else's belief, in order to PROVE that the evidence doesn't exist. when they themselves refuse to supply any evidence to support their own beliefs????
And you think this is a rational position?
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou expect someone to go looking for evidence to prove someone else's belief...
My reply:
Wrong. As I said, I expect someone to look for evidence that might disprove their own beliefs. Testing your hypothesis is a
fundamental part of the scientific method. Look it up.
Laughing gravy wrote:
And you think this is a rational position?
My reply:
It is a hallmark of a rational position. Doing anything less is merely seeking affirmation, not information.
Laughing gravy wrote:
There are no scientific publications,
There is no scientific literature.
There are no scientific theories.
No evidence of any scientific nature has been presented anywhere,anytime
(Dont think I missed anything.?)
FIne - I may have missed something somewhere, (but I dont think so).
My reply:
You missed only the entire point. You are defending an unprovable assertion by making even more unprovable assertions. When do you stop? Once again, you offer evidence by assertion. That is the antithesis of science. Do you really believe anybody should accept what you say only because you say so?
You can't know these things are true unless you researched them. So how about a real bibliography instead of the insult to intelligence you offered here? Give facts. Describe your methods. Define your terms. Name your databases. Give something objective that somebody can grab onto and check for themselves. That you do not suggests that you have none to offer. And the suggestion is proved by your admission later in your post that you in fact have not made any such search.
As for the rest of your post, I am frankly amazed by its abundance of circular rationalizations, deceptive inferences, artful dodges, and disingenuous word games, all presented as substitutes for actual thought. You are certainly practiced at baffling with BS, so if that's what you set out to do, then you succeeded. On the other hand, that is not where my interest lies. I was going to post a point-for-point reply, but wading through it is just too depressing for me at the moment.
What can I say to you when you insist on proving an assertion that you admit is unprovable?
If there is any particular point you feel I have unfairly neglected, feel free to bring it up.
jpill
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI stated that there is no scientific evidence that a creator exists.
Your response
That unless anyone can prove that no evidence exists then no-one can say that that there is no evidence for any particular proposal.
So If I say that there are pink 1 legged elephants living on the moon. No one can say that there is no evidence for this unless they go to the moon and search EVERY cubic inch of it to PROVE there is no evidence..
( IF you really believe this then I would say you have serious problems)
You ask what would such evidence look like.
Do you mean what it would physical look like ? - I have no idea.
It could look like an artifact of previously unknown material buried 1 thousand miles under the earths surface, perhaps stamped with a part number, or a makers name, or whatever.
(the artifact of itself would not comprise the evidence. The evidence would comprise the artifact and PROOF that it is unknown material.)
Can I prove no such artifact exists ? -- Dont be stupid.
It could already exist in my garden.
Do you expect me to examine my garden to PROVE it doesn't exist - Dont be stupid.
Or what characteristics it would have ?- That would depend on the evidence.
For example.
The evidence could consist of an already existing artifact/material/phenomena/ or event. but analysed using a completely new method. (the method could comprise a completely new science, or a new form of mathematics)
It could comprise a prediction using some new science or mathematics based on the assumption of the basic premise.
Again I have no idea what charactistics it would have.
To form evidence this new science/mathematics must be established by those presenting the evidence, as part of the submission.
You want science(or me) to predict what this evidence or characteristics would be BEFORE it is presented.
How can science (or me) do this when it could be TOTALY original
That it why I said whatever evidence those presenting the evidence regard a scientific.
Science cannot determine beforehand whether evidence holds water or not
(ALSO The onus is always on those submitting evidence to prove it, NOT for others to DISPROVE it.)
( - A story (100% true)
Some years ago a friend submitted a paper that PROVED that time was quantised. (ie. time existed in discrete packets separated by nothing. (Before submitting it several of us followed his analysis but could not find any flaw (personally I was lost after a couple of hours). This was analysed but after several months it was discovered that some formula he had used was wrong. (though it had been in textbooks for several years),
He regarded it as scientific - It was , BUT IT WAS FLAWED, and was therefore rejected.)
You also confuse the supernatural.
It is not that things are supernatural therefore cannot be examined scientifically
It is that they cannot be examined scientifically THEREFORE are supernatural
(personally I find the term "supernatural" to have connotations in the public mind and would prefer some other term)
If anyone could devise a way in which they could be examined that they would cease to be supernatural.
Sorry to you all but I must leave again
jpill
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne last thought before I leave you
Personally I admire those with the original thought submitting scientific papers
You proposed that anyone putting forward their own beliefs would not be accepted as scientific evidence.
Course it wouldn't. But I could not imagine anyone with a genuine scientific interest doing so.
BUT
If anyone with such an interest were to submit evidence they truly believed to be scientific, then good luck to them.
Why shouldn't they ? Science cannot advance without such people.
Some renounded scientist (I believe it was Rutherford) said in the late 19th century that he could not understand why anyone would become a physicist any more, because there was no more physics to discover.
How wrong he was.
Then along came Einstein.
I really must go now
Jpill69 wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat you assume I am because I question your non-scientific assertion, and despite all evidence to the contrary, says a lot about you.
Laughing gravy replied:
An assertion is neither scientific nor non-scientific.
The fact that you believe an assertion is either scientific or non-scientific says a lot about you.
My reply:
Here is a wonderful example of a profusion of problems in just two short sentences. Can we say abondanza ? I knew you could.
Lets look at your last point first. Just what could such a fact, if it is a fact, reasonably suggest about me? Offhand, Id say the only thing is that I understand what words mean. An assertion is either non-scientific or it is not, by definition. There are no gradations of non-scientific-ness. Like a woman and pregnancy, an assertion cant be a little bit non-scientific.
Then there is your childish aping of my words. Some say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but you are not being complimentary here. That you selectively deleted my original phrase in your reply suggests that you knew you would look even sillier if you kept my entire statement intact.
More to the point, the topic at hand is not about any old assertion. Its simply a lie to suggest the context here is about anything other than your specific assertion. As you seem willing to forget it, I copy it here in its entirety:
"there is NO scientific evidence that points to a creator".
Now then, your assertion has many problems, the least of which is its impossible to prove it. Even Dr. Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion , explicitly refused to make an absolute assertion of Gods existence, precisely because he knows science demands an explicit recognition of limits to certainty, of facts not yet known, of error, of fallibility. This lack is what makes your assertion non-scientific, by definition.
The real problem with your assertion is its veracity. It may be true, but you cant really say one way or the other, because you never bothered to check it out with anything even remotely resembling the comprehension and rigor it requires. So your assertion isnt even alleged fact, but mere opinion, and one that you explicitly refused to substantiate on top of that. So that makes your assertion nothing more than a baseless assumption and utterly worthless. Despite this, you childishly expect people to believe you anyway, just because you stomp your feet and insist it must be so because you say its so, multiple times, and IN CAPITAL LETTERS no less.
I remain unimpressed.
Laughing gravy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill
I stated that there is no scientific evidence that a creator exists.
Your [my alleged] response
That unless anyone can prove that no evidence exists then no-one can say that that there is no evidence for any particular proposal.
If I say that there are pink 1 legged elephants living on the moon. No one can say that there is no evidence for this unless they go to the moon and search EVERY cubic inch of it to PROVE there is no evidence..
( IF you really believe this then I would say you have serious problems)
My reply:
Seriously, I am trying to decide if you really have a problem understanding written English, or if you’re just trolling for reactions. Your paraphrase isn’t even close. In fact, I am hard-pressed to correlate what I write with your nonsense. Instead of responding to me, you simply argue your fairytale strawmen, and you just wind up sounding very foolish.
Let’s use your hypothetical and see if it helps. If you made such a claim, I would ask you to describe some objective, material evidence for it. If you denied that, I would ask you to describe your logic for such a claim. If you denied that, I would ask you to explain why anybody should take seriously you or your claim. Dishonesty and laziness do not dismiss your obligation to support your claim. To suggest that my questions impose an unreasonable burden on you is simply a lie.
So far, my description above accurately compares to this thread. An important difference is that your hypothetical is an affirmative claim. Evidence for it is simply a single specimen. Just one would do, yet you argue even that is an unreasonable burden. On the other hand, your original assertion is of absolute nonexistence. As such, it’s impossible to prove, even theoretically, but the need for supporting evidence remains regardless. What is unreasonable here is your assertion itself, and that is what you refuse to admit.
Your emphatically absolute assertion, and your explicit refusals to support it with evidence, are little different from those offered by Neal T et al. It’s as unacceptable from them as it is from you, and it would be hypocritical to let it pass without comment.
For all you evolutionists. Go check out Kent Hovind's debates and EVIDENCE on creation. He is offering 250 000-00USD to ANY evidence that proves evolution. When you fail to find any evidence supporting your imaginatory theory, give your life to Jesus and be saved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod bless
Lionel
For all you evolutionists. Go check out Kent Hovind's debates and EVIDENCE on creation. He is offering 250 000-00USD to ANY evidence that proves evolution. When you fail to find any evidence supporting your imaginatory theory, give your life to Jesus and be saved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod bless
Lionel
So you honestly believe that your ancestors are from - Big bang=fireball=cool down=millions of years rain=from non living to living?(With NO evidence, just imagination and speculation)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs apposed to God of heaven and earth creating everything in six days, including Dinosaurs?(With proof of Noah's flood, the earth being created 6000 years ago etc...)
Contact me to tell you how to be saved or you will most certainly go to ...........
Mr. Hovind's challenge was answered years ago. Characteristically of most creationists, he simply ignored the evidence, so it never was a serious offer. And given that he is currently serving time for tax evasion, he is in no position to challenge anyone, except maybe Bubba.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLionel777, you serve your faith poorly by denying the physical evidence of His creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you trying to deviate from the question. EVIDENCE PLEASE, Stop trying to change the subject!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeak for yourself and give us some evidence or find something else to keep you busy with. Start somewhere easy enough for your mind to comprehend then gradually work your way up and maybe in a couple of million years you'll understand the question. Who knows maybe then we will be aliens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany christians including Paul were sent to jail because satan is like a rouring lion and upset that Hovind is to close to the truth.Choice-God or satan. Nothing in between.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don t understand how creationists can demand proof of evolution and not try to give some proof of their own beliefs. I wonder how many people demanding this proof have read a single scientific journal article....and understood it. There is plenty of proof for you down at the library.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRuggerio wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don t understand how creationists can demand proof of evolution and not try to give some proof of their own beliefs.
My reply:
My best guess is they have no proof, and simply substitute deliberate stupidity.
Lionel777 wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop trying to change the subject!!!!!!!!
My reply:
What subject?
Lionel777 : "Choice-God or satan. Nothing in between."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen Satan it is. Definitely. He's way less bloodthirsty - and he has the best music.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristian music today is more than just bland hymns on old European organs in dead cathedrals where the Spirit of the Lord has departed.
Take a look at some of these worship services:
http://www.apostoliclive.com/play.php?vid=738
Look what the devil dragged in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWelcome back, Neal T.
Creationist proof!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.Grand canyon was created by Noah's flood.(4400 yrs ago)
Water cannot flow upstream!
2.Human and dinosaur remains(fossils) together. Proving that
humans and dinosaurs lived together(not millions of yrs ago)
3.The oldest living tree in the world 4300yrs old(post flood)
4.600mm Stalactites forming in one year(not thousands of years)
5. Through SCIENTIFIC studies it is proven that the Sahara desert has been formed(post flood) over a period of 4000yrs.
6. The Bible was rewritten from original writings, manuscripts, tablets (that can be viewed today) no older than 5000yrs ago.
This can carry on and on.........
Evolutionist proof.
1............?
You should really consider studying what has been proven long ago instead of looking for something where there is nothing. You Evolutionists are looking for an easier way of living because you can't follow God's laws, it's too difficult. Forget about it! Do you think God would waste time trying to make you try and work out how everything began if you can't even follow the couple of laws He has set for us?
Put God to the test. Repent today, give your life to Jesus and see the fruits and peace in your life. You cannot find that anywhere else, no money can buy it and it's yours for free if you change your life. satan is a lying thief and you guys know that feeling that you're not telling anyone but feel when you're all alone. Stop being deceived, open your eyes and start building your treasure in Heaven.
God Bless!
The living cell is an extremely complex system that operates according to the digital information encoded in its DNA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument about the origin of life (or the first species) from the philosophy of Naturalism appears to be -
No materialistic cause of the origin of highly complex
information is known with any degree of certainty. Therefore, it must arise from an unknown materialistic cause. Because it has not been proven that chemical and physical processes could not have caused the origin of life, the materialistic cause is regarded as a fact.
In order for the purely naturalistic origin of life theory to be falsified, every naturalistic origin of life scenario in the universe has to be empirically disproved first.
The argument from a Design inference is basically -
No material causes have been discovered that show any ability to produce large amounts of specified information.
In addition, only design by intelligent has shown to have the ability to produce large amounts of specified information.
Therefore, Design by a creator is the best, most straightforward, and casually demonstrated explanation for the Origin of the information in the cell.
This conclusion is falsifable by demonstrating that the large amounts of specified information do arise from solely chemical and physical processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, if youre going to use broad strokes, I guess I will play along for awhile. In order to keep separate my replies, I embedded your points in quotes.
"1.Grand canyon was created by Noah's flood.(4400 yrs ago)"
This is not evidence. It's just a baseless assertion.
Youre off to a very bad start.
"Water cannot flow upstream!"
Only creationists say that it should. Real geologists understand the river eroded its streambed down as fast as the land around it rose up. The Green River is another example of the same phenomenon. Analysis of delta sediments confirm it.
"2.Human and dinosaur remains(fossils) together. Proving that humans and dinosaurs lived together(not millions of yrs ago)"
Yet another baseless assertion. You need some verifiable citations for this one. If you find any, please pass them on to the folks at AnswersInGenesis, who admit there are no human and dinosaur remains together, even though they would really, really like it if there were.
So far, you are 0 and 2.
"3.The oldest living tree in the world ~4300yrs old(post flood)"
This is evidence for the longevity of that particular tree, not the age of the Earth. On the other hand, dead wood doesn't go away, and dendrochronologists have put together an overlapping record spanning over 10,000 years.
So now you're 0 and 3.
"4.600mm Stalactites forming in one year(not thousands of years)"
Only creationists say this shouldnt happen. Real geologists understand sudden events happen and know how to tell the difference. It's amazing what a lot of knowledge combined with a little creative problem-solving can do.
0 for 4.
"5. Through SCIENTIFIC studies it is proven that the Sahara desert has been formed(post flood) over a period of ~4000yrs."
Again, this is evidence for the age of the Sahara, not the Earth.
0 for 5.
"6. The Bible was rewritten from original writings, manuscripts, tablets (that can be viewed today) no older than 5000yrs ago."
And again, this is evidence for the origin of writing only.
0 for 6.
You don't say so explicitly, but I assume you believe these similar ages prove your case. It seems to me the only thing you have proved is that you haven't a clue what real evidence looks like. It's ironic how you cherry-pick a little mound of scientific data that fits your beliefs, and deny the mountain of scientific data that points to a much older Earth.
"This can carry on and on........."
I have no doubt that you will.
"Evolutionist proof."
Look for a later post.
Neal T, rather than go over the same old tired arguments all over again, I am hoping you might be interested in new ideas. Specifically, I have learned a little about a couple of computer programs, one called AVIDA, the other called TIERRA. Perhaps you have heard of them. If not, you might be interested in checking them out, if only for the sake of checking out the enemy, of course. Also, you might be interested in what some people are doing with self-programming logic devices. They claim these purely inorganic crystals reprogram themselves to work in different circuits. Finally, I normally avoid making pedantic points, but if you're going to continue reposting your boilerplate comments as if past discussions never happened, you might like to know the word isn't "casually". I'm pretty sure you mean to use"causally". It just make more sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Ambertooth.. Take a look at some of these worship services: (link)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho gives a toss about worship services? I was talking metal, not those pathetic hip-wigglers in your link trying desperately to demonstrate that Christians can be cool too.
Lionel777: "You Evolutionists are looking for an easier way of living because you can't follow God's laws, it's too difficult. Forget about it! Do you think God would waste time trying to make you try and work out how everything began if you can't even follow the couple of laws He has set for us?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo can you? Have you ever, even once, broken any of the ten commandments? Ever coveted that Camarro parked in your neighbor's drive (for Camarro, read 'ox')? Ever told a lie? Etc. And you're just one in a long, long line of so-called 'believers' who apparently considers that those who do not endorse what you believe live lives of all-brakes-off hedonism. Here's a thought: try taking responsibility for your own actions. Try helping someone else out of a motivation of pure altruism, and not because it might help you get into Heaven. Some of us have moved a step beyond your primitive reward-and-punishment system of belief.
Oh, thanks at least for the chuckle you gave me over my morning coffee regarding your creationist 'proof'. Some of us, however, live in the real world.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry helping someone else out of a motivation of pure altruism, and not because it might help you get into Heaven.
My reply:
Lionel777's comments illustrate the classic flaw of looking at the speck that is in his brother's eye, but not noticing the log that is in his own eye. As such, he doesn't say much for defending true Christian values.
I would like an explanation of the development of sex through the process of evolution. We see all (as far as I know) animals, whether insect, reptiles, birds, mammals reproduce using an egg and sperm process. All, (as far as I know) plants use a process of pollen for fertilization. We also observe that without the process working right, a family line will die out in one generation. This is not enough time to tweek the process. So this very complex process had to be highly developed and working in the first proto-animal and plant. In evolutionary terms, much adaptation over many generations had to have happened before the process could even start branching out into all the various species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe common process found in all animals and likewise all plants does suggest "common descent" however. Not common descent from a proto-animal or proto-plant, but common descent out of the fertile mind of a very intelligent creator. A standard model seems to have been used for a tremendous variety of animals on one hand and a tremendous variety of plants on another. So we have whales and shrews, birds and reptiles, orchids and Redwood cedars, grasses and water lilies. Why would evolution only come up with one model for animals and one model for plants?
Having worked with computers and programming, I have no illusions about the ability of computer programming to model evolutionary processes. One truth about the computer is that it will do only what you tell it to do. Even code that modifies itself has been programmed to do that by the programmer. The machine only steps from one instruction to the next. A missed punctuation mark, or misplaced instruction sends the program into a failed state. Even programs which are designed to model the programmers expectation of how evolution should work are only following the programmers instructions. They are not modeling reality. So their results do not demonstrate or prove the possibility of evolution, they only demonstrate that the programmers expectation is logically possible given the constraints of the computer. No matter how smart the scientist, he or she cannot program the computer to think for itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately for me jpill69 i am saved and dont have to try to get to heaven, I'm already going. Unlike you being willingly ignorant II Peter 3:5(Dumb on purpose). You still haven't given one justifiable, testable,observable, demonstratable piece of evidence.(Requirements to qualify as science)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say-
"Only creationists say that it should. Real geologists understand the river eroded its streambed down as fast as the land around it rose up. The Green River is another example of the same phenomenon. Analysis of delta sediments confirm it."
This is a lie!
The river(water) drops 1300ft(from top to bottom) and the highest peak (where the river flows through) difference from lowest point is 4000ft.Huh?
How do evolutionists tell the age of a fossil? Easy, they see which layer of rock(strata) it came from.
How do they tell the age of the rock(strata)? Ummm they see which fossils are found in that layer.
This is called circular reasoning and found in your own text books jill. And ignored by you as "Not proper concern of the public." Huh?
According to evolutionists Trilobites existed 500 million yrs ago. There is a fossil of a human shoe that stepped on a trilobite. Huh?
Graptolites -Index fossils for rock 410 million years old found still living in the south pacific today. And no genetic differences. Did they stop evolving. And what does this do for your so called "Geometric column" Huh?
Lobe finned fish "Coelacanth"- Index fossil for 325-410 million year old rock. Still alive today! Huh?
"3.The oldest living tree in the world ~4300yrs old(post flood)"
You say-
"This is evidence for the longevity of that particular tree, not the age of the Earth. On the other hand, dead wood doesn't go away, and dendrochronologists have put together an overlapping record spanning over 10,000 years."
So trees have a 4300 year lifespan? Then they die.Huh?
looking for.
Dinosaur blood cells were found in a T-Rex bone. Blood cells don't last millions of years jill.
As for the proof of human and Dinosaur fossils found together by Dr.Jamie Gutierrez in South America, tell the folks at Answersingenesis to go to www.creationevidence.org
"5. Through SCIENTIFIC studies it is proven that the Sahara desert has been formed(post flood) over a period of ~4000yrs."
You say-
"Again, this is evidence for the age of the Sahara, not the Earth."
You are agreeing that there must have been a flood 4000 years ago!
Great now go read your bible. You'll find all the answers you're
looking for.
Chew on this for now. Sure to hear from you again!
God Bless
I'm already going to Heaven through faith and Jesus Christ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo can you? Have you ever, even once, broken any of the ten commandments? Ever coveted that Camarro parked in your neighbor's drive (for Camarro, read 'ox')? Ever told a lie? Etc. And you're just one in a long, long line of so-called 'believers' who apparently considers that those who do not endorse what you believe live lives of all-brakes-off hedonism. Here's a thought: try taking responsibility for your own actions. Try helping someone else out of a motivation of pure altruism, and not because it might help you get into Heaven. Some of us have moved a step beyond your primitive reward-and-punishment system of belief.
Oh, thanks at least for the chuckle you gave me over my morning coffee regarding your creationist 'proof'. Some of us, however, live in the real world.
Sure I sinned, then I got saved and accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. The temptation to covet, lie steal etc....Dies with your earthly lusts once you become a Christian.(You won't know about that yet cos you live in the REAL WORLD).
As for your thought on our primitive reward and punishment system of belief, you'll have to have a relationship with God to believe His word, then if you have a Bible go read Romans 13:9.
Notice NEW Testament, the Law of God never Changed. My God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Don't spill that coffee bud. See post to Jill69 then we can start slowly teaching you how everything works and how it's going to end. It's all in the Bible(Book of knowledge.) It's confusing now I know, but don't worry I'll be here to help you every step of the way.
God Bless
PS. Ambertooth? Very original but www.helpmechooseanickname.com can help. Hehehe:)
To all you evolutionists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI won't give up! God loves you and you will soon know the Truth.
You don't know what you're talking about my friend.Evolution has NEVER been proved(Just assumed). Please send me ONE piece of evidence. Send your child to a private school(If you have a child). Schools started falling apart since Religion was compromised and evolution was thought-up.Statistics proven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say
"You wounder why our school system is falling apart. Why other countries have a higher standard of education, and living in general. If you are fighting to put religion in schools you are fighting a non-American unconstitutional agenda." This has never been a christan country nor shall it ever be.
What is written on the American dollar? IN GOD WE TRUST!
Shame on you mocker.
Don't think other countries are much different. If you had a god that you supposedly have, you should know that these are all signs of the coming of Jesus. Repent and be saved! Jesus loves you whether you like it or not!
Lionel777 wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuh?
My reply:
You took the word right out of my mouth.
FullofWonder, I am glad to see your interest in the natural world. I hope you will harness that energy and look up the answers to your questions. Or maybe even do some original research. You can do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust to get you started, I will tell you the first thing real enquiring minds do is check their own assumptions. There are many living things that do no rely on sexual reproduction at all, and many living things that do not rely on it exclusively.
Good luck!
My reply:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou took the word right out of my mouth.
Thats the way my boy, very well put pill.
Who's next?
Lionel777 wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe temptation to covet, lie steal etc....Dies with your earthly lusts once you become a Christian.
My reply:
Jim Stafford had a great line, which I paraphrase here: Christians like to have just as much fun as everybody else, they just don't like to get caught at it.
I will mention Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert, and the Bakkers. And of course your personal favorite, Kent Hovind. And let's not forget all those choirboy-groping preachers. Yes, indeed. Plenty of self-declared christians have been caught with their covetous hands in the cookie jar. These are just the most public tip of that iceberg. Of course, you won't admit to any of them, because you are willfully ignorant. You serve your faith poorly.
Are you even reomotely interested in posting a coherent sentence? Or are you just out to baffle with BS?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Thats the way my boy, very well put pill."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you.
"Who's next?"
Yes, I need someone who can provide a challenge.
Lionel777, Jamie Gutierrez' creataceous fossil is the remains of a sea turtle flipper. Only someone like Kent Hovind would pawn this off as human. Only someone as gullible and ignorant as you would believe it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLionel77: "According to evolutionists Trilobites existed 500 million yrs ago. There is a fossil of a human shoe that stepped on a trilobite." etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, just wow. Your so-called 'proofs' against evolution really are from the old-school style of creationism, aren't they, Lionel777? That so-called 'dinosaur blood' is still an option for you? (it was either hemes or bacterial biofilms. I can quote the original science papers for you to check if you don't know them, which I strongly suspect). Because it's already plain that your idea of nutty 'proof' is to skim stuff off some creationist website, without bothering to do any of your own further checking. I suggest that you come back once you at least have attempted to bring your arguments more up-to-date. And that hoary old trilobite in a 'footprint' was debunked years ago. What will you come up with next? The Paluxy tracks? I for one will not be holding my breath.
But there's another factor here which you in your ignorance don't seem to grasp: producing any amount of so-called 'proofs' against a theory will do exactly nothing. You have to come up with a hypothesis of your own that will pass muster in scientific peer review. Because the only way to get rid of a theory in science is to replace it with another more viable hypothesis, and not by trotting out imagined 'disproofs'. So present your alternative hypothesis to the theory of evolution, and let's see how much water it will hold.
And another thing: you claim: "Evolution has NEVER been proved." You seem to imagine that scientific theories are all about 'proof'. They are not. In fact, if you actually bother to read the accompanying article, which you clearly have not, you would already know that the accepted NAS definition of what constitutes a scientific theory does not even deal with absolute proof, which is for the field of mathmatics, and not for the biological sciences.
And for someone who claims to be a representative 'saved' Christian, your recent replies here sure smack of trollery and flaming. It's one of the basest forms of Internet baiting to make fun of someone's posting name. The fact that you resort to this speaks volumes about you. Is this your idea of the Christian spirit?
I've come across all manner of creationists on this and other internet forums, and you, Lionel777, without doubt come up with some of the most old-fashioned and outdated so-called 'refutations' that I've come across in quite a while. Go do some serious research, if only for the sake of not making yourself look like such a clown on a science website.
Lionel77 (to jpill69): "Fortunately for me.. i am saved and dont have to try to get to heaven, I'm already going." and: "You still haven't given one justifiable, testable,observable, demonstratable piece of evidence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo present here 'one justifiable, testable, observable, demonstratable piece of evidence' that you're going to Heaven.
I'll be waiting.
You still haven't given any proof buddy and yes that is what science is about. You're the clown in your own territory. You can't carry on with this circular reasoning forever you know, some time you might start believing yourself, and all your so-called friends will see that you are doing just that..A theory is just that "A THEORY" until proven. And you are the ignoramus for believing that everything came from nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOld proof -New proof there's no difference. Us Christians at least have proof, you don't. Your life and belief is a big scam and a lie and you will surely pay for your scoffing.
You still have plenty to learn about evolution and roman catholosism.(You will see exactly how wrong you are judging what you don't know anything about.) For an introductory level evolutionist I suggest you acquire the Total Onslaught series of Prof Walter J Veith.
When you gain some knowledge I will respond to you again.
Till then.................
The Word of The Living God that was written and proven whilst you where busy evolving, is my proof that i'm going to Heaven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the world's bestselling book, you should try it out sometime. Available at your nearest bookstore. Be sure to buy the Kings James version to avoid missing scriptures(Removed by the roman catholic church.....I wonder why?)They are your greatest supporters(evolutionists).
Tata....
Wow, just wow. Your so-called 'proofs' against evolution really are from the old-school style of creationism, aren't they, Lionel777? That so-called 'dinosaur blood' is still an option for you? (it was either hemes or bacterial biofilms. I can quote the original science papers for you to check if you don't know them, which I strongly suspect)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTsk tsk. Talk about old schoolNon-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.
The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.
A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.
Lionel777: "The Word of The Living God that was written and proven whilst you where busy evolving, is my proof that i'm going to Heaven."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that statement represents your standard of so-called 'proof', then I'm not remotely surprised that you post the pseudoscientific fantasies which you do. And judging by your excessive amount of verbiage in reply to me, I seem to have touched a nerve. Good.
Lionel777: "When you gain some knowledge I will respond to you again. Till then................."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*chuckle* Apparently you could not wait. Your next reply to me was posted just ten short minutes later. I also note that in place of acknowledging my request to post a sound, scientifically acceptable alternative hypothesis to evolutionary theory, you have just dredged up yet more so-called 'refutations'. I wonder why? After all, a scientific theory cannot be disproven, only replaced. Remember?
Lionel777: "You can't carry on with this circular reasoning forever you know."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, too rich. You mean, circular reasoning as in: using the Bible to 'prove' that the Bible is true?
Lionel777's scientific education seems to come exclusively from Dinosaur Adventure Land. I expect sooner or later he will bring up Kent Hovind's cosmological proofs for the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should go without saying that evidence of the age of any specific item suggests only a minimum age of the Earth, not its actual age. However, Lionel777 has amply demonstrated an inability to recognize evidence or understand its meaning. Thus his insistence that an approximate age of the Sahara or ancient trees confirms an allegedly biblical 6000 year Earth. I have already mentioned the 10,000-year continuous tree-ring series. This alone is enough for any reasonable mind to see that his Biblical interpretation is not supported by physical evidence. So I have no expectation he will even understand the following.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral continuous ice-cores have been drilled from Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. At the time the cores were taken, these sheets of ice were up to 3700 meters thick. Multiple methods were used to confirm the presence of continuous seasonal layers throughout the cores. There is strong correlation of dates among the sample sites and with historically known atmospheric events, such as ash from volcanic explosions, and with ocean-bottom sediments. Ice from these cores has been reliably dated to as much as 800,000 years old.
jpill69: "Ice from these cores has been reliably dated to as much as 800,000 years old."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrect, jp! I actually used this particular ice core example as a counter-argument to a Young-Earth Christian many months ago. The only reply that he could muster was either that the scientists must have been 'lying', or that the data was 'inaccurate'. Yeah, right. The ice cores were collected over an extended eight-year period by a team of scientists from ten different European countries. The original report comes from Science Daily of June 11, 2004, if anyone wants to check the data for themselves. (Note to creationists: it's called 'citing your sources'. You should try it sometime.)
Some more circus acts for youz to ponder on.(By the way us creationists are still waiting...and waiting.......and waiting. Hehehe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*Written records of history only go back 6-7,000 years ago, which is what the Bible teaches. Evolutionists say that humans have been around for 1 million years, but there are no written records of the events that happened. To say people have been around for 1 million years is a belief. The current population is about 6 billion people. 6 billion people could have easily been formed about 4,500 years ago, which is the time Noah’s Flood ended. If people have been around 1 million years and had the same growth rate, there would have be over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people alive today.
*The earth is slowing down 1/1000 of a second each year.(Scientifically proven and supported by you guys) At that rate, 1 billion years ago the earth would have been spinning so fast that it would have flattened like a pancake because of the centrifugal force.?
*Each time a comet orbits the sun, a small part of its mass is boiled off. At the current rate comets are disintigrating from the sun, all the comets in the solar system should have fully disintegrated in about 10,000 years. However, there are still many comets orbiting the sun, proving the solar system is less than 10,000 years old.
*Evolutionists say carbon dating proves the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Anybody who understands how carbon-dating works will admit there are assumptions involved. Evolutionists assume the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
If the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, then when did the dinosaurs live? It’s a fact that dinosaurs have always lived with people. Dinosaurs are mentioned all through history including the Bible in Job 41, and other ancient records from different countries. There are over 250 legends of people killing dragons. The reason there are so many dragon legends is because dinosaur wasn’t a word until 1847, so before that time people called dinosaurs dragons. The city of Nerluc, France, was renamed to Parasque in honor of the dragon killed there. There are dinosaur carvings in the Grand Canyon and cave paintings in Africa. Why would people carve and paint pictures of dinosaurs if dinosaurs hadn’t been around for millions of years? All these paintings and carvings of dinosaurs look exactly like what scientists are now discovering from fossils.
Claim CD410:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIce cores are claimed to have as many as 135,000 annual layers. Yet airplanes of the Lost Squadron were buried under 263 feet of ice in forty-eight years, or about 5.5 feet per year. This contradicts the presumption that the wafer-thin layers in the ice cores could be annual layers.
Source:
Vardiman, Larry. 1992. Ice cores and the age of the earth. Impact 226 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355
Response:
Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).
The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.
A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).
Looks like you guys aren't doing your homework!
Pill And tooth, please answer to support your theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this20 Questions for Evolutionists (these questions show how stupid the theory of evolution is)
Students should ask their teachers (who teach evolution as a fact) some of these questions and embarrass him/her in front of all the students.
1. Where has macro-evolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how did the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead? If a reptiles leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve?
2. Do you realize how complex living things are? How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve?
3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 90+ moons in the solar system?
12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
13. How could stars evolve?
14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contrary evidence used by those who argue that the earth is billions of years old?
15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.
16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?
17. If Noah’s Flood never happened, then why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends similar to Genesis?
18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago.
19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, and terrestrial-like brines. Doesn’t this implicate Earth as their source—and a powerful launcher, "the fountains of the great deep?
Lionel777: "Pill And tooth, please answer to support your theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, jpill69 must answer you as he chooses of course. Speaking for myself, I have not the slightest interest, nor do I feel the remotest obligation, to answer even one of your turgid 20 questions. My reason? Whether you like it or not, evolutionary theory has been one of the foremost accepted theories in science for the last century and a half. It certainly needs no defending or even justifying from modest ol' me. It has made its way in the world, and continues to do so, unperturbed by the petty, whacked-out so-called attacks on it by quasi-religious nutjobs who vent their insecurities upon what already has gained wide scientific acceptance, and whose applications range over a number of the biological sciences and other disciplines.
So here's what you should do, Lionel777.. Gather your impressive body of data together (which I presume you have spent some diligent time collecting) and formulate it into a hypothesis, which you should then submit through the recognised channels (and that definitely does not include the likes of Ken 'The Beard' Ham, or even Kent 'pass-the-department-of-corrections-soap' Hovind. As I have now made clear a number of times to you (and believe me, this is the only way that anything will ever happen for you regarding your much-craved demise of your bete noire theory of evolution), no amount of attacks, wedge-strategy, under-the-radar schoolroom tactics, or otherwise, will even so much as dent evolutionary theory, for the above given reason.
The ONLY chance you have is to come up with a hypothesis that will meet it toe-to-toe on scientifically valid terms, and then in the fullness of time and after tried-and-tested acceptance, come to supercede it as a theory in its own right. I can absolutely guarantee you that no amount of vacuous objecting waffle about how complex living things are, or how could the first living cell begin, is going to cut it, so you've wasted your own time even going down that route.
Another reason that I'm not bothering with your questions: don't be so damn' lazy. If you really were serious about wanting answers to your questions, instead of just trying to score cheap points on this thread, then you could find them in the published science literature, where all these things are covered already. So go and do your own homework, because I am not here to blow your nose for you.
In fact, if you actually have to ask a question like 'how could stars evolve', then you must surely be not only lazy, but also somewhat thick. My APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day), which appears on my desktop, regularly shows deep-field photos from Hubble and other telescopes showing both the births and deaths of stars, and describes the processes involved. So go read it up yourself. The information which you ask for is out there.
You could always actually start by reading Scientific American. Who knows? You might even learn something. I know that I do.
Lionel777: "It’s a fact that dinosaurs have always lived with people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, by golly, Lionel, I've just taken the trouble to scroll all the way down and discovered your 'dinosaurs lived with humans' statement. So here's a challenge for you which I always throw out to such fruitcakes as yourself (and in two years of my asking it, not one single creationist has risen to the challenge). It's simply this:
Produce just ONE complete dinosaur skeleton of FRESH (unfossilised) bone. This should be a pushover for you, as many must have died in the human-scale of recent history which your time-frame covers. We have many thousands of skeletons, all of them fossilised. But I'm not asking you to produce a herd. Just one will do. Should be a pushover for you (and I'd strongly advise you to forget about that 'dinosaur blood'; I'll cut you down by citing the science source papers if you try).
As I recall, (it was a while ago now) the last creationist to whom I put this challenge suggested that they all got washed out to sea. Perhaps you will come up with something a little more enterprising.
It seems most of the posts by self anointed defenders of evolution on this site are content with letting others think for them. Yes, they are content with scientists throwing them a few old bones, building a box that represents an eye that has four parts, and telling a good story. Poof... you have a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere seems to be a particular mentality that is fertile ground for the theory of evolution. It is a mentality that is content without details. Like reading a fairy tale where you can envision different lands and peoples. The mind is a powerful thing that can fill in the blanks. That's fine for reading a fairy tale but not in science. But evolution is a fairy tale for adults... at least the ones that don't ask too many questions.
Lionel777, if you wanted to know about lost squadrons, you should have asked. I bet I can find lots of stuff about Erich Von Daniken and his UFO's. You and he have much in common.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the response you copied from talk.origins, it sounds right to me. What don't you understand?
"The earth is slowing down 1/1000 of a second each year.(Scientifically proven and supported by you guys) At that rate, 1 billion years ago the earth would have been spinning so fast that it would have flattened like a pancake because of the centrifugal force.?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI predicted you couldn't resist. Even you can do the math, but you might need a calculator. 1/1000 second is 10^-3. So to go back a billion (10^9) years, assuming the rate didn't change, just add a million (10^6) seconds worth of days to the current year, then divide this sum into the number of seconds in a year and multiply that by the current number of hours in a day, (31557600 / 32557600) * 24. I get 23.26 hours in a day 1 billion years ago. I'm not sure the planet would even notice the difference, nevermind get spun down to a pancake.
A relevant cite on talk.origins is CE011. I should point out that their reported rate is five times faster than yours, but they also say that the current rate is very likely faster than in the past, so maybe your number is a better average. In either case, basic arithmetic shows any creationist claim on this point is simply nonsense, as are all the creationist claims I have ever read.
"By the way us creationists are still waiting..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWaiting for what? The second coming of Christ? It's been happening "any day now" for the past 2,000 years.
Get in line.
Lionel777, if any teachers worth their salt were asked these questions, they would assign the student the task of researching the questions for themselves, and then writing a 2500-word essay on their answers, with annotated bibliography.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI described physical evidence to you, and you simply ignored it. You continue to prove yourself quite a fool. I didn't expect otherwise, but I don't feel like playing with you anymore. So here's my deal. YOU answer your own questions. For any question you answer that I decide does not come down to the creationist's all-purpose cheat "God did it", I will reply to that question.
Take it or leave it.
"But evolution is a fairy tale for adults... at least the ones that don't ask too many questions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs any parent will tell you, a two-year-old can ask lots of questions. Asking questions is no biggie. It seems to me asking questions that don't sound like they came from a two-year-old is a huge challenge for most anti-evolutionists. Asking real questions and finding real evidence for real answers is the job of real scientists. When you deny the physical evidence, you deny His works. When you settle for "God did it" as your final answer, you deny His gift of mind.
So, Neal T, do you seek information or affirmation?
NealT: "There seems to be a particular mentality that is fertile ground for the theory of evolution. It is a mentality that is content without details."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat, you mean, 'content without details' as in: 'we have way more documented independent historical and archaeological evidence for the Caesars, or Herod, or even such remote BCE figures as Alexander or Cyrus or Akhenaten, than we have independently verifiable documented evidence for Jesus'. That sort of 'content without details', you mean? We don't even know anything about Jesus' life between his childhood and his ministry, which is a pretty substantial gap. But then as you say, "The mind is a powerful thing that can fill in the blanks." And after all, creationism is "a fairy tale for adults... at least the ones that don't ask too many questions.".
What's happened to you, NealT? Your last couple of posts have been an unchallenging shadow of your former self.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it about saying "God did it" with you? I mean the origin of life is wide open for any honest inquirer.
After years of searching and millions of dollars of taxpayer funding, multitudes of scientists have found no pathway for life to have developed through purely chemical processes. I know about the RNA world theories, but that is their best shot at it and it falls far short of explaining the origin of life.
That evolutionary folks on this post are not at least open to consider that the information encoded in DNA could have been the result of a creator demonstrates your bias. I believe the best explanation of the origin of highly complex information points to a wise Designer.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore copies exist of the New Testament that are close to the time of the events it records than any other book of ancient times.
From your anti-Christian statements, it's clear that this is not just about science is it? Evolution is about religion for you, or more specifically, all the reasons you can think of about why a creator wouldn't create the way you think he should have. Some of Charles Darwin's writings contain more references to God than the average Sunday School lesson. Of course, he was blasting the creator with a lot of "God wouldn't do it this way" statements. What about all the things that work very well in this world? What about the guy in the news that is 113 and the only medication he takes is one baby asprin a day? What about Buster Martin who at 103 runs a marathon? The best human designs can not compete with the complex information and network systems and efficiencies that exist within much of the natural world.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a question for the evolutionist and atheist, Richard Dawkins:
"Now that all honest inquirers have had a good chuckle watching you demonstrate the evolution of the EYE using a box with a handful of parts, it's time to get serious and bring out your real evidence for evolution.
I mean its usually good to get your audience warmed up with a few laugh's, but for some reason your video ends before the scientific evidence is presented. Perhaps a technical glitch cut off the rest of your demonstration. I'm sure that the missing video contained the evidence of a model of the real EYE and actually demonstrated your points one piece at a time and with each piece showing how it added value along the way. You must have used all 30 plus parts of the REAL EYE model to show them functioning together as an integrated system and how evolution did each each step of the way, right?"
The missing video must be somewhere. Can you help me find it, because I'm sure that no thinking person would consider Dawkins BOX EYE an example of real evolution.
I've also not been able to find JPILL69's explanation of evolution using a standard household item of just half a dozen parts. Did I miss it or is JPILL69 shy about his example being examined?
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also have a background in computer programming and totally agree with you. I think a programming background helps one appreciate the fact that one small error can render a system inoperative and that for living systems to function as they do is amazing. The code in the living cell is much more complex than code in computer assembly or machine code because it is so tightly integrated and sometimes performs multiple functions.
JPILL69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said I might be interested in what some people are doing with self-programming logic devices...
Isn't that statement contradictory? To be truly self-programming, people shouldn't be doing anything with them!
Intelligence is needed to create self-programming devices. The more "self-reliant" the program, the more intelligence is needed up front to get it going. All this does is prove how wise the creator of life is.
photos from Hubble and other telescopes showing both the births and deaths of stars, and describes the processes involved
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe processes described are once again assumed. Every first grader knows stars are dying all th time but can you just show one close enough to actually prove it's being born? Never been done or it will be front page news.
As far as Dr Hovind is concerned, I laugh that evolutionists inability to debate him successfully has made you succumb to mockery and fall-off-the-wagon as far as answering impossible to prove questions. The only reason you or pill refuse to answer these questions are simply because you can't. I must say you have quite a way with words(You should teach English) and how to try and dwindle off the subject. Sadly though there are a few amateur evolutionists that have looked up at the two of you and were expecting you to at least try and prove something about the theory other than babble away all the time about how dumb and lazy I am(I'm sure they think you're the dumb and lazy ones), simply cos irrespective of how dumb those questions might sound you really don't have any answers.I am not trying to prove evolution. You are...remember? Those questions are to DISPROVE evolution. Or are you just agreeing that I'm right?
I hope you other evolutionists are starting to see that there is no such thing as evolution as your peers(pass-me-my-science-textbook) are slowly proving by not proving anything at all.
Jesus still loves you.....whether you like it or not.
Lionel777, if any teachers worth their salt were asked these questions, they would assign the student the task of researching the questions for themselves, and then writing a 2500-word essay on their answers, with annotated bibliography.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that how they Pass the buck in the real world?
I agree with Neal T(Obviously) that this is about religion to you and not science. That being said, all evolutionists should start working on evolving out of HELL. A word of advice: You don't want this one to take millllllllllions of years.
For any question you answer that I decide does not come down to the creationist's all-purpose cheat "God did it", I will reply to that question.
You're starting to sound like you're giving up, or the pope. You decide.
NealT: "More copies exist of the New Testament that are close to the time of the events it records than any other book of ancient times."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo? This in no way refutes my statement. I was talking about independent corroborative evidence. And if you have any information regarding the mysteriously missing eighteen-odd years of Jesus, then please post it, because me and quite a few other academics would be interested to know. And the Devil is in the detail: your use of the term 'book' to describe the NT is of course a total misnomer. At the time it was written (over several centuries, and not necessarily as a contemporaneous body of work, as you seem to seek to imply), it was a series of disparate and contradictory texts.
NealT: "From your anti-Christian statements, it's clear that this is not just about science is it? Evolution is about religion for you, or more specifically, all the reasons you can think of about why a creator wouldn't create the way you think he should have."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was never 'anti-Christian' before I debated creationists. If that is so now, what has turned me is the crass anti-science attitudes and moronic dinosaurs-lived-with-humans garbage (read Lionel777's recent posts) that spouts from the mouths of those fundamentalist Christians who are terrified that their religious beliefs might crumble before the facts which the data demonstrates.
And, no, evolution is not about religion to me. Evolution is about evolution. You and I have already trodden this old turf, Neal. It has nothing to do with whether a creator deity is part of the equation or otherwise, but about what is acceptable scientific method. Science does not, and CANNOT, deal in the supernatural. So what you say from there onwards about marathon-running centenarians has no bearing on the issue anyway.
I strongly suggest that you relinquish your penchant to create little theories about what you imagine my attitude to be. Again, as I explained earlier this year to you, I don't make up the rules of science, and leaving God out of the equation is not something which is based upon my personal opinion.
Truly, I'm happy to post with you, Neal, because you at least have a reasoning intelligence when it comes to these matters, and are a cut above the nutjob proclamations of the likes of Lionel777 and his creationist ilk. But you do have a tendency to work over old ground. So again for the record: God is not part of the evolutionary equation, not because science is 'against' God, or is even adverse to the idea, but because a supernatural interventionist agency is outside the province of science. Were such an agency to be included, then it would stop being science and become 'belief'.
@ Lionel77: So I guess your long-winded response means that you have admitted failure to rise to my challenge and produce a dinosaur skeleton of fresh bone? *chuckle* I wonder why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLionel777: "Every first grader knows stars are dying all th time but can you just show one close enough to actually prove it's being born?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo and check the files of APOD, you ignorant savage. And if you're too lazy even to manage this, then Google 'Star Birth' or somesuch. There's reams of information out there. I've just checked.
Lionel777: "As far as Dr Hovind is concerned.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's with the 'Dr' crap? He got his doctorate from a known diploma factory in a few months. Unlike real scientists, of course, who have a little more personal integrity.
Lionel777: "I am not trying to prove evolution. You are...remember? Those questions are to DISPROVE evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..And that statement shows just how dumb you are, my deluded little 'dragons-are-really-dinosaurs' pal. I had already explained at length to you that it is not my place to 'prove' something that already has long been accepted as science, and that no number of 'disproofs' will make a jot of difference to an already-accepted theory.
You, on the other hand, are the one here who is making extraordinary maverick claims. The onus is therefore upon you to support what you say. I also already explained to you that scientific theories are not about 'proof', but I guess that your neighbor was borrowing the brain cell that particular day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What is it about saying "God did it" with you? I mean the origin of life is wide open for any honest inquirer."
The declaration "God did it" is a cheat. It says to me one of two things. Either the author doesn't want to admit he
lacks the knowledge or imagination or motivation to come up with a real answer. Or the author considers himself infallible and knows all there is to know, and declares a final answer because he knows the question is unknowable by definition. Either way, it's not consistent with honest inquiry.
"Isn't that statement contradictory? To be truly self-programming, people shouldn't be doing anything with them!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you deny the evidence by fiat? I am not surprised.
As you are the one who claims to know God's plan for us all, it seems to me infallibility better suits you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That evolutionary folks on this post are not at least open to consider that the information encoded in DNA could have been the result of a creator demonstrates your bias."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no problem whatsoever admitting that I expect explanations of natural phenomena to be based on material evidence. I admit this openly and freely, knowing full well there are those who condemn me to eternal damnation for it. If that's all you're after, then I hope you are now content. But we both know that is not the case.
I agree you point to a fundamental difference in our worldviews. You view my expectation as bias, and my bias as a denial of God, and my denial of God as a cause of the decline of civilization. I do not mean to exaggerate here. If this is false in any way, now is the time to say so without equivocation.
I view my expectation as essential to honest and skeptical inquiry, which is essential to understanding how God’s creation really works, which is essential to the continued existence of civilization. I do not exaggerate or equivocate here. History and current events are full of examples of people who see demon-haunted worlds. I see an alternative.
You accuse the evolutionary folks of this post of bias. But all scientists are trained to such a bias. Even those with deep religious conviction know their opinions are only that until they tie them to physical evidence outside their mind, and their evidence tested against other evidence. So your accusation is really too limited; if you have a problem with the bias of evolutionary folks here, then you have a problem with all science.
"I've also not been able to find JPILL69's explanation of evolution using a standard household item of just half a dozen parts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you remember? You can find it right after your explanation of what you considered to be functional changes.
Lionel777: "Sadly though there are a few amateur evolutionists that have looked up at the two of you (ambertooth and jpill69) and were expecting you to at least try and prove something about the theory other than babble away all the time about how dumb and lazy I am.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, really? Who, exactly, are these 'amateur evolutionists'? Your statement intrigues me. And I can assure you that babbling away about how dumb and lazy you are is my idea of fun, and I will continue to do so as the opportunity presents itself, which seems to be every time that you post something here.
Still, you clearly are one of those misguided trilobite-in-the-footprint fundamentalist creationists who attempt to pretend that if myself or jpill69 do not supply you with your requested information, then you cannot obtain it from any other source, which we both know is complete nonsense, and that your contrived 'twenty questions' were merely a ruse for some cheap point-scoring.
So, yes, Lionel, it just shows that either you're too damn' lazy to go and search for the answers yourself, or too dumb to know the places to look. Or both.
I was going to let this pass, but Lionel777's hypocrisy deserves a reply. The question about Earth's slowing rotation is one of Kent Hovind's favorites. The sad part is, it was originally based on a simple-minded misunderstanding about the leap-second. Kent Hovind thought adding a leap-second every year or so meant the Earth's rotation was actually slowing down that much, and inferred an impossibly short day for past ages. Apparently he changed the value from a millisecond a day to a millisecond a year, but he didn't bother to tell anybody. So now wannabes like Lionel777 mindlessly spew the question without bothering to do the math for themselves, and they don't realize (surprise!) it comes up with perfectly reasonable values, verified by independent lines of evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can lead a horse to water...
jpill69: "I was going to let this pass, but Lionel777's hypocrisy deserves a reply."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..And I for my part was going to let Lionel777's statement to me (below) pass, but indeed, such hypocricy demands a response...
Lionel777: "Jesus still loves you.....whether you like it or not."
..is exactly the kind of gut-heaving, self-serving, ingratiating, sanctimonious, down-the-throat platitude that is guaranteed to send every decent-thinking person running as far as they can in the opposite direction. Way to go, Lionel. You actually have the power to turn people away from your so-called 'religion'.
Your posts and arguments support a strong basis of your dreamt-up theory "Circular reasoning" Round and round and round and round.................................
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI admit that a couple of years ago I did study Dr Hovind and his work but you conveniently or just ignorantly overlooked my post mentioning one of the worlds greatest former evolutionists Prof Walter Veith. Now one of the worlds greatest creationist scientists. I'm not surprised either, knowing that he has the knowledge of evolution that your so called "Real scientists"haven't come close to yet.
It must be a sensitive topic to have lost one of your greatest scientists to the truth of evolution and now realizing the truth about the creation of the earth and it's magnificent Creator.God.
I'll be waiting for your next derogatory "Natural selection" of whom you choose to try and discredit.
Lionel777: "Jesus still loves you.....whether you like it or not."
..is exactly the kind of gut-heaving, self-serving, ingratiating, sanctimonious, down-the-throat platitude that is guaranteed to send every decent-thinking person running as far as they can in the opposite direction. Way to go, Lionel. You actually have the power to turn people away from your so-called 'religion'.
It seems to bother you that someone you don't even consider could love you. Luckily we don't have to worry our heads off about you running in the opposite direction cos as you stated you'd have to be decent and have the ability to think, and as you have so clearly revealed in every one of your posts your brain is in the metamorphosis stage of evolving into a full braincell.(We call this the In-between stage) And proves denial.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said: The declaration "God did it" is a cheat. It says to me one of two things. Either the author doesn't want to admit he lacks the knowledge or imagination or motivation to come up with a real answer. Or the author considers himself infallible and knows all there is to know, and declares a final answer because he knows the question is unknowable by definition. Either way, it's not consistent with honest inquiry."
Uh-huh, right, okay, whatever...
There is not a scientific explanation of the origin of life and YOU ARE NOT OPEN TO ANYTHING BUT NATURALISTIC CAUSES. How in the world are you open to honest inquiry????
WHATEVER.
"YOU ARE NOT OPEN TO ANYTHING BUT NATURALISTIC CAUSES."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is because UNnaturalistic causes do not explain, by design.
"WHATEVER"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis not the response of an openly enquiring mind.
"I admit that a couple of years ago I did study Dr Hovind and his work..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou STUDIED him, and you still haven't figured out that every one of Kent Hovind's 'scientific' proclamations is a joke on you? His 'ministry' has so little integrity, even other creationists publicly distance themselves from it.
"overlooked my post mentioning one of the worlds greatest former evolutionists Prof Walter Veith. Now one of the worlds greatest creationist scientists. "
Not true. You buried it among your religion-riddled spew. Nevertheless, I found this quote about him, which I am happy to share with you:
"But I find it unimaginable that a man calling himself a Christian teacher has so very little to say about his Lord."
from this website:
http://www.thejerichoroad.com/home-journal/2008/3/22/why-i-wont-watch-walter-veith-videos.html
A comment, I might add, that as easily applies to you.
Lionel777: "as you have so clearly revealed in every one of your posts your brain is in the metamorphosis stage of evolving into a full braincell."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least you might attempt to grasp for enough originality to make up your own insults instead of pinching mine. Better luck next time, Lionel.
Professor Walter Veith? That's even slimmer pickings than NealT producing his link to 30 scientists who question evolution (and even that turned out upon investigation to be a flawed list). It's a miniscule drop in the ocean considering the thousands of qualified scientists who apply evolutionary theory in their researches and data on a daily basis. And what is this 'knowledge of evolution' which Veith possesses to which other scientists are not privy? Please could you post details of some of his papers on the subject which have been published in the scientific literature for others to check? Thanks.
Oh, by the way, who are those 'amateur evolutionists' again? And where is that unfossilised dinosaur skeleton, Lionel? Because unless and until you can produce it, you're whole cock-eyed young-Earth belief system is screwed. Why don't you talk to NealT about it? He at least is a fellow-Christian, and he certainly doesn't believe in the mumbo-jumbo dinosaurs-lived-with-man twaddle that you propound.
To recap, please support your claims by:
1] Producing evidence of an unfossilised dinosaur skeleton.
2] Posting a link to published papers in the science literature on the subject of evolutionary theory by Prof. Veith.
I shall be watching your future posts to see if they include these two items, which are essential to endorse what you claim. Or are you going to plead victimisation and conspiracy theories?
NealT: "There is not a scientific explanation of the origin of life.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, NealT, but this has to be one of your sillier statements. There is not, of course, a scientific explanation for anything until that explanation has been found. Perhaps it would have been more accurate for you to end your statement with the rider: 'at this time'. And of course, it's not as if the subject is a total mystery anyway, because there are various hypotheses which extrapolate from what is already known. Some things that we know now were unimaginable mysteries even a century ago. What will we know in 2109 that is a mystery now? But that knowledge has come, and will come, with enlightened and progressive thinking, and not a God-of-the-gaps substitute which attempts to plug those currently-unknowns with quasi-religious Polyfilla.
NealT: "WHATEVER."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInterestingly enough, only a couple of days ago I heard on the radio that in a survey of U.S. citizens this word ranked number one in a top ten list of the 'most disliked new-generation buzzwords'. Most people questioned seemed to think that it signalled an inadequacy on the part of the person who used it to respond in any meaningful way. I agree.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI saw a recent interview with Richard Dawkins and he readily admitted that scientists can not explain the origin of life by natural processes, but that doesn't mean they won't find one.
You and JPILL69 are of the same opinion.
I'd like to remind you that NO EVIDENCE is not an argument in science.
My last post was done rather late and I should have said there is no evidence for a purely naturalistic theory of the origin of life.
However, a good scientific inference can be made that life was Designed. The Creation model or intelligent design theory is not an alternative JUST BECAUSE naturalists have failed to find evidence of a purely chemical pathway to the origin of life.
Creation is the best explanation for the origin of life. Francis Crick said the cell looked like it was designed. If it looks designed, shouldn't an honest inquirer at least hold out the possibility that it was indeed designed?
Not only do naturalistic explanations fail in origin of life studies, but evolutionary theory fails in its description of the mechanism of common descent. Dawkins BOX EYE illustrates this point. Evolutionists can say, evolution did it, evolution did that, but if they can not describe the process in detail then what is the difference between saying that and God did it?
I'll tell you the difference. Natural selection is ascribed powers that have often never been observed in nature. It harms science to stretch a theory to accommodate the evidence because no other alternative is allowed. A theory that predicts nothing is not worth anything.
Design theory ascribes these astounding processes that brought about complex living systems to an intelligent creator rather than some fuzzy naturalistic confluence of miracle like events.
If I see a TURTLE on top of a fence post, my first thought would be that someone put him there. An Evolutionists view would say that just the right winds and perhaps a tornado or rock slide threw him up there. When you check the weather and find no tornado has occured recently and there are no rocks around the JUST SO stories have to become more complicated to accommodate the diminishing evidence for a purely natural cause of the turtle on the fence post. Often the most straightforward explanation is the BEST explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T, I ask you to think on the following two questions:
First, you fill your posts with assertions about evolution, evolutionary theory, and evolutionists. You make these assertions without accompaniment of evidence or explanation, as if they are self-evident facts. And then you become morally indignant when anyone challenges your facts or your conclusions. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
Second, imagine you have convinced the world that DNA is proof of Intelligent Design. What's next? By that I mean, what progress do you expect will happen when you replace materialist science with your version? What different predictions will be made? What new avenues of research will open up? How will the world become a better place? Please be as specific as you can.
Neal T: "I'd like to remind you that NO EVIDENCE is not an argument in science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA double negative has no meaning anyway, whether you apply it to science or to anything else. But overlooking your awkward phrasing, your point is invalid. Examples abound where lack of evidence can still be regarded as meaningful data. You might comb a rock stratum for weeks and not find a single fossil. But that very lack of all fossil evidence in a deposit can mean that strata was deposited before life on Earth began - as indeed is the case with the Grand Canyon's Vishnu Schist.
But truly, Neal, I'm just not greatly interested in dragging over old ground with you yet again, which is what seems to happen with your posts. I've already explained multiple times (most recently, again this week, as well as earlier this year) that your 'designer', however apparently feasible as an idea, has no currency in the sphere of science, which does not deal in the supernatural. It sure don't make a squat of difference if you call it God, an Intelligent Designer (what a patronisingly denegrating term for a deity!), a supernatural interventionist agency, or the Giant Cosmic Cookie Cutter.
To yield to a flight of fancy: let's just suppose that we actually could discover a 'God' presence in the laboratory that could be explained, examined, and tested within the parameters of science. 'God' would be proven. The result: no more belief. Faith becomes redundant. The free will to believe or not to believe gets the boot. Is that what you would really like to see happen?
Your turtle-on-the-fencepost analogy won't wash. I'm an 'evolutionist' (this is a term used only by those outside of science), and I'd say right off the bat that someone put it there. It's called 'common sense'. And if you're honest with yourself, you know as well as I do that your 'diminishing evidence' is just creationist's wishful thinking. The bare fact is that even now evolutionary theory goes from strength to strength, and the biological sciences find new inflections and depths of meaning in its application to data. Next time, try to use a more credible analogy.
Not for the first time I am puzzled as to why this one theory in science has become such a hated bete noire of the religious right; often to the point of a near-frenzied loathing out of all proportion to the theory itself. Is it really so appallingly threatening to the very foundations of fundamentalist religious beliefs? Well, apparently the answer is: yes. And the attacks on the theory, and the shocking demonisation of Charles Darwin by right-wing fundamentalist religious factions, are simply a manifestation of a terrible fear that all which they believe in just might be... wrong.
And that is what is at the heart of all this to-ing and fro-ing. Fear. Fear of what the theory implies for the religious right-wing. And fear breeds irrational hatred. And hatred takes strange forms of bigotry. When push comes to shove, and despite protestations to the contrary, it is the religious who attack the science, and not the other way around. That is why you, Neal T, and why that fruitloop Lionel777, are posting on a science website. And that is why I am NOT posting on a creationist website (apart from the fact that they've got their sites battened down tighter than Fort Knox, because I've tried to gain access on more than one occasion - now what does THAT say?).
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes common sense does tell us that someone put the turtle on the fence post because the human brain is very adept at distinguishing being a natural event and otherwise. So it is with the living cell for those that are not biased by naturalistic philosophy. Francis Crick even said that it looked like it was designed.
As for your being puzzled about why the theory of evolution is such a lightning rod for argument I'd like to offer at least a couple reasons. First, the theory of evolution is not completely separate from religion, however much they work to deny it. Charles Darwin and the leading evolutionists since often frame their worldview to a negative theology ("God wouldn't have done it this way" mantra). Some of their evolutionary writings contain more references to God than your average Sunday Sermon. That is a matter of record. You have even gone there also. Why would a creator make a parasite that eats baby birds Ambertooth? That's a metaphysical statement. Perhaps if evolutionists just admitted that their theory has a religious foundation it would bring more of an honesty to the debate.
Second, it is true that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, but there is also plenty of evidence the earth is flat. There are also huge scientific problems with both ideas.
Neal T: "Why would a creator make a parasite that eats baby birds Ambertooth? That's a metaphysical statement. Perhaps if evolutionists just admitted that their theory has a religious foundation it would bring more of an honesty to the debate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow very little you understand. When I gave that example all those months ago, it was specifically directed at you and your own stance. It is your own beliefs that convert it into a metaphysical statement. I asked you to explain it within the context of your beliefs, and why would a 'designer' consciously design a living system which causes such suffering? Because a conscious, omnipotent intelligence must by reasoned extention have CONSCIOUSLY designed suffering into the equation. My question to you therefore was: why? You replied that you did not know. Maybe you have thought of a better answer in the intervening months. Maybe not. Maybe you think that God is just a sicko sadist who gets his rocks off by coming up with such things. How WOULD you explain it? What is already clear in this paragraph is that, in spite of what you say, these things are actually a heck of a lot more straightforward with God out of the loop. To me, the bot fly just does what it does. End of story.
Speaking for myself, the reason why (listen up) I will not admit that 'my' theory has a religious foundation is because it does not. You religionists (now there's a word to conjour with, rather like 'evolutionists') strive in near-desperation to pin the link, because it would fit the way in which you imagine that I think. What other men and women of science have done and said in the past (and we are all children of our time), and how often or not they used the word 'God' in their writings, is not something to which I am answerable.
As to 'bringing more honesty to the debate': I believe that the psychological term is 'projection'. Do not assume of others what you yourself indulge in. Perhaps you consider that your statements are honest. Well, so are mine, pal.
And you do seem to favor false analogies, don't you? First that silly turtle, and now evidence for evolution equals evidence that the Earth is flat. I'm not even going down that Monty Python road. It's the logic of the damned.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharles Darwin and other leaders of evolutionary thought in the last 150 years did not need any help from anyone to bring their negative view of God into their books and articles. They lit the fire and then pointed their fingers at someone else.
YOU SAID, "What is already clear in this paragraph is that, in spite of what you say, these things are actually a heck of a lot more straightforward with God out of the loop. To me, the bot fly just does what it does. End of story."
Funny, that is the motivation of Charles Darwin for a naturalistic theory. Take God out and end of story. How Tidy. How very TIDY. Create a little shell of thought around you and get irritated by a foreign idea that does not mesh with what your notion of a creator should be. Even in your argument against evolution being religious you make metaphysical statements.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE MICROCHIP ACCORDING TO BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONISTS:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce upon a time I was walking along the vast, sandy beaches of the eastern shore of Lake Michigan when I noticed storm clouds gathering on the western horizon. Scanning ahead I saw a crude shelter and decided to head for it. I arrived just in time as the storm quickly brewed overhead. Happily I noticed a WARM LITTLE POND next to the shelter and sat looking upon it as the storm came in. The wind picked up and lightning began to strike the pond. A metorite crashed into the pond. More lightning strikes and more wind. The warm little pond boiled now as the mixture of sand and metal and scum swirled. Finally the storm was over and a cool wind now blew.
I stepped out in amazement to see that the sand had turned to hardened silicon. A flock of sea gulls flew over head and I just barely avoided a large dropping. Looking down I noticed it had settled upon a small black square. The wind blew again and I could see that the sea gull poop had formed letters on the square that read, "INTEL PENTIUM". I retrieved the square and noticed a perfectly formed microchip. I ran home with it and promptly upgraded my computer. Who would have thought that microchip manufacturing was that simple. I wonder why they charge so much for those things?
Neal T: "Take God out and end of story."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you being deliberately evasive? Are you maybe just trying on a wind-up, Neal? Maybe it could be that you actually, genuinely, do not understand what I write to you. No matter. For me it's enough that you fail even to attempt to answer my question anew. That says a lot. You'd sooner quibble about presumptuously imagining what you fancy my 'notion' of a creator to be, and decline to tackle the big issues which are put to you. So..
What purpose does your 'designer' have in creating suffering? Shall we start there?
Remember, the above statement is phrased from YOUR point of view. Although I will understand that if these hard questions are too uncomfortable for you, then you can always "create a little shell of thought around you and get irritated by a foreign idea that does not mesh with what your notion of a creator should be".
And I'm not even bothering with more sillinesses and false analogies about microchip metaphors, so you've wasted your own time writing that particular post.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: What purpose does your 'designer' have in creating suffering? Shall we start there?
Suffering gets into metaphysical concepts and asks what was God thinking. These questions are not relevant to seeing intelligence in design. For example, seeing design in the living cell has nothing to do with the theological explanations for suffering in our world. Suffering should not (but is) used to argue for evolution based on rejecting a creation.
Neal T, you mention Francis Crick a lot. And that's a good thing. As the co-discoverer of DNA's molecular structure, his achievements should inspire others. The irony here is Francis Crick and his achievements illustrate the antithesis of Intelligent Design. Anybody who has read "The Double Helix" or is otherwise familiar with the huge personal effort required to tease out the details of DNA's molecular structure, can not reasonably doubt Dr. Crick's bona fides as an unambiguously materialist scientist. Even if by some odd chance the phrase "God did it" ever flitted through his consciousness, he did not let that stop him from finding out HOW. And because Dr. Crick and other scientists like him commit themselves to finding out HOW, and do not settle for your final answer, the solutions to a host of diseases are within our grasp. Nobody should accept anymore the morally corrupt notion that disease is God's punishment for their sins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, Neal T, you can choose to follow Dr. Crick's example. Or you can continue to close your eyes to the physical evidence of God's creation.
PS I don't mind metaphysical statements because I don't take them literally.
Oh, for Christ’s sake. Here’s Neil, back again to start regurgitating the same old creationist claptrap. I guess a long absence means that everyone is just expected to forget that all of his BS was already soundly debunked the first time around. How was that done? Let’s see – it was …oh, what was that – think, Keelyn, think …oh, I remember now! It was the FACTS and EVIDENCE – facts and evidence that has demonstrated Neil to be consistently wrong! But, like the good creationist, Neil just hand waves away pesky things like facts and evidence and start drooling the same crap all over again. What a waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Neil, why don’t you help out a fellow creationist:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4ad542144c717335;act=ST;f=14;t=6313
It’s right up your alley – Floyd’s “Big Five Incompatibilities.” He only has until November 1st to finish making a thorough idiot of himself – you could help. Not that I suppose he really needs it (as a total moron, he’s doing splendid performance of stupid all by himself), but the Pandas would probably love a new chew toy. And you and Floyd are so much alike – simply ignoring facts and evidence when they are not convenient for you.
Well, I certainly hope to see you there to help Floyd out (chomp chomp). I definitely don’t intend to engage your stupid arguments here again, because you are not constrained to a time limit – ignorance can go on indefinitely. I know ambertooth (for one) is more than capable of making a fool out you (again). So, I’ll see you at Panda’s Thumb? Huh? Maybe? Chomp, chomp. Oh, my bet is you couldn’t handle it. I wonder what lame excuse you will come up with, though (if any).
Keelyn, nice to see your contribution. Thanks for the link. A very interesting website.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A theory that predicts nothing is not worth anything."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, Neal T. I take you at your word. Seriously. So, in a style similar to talkorigin's "29 evidences", please describe
examples of predictions that your biological theory makes different from modern evolutionary synthesis, along with supporting confirmation and potential falsifications. Thank you in advance.
Neal T: "These questions are not relevant to seeing intelligence in design. For example, seeing design in the living cell has nothing to do with the theological explanations for suffering in our world."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations, Neal, old son! You have now won the Golden Ambertooth Award for the most blatant cop-out by an IDer that I have ever come across.
So what you're saying is that you totally believe that living systems are conciously 'designed' by some unknown reasoning intelligence, but you totally wash your hands of and absolve yourself from all the further ramifications which that belief involves.
I don't know about anyone else who might be reading along with this conversation (although I have a fairly good idea), but it certainly strikes me that your so-called religious 'faith' turns out to be a pretty damn' fairweather one. You seem to have totally missed (or perhaps you only pretended to miss) my point that on your side of the fence, the metaphysics are part of the equation whether you feel comfortable about that or not. And here you are, apparently realising the corner that you've backed yourself into, and frantically trying to logic your way back out by protesting that the one does not have to do with the other.
But the one, Neal, IS the other. Because by your own screwy definition, conscious intelligence is involved in the creation and design of living systems. You have actually said that this is what you believe, so it goes that this 'consciousness' must also be consciously AWARE that terrible suffering has been included in the mix. Stronger: this suffering is DESIGNED into the mix. This consciousness creates some organism, and gets it to survive by eating (usually in hideously painful ways) other organisms which it has 'designed' and created.
As they say in examinations: 'Explain'.
And don't make a cop-out protest that one does not have to do with the other. It's too late for that, and you're bankrupting your own religious faith by even going down that road.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have a need to press the issue of suffering in the world because it is a big deal to you. Every great philosophy needs some kind of a spiritual foundation and explaining evil in the world by taking God out is evolutions spiritual foundation. It is what got Dawkins, Gould, Darwin and others fired up.
Suffering is something that each individual needs to address personally because we all suffer to some degree:
Do parasites play a positive role by keeping some species from becoming overpopulated which causes a breakdown of the ecosystem and leds to extinction?
How have the direct actions of men contributed to suffering in the world?
How have the positive actions of men relieved suffering in the world?
The generation of Americans that grew up during the great depression are sometimes called the greatest generation. What influence did hardship have upon the character of this generation?
In what way have you personally worked to relieve suffering?
In what way have you contributed to suffering?
Has suffering made you a bitter or a better person?
What can we learn as individuals about suffering?
Neal T: "Ambertooth, You have a need to press the issue of suffering in the world because it is a big deal to you."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTranslation: "I, Neal T, am unable adequately to address the issue put to me, so I'm covering it up by deflecting it back unanswered and following it up with a lot of waffle and high-toned philosophical poo-ha."
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not claim to have all the answers to suffering. Perhaps if you tried to answer the questions I posted you could answer some of them yourself. The answer is not one dimensional and this is perhaps why you prefer to keep God out and manufacture a simple answer for yourself so you can stay in your comfort zone.
Cornelius Hunter said it well; "We may not like a design, but that does not mean it was not designed. There may be evidence for evil or inefficiency, but that does not counter the evidence for design. Snake venom may be deadly, but it also is complex."
JPILL69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrancis Crick is also an atheist from what I understand of him. He also came up with the idea of pansperma because he did not see how life could originate on earth due to its complexity.
It seems that intelligent men of science have been at both ends of this debate. My theory is that there is something more that is driving this debate and that is religion. Evolutionists will deny that they are basing their argument on religion but all the data they see that confirms evolution is filtered through a religious lens. It's a negative religion... the God wouldn't do it this way mentality. Their worldview only allows them to make scientific inferences that are naturalistic. In this worldview there is no differentiation between discovering natural functionality in the universe and origins. It must follow that since everyday funcationality of the universe can be explained by naturalism, so to must origins. The problem is no empirical evidence to support a naturalistic origin has been found.
It seems to me a simple error of thinking to assume that because we can probe a thunderstorm and explain its cause in purely naturalistic terms it must also follow that the origin of life has to be explained naturalistically. After all the cannibals thought the sun god caused the thunderstorm, and we a so much smarter now to know otherwise. Diehard naturalism leads to over extrapolation of the facts in the opposite direction. Just as the cannibals attributed everything to their various gods, the evolutionist attributes everything to natural selection. Natural selection is basically assigned the role of miraclously giving new species amazing gifts and abilities. Like Christmas time in the city, natural selection is there to bestow whatever is needed.
Well, I was out but the Ardipithecus special on the Discovery Channel made me check back to see if there was any new material here based on this information. Alas, there is not but there are statements I am compelled to reply to. First I will reply to Neal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this8/11 @ 1:17 - You asked why not entertain the idea that DNA was designed. If I concede that it is designed, which I don't, then how do we determine who designed it? How did he/she/it/they do it? The reason that design is not currently considered is because it involves the supernatural which is outside the scope of science. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the root of this discussion is about separating belief and science. Whether a creator exists or not is a question outside the realm of science. If at some point a creators existence can be affirmatively tested by science then great. But until the time that a creator can be tested and measured, a creator must be excluded because science can only consider the natural world.
8/20 @ 9:39 - Pasteur made these discoveries because his search for a natural explanation for his questions. As pointed out in an earlier post, at the time illness was attributed to sins against God. He took a scientific approach to the question, not a religious one.
Now to Lionel777....are you honestly this misinformed?
10/10 @ 628 When having a discussion it helps to use factual information and compose intelligent, meaningful sentences. If you are going to put questionable information, as you do in this post, references help.
10/11 @ 657 You state you have proof, please substantiate. I believe you mean evidence, and I would be ecstatic if you could provide evidence of God.
On a personal note you claim you do not sin but yet I doubt you follow the laws of Deuteronomy, how does your belief reconcile that?
Wow, I no sooner finish one post than Neal fires off more of his hypocritical points. Neal: "no empirical evidence to support a naturalistic origin." For you to say anything about evidence after you have been asked for more than a year to provide evidence for creationism is quite upsetting. Note that I said evidence for creationism, not against evolution. Also, keep in mind that evolution does not address the origin of life, simply how life has adapted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for "diehard naturalism," is there a failure to understand that there are rules to science just like math. Science works under a specific set of rules that demands natural evidence. If the supernatural is considered, then science ceases to be useful because any and all claims that cannot be falsified must be considered valid. Before you even go to the "evolution can't be falsifed" argument, there are mountains of evidence and experiments upon which evolution is based. Until there is scientific evidence that provides a better reason as to why life adapts it is the accepted theory.
Neal T: "I do not claim to have all the answers to suffering. Perhaps if you tried to answer the questions I posted you could answer some of them yourself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou still don't get it, do you? The whole crux of my enquiry to you, which you consistently avoid, either intentionally or because you do not understand it, is this:
You believe in a sentient designing consciousness as the causal basis for the existence of living organisms. But you refuse to follow this belief through to its consequences. This sentient consciousness must not only be aware of the resulting suffering (I'm talking about raw nature and things eating other things, NOT human mores), but must have consciously (i.e.: willfully, calculatingly and deliberately) DESIGNED the suffering as an element in the scheme of things.
Do you agree with this or not? (If you do not, then this means that your God must have strictly limited powers, and must deploy those powers irresponsibly.)
In all of your posts so far, you have been only too eager to point out what you perceive as being the 'designed' complexity of the cell, and so on. But I have never once heard you push this line of reasoning through to embrace the consequences which logically must be included (see above).
So if you consider the cell to be 'designed', then you must also consider insect mouth parts which burrow into living flesh to be 'designed' - and by the very same sentient consciousness.
It's all in or all out, Neal, and I have yet to come across an IDer who is brave enough to grasp the nettle and face up to all the follow-through consequences of such a so-called 'Intelligent Designer'.
So far, you are no exception.
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I understand correctly, you think that one must prove the existence of God by somehow measuring him or discovering his presence in the lab or something like that before one can believe that life was designed.
I would like to point out that a good scientific INFERENCE can be made that life was designed based on the enormous complexity of the information that is encoded in the DNA and its structure and function.
It's like finding a TURTLE on a FENCE POST. I may not know who put it up there, but the BEST EXPLANATION is that SOMEONE (not something or itself) put it there. I may not know WHO did it, but I can make a good inference that SOMEONE did. Detectives and forensic people do this all the time to solve crimes, so INFERENCE is valid. Detectives can INFER that someone was murdered without knowing WHO did it. When looking at historical events, like the origin of life, scientific inference is a valid approach. So I believe that science can take us at least this far right now. Other questions such as WHO and WHY can be answered by the Bible and then validated by personal experience.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone can believe anything they wish. However, to be accepted as scientific evidence it must meet scientific criteria. As I said, science operates within parameters and these parameters exclude belief.
For your turtle example all of the inferences you make concern natural phenomenon. A person lifting the turtle or committing the crime it is not an unknown all powerful being.
Now you say the other answers can be found in the Bible. Factually, try to stay in a critical mindset, the Bible is a book and God is a character. There is very little difference between Christianity and Scientology and most Christians I know think scientologists are absolute kooks. I doubt you would ever, under any circumstances, look to Dianetics for answers to science questions. So...why would you do so with any other book?
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, suffering in nature was designed, however, not all suffering was designed. We may not like it (a grilled steak does sound good though), or understand why but that is an altogether different question than if something is designed or not. I may think a new 2010 automobile is a joke, but quality and function is often in the eye of the beholder.
Charles Darwin had a major pet peeve with what he considered evil in nature and this was a big driving force in the development of his theory. His reasoning seemed to be that it was easier to remove God from creation because he could not accept the concept of a creator designing evil in nature. What he did not appreciate was the fact that all of that kind of thinking is not science but metaphysical notions. So religion was and is a pillar for the theory of evolution.
davashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said there was little difference between Christianity and scientology.
Are you joking or just trying to be controversial? Who is the SAVIOR in Scientology? Jesus is MY Lord, Savior, Friend, Refuge and Strength. He is Awesome, and there is nothing like being in His presence. There is nothing to be compared with the presence of the Lord Jesus. Case closed.
davashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID Science excludes belief...
A purely naturalistic explanation of the origin of life has not been found after years of much effort and millions of dollars of taxpayer funding. Even atheist Richard Dawkins admitted recently that no explanation has been found. Yet he and you believe that an explanation will be found someday. If that is not belief, what would you like to call it?
Neal T: "So religion was and is a pillar for the theory of evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can also repeat ad nauseum that there are pink unicorns frolicking in my refridgerator. My serial repetition of the phrase would not make it any more true.
So you acknowledge that you believe suffering to be a willfully 'designed' element. Which in turn must mean that its inclusion in the scheme of things is deliberate and calculating (from your belief perspective, naturally). But suffering is not some now-and-then affair. It is profoundly embedded into every strata of existence. Now this can be viewed from a number of perspectives, either philosophical and ethical (which need not involve a religious factor, so - PLEASE NOTE - negating your above much-vaunted phrase) or theological, which clearly does. Since your own perspective is the latter, you must therefore consider that you endorse a deity who consciously and systematically is aware that its own creations suffer on a humanly incalculable scale as a direct result of the system which it has 'designed'. In fact, it must have deliberately 'designed' the system to ensure the suffering within that system. Such a deity must know this, otherwise its powers would be considerably less than omnipotent.
Is there nowhere inside you a small voice which whispers, 'Wow, God must be a real sicko to actually WANT to make his own creation suffer'? Or do you just prefer not to contemplate the ramifications of your own statement, and leave it all to airy metaphysics? Or do you, perhaps, react in a way which resignedly says, 'oh, there's bad stuff around, I know, but I'm sure that God knows what he's doing..' Well, I guess the guards in the death camps told themselves that Hitler must know what he's doing, as well.
It's called 'appeasement'.
Neal T (to dvashun): "Yet (Richard Dawkins) and you (dvashun) believe that an explanation (of the origin of life) will be found someday. If that is not belief, what would you like to call it?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtrapolation based upon past results and inference from known data.
(Apologies for chipping in on that one, dvashun, but it was too juicy to resist!)
Neal T: "Jesus is MY Lord, Savior, Friend, Refuge and Strength. He is Awesome, and there is nothing like being in His presence. There is nothing to be compared with the presence of the Lord Jesus. Case closed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone else reading this find this little adulatory outburst of Neil's just a touch scary?
dvashun, let me shed some light for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience works under a specific set of rules that demands natural evidence. If the supernatural is considered, then science ceases to be useful because any and all claims that cannot be falsified must be considered valid. Before you even go to the "evolution can't be falsifed" argument, there are mountains of evidence and experiments upon which evolution is based. Until there is scientific evidence that provides a better reason as to why life adapts it is the accepted theory.
Adaptation and evolution are contradictory. God designed us and everything else to adapt in order to live.
You will find evidence of creation once you accept Jesus as your savior and not darwin. As for suffering, God allows us freedom of choice and people choose to think there is no Creator then there is going to be some suffering. You have children? If your child keeps on denying you as his/her parent and willingly does their own thing are you going to stand back or intervene. This is going on daily and very easy to apply in life on earth.
God is supernatural and to experience Him you have to think a bit deeper than evolution. Once you have God in your life you will not even consider evolution nevermind support it.And creation makes total sense.
You guys stay willingly ignorant, and I dust my shoes off from this site. May God have mercy on you
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the guards in the death camps believed as Hitler did that they were the MASTER RACE and that it was their duty to help NATURAL SELECTION to EXTERMINATE what they thought were the inferior races. There is a reason why they call it SOCIAL DARWINISM. DARWINISM? Why DARWINISM?
Besides I thought you were going to talk about "raw nature" and not human mores? Couldn't resist, huh? Ambertooth, evolution for you IS about religion. You more than anymore on this site constantly brings up the metaphysical arguments against creation. Did you have a bad experience as a child or something? Your venom is over the top.
Wow Neal, I see you are a little touchy when Christianity is compared to another religion. Is it just Scientology or all other religions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, I have no belief that an answer to the origin of everything will be found. I know that scientists will test hypothesis and conduct experiments to attempt to find an answer. In fact, I doubt that there ever will be hard, concrete evidence to 100% prove the source of the material in the universe. In the meantime though, I'll keep looking for an a natural answer and leave my belief system separate.
That is what drives me nuts about this whole argument, is people attempting to insert the supernatural into science. Faith does not equal fact.
Neal T: "Did you have a bad experience as a child or something? Your venom is over the top."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it, Neal T? Maybe that's because it takes that much dogged persistence to drag any sort of a straight answer out of you. Getting you even to acknowledge a straight question is like pulling teeth.
The rest of your post is too histrionic to deserve comment, other than to add the obvious correction that Nazi eugenics were of course the practice of highly UNnatural selection, so don't go deliberately distorting my metaphor in the way that you are accustomed to do with your own. Your true colors seem to be be emerging at last, but it sure has taken an awful lot of prodding to get you this far.
So you don't like Francis Crick after all. I hoped you could have given him his due despite his atheism. But that's ok, because I have someone else for you to consider.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMary Schweitzer has a PhD in Biology from Montana State University, and is currently an associate professor of marine, earth and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University. She is one of the many people who enjoy the confluence of preparation and opportunity. She has the distinctive ability to extract, from fossils millions of years old, what appears to be original soft tissues, like blood cells, blood vessels, and flexible collagen bone matrix. She has almost singlehandedly created an entire new field of molecular paleontology. Because of her work, science has to rethink almost everything about soft-tissue preservation and decay, and not just for fossils, but for living tissues as well. In their own way, her discoveries may have as much impact as those of Francis Crick.
Now here's the part that makes her especially relevant here. Dr. Schweitzer is a self-described Christian, but not the fact-phobic kind that troll around here. From the April, 2006 issue of Discover magazine, she is quoted as saying:
"My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist. He doesn't stay in my boxes. God is so multidimensional. I see a sense of humor. I see His compassion in the world around me. It makes me curious, because the creator is revealed in the creation."
Needless to say, Dr. Schweitzer is the focus of intense pressure from young-earth creationists and other religious fundamentalists to say that her work is proof of their beliefs. On this she is unequivocal:
"If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data. The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."
Finally, Dr. Schweitzer said that ID is just a bunch of poo-ha.
Allright, she didn't actually say that, but I'm sure she would have if she read Ambertooth's posts.
Lionel777: "You guys stay willingly ignorant, and I dust my shoes off from this site. May God have mercy on you"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how you never got around to producing evidence of an unfossilised dinosaur skeleton, or providing citations for peer-reviewed papers on the subject of evolution by Prof. Veith. Ah, well, when the questions get tough, creationists always make for the door with a feigned snort of contempt and a 'God-have-mercy'-type remark tossed petulantly over their shoulder.
Close the door on the way out, Lionel777. And be careful not to trip over any common sense.
Did anybody else notice how much Lionel777's writing improved between his first post and last?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's only one way that could have happened.
GOD DID IT!
:)
jpill69, I was fascinated to read your quotes from Dr. Schweitzer, because it reminded me of something which I posted months ago on another site in response to a creationist who quoted her remarks on the so-called 'dinosaur blood' issue, as they appear on the creationist flagship website Answers in Genesis. I decided to dig around and find out whether she had been quoted accurately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, here's what Dr. Schweitzer is quoted as saying on AiG, September, 1997: "Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’ "
I decided to dig around and find out whether she had been quoted accurately. Here's what I turned up:
What Dr. Schweitzer actually said, quoted in 'Earth', June, 1997: "So I showed these microscopic bone slices to my boss, paleontologist Jack Horner, renowned for his work on dinosaur nesting sites. He took a long look and then asked, “So you think these are red blood cells?” I said, “No.”
Another example of the way in which creationists massage the facts to load their case.
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience should be open to all possibilities including intelligent design and not limit itself to the notion that it has to be purely naturalistic. It is a great big universe and fortunately there are enough independently minded people who will not be intimidated by those that would put their own interpretation on how far science should go. Scientific inquiry will not stop by taking the grip of the Darwinist Gestopo off of science, it will prosper because the basic premise of Darwinism is flawed. Nature and life is not a bunch of random crap strung together in a junk pile, but it is a treasure trove of incredible design and a wellspring of knowledge that is waiting to be learned from. I won't go to the junk yard to look for treasure, but I would go to a sunken treasure ship. Think about it.
Let me clarify my last statement. The Gold Rush into Alaska and California and the western United States over a 100 years ago was motivated by people who had a real hope of finding gold treasure. Some found gold and this excited more to join in and head west, often with great sacrifice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf nature and life is viewed as a treasure and not as random JUNK DNA, etc, etc as Darwinists are fond of saying, the biological sciences will prosper under such a positive influence. As Darwinism releases it tight grip of negativity from the biological sciences whole new areas of discovery and enterprise will blossom.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you saying I should go to the Bible for my science? And to be clear, science is not opposed to any hypothesis, but if the idea is to become accepted as scientific evidence it must meet scientific criteria.
I keep thinking of how to illustrate why there are constraints on what is accepted as science. The best example I can think of comes from math. In math there are clear rules that must be followed or math loses all purpose, just like science. Everyone on here knows that by following the rules of math 2+2=4 (current science). If I allow an unknown, outside agent to play a role in the equation then 2+2=6, 2+2=9, and 2+2=24 are all possible correct answers (science where belief is accepted as fact). Does this make sense or do you just not care about having a meaningful science? I get that you want to merge your beliefs with your science but until there is scientific evidence the supernatural is that unknown cause. By allowing the supernatural in, it invalidates every, and I do mean every, result in the history of science.
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am saying that science should follow the evidence and not be locked into a naturalistic philosophy. It does not take the Holy Bible to scientifically infer that the living cell and life was designed. The living cell has its own language and it speaks the same thing to all honest inquirers, "I was designed by someone very intelligent".
Nature does not have the ability to encode complex information like we see in DNA. The BEST explanation from Scientific Inference is that an intelligent being encoded this complex information.
Since the complexity of the living cell has been unveiled and its digital code read, Darwinists can no longer just blow smoke and say that chemical and natural processes converged in a warm little pond to produce it. Really? How can a code that is more complex than the code that runs the World wide web be the result of random processes? It takes a great deal of blind faith in naturalism to believe that it did. DNA is not alphabit soup, its complexity is beyond the technical savy of 10 million programmers on every continent. I just don't have enough faith to believe as you do.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is your hypothesis that the cell was designed, now provide the evidence (scientific) that supports this and become the Einstein of this era. You say that nature cannot encode DNA but yet offer no scientific alternative. I also see that you are attempting to steer the conversation away from the issue again. At this point in the conversation everyone on this board knows that you believe that the cell and DNA are so complex that God had to design them. The issue at hand now is the separation of belief and science. I have provided you the reason why belief must be kept out of science, please provide your justification for attempting to include it. In doing so, please explain how the inclusion of belief does not destroy every existing scientific theory.
Neal T: "The Gold Rush into Alaska and California and the western United States over a 100 years ago was motivated by people who had a real hope of finding gold treasure."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRomantic clap-trap. Calling upon my own professional historical experience of the colonial Australian gold rush: as with any gold rush, the race to California (or the Klondike, or any other) was motivated primarily by get-rich-quick greed and the thought of easy pickings. Any historian will tell you that, apart from one or two lucky sods, the only folks who really made a pile were the retailers who supplied the miners, the owners of the various bars, and the madams who ran the local cat houses.
Really, Neal, you do seem to have a flair for choosing the most inept metaphors.
Neal T: "Nature does not have the ability to encode complex information like we see in DNA."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis statement is mere opinion. What dvashun, jpill69 and others have been asking you since Noah wore short trousers is to provide scientifically admissible evidence. So far, all you have ever done is repeat your mantra that 'it's so complex, it MUST have been designed'.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know about the Australian gold rush, but I do know something about the California gold rush.
The population of San Francisco increased from 500 to 150,000 between 1847 and 1870 mostly because of the gold rush. The gold rush population increase and the wealth it brought caused many new roads to be built in California. In 1863 the western part of the First Transcontinental Railroad was completed. It was financed in part with Gold Rush money. The Gold Rush helped economies around the world as well. Farmers in other countries found a new growing market for their food. Goods from Europe were in high demand. All this construction and activity contributed to California becoming a state in 1850. The gold rush became part of California culture and would later inspire the "California Dream". The nickname of California is the golden state.
Even now after years of applying European economic policies to the state that are crushing the life out of it, its economy is larger than many foreign countries, maybe even yours.
So, it is you Ambertooth, that needs to check history. Darwinism is basically a NEGATIVE look at nature and life. This same kind of mentality gets into governments where people are looked at as things to be controlled because people are basically resource drains and incompetent slugs in a long line of random accidents and junk. It is the mentality that seeks to control and kill dissent.
The creation model is basically POSITIVE as it looks at life and nature, because we are made in the IMAGE OF GOD. People are not resource drains, but builders and creators of wealth if they are given freedom and aren't taxed to death.
Hey Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a reminder to get back on point and to stop talking about gold rushes. Any way to include beliefs without destroying science?
dvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou tell me. How do you reconcile the belief in purely naturalistic cause of the origin of life when you have no explanation?
Neal T: "Darwinism is basically a NEGATIVE look at nature and life... The creation model is basically POSITIVE as it looks at life and nature, because we are made in the IMAGE OF GOD."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm.. difficult to know how to react politely to this particular piece of baseless silliness. Still, as it has been the Genesis model which has prevailed in our culture, and as this model has embedded in us the notion that we are the lords of creation, and have been given carte blanche by the Almighty to exploit the planet's resources (whatever form those resources take) as if they belonged to us, and were our personal property, we can see where this 'basically POSITIVE' model has gotten us today.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Gen. 1:26.
So-called 'primitive' communities, untouched by the influence of this scriptural muscle-flexing machismo, knew (and know) better of course. Maybe it is as yet not too late to learn from their humility towards the natural world, and the vision of balance and harmony which it offers. It certainly offers us a more sympathetic model for our own future than all that ruthlessly exploitive 'dominion' crap.
Neal T (to dvashun): "You tell me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis three-word phrase seems to be one of Neal T's favored cop-out lines. It's a neat way he has of backing away from actually giving an answer by feigning perplexity. A hands-thrown-up-in-the-air gesture with a look of assumed puzzlement on his face is the mental picture that comes with those three words.
Want to prove me wrong, Neal T? Give dvashun a straight, honest answer. How DO you include belief without compromising the science?
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I stated this morning in my 2:01 Am post:
Anyway, I have no belief that an answer to the origin of everything will be found
Now, after more than a year of evading questions, please just answer the one currently presented to you; how do you integrate belief into science without destroying science?
Titus 3:9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was speaking specifically of the ORIGIN OF LIFE in my post not the origin of "everything". You DO HAVE A BELIEF LIKE RICHARD DAWKINS THAT A PURELY NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE WILL BE FOUND. DO YOU DENY THIS NOW?
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not see the word "exploit" anywhere in GENESIS 1:26 or the phrase "carte blanche by the Almighty to exploit". Did you learn how to read at the same school you learned about evolution?
The word dominion simply means to rule. Rule is neutral in that you can have good or bad rule. In other places of the Bible we see that farmers are told to alternate their crops and to let the land rest every 7 years.
As you sit in your comfortable home where wildlife once roamed freely do you feel any guilt? You took the home away from the deer and birds. Do you feel guilty? Do you feel guilt for using the planets energy resources? What about that shirt you are wearing? Do you know for sure that it was not made in a sweat shop by children working 14 hour days? How many trees have you killed to support your lifestyle Ambertooth?
Here's an idea. Sell everything you have, buy bird food with it and give it away. Then go and hang out in a loin cloth in the Amazon jungle and eat fruit and leaves and bark. Take it easy on the bark because you may kill a tree. I bet that the dominion concept will start looking pretty good for you in a few days.
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTsk, tsk. No dodging, answer the question.
Lionel777, I normally agree, but I have a reason for sticking with this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLionel777: "Titus 3:9"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo save others looking it up, here's what Lionel wants us all to consider: "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." Titus 3:9
Which being the case, WTF are you doing following a Young Earth creationist world view, Lionel??? And since you just couldn't resist coming back for another parting shot: instead of some cute bit of scripture, how about producing the evidence which has been asked of you? Because so far you've come up with squat. Still, at least you're conforming to the familiar creationist pattern: get asked something too hard to answer, flounce off with a piqued parting shot, and toss a Bible verse into the room from the safety of the doorway. I've seen creationists do this many, many times. You're no different from the rest of 'em.
Neal T: "Did you learn how to read at the same school you learned about evolution?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy knowledge of the subject I speak about here came over the span of my professional museum career (beginning in the '60's, now retired). What is the scope of your professional knowledge on the subject, Neal T? How many days in your own career have been spent working with this material in a professional capacity? How many career scientists have you actually worked with on a professional basis? On what professionally qualified foundations do your oh-so-very-long-winded opinions of the subject rest? Exactly how many science field excursions have you been on in your life on a professional basis (my score is three, all of them marine biology-orientated).
Or is it that, like so many overblown windbag creationist/IDers, you are merely content to gas off your highly-opinionated mouth on the Internet without having spent so much as a single day in your entire career gaining professional expertise on the subject that you so rapaciously and unremittingly attack?
Come to think of it, what actually qualifies you in terms of professional experience even to discuss science? Have you ever, ever in your life actually HAD any hands-on experience of what you attack here? Hmm.. tricky one, that..
But we've already covered this months ago, haven't we, Neal? You're just an amateur armchair windbag, and as far as your professional experience goes, your opinions on matters scientific are just pulled right out of your.. oh, never mind. But if I were you, I'd keep pretty quiet about asking others where they learned about evolutionary theory.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe you the janitor or the night guard at the museum ;)
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWere you the janitor or the night guard at the museum? ;)
Neal T, your reply tells me all that I wanted to know. The fact is that you have no expertise whatever in the sciences, and anything that you say on the subject amounts to nothing more than opinionated armchair amateur ramblings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a childish response you have given. But oh, so in character.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever your professional experience and education it must not have required very good reading skills, because the word "exploit" is not found in Genesis 1:26.
I'll take that lame distraction as a confirmation that what I have said is so. Unless, of course, you can assure me otherwise. Do you have any professional experience of the sciences, Neal T?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes or no?
Neal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's going on here? You can reply to ambertooth with little digs but you can't give me the courtesy of answering my question. I have tried to openly and honestly answer every question you have presented me except for those meant as deflections. Why are you avoiding the question?
dvashun: "Neal, What's going on here? You can reply to ambertooth with little digs but you can't give me the courtesy of answering my question."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdvashun, when others do all the spadework, 'little digs' are all that Neal T can manage! I don't even expect him to answer my own question in any honest, direct way. Maybe you'll have more luck, although experience with him makes me doubt it. If there was a doctorate in prevarication, he'd have one.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy bachelor of science degree is in information systems and this is where much of my professional experience has been.
When Darwin theorized, he and others had no clue about the information that is in the living cell. They had no idea that an Operating System was embedded in the genome. They didn't even know there was a genome.
DNA is not alphabet soup, but a digital information processor that is the most efficient computer in the universe. Its program code includes nested coding, digital processing, distributive retrieval, storage systems, compression and network computing. If I could code like the creator of the DNA, I could put Microsoft out of business. If I could manufacture a computer as efficient as the living cell, I could put IBM out of business.
We are in the information age and quickly catching up to understanding that the universe and the cell is mostly about information.
I do not have enough faith to believe that the digital code within the living cell came about by random evolutionary processes. Writing good code takes a lot of thought, hard work, and testing.
I can't see how digital code that is more advanced than anything Bill Gates ever wrote could crawl out of a warm little Darwinian pond on its own.
Neal T: "I can't see how digital code that is more advanced than anything Bill Gates ever wrote could crawl out of a warm little Darwinian pond on its own."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike myself and others have told you before, 'can't see how' does not rise above mere personal opinion. If you want to catch anyone's attention on a science website, then you have to establish what you claim within scientifically acceptable parameters.
This you have yet to do.
But if you ever get around to doing this (which you will not, otherwise you would have done so months ago and collected your Nobel Prize), then you will be still be confronted with dvashun's question.
You've one or two hurdles yet to clear, Neal T. And they're big ones.
Lionel and Neal, if you are going to start lobbing biblical references, Proverbs 19:5 and Exodus 23:1 are more relevant to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo everyone else:
One of the more interesting themes to come out of the Dover Trial, known more formally as Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, is the willingness of ID proponents to lie and cheat in order to serve their higher purpose. There are the examples of the members of the school board. They tried to cover up how the ID textbook Of Pandas and Men came to be donated to the school. They lied under oath of their intent to introduce creationist doctrine into the schools curriculum. There is the example of Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of Of Pandas and Men . They simply took an early draft of a religious creationist textbook, replaced every instance of creation and variants with Intelligent Design , and marketed it as a secular ID textbook. There is the example of Dr. Michael Behe, expert witness for the defense and founding proponent of ID. When shown 59 separate peer-reviewed articles detailing the evolutionary development of the vertebrate immune system, Dr. Behe dismissed them as inadequate or irrelevant, even though he had not read them before. When asked what peer-reviewed articles or studies he or anybody else has done supporting ID, Dr. Behe could not cite any. Finally, there is the example of the entire ID movement. They insist ID be treated as legitimate scientific theory, even though their expressed intent is to defeat scientific materialism represented by evolution, reverse the stifling materialist world view, and replace it with Christian and theistic convictions.
The trials transcripts show many parallels to the discussions in this forum. If you dont have the time to wade through all 22 days, you still might want to look at the closing arguments and the judges verdict.
As shown by the Dover trial, this forum, and elsewhere, ID is simply really bad science. Those who promote it are not scientists and have no interest in science. How they figure posting dumb arguments helps their cause is beyond me.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Can't see how" is referring to my or yours or any evolutionist or anyone actually explaining in detail how the origin of life was accomplished by purely naturalistic causes. If atheist Richard Dawkins admits that no one knows.
I submit that the reason no one knows, is that life did not originate by purely naturalistic processes and the best explanation for what we observe in the living cell (as I have described many times previously) is that it is the result of DESIGN.
As the information that is embedded in the universe and living cell is further understood your position will become more and more remote.
I notice that my post was misunderstood. I was trying to suggest that sex was a very obvious characteristic of living things, both plants and animals which point to an intelligent designer and creator. I was hoping for some Darwinist or evolutionist to explain how sex evolved, without the help of a creator. With actual evidence, not quesses or supposings. But all I received in reply was a pat on the head and a brushoff. Even saying that there are exceptions to the rule does not prove that either the normal or the exceptions just happened. I notice that the main evidence for evolution is the statement that there are lots of experiments done which prove to the believer that they can trust the evolutionary theory. But nothing concrete. There are millions, or even billions of wonders in nature which have not been explained definitively by evolutionists. And yet faith says, "Trust us, someday everything will be explained. All we need is time".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: ""Can't see how" is referring to my or yours or any evolutionist or anyone actually explaining in detail how the origin of life was accomplished by purely naturalistic causes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich, of course, has exactly zippo to do with evolutionary theory, much as creationists persist in muddying the waters by pretending that it does. Still, your reply is the usual exercise in prevarication, as you have failed yet again to establish your own position within the parameters that I mentioned. In fact, you just keep on sailing along on the same tack, because "I submit that the reason" is as vacuously unscientific as "can't see how", or "the best explanation for what we observe", or any other such phase which you use, and just as meaningless.
To underline your own argument: the point is not whether or not science (you would say 'evolution') presently has an explanation for the beginning of life, or the complexity of the cell. The point, Neal T (listen up), is whether YOU can provide a causal explanation from your Intelligent Design platform which is acceptable to science.
So far, you have not.
FullofWonder; "I was hoping for some Darwinist or evolutionist to explain how sex evolved, without the help of a creator. With actual evidence, not quesses or supposings."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd for my part, I keep hoping against the odds that some creationist or IDer will explain how things evolved with the help of a creator. "With actual evidence, not guesses or supposings". You see, FullofWonder, whether you like the idea or not, and however flawed you might consider it, evolutionary theory is long-accepted science, and has no need of defending (unless, of course, you present your own counter hypothesis through the recognised channels). On the other hand, what you are advocating is not accepted science. The onus therefore is upon you to produce an acceptable hypothesis for your maverick ideas, "with actual evidence, not guesses or supposings".
Please do so.
Well, Ambertooth, you have challenged Neal T. to provide a causal explanation which from ID Theory which will satisfy Science. As though such an explanation will make ID true. Satisfying "Science" whatever that is, does not make anything true or false. Truth exists on its own, outside Science and our own observation. Scientists and non-scientists are only observers looking at the natural world through our senses and interpreting what we observe. If science says that the natural world appeared out of a "Big Bang" and has developed through random processes to what we observe today, the natural world does not have to obey. If creationists say that the world is less than 10,000 years old, the actual age of the real world does not change to keep them happy. The place of science is to diligently make observations, then come up with interpretations which best fit the observations, for now. Science is not the arbiter of truth, and the high priests of Science, who insist that they must be satisfied before any explanation can be believed are grabbing too much responsibility. Science and Scientists know so little that they still must admit they know nearly nothing about the natural world. So why should Neal T have to satisfy them before he is heard?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Ambertooth, I felt the pat on the head again. It must be nice to believe a faith that does not need to be defended or substantiated any more. But time will tell. The last word is not in yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat you consider it a "brushoff", a recommendation to at least TRY to find out an answer for yourself, says all that I need to know about the motives for your query. Let me know when you are less interested in making a point, and more interested in actually learning something new.
FullofWonder: "Science is not the arbiter of truth, and the high priests of Science, who insist that they must be satisfied before any explanation can be believed are grabbing too much responsibility. Science and Scientists know so little that they still must admit they know nearly nothing about the natural world. So why should Neal T have to satisfy them before he is heard?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"High priests of Science"? A touch over-the-top, don't you think? So with your reply you show yourself to be no different from any other creationist. I gave you the open opportunity to present something tangible (and, nota bene, using your own criteria) which might support your position. You reply with philosophical ramblings about 'Truth'. So you seem to advocate the course of those whom you oppose, and just use "guesses and supposings".
You ask why Neal T should have to satisfy such scientific criteria before he is heard. To which 'heard' are you referring? Because on this science site he is given all the rope he chooses to state his very public position, as you are, which is certainly more than I have ever received in my attempts to have a voice on major creationist websites, most of whom don't even have public forums.
As to the other 'heard', I guess like other creationists I have come across, you consider that the parameters of science should be bent to accommodate you. Why? And as to scientists "knowing nearly nothing about the natural world", please state your own professional experience in the sciences (as I have previously done, and as I asked Neal T to do) which leads you to reach such a galloping erroneous conclusion.
I wasn't supposed to be trying to make a point? My apologies:-) I thought everyone on this exchange was trying to make a point so I thought I would try too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards
In response to: You ask why Neal T should have to satisfy such scientific criteria before he is heard. To which 'heard' are you referring? Because on this science site he is given all the rope he chooses to state his very public position, as you are, which is certainly more than I have ever received in my attempts to have a voice on major creationist websites, most of whom don't even have public forums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the other 'heard', I guess like other creationists I have come across, you consider that the parameters of science should be bent to accommodate you. Why? And as to scientists "knowing nearly nothing about the natural world", please state your own professional experience in the sciences (as I have previously done, and as I asked Neal T to do) which leads you to reach such a galloping erroneous conclusion.
Full of Wonder: I am sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences on creationist websites. I am not affiliated with any of them so I cannot apologize, but I can sympathize. On both sides of this discussion (argument) both creationists and evolutionists can get quite personal and unkind, and it makes very unpleasant reading, whatever side you agree with. Unfortunately, our enthusiasm will not make either opinion right. Truth will win, and we will all bow to it.
In the end science will bend to the the parameters of truth. It will only be possible to study the natural world as it is, not as science wants it to be. So, if the natural world is all there is, then that is the framework within which science must work. If on the the other hand there is more out there, then science must expand its framework to understand reality. I just would not want science to limit its scope.
And truly I do not belittle the wonderful discoveries scientists have made and are continuing to make as they observe the world around us. I just understand that, having so much more to learn, scientists are going to be busy for a long time yet.
Regards
FullofWonder, make up your mind. First you complain because nobody wasted their time posting an answer you weren't interested in anyway, and now you complain because
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dared to point out your deceit. Imagine that. Tell me, do you ever take responsibility for yourself? (and yes, that's is a rhetorical question).
If you want to make a point, then make it honestly and clearly. Try to stand out from the other creationist yahoos that post here.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure if you have read all 1700+ posts or not so I will politely point out that this article and the majority of this discussion has not been about "The Truth." It is about how to keep Creationists' beliefs out of science. It is not a declaration that religion or any other belief system is wrong, but that they cannot be accepted as inside the framework of science. Based on your responses, you appear to be following an either/or viewpoint on this discussion. Either the science has been neatly summarized and explained to you or it is a wonder that can only be explained by a creator. I'm not criticizing you, but that is basically a Middle Ages approach to science.
To answer your question to ambertooth, Neal can speak his beliefs all he wants. He just should not try to treat his belief as legitimate science. It is not a viable scientific alternative to evolution. It does not belong in the science classroom. I have no issue with his ideas being discussed or taught in a philosophy or theology classroom, it simply is not science. Since I do not believe I will ever get a response from Neal, I pose the same question to you. Before I write this, let us be clear on the terms of this discussion: There are innumerable concepts that scientific principles as their foundation. Evolution is just one of the many concepts accepted. Others included are physics, engineering, pharmaceuticals, anatomy. ID and other beliefs are currently not accepted science. Please explain how to integrate beliefs into science without invalidating the rest of science.
I get that I have been asking this in almost every post recently, but after almost two years of being asked about the formation of the eye, I would like at least a reasonable attempt from any creationist to explain how belief becomes science with no repercussions. You state that "In the end science will bend to the the parameters of truth," implying that at some point in the future, what you believe will turn out to be factually true. I argue that at that time it ceases to be belief and becomes science.
FullofWonder: "I am sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences on creationist websites."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not had ANY experience on creationist sites. That was my point. Major creationist sites such as Answers in Genesis offer no possibilities whatever for open discussion - and this in a time when most such principal sites have a forum, or a least a message board, attached. Science sites certainly do (I even know of a scientist's personal blog that offers this). That is why you are able to post here, FullofWonder. Consider this: the very science which you so reject offers you more opportunity to voice that objection publicly than the sites of your own beliefs offer to others. Perhaps they're scared of something. I wonder what?
FullofWonder: "In the end science will bend to the the parameters of truth. It will only be possible to study the natural world as it is, not as science wants it to be. So, if the natural world is all there is, then that is the framework within which science must work. If on the the other hand there is more out there, then science must expand its framework to understand reality. I just would not want science to limit its scope."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 'parameters of Truth'? Truth is not about parameters. I think that you're just using the word because I did. But I used it in the context of what is acceptable science, which does not deal in 'the Truth', as you seem to imagine it does. If you actually have read through the accompanying article (have you?), you would know that theories in science do not include concepts such as 'truth' or 'proof'. But if you had any hands-on experience of the sciences then you would know that anyway. So although you decline to answer my question, I conclude that your own professional experience of science is zero. You can always correct me.
Your understanding of the way in which science works is betrayed by your statement: "If on the the other hand there is more out there, then science must expand its framework to understand reality." Because it is by omitting terms such as 'truth' and 'proof' that science does just this. Science is constantly adjusting its own borders to accommodate new knowledge gained, and new discoveries made. That is the way in which it functions, and what keeps it flexible.
To be frank, FullofWonder, I honestly think that you should go away and come back when you have learned more about what it is you are opposing, since your comments so far make it clear that your understanding of science and the way in which it functions is vague and sketchy at best.
At least read the accompanying article through with a clear and open mind. That would be a a start.
Some general observations on the term 'truth': we apply the term both in a legal and in a philosophical sense, although these contexts differ from each other. It can be used in science as an informal reference to the concept of an absolute, as in evolutionary theory being so thoroughly established that it is 'to all intents and purposes' true. Since anyone would understand what is meant by such a frame of reference this is acceptable usage. Religious belief, however, cannot use absolute truth as a reference. Were it to do so, it would stop being 'belief'. It takes faith to believe. That's okay, of course. That's why it's called 'belief'. Religious 'truth' as it manifests to an individual, however potent, can only be experience on a personal, subjective level. Otherwise religion would not be religion, but science. And it ain't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood day, Ambertooth, thanks for the comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not consider myself a full blown scientist, but I have made my living as an engineer and technician. Usually such work puts one into an environment where absolute truth about the workings of the natural world is very important. The closer your knowledge of the natural world to absolute truth, the better your design. As your assumptions about the natural world diverge from what is really out there, your design becomes less useful or less safe.
I understand the job of science to be to investigate the world we have around us so we can better understand how it works. Then we can use this understanding to better our lives and protect our environment. This can include bridge building and medicine, animal husbandry etc.
I see no conflict between science in general and belief in an intelligent designer and creator outside the natural world. Science studies the natural world desiring to understand its workings. Religions try to reach beyond where science can study to find if there is someone beyond the natural world. If there is nobody beyond the natural world, then science has the job of discovering all truth. If there is someone beyond the natural world, then science must not ignore the possibility.
I do understand the idea that science does not use the concept of absolute truth because it is always understood that science will never know everything there is to know about any subject. Science always expects to be able to learn more about the world we live in. But this just suggests that the world is truly wonderful. It does not do away with the fact that absolute truth does exist.
Belief is only as good as the reality (absolute truth) behind the belief. You can have the largest faith in the world, but if there is no substance to what you have faith in, you are doomed to fail in that area of your understanding. So it is with religious faith. If there is no God out there, then you are very silly to put your faith in him. Faith is only useful if there is a God out there with whom we can interact. I do not see religion as purely subjective. If there is no reality attached to it, it is a waste of time.
We are constantly having to deal with absolute truth, whether we like it or not. We can only jump so high because the absolute truth of gravity constrains us. Our lack of understanding does not give us the freedom to ignore it. Doctors cannot wish the body worked a different way so sickness would be done away with. They are stuck with responding to the reality of the body's workings. Every time a scientist approaches an investigation he or she must bow to reality. That is why science talks of theories which change as knowledge is added. Understanding is continually creeping closer to reality.
I also question the idea that belief and faith are outside of a scientists professional way of thinking. Everyone believes and acts on things he or she does not have complete knowledge about, including scientists. Belief and faith are not restricted to religion.
Another idea. I do have a problem with the term "acceptable science". Who decides what is "Acceptable". "Acceptable" does suggest that there is a ruling body who decides what is allowable and what is not. Why restrict scientific investigation to areas judged acceptable by someone.
Over to you.
FullofWonder: "Why restrict scientific investigation to areas judged acceptable by someone."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you think? Surely you can figure this out for yourself? Or maybe not. Were there no prescribed standards to be met, then the system would collapse and you'd have mere anarchy where anything goes, and everything is allowable. Is this what you would wish? It's the same with society. Someone without a driving licence can't just jump behind the wheel and hit the road. What you suggest is the same. Use a bit of common sense.
You speak of 'absolute truth' and 'reality' as if these were tangible things. But of course they are not. Neither are obtainable or knowable. For all we know, we might be living in a giant multi-dimensional snow scene-type toy which has been given by monsters to their demon child to play with. One of the prime reasons why science cannot deal in the supernatural (including religion) is because the experience of it is always, inevitably, and by definition subjective.
As with any other creationist that I have come across, I sense from your lengthy comment a hankering to adjust the rules and standards of science to accommodate your world view. But why should it? If the standards to which science itself must adhere have to be wriggled around to admit such religious-based concepts as creationism, then it just shows that creationism is not qualifiable as science in the first place. Which it is not. Creationists show such an ambivalence to science. On the one hand they despise it for not including them. And on the other, there is a sort of paradoxical envy of science, in which they crave the respectability which they imagine scientific recognition would confer upon their beliefs.
You show yourself ready enough to air such philosophical issues behind your world view, but never once do you venture into the mechanics of your beliefs that might get attention from others on a science website. Not that you're alone in this, because creationists always show extreme reluctance to come to terms with the brass tacks of the issue. So..
Explain exactly how this disembodied creating agency actually functions. How are organisms actually created by such an agency? And why would that agency bother to create them at all? Why would such an agency bother to create organisms that it (being omniscient) would already know would become extinct? Why would such an agency consciously design suffering as an integral part of the system? When I repeatedly attempted to get Neal T to face this issue, I just got huffy reactions. Perhaps you can be a little more polite (which I believe you to be).
You see, FullofWonder, creationists are content to attack evolutionary theory till the cows come home, but when it comes to expounding a reasonable hypothesis as an alternative, with all the nitty-gritty hard-question mechanics which that involves, they just bluster. Perhaps you will be different.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just would not want science to limit its scope.
My reply:
Given the context of this discussion, I assume you are thinking of Intelligent Design. When Neal T and others demand that ID be treated as legitimate science, they are trying to change the very definition of science. as described in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy. However, any definition broad enough to include ID would also embrace other supernatural beliefs like astrology, and perhaps even flat-earth geology. After all, if the Earth looks flat&
Thanks, Ambertooth for your prompt reply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth's question:Explain exactly how this disembodied creating agency actually functions. How are organisms actually created by such an agency? And why would that agency bother to create them at all? Why would such an agency bother to create organisms that it (being omniscient) would already know would become extinct? Why would such an agency consciously design suffering as an integral part of the system?
Good questions, all. I now understand your question to Neal T. I do not have such insights into the mind of the creator to be able to give you any definitive answer. I have been impressed with how history supports the Biblical account of the story of the Jews. Where facts can be verified it seems the Biblical history is reliable. This suggests that where the Bible is the sole record, I can trust it to be telling truth also. Of course much of the Bible writing cannot be studied historically or scientifically because it is law or exhortation but this does not make these parts insignificant. Considering the results of the investigations of the Bible, I am willing to bet my life on the message. Yes, it is not scientific, but not all life decisions are scientific.
I do not know how the creator functions, but science also does not know exhaustively how nature functions. I do not know how the creator created, but science does not know how nature created itself either. And "Why?" Isn't that a lot to ask a mere mortal? I don't even know why I prefer Coke and not Cream Soda and you ask me why the creator acts as he does. To an evolutionist, one could just as well ask, "Why did nature choose the models of sexual reproduction that we see?", or "why did nature give horses a comparatively short lifespan and sea turtles a surprisingly long lifespan?" Answers to "What", "When", "Where", "How" are much easier for us. "Why" is difficult, if not impossible.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of science and the work of scientists. I recognize that our wonderful civilization with its many effort-saving devices, life-enhancing health system, and even toys are the product of very interesting discoveries about our world. I would like to see investigation continue to reveal the secrets of the natural world in all their glory and wonder and to uncover current misunderstandings so we have a better view of things. I have no fear that religious people will cause the death of science.
FullofWonder: "Good questions, all. I now understand your question to Neal T. I do not have such insights into the mind of the creator to be able to give you any definitive answer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntentionally or not, you have succinctly underscored why your beliefs (as attempted 'science') are rejected by science. Because such questions as I have asked you (and such questions as dvashun, jpill69 and others serially put to yourself, Neal T, and other creationists/IDers on this thread) are nothing to the questions that you and those of your beliefs can expect from any eventual peer group review in the sciences. When compared to such a situation, the questions which I have put to you are the easy ones. And yet you admit that you cannot begin to answer them. So if you cannot answer or explain even my questions, then your beliefs as science are a non-starter.
FullofWonder: "Answers to "What", "When", "Where", "How" are much easier for us. "Why" is difficult, if not impossible."
Again, you seem unintentionally to have voiced the crux of the matter. The methodology of science does not deal in 'why'. 'Why' is the concern of philosophy, ethics and religion. 'What', 'when', 'where' and 'how' are the province of science.
As to what you say about Biblical reliability, I consider that I have an above-average knowledge of how the Bible as a series of disparate texts reached its present form - probably actually more so than the average Christian. The picture is shocking to contemplate. Often the reasons for things being either left out, included, changed, or just plain mistranslated, were down to the internal and external politics of the time. Plus the manner in which the early NT texts were fought over by conflicting and factionalised views and power bases (Paul, Irenaeus and Augustine, to name but three) makes for sobering scholastic reading indeed. I cannot share your confidence in its trustworthiness.
FullofWonder: "Yes, it is not scientific, but not all life decisions are scientific."
I doubt that any are! In daily life we do not have the luxury of scientific analysis to help us weigh a situation.
FullofWonder: "I have no fear that religious people will cause the death of science."
That is something upon which we can agree.
Dvashun wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not a declaration that religion or any other belief system is wrong, but that they cannot be accepted as inside the framework of science.
My reply:
Your answer is excellent and needs no modification. However, given how some people conveniently ignore certain points, I would like to expand on WHY science excludes belief.
First, contrary to Neal T's repeated and deliberately false assertion, a demand for material evidence is not a subjective preference. Material evidence is a requirement of proof, of being able to demonstrate to others the veracity of an assertion in a repeatable, verifiable, and objectively convincing way.
Second, in order to study phenomena, there is a presumption that that the phenomena follows rules that can be identified and explained. Truly supernatural concepts, like creationism, follow no rules of cause and effect; anything can just magically happen anytime anywhere. An omnipotent deity can do whatever He wants whenever He wants, by definition. He may exist, but His existence cant be examined scientifically, and so is beyond the scope of science.
How many times does this crap need to be rehashed, Neil?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil: Science should be open to all possibilities including intelligent design and not limit itself to the notion that it has to be purely naturalistic.
Utterly wrong, Neil! Science should NOT be open to anything not naturalistic. It just goes to demonstrate your profound ignorance of what science is all about. One more time, Neil if you insist on introducing the SUPERnatural into the equation, then come up with a hypothesis to TEST it. Do you have a scientific method to test for the supernatural, Neil? Yes or No.
Neil: It is a great big universe and fortunately there are enough independently minded people who will not be intimidated by those that would put their own interpretation on how far science should go.
Bullshit, Neil. You are apparently unaware of how far science has advanced since the enlightenment (or how fast it is moving forward current) and absolutely none of it includes your screwy interpretations of what science should be. You are thoroughly clueless.
Neil: Scientific inquiry will not stop by taking the grip of the Darwinist Gestopo [sic] off of science, it will prosper because the basic premise of Darwinism is flawed.
Darwinist Gestapo? More babbling bullshit. Please present what EVIDENCE you have (not THINK you have, but actually have) that the basic premise of evolutionary theory is flawed. So far, you have come up with zero since entering this thread.
Neil: Nature and life is not a bunch of random crap strung together in a junk pile, but it is a treasure trove of incredible design and a wellspring of knowledge that is waiting to be learned from.
More of Neils babbling bullshit. EVIDENCE, Neil, of intelligent design? Do you comprehend what EVIDENCE is, Neil? EVIDENCE, Neil, EVIDENCE. Evidence, not your opinions. Not your Wow! That sure is too complex for me to figure out! Must be &
Neil: “As Darwinism releases it tight grip of negativity from the biological sciences whole new areas of discovery and enterprise will blossom.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil, you are as clueless as ever. You just haven’t been paying attention? Frankly, if you really think this way, then you should have a big “D” embossed permanently on your forehead. “D” for denied. I wouldn’t allow a microgram of aspirin to be dispensed to you for the worst migraine, let alone any other more advanced medical services for something more serious. I’d kick your butt out of any emergency room or doctor’s office with no more than a scrape of paper with one word written on it – PRAY!
Neil: “I am saying that science should follow the evidence and not be locked into a naturalistic philosophy. It does not take the Holy Bible to scientifically infer that the living cell and life was designed. The living cell has its own language and it speaks the same thing to all honest inquirers, "I was designed by someone very intelligent. Nature does not have the ability to encode complex information like we see in DNA. The BEST explanation from Scientific Inference is that an intelligent being encoded this complex information."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evidence is followed – and it’s all naturalistic. That’s what science is all about – NATURE. And there is absolutely no evidence at all, whatsoever, in any way, shape, form, or manner to support your “inference” of design. NONE! If there is, please publish it in an appropriate and respected peer reviewed science journal. So far, no one has – including you. So, as clueless as ever, you offer up nothing but your, “…too complicated for me.” Sorry, Neil, but not everyone is as dense and clueless as you are. Like scientists – they actually understand things that you, by your own admission, are too stupid to comprehend.
Neil: “Since the complexity of the living cell has been unveiled and its digital code read, Darwinists can no longer just blow smoke and say that chemical and natural processes converged in a warm little pond to produce it.”
More blather and all absolutely wrong. How many times do you have to be told? Rip off a few layers of tin foil. DNA is NOT a digital code. DNA is NOT anything like a computer program. You have been directed (by me, for one) to detailed explanations of why this analogy is completely wrong. Were you out to lunch? You didn’t get the memos? Read back before your little extended vacation. You really need to stop parroting dimwits at the Disco Tute – Mayer and Wells don’t know any more about information theory (or biology, apparently) than you do – and that can be quantitatively measured at just slightly above ZERO. Their Ph.D’s are worthless. The only reason they mucked their way through the graduate programs was to convince gullible hams like you that their ID claptrap has some scientific credibility – it DOESN’T.
Neil: "Can't see how" is referring to my or yours or any evolutionist or anyone actually explaining in detail how the origin of life was accomplished by purely naturalistic causes. If atheist Richard Dawkins admits that no one knows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI submit that the reason no one knows, is that life did not originate by purely naturalistic processes and the best explanation for what we observe in the living cell (as I have described many times previously) is that it is the result of DESIGN.
As the information that is embedded in the universe and living cell is further understood your position will become more and more remote.”
More blather. Not once, since entering this thread, Neil, have you offered up one single “argument” that hasn’t been thoroughly refuted. Not one. You have produced nothing but unsubstantiated opinion, bible babble, and tripe from the DI, ICR, CSI, and other creationist garbage pits. It’s all been as useful as a lighthouse that only points inland. Evidence, Neil, evidence. Let’s see some. All you have done is to run through a routine, have it all refuted, and then start it all over again. And evidence, Neil, is published peer reviewed literature from respected science journals. Unless you have some evidence of your own gathered from personal scientific experimentation. If so, I suggest you get it published.
And by the way, I have to remind you once again to stop conflating abiogenesis with evolutionary theory. They are disconnected despite all your hand waving. The only thing I will admit is that science does not have a conclusive explanation of HOW the first life arose. However, science is a lot closer to discovering the answer (with evidence) than your “god-did-it” BS will every be.
FullofWonder: "I am an enthusiastic supporter of science and the work of scientists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry being more honest with yourself. I recognise you as that category of creationist who appears appeasing and conciliatory - even admiring - towards the achievements of science. But as I have told Neal T more than once (I have told Neal T pretty much every damn' thing more than once): with science, you're all in or all out. It's not some plum pudding where you can just stick in your thumb and pick out the bits which you find tasty and push other bits to the side of your plate. If you go along with the theory of relativity then you have no reason in logic not to accept evolutionary theory. If you have any quarrels with any theory in science, then author a paper of your own outlining a replacement hypothesis and submit it through the recognised channels for peer review.
But you won't now will you? Because when push comes to shove, you yourself know that the reasons for your objections to the theory are religious, and not scientific.
So don't come on with that 'enthusiastic supporter of science' line. Thousands of decent, hard-working men and women (some of whom it has been my privilege to work with) who as career scientists incorporate evolutionary theory into their researches and data, deserve better than to have their work pissed upon by those who can't handly the conclusions of accepted science for personal religious reasons.
Deal with it, FullofWonder. And be full of wonder for ALL that science reveals, and not just the bits you have no quarrel with.
Keeyln,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "More blather and all absolutely wrong. How many times do you have to be told? Rip off a few layers of tin foil. DNA is NOT a digital code. DNA is NOT anything like a computer program."
Your college education hasn't improved your grammer but it has made you cuss more on a public forum. Ivy League or community college?
DNA contains digital information....even evolutionists believe that!
Here a quote from just one example.
Authors: Leroy Hood, David Galas
Journal: Nature
The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information--the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes.
Nature. 01/02/2003; 421(6921):444-8.
ISSN: 0028-0836
DOI: 10.1038/nature01410
Perhaps they need to update the textbooks at your school. The universe and nature and modern business is all about INFORMATION.
The only known source of complex information comes from intelligent beings. If you know of complex information originating from something other than an intelligent being please present it.
Some of you guys are UNGLUED. You have no naturalistic explanation for the origin of DNA.
Keeyln, your bombastic attitude will not serve you well in the business world unless you are going into professional wrestling.
By the way, I have prayed with Doctors and have never been asked to leave a hospital when I went to pray for a patient.
Neal T: "Your college education hasn't improved your grammer (sic)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently your grammar is not improved by your spelling.
Neal T (to KeeyIn): "The only known source of complex information comes from intelligent beings. If you know of complex information originating from something other than an intelligent being please present it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow this is what I (and every other voice here that has reason to criticise you) am talking about, Neal T. You trot out statements that are mere opinion as if they are self-evident facts. What, it IS a fact, you say? Well, good golly, Miss Molly, astound us all and produce scientifically acceptable evidence for what you claim.
Now that would be a first.
Neal T: "Keeyln, your bombastic attitude will not serve you well in the business world unless you are going into professional wrestling."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe said bombastically.
Neal T (to KeeyIn): "By the way, I have prayed with Doctors and have never been asked to leave a hospital when I went to pray for a patient."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBarf.
Apologies to Keelyn. I copy/pasted Neal T's incorrect spelling of your name. How rash of me.. Oh, and thanks for your hugely entertaining rail against one of the most blockheaded IDers that I have come across. Your comments were a gust of fresh air, etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, good golly, Miss Molly, astound us all and produce scientifically acceptable evidence for what you claim.
My reply:
Since Michael Behe, William Dembski, Philip Johnson, et al, all seminal founders of Intelligent Design, and good upstanding christian role models, have not, can not, and will not, provide any scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, even under oath in a court of law, if Neal T figures its ok to ignore demands for evidence.
So, perhaps the question in Neal's mind is why we all are being so unreasonable.
Neal T (addressing anyone who disagrees with him): "You have no naturalistic explanation for the origin of DNA."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou only have a supernatural one.
Thanks, Ambertooth for considering to discuss my ideas. I will drop out of the thread now and just watch the discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers
Nice talking to you, too
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the decision of the court, Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer."
Neil, I see you are still riding on the clueless express. I apologize for my grammar – again, English is a second language for me. I won’t quibble about your lack of proper punctuation, though. Please understand that my state college education (I believe in the public education system) is not yet complete, so I have hope that my grammar and spelling improve. Oh, speaking of spelling – well, never mind. I see ambertooth already addressed that. By the way, I have no intention of entering the business world. I plan to enter the world of scientific research – a world that you have absolutely no concept of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will make an admission, Neil. You presented a good post by Hood and Galas (although, you should read the entire paper and not just a snippet of the abstract). Biology is not my field of study and I’m certainly not prepared to argue the semantics that Hood and Galas use. That’s not my complaint. My complaint is with people like you who misrepresent legitimate and useful research, either deliberately or because of ignorance (mostly ignorance in your case) in an attempt to con less scientifically informed people into believing that their work gives your creationist nonsense (remember the title of this thread) some scientific credibility. It doesn’t.
As ambertooth and others have clearly pointed out, your only "explanation" for the origin of DNA is supernatural. I have no argument with that, Neil, if you wish to believe it. My only fight is preventing people like you from presenting your "explanation" as scientifically valid in public school science curriculums. The supernatural will not be scientifically admissible until you can up with a hypothesis that can be tested. So, where is your evidence that DNA was intelligently designed?
Just an aside, Neil – tell me, how many kids dying from leukemia have you cured with a prayer?
Here’s a little something for you, Neil. I have to say, as a devout agnostic, I was very moved by this. If it had been a little longer, I might have been convinced (or at least, I would have given it a lot more thought).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goL8llyG32U
Keelyn, just out of curiosity, and if you don't my my interruption, do you see any relevance between the Dover trail and Neal's line of reasoning you disagree with?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOOPS! Hmm, let's try this again...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn, just out of curiosity, and if you don't mind my interruption, do you see any relevance between the Dover trail and Neal's line of reasoning you disagree with?
FullofWonder: "Thanks, Ambertooth for considering to discuss my ideas. I will drop out of the thread now and just watch the discussion. Cheers"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder, I have appreciated the politeness of your comments, although I now regret that my lengthy responses to you of 07:11 PM on 10/17/09, and 2:28 PM on 10/17/09 will now presumably go unanswered (although I realise that you could have missed them in the page turn, as this thread gets a lot of traffic).
I have my own reaction to Neal T's response to Keelyn in citing the Hood/Galas abstract: I would actually question the soundness of the use of the term 'digital information' by these authors. Curiously enough, only the day before reading that post, I happened to hear (on BBC) an interview with another scientist who made the observation that science tends to seek metaphors in the technology of its own time. Thus, at the beginning of the Industrial Age, the sun's fuel source was considered carbon-based (that is: coal-burning!), and so on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe now live in the digital age, and this supplies the frame of reference for our metaphors (we even see this in neurophysiology, where we now speak of the ways in which the brain is 'hard-wired', and so on). But it would be reckless to take such metaphors too literally. The body, and its chemical, metabolic and informational processes, is no more a kind of digitised supercomputer than the sun is a giant lump of coal. They are, and remain, technology-biased metaphors.
Here is a quote from wikipedia because it summaries various digital systems, but they can be verified with any number of sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Although digital signals are generally associated with the binary electronic digital systems used in modern electronics and computing, digital systems are actually ancient, and need not be binary nor electronic.
Written text in books (due to the limited character set and the use of discrete symbols - the alphabet in most cases)
An abacus was created sometime between 1,000 BC and 500 BC , it later become a form of calculation frequency, nowadays it can be used as a very advanced, yet basic digital calculator that uses beads on rows to represent numbers. Beads only have meaning in discrete up and down states, not in analog in-between states.
A beacon is perhaps the simplest non-electronic digital signal, with just two states (on and off). In particular, smoke signals are one of the oldest examples of a digital signal, where an analog "carrier" (smoke) is modulated with a blanket to generate a digital signal (puffs) that conveys information.
DNA comprises a long sequence of four digits (denoted A, C, G, and T), effectively a base-four numeral system. Each of these digits is an organic molecule, known as a nucleotide. DNA is the major system of information transfer from one biological generation to another.
Morse code uses six digital statesdot, dash, intra-character gap (between each dot or dash), short gap (between each letter), medium gap (between words), and long gap (between sentences)to send messages via a variety of potential carriers such as electricity or light, for example using an electrical telegraph or a flashing light.
The Braille system was the first binary format for character encoding, using a six-bit code rendered as dot patterns.
Flag semaphore uses rods or flags held in particular positions to send messages to the receiver watching them some distance away.
International maritime signal flags have distinctive markings that represent letters of the alphabet to allow ships to send messages to each other.
More recently invented, a modem modulates an analog "carrier" signal (such as sound) to encode binary electrical digital information, as a series of binary digital sound pulses. A slightly earlier, surprisingly reliable version of the same concept was to bundle a sequence of audio digital "signal" and "no signal" information (i.e. "sound" and "silence") on magnetic cassette tape for use with early home computers
Did you notice that these digital systems all have something in common? They originate from an intelligent source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, so we have a list of digital systems: Written textbooks, abacus, beacon, Morse code, The Braille system, International maritime signal flags and binary digital sound pulses. Information is conveyed digitally within these systems. So here is your list of evidence that digital information systems always have an intelligent originator. If you can give me at least one digital information system that does not originate from an intelligent source, please do so. That shouldn't be so hard for you, right? So rather than tell me what a dumb question it is, go ahead and humor me a little. Just one digital information system. I'm await your reply.
Neal T, all the creations you cite are manmade. You recognize the human intelligence behind them because you are personally familiar with that process. Based on this, you repeatedly assert that ALL things that appear to you as designed must have an intelligent creator. You repeatedly assert that untested ASSUMPTION as evidence of its own proof. On the other hand, you refuse to consider even the possibility that non-manmade designs happen without intelligent intervention, and you refuse to even look at the evidence for same. Given all this, on what basis do you defend your expressed position against a conclusion that it is intellectually bankrupt?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "I'm await (sic) your reply."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd here it is: your sleight-of-hand presupposition is fooling no-one, Neal. You see, that's the disadvantage of posting on the same thread on the same website over such an extended period of time. Folks just get used to the box of tricks that you use, and know what to expect.
Just as you did with Darwin's 'family tree', and the eyes of trilobites, you now have a thing going about digital systems, and how they 'prove' a designing intelligence. They don't. Your statement "So here is your list of evidence that digital information systems always have an intelligent originator." is a classic bit of unproven and unprovable presupposition. You list only various human-designed systems, and slip in there the implication that because these systems were designed (duh, we can empirically establish this), then by extention, ALL systems in nature of non-human origin must also be 'designed'. But, as they used to say in the early days of PC's: 'This does not compute'.
You are using an empirically verifiable fact to attempt by extention to 'prove' the unprovable; something which has not, and which cannot be, established. You can SURMISE it, but then you're just back where you always were, which is firmly in the territory of 'belief'.
So your challenge to me (which I bet you thought would get me up against the wall, so keep on dreaming) that "If you can give me at least one digital information system that does not originate from an intelligent source, please do so." is meaningless, because it encompasses your own presupposition. Because you cannot establish empirically in any scientifically acceptable way, that natural systems DO. You can ONLY surmise it (for 'surmise', read 'believe'). It is a quantum state beyond either proof or disproof, and therefore confined to 'belief'.
Better luck next time. Not.
I was hoping for more depth in your responses. Come on, help me from being deceived and give me one example of a digital information system that originates without intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth, reminded us of the failed Darwinian tree and the trilobite eye... thank you for remembering. They are memorials to the failed predictions of theory of evolution.
I showed that digital information systems always have an intelligent source and it is a valid observation of how the universe functions. The observations are not based on religion.
You however, rather than providing a positive bit of evidence that digital information systems can have natural causes you say that one has to show that nature could never do it. You are torturing the scientific method. If you have something to show then provide it, until then, the best explanation is that since DNA is a digital information system, it too had an intelligent originator.
It took nearly 1800 posts to get here, but CHECKMATE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "It took nearly 1800 posts to get here, but CHECKMATE."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisROTFLMAO!!! In your dreams...
So, either you are desperately glossing over what I wrote because you realise you walked into a trap of your own devising, or you really are just too thick to grasp the import of what I said, and exactly why your enfeebled 'challenge' is screwed. Which one is it, now, Neal? Hmm.. tricky one, this..
Neal T: "I showed that digital information systems always have an intelligent source and it is a valid observation of how the universe functions. The observations are not based on religion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou showed nothing of the kind. But because you evidently are sliding into your dotage, and need to have these things spelled out for you, I will be generous and guide you through what you evidently cannot grasp: all that you showed was a list of human-manufactured information systems. Beyond that you have supplied NO substantive evidence whatsover that these exist in the natural world as the result of an intelligent, sentient process. None. Zero. Zippo. Zilch. Nada. That you believe them to be is just that: belief.
It's the fact that you presuppose that your use of the word 'always' extends to non-human manufactured systems, without first verifying that statement, that screws your argument. Whether the observations are based upon religion or not is immaterial. Such presupposed observations are based upon belief.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: Beyond that you have supplied NO substantive evidence whatsover that these exist in the natural world as the result of an intelligent, sentient process. None. Zero. Zippo. Zilch. Nada. That you believe them to be is just that: belief.
That DNA is a digital information system is a matter of record that is not just the thoughts of creationists.
I'm still waiting for your evidence that digital information can originate by purely naturalistic processes. Until then, its still CHECKMATE.
Neal T, using your own logic and methods, I declare DNA is created by naturalistic processes, therefore is evidence of digital information created by naturalistic processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheckmate back at ya, bubba.
JPILL69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "I declare DNA is created by naturalistic processes, therefore is evidence of digital information created by naturalistic processes."
You have it backwards. First the observation: All observations of digital information systems have an intelligent origin. Since DNA is a Digital Information System then DNA had an intelligent origin.
You have not shown an example of digital information systems originating without an intelligent origin. It's still CHECKMATE.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll observations of digital information systems have an intelligent origin.
My reply:
You have it backwards. Only manmade systems have an intelligent origin. DNA is not manmade, therefore is the example you seek, according to your own rules.
Neal T: "That DNA is a digital information system is a matter of record that is not just the thoughts of creationists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo now let's start at a level which you might be able to comprehend. Repeat after me: 'The-cat-sat-on-the-mat'. Practice this carefully, Neal, and you might graduate beyond the apparent level which you're stuck on.
Consider your above phrase. That the digital information system is a matter of record is not in dispute. Well, duh. The yawning void in your logic is to assume by extention, and without verifiable established evidence, that this system in the natural world is the product of a sentient intelligence.
Neal T: "I'm still waiting for your evidence that digital information can originate by purely naturalistic processes."
You mean, without you first producing your evidence of it being the direct result of a sentient intelligence? Pull the other one, pal.
You might be wise to drop that childish 'checkmate' proclamation.
JPILL69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "Only manmade systems have an intelligent origin. DNA is not manmade, therefore is the example you seek, according to your own rules."
Your statement deviates completely from the fundamental digital property of DNA and instead addresses a different subject, namely "manmade systems". The real question is, "can digital information systems originate from purely natural processes without intelligence. " Your explanation does not even mention digital information.
If you were to say that digital information systems are only manmade, that would be incorrect, since DNA is a digital information system. The common property of both manmade digital systems and DNA is that they are both digital.
Besides, beavers can create elaborate shelters and birds can build nests. Intelligence, organization and procedure is involved in building their housing systems.
Man can be considered intelligent, so your statement can also read, "intelligently made systems have an intelligent origin." Which says nothing meanful.
Since you have not addressed digital information specifically, at that level alone its still CHECKMATE.
So just to clarify things further, because in Neal T's case that seems to be painfully, agonisingly, heart-wrenchingly necessary: For Neal's 'challenge' *stifled snorts* to have any validity, he FIRST has to establish within the parameters of science that a disembodied sentient intelligence exists in the first place for that intelligence to 'create' the systems he mentions. Failure to do this FIRST means that his 'challenge' to me *muffled sniggers* is invalidated by the inherent presupposition which it contains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo there you have it, Neal. Just establish evidence of God in the laboratory and you're home and dry.
Neal T, please stop and think. You aren't going to convince anyone that DNA is intelligently designed simply because you SAY it is. Only you and your fellow ID'ers believe it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, my poor little deluded IDer: why are you wasting your time here? (SERIOUS QUESTION) I mean, if you are so convinced of the watertight validity of your case, nothing that you say here on this thread is going to impact upon the science in any way whatsoever. Why not write up your collected evidence and data in a paper and submit it for peer review? If you're confident that you're right, then you have nothing to fear. And academic fame (and doubtless an eventual favored spot in the bleachers of heaven) awaits you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell?
Sorry for the abrupt exit, but I became discouraged when most of the replies just told me that I was being dishonest and you knew what I really thought but wouldn't say. If the discussions stayed on topic and didn't attack the person it would be more fun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards
Neal T, as you have derailed your own train of thought, I shall recap, you described a set of manmade digitally-encoded systems which show intelligent design. You then defined DNA as a digitally-encoded system. Finally, in a truly bizarre leap of ID illogic, you asserted this "proved" DNA is also intelligently designed, conveniently forgetting that "manmade" is the common feature of your original set that makes them intelligently designed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a reminder, your unproved assertion is that DNA is intelligently designed. It is a logical canard to use it as evidence to prove itself. And unless your're asserting that beaver dams are examples of digital systems, you should drop the damn beavers as well.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the discussions stayed on topic and didn't attack the person it would be more fun.
My reply:
You conflate what you write with who you are. You conflate legitimate criticism of what you write with personal attacks. If you don't keep these things separate in your mind, you will only find sadness in this world.
Regards back at ya
Neil said: "Although digital signals are generally associated with the binary electronic digital systems used in modern electronics and computing, digital systems are actually ancient, and need not be binary nor electronic."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil said: "Did you notice that these digital systems all have something in common? They originate from an intelligent source.
Okay, so we have a list of digital systems: Written textbooks, abacus, beacon, Morse code, The Braille system, International maritime signal flags and binary digital sound pulses. Information is conveyed digitally within these systems. So here is your list of evidence that digital information systems always have an intelligent originator. If you can give me at least one digital information system that does not originate from an intelligent source, please do so. That shouldn't be so hard for you, right? So rather than tell me what a dumb question it is, go ahead and humor me a little. Just one digital information system. I'm await your reply."
Ok, Neil. As the physics student here, I’ll go out on a limb and give you what I think is an example. Light. Light from the Sun, light from any distant star, light as it passes through a number of types of nebula. Light from these sources contains an abundant amount of information. Since every element and every compound has a unique spectral signature (it is a quanta measurement), I would say that satisfies the definition of "digital" you provided. Are you saying that the Sun and stars (or the processes in stars that produce photons – i.e., information) are intelligent sources? They seem like dumb natural sources of information to me.
By the way, Neil, you haven’t answered the last question I asked you in my last post.
Oh, I just had another thought, Neil. People who use the term "checkmate" usually play chess, as well. I would love to play the game with you sometime (with an audience, of course).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "Sorry for the abrupt exit, but I became discouraged when most of the replies just told me that I was being dishonest and you knew what I really thought but wouldn't say."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my case, my specific wording to you of 2:28 PM on 10/17/09 was that you 'should be more honest with yourself'. This was in response to your statement that you are "an enthusiastic supporter of science and the work of scientists." My comment then elaborated upon specifically why I considered your statement hypocritical. Instead of disappearing in a huff (a gesture not unknown among creationists), have the courtesy and the intestinal wherewithall to front up and give me a considered response, because you have yet to do so.
To jpill69:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree fully with Dr. Miller that, "Once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer." That’s hardly science and Neil should, just from common sense, understand that. Frankly, Neil’s line of reasoning seems to be following the same line as the Disco Tute’s premier IDiot, Casey Luskin – let’s retry the case showing where Jones (a socially conservative judge, appointed by a socially conservative administration) erred. Sorry, Neil (Luskin) – no error by Jones …just good common sense.
And apologies to NEAL - I think I have been spelling your name wrong in my last few posts (I'll work on that). No offense intented, Neal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn, since you mentioned it, I will split that hair even further and point out you consistently used "Neil" from your first use last July. And to be even more pointlessly precise, it's not Neal, but Neal T. It matters not to me because I know who you mean, and the only person it should make any difference to has not yet bothered to correct you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats hardly science and Neil should, just from common sense, understand that.
My reply:
Not just common sense. That science is limited to material evidence is at the same time part of the very definition of modern science AND Neal T's fundamental argument against it. According to Philip Johnson's Wedge Strategy, the goal of ID is "to replace it [materialist worldview] with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.". Neal T is following DiscoTut's explicit strategy.
NO! You’re kidding. You’re not. Sad. That really irritates me. I might not agree with him, but I could at least spell his name right when it's staring me in the face. Well, I'm correcting it now. As far as the "T" is concerned though – well that's just being lazy. That requires two extra keystrokes (a space and a T) for something obvious. I won't slap myself too hard for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69: "According to Philip Johnson's Wedge Strategy, the goal of ID is "to replace it [materialist worldview] with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.". Neal T is following DiscoTut's explicit strategy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis tallies with my own take. To such minds, it's way more fundamental than a simplistic 'Biblical literalism versus evolution', and more to do (as they see it) with converging world views. That having been said, my attempts to get Neal T to state clearly why he comments here still go unanswered. As I have previously pointed out, not a single word of what he (or any other of his ilk) says here will impact the science in any way whatsoever. So why does he bother?
And that phrase "..a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." is of course a real can of worms. Whose beliefs are encompassed by that phrase? Are polytheistic Hindus included? Fire-worshipping Zoroastrians? How about spirits-of-nature worshipping pagans? And how are all those manifold Christian denominations ever going to agree upon anything? The divisions within Christianity run so deep that they won't even cross the road to worship in each other's churches, so gestures of ecumenical co-operation over a test tube can safely be shelved indefinitely. Not to mention the issue of atheists and agnostics having their constitutional rights violated.
All of which amply establishes why any attempt to mix religion with neutral science is a really, really, really bad idea.
JPILL69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID "unless your're asserting that beaver dams are examples of digital systems..."
I wasn't asserting that beaver dams are digital systems, but this example was because YOU mentioned "manmade systems" and failed to mention digital systems. My point in response to you was that men are not the only ones that use intelligence to make things, which is what you said.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey will deny they make personal attacks just as they deny the evidence of design. It's just par for the course.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry for mis-spelling your name awhile back to as it was not intentional.
YOU SAID: "As the physics student here, I’ll go out on a limb and give you what I think is an example. Light. Light from the Sun.... Light from these sources contains an abundant amount of information. Since every element and every compound has a unique spectral signature (it is a quanta measurement), I would say that satisfies the definition of "digital" you provided."
Let's look at the nature of starlight and electromagnetic radiation (I have some familarity with electromagnetic waves because I have been an amateur radio operator for 30 years and have designed and built antennas). Starlight is usually a ANALOG wave whereas digital refers to discrete values (0 or 1 bit, or A,C,G, T quaternary DNA values).
Digital fiber optics have been Intelligently Designed to communicate information in digital format. Information is encoded digitally in the light by an intelligent originator.
Futhermore, the quaternary values are imposed on the DNA. While the chemicals that form DNA have natural properties that can be measured, it is the A, C, G, or T values that give DNA is digital property.
It is not the chemical properties of INK itself, but the words they form in a book that communicate information. The ink does not conform on its own to create a great book because of some chemical property it has, rather the ink is imposed on the page by the author. So to with DNA, the A, C, G, or T values.
It's still CHECKMATE.
Neal T, as you well know, I mentioned "manmade systems" only because that is the relevant characteristic of the set that you described. In the meantime, you still haven't corrected your repeated logical fallacy. Your dishonesty is serving you poorly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...just as they deny the evidence of design...
My reply:
If ONLY there was something to deny.
Thanks Neal. You must have tougher skin than mine. I have been impressed at how confident jpill69 and ambertooth are with the evolutionary explanation. For my part the evidence for an intelligent designer and creator seems pretty strong too. That is where I am putting my bet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks Neal.
My reply:
Neal hands you his favorite whine and you thank him. You continue to confirm my original impression.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou continue to ignore the digital property of DNA in your argument so you are not even addressing my argument squarely.
You said, "only manmade systems have an intelligent origin. That in itself is not accurate. In the spirit of true evolutionists you changed the argument to a meaningless generalization about manmade systems. How can your main argument be valid if the first point of your counter argument is fundamentally invalid and scientifically incorrect?
The systems I previously identified are digital and this is a fundamentally valid statement as it has been proven empirically. The digital property in these man made systems conveys information and as does DNA.
What property of these manmade systems identifies them as having an intelligent origin? Other than the fact that we can observe the manufacturing of these systems by man, chiefly it is the information that is conveyed in digital format that identifies them as having an intelligent origin. What makes morse code different from background noise? What makes an abacus different from a bowl of beads? The discret values (digits) are logically arranged to convey information.
So ignoring the digital aspect of my argument and using a generalization about man made systems that also happens to be scientifically wrong does not touch my argument. Still Checkmate.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think from your background and experience you are adept at identifying design. Seeing design in the living cell should not be as hard as these guys make it, but I think there is more at work here than simply science or evidence. It really is about religion, howbeit, in a negative sort of way for these chaps. Fortunately the majority of mankind and many scientists and engineers agree with us.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou guys are totally failing me here. I need you to rise to the occasion and give me something tough to challenge my argument. Perhaps you can call on a higher power. Oops, I forgot you don't believe in one.
Still checkmate
Neal T, you really need to stop acting dumb. The context here is your example. My words are referring to your example. The problem here is your example and your illogic of it. Pretending you don't even know what you're talking about isn't going to help you. This is the first time you have tried this really stupid tactic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. I have a days worth of Neal’s (I spelled it correctly this time, Neal) posts to read. Ok – let’s see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said (to jpill69): “You guys are totally failing me here. I need you to rise to the occasion and give me something tough to challenge my argument. Perhaps you can call on a higher power. Oops, I forgot you don't believe in one.”
Hmmm. Specifically who are you referring to when you say, “ …you don’t believe in one?”
Neal said (to FullofWonder): “They will deny they make personal attacks just as they deny the evidence of design. It's just par for the course.”
Actually, Neal, that is a well documented trademark of creationists – especially the part about denying evidence. Speaking of evidence, where is your evidence for design in nature? You have been asked repeatedly to provide some and you have repeatedly failed to do so. Simply saying, “It sure looks intelligently designed to me” is not evidence.
Neal said (to FullofWonder): “I think from your background and experience you are adept at identifying design. Seeing design in the living cell should not be as hard as these guys make it, but I think there is more at work here than simply science or evidence. It really is about religion, howbeit, in a negative sort of way for these chaps. Fortunately the majority of mankind and many scientists and engineers agree with us.”
Hmmm. Well, ok (to a point – drop the religion crap; science is absolutely about evidence). But, the vast majority of professional scientists, especially in the biological sciences, DISAGREE with you and that’s what really counts. And again, Neal, where is your evidence for design (intelligent) in living cells?
Neal said: "Let's look at the nature of starlight and electromagnetic radiation (I have some familarity with electromagnetic waves because I have been an amateur radio operator for 30 years and have designed and built antennas). Starlight is usually a ANALOG wave whereas digital refers to discrete values (0 or 1 bit, or A,C,G, T quaternary DNA values). Digital fiber optics have been Intelligently Designed to communicate information in digital format. Information is encoded digitally in the light by an intelligent originator. Futhermore, the quaternary values are imposed on the DNA."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as I anticipated. In classic creationists style, Neal starts making shit up and hopes nobody notices. Opps. Sorry, Neal, I noticed. What class amateur radio license have you held for the last 30 years; novice? You need to go back and look at the definition of "digital" that you provided. Suddenly, digital refers to discrete values of bits (0,1 – binary code). Oh, except for DNA – a quaternary (A,C,G,T). Or the 26 bit English alphabet – (A,B,C,D,E,F …Z). I’ll reiterate for you, Neal. Starlight consists of photons – those are discrete bits …energy levels. Every element, every compound, has a unique (discrete) spectral signature. That is discrete information (digital) carried in the light (sort of like the smoke signal). It is no more analog than any of the other examples you provided. But, I’ll go one further. Check your list of examples of digital systems. You will see beacon listed. You don’t specify what kind of beacon, so I’ll give an example myself. A tall radio tower with a flashing light (on – off) at the top. It has been intelligently designed that way (by people) to prevent low flying aircraft from bumping into them and causing a big mess. The message (information) being conveyed is CAUTION (or DANGER). A lighthouse accomplishes the same task for ships. A pulsar acts the same way. It is light, electromagnetic energy (X-Ray), pulsing on and off – the information …rotational period (among other things) that is imposed on the light. That is discrete information – just like the radio tower and the lighthouse. Now once again, are you saying that stars (including pulsars) are intelligent sources of information?
By the way, you still haven’t answered the last question I as asked you in my post on 10\19\09 at 12:53AM.
That’s a total of six questions in my last two posts (including the one for 10\19\09). Are you going to answer them or evade them like you usually do? That’s seven questions.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you can call on a higher power. Oops, I forgot you don't believe in one.
My reply:
I can't believe it. I didn't think you could sink any lower, but you managed it. For you to assume that anybody who doesn't agree with your brand of creationism must necessarily be an atheist is simply appalling. You have thrown away any vestige of credibility you had left. You are a detriment to your cause. I am ashamed for you.
FullofWonder: "Thanks Neal. You must have tougher skin than mine."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen hear this, FullofWonder... I don't know how much broad Internet experience you have, but on more casually-moderated forums than SciAm's, in thanks for expressing my pro-science views I have been called all manner of filth that you could imagine, and then some. I have been cursed, damned to hell, called names that would make a marine blush - all by 'Christian' Biblical literalists. In fact, on these other Internet locations, it was striking that the very people posting comments who maintained their civilized dignity were people with points-of-view such as my own. Another 'in fact': in over two years of debating this subject on the Internet, I have yet to come across a pro-science troll. But it's like the creationist camp actually breeds them for the purpose.
Not to mention the point that I have made more than once: that creationist website do not even offer the possibilities for open debate in the way in which science sites such as this one do. So the mere fact that creationists such as yourself and Neal T can post here at all is something that is not even reciprocated by those who run websites holding your beliefs.
Trust me, this SciAm thread is generally polite and well-behaved in contrast to what goes on elsewhere. And as to Neal T and yourself having to bear what you apparently consider 'personal attacks'; shall I repost an example of such which Neal T wrote to me? You can ask me to, but frankly I would not advise it.
FullofWonder: "Thanks Neal."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than fawning to a fellow, have the common courtesy to address the issues which I last put to you several days ago, and which you choose to leave unanswered. Then you would at least give me occasion to say 'Thanks, FullofWonder'. Till then, I'm holding off.
Keelyn, you give excellent examples of sending digital information with light as the carrier medium. I would like to add to your list Fraunhofer spectral absorption lines, which gives us the stars' composition, velocity, and age, and by analysis helps to reveal the evolution of the Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI notice that Neal made such a big deal to distinguish the medium from the message for his examples, and then totally ignored the distinction for your light example. Just an accidental omission?
Neal T: "Still checkmate"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill in your dreams. Your childish triumphalism might have a smidgeon of credibility were you actually to scrape together the common courtesy to address at least some of the issues which serially have been put to you. How about you 'rise to the occasion', Neal T? In your last few posts here it sounds like you have cruised a whisker away from actual Internet trolling.
Neal T: "Perhaps you can call on a higher power. Oops, I forgot you don't believe in one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI consider this statement the most shameful utterance that Neal T has made here. So much for FullofWonder looking up to Neal T's 'example'.
FullofWonder: "I have been impressed at how confident jpill69 and ambertooth are with the evolutionary explanation. For my part the evidence for an intelligent designer and creator seems pretty strong too. That is where I am putting my bet."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow remarkably revealing that you should choose to use a gambling metaphor, FullofWonder. Still, I guess that for you, this issue is indeed about 'betting'. But science demands something more substantial than betting odds, and the surmisals of creationism do not qualify. Unless you can produce some, there is no direct 'evidence' for any 'íntelligent designing' supernatural agency that would qualify as acceptable science. Which, of course, is why IDers are so straining to get the rules bent to accommodate their beliefs.
You have not mentioned them, but both Keelyn and dvashun also have contributed their own eloquent examples to this debate. And as jpill69 and myself have been, they also have been frustrated by the prevarications on the part of Neal T, and the silences from your own and Lionel777's direction, when it comes to giving straight answers.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was hoping you would share with us more specifically how you think God was involved in creation. If I understand you correctly you believe that creation is his work, but you have been reluctant to say at what point he was involved. It doesn't appear that you would side with Dr. Francis Collins, so what then?
Do you remember the story of the guy that didn't want to get shot in the civil war? So he wore part of the Union uniform and part of the Confederate uniform. Both sides shot at him!
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "Opps. Sorry, Neal, I noticed. What class amateur radio license have you held for the last 30 years; novice? You need to go back and look at the definition of "digital" that you provided. Suddenly, digital refers to discrete values of bits (0,1 – binary code). Oh, except for DNA – a quaternary (A,C,G,T). Or the 26 bit English alphabet – (A,B,C,D,E,F …Z). "
I've had an advanced class license for nearly 30 years.
Your post indicates some confusion over the differences between analog and digital.
As I've reference earlier about Digital systems, wikipedia has a basic definition and summary of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital
The information it summarizes is just information that can be found in other sources as well. There are some very distinctive properties of Digital vs. Analog information that are important. Keep in mind that I am not saying that Analog signals or waves cannot convey information. Also an analog carrier, like a smoke signal can be modulated to create a digital signal. But there is a big difference between analog and digital signals.
Yes a beacon is the most basic form of digital signal, although the repetitive on-off sequence is capable of only one message. A lighthouse or pulsar is not truly digital. Their analog signal is rotating rather than turning on and off.
Analog signals can be quantized into digital signals, but again there has to be a conversion because they are fundamentally different.
And yes, light consists of photons and has properties. But think about common INK. It is made of chemicals and has certain properties that can be analyzed and reported on. But digital information is conveyed by the letters and words that the ink is formed into by the author. Dipping a paper into a bucket of ink does not create digital information. Likewise fiber optics uses photons to create the digital information to send a message. The overhead light in my office is sending out photons, but there is no digital message. If I used the light switch to send morse code via the overhead light blub, then that would be digital communication.
Please read more about the differences between analog and digital. Until then, its still checkmate.
Neal T: "Do you remember the story of the guy that didn't want to get shot in the civil war? So he wore part of the Union uniform and part of the Confederate uniform."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat, you mean like the creationist who tried to mix science with belief? His beliefs were not rigorous enough to be considered as science, and not pious enough to pass as religion.
And your dopey preoccupation with digital signals serves no useful end (except, that is, to make it look like you're grasping at straws). You've just cottoned on to that idea because you presumably read it somewhere on some ID website. If it in any way were a serious 'proof' for your cause, it would have been headline news everywhere. Guess what? It ain't. Looks like your Nobel Prize will have to wait - and your chess 'victory' *chuckle*.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou always take my attempts at humor too seriously, but I'll take the hit for it not being a very good joke regarding you calling on a higher power. I was also trying to provoke you to actually disprove my argument using facts and logic, but you prefer to tip toe in the shallows. Do you know what digital information is? How can you criticize something that you do not understand? Is it because you wouldn't care about empirical evidence that identifies Intelligent Design? It is more about religion for you than science, isn't it?
Who knows, anyone of us could win the Nobel Prize based upon their recent methods of selecting candidates.
Ambertooth: How remarkably revealing that you should choose to use a gambling metaphor, FullofWonder. Still, I guess that for you, this issue is indeed about 'betting'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI expect, Ambertooth, that the evolutionist has enough unknowns in his/her beliefs that they are making a bet as well. Both camps have some evidence to support their world view, but neither can say that the evidence is so overwhelming that there are no niggling questions which cause one to pause once in a while. Often the Christian will question, "Why the suffering of the innocent?", "Why do some people seem to be so evil?", "Why do people who seem to be so good sometimes do unbelievably evil things?", "Why highly destructive natural disasters if God is managing things properly?", "Why did my baby die?" And God does not give us answers that exhaustively satisfy us. So do we say, "That proves that God does not exist!" No, we are tentative about that and say, "Other evidence still encourages us to believe".
Ambertooth: I have been cursed, damned to hell, called names that would make a marine blush - all by 'Christian' Biblical literalists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth, I believe what you say and am embarrased to be associated with them. I cannot apologize for them but I wish they would keep their unkind thoughts to themselves. They give Christ a bad name. Philip Yancey, in his book "What's so wonderful about Grace" uses a large part of the book describing the unkindness of Christians toward those they disagree with and he challenges us to clean up our act. Even Proverbs comments that a fool with his mouth shut is thought wise.
I believe that the natural world around us has been designed and "created" by an intelligent "creator" because of the wonderful, complicated systems around me. Their intricate workings depending on finely balanced processes suggest great understanding of the underlying materials which make up the objects. This includes plant and animal life, as well as the non-living part of the universe. Some examples. The Chemical periodic table describes 92 non-radio-active elements which we understand make up all physical objects in the universe, not just on our earth. Let us say that they are 92 unique "Lego blocks". We can marvel at how these are mixed and matched to make so many different things, both in the natural world we had no responsibility for and in the materials scientists and engineers make of them. Accident of nature? The size and placement of the moon provides tides which stir the oceans and wash our beaches. Why not closer so there would always be tsunamis or farther away so the tides would be ineffective? Why is the earth placed just so far from the sun that life prospers? I look at my hands and observe how they seem to be very well designed to be highly manipulative, either strong or gentle, and highly sensitive, just the right size for their job. Their muscles positioned up the arms and attached to the operative fingers by tendons so the hand would not be encumbered by muscles. And how about the monkey's tail with which he can grasp a branch, or the elephant's trunk. I expect every living thing contains a large number of great wonders which suggest that the assembler knew what he was doing with the very small number of unique parts he had on hand. And life itself. As my Science teacher pointed out years ago, the animal weighs the same before and after death. What is life? It is a great wonder which science cannot explain or create. Sexual reproduction in animals and plants. And why has animal life, at least, got consciousness? The universe is a very wonderful, complex, and integrated system. And it just fell together?? I have never seen it happen in engineering! Maybe William Paley had a point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo get my oar in deeper, I would go for a creator who spoke the world into existance essentially as it is today. I do not see the need for an evolutionary process. Any "creator" who could design and assemble a world which would advance itself by "random" "evolutionary" processes would have no problem doing the whole job at once. Science does acknowledge that the world had a beginning, the big debate is when that happened and what was the process. But the Scientists and religionists were not there at the beginning so any observations are made from a long way off and the results are very blurry. So any conclusions are very tentative with little hope of definitive facts becoming available. Both sides have to be humble about what they know, but both sides are making bets on the evidence as they interpret it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are told that when God is doing something really stupid it is still far wiser than anything we could come up with, so we need to be careful how we judge what we see. I am not embarrassed by not being able to tell the process by which the creator put the universe together. And I am not surprised that the evolutionist cannot definitively describe how his system actually did the job either.
Neal T: "You always take my attempts at humor too seriously"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe operative word being 'attempts'.
Neal T: "It is more about religion for you than science, isn't it?"
Keep repeating this (which you do ad nauseum) and you might just convince yourself. You certainly have failed to convince anyone else, although I realise that it would suit your case were it to be so. Still, repeating this lame accusation will not make it any more true.
I know: how about I just say 'no'?
FullofWonder: "I believe that the natural world around us has been designed and "created" by an intelligent "creator" because of the wonderful, complicated systems around me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this instance, the operative word is of course 'believe'. As to the rest of what you say, FullofWonder, are you seriously equating the methodology of science with the ethical issues thrown up by religion? No, but seriously...
And please don't bring out that old 'science is a belief too' chestnut. Or that weary 'Goldilocks planet' (not too hot, not too cold) thing. How much palaeoclimatology and geology do you study? Truly global-scale disasters have happened right here on Earth in the past, and will without question happen again. It's only a matter of 'when'. Study the Hubble Heritage pictures. Do you see beauty and wonder? Sure you do. But that beauty and wonder is the manifestation of acts of terrible cosmic violence which signal the deaths of worlds, even whole systems. The universe is not benign. It is violent and dangerous. Only last week a huge meteor raked across the skies above my country (it was even on Astronomy Picture of the Day). Had it landed (which, given another half-degree of angle, it might have), I would not be sitting here chatting to you now.
FullofWonder:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: Often the Christian will question, "Why the suffering of the innocent?", "Why do some people seem to be so evil?", "Why do people who seem to be so good sometimes do unbelievably evil things?", "Why highly destructive natural disasters if God is managing things properly?", "Why did my baby die?" And God does not give us answers that exhaustively satisfy us. So do we say, "That proves that God does not exist!" No, we are tentative about that and say, "Other evidence still encourages us to believe".
Very well said.
FullofWonder: "Any "creator" who could design and assemble a world which would advance itself by "random" "evolutionary" processes would have no problem doing the whole job at once."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow you've got me puzzled. Why would you mention the very statement which aptly demonstrates why your beliefs can never, never be recognised as legitimate science? After all, an omnipotent deity who could just 'poof' everything into existence raises incalculably more questions than any scientific rationale. Because you then get tangled up in the nitty gritty of such a 'just-add-godlike-powers' act.
For a start, your statement is in direct contradiction with the creation as described in the Bible. Did that occur to you? And speaking of the Bible: why then did such an omnipotent 'one-tango-and-it's-done' deity need six days (and that does mean 24-hour days, and not metaphorical periods of time) to do the job? Why would such a deity need to 'rest' on the seventh day. Was he so knackered? I thought he was omnipotent. And why then did such a deity create so many life-forms that, being omnipotent, he already knew were doomed to extinction?
The problem with this 'anything goes' type of belief, FullofWonder is just that: when anything goes, and all things are possible, then both faith and science become redundant.
FullofWonder: "To get my oar in deeper, I would go for a creator who spoke the world into existance essentially as it is today."
You're commenting on a science site. Cut the bs.
Oh, and to Neal T: before you triumphally crow something along the lines of 'see, it IS about religion': I'm answering in response to FullofWonder's very religious comments.
Neal, I don't believe you. If you were sincerely interested in my opinion, you would have simply asked. Instead, you admit to your deceitful provocation of associating my posts with cowardice in order to trick it out of me. The fact is, when I think that my opinions of God's creation are relevant to the conversation, you don't have to trick it out of me, and nobody has to ask it of me, because I freely post them. And it is because I do this willingly and transparently that anyone who reads my posts can understand I am not atheist. No divine revelation needed here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recognize the value of the spirit AND the reality of the physical. I admit that integrating their interaction is a work-in-progress. Because of that, I take shots from mindless, black-or-white, my-way-or-the-hiway bigots from both sides. That I choose to stand in the midst of the fray might raise questions about my tactics, but certainly not about my courage or my convictions.
On the other hand, to describe those who attempt to deceive in order to serve a hidden agenda, I can think of many choice phrases.
@jpill69: what was it that Neal T just said to FullofWonder? Ah, yes: 'Very well said'!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you insist on staying in the metaphysical, I'll join you for awhile in that discussion. You say that the cosmos is violent all around us. I would definitely agree. But in the midst of the Eagle Nebula that the Hubble telescope has so beautifully shown us new stars and worlds were forming. My Bro- in-laws Grandfather died the other day, yet the day after he died his great-great grand daughter was born. Such is life.
Yes this universe has plenty of violence, but in the midst of a toxic cosmos is a marvelous world that supports a huge amount of life and a lot of joy and laughter too.
Neal T: "Ambertooth, Since you insist on staying in the metaphysical,.." etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWTF??? I don't insist on 'staying in the metaphysical'. Oh, but wait, you're being your usual argumentative self again. Still, the last time I checked (on the Hubble site), these things are very definitely physical, and not philosophical. And your pedantry in mentioning star births as part of the process is supposed to be a revelation?
There is death and new life in every human span, Neal T, and I am old enough to have seen my share of both.
Neal T: "But in the midst of the Eagle Nebula that the Hubble telescope has so beautifully shown us new stars and worlds were forming."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish you'd told this to Lionel777 at the time. He did not believe that stars were still being created. You creationists should get your story straight.
But the fact of cosmic violence does not prove whether there is a God or not. It does not confirm or deny the character of God. Looking at nature we are stuck with a limited amount of information. Only what we can observe. And all our observations must be interpreted through our senses and our present collection of knowledge. Our limited senses and knowledge do limit our ability to make absolute statements about reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I acknowledge that I do not know how the creator did it. But I have never heard how natural forces created what we see either. There are lots of guesses offered but nothing definitive so we should leave that area as only tentative for both sides. And whether he took one moment or six days is neither here nor there to the main issue. A creator who could guide the process through evolution could just as easily do it by command. Why not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth:In this instance, the operative word is of course 'believe'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not expect there are any scientists who would say they do not "believe" any of the currently accepted theories offered by present day science. Believe is not restricted to religionists.
Certainly the ethical issues cannot be answered by science, but that just suggests that science cannot study or solve all the questions we are faced with.
And you wanted to know what evidence I use to build my world view, so I told you. You have to make your own decisions as to whether you find them convincing.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "Believe is not restricted to religionists."
That is correct. To equate the word believe to religion alone defies the definition of the word itself. It is not even a bad thing for scientists to believe certain things. In fact, not only is it not bad, but a necessity. The scientific method includes imagination and creativity and belief. What is believed needs to be evaluated, etc. Asking what is the best explanation available for what we observe is part of science. For someone to say that evolutionists do not believe certain things is absolutely absurd.
Ambertooth: The problem with this 'anything goes' type of belief, FullofWonder is just that: when anything goes, and all things are possible, then both faith and science become redundant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so. Just because any argument is made does not change the possible. The possible is controlled outside of the discussion. Reality controls the possible. And reality controls what arguments are correct in the end. So faith is useful or a waste of time as it accurately meshes with reality. Science studies the natural world reality. Science does not make reality, it only observes and interprets it. And the observations of science are observed through limited human senses and interpreted through limited human knowledge. So "Anything goes" is a non-starter.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo get my oar in deeper, I would go for a creator who spoke the world into existance essentially as it is today.
On the off chance you will lower yourself to reply to me, I would like you to think about just two questions.
1: When exactly do you believe God created the Universe? Do you mean literally today? As in an instant before you read this? Any omnipotent deity is capable of creating the entire Universe that way, and setting it all up just so that it looks like it existed in the past, including creating memories in you of a past life that never really happened. Is that what you believe?
2: You mentioned the Periodic Table, 92 elements etc. How do you know this? It's not mentioned in the Bible, but you still accept it as fact. Most likely you learned about it in a science class. So you accept evidence of God's creation from sources outside the Bible. How do you decide what evidence to accept and what evidence to reject?
Keelyn: And again, Neal, where is your evidence for design (intelligent) in living cells?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would ask: Where is the evidence for random progressive development toward usable complexity in living cells?
I tend to think that both sides can be asking questions which neither side has their own definitive answer for. Certainly we cannot find the signature of the creator on anything, so we look at the facts which suggest intelligent design ("apparent design"). In the same way the evolutionary approach looks at the cell and looks for how the cell developed through evolutionary pathways. Here there are no clear and complete evolutionary pathways to study and millions of different cells which need explaining. So the creationist and evolutionist both have to make some assumptions and throw their bet on their choice of world view.
FullofWonder: "But the fact of cosmic violence does not prove whether there is a God or not. It does not confirm or deny the character of God."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that was not what your original point was about, now was it? You were claiming an essentially beneficent cosmos, with everything ticking along nicely and in its place. Now you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself by claiming that it "does not confirm or deny the character of God." Which of course begs the question as to what the character of God is in such a shockingly ambivalent universe, which according to you is his creation. Now, Neal T can berate me for always choosing the metaphysical path. Aside from the fact that this is plain inaccurate, it is you who raises these various thorny theological issues here.
FullofWonder: "Science does not make reality, it only observes and interprets it."
I would take my reminder to you to heart, FullofWonder. You have the freedom to comment on this science site (which is a whole lot more freedom of expression than is granted to those such as myself from those webmasters who hold your beliefs). But your ignorance of the ways in which science functions is revealed in pretty much every comment which you post here. Do you really understand and appreciate the difference between such terms as 'interpret' and 'interpolate'? How about 'deduce', 'infer', extrapolate'?
FullofWonder: "Certainly the ethical issues cannot be answered by science, but that just suggests that science cannot study or solve all the questions we are faced with."
I have before pointed out here that science does not ask 'why?'.
FullofWonder: "And you wanted to know what evidence I use to build my world view, so I told you. You have to make your own decisions as to whether you find them convincing."
Not remotely. Science demands evidence. You have presented none.
jpill69:When exactly do you believe God created the Universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI tend to think sometime before 10,000 yrs ago. It seems, from my readings in history that most of what we know about the past happened within the last 10,000 yrs. The wearing down of Niagara Falls, the great flood in Washington and Oregon, the last Ice Age, the rise of civilizations and the invention of writing. As we try to look farther back there is much less evidence and the tools of measurement of time become less reliable. Our conclusions rely more and more on our presuppositions. So who knows?
FullofWonder: "I would ask: Where is the evidence for random progressive development toward usable complexity in living cells?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most simple answer, which you probably will find maddening: 'We' don't have to present any. What is already accepted science does not need defending here. On the other hand, you are the one who is proposing maverick claims. The onus is therefore upon you to provide evidence for those claims. And if you have a quarrel with some aspect of science (as in your statement above), then write up your own alternative hypothesis based upon your own collected data and submit it through the recognised channels for peer review. Or are you going to plead victimisation and conspiracy theories?
jpill69: You mentioned the Periodic Table, 92 elements etc. How do you know this? It's not mentioned in the Bible, but you still accept it as fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course the Bible does not contain all the facts in the world. And Christians do not only go to the Bible for all their facts either. As I said in another of my posts, I am an enthusiastic supporter of science and the scientific method. I am quite happy to look to science to provide information about the world around me. I just do not expect science to have all the answers yet. I made my living as an engineer. Engineering is sometimes called "applied science". I did not use the Bible as my engineering handbook.
Ambertooth: But that was not what your original point was about, now was it? You were claiming an essentially beneficent cosmos,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere did I say anything about an essentially beneficient cosmos?
FullofWonder: "Our conclusions rely more and more on our presuppositions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeak for yourself.
FullofWonder: "So who knows?"
Science, you chowderhead. And, yes that IS a personal insult. So bite me. And you were the pencilhead who claimed to 'admire' the achievements of science and scientists. If you're so gullible and green and screwed in your mind that you are prepared to piss upon the achievements of science in the name of your so-called 'religion', then go suck on a Bible and see what flavor it is. Hmmm.. tastes like... hypocricy.
Ambertooth: Do you really understand and appreciate the difference between such terms as 'interpret' and 'interpolate'? How about 'deduce', 'infer', extrapolate'?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease tell how "interpolate" would correct my sentence. And tell how to use "deduce", "infer", and "extrapolate" to give a better description of how science works.
Oh dear. It does not take much to get a rise out of someone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe title of the article which started this thread was what got me excited. "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" I was expecting that a respected national Science magazine would stay away from the personal insults and stick with the issues, but just the title of the article showed a bias. Oh well, we all come to any discussion with biases. I just bought a book from the university bookstore entitled "everything is an argument".
Ambertooth:And if you have a quarrel with some aspect of science (as in your statement above),
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs all science to be accepted without question? Or are all scientific claims open to question and revision? If everything must be accepted without question then science as we know it can stop right now. Otherwise, skepticism is welcome.
And are you the moderator on this site, choosing whose ideas are acceptable? Or are you just one of us?
FullofWonder: "Oh dear. It does not take much to get a rise out of someone."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen thrill me. Present your evidence (within scientific acceptability, of course) that the Earth is some ten millennia old.
You want to know why I reacted as I did? A considerable part of my career has been spent working with decent, hard-working men and women (of various faiths and ethical persuasions) whose contributions as career scientists to the fund of collective human knowledge you now denegrate in the name of your so-called 'religion'. You are so terrified of your 'religion' being shown to be 'wrong' (as you so misguidedly see it) that you have shown yourelf willing to shove many decades of enlightened thinking into the garbage. Ever investigated dating techniques? Forget that old creationist's bete noire, c14. Try uranium-lead. Or potassium-argon. Oh, wait, you'll probably claim that they're 'flawed' in some way, right? Or that the many scientists around the world who use, and have incorporated, these techniques (which, due to their time overlap, can be triangulated against each other) into their research data, are in some way 'mistaken'. Anything to deny whatever conflicts with your precious scripture, right, FullofWonder. 'Full of wonder'? For what? Idiocy?
FullofWonder: "Is all science to be accepted without question? Or are all scientific claims open to question and revision?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore pig-ignorance regarding the subject you attack. Take it from me: scientists can be, and are, ruthlessly critical of each others' findings. When a new paper is published, then the knives come out. And yet you, in your ignorance, seem to imply that watchdog criticism of science can only come from external voices. Science is a sphere which polices its own findings with grim critique. As you would know were you conversant with what you attack.
Of course I am well aware that scientists argue among themselves about new and old findings. That is what brings new ideas out. But outside observers are free to observe and comment also. Not being an acredited scientist does not disqualify one from having some expressible ideas. And maybe some valid observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Your post indicates some confusion over the differences between analog and digital."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your post indicates that you’re making shit up again – as usual.
Neal said: "There are some very distinctive properties of Digital vs. Analog information that are important."
First of all, your use of the term "digital" in this comparison is incorrect when applied to the original definition you provided for digital. Colloquially speaking, digital means binary coding (0,1) – and when you compare digital vs analog, that is exactly what is meant. But that definition does not conform to a number of examples you gave. Secondly, starlight may be an analog carrier, but the information in it is discrete (digital – conforming very well to the original definition you gave) and if it is a variable star (as many stars are), then it could be considered "modulated" as well – just like your smoke signal example.
Neal said: "Yes a beacon is the most basic form of digital signal, although the repetitive on-off sequence is capable of only one message. A lighthouse or pulsar is not truly digital. Their analog signal is rotating rather than turning on and off."
And that’s bull. Lots of lighthouses have flashing lights (like radio towers – more intense, of course). And it doesn't matter if it is only one message – it is a message …information. Not that it matters. The effect from the rotation is the same (on-off – that why they were original called pulsars …pulsing) and fits in very nicely with the original definition you gave – a pulsar (or a lighthouse, or a radio tower light) is digital. You might want to look again at the examples you gave. You will see telegraph. A conventional telegraph key operates on a lever action. Leverage is a rotational action. So if a telegraph key is acceptable, then a pulsar is acceptable.
You only answered one of my questions – and the most rhetorical one at that. Let’s try again. I’ll give you a condensed version:
1. Are you saying stars and pulsars are intelligent sources of information?
2. Where is your evidence for intelligent design in nature (living cells, for example)?
And of course, this one:
3. How many kids dying from leukemia have you cured with a prayer?
Damn right. Well stated, ambertooth. He is a YEC, obviously, and about as interested in real science as my horse. And he is about as familiar with real scientific concepts as my dog. There is absolutely no reason why anyone on here who actually knows something about the science should make a single keystroke to help him learn what is freely and easily accessible with the device he is currently using to post here. If he was truly sincere, he would search out (work, in other words) the literature himself. I think he is less FullofWonder and more Fullof …well, never mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’ll be gone for a few days. I'm sure in that time Neal will have 500 more posts Fullof …well, again, nevermind.
It’s been a long day. Goodnight.
FullofWonder: "But outside observers are free to observe and comment also."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone can comment on anything within the libel laws. Is that supposed to be news? Provided that, if you (yes, you personally) do so with science, you acknowledge that your comments do not rise above the level of mere personal opinion. They hold neither weight nor credibility, and certainly have no influence whatever upon the science. You still disagree? Hey, how about I become an engineer? Why not? Who needs professional papers for such an idiotically simple job? How hard can it be to build a bridge across the Hudson? Why, throw over a few bits of steel and concrete and you're done. That, FuillofWonder, is your attitude to science.
Oh, and it has not escaped my attention that you ignored my request to post ANY EVIDENCE WHATEVER for your fruitloop Young Earth ideas. Try getting a brain in place of the teddy bear stuffing, used hospital dressings, or chewed-up Bible pages that you evidently use as a substitute. Even Neal T does not endorse such whacked-out ideas, so you and he disagree upon a major area there.
FullofWonder: "Please tell how "interpolate" would correct my sentence. And tell how to use "deduce", "infer", and "extrapolate" to give a better description of how science works."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. Go jump through your own hoops, you lazy sod. I already know their usage, but if you genuinely do not know the contextual scientific usage of these terms, then it just proves my point. So do your own homework and go away and learn something about them. As Keelyn said, if you were truly sincere, instead of just looking to score cheap points on this thread, you would do so. Are you?
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere to start... digital does not need to be binary. What's your point about beacons away, I said it was digital? The radiation from the pulsar is not going off and on but it is spinning giving the illusion that it is off and on. A sensitive enough receiver would see the wave of radiation grow in intensity, peak, and then grow more faintly as it turned. This analog wave could be quantized and converted to digital, but it is not fundamentally a digital information system.
That you think digital must always be binary is simply not true. If you don't believe me, just go look it up.
Evidence for design comes from the digital properties of DNA as I've already explained.
I'm happy to say that everyone I've prayed for so far that had leukemia is still alive, but they were also receiving chemo.
Keeley: Damn right. Well stated, ambertooth. He is a YEC, obviously, and about as interested in real science as my horse. And he is about as familiar with real scientific concepts as my dog. There is absolutely no reason why anyone on here who actually knows something about the science should make a single keystroke to help him learn what is freely and easily accessible with the device he is currently using to post here. If he was truly sincere, he would search out (work, in other words) the literature himself. I think he is less FullofWonder and more Fullof &well, never mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it was these guys who called me back when I said I was going to step back and just watch the thread. You can't keep anyone happy.
They grumble about not getting my answers, yet I started by asking how evolution explained the beginnings of sex. I didn't get a scientific answer. I just got a pat on the head and the advise to do my own research. Then they grumble that I haven't clarified all my thoughts to them. They grumble that I have not given them my reasons for a young earth bias, yet I told them that most of what I know and am told about the present state of the earth seems to have happened within the last 10,000 years. Beyond that things get less clear. So I cannot quote chapter and verse and I am considered less than informed (this described in colourful language, to say the least).
Maybe this thread has become too long. They are getting punchy.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just do not expect science to have all the answers yet.
My reply:
I'm pretty sure nobody seriously argues that science has all the answers, so maybe we are closer to consensus than we thought. Anyway, thanks to your reply, I know more about you than I did before; that you believe in a time of creation different from the biblically inspired 4004 BC, that you recognize the authority of non-biblical sources for some material facts, and that you are an engineer of some kind, perhaps civil (?), which infers a certain respect for practical realities. And, altho you use a different emphasis, you accept that science has found some answers. These are all good things to know, because it eliminates large areas of misunderstanding. So, with your continued permission and cooperation, I would like to further explore what scientific answers you do and don't accept and why.
For example, science has accepted evidence for an age of the Earth much greater than your 10K years since the 19th century. So I am curious as to what scientific evidence you accept for your 10K years and why, and what scientific evidence you explicity reject for an older age and why.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs all science to be accepted without question?
My reply:
It's really ironic that you should ask this, because that is the very thing creationism/ID demands, to just believe God did it. Once you accept this, there is no point in asking
anything else.
At my adult Sunday school class (actually on Wednesday night, following the church pot luck) we have been plowing through a lot of Chas. Darwin quotes, because our teacher sets up a video projector and has been showing thetruthproject.org, a series from Focus on the Family. A Dr. Del Tackett moderates this lecture series which includes some startling computer animations of complex intercellular processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have concluded two things: Charles Darwin was an exceptionally open and intellectually honest personality. Darwin always presented the best version of the best arguments AGAINST his own theses, and Darwin never set up strawmen because they were easier to debate. Second, Richard Dawkins of the Blind Watchmaker is no Darwin.
Stephen Jay Gould's name also comes up a lot, because Gould for all his many intellectual faults attempted a brilliant synthesis in his punctuated equilibrium concept. He admitted that evolution appears from the fossil record to not be particularly steady nor incremental, not for the least reason that it often takes a lot more than one mutational modification of genetic pathway to get from one species to another--more like 50,000 or so--that MUST work hand in hand somehow in the bustling factory inside the nucleus to produce sufficient morphological change to produce a new species.
Now Gould never says this--I guess Michael Cook says it if anyone does--but it is entirely possible that "junk" or non-coding DNA is more than just the odd scrap from past genetic experiments, the non-coding sequences may well accumulate the instructins for all umpty-thousand well-coordinated modifications necessary for a species to jump to a new species so differentiated that it can no longer inter-breed with its most recent parent. (Non-coding DNA has a striking resemblance with the structure of human language ((ref. Flam, F., Science 266:1320, 1994)).)
When environmental crisis prompts the new species to appear, it can, because all the DNA homework has already been done to bring forth coordinated morphological mods in an eyeblink. This burst, however, smacks of intentional design all over it.
How the hell does DNA know what adaptations will be needed next? How does it know which random mutations to save, or even to borrow trans-genic sequences brought by virus and save them too for the day when a new species will be needed.
Yet DNA really seems to have such prescience! This is the Cook hypothesis--evolution is quantized. It saves up info and then it explodes on the scene with a buildable new animal.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith your professional engineering experience I would think that you have actually done more hands on science in real life than these critics. Some of their responses show real ignorance about basic science (they'll cuss at me for saying that) such as digitial systems and they just don't care to be open. Don't let it bother you too much because you have given some good input here.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...yet I started by asking how evolution explained the beginnings of sex.
My reply:
Don't you remember admitting to asking that question rhetorically, to make a point? If so, just what is your point in raising this question again? Or are you now saying you really, really want to know the answer? It should go without saying that the best metric of your sincerity is how much time and effort you invest in looking for the answer yourself. So, if you tell me what you already know, I will be glad to help you beyond that if I can. I think that's reasonable, and is the best offer you are likely to get in any case.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless I missed it and it is easy to miss some of the posts due to their number, you haven't given us a clue as to what you believe about God and his role in creation. You are a firm evolutionist, yet you have some kind of a concept (however muddled) that it is all God's work. Can you clarify or at least point us to an authority that you agree with so we can see what they say? Is your concept of God so muddled or pushed out of reality that you just don't know?
jpill69: So I am curious as to what scientific evidence you accept for your 10K years and why, and what scientific evidence you explicity reject for an older age and why.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, jpill69, I have no specific scientific evidence for 10K years. Certainly I am open to any actual date for the beginning, whatever is found. My philosophy is to change my mind when I receive what I consider enough good information. Anything less is stupidity. Why stick with an idea which is for sure outdated?
Anyway, back to the question. When I go around to various scenic sites there are often interpretive panels describing the formative geology of the place. For instance the Ottawa Valley in Canada. The panel describes how what we see today was formed about 10,000 yrs ago with the retreating ice age. When I travelled through Idaho and Washington last spring I observed the results of a cataclysmic flood, which an interpretive film at the Grand Coolie Dam said happened something like 10,000 yrs ago. I lived in Princeton, B.C. where the "benches" above the river suggest a natural dam which broke through quite suddenly at some time in the past (No idea when). What we consider history seems to have started sometime closer than 10,000 yrs ago. Now this does not prove a young earth in any way, and I do not have any idea what the actual date of creation was. I would be just as happy with 100,000 yrs. to give time for some "cavemen" and dinosaurs. But if these lived earlier I don't mind either. My quibble is with undirected evolution which could result in the wonderful ordered, interrelated system we see around us. An example used is the assembly of a 747 by a whirlwind in a junkyard. Not likely. What about a whirlwind in a 747 parts warehouse. One still has to deal with the issue of where did the perfectly fitting parts come from? To possibly better illustrate evolution you have the 92 elements (LEGO blocks) in the warehouse which the whirlwind assembles into the 747. No one gives that possibility a second thought. And where did these wonderfully co-ordinated elements come from?
So the big bang is not a solution either. It leaves just as many questions as does a creator. It just pushes the unknown back even farther than the radiation at the edge of the universe.
Michael Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWelcome to the discussion. What you said is worth discussion. You said "Yet DNA really seems to have such prescience! This is the Cook hypothesis--evolution is quantized. It saves up info and then it explodes on the scene with a buildable new animal."
The evidence certainly points to new animals appearing in the fossil record quickly (the "Cambrian Explosion for example). New body plans appear suddenly in the fossil record without an incremental evolutionary ancestry line leading up to them. The Trilobite is a good example. After the brand new animal appears, over time variations of this animal also show up in the fossil record, but the variation is limited based upon their DNA. Some species DNA appears to allow for more variation (such as Dogs and Cats), while others like the Nautilus do not. So the variations and adaptions are all in the various code modules of the DNA, but beyond that change due to mutations becomes exponentially more difficult as they are added. DNA has error checking processes that keep a pretty tight control on how much an animal can change. Beneficial change by mutation becomes exponentially more improbable as mutations are added.
Continuation of reply to jpill69s question about young earth idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease bear with me. The Bible contains an historic account recording a family story. Within that story is found some accounts of highly unusual and scientifically unexplainable happenings. Did they happen? Like all history, we cannot go back to replay the tapes, so to speak, so we have to make a judgement about the truthfulness of the record. Christians having studied the supporting evidence decide that the stories are accounts of actual happenings and the implications of the stories are important to us personally. Non-believers look at the supporting evidence and decide it cannot be trusted. Reality is the judge in the end. Believing will not make an untrue story true. Disbelieving will not make a true story false. The believer exercises faith. The unbeliever exercises faith.
But the historical accounts which tell of happenings within the last 10,000 years, mostly between 2000 BCE and 100 CE do suggest that something very unusual did happen which points to a supernatural God interested in people. So we do not just look to science to explain everything. We also look outside science for extra information.
Regards
jpill69: Don't you remember admitting to asking that question rhetorically, to make a point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, I don't remember admitting that. The words may have been "put in my mouth". Such a thing happened a few times within this extended exchange. I was really wanting to hear an expanation. Do you have any ideas?
Michael Cook, as someone who is very familiar with Dr. Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, I am glad to see you have an interest in learing about evolutionary theory. I hope you will pursue your interest and read something that accurately describes Dr. Gould's opinions. I found "Dawkins vs Gould" by Kim Sterelny very interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you continuing to shy away from my question? What is your position on where you think God was involved in your evolutionary creation scenario?
Neal T, you read my answer. What part didn't you understand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, I don't remember admitting that.
My reply:
Odd. It wasn't that long ago. I specifically recall you writing that you were trying to make a point.
As for your question, yes I have ideas. I ask again, for the third time, what do you already know?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must have missed it, do you know what day it was posted? Thanks
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no specific scientific evidence for 10K years.
My reply:
My sense of your reply is that you expect answers to just come to you, or you expect to just trip over them as you walk around. This echoes your theme with your question about sex and evolution, where you act as if other people are obliged to feed you information. I would be frankly surprised if that's what you did in a successful engineering practice.
What kind of engineer are you, anyway?
Neal T, you are a waste of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69, just reply to my comments, don't try to psychoanalyze my words. Your analysis makes far more out of the words than I ever put into them. It is like highschool analysing poetry and putting far more significance into the poem than the author imagined. You can't see into my head, so respond to the words as written, don't put meaning into them which is not immediately evident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you were so muddled in your reply that I didn't take it as an actual answer. You're very defensive about it so you probably don't have an answer. Why are you so shy and uptight about giving God glory if you are a believer. It's hard to tell by your words if you are a believer or not. I'm just confused by your words on what you stand for.
I will read the Gould vs Dawkins book. I should like to add a few more things about the style and content of the attack on Dawkins and a couple other easy targets for us creationists (I am actually an Intentional Design person) such as Carl Sagan and the Huxley who was Darwin's Bulldog (I always get my Huxleys mixed up.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Focus on the Family video series uses a lot of computer animations of molecules and structure inside the cell. In my first post I think I said inter when I meant intra cellular.
This is because when tiny organic devices are represented pictorally as the little machines that they truly are, a sense of wonder can be created that is the first step towards a creationist outlook. Thus the rotary flagellum gets a lot of attention, as does the gating mechanism that controls what gets in and out of the nucleus and is pictured like an air lock.
Ribosomes (the variety in 2 parts which come together like a clamp) appear as the most amazing of construction templates. Take one part of a DNA string, accept an mRNA to select the part of the former it needs to read, and a whole posse of tRNA workhorses then zoom up each with the precisely right amino acid to form the next link in the emerging protein. As soon as the protein string is complete, tRNA tugboats take it away and stuff it into a compactor structure, close a door like on a washing machine, and the folding cycle begins. . . Blood clotting is also a big focus at the family.
I learned to love science from reading the non-fiction essays of Isaac Asimov. Asimov was a secular humanist rigid Blind Watchmaker kind of guy of the highest order, but as an organic chemist Isaac would wax rhapsodic about hemoglobinase protein, the incredible way it was made, and the incredible bag of tricks it could do, almost as if it had its own volition or at least an internal clock.
What Asimov really impressed me with, however, is how really rapidly stuff happens in a cell when it prepares to do something like divide. DNA unzips itself by spinning at 300,000 rpm. A huge part of cell division requires very just-in-time delivery of components and removal of construction debris and by-products at speeds more like electronic functionality than mechanical.
Roger Penrose also fell into trouble with the PC police of evolutionary orthodoxy because Roger fell too much in love with structures called microtubules which can do all sorts of amazing things. I heard Roger have to apologize for this at a lecture maybe 15 years ago. Don't pees off the Blind Watchmaker dogmatics!
FullofWonder, on 10/16/09, 6:34 PM you posted the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I was trying to suggest that sex was a very obvious characteristic of living things, both plants and animals which point to an intelligent designer and creator. "
Remember now? Nobody put those words in your mouth.
It's been 6 days. What have you done to find out the answer for yourself?
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso respond to the words as written,
My reply:
I did.
FullofWonder wrote:
don't put meaning into them which is not immediately evident.
My reply:
I didn't.
Michael, if you don't mind my asking, where are you writing from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou ask what do I know about sex? Well, it seems that all or nearly all "animals" use the same model for their reproductive process. (The exceptions do not let us escape the rule) Egg and sperm. A very complicated, intricate system. All animals which use the egg/sperm system also have a very complex way to fertilize the egg and a very complex way to nurture the fertilized egg. Mammals carry the child till it is developed to a certain place in the process, birds place the fertilized egg in a hard shell so it will not impede their ability to fly, fish have their own way to protect the eggs, etc. But obviously, if evolution is the mechanism for developing the process, the egg and sperm process was developed in the proto-animal. But how did such a process evolve? The proto-animal would have had to have a very complicated system evolved in order for it to survive into a second generation. What was the proto-animal? How did it's sexual process evolve? Handwaving is no better for evolutionists than creationists. This is an honest question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of science and biology and engineering could care less on a practical, everyday working level about the fairy tale of evolution or the age of the earth. That's why good engineering can be done. The history of evolution is one of ever changing sub-theories that attempt to support the assumed fact of evolution. Because evolution is based on religion, it's just a matter of finding the appropriate sub-theory to explain the latest evidence that contradicts it's earlier predictions.
Digital information is the signature of intelligent creativity. Purely naturalistic processes are not capable of encoding digital information and a mountain of evidence exists to demonstrate this.
Wishful thinking by evolutionists that someday a purely naturalistic process of the origin of life is not the same thing as actual evidence.
However, the evidence for an intelligent design of the DNA already exists from empirical studies of its structure. Digital Information system is the output of an intelligent agency alone.
A fundamental characteristic of advanced intelligence is it's ability to produce digital output.
Since DNA is a highly advanced digital information system, it too was the product of an intelligent originator.
No one can go back and actually see how life originated. There is something better than guessing about what the fossil record means by filtering it through an evolutionary lens. We can look at the DNA now, in the lab, empirically. No guessing. No speculation needed. DNA is a digital information system and digital information systems by their very fundamental properties are the product of intelligence.
Just think about what kind of technology would reside in a robot that could do what humans can do? A robot that learns and can do everything from sky-diving to playing a violin to writing a best seller. How advanced would that software be? By the way, it would be a digital information system of the highest order.
It still CHECKMATE.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut how did such a process evolve?
My reply:
Implicit in your question is a presumption that the "process" in fact evolved. I'm pretty sure you believe otherwise. You can't really consider how it evolved unless you first allow the possibility that it did. Which means you are asking the question rhetorically, to make a point you already made, that because you don't know the answer must mean there isn't one.
FullofWonder wrote:
This is an honest question.
My honest reply is:
You continue to affirm my original impression.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt still CHECKMATE.
My reply:
You must like playing with yourself.
Neal T, Why do you care what I think? I certainly don't care what you think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously I touched a nerve because you can't complain that the evidence for design hasn't been presented. Your "man made systems" argument which was scientifically invalid was the best you could do, but it did make me think. It was a better effort that Ambertooth's shallow responses. Have a nice day.
I live in the Seattle area, which is where I heard Penrose lecture back in the mid-1990's at the U. of W. I also have attended a Discovery Institute meeting or two but I haven't gotten anything in the mail from them for quite awhile. They may not even be having fun meetings like we used to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyhow, I have a new creationist claim that I am working on and that is that Intentional Design is FALSIFIABLE in the Popperian sense after all. I base this claim on the fact that there are at latest count over 400 exo-planets. Let us suppose that on 4 of these planets life develops, and that on one of them intelligent life exists.
I propose that this intelligent life will be (like on Star Trek with Spock) so much like us that our species can interbreed.
Further, they will be attractive enough that we might even want to!
The basis of my falsifiable claim is that the universe is so precisely, exquisitely, fine-tuned to produce intelligent life; and further that life of any sort is so extremely hard to produce in the first place; that on those planets where intelligent species do appear they will be substantially identical. We can even marry our brother from another mother should we choose (I will take a sister.)
Now, should it happen that First Contact proves that intelligent aliens actually resemble a squid, my hypothesis of implicit intentional design in the very fabric of the universe including all pre-conditions and constants will be sure-enough false.
Another aspect that the Focus on the Family series concentrates on is to repeat the hoary question as to why there needs to be sex, and, given that there is sex, why should a female ANYTHING prefer to mate with a male who has gaudy decorations, builds her a demonstration house, sings her the prettiest song, or even dances for her? My wife is so starved to watch men dance she even was falling for Tom DeLay, of all people! Tues. night we talked about the oscillation in beak size of Darwin's finch not being true speciation, any more than human pygmy tribes were a species. Some things are just oscillations, not evol. baby steps.
Usually I hang out at former Sci Am editor John Horgan's site where I have been trying for years to convince people that evolution can't happen by random chance because nothing is an accident and probability theory itself is only an artifact of human consciousness interpreting history. Our DNA, on the other hand, has the Merlin-like ability to remember the future and thus it readies a genetic package for when an evolutionary burst will be needed.
Michael,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you kidding?
Actually, if we discover intelligent aliens and they are so much like us that you would let your daughter date one, I would consider that very strong evidence that the universe is so prejudiced to produce homo sapiens that it can't help but do so. In turn, this jarring reality would suggest that the purpose of the universe is to support and nurture homo sapiens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, it may happen that we run into aliens indeed very much like us, but biological change over time has advanced them to the stage of being "human" that we will only attain in 500 million years or so. The popular Hollywood conception of these advanced humanoids features smaller, frailer bodies that we have currently, but much bigger, bald braincases, enormous dark, empathic eyes, and tiny mouths to suggest reduced animal appetites. Still, close enough, in my book, to verify my thesis that the universe exists to make living things like us and can't help but do so.
As for the complete determinism aspect of existence that I mentioned, I derive this from absolute frozen spacetime where past, present, and future are all equally fixed and co-existing. The only thing that moves is the slice of spacetime that an observer can see at any instant, and even that depends on the relative motion between the observer and the observed.
Absolute determinism not only nixes the idea of free will, it also shuts down the Blind Watchmaker game because there are never any accidents. On the other hand we get rid of annoying puzzles like Schroedinger's Cat, branching universes, the total equivalence of particles with their anti-particles is accomodated, time-reversed light is no problem at all, and so on. Nothing like existence being a frozen milieu to take care of most mysteries.
But not all mysteries, because when the universe is as fixed as a painted mural with complex patterns, the fact that we see a story unfolding as we walk along the endless length of this mural suggests that some supernatural power did some intricate designing to produce this endless billboard. Perhaps we will comprehend, eventually, the big picture and shout: "Aha!" just like we were always destined to do.
Michael Cook, I can hardly agree more that if there exists a separately evolved species on another planet that is so humanlike that I, I mean we, can breed with them, that would certainly destroy any credibility of evolution by natural selection, and at the same time be direct evidence for an intervening omnipotent deity. Yes, such a possibility would be any IDers dream scenario. Even I would love to get my hands on that kind of evidence, especially if they are willing, nubile, scantily clad... I get all tingly just thinking about it. Oops, gotta go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe Evolutionists have come up with a term for that kind of thing right here on earth when the evidence contradicted its previous predictions. Don't need even need aliens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisITS CALLED CONVERGENT EVOLUTION.
See, because evolution is based on religion and thus regarded as a fact evolution has already accommodated such a thing.
Michael,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you explain your concept of spacetime in more detail and your reasoning behind it?
Well, Neal. I will leave the discussion to you. All I can seem to get in response is a wisecrack or an insult. I will steal a phrase from Job 12:1-2 "They are the voice of the people and wisdom will die with them ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I said before, I think this thread has gone on too long and they are getting punchy.
Good luck.
FullofWonder aka Calvin
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA majority of people that have professional experience in the practical sciences are skeptical of the claims of evolution because of their training.
Did you notice that they didn't answer your question?
I hope that you check back from time to time to add some sanity. Blessings.
I am imagining a green girl with emerald eyes wearing a ruby thong. . .sigh. Unfortunately, before she will let me have her she makes a strange request--I (like all her suitors) must sing the complete lead tenor role from the opera Barber of Seville from memory, a capella, and on the spot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome toastmaster once jokingly introduced Isaac Asimov as such a Renaisance Man that he could do anything except the above strange request. Asimov smiled, stood up, and sang the role until they made him shut up. He reportedly had a pleasant but weak and untrained voice, aided by perfect pitch and the remarkable fact that he remembered all the words in Italian with precise diction.
He also admitted that the toastmaster might have specified any opera that Isaac had ever heard and the result would have been the same. I don't know that story is true or not, but with Asimov it certainly might have been. He could bang out a book on incredibly info-dense subjects in a weekend, never looking up any fact and rarely did anything in his first draft need to be corrected.
He wrote a thick book of jokes, because he never forgot a joke. He wrote a guide to the Judeo-Christian Bible not because he was a life-long Bible scholar, but because he had read it once and thought there was needed a better way to connect and understand certain themes.
Organic chemistry was the perfect field for Asimov because he could walk in a class without notes or review and fill blackboards full of compounds and reactions, all the while chatting anecdotally about the scientists who had originated all that data.
Asimov forces me to confront the idea of aliens among us already. Not only is the human mind a marvel to begin with, in some individuals that mind seems to be from another planet.
Back in the 1960's I was in a university honors class in Montana (not an oxymoron) when they managed to drag in some British mathematics genius from Oxford, complete with turtleneck sweater, a neatly stylized beard, and even a pipe. I think they had tempted him across the Atlantic with a week of skiing and they sent pictures of the snow.
Anyhow the guy lectures away in his cultured accent and it is all interesting enough, but then he picks up two pieces of chalk. With his right hand he writes out the theorem while simultaneously diagraming it with the left hand and all the while speaking about something else. When done, he turns around and smirks at us yocals, as if to say: there is a whole 'nuther level of intellectual prowess out there and don't even think about it.
Neal T, I know you know CONVERGENT EVOLUTION does not support inter-species reproduction, even if you do use ALL CAPS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder, your claim of persecution is unpersuasive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T, FullofWonder had an answer before asking the question, so none was needed or acceptable from "them".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint taken. I am not aware of any convergent species breeding. My post was more towards Michael's original statement about "dating" the alien that looks like us. "Convergent Evolution", however, was not expected by evolutionists and points to Common Design. To illustrate, placental and marsupial animals have many fine examples of species that look very similar to one another so evolutionists had to come up with a fancy word to explain their failed prediction.
Remember evolution is considered a fact, so NO evidence can possibly invalidate this assumed fact in some peoples' minds. All they would say is that somehow similar environmental pressures did it. In fact, some would even argue it as being strong support for evolution! Unless someone can prove evolution didn't happen, it is considered a fact. Evolution is a fact unless proven otherwise. Great science or boloney? I'll take it with a slice of rye.
For those who reject material evidence out of hand, for those who can't be bothered to look for their own answers, for those with an hidden agenda having nothing to do with their expressed claims, NO evidence can possibly convince them of its validity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSummarizing from the early posts onward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Darwinism contributed directly to racism and atrocities of the early 20th century in which even Scientific American Magazine was implicated.
2. Darwins dilemma of the Cambrian Explosion (Trilobite eye, etc) points directly to creation and not evolution.
3. Darwins Tree of Life has lost its limbs and is now a bush.
4. DNA is a digital information system and digital information systems are a product of an intelligence only. Definitely CHECKMATE.
God 4, Darwin 0
Moving on to the next round...
From the Science Daily, yet another failed prediction by evolutionists. Dr. Ken Miller even wrote a book about Junk DNA supporting evolution. It looks like Dr Miller will join
Robert Wiedersheim, who back in 1895, listed 180 alleged vestigial organs to prove evolution. Functionality has been shown in all or nearly all 180 organs at last count. Perhaps someone would like to investigate and report back.
The title from Science Daily:
"No Such Thing As 'Junk RNA,' Say Researchers"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091013105809.htm
Of course evolution is still a fact to evolutionists because evolution is assumed to be a fact.
It is well documented that creationists have challenged this JUNK DNA statement by evolutionists ever since it was conceived a few years back.
The CREATION MODEL TRIUMPHS and the EVOLUTIONARY PREDICTION Failed. How many failed predictions does it take to invalidate a theory that does not accurately make predictions.
"Summarizing from the early posts onward"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecycling old lies only highlights your bankrupt philosophy.
It would be refreshing as well as beneficial, regardless of where one stands on evolution to lay aside labels and spoons and take into account that most people, even those who disagree, have the same desire for truth. As someone who is still undecided whether darwinism empirically explains life's origins, I list the following questions not as an attack but as a means for evolutionary biologists to show proof through quantitative analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-give an example of
(uni or multi)cellular formation from noncellular aggregates
- the smallest, most primitive eutelic multicellular organism present or in the fossil record(bdelloid rotifers) has approx. about 800 cells...give an example of a parent unicellular species which can mutate into a different multicellular species and describe observable process('intermediate forms'=imaginary friends)
Observational, empirical explanations are the key to convincing people...thanks in advance!
Paul E.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat questions from an open inquirer! Perhaps my evolutionist friends can give direct answers to these very direct questions. It is their opportunity to present the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence they say they have. Go for it guys!
Neal T, why assume these questions are not meant for you? Aren't you interested in convincing someone with your evidence FOR creation/ID? Don't let the fact that you don't have any stop you. Paul E. claims to be undecided, but his questions are so full of creationist assumptions, I am hard-pressed to beileve him. So just continue to preach to the choir like you always do, and I am sure you will turn him over to the dark side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul E wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be refreshing as well as beneficial, regardless of where one stands on evolution to lay aside labels and spoons and take into account that most people, even those who disagree, have the same desire for truth.
My reply:
For most people, I could not agree with your more. So as a completely impartial and undecided third-party with no hidden agenda lurking behind his questions, will you tell me how many posts of misinformation, disinformation, distortions, half-truths, untruths, logical carnards, disingenuous dodges, unsubstantiated assertions, and simple straight-up outright bald-faced lies, would you put up with from a particular individual before you decided that initial assumption no longer applies? Thank you in advance.
Just honest questions deserving honest answers...why build a house of cards by putting the cart before the horse? As for assumptions, humans throughout history whether of a scientific or religious background don't have a great track record or monopoly on truth and it's best to ask critical questions to see what stands or falls...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs regards to others' ignorance we each have enough of our own to deal with...I certainly do. As far as an agenda, all people and organizations seem to have one
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul E. wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust honest questions deserving honest answers...
My reply:
Really? You are suggesting explicitly challenging evolutionary biologists only shows no bias. Further, implicit in your questions of life's origins is your presumption that their answers impact evolutionary theory generally, which is a classic creationist canard. So I don't swallow your innocent act. Your questions sound intelligent enough, so I'll give you one more chance to be honest about your purpose. Otherwise, you can wait for another patsy.
Paul E., my question related to hidden agendas, so your answer is a transparent dodge. You are off to a very bad start. Last chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, I have thought about this for years and I am sure I am not alone. My agenda is to find for myself empirical evidence I can use to make up my mind and no one else's. Everything I have read regarding evolutionary theory and creationist dogma is subjective and am dissatisfied with current interpretations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, I have thought about this for years and I am sure I am not alone. My agenda is to find for myself empirical evidence I can use to make up my mind and no one else's. Everything I have read regarding evolutionary theory and creationist dogma is subjective and am dissatisfied with current interpretations. I feel the scientific community would do a better job educating the public by giving concrete examples and explanations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul E. wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel the scientific community would do a better job educating the public by giving concrete examples and explanations.
My reply:
How about the creationist community, Paul? Why don't you think they could do a better job? Why are you satisfied with their interpretations? Why are you putting the burden of proof on the scientific community?
Come on, Paul, give me credit for some intelligence, even if I am a stupid evolutionist.
Never said or inferred you or anyone who is an evolutionist is stupid. I am not a fan of current evolutionary or creationist dogma. Today's 'facts' are tomorrow's myths and to get a straight answer without the risk of labels and derision is like pulling teeth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill check back later...as an example of ambivalence to both sides...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-an 800 celled organism from a unicellular parent species?
-the universe is a few thousand years old?
Paul E., the questions you asked are fairly technical and arcane. Which means either: 1. you know what you're talking about and are familiar with the issues and framed your questions to provoke a reaction, or 2. you haven't a clue what you're talking about and somebody fed you the questions to provoke a reaction. Either way, your intent was to provoke a reaction, not an answer. So you got it. You did your creationist good deed for the day. Go get your gold star.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy intentions are not meant to provoke ad hoc attacks but to obtain quantitative answers to real questions (I have many),and possibly promote critical dialogue to an emotionally charged issue that can really use a little outside the box discussion. It's all too easy to attack the person to avoid answering their questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Paul, I feel better already. I had thought that jpill69 had selected me out for special attention and abuse, but no, he is happy to abuse you too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt appears he sees his job is to immediately jump in and discourage anyone else from intelligently responding to honest comments. By insults he changes the subject while contributing nothing to the advance of knowledge. If he is authorized to police this thread, then shame on Scientific American. If he is policing the thread on his own authority shame on him. I consider such actions intimidation and not appropriate for a public thread.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI consider such actions intimidation and not appropriate for a public thread.
My reply:
Talk about changing the subject. You guys scream "persecution" whenever anybody points out your true colors. It is my choice to reject your transparent hypocrisy, but I certainly have no power beyond that to do anything about it. So cry me another one.
Extract from 'The Creationists' Handbook, chapter 4: Posting with Evolutionists':
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1] Always remember that, unlike our own creationist websites, science websites believe in free speech and freedom of expression, so you can take the fight to the enemy with impunity, because we don't give them or anyone else the possibility to comment back on our own websites.
2] Play the persecuted victim role for all it's worth, cry 'foul' at every chance you get, and milk sympathy from every stray opportunity. And remember: justification is irrelevent.
3] One good ruse is to pretend to be a 'neutral' voice. If you don't declare your allegiance to your beliefs straight away, this will give you the chance to pretend that you're not sure which way you lean, and that you need 'convincing'. It's an old creationist tactic, but a useful one, because taking this stance gives you the chance to throw various 'please convince me' questions at them. Don't forget - if you keep them busy justifying their own position then you distract attention away from having to provide any evidence yourself, which is something which you need to avoid at all costs, because *whisper* you don't actually have any.
4] Play the 'petulant child' role: Make sure you repeat any statements you make, however unfounded they happen to be. And KEEP repeating them. Over and over. And over. It won't make your statements any more true, of course, but constantly denying the statements you're making will probably wear them down, just as harrassed parents eventually give in to over-demanding children.
5] The important thing to remember is that all of the above tactics can be used to AVOID GIVING ANY EVIDENCE of your own. So NEVER offer to produce evidence, but ALWAYS try to get them to do so. Well, we know that these tactics are all pretty devious, hypocritical and underhand, but, hey, those nasty evolutionists deserve it, don't they? And remember: it's okay to lie and be devious and hypocritical, as long as you're doing it in Jesus' name.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtract from 'The Creationists' Handbook, chapter 4: Posting with Evolutionists':
My reply:
How many chapters are there? I need to read them all.
Paul E. wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill check back later...as an example of ambivalence to both sides...
Thank you for even this limited acknowledgement of your posted bias, which I predict you will deny.
Paul E. wrote:
-an 800 celled organism from a unicellular parent species?
-the universe is a few thousand years old?
Presuming the first question goes to "my" side, I stipulate that I know of none. To the degree that you accept my acknowledged ignorance on this point as authoritve, you have now "proved" the lack of evidence of a unicellular parent species for an 800-celled organism. Of course, such "proof" of such a narrow scope is not only pointlessly trivial, but is entirely unnecessary, because you knew the answer before you asked. For these reasons, any reasonable person recognizes that the purpose of your question is not the innocent quest for facts, which you claim, but to make a point, which you deny. As with FullofWonder before you, I have no problem with you making your point clearly and honestly. In fact, I really, really, wish you would.
The funny thing is I really am not on anyone's 'side'...and I have a serious respect and understanding of evolutionary concepts; for example, I find cave ecosystems provide a compelling case for evolutionary dynamics. I am finding this a waste of time to try to have meaningful discourse with people who prefer slamming others in the name of bias when they can't get away from their own...better things to do. Good luck to all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul E., you seem to have trouble remembering what you posted, so I quote this from one of your contributions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Honestly, I have thought about this for years and I am sure I am not alone."
Now that you have forced me to confess my ignorance of not knowing any single-celled parent species for 800-cell organisms (that was the only original question you asked), I hope I can redeem myself by knowing I helped to satisfy your years-long quest, and now you can live the rest of your life fulfilled. Go in peace.
Some time ago jill69 made a number of comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the first time I have been in a position to respond
jill69 needs a few lessons in english, science and a few other things
LESSON 1
In an earlier post HowMuchFaithDoYouNeed had claimed the existence of scientific evidence pointing to a creator and had claimed
"And I do mean scientific evidence"
On 07:47 PM on 09/19/09
In response I wrote
" I'm sorry but whether you mean it or not there is no scientific evidence either that a creator exists, or that the universe or life was created."
"It is important to realise that this does NOT mean that a creator does or does not exist. It just means there is no scientific evidence that it does"
If you do not understand either of these or their implications I suggest you get someone to explain them to you
On 07:33 AM on 09/23/09 I wrote
(In the forum this IMMEDIATELY followed the post above)
"And I am afraid you are completely wrong if you believe "All scientific evidence points to a Creator"
There is NO scientific evidence that points to a creator"
Interesting that you reproduce only the 2nd sentence in the second post "IN ITS ENTIRETY" as you say but ignore the remainder + the previous post+ HowMuchFaithDoYouNeed's posts.
I wonder why?
I made/make no argument,claim, or deduction as regards the lack of evidence. I just refuted HowMuchFaithDoYouNeed's claims of positive scientific evidence.
However you go to great lengths as regards requiring PROOF that there is no scientific evidence but ignore HowMuchFaithDoYouNeed's claims,even though you had responded a number of times to their posts
I wonder why you did not challenge HowMuchFaithDoYouNeed to PROVE their assertion
English lesson -
You will note that I say "there IS no......"
This is present tense.
It does not mean that there CANNOT be
It does not mean that at same future date there WILL NOT BE.
All your following posts appear to be based on the premise that
1) as a result of this lack of evidence I believe that a creator does not exist (this is correct, but it is not as a result of this lack of evidence).
or 2) that I wish to use the lack of evidence as proof that a creator does not exist,
or 3) that I wish to assert that because there is a lack of evidence that others should not believe a creator exists.
If this is the case I have absolutely no idea why you should believe this to be the case, as I EXPLICITLY STATED that the lack of scientific evidence proves nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLESSON 2
at 10:04 AM on 09/25/09 you say.
"Do you believe this is true as a simple matter of definition, because evidence of a supernatural being is beyond the scope of natural science?
Here YOU I dont think you even understand what you yourself write.
"evidence of the supernatural" it not the same as "supernatural evidence" - If you believe they are then have someone explain the difference to you.
"evidence of the supernatural" can be examined, therefore is not excluded, therefore is not beyond the scope of science.
So far no-one has produced scientific evidence of the supernatural.
I think you mean "supernatural evidence"
Science say that it can only consider that which it can examine, anything it cannot examine it therefore "excludes"- This is loosely termed "supernatural".
So "supernatural evidence" cannot be examined and is therefore excluded.
Science does not DEFINE "supernatural" as beyond its scope, by nature of it being supernatural.
Secondly you also say ".....IS beyond the scope"
Now either you have a naive undestanding of science or you are deliberately trying to mislead.
Again "IS" is present tense. Who knows whether it WILL BE in the future. I dont, and certainly you dont know.
There are many thing science does not have the ability to examine. Some by their very nature cannot be examined scientifically(e.g. the mind, thought, beauty) . Some others are termed supernatural.
Who knows whether in the future these will be capable of being examined scientifically. If such a time arises THEN science will examine them.
So your starting question is ambiguous, and misinformation as to science's position..
At 07:58 AM on 09/27/09 you posted
"As I said, I expect someone to look for evidence that might disprove their own beliefs. Testing your hypothesis is a fundamental part of the scientific method.look it up.
Look for what exactly? personally search for positive evidence ?, or search for evidence from others? (which I have, and found none)
Why I believe what I believe is not as a result of the lack of evidence.
I do not claim the lack of evidence indicates or proves anything. (In fact I EXPLICITLY said that the lack of evidence proves nothing)
I did not make an hypothesis, I made a statement
My statement is therefore not a part of the scientific method, it is just a statement.
(If I were to make any claim that the lack of evidence showed ANYTHING, THEN this claim would be an hypothesis and become part of the scientific method, but I did not, and never have, (I suggest YOU look up what constitutes a hypothesis).)
Why should anyone look for evidence that disproves their own belief?
I dont ask any follower of any religious belief to search for evidence that might disprove their belief,
Why should they?
Why should I?
So WHY should I look for evidence ? to test WHAT belief ? to test WHAT hypothesis?
Lesson 3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn 10/03/09 You made reference To Dawkins book as regards the existence/non existence of a creator
"Even Dr. Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion , explicitly refused to make an absolute assertion of Gods existence, precisely because he knows science demands an explicit recognition of limits to certainty, of facts not yet known, of error, of fallibility"
I'll bet you think to "explicitly refuse to assert" something means the same as to "refuse to explicitly assert" something. It doesn't.
Just as I 'll bet you think to "explicitly refuse to give an answer" to a question means the same as to "refuse to give an explicit answer" to a question, It doesn't either.
To say that he "explicitly refused to make an absolute assertion........" is a stupid thing to say.
What is written or not written in a book is up to the author. He does not "refuse" to write or not write anything. He writes what he wants to write.
To me it beggars belief that anyone could make such a stupid claim.
By your reasoning you could equally say he "explicitly refused" to write a sonnet in his book, or anything else he did not write.
But you then make thing worse and even more stupid - you continue "precisely because he knows science demands an explicit recognition of limits to certainty, of facts not yet known, of error, of fallibility".
So not only do you claim he "explicitly refused" to make an assertion, you now allege a reason as to WHY he does not make a statement (so you say), not even a possible reason, but a "precise" reason.
I have no idea of a PRECISE reason WHY he would not make ANY assertion, and neither have you.
Now I am at a complete loss as to how anyone could make such claims.
I just cannot believe anyone could be so stupid.
(You do understand that to make an assertion "it is impossible to prove a negative" is an absolute assertion, and it's explicit? I'll bet you dont.)
Also in his book Dawkins talks about proving the NON EXISTENCE of a creator (ie, positive evidence that proves a non existence)
I am talking about the lack of evidence FOR the existence of a creator. (ie, positive evidence that proves an existence)
(This is the opposite of Dawkins)
If you dont realise the difference then have someone explain it to you.
I could search the universe and show that there is no evidence that points to a creator.
BUT SO WHAT ? - It would not PROVE a creator does not exist
Even finding such evidence does NOT PROVE it does exist.
You do not grasp that lack of evidence does not prove anything for or against a creator, and that my position is EXACTLY the same as Dawkin's.
Perhaps you did not read (or did not understand ?) my post 9/19
But no matter if you did not
I have consistently referred to LACK OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR, NOT THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OR NOT OF A CREATOR
LACK of scientific evidence FOR/AGAINST a creator DOES NOT prove it does/does not exist.
LACK OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PROVES NOTHING, IN ANY SCIENTIFIC FIELD.
If I could search the whole universe and PROVE that no evidence exists,
IT WOULD NOT PROVE THAT A CREATOR DOES NOT EXIST.
DO YOU GRASP THIS?
If not then please have someone explain it to you.
For ALL your posts you do not appear to have grasped this so far.
So much for YOUR science
Personally I am not trying to prove the existence or not of a creator, or evolution for that matter.
You ask me to PROVE no evidence exists.
Why should I ? - It is of no particular interest to me whether such evidence does or does not exist.
Believe what I say or not - it is irrelevent to me.
at 03:22 AM on 09/26/09 you posted
"Whether or not I think your statement is incorrect depends on why you posted it, as I made clear by my questions"
So you think my whether my statement is valid or not depends on WHY I said it?
Whether or not you think it correct or depends on WHY I said it?
(The definition of "why" - for what reason, cause, or purpose?)
I think you mean "........depends on the process I used to determine its correctness" or something similar.
And you say you know the meaning of words? I think not.
What has what you believe got to do with the correctness of my statement?.
You think whether it is/is not correct depends on what you THINK?
Neither your beliefs (nor mine) are relevent as to determining the actuality of fact or non fact.
So why on earth should I be interested in whether you believe my statement to be correct or not?.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLESSON 4
On 02:14 PM on 09/26/09 you say
"One way to find out is to ask a simple and direct question "What do you mean?" When you explicitly refused to answer, that said more than anything else you wrote"
This is a lie , In fact it is 3 lies
You did not ask a simple direct question "What do you mean?"
Not surprisingly I do not answer an question you do not ask
(You actually asked a number of irrelevent questions)
But this does not stop you, you then make a second lie
You say I "explicitly refused" to answer your non-existent question "what do you mean ?"
So as a result of my not answering a question you do not ask,you then make a third lie by stating there are implications in my non-answer.
I would say that makes you an habitual liar (look it up)
I would say that your 2 sentences above say a lot about you ?
The (literal) meaning of my statement is perfectly clear.
However if you ask for me to define terms
Which term in "there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator" do you not understand.?
If by "meaning" you are asking if I am drawing any conclusions, or deductions from it, then why did you not ask ? (and you should have asked "what I meant by it", not "what did I mean") (But I would have expected ANYONE with even the remotest knowledge of science to know the answer to such a question.(perhaps you dont,) AND I had explicitly answered this in my previous post to your quote.)
The closest to your non-existent question was to ask me to explain my statement, to which I did respond. (so it would be a lie for you to claim I did not answer)
I could only see 2 possible interpretations as to the question you actually asked (perhaps there are more)
1) Am I implying anything as a result of my statement,
2) What is the literal meaning of the statement.
Since I had EXPLICITLY stated that the lack of evidence proves nothing then this ellliminated interpretation 1) only leaving 2).
The statement itself is quite straightforward (if you comprehend english and have the remotest grasp of science). Then I am at a loss as to what your question meant.
(However you do realise (I hope,but somehow doubt) that the simplicity of a question has nothing to do with the complexity of the answer.? Thats why childrens questions can be so incisive)
at 07:53 PM on 09/26/09 you posted.
"Do you know what your evidence should look like? Have you even bothered to test your assumption? Based on your refusal to answer, I can reasonably assume the answers are "no". If you won't do it for yourself, why should anybody else do it for you?".
I made a statement "there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator"
So what EXACTLY does your first sentence mean (in english)
("my evidence" ? ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO A CREATOR WOULD NOT BE MY EVIDENCE )
Do you mean a) what my evidence of the lack of evidence (from others) should look like,
or b) what I would expect any current positive evidence for a creator to look like?
or c) what I would expect any future positive evidence (that I would find, i.e my evidence) for a creator would look like?
(but b) such positive evidence would not be MY evidence, but others)
So I am at a loss as to what you mean in the first sentence.
The second sentence. WHAT ASSUMPTION ? that there is no evidence? (I made no assumption or claim that a lack of evidence means anything.)
How do I test for the lack of scientific evidence ? - I look for positive scientific evidence (from others), thats how.
No positive evidence = a lack of evidence. -ergo no assumption. (by the way - "ergo" is latin)
" If you won't do it for yourself, why should anybody else do it for you?""
Now you have completely lost me.
Why should anyone else do WHAT for me ?
a) search for a lack of scientific evidence ?
or b) search for positive evidence for a creator.?
How would I do a) over and above searching journals again.
Why should I do b) - If believers dont do it then why should I?.(I am not trying to prove a creator exists (or doesn't). It is of no concern to me if they do or dont search. It matters nothing to me if such evidence doesn't exist, as the lack of evidence proves nothing)
My "refusal to answer" - How do I answer meaningless questions?
"reasonably assume......." - Assume the answers as you will, but they have no basis and are certainly not "reasonable".
Sorry but your sentences do not make sense, especially as a response to my original statements
I would take a course in english comprehension if I were you
LESSON 5
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this02:34 PM on 09/26/09 You posted
"To the contrary. If you believe your statement is true by definition, then you believe all possible evidence is excluded by definition."
I presume you are alluding to the "supernatural" (since you mentioned it before) when referring to evidence is excluded by definition"
So you are proposing that I believe "there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator" either because the evidence may be "supernatural evidence", or the creator may be "supernatural"
For someone claiming a knowledge of english+science this sentence has little meaning
Science is not a subject, or a book, it is methodology
Disciplines that that follow the methodology are scientific, those that dont are not scientific.
Part of that methodology is evidence which science accepts as acceptable.
(Acceptable evidence may still not prove a hypothesis to be valid as it may be flawed, or the hypothesis not logically flow for the evidence)
You may believe that science should accept as valid evidence which it currently does not accept, but what you believe is irrelevent.
Phrase 1
What I believe (or you) is acceptable evidence is not relevent, What IS relevent is what science accepts as evidence.
You can argue as much as you like whether you (or I) believe this SHOULD be the case, but at this moment this IS the case.
Hence I made the statement that "there is no scientific evidence...."
You may or may not accept as valid any evidence you wish, but the fact that you accept it does not make it scientific evidence.
My statement is true because to date no-one has presented any scientific evidence and it is irrelevent what I belief of "supernatural"
Phrase 2
Again you refer to what I believe, and again I say as before that what I believe is not relevent
You also refer to "all possible evidence" This is careless as you explicitly refer to ALL POSSIBLE evidence. (ie, not exclusively "supernatural")
Since I have no idea what evidence may be presented in the future (possibly including supernatural+ a method of examining the "supernatural) then this is a stupid+careless statement to make
Even if I presume you mean "evidence of the supernatural" then what do you mean ? - .
You earlier said "evidence of the supernatural" but would appear to be referring to "supernatural evidence"
If you dont know the difference then have someone explain it to you
"evidence of the supernatural" is perfectly acceptable as evidence(why do you think ghost hunters are trying to find evidence of ghosts) (whether it proves the validity of an hypothesis or not is another question)
"supernatural evidence" in itself is nothing. How on earth could anything that cannot be examined be proposed as scientific evidence, unless the evidence also includes a method by which it can be examined
N.B
Just presenting an event,artifact, or observation, as evidence of anything, without the explanitory framework as to how it explains the hypothesis, is nothing. It is just an artifact, event or observation to be explained, but in itself explains nothing.
(But then I would have expected you to know this, perhaps you dont.)
As in lesson 6 - just presenting a rock as evidence that other universes exist is meaningless without the new method of analysis. The rock + analysis are complementary. (p.s dont confuse complementary with complimentary)
Secondly
You say that I believe my statement is true because "supernatural evidence" is excluded by definition.
This statement is present tense.i.e "IS" true... IS excluded.
"all possible evidence" must refer to any evidence may "possibly" be presented at a later date, (otherwise the phrase is redundant as it would mean the same as the first phrase), however you use the present tense ".......all possible evidence IS excluded...."
You should have said "...all possible evidence WOULD be excluded..."
Pedantic - but you are the one who claims to know english.
However a statement you make following the above reveals even more.
You say that you are "not interested in dividing by zero". This says that you are not interested in presenting "evidence of the supernatural" (I think you mean "supernatural evidence")UNLESS the "supernatural" is accepted as valid by science, and presumably "supernatural evidence" is accepted as valid evidence.
This would make YOUR claims to science a LIE
Your statement says that you are ONLY interested in evidence which includes the "supernatural evidence", An area which explicitly cannot be examined or verified, and which science EXPLICITLY does not consider for these precise reasons.
(Again just because science does not consider them does not make them invalid, it just makes them scientifically invalid)
Fine - you go ahead with your PERSONAL search , BUT IT AINT SCIENTIFIC.
(perhaps in the future science will consider the "supernatural",but at THIS moment it doesn't)
It also says you are also not interested in even attempting to find a means of exploring the "supernatural"
You want to present "supernatural" or "supernatural evidence" as valid without any means of examining it ?
This would give a second lie to your claim to science.
(At least ghost hunters are at least trying to investigate ghosts, But you - no interest at all.)
You want science to change to accomodate you, but would not be the least interested in research under the current basis of science.
Of course all of the above presumes that you are referring to the "supernatural" when referring to evidence "excluded by definition", and possibly believe that "supernatural evidence" should be accepted as acceptable scientific evidence.
LESSON 6
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this03:22 AM on 09/26/09 - you posted
"I am happy to accept your invitation to present whatever evidence I might have on any topic, once I know what it is you want, by answering my questions. "
I told you what I want. - I want you to present whatever YOU regard as scientific evidence.
I have already told you I have no say in establishing the criteria for what is or is not valid as scientific evidence. Therefore all your questions as to what I regard as scientific evidence are irrelevent.
Perhaps it is acceptable scientific evidence, perhaps not. Perhaps it proves you hypothesis, perhaps not.
It is up to you (as with anyone) to argue why your evidence should be accepted as scientifically acceptable.
Science also cannot decide beforehand what evidence is or is not acceptable/valid as scientific..
Lets give an example that even you should be able to follow
You are out walking.
You find a rock that just doesn't "look right" to you.
You take the rock and analyse it using current methods - It doesn't analyse how you would expect
You invent a completely new method of analysis.
Your new analysis completely proves that the rock is not of this universe.
You submit a paper claiming the existence of new universes, containing the rock + (and this is the important bit) your new method of analysis+ your results, for scientific appraisal.
Low and behold - your new method is accepted as a valid method, therefore your results are valid, therefore you have now proved scientifically that there are universes existing outside our own.
Without you demonstrating the validity of your new method of analysis, and its acceptance as valid, the whole of your paper would not be valid scientifically.
Note- The rock in itself is not the evidence,(It is just a rock). As in all cases evidence consists of the basic fact,artifact or observation (in this case the rock) + the analysis (in this case the new method+ the results)
You want science to accept as valid or deny your new method+results before it knows what the method is, or evaluated it?
Dont be stupid.
A scientist presents their evidence and then demonstrates/argues why it should be considered scientific This is a perfectly acceptable procedure to establish the validity of the evidence. But you have stated you WILL NOT DO this until your questions are answered.
WHY NOT?
(I am not particulary interested in whatever evidence you may or may not have, but why you REFUSE to present it. On second thoughts - In fact I am not interested at all in your answer)
"Do you really believe anybody should accept what you say only because you say so? "
I hope not - I hope they look for themselves - knowledge is power
My quote.
"An assertion is neither scientific nor non-scientific.
The fact that you believe an assertion is either scientific or non-scientific says a lot about you"
An assertion may refer to the scientific, the non scientific, or both at the same time.
It may refer to something scientific in a non scientific way, and vice versa
The fact that you say
a) it is either one or the other (without appreciating it can be both, or neither)
and b) it is either scientific or non-scientific "by definition".
says a lot about you.
LESSON 7
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post 07:58 AM on 09/27/09
You quote me
"You expect someone to go looking for evidence to prove someone else's belief?"
YOU reply " As I said, I expect someone to look for evidence that might disprove their own beliefs. Testing your hypothesis is a fundamental part of the scientific method. Look it up."
Sorry - my assertion that "there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator"
(I have to repeatedly state this because you do not appear to understand it) is not a hypothesis.(look it up).
It is only a statement as the current position as regards scientific evidence. (believe it or believe it not is up to you)
I make no deductions, or claims as to the implications of this. (In fact I explicitly stated that there are NO implications)
You have selectively quoted again.
I said I cannot prove no evidence exists.
Evidence is not the same as "scientific evidence"-
( "scientific evidence" I would define (since I have to explain in words of one syllable. (I know I use words with more than one syllable, ---tough) as evidence which has been examined and verified as scientifically valid.)
I said that I cannot prove no evidence exists.
Such positive evidence (as distinct from scientific evidence) could exist anywhere in the universe.(as in an example I gave of a rock - at this moment it could lie in your/my garden. Can I prove it doesn't? - No)
I had previously said that I can only look for scientific evidence in scientific journals (you may search newspapers if you wish , I prefer scientific journals). Finding none then the only alternative is to search for evidence as yet unfound,(AND if such evidence were found it would lie in the FUTURE, it would not change the PRESENT position)
(Even if it were a hypothesis I would not expect ANY scientist to search for ANY scientific evidence not currently published, or in process of being published, or for non-scientific evidence)
I said that I cannot look for a lack of evidence. I can only look for (positive) evidence (to show a creator exists) and show that it does not exist.(and that would be only where I looked)
IF I search for evidence (to show a creator exists), I am in fact searching for evidence that would prove someone elses belief. (in the hope of finding none)
Why would I wish to do this when the believers themselves dont search (,or search but have not so far succeeded) ? AND they have better resources and more time than I
Why would I wish to do this when I could not, (and would not wish to), make any claims as to the implications of the lack of evidence.?
(As I said before, and you still dont grasp - supposing I was successful and found none, in journals, etc, in the universe, wherever , what then? - the lack of evidence would prove nothing.)
Also I dont understand why you would expect someone to look for evidence that might disprove their own belief. No-one expects anyone to submit their belief to the scientific method. There is absolutely no reason why they should, and I have no idea why they would wish to. If they're happy in their belief, good luck to them.
LESSON 8
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say "there is no evidence that points to a creator"
You ask for proof of the non-existence of that evidence (by demanding bibliograpy, databases etc, and a search for such evidence).
There are only 2 groups of evidence, that which already has been found, and that which is yet to be found.
I would expect to find scientific evidence which has already been found in scientific journals or publications, or papers. (you may search newspapers to find such papers, I do not)
If none exists (as evidenced by none in publications etc) then only that yet to be found remains. This can only be found by searching
So you are in effect saying that no-one can say that there is no evidence for any particular thing unless they can prove the evidence doesn't exist. (Having exhausted scientific publications this only leaves a physical search)
I therefore presented a scenario 12:53 PM on 09/28/09
"So If I say that there are pink 1 legged elephants living on the moon. No one can say that there is no evidence for this unless they go to the moon and search EVERY cubic inch of it to PROVE there is no evidence."
Presumably according to precedent you would demand anyone stating that no such evidence exists present bibliography, databases etc. even though I presented absolutely NO evidence of existence in the first place.
01:27 PM on 10/03/09 you reply
" Your paraphrase isn’t even close. In fact, I am hard-pressed to correlate what I write with your nonsense. Instead of responding to me, you simply argue your fairytale strawmen ....."
(By the way - it is not a paraphrase, it's not even close to a paraphrase, neither is it a strawman. I would say its an analogy - look it up.)
You may argue its a faulty analogy for whatever reasons, but it aint a paraphrase, or a strawman.
("farytale" ? are you back to the supernatural again?)
You also say
" An important difference is that your hypothetical is an affirmative claim. Evidence for it is simply a single specimen. Just one would do, yet you argue even that is an unreasonable burden."
Do I have to write in words of one syllable before you understand ?
I had assumed that anyone with half a wit would have realised that you could search every publication, paper, database, whatever, using every conceivable search criteria, until the end of time , but no evidence would ever be found, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T PRESENTED ANY, and the only option remaining to PROVE that no evidence exists, would be to SEARCH THE MOON.
BUT NO I have to write explicilty in words of one syllable before you understand
The first part i.e my claim of creatures on the moon, is an "hypothesis" (imaginary) for which I do not present any evidence (so its not even an hypothesis, its just a statement), I just make the statement that such creatures exist.
Your third sentence makes it clear that you don't even comprehend the basic starting point of my analogy. Nowhere do I do not argue or represent it as a burden (unreasonable or not) to provide the evidence, I just dont present any.
So your second sentence is a lie (2 lies) (you say that I argue (,which I dont, - lie 1,) that it is a burden to provide evidence, when I do no such thing (not even close), - lie 2), AND it doesn't say much for your understanding of english.
The second part of my analogy is a statement that no-one could claim that no evidence exists until they can prove such evidence does not exist. (according to you).
Nowhere in my analogy does it claim that evidence CANT be produced. It just makes it clear (to everyone except you) that none HAS been produced.
The second part is EXACTLY analogous to my statement as regards scientific evidence for a creator.i.e that YOU demand I PROVE that "there is no scientific evidence that points to a creator."
There certainly cannot be any evidence to support my statement (as regards elephants) on earth, THEREFORE one must search the moon.
The point of the analogy is not my statement as to the existence of such creatures. but that, even though I present no positive evidence (of ANY kind), no-one (according to you) could say that no scientific evidence exists until they could prove no evidence exists. (either documentary/physical on the earth or physically on the moon.) , by examining all scientific journals, publications etc, (you could search for centuries, using every conceivable criteria imaginable, but it would NEVER be found, BECAUSE I did not present any) and a visit to the moon.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? .
You certainly did not comprehend what I wrote before.
I write 2 simple sentences and you dont even comprehend these !!!!!!.
I am not surprised you cannot correlate what I write if you cant comprehend 2 simple sentences.
The fact that you cannot comprehend english is neither my fault nor my problem.
LESSON 9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLastly - Pathetic if you believe anyone (especially me) has the slightest interested in what does or does not impress you.
But if you are interested - I am very unimpressed by your english comprehension, and your supposed knowledge of the meaning of words.
I would also say any claim you have to be following science to be very dubious.
Remember
This is a forum, no more no less. Whatever anyone writes here does not prove or disprove anything
The BEST thing that I would hope is that readers will learn to THINK FOR THEMSELVES,
Check EVERYTHING as best they can, from the best sources they can find, and NOT rely on a single source.
A few thing to ponder- (pretentious I know, but who cares)
Knowledge is on one side (A) of a chasm, enlightenment is on the other (B), intelligence+an enquiring mind is the bridge that gets you from A to B
Knowledge does not imply intelligence, it just means you know things
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not intelligence
Intelligence is a measure of how well you apply knowledge
You can be the most intelligent person on earth but know little, or the most stupid person on earth but know everything
It requires intelligence to be stupid.
Acquiring knowledge without the intelligence to appreciate it is like buying books when you cant read
Knowledge without the intelligence to use it is like having a car when you cant drive.
(As far as I know these are all original, I neither know no care if anyone agrees with them, or if anyone has thought of them before. They are just there to ponder.)
Laughing gravy in his voluminous posts maintains that even Dawkins doesn't say that his arguments prove that there is no God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would re-state that point of view in this way: IF there is a God, what kind of God would he or she be to have entirely ignored the reality that intelligent life was evolving?
Point of fact, no god (big or small G) could possibly ignore the evolution of an intelligent species in an otherwise random, cold, and hostile (to all shades and essences of advanced intellectual and aesthetic inflection) universe.
My lord, I can not have capped off this voluminous thread just shy of its 2,000 post! I am duty-drawn to stimulate some kind of agitated response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSearching my brain, all I can come up with is tonight's story about different types of ants and termites fighting out elaborate strategies of survival, frequently against each other.
What really amazes me about this is that ants and termites have tiny, tiny, tiny little brains, but these wee beings are still capable of moving rapidly about independently (which takes tremendous computing power for autonomous robots to do) and also seem to be able to able to adjust their work assignments, even assist each other, or turn into defenders, all as the need arises. Of course we all know about army ants, but these multi-tasking other ants were called, I dunno, convoy ants? Something like that. In these red ant's repertoire was the ability to steal the larvae of black ants and turn them into slaves. More amazing yet, the red ants even had the ability to take a few adult black ants hostage and make them care for the black ant larvae who are destined to labor away in servitude to the red ants.
How is all of this even possible? I see some very complicated behaviors going on in some supposedly very simple type of organisms. And I do mean very complicated. Just the act of one ant stopping and laying down its burden in order to help another ant is an extreme complex interaction. But ants do it all the time, further they lay everything down to run into warriors, then they turn into scavengers of the parts of defeated enemies, then finally they return to their original assignments.
Doesn't it strike anyone else as remarkable the amount of practical intelligence it takes to do all these things? Don't any of you have experience in trying to program a simple robot to do ordinary tasks, then revert to other instructions, then do something else altogether?
I’m gone four days and come back to two new additions. One of them is an obvious nutcase and troll not worth any response (yes you, Michael Cook), and the other is just …obvious (and apparently gone – but, we’ll see).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, Neal, I see you’re still at it. Let’s see:
Neal said: "The radiation from the pulsar is not going off and on but it is spinning giving the illusion that it is off and on. A sensitive enough receiver would see the wave of radiation grow in intensity, peak, and then grow more faintly as it turned."
Neil said: "The overhead light in my office is sending out photons, but there is no digital message. If I used the light switch to send morse code via the overhead light blub, then that would be digital communication."
Are you really this stupid? It is not an "illusion." There is signal and then there is not a signal – that is the equivalent of on-off. And that is the end of that. Your dumb light bulb\light switch analogy doesn’t wash. For one thing, that light source (light bulb) does not reach maximum intensity instantaneously – it takes TIME for the filament to reach maximum operating temperature and it takes TIME for the filament to cool. With a sensitive enough receiver, you could see that wave of radiation grow in intensity as the light was turned on, peak, and then grow more faint as the light was turned off. I could set up a mechanism so that the light source was on continuously and simply unblock it momentarily for a signal to be received. I believe such a system was used on ships to send code – it used a shutter. It produces a signal and then no signal. And, of course, with a sensitive enough receiver …
And starlight contains encoded information, just like A, C, G, T is encoded in DNA (again, by the very definitions you provided). I told you before to stop making shit up. You’re not fooling anyone (except yourself and your choir).
Lets just go back to the basics:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Nature does not have the ability to encode complex information like we see in DNA."
You have been asked by several people to provide evidence (scientific) for that blanket statement. So far, you have failed to do so. Every example you give is that of a human construct. Yes, Neal, we all know that us humans are intelligent, since we are our only measure of comparison. But that does not in least prove your statement that "nature does not have the ability to encode complex information." It is circular reasoning and it's dumb. The trouble with you, Neal, is your ego. It simply doesn't allow you to be wrong ever even when you are (or at least, may be).
We have hashed this topic before. And I just as emphatically say that RNA and DNA evolved via natural selection. Apparently, chemistry is not your forte, either organic chemistry in particular. Whether you accept it or not, adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil are all naturally occurring compounds and they have an affinity for each other. It may even be that adenine in produced in large quantities in collapsing interstellar clouds. Many complex organic molecules have been detected in interstellar space. I say RNA and DNA evolved naturally you say RNA and DNA were created supernaturally. The difference, Neal, is that there are real scientists working on the natural hypothesis. How many real scientists are working on the supernatural approach? Im confident that scientists will find the answer before any creationists do.
So now we can condense the questions even more:
1. What evidence (and evidence means scientific evidence) that DNA was supernaturally created?
2. You didnt answer my question, Neal you evaded it.
In all seriousness, you cannot know how happy and delighted I am to read that everyone you prayed for that had leukemia, and was receiving chemotherapy, is still alive. But, that is not what I asked you. And the question, and your answer, is important to me. So, Ill try again:
2. How many kids dying from leukemia have you cured with a prayer?
The only checkmate you will get, Neal, is when you sit down and actually play the real game. And if your chess skills are as feeble as your argumentative skills, then &well, easy defeat. That is, if you even play the game (she said with an inviting smile).
Laughing Gravy, you seem to be very angry. Was it something I said?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn, I won't butt into your chessgame, but I just want to know if you got my message about absorption lines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Cook wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint of fact, no god (big or small G) could possibly ignore the evolution of an intelligent species in an otherwise random, cold, and hostile (to all shades and essences of advanced intellectual and aesthetic inflection) universe.
My reply:
Is the Universe in fact cold and hostile, or is it just subjectively perceived that way? A conclusion from the anthropic principle is that the forces that confound us are the very forces that created us. More specifically, these forces are necessary elements to the evolution of intelligent life.
Paul E. at 05:33 PM on 10/23/09: "Honestly, I have thought about this for years and I am sure I am not alone. My agenda is to find for myself empirical evidence I can use to make up my mind and no one else's. Everything I have read regarding evolutionary theory and creationist dogma is subjective and am dissatisfied with current interpretations. I feel the scientific community would do a better job educating the public by giving concrete examples and explanations."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn which case, on the face of it your 'agenda' is pretty easily sated, as there is a wealth of material, both in your local library and museum(s), and online (from accredited sources), which should convince you as it has convinced the vast majority of the scientific community (and the general public) for the last century and a half. So go seek out your 'concrete examples' (whatever you mean by such a term, because you do not specify this).
As to 'educating the public': have you ever actually stepped over the threshold of a good natural history museum? Much work, time and effort goes into doing exactly this. And some scientists have a flair for producing popular books on a number of topics in their specialist areas of expertise.
So go to it, Tiger. Because if you are indeed sincere about your 'agenda', then there is nothing whatever to stop you from accessing these sources. Which makes it all the more puzzling as to why you should choose to attempt to do so in comments on this thread (but, hey, see my point 3 of my 'Creationists' Handbook' in my comment at 09:15 AM on 10/24/09).
Oh, the heavy burden of being a troll in a web universe full of sophisticated, cosmopolitan, secular humanist geniuses. I am still captivated by how ants do what they do, so I have been busy reading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently a lot of ant behavior involves chemical transfer of info between ants. Now our brains are packed full of glial cells called astrocytes. Astrocytes may outnumber neurons by about a factor of ten, but astrocytes don't play a role in sending info around the brain by the electric method, these generally smaller cells seem to be a lot more involved with neuro-transmitters, calcium balance, and other important chemical reactions that, increasingly, are coming to be understood as somehow a part of being thinking creatures.
So, ants may be able to mentally influence each other not by vocalizing something or making distinctive movements that in humans would be akin to the sign talking that deaf people use, but by simply excreting a smell that acts directly on the brains of other ants and really changes the immediate behavior of those affected ants. Neat trick, which effectively makes each ant a kind of nerve cell in a group ant consciousness.
Honey bees are hive animals that communicate with each other more like we do. Scout bees leave the hive early in the morning and fly out in all different directions looking for suitable flowers. Then all the scouts hurry back to the hive and begin doing little dances to spell out what they found, in what direction, and how their find should be prioritized. It may be that two scouts have found flowers in opposite directions, so they have a kind of dance-off and the audience of worker bees looking on somehow take a vote and decide which scout seems to have located the bigger prize.
Then all the bees take off and head for the people's choice. To me, all this communication seems at least as sophisticated as what some academic humans do.
I've never got why a god would bother creating us in the first place? Maybe he has created us(intelligence) so that we can find out who and how he created us. When that happens he will congradulate us on our smarts and good looks, then ask us(because we are so smart) to now figure out how and why he exists. Sort of in the same sense as us trying to create artificial intelligence so it can become smarter then us and find things out faster. That was kind of his idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf im going to ever believe in a god that would be my only reason, not because some lonely old geezer wanted to be a dady and needed a whole bunch of people to do there best for him and love him.
jpill,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFeel free to butt in any time. Yes, I got your message on Fraunhofer lines – that is exactly what I was referring to as data encoded in the starlight.
Why did God create us? Well, actually he created the universe and it was the universe that HAD to create us. Some people argue that the exponential growth of computer power and the Internet will inevitably lead to a universal mind so immensely empowered that all death for humans will be ended (if the universal mind chooses to do so) and this mind will be able to stop galaxies from colliding and other small things like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am actually not a pure Christian party liner on these issues, because I believe that James Lovelock's Gaiea hypothesis is actually closer to the way nature works. Basically, the whole mass of this world and even the planet itself are working together as a single living organism with its own evolutionary pathway in mind. Gaiea knows where she wants to go and she knows how to get there. Since I don't believe that humans truly have free will, we can't goof this process up.
Um, sorry to interrupt these beings of light and their glorious metaphysical musings but I wanted to thank Ambertooth for the 'advice' about museums, libraries and searching online for 'concrete evidence'(damn, wish I'd thought of that!). Since you're really smart be so kind as to give a heads up on the best sites to find quantitative evidence for the following searches. I'd ask the Universal Mind but apparently it's too busy evolving to bother with such trivial pointless questions...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-any experiment/observation involving protobionts, coacervates, hypercycles, proteinoids, PAHs, etc., resulting in cellular or protocell formation and subsequent replication
-considering the smallest known(to me at least) multicellular species present or in the fossil record has on the order of about 800 cells, please tell of a source detailing the evolutionary processes and direct observation of:
a daughter multicellular species from a parent unicellular species
a daughter multicellular species from a parent multicellular species
Latin names please, any daughter species exhibiting autapomorphy gets you a gold star!
Thanks for the headstart, you'll be doing me a favor and who knows, the Universal Mind may deign to beam indigo rays on us all...
Um, sorry to interrupt these beings of light and their glorious metaphysical musings but I wanted to thank Ambertooth for the 'advice' about museums, libraries and searching online for 'concrete evidence'(damn, wish I'd thought of that!). Since you're really smart be so kind as to give a heads up on the best sites to find quantitative evidence for the following searches. I'd ask the Universal Mind but apparently it's too busy evolving to bother with such trivial pointless questions...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-any experiment/observation involving protobionts, coacervates, hypercycles, proteinoids, PAHs, etc., resulting in cellular or protocell formation and subsequent replication
-considering the smallest known(to me at least) multicellular species present or in the fossil record has on the order of about 800 cells, please tell of a source detailing the evolutionary processes and direct observation of:
a daughter multicellular species from a parent unicellular species
a daughter multicellular species from a parent multicellular species
Latin names please, any daughter species exhibiting autapomorphy gets you a gold star!
Thanks for the headstart, you'll be doing me a favor and who knows, the Universal Mind may deign to beam indigo rays on us all...
Paul E: "Since you're really smart be so kind as to give a heads up on the best sites to find quantitative evidence for the following searches."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll tell you what I tell every bright-eyed and bushy-tailed creationist who asks me to do this or some similiar such task:
No.
Since you are [A] sitting at a computer which is connected to the Internet, and [B] already know the terms for which you seek information, then you already have all the immediate means at your disposal to access the information yourself. So don't play silly buggers and pretend that if I (or some other commenter who shares my views) do not give you the information which you pretend to require, then you cannot get it by any other means. If you live near a good museum then you can always ring to make an appointment with the relevent person who will help you with your enquiries, although this of course only applies should you, as a member of the general public, have a genuine, insightful and sincere enquiry. Alas, the mere fact that you choose to bring your 'enquiry' to this particular comments thread tells me all that I need to know.
So find someone else to blow your nose for you.
Paul E: "..but I wanted to thank Ambertooth for the 'advice' about museums, libraries and searching online for 'concrete evidence'(damn, wish I'd thought of that!)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the question has to be asked, my eager-beaver creationist: if you thought of it, why did you not then act upon it? Could it be *shock, horror* that your mind is in truth already made up, and this whole little act about wanting to be convinced with 'concrete examples' is just a charade *startled gasp* devised to get those nasty evolutionists to jump through as many hoops as you can make them without yourself in turn actually having to produce any evidence whatever in support of your own enfeebled position?
As I said earlier, "and one who is just ...obvious."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho was it that said, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."?
Another liar for Jesus. How many does that make?
Paul E: "My agenda is to find for myself empirical evidence I can use to make up my mind and no one else's."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis being so, why do you not then put your same requests for 'concrete examples' that things were created by an invisible conscious designing agency directly to the creationist voices on this thread? Because if you truly were 'neutral', as you claim, then you would be doing so. And if you consider that you actually did this, then you clearly have received no reasonable answers from them. So drop the 'neutral voice' sham, Paul E, because you are fooling nobody. Like I said a couple of days back: creationists clearly consider that it's okay to be hypocritical and devious, as long as they're doing so for Jesus.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "I could set up a mechanism..."
Yes, I'm sure you could...that's INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
Maybe to clarify digital information.
What is the difference between a light from a light blub and the data stream that is being sent through a fiber optic cable?
What is the difference between ink being spilled on a paper or the Merriam-Websters dictionary?
It's the information or message that is imposed upon the medium by intelligence.
Evolutionists on this discussion have been looking for evidence. Well there it is. Look at the DNA in the lab. It's a digital information system.
I'll even point you to an entirely evolutionary article in Nature so you can accept that what I'm saying is not a creationist plot.
HERE IT IS: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
Yes your evolutionist friends say it is digital. Don't be shy. Check it out in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
If you still want to argue about DNA not being digital then take it up with your evolutionist friends at the Nature journal.
They, of course, take an entirely evolutionary stand on its development but these are based on the assumption that evolution is a fact and they give no detailed explanation as to how. Even Richard Dawkins said in a recent interview with Bill O'Rielly that he does not have an explanation for the origin of life.
Again, hoping to find an explanation IS NOT the same thing as evidence.
THE EVIDENCE FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS RIGHT IN THE LAB. NO GUESSING. NO SPECULATION. DNA IS A DIGITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, AND DIGITAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS ARE THE PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENCE.
That is the best explanation for origin of life. DNA just doesn't form like crystals or snowflakes and its origin is seen in nature, nor has it been recreated in the lab.
Check the article, don't just take my word for it...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
You got your evidence. CHECKMATE
Typo correction from my last post:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is the best explanation for origin of life. DNA just doesn't form like crystals or snowflakes and its origin is NOT SEEN in nature, nor has it been recreated in the lab.
Be sure to check the article, don't just take my word for it...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
Disclaiming the digital nature of DNA even contradicts your evolutionist scientists that you highly esteem.
Neal T, you keep on dragging this up, and you can go on crowing 'checkmate' till you're hoarse. It's not going to make a scrap of difference to what you're saying, because *deep, resigned sigh* as I already have systematically pointed out to you: it's not that the digital nature of DNA is in dispute, but that you make a galloping presupposition by claiming that because all artificial digital systems have an intelligent origin, then all naturally-occurring such systems must also be 'designed'. But the whole reason that your statement is a presupposition is because you fail to establish the veracity by extention of this last claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd career scientists are not so bunglingly thick that, were what you claim to be so, Hood and Galas would not realise the import themselves, state outright the indesputable veracity of this point, and step forward to receive their joint Nobel Prize for discovering verifiable proof of God. And you, of course, are free to publish your findings and do the same.
But this hasn't happened, now has it? And you won't, now will you? Because as I have serially pointed out to you (as I have serially pointed out just about everything else to you): nothing (and I do mean NOTHING, whomever says it, and from whatever viewpoint) that is said on this comments thread is going to impact the science in any way whatsoever.
Do you actually grasp this point? Nod once for yes, and twice for no.
I respect and am willing to consider all points of view without myopic name calling and accusatory tones. So far this thread is akin to a sandbox with second graders calling other kids stupid and screaming how right they are; I prefer sarcasm levelled at ideas not people. So if there are others here who feel the same, post and I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise have fun building castles...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you acknowledge the Digital nature of DNA. Hooray! Perhaps Keelyn will be presuaded.
You are motivated by the concept that since research has discovered many naturalistic explanations for how things work in the universe then it is a safe bet to assume that origin of life also is purely naturalistic. Correct?
Let me point out that design and origin are different subject from everyday functionality of systems. So your assumption is a leap of faith.
Since evolution is assumed to be true, my scientific inference will not distroy evolutionary theory overnight. In the name of science, chemical evolutionists will not give up the fight until it is proved that there is not any conceivable way under any circumstance that purely naturalistic processing COULD NOT originate life somehow. Since evolution is based on religion and philosophy, then it will be difficult to overturn the FAITH that evolutionists have that a purely naturalistic explanation will be found someday.
The inference that the digital nature of DNA was designed is much more credible than faith in some miracle-like NATURALISTIC process that is inexplicable. You have a right to have faith in nature. I'll put mine in the living God.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNod once for yes, and twice for no.
My reply:
That would be digitally-encoded information, which according to Neal is proof of intelligence, which is something Neal has never shown in this forum.
Paul E. wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisblah... blah... blah...
My reply:
It would be really great if you would actually contribute to the discussion instead of feeling sorry for yourself.
Just a thought.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you acknowledge the Digital nature of DNA.
My reply:
Your original premise is not the digital nature of DNA per se, but that all digitally-encoded mechanisms presume intelligence. You argue that DNA proves your premise because DNA presumes intelligence, by which method you only demonstrate the dishonest circular reasoning of all your evidence for ID. Further, Keelyn claims spectral absorption lines as an example of a natural (non-ID) digitally-encoded mechanism, which is something you failed to address.
Do you enjoy proving my point for me?
jpill: "My reply: That would be digitally-encoded information,.." etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, jpill69, for the most adroit, rapier-witted response of the month!
Neal T, stop pulling stuff out of... the air.
Paul E, it seems to have escaped you that I actually gave you a golden chance vigorously to deny what I claimed about you. You chose not to do so. Interesting.
Neal T: "So you acknowledge the Digital nature of DNA."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisambertooth's original comment: "it's not that the digital nature of DNA is in dispute, but that you make a galloping presupposition by claiming that because all artificial digital systems have an intelligent origin, then all naturally-occurring such systems must also be 'designed'."
Do the math, Neal T.
Ambertooth, I confess to my weakness for such opportunities as I find them. The credit goes to you for the straight-line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Since evolution is assumed to be true, my scientific inference will not distroy evolutionary theory overnight."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour 'scientific inference', as you so dryly describe it, will never even become scientific, much less become an 'inference', unless you can get your paper on the subject authored and published. Or are you still so misguided as to imagine that commenting on some Internet thread (yea, even one on a respected and recognised science website) is going to get you there?
You have skirted round this question, which I have now put to you several times. Please answer it, Neal T: do you actually seriously think that anything that you say here is going to make any difference whatever to the science?
Wow, a 2 year thread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, you state that evolution is based on religion and philosophy and takes faith. This is absurdly untrue. Evolution is based on facts and evidence and takes the ability to understand. It is not "assumed" to be true, it is tested daily and has been proven to be true.
Creationism is based on religion and philosophy and takes faith because is lacks any facts and evidence. It has never been tested and therefore never been proven. It is the exact opposite of evolution. That is why is is unproven and doesn't belong in the same world.
All of your arguments are junk. You are a typical creationist who picks up a stick and tries to poke at evolution because you have no facts of your own to prove your theory. You can provide no evidence because you have none.
Here are 659 references for mitochondrial evolution published in the Journal of Biochemistry this year alone. I'd like to see proof of one iota of your creator in a peer reviewed journal. This means actual proof, not more stick poking at things you disagree with. The burden of proof is on the one making the statements. Evolutionary scientists have been proving evolution for 150 years. Creationists have been making stuff up for thousands, you think you'd be better at it by now.
http://www.jbc.org/search?author1=&fulltext=mitochondria+evolution&pubdate_year=2009&volume=&firstpage=&submit=yes
Neal T: "In the name of science, chemical evolutionists will not give up the fight until it is proved that there is not any conceivable way under any circumstance that purely naturalistic processing COULD NOT originate life somehow."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and I have pointed out on more than one prior occasion that you cannot use a double negative to establish anything. 'Not - could not'. Oh, do pay attention at the back of the class, Neal T. It's getting kind of tedious having to continually point out your own repeated errors (presuppositional statements, use of double negatives, circular arguments, etc.).
I'm reasonably sure that there are a number of silent voices who read along to this thread who are facepalming like crazy at your own apparent inability to avoid the various traps which you seem to insist on setting for yourself. Are ALL creationists like you? Wait, don't answer that. I already can make my own 'scientific inference' (oh, how I shall treasure that particular faux pas of yours..).
(P.S.: 'Chemical evolutionists'???!!! That one's going into my collection as well.)
blechten,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWelcome to the discussion. Let me begin by clarifying my position and that is the debate is not whether natural selection or some mutation occurs or HGT. The debate is pretty much about the over reaching claims of COMMON DESCENT and origin of life via chemical evolution. Let's be clear that my debate in not over what is termed micro-evolution. The theory of Common Descent is not substantiated by the evidence, however much evolutionISTS say it is.
And theory of evolution is indeed based very much on religion. It is a negative theology that says that God or an intelligent being "would have not created things" this way, etc. Darwin, and all the leading evolutionist supports since have written extensively in regards to this negative theology to support their theory. It is the emotional and spiritual pillar of evolution. This negative theology is what fires up the passions of evolutionists. It's in this discussion also. Darwin mentions God in some of his articles more than your average Sunday morning sermon. Gould and Dawkins and many others carry on the tradition.
Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it.
On the positive side of the evidence for a creator, the DNA of a living cell is a digital information system and digital information is a product of intelligent design only. That's the most basic evidence for the origin of life requiring intelligence. Someone who is not at least open to that possibility is certainly biased by something more than science and that bias is religion. Yes, religion drives evolution.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe silly double negative was intentional and had to do with how strongly evolutionists will guard their theory. In other words evolution is a fact because it is assumed to be a fact, not because all the evidence says it is.
The explanations as to HOW it occured can be changed to fit new data or as its previous predictions are falsified. Evolution is assumed to be true unless every possibility of HOW it could have happened is falsified. DETAILED explanations do not exist for COMMON DESCENT. Yes, there is some evidence that evolution is true. But there is also evidence that says it is not.
Not much comment on my earlier post about evolutions failed predictions. It must be embarassing....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFROM Science Daily...
"No Such Thing As 'Junk RNA,' Say Researchers"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091013105809.htm
The creation model has been predicting the opposite ever since evolutionists came up with the Junk RNA prediction.
Evolutionary theory has a history of failed predictions. But it survives, because Evolution is assumed to be a fact and how it is supported can be changed to fit nearly any finding.
blechten wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.jbc.org
my reply:
Interesting website. Thanks for the heads-up.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it.
my reply:
as you have yet to do so, I presume we all have to wait until sometime after the second coming.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDETAILED explanations do not exist for COMMON DESCENT
my reply:
Yet another example of your oh-so-convincing PROOF BY CAPLOCKS.
What you really mean is you refuse to look at the evidence. You and Behe have a lot in common.
Neal T: "In other words evolution is a fact because it is assumed to be a fact, not because all the evidence says it is."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI for one can only conclude that you trot out this sort of garbage because you cannot think of anything more intelligent to say. Where in the accepted definition of a scientific theory in this accompanying article does it mention the word 'fact'??
If you went back and learned some basics then maybe you wouln't keep tripping over your own shoelaces. Truly, most of what you write that is not burdened with willful ignorance is instead burdened with creationist wishful thinking.
Neal T: "DETAILED explanations do not exist for COMMON DESCENT"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo explanations whatever (other than religious ones) exist for creationism.
And please have the courtesy to answer my question: do you think that anything that you say on this thread will make any difference whatever to the science. Yes or no?
Neal T: "Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisROTFLMAO!!! Oh, truly, Neal T, face reality. If you could 'prove' it, you would have done so in your first comment on this thread way back in the Spring. And yet here you still are, the leaves are falling, and you have yet to prove squat about anything which you have claimed. As to the rest of your warped take on evolutionary theory being a 'negative theology'... grow up. You're living in a creationist's 19th century fantasy. Only a hard-line right-wing evangelical literalist extremist who has never in his working life even worked with career scientists would have the nerve to trot out such bs.
I'm not even going to respond (yet) to the multitude of lies for Jesus Neal has barfed up in his last few posts. When is this "proof" going to be published? In a reputable journal I mean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a way to start the morning - laughing so bad you can't even walk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at this - a couple of more posts and break the 2000 mark. I wonder if they have a prize for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYES! 2000!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, I think you should take ambertooth's advice. Stick you head in a bucket of ice cold water for a few minutes (my advice) and try and come back to reality (ambertooth's advice). Try that. (2001)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaha! Keelyn, I'm sure glad that it was you who took the honor of the 2,000th comment, and not.. well, never mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight now, Neal is wallowing in triumphant victory because he feels no one has slapped down any of his Grand Lies for Jesus bullshit (yet). Great literature requires a little time to produce. I may be a few days, considering all the material (lies) that Neal has provided.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight now, Neal is wallowing in triumphant victory because he feels no one has slapped down any of his Grand Lies for Jesus bullshit (yet). Great literature requires a little time to produce. I may be a few days, considering all the material (lies) that Neal has provided. (this may have double posted - but it's worth it).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese posts only demonstrate that evolution is very much about religion for evolutionists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently all that is left for the evolutionists here is to cuss and fume about getting articles published. It reminds me of some scenes from the Wizard of Oz.
The great Oz behind the curtain is nothing but a little old man, and so evolutionists are a lot of hot air once you get behind their smoke screens.
Or, like the wicked witch of the west, who begins to melt down when water is poured on her, so evolutionary arguments melt into mush when anyone is persistent about asking for the fine DETAILS about how Common Descent actually happened.
I'm just getting warmed up as my research continues.
Cut the Wizard of Oz silliness, Neal T, and for once address my question: do you think that anything that you say on this thread will make any difference whatever to the science. Yes or no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...asking for the fine DETAILS about how Common Descent actually happened.
my reply:
This is a real milestone. For you to worry about the details automatically infers your acceptance that Common Descent actually happened.
Ambertooth said: "do you think that anything that you say on this thread will make any difference whatever to the science. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth. It seems you are almost quoting me. Many posts ago I tried to explain that reality trumps any theory. I posted, "Reality is the judge in the end. Believing will not make an untrue story true. Disbelieving will not make a true story false. The believer exercises faith. The unbeliever exercises faith." For jury is still out on the correctness of the interpretation of the observed "facts" of many experiments, (as the supporters of science constantly tell us).
So, it can be said to you and your confidence friends as well, ""do you think that anything that you say on this thread will make any difference whatever to the science? "
FullofWonder, are you willfully misunderstanding me, or do you genuinely not get it? I already know, and previously had stated clearly, that nothing whatever that is said on this thread by anyone, of any persuasion, and whatever point of view they happen to endorse (including my humble self), will have any bearing or impact whatever on the existing science. Is that clear enough for you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo drop that silly 'reality trumps all theory' pseudo-profound nonsense, because that has nothing whatever to do with the point that I was making. And don't presume that I was 'almost quoting you', because I was not.
Jeez. What is it with you creationists, that EVERYTHING has to be explained serially before you finally cotton on? If ever. Slow on the uptake doesn't even cover it..
FullofWonder: For jury is still out on the correctness of the interpretation of the observed "facts" of many experiments, (as the supporters of science constantly tell us)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTruth is, the jury has been in for the last century and a half. The validity of evolutionary theory is not in despute by the vast majority of those professionally qualified men and women who incorporate it into their research data internationally on a daily basis. Just because you choose to stick your head where you can't see the conclusions of that data doesn't mean that the rest of us do likewise.
FullofWonder, you are desperate to show that our positions are complementary. They are not. Disregarding the habitual lies and hidden agenda, IDers have no scientific evidence to support their case, and so have no choice but to believe ID as a matter of faith. I believe evolutionary theory based on material evidence, evidence which IDers refuse to even looks at, because if they did they would have to admit its veracity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIDers attack evolutionary theory specifically, and all science generally, with arguments that serve only to demonstrate their intellectual bankruptcy.
One last thought to play with
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed a while ago someone posted several supposed "proofs" of a young earth
I say supposed "proofs" because they were so blatantly naive and stupid that I would not have believed anyone over the age of 10 could post such rubbish
But along came someone- (no prizes as to who) - who easily corrected them.
Made that someone look "clever" and "scientific" didn't it.
Now heres the thought
Just suppose the respondent posted the original "proofs" in the first place
After all, there is nothing on the site prevents someone from having 2 logins.
Very easy, - login 1 posts a load of absolute rubbish.
login 2 comes along and refutes this rubbish
Makes login 2 look very clever and scientific doesn't it
Just a thought, but it does make you wonder does it not?.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID:
I believe evolutionary theory based on material evidence, ...IDers attack ...all science generally.
Okay: Point me to the material evidence that chemical evolution by purely naturalistic processes originated life?
You should have said, "I have faith that someday the purely naturalistic processes to originate life will be discovered, but we don't have any explanation now"
ID'ers attack science in general? What other science is being attacked? Specify.
What you should have said is that, "I don't have a clue as to the real evidence to explain common descent", so I'll just shoot down any criticism of the theory by claiming that it endangers science in general".
If your idea of evidence is Richard Dawkins' 4 piece BOX EYE presentation then the cow jumped over the moon and the cat ran away with the spoon.
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk you got me. I am actually Ambertooth. I go totally nuts and post absolute hogwash in order to make evolutionists look bad.
Laughing gravy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo No No. I recant. The thought is too scary.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay: Point me to the material evidence that chemical evolution by purely naturalistic processes originated life?
My reply:
I know you know that a mechanism for abiogenesis is not a requirement of evolutionary theory. Besides, as your pet ID offers no explanation either, I fail to understand how you figure this helps your cause any.
Neal T wrote:
ID'ers attack science in general? What other science is being attacked? Specify.
My reply:
I know you know that the principles you complain about evolutionary theory are just as applicable to all natural science, particularly a requirement for material natural evidence, and a rejection of supernatural explanations.
Neal T wrote:
If your idea of evidence is Richard Dawkins' 4 piece BOX EYE presentation then the cow jumped over the moon and the cat ran away with the spoon.
My reply:
I know you know Dr. Dawkins doesn't present it as evidence of any evolutionary process, but as a simplified and schematic description of how apparently irreducibly complex objects can develop incrementally from reducible but still functional parts.
As for evidence of common descent specifically, I can't give a more comprehensive answer that talkorigins' "29+ Evidences". I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there again.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbiogenesis is directly tied to chemical evolution and the whole concept of naturalistic philosophy. Abiogenesis is a necessary precursor for biological evolution according to evolutionists themselves.
Science is the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment. Using the scientific method there is evidence both for and against evolution, but evolutionists choose to reconfigure their theories to try to retrofit the evidence to their theory.
Why? Not because the evidence says it has to be so, but because evolution is assumed to be a fact. Why is it a fact? Not because of the evidence, but because it is the ONLY THEORY that is allowed. They have departed from pure science inquiry and have attempted to put science into an artifical thought prison.
As I've said before, you don't have to guess about intelligent design or have faith in it. Go to a lab that has the equipment to analyze DNA. Accept the results that prove that DNA is a digital information system. Digital information is the product of intelligence.
As for the 29 evidences, bring it on. The creation model is either an equally good or better argument for all 29.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI go totally nuts and post absolute hogwash in order to make evolutionists look bad.
My reply:
Actually, I'm thinking you post absolute hogwash in order to make evolutionists look good.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDigital information is the product of intelligence.
My reply:
A baseless assertion you refused to discuss beyond your own circular reasoning.
Neal T wrote:
As for the 29 evidences, bring it on. The creation model is either an equally good or better argument for all 29.
My reply:
Have at it. It's been there since before you started posting. The last time I mentioned it, you just cut-and-pasted from the discredited creationists' handbook. That made you look very foolish.
Neal, the reason you reject evolutionary theory is not because of its science, but because you can't tolerate the religious implications you see. That's your problem, and has absolutely no impact on the theory's scientific validity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou damn evolutionists because they adapt their theories to fit the facts. That's how science is supposed to work. Thus is proved science's willingness to adapt to the reality of evidence.
You complain that evolutionists are putting science in a thought prison because they reject your pet theory. The fact is science rejects ID as a scientific theory by definition. This is why DiscoTut has explicitly declared it a goal to change the very definition of science to include supernatural evidence.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDigital information is the product of intelligence. This is not a baseless assertion. It is based on observation of the physical and natural world and phenomena. All digital information systems need a language. DNA is similar to a computer language except it is more advanced and functions both at the hardware and software layers. So, DNA is a language but it also has other characteristics of digital systems such as error correction capabilities and copying.
Language is a product of intelligence.
Neal T: "Why? Not because the evidence says it has to be so, but because evolution is assumed to be a fact. Why is it a fact? Not because of the evidence, but because it is the ONLY THEORY that is allowed. They have departed from pure science inquiry and have attempted to put science into an artifical thought prison."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOooh, the grassy knoll. Oooh, the Illuminati. Oooh, an artifical thought prison. *collapses laughing* Oh, come on, Neal T.. even by your abyssmally melodramatic standards of hyperbole this is troweling it on pretty thick. Or are you just quoting an extract from that science paper on the subject of inference that you're busy writing, and which you no doubt will be submitting to Nature, or even, by golly, to Scientific American, in the very near future?
By the way, have you figured out the answer to my question yet? Shouldn't be too difficult. I even posted the answer a few comments back, so if you think really, really, really hard, maybe even you can figure it out.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLanguage is a product of intelligence.
My reply:
You started out with information. Then you jumped to complex information. Then you jumped to digitally-encoded information. Now you jump to language. When are you going to stop redefining the point you say you are trying to prove? I assume you dumped digital-encoding because you don't want to ignore Keelyn's stellar absorption lines example. Yet another example of how you "prove" your case.
Once again, your "evidence" consists of examples of manmade digitally-encoded systems. The intelligence came from being manmade, not from being digitally-encoded. Your "evidence" is circular reasoning, and so your assertion in this context is still baseless.
Sorry for the typo. Please replace the offending sentence with this correction:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI assume you dumped digital-encoding because you want to ignore Keelyn's stellar absorption lines example.
Neal T: "Language is a product of intelligence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen I guess that you're the exception which proves the rule.
I was going to write a rebuttal to each piece of claptrap that Neal drooled in his last 10 posts, but I’m not going to now. Neal keeps bringing up the same trash over and over – and it has all been refuted (whether Neal excepts it or not) ad nauseam. So, maybe later. Because, Neal said some things that hit me like a breath of fresh air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09
And Neal said: "I'm just getting warmed up as my research continues." @ 09:53AM 10\27\09
Please note that Neal did not say, " …I WILL prove it." He said, " …I CAN prove it." Well, it seems to me if he CAN prove it, then the "research" must already be done. So, we can disregard the second statement. Unless, of course, Neal is lying for Jesus again, and is still doing "research" – in which case he CAN'T prove it (yet). I think I will hold Neal to the first statement – after all, that was the FIRST statement. And as ambertooth has pointed out to Neal (so many times now), whatever he posts here is of little importance. If he is going to destroy 150 years of evolutionary theory, then he needs to take it to the real science (biological in this case) community. Yes, that’s right, he needs to publish his "proof" in a respected peer-reviewed science journal. So from here on, no matter what other drivel Neal posts, my only question (well, questions – I have one other) is when he is going to publish his results (his proof). Because, that is the only way it will really count for something. That should be the only question anyone now has for Neal. There is no more need to post any more rebuttals.
So Neal, when are going to publish your proof? What peer-reviewed science journal do you plan to publish it in?
And just for me personally, Neal, when are you going to answer my other question?
You can't remember it? I think you can, but I'll post it again (and I’m going to keep on posting it).
Neal, how many kids dying from leukemia have you cured with a prayer?
You keep ignoring that question. Maybe you’re too embarrassed to answer it? Well, I'll keep asking.
Keelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no more need to post any more rebuttals.
My reply:
There never was a need. Ambertooth's point about this forum's impact on the rest of science applies to all SA forums. The fact remains that SA has its own reasons for providing them, and all participants have their own reasons for contributing. As the bearer of the dubious honor of making the 2000th post, you should know.
Perhaps you will goad Neal into answering your questions. Perhaps Neal will goad you into rebutting yet another juvenile creationist lie. Perhaps both, perhaps neither. I don't care anymore.
jpill69: "I don't care anymore."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never did. Because I knew from the get-go that nothing, absolutely nothing, that is said on this or any other thread here will make a jot of difference to what already is recognised science. As to 'my own reasons for contributing', I'm just looking for a bit of fun where I can debate against such temptingly vulnerable soft (but oh-so hard-boiled) targets as Neal T. I certainly have neither the expectation nor the intention of 'converting' any wavering creationists, because in my experience, there are no waverers: all creationists are blinkered and hard-line (otherwise they would be creationists), yes, even the ones who pretend to be neutral and want to be 'persuaded'. And frankly, I don't care.
I do not have anything to 'prove'. After all, one cannot 're-accept' what already is accepted science (much as creationists deny this, and constantly demand 'proofs' from us 'evolutionists': a little game of theirs which I have consistently refused to play, and for the above reason).
So the question is (and I've been looking to ask this for a while): what is Neal T doing here? If he seriously imagines that even one word of what he types here is going to change anything, let alone the months of disgorged spurious claims with which he has chosen to clog this thread, then he is deluded. Maybe he thought to come on here and teach us pesky 'evolutionists' what's what. But if that has not happened by now, and it hasn't, then it's not going to happen at any time in the future.
So Neal T (and this is a serious question): What are your intentions in commenting here? In short: what are you doing here?
erratum: ..'(otherwise they would not be creationists),'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill said: "You started out with information. Then you jumped to complex information. Then you jumped to digitally-encoded information. Now you jump to language. When are you going to stop redefining the point you say you are trying to prove?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is Neal demonstrating evolution. Each one is a mutation with some new information added. :)
I understand that, jpill. I don't think that came out quite the way I meant it - I was actually referring just to myself. Of course, should I see a brand new, never before seen (from Neal) juvenile creationist lie, I might make a new rebuttal. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJPILL69 said "You started out with information. Then you jumped to complex information. Then you jumped to digitally-encoded information. Now you jump to language."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll are correct and describe different aspects of the same property of DNA.
DNA is indeed information, but not just a little information (i.e. on/off), but complex information, so much so that it drives the construction and maintanance of the entire organism.
What is the format of the complex information? It's digitally encoded by the A,C,G, T bases.
Furthermore LANGUAGE is a necessary property of a Digital system.
Your puppy bits around the edges of my argument demonstrate your complete ignorance of digital information.
Here are links that I posted before:
1. THIS LINK IDENTIFIES THE DIGITAL NATURE OF DNA:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
2. THIS LINK EXPLAINS WHAT DIGITAL IS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital
3. I FOUND THIS LINK YESTERDAY AND IT GIVES A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE DNA AND DIGITAL RELATIONSHIPS:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/information-theory-made-simple/
This last one in particular actually draws a picture to explain the difference between a digital code and photons from the sun. ENJOY!
All of this information is basic and can be researched from many different sources as it is not some kind of ID plot to take over the world.
Neal T: "All of this information is basic and can be researched from many different sources as it is not some kind of ID plot to take over the world."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*stifled yawn* So when are you going to marshall it all together and write it all up in your paper that you're undoubtedly busy authoring and subsequently and also undoubtedly fully intend to submit to Scientific American or Nature instead of wasting your time doing so on an Internet thread where it won't make a blind bit of difference?
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is your obsession with me writing a paper?
I do have an observation, and that is that there is very little substance coming from the evolutionist camp in this discussion. 95% of the evolutionist replies are empty, canned debate language with some questioning of motives and the defense of scientific naturalism in general thrown in.
Evolutionary theory has peaked and is enshrined as the official philosophy of biology, but there are a myriad of restless hordes that are coming to demand independence. The storm is coming.
Neal T: "Evolutionary theory has peaked and is enshrined as the official philosophy of biology, but there are a myriad of restless hordes that are coming to demand independence. The storm is coming."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore deluded over-the-top hyperbole. Keep on dreaming, creationist, if that's what floats your boat.
And about that paper: you have actually answered your own question, apparently without realising it (hey, but what's new in that direction?). "In this discussion" is exactly my point (actually, to give credit where it is due, it was Keelyn's point). What's happening 'ín this discussion' is irrelevant. Those 'myriad restless hordes' *snigger* won't do squat if they confine their imagined 'victories' to Internet threads. You have to publish to get anywhere whatever. So are you going to?
So let me put my question to you yet again: do you seriously imagine that ANYTHING which you choose to say here will make a difference? Yes or no? How hard can it be to answer this, even for someone who swells their inflated delusions with visions of "myriad restless hordes"? Who do you think you are? Effing Attila the Hun??
"The storm is coming", Neal T? Oh, please... such grandiose hyperbole is pretty rich even by your adrift-from-reality standards.
Neal, you said 95%. Isn't that a little low?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know that there are evolutionists that can at least present their theory with some degree of maturity. Maybe? Unfortunately none have posted here or these guys are really holding back.
But it appears to me that the level that the conversation always falls into is empty baloney when you question their shallow evidence (i.e. Richard Dawkins' Box eye) or ask for more details. Their response, metaphorically speaking, is "GO SEE THE OZ" or "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE GREAT OZ".
It is interesting that most of the popular evolutionist writings that are found in Barnes and Noble and such have an atheistic agenda.
Yes, Neal. It should be easy to keep the comments directed toward the issues being discussed. But the last few posts from jpill69 and Ambertooth suggest strongly that they never had any intention of participating in a discussion. Instead they were just blocking discussion and discouraging other participants. I am surprised that you continued to bother trying to get them to participate. At least now they have clearly stated their intentions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd spectral lines from outer space are not coded information, as I see it. No more than an oak leaf identifies the type of tree it came from.
Since I cannot seem to get a straight answer from Neal T, maybe the second of you two lovebirds can answer me: FullofWonder, do you think that anything that is said on this thread by anyone is going to impact the existing science in any way whatever?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes or no?
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheir attempts to shutdown discussion is indicative of a much larger attempt by evolutionists to shutdown critical thinking within schools, academia, and the public square.
In Texas, for example, a decade ago the following language was added to the states' current standards for their science curriculum, under which students are expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."
Amazingly evolutionists and a group that does not want to allow Bibles into the schools are converging to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase.
First, notice that the anti-Bible group is on the same side as the evolutionists. Second, notice that the wording does not even mention the Bible or creationism. It is referring to science in general. How can that be a bad thing?
The evolutionists are afraid of students analyzing the "weaknesses" of their theory. That is surely a sign that they have got something to hide. They want the students to just drink the kool aid and shut up.
They are afraid of DETAILS because they have so few. They are afraid of all the evidence that contradicts their theory. So here they are in this discussion and there they are in Texas. There is surely more at stake than just science for these folks.
Neal T: "Their attempts to shutdown discussion is indicative of a much larger attempt by evolutionists to shutdown critical thinking within schools, academia, and the public square."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean, as against the principal creationist websites, who do not allow for the possibilities of any open discussion or freedom to express opposing views of any kind whatsoever in the first place? That sort of 'shutting down of discussion', Neal T?
The mere fact that you're being given the space and opportunity to comment here as freely as you choose is enough to disprove your statement, you ingrate. Actually, shall I say now that the more that you comment here (certainly going on the overly-florid and histrionic standards of your more recent comments), the more reassured I become (as if I ever doubted it) that if you are representative of creationism, then science certainly need have no fear that you will ever be able to marshall any argument coherent enough to make any more than a very muffled and far-off raspberry noise.
At least have the decency to answer my question: do you think that your comments here impact science? Yes or no?
To Ambertooth, who is looking for a straight answer - No, Science will continue looking at the wonders of the natural world whether or not we discuss their results on this site. On the other hand, we are still free to wonder and discuss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Neal. I have found the ideas presented in Philip Yancey's book "Rumours" to be very helpful. He suggests that, although there are no proofs for God and a creator which can be put in a testtube there are hints or as he called it "Rumours" that there is more out there than is evident on the surface of things. Sometimes you have to act on less than complete evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint taken on SciAm allowing comments from anyone, but they have some way out articles that get into a lot of speculation about extra dimensions and aliens and origin of life, yet do not allow for any intelligent design articles concerning origin of life.
You continue your obsession with whether my comments will impact science. Yes the comments here will change the world and will be looked at thousands of years from now as the turning point in the history of science.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would seem that in this generation that has learned something about general relativity, dark energy, quantum physics and then uses some of that knowledge in everyday appliances would have dispelled with the barbarian myth that you have to "see it to believe it".
We are living in the information age and biologists must fully embrace the fact the living cell is run by information. Gone is the age of the industrial revolution and its children like Charles Darwin.
Neal T: "Point taken on SciAm allowing comments from anyone, ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, but that's only the half of my comment, now isn't it? Maybe you could now explain why principal creationist sites such as Answers in Genesis do not provide ANY possibilities for free exchange of ideas on these issues, as do science sites. And this in an age when most websites of any size have forums, or at least comments threads or message boards, attached. Heck, I even know of a scientist's personal blog that allows for this, and I myself am a member of a modest site (less than seventy members) which offers full forum possibilities. So why don't those webmasters whose beliefs you share provide this as well?
You see, Neal T, if you want to trumpet about how science is "shutting down" a free exchange of ideas, then at least cite a major creationist website which allows those of my ideas the same freedom of expression that the science which you so eagerly accuse of suppressing yours allows you. Because were it otherwise you would not be able to comment here in the first place.
The idiom 'biting the hand that feeds you' comes to mind.
Neal T: "...but they (SciAm) have some way out articles that get into a lot of speculation about extra dimensions and aliens and origin of life, yet do not allow for any intelligent design articles concerning origin of life."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo? You are a free citizen. Contact the Scientific American editorial board and put this to them. They publish readers' letters. Or are you merely content to whine and claim victimisation? And that 'do not allow' is something which I am asking you to substantiate. What proof do you have of this? Because the editors are on record as saying that they do not receive such material in the first place. Proof, Neal T?
Neal T: "You continue your obsession with whether my comments will impact science. Yes the comments here will change the world and will be looked at thousands of years from now as the turning point in the history of science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis statement confirms one of two things: you either [A] don't really mean it, and are just deliberately fishing for a wind-up. Or [B] you are totally out of the reality loop. Of course, option [B] only applies if you sincerely, genuinely, believe what you have written. Which one of these options is the correct one? More to the point: do I actually care? Hmm... another tricky one, that..
FullofWonder: "To Ambertooth, who is looking for a straight answer - No, Science will continue looking at the wonders of the natural world whether or not we discuss their results on this site."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA pity, then, that you have not actually given me a straight answer. I asked you specifically, not about discussing the results of science, but if you thought that anything that is said here would actually have the power to CHANGE the existing science. Neal T has given me his own usual hyperbole-bloated answer. Now you.
To ambertooth - Why change Science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "To ambertooth - Why change Science?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, yes, the typical creationist evasive tactic of replying to a question with a question. Try a straight answer.
Neal said: "Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Ambertooth,
What is your obsession with me writing a paper?"
For the same reason anyone publishes scientific research – to advance scientific understanding. And just think, Neal, you are about to show where almost 150 years of painstaking, detailed research conducted by millions of dedicated, highly trained professional scientists of a dozen or more fields – have all been wrong. You are going to conclusively show how they have all been duped (by Darwin himself?) into believing what is essentially a false and deadly religious doctrine. You will finally get science back on the right track. Just think of all the marvelous new breakthroughs that will made, all the new technologies that will be developed, the countless lives you will save, lives that might have been saved decades ago if only they had realized. Just those reasons alone are enough to demand that you publish your monumental research. In fact, not to do so would be tantamount to a crime, in my opinion. I can't imagine that any decent, caring human being could withhold this kind of evidence from the science community. I can't believe that you would be that despicable and cruel to your fellow man. It would be a totally UNCHRISTIAN thing to do. What kind of wicked monster are you, Neal? Besides, just think of all the rewards and fame you will receive. You wouldn't pass up an opportunity like that would you?
The library subscribes to a dozen or so science journals, and I would love to get a heads-up on when and where you think your research will appear, but what I would really love is an advance copy of an abstract of the technical paper you have. Any chance of that happening, Neal?
So, Neal, tell me:
1. When do plan on publishing your monumental research?
2. How many kids dying from leukemia have you cured with a prayer?
I note that no creationist reading these comments has yet taken up my very reasonable request (first posted earlier in the year, and most recently to Neal T again yesterday) to offer their own explanation as to why creationist websites (I cited Answers in Genesis, as this is regarded as the principal flagship website of creationism) offer no facilities whatever for free debate. That science sites do this is a given (anyone reading this is proof, and SciAm is by no means unique), so why do those sites opposed to certain areas of science for religious reasons not do the same?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder and Neal T are happy enough to come onto a science site and exercise their right to freedom of expression which is extended to them by that site. And not only to do so, but actually to take the opportunity to complain (as Neal T did in his comment at 02:40 PM on 10/28/09) that those who endorse the science were "attempting to shut down the discussion". Creationist websites do not even allow the discussion to begin. And this, when both of the above names have been given all the space and freedom they have subsequently taken to air their own anti-evolutionary views.
I am reasonably sure that there are silent voices who read along to this thread. I invite them to draw their own conclusions about my above comments.
Neal T, please provide substantive evidence for your accusation that the editors of Scientific American "do not allow for any intelligent design articles concerning origin of life." (your comment at 04:40 PM on 10/28/09).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T at 11:47 AM on 10/28/09: "Ambertooth, What is your obsession with me writing a paper?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting though, isn't it? When we don't jump to respond to Neal T's statements, we are considered to be avoiding the issue. When one or other of us is forced through constant evasiveness repeatedly to ask the same question in an attempt to get a straight answer, it's branded as an "obsession". Well, Keelyn has already given a comprehensive answer as to why getting a paper published is the only way that things might change.
So, Neal T, are you intending to author a paper on your 'research' or not? Because Keelyn raises a very valid point: If, as you have now stated, you already can prove what you claim, then there is nothing to hold you back. And I as well would be more than interested to read an abstract of your completed hypothesis.
Why change science? One of the great things about science, to my way of thinking is it's ability to be self correcting. At one time science thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Observations demonstrated that the earth was one of a set of planets orbiting around the sun. Nicolaus Otto thought he had to worry about a stratified charge in his engine cylinder. Later it was demonstrated that this was a non-issue. Rudolf Diesel's first patent made assumptions about the Diesel combustion process which were shown to be false when he got his engine running. If scientists were not refining thier observations and throwing out the obsolete ideas science would stop. I say, bring on the changes. I want to see science describe the natural world as accurately as possible. I am happy to see any explanation discarded if it can be shown to be wrong. I am also happy to see an explanation which I can depend on as a good foundation on which to build something. (I try to think as an applied scientist).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Neal. It is exciting to be living in an age where so many new scientific discoveries reveal a wonderful world which has no believable explanation other than an intelligent creator. The complexity, variety, and fine tuning of so many things suggest that there is more than random unguided accident putting it all in place. I am not at all embarrassed to say I believe that an intelligent and very capable creator has put it here. (namecalling does not make me look stupid).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe elements of the periodic table look designed for their purpose. Water could be described as a most wonderful designer chemical considering all it does for us. Life itself has not been explained apart from a designer/creator. Sex in both plants and animals has no explanation outside of a designer/creator. The dependence of creatures like bees for plants and the plants for the bees suggests the necessity of a creator putting them together. And the list goes on.
If no creator, we have no explanation from science.
Well, that was a FullofWonder waste of space. You didn't say anything that wasn't already known by every person who has actually studied science since the Enlightenment. By the way, the changes keep coming every day by the hour and minute. Try to keep up with some of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: Their attempts to shutdown discussion is indicative of a much larger attempt by evolutionists to shutdown critical thinking within schools, academia, and the public square.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you read the transcripts of the Kansas Board of Ed. hearings of May 2005.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
Very interesting reading. I found that the presenters seemed very convincing, whether talking about the scientific details or about their treatment by those who were promoting an evolution only view of science. And I would hope that the evolutionists were embarrassed by the representation they got from Mr. Irigonegary. And the Kitsmiller et al v. Dover area School District court case. I thought Dr. Behe did a great job of explaining his position. (Notwithstanding the loud voices praising Judge Jones.) I have enjoyed reading both Behe's books - Made good sense to me.
Truth will win (by definition)
Neal T said: It is interesting that most of the popular evolutionist writings that are found in Barnes and Noble and such have an atheistic agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny answer is considered better than "Jesus".
FullofWonder said: "I thought Dr. Behe did a great job of explaining his position. (Notwithstanding the loud voices praising Judge Jones.) I have enjoyed reading both Behe's books - Made good sense to me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo doubt they do. Behe's problem (and yours) is that they don't make good sense to real biologists - the ones that do actual research.
FullofWonder: "Why change science?" etc. etc. etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurious that you have managed to post four comments totalling several hundred words without once having the courtesy to answer or even react to any of my questions. How very typical. I guess they were just too difficult - or, more likely, too uncomfortable. Here they are:
[A] Will anything that is said on this thread alter the science?
[B] In your opinion, why don't creationist websites offer the same possibilities for freedom of expression as science websites?
This is directly pertinent to you, FullofWonder, because you for one are more than happy to make use of the facilities for expressing your opposing view to the science which this site offers to you. Have then the common decency, and demonstrate your appreciation directly to Scientific American, by addressing at least my second question.
FullofWonder: "Truth will win (by definition)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen (by definition) define your term. Define 'truth' as you understand it, and explain why it will 'win', and over what. Your statement seems laden with metaphysics. What does this have to do either with science or with belief?
FullofWonder (ironically): "Any answer is considered better than "Jesus"".
So how do you feel about scientists of other faiths? A polytheistic Hindu? Jewish scientists? Sikhs? How about a neo-pagan palaeontologist? These are not hypothetical: I'm citing from those known to me personally. Are these scientists going to be allowed into your Christian club of the new scientific age as you see it? I am genuinely interested in your answer as a Christian young Earth creationist.
Ambertooth says - Curious that you have managed to post four comments totalling several hundred words without once having the courtesy to answer or even react to any of my questions. How very typical. I guess they were just too difficult - or, more likely, too uncomfortable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Ambertooth. I have seen countless comments from your keyboard which do not provide any input other than abuse, so I am not even going to try to provide an answer. You will just twist the words and abuse me anyway. You do not care, don't you remember.
Keeley says - Well, that was a FullofWonder waste of space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you noticed how many of your own words did not contribute significantly to a scientific discussion? I did.
FullofWonder: "Well, Ambertooth. I have seen countless comments from your keyboard which do not provide any input other than abuse, so I am not even going to try to provide an answer. You will just twist the words and abuse me anyway. You do not care, don't you remember."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTranslation: I, FullofWonder, just can't cope with such confrontational questions, because then I might have to actually THINK about the larger issues. And I sure don't want to face that question about why creationist webmasters do not allow or endorse freedom of speech. Wow, no thanks, mean Mr Ambertooth, that's WAY too much of a curved ball.
Nope, I didn't. I have noticed, however, that it is typical of creationists. It is difficult to contribute to a scientific discussion when you you have to constantly deal with creationist BS. But, then, that's sort of what this tread is about - creationists nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope, I didn't. I have noticed, however, that it is typical of creationists. It is difficult to contribute to a scientific discussion when you have to constantly deal with creationist BS. But, then, that's sort of what this thread is about - creationists nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere - without the typos.
FullofWonder, your reaction to me only serves to demonstrate the bankruptcy of your particular version both of science and of belief. I abused you verbally the other day for a very clear reason which I did not hesitate at the time to explain and make clear. To refresh your memory, here it is again:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou as a young Earth creationist abuse and make a mockery of the years of hard work which career scientists put in to add to the fund of human knowledge that is our collective heritage. To you, 'scientists' are some vague, amorphous mass of abstract white-coated figures. To me, they are the men and women, all of personal integrity, with whom I have worked. THAT is the difference. You show willing to stuff the results of decades of work of those men and women into the trash in the name of your so-called 'religion' (and I use the word in the lightest, most superficial sense), and then turn round and have the arrogance to claim that you 'admire' science and scientists.
You are so blinkered that it apparently does not even occur to you that your squalidly myopic beliefs are themselves a form of rank abuse against the science and the scientists whom you so hypocritically profess to 'admire'.
Yes, I abused you in a way in which I have done to no other commenter on this website before or since. But what I said was nothing when placed alongside the abuse-through-denial that you as a YEC and those who share your beliefs heap upon the science. So grow up and stop sulking. As I have pointed out to you previously, on other websites I've been dished out far worse by creationists than you have ever received from me. All that I did was give you the tiniest of tastes of what you through your beliefs do to the science, and the scientists who make that science what it is.
Get over it.
It wouldn't be a discussion without the input from the other side. It would only be individuals congratulating each other for agreeing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least on this science site you have the possibility for a discussion, and to express your views. Shall I try having that on Answers in Genesis?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have combed the AiG site. It consists ONLY of "individuals congratulating each other for agreeing.". No dissenting voices are allowed. That's how much creationism cares about freedom of speech.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've also just double-checked the Discovery Institute. Nope, not so much as a comments thread in sight, let alone a public forum. And we're talking here about the major flagship websites for creationism and intelligent design. Both AiG and the DI websites are vast in their scope and size. As I previously mentioned, I actually know websites which are far more modest in scale that offer full forum and thread facilities. So it sure can't be size that's the factor. The closest I managed to come to being able to comment on the DI was individual links to specific blogs by DI-sanctioned members. Comments could apparently be made underneath individual posts on some of these blogs - but only after screening by the blog owners, and an email address was required. None of which exactly makes for the kind of exchange allowed by an Internet thread, let alone a forum. And AiG does not even have this much. Ken Ham has that site locked down tighter than the gates back into Eden.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, why are these websites so afraid of free speech? Because clearly, science sites not only practice free speech, but make sure that the Internet facilities are in place for it to happen. Sure makes you think.
I haven't commented for awhile, so I will briefly refresh you where I fit in this debate. I believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, our planet is 4 billion, and that life began almost immediately as soon as the planet quit glowing red. Life has been perilously close to extinction many times, but always comes back stronger. I believe that chimps and we are very close cousins and that we have many features and biological processes in common with even the more primitive lifeforms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have attended Discovery Institute meetings in Seattle, but am not a member. They seem to be a bit clubby in that regard but if I were a bit better qualified educationally I might be able to sneak over the threshold. I only have a master's in education.
Nevertheless, I am in league with the DI because I believe strongly that this universe (created to be so suitable for life) and life itself (with fantastic complexity that resists devolution during easy geo-periods and extinction during hard periods) are certainly not the products of a blind, uncaring, chancy universer.
I take the strong Einstein view of spacetime which concludes that there is no chance. Past, present, and future all coexist all of the time and are equally fixed. Chance, probability theory, and free will are all illusions of consciousness. This view offers great economies of thought by wiping all all quantum mysteries, branching universes, and the apparent possibilities of FTL communications of a limited sort.
But on a mystical green level, I tend towards the James Lovelock Gaiea vision. Most life forms are only superficially on a "red in tooth and claw" survival of the fittest type of biological change over time.
The real news is that that when one original species worked up the most primitive biological plan to make an eye, other species adapted, shared, and improved the eye. Nature sometimes reinvents the wheel, but more often transgenic transfers with the help of a virus allow a specialized species to work out a complex adaptation that will eventually be copied by many species.
Nature can re-invent the wheel if necessary, but it would rather not. It strikes me that many species have existed only to work up one important advance in underlying biology and, that task accomplished, Nature moved on and that species went extinct, no longer having a purpose.
Further, I propose that the grand purpose which Nature has for man is to take all of Earth's biota and spread and promote it, insuring its survival, over as much of outer space that we can reach.
Well, Ambertooth. I can understand your frustration with the creationist sites. Not being responsible for them in any way I cannot apologize for them. This is the first thread on this subject I have ever contributed to in this way and did not realize the creationist sites had produced such anger and frustration. I do hope you find people who will discuss the subject in a way that satisfies you. I have also experienced resistance to discussion in other subject areas which frustrate me as well but I recognize that I resist change to my ideas as others resist changing theirs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "Well, Ambertooth. I can understand your frustration with the creationist sites. Not being responsible for them in any way I cannot apologize for them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut again, FullofWonder, I was not asking you to apologize for them. I asked you to offer your opinion as to why this should be so - especially as you as a creationist have all the freedom to express your views on a widely-recognized and accredited science website. This is what makes my question pertinent to you personally.
This is the same as my question to you about how you see scientists of other faiths (and there are plenty of them, from Sikhs to neo-pagans, as I mentioned yesterday) fitting into your vision of a hypothetical future Christian creationist-structured science.
I emphasise that these are NOT 'trick' questions. I am genuinely interested to hear your response as someone who holds the beliefs which you do.
FullofWonder: "I have also experienced resistance to discussion in other subject areas which frustrate me as well but I recognize that I resist change to my ideas as others resist changing theirs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only speak for myself, but this idea that I for one would 'resist change' (presumably we are talking about the sciences) is erroneous. When it comes to science, I am persuaded by data and evidence, because that is what science is about. Were someone to produce really knock-down-drag-out evidence that some fundamental area of science was flawed, then I would not hesitate to re-evaluate my thinking. I mean it.
In my experience, creationists fight like tigers against anything which they perceive as threatening their world view and its place in their religious beliefs. I have watched in debates how creationists - most notably YEC's such as yourself - go to lengths that by any standards would be considered the heights of absurdity, just to avoid admitting that they might be wrong. In fact, the only way that young Earth creationism (which essentially is a pre-18th century world view) can hold up in the 21st century is to deny existing established evidence.
Well, Ambertooth. I would like to think that I would be glad to have convincing evidence of my own errors pointed out to me. I would like to be a realist in my thinking, which means that I would abandon ideas which were clearly wrong. So far, on the "creationist" side there are interesting observations which attract me and on the evolutionist side there are ideas which do not seem to hold water, so I am at present putting my bets on the side of the creationists without being a card carrying creationist. Certainly I am not a Biblical literalist creationist but I believe in a creator. I do hope that I also respect the honesty and persons of those who believe differently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout my thoughts of scientists who associate themselves with other faiths. Science itself, being the study of the natural world through observation and the drawing of conclusions about that world, is completely neutral wrt religions. The natural world is just here to be studied and enjoyed. Where religions come in to it is in our biases which affect our interpretations, not our observations. Obervations should be neutral. I think that each one of us, whatever faith, brings biases to the job. The biases which are closest to the truth should give us the best conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to several questions and posts...
I want to remind you that "peer-reviewed" articles have never been in the past nor are they today the only outlet for research and development. Darwin's "Origin of Species" was not a peer-reviewed article. Furthermore, the history of science is filled with examples of ideas that were rejected in their time but eventually became accepted by mainstream scientists.
Regarding creationist or ID websites that allow comments, go to http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/ for an example.
Critical thinking about current theories is healthy, so when evolutionists get upset by someone who is critical of their theory they need to remind themselves of that. When I am published I will certainly let you know how you can obtain a copy.
Perhaps few have been mistreated more by mainstream evolutionists than Mike Behe. Behe has a PhD and has an understanding of cellular biology and chemistry that is first class. What bothers me is that he gets a lot of insults and his critics beat their chests a lot, but they never really get around to actually showing in detail why his ideas are wrong. They offer strawman arguments, insult his intelligence, or brush off his conclusions with hand-waving generalizations.
I used to Believe in the theory of evolution (common descent) because that was what I was taught. My training in IT and systems analysis and programming, however, makes me a detail oriented person. For example, I was very interested in the E Coli mutations experiments. Alas, after tens of thousands of generations we see how hard it is to get one beneficial mutation off the factory floor.
I did not find adequate detail in the theory of evolution for me to accept it any longer. Imagine the technology needed to build a robot that could do everything a human being can.
Given that, how can anyone accept general hand-waving evolutionist explanations? Someone has to be either empty-headed or biased.
Regarding Leukemia, I have only known a handful of people that have had Leukemia. They had many people praying for them and thankfully they are all alive today. But God does not always heal and he does not always say "yes" to our prayers, sometimes he says "no". The "no" can be painful, but it can't erase all the "yeses" I've had in prayer either. Living life angry at God blocks the love, joy and peace that He can bring into a person's life. It is a sad thing to live angry. It is a waste to live angry.
FullofWonder and others...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found a very good article that I highly recommend that clearly discusses much of what is posted in this discussion.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf
I particularly liked this thought:
"A falcon is far more complex than the F-16 Fighting Falcon that
bears its name, and the nano-scale motor that drives the bacterial flagellum outperforms
any human-made electric motor. The similarity between complex humanmade
and biomolecular machines and information processing systems supports the
design hypothesis. If similarities are admissible evidence for the Darwinian position,
then they are admissible for the design hypothesis."
Ambertooth... the storm is coming.
Thanks Neal, for the link. Fascinating reading, well written and I thought informative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like to see you develop your idea of the table of elements. In what ways do you feel this supports creation?
Neal T said: I'd like to see you develop your idea of the table of elements. In what ways do you feel this supports creation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe atoms which are the elements are like building blocks (LEGO?) with very specific structures which have very particular ways of joining with other elements to make more complex molecules. Some join readily and even spontaneously, while others combinations are very difficult or impossible to create. Yet the whole physical world around us, from the parts of the cell to the stars seem to be made only of the elements we know. It seems to me these elements are "designer" components to make our world. How could such components just happen? They are not a random jumble of atom parts. Beyond that, I have no proof that they have been designed and created. I have to just use my intuition to make a conclusion I am satisfied with.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think a hypothesis of TOP DOWN DESIGN could be made of the physical universe and life on earth.
We live in a finely tuned universe and earth teeming with an abundance of natural resources and an incredible variety of life forms.
The evolutionist seems to rely on a lot of improbabilities and unlikely chances at every turn. It seems odd to rely so much on improbabilities. They're like gambling addicts spending their money and time wishing for the big win. They're whole theory seems to be that anything is possible given enough time. It seems pretty weak when compared to a more thoughtful approach of seeing intentional design from a top down perspective. Evolutionists see a billion coincidences instead of design.
I find that often the arguments supporting the evolutionary development of the natural world depend on some very small detail in a very small part of some organism. Even then, the link between what the scientist observes and the phrase describing its connection to evolution is very tenuous. Often in the textbooks and literature something truly wonderful is described, then just to satisfy the needs of political correctness something is said about how it evolved. But no evidence is offered to demonstrate that what is seen has been anything other than what it is today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hope seems to be that if we can somehow demonstrate that one very small part of one organism may have evolved we will then be able to extrapolate our conclusion to explain how the billions of other details in the millions of other plants and animals must have developed.
I don't think that most scientists would allow one to measure a couple of data points, then extrapolate the line out to a thousand points. Such a graph would be readily questioned. Whether it is a few skeletons collected which may be suggestive of pre-human beings or one or two proteins which have been manipulated, I think the evidence for evolution compared to the details of the natural world suggest the creator theory.
Yes, Neal. "Top down design" is a good phrase. Make a place where living things will survive, then make living things compatible with the environment they are placed in. It is interesting that the living things are made of the same atoms as the environment itself, so we do not have to have a storage place for dead living matter which does decompose. What a problem that would be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrection
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Neal. "Top down design" is a good phrase. Make a place where living things will survive, then make living things compatible with the environment they are placed in. It is interesting that the living things are made of the same atoms as the environment itself, so we do not have to have a storage place for dead living matter which does not decompose. What a problem that would be.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a good point.
All of the resources, including everything from gold and copper to the huge coal and oil reserves enabled our modern transportation and technology.
The super abundance of water on earth.
All the plants and herbs that are used for medicine or the basis of for modern perscription drugs.
The earth is positioned to allow for maximum viewing of the universe.
The earth's rocks, sediment, corals, polar ice, and trees provide a great storehouse of past events.
The other planets, especially the gas giants, serve as earth's protectors.
The position and size of the moon stablizes the earth's rotation and provides for the ebb and flow of tides of which various marine creatures are dependent upon. For most of history it has provided hunters and farmers with the timing for hunting and harvesting, etc.
The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 10 to the 37th power or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 10to the 40th, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 10 to the 55th power less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10 to the 120th power would completely negate the effect.
The list could go on and on.
The Darwin Fish that is common on bumper stickers and emblems symbolizes the theory of Evolution well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on the Ichthys or the "Jesus Fish" it has symbolized Christianity nearly since it's beginning two thousand years ago.
The Darwin fish originated in California by two atheists in the 1980's. The fish is the Ichthys with legs.
It's a parody that is often interpreted as a mockery of the original Ichthys which early Christians who were persecuted by the Roman Empire used to identify themselves by.
Some of those who drew the original Ichthys symbols in the catacombs of Rome were later burned to death, crucified or killed by lions because they held that JESUS WAS LORD AND HIM ONLY and refused to worship Caesar.
Now to the point. Whatever the intent of the creators of the Darwin Fish, creationists will have the last laugh.
JUST AS THE FISH SYMBOLIZES DARWINISM, SO A FISH THAT LOOKS LIKE A PANFISH WITH LEGS DOES NOT EXIST NOR EVER EXISTED. LET ME REPEAT, SUCH A FISH WITH LEGS AS THE DARWIN FISH NEVER EXISTED EXCEPT IN THE IMAGINATIONS OF DARWINISTS.
There is an extinct creature called "Ichthyostega" that has legs, but it doesn't look like the Darwin PANFISH with LEGS.
It's a great illustration of how Darwinism is based on just- so stories that only exist in the imaginations of its believers and not in reality.
Some would say it is just a stylized symbol. Funny that a theory that prides itself so much on scientific accuracy is happy to be represented by a symbol that only exists in the imagination of evolutionists. Par for the course. Par for the course
Neal said: "I want to remind you that "peer-reviewed" articles have never been in the past nor are they today the only outlet for research and development."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is quite true, Neal. That's because most stuff doesn't even make it through the review process. And for the material that does, journals have space restrictions (they can't print everything) – they generally print only what is considered the best and most important. But, Neal, you can destroy 150 years of painstaking, detailed work, compiled and examined, researched and expanded on, work of millions of present and past dedicated, hard working men and women – certainly that would easily qualify as the best of best, not to mention the important above all else. So, I naturally would expect to see it published in an appropriate review journal. I don't think that is so unreasonable. I wouldn't expect anything less.
Neal said: "Darwin's "Origin of Species" was not a peer-reviewed article."
Grow up, Neal. I suggest you get a current calendar and study it. It should read a year of "2009." It's no longer the mid-nineteenth century. Darwin published a book – a custom at the time. It's still done today. However, these days most serious researchers look to reviewed technical papers for information upon which to build and advance scientific knowledge and not to the popular press. Are you considering writing a book for the general public on something so monumental before giving your "peers" in the biological community an opportunity to critique it? That could be dangerous to your "reputation." If that’s your intention, I think you have a greed complex. It's the money you're thinking about. That's very unchristian. Can't you burn in hell for that? You do believe in hell don't you? That's not a relishing thought – being toasted on both sides, over and over, for all eternity. Oh, nasty. You should really reconsider.
Neal said: "Furthermore, the history of science is filled with examples of ideas that were rejected in their time but eventually became accepted by mainstream scientists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo kidding? Perhaps that is because EVIDENCE was produce to substantiate it? Scientists love evidence. That's how things become accepted and mainstream. When are you going produce some? You haven't so far. At least, if you have some, you have yet to express it. I guess I will have to wait until you publish your technical paper – or book. But, as I said, you shouldn't go with a book. Not yet anyway.
Neal said: "Critical thinking about current theories is healthy, so when evolutionists get upset by someone who is critical of their theory they need to remind themselves of that."
Oh, I don't think they get upset, Neal. Being critiqued is part of the scientific process. They're adults – they realize that. That's one of the things that drives science. Perhaps, you are upset?
Neal said: "Perhaps few have been mistreated more by mainstream evolutionists than Mike Behe. Behe has a PhD and has an understanding of cellular biology and chemistry that is first class."
Says who? You, Neal? That's a joke – an unqualified opinion. Behe's PhD is worthless in his hands. He is not a scientist. His PhD is a sugar coating that he uses to give his creationist bullshit some semblance of credibility. He does not write technical papers for the biological community – he writes books for the popular press. That's because he knows people like you will suck it up like a dry sponge in water, because he says just what you want to believe. And I think he knows better – he's been shown so many times why he is wrong. Talk about hand waving away things you don't want to hear.
Neal said; "When I am published I will certainly let you know how you can obtain a copy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh ha. Need I remind you of the assertion you made:
Neal said: "Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09"
You are ready to be published now. I asked only for an advanced copy of the abstract to the technical paper. I know ambertooth would also like a copy. Certainly you can supply that. If you evade and refuse, then I have to conclude that:
1. You have nothing and you are lying for Jesus (you will burn in hell for that)
2. You are withholding monumental information that could benefit humanity immeasurably for no reason. That's just despicable.
Which is it?
Neal said: "Regarding Leukemia, I have only known a handful of people that have had Leukemia. They had many people praying for them and thankfully they are all alive today. But God does not always heal and he does not always say "yes" to our prayers, sometimes he says "no"."
Thank you, Neal. You just verified that the deity you so obediently worship is little more than a vindictive slime that has no qualms about killing innocent children indiscriminately. Just say "no." And that is something you give praise to. That's pathetic.
Neal said: "It is a sad thing to live angry. It is a waste to live angry."
I agree with that! Are you angry, Neal? What about? Do you want to talk about it?
Oh, but Neal, you still haven’t answered my questions:
1. You research must be done. Will you please send a copy, now, of the abstract to the technical paper you are going to publish? I gladly supply an email address – Keelyn_87@yahoo.com. I am intrigued. I can’t speak for ambertooth, but I am certain he is just as in awe as I am.
2. How many kids dying of leukemia have YOU cured with a prayer?
Two simple questions.
Neal T: "JUST AS THE FISH SYMBOLIZES DARWINISM, SO A FISH THAT LOOKS LIKE A PANFISH WITH LEGS DOES NOT EXIST NOR EVER EXISTED. LET ME REPEAT, SUCH A FISH WITH LEGS AS THE DARWIN FISH NEVER EXISTED EXCEPT IN THE IMAGINATIONS OF DARWINISTS."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, thank you so much, Neal T, for this gift-wrapped caps lock lump of ignorance which reveals in all its naked arrogance why you are such an amateur in the game. While on a marine biology field trip in an archipelago off the coast of northwest Australia, I stooped down and picked up from the shallow water a fish known locally as a monkey fish. With a body size about the same as a tennis ball, it proceeded to use its fins (which literally were articulated like tetrapod limbs with webbed hands) to walk over the length of my hand before I returned it to its watery home. And this is a living 'Darwin fish'. I won't go on about fossil examples.
Neal T: "Critical thinking about current theories is healthy, so when evolutionists get upset by someone who is critical of their theory they need to remind themselves of that."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how those who themselves have no hands-on experience of the sciences always seem to imagine that they are dependent upon outside sources for critique. For the record: in my experience, nobody, but nobody, is more critical of scientists than... yes, folks, you guessed it: other scientists. As I have said before, when a new paper is published then the knives come out. Any hypotheses that actually survive the meatgrinder that is innocuously referred to as 'peer review' already have gone through worse than any enfeebled 'criticisms' that such armchair amateurs as Neal T is capable even of imagining. Good luck with your paper, Neal T. *grim chuckle*
Oh, by the way, Neal T, where is your evidence to suppport your claim that the editors of Scientific American "do not allow"(your words) articles referring to intelligent design? Because maybe, just maybe, the reason that no articles about ID appear in such a credible and creditable Science periodical as SCiAm is because ID is not actually science in the first place..
But, hey, you've nothing to fear, now have you, because you can ALREADY PROVE what you claim. So go ahead and submit your article, Neal T. Your proof is established. Wow, you actually can show those biased editors what's what. You can knock all that silly established science right on the head, just as you always wanted to. So what are you waiting for? You already can prove what you claim. Can't you?
Can't you?
Neal T: "The list could go on and on."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince 'Interminable' seems to be your middle name, in your case I don't doubt it. But such a list does not actually establish anything, now does it? You can 'believe' that it does, but the trick which you have yet to master is to establish your point as recognisable science. Oh, tarnation, I keep forgetting: you already can 'prove' it, can't you.
So why don't you?
Neal T: "The earth's rocks, sediment, corals, polar ice, and trees provide a great storehouse of past events."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell that to FullofWonder. He does not believe that they do.
Neal T: "The earth's rocks, sediment, corals, polar ice, and trees provide a great storehouse of past events."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich we know about through the findings of the biological sciences. Oops..
Neal T: "Darwin's "Origin of Species" was not a peer-reviewed article."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin spent decades gathering data using hands-on research, both in the field and closer to home. He published the results of this data, which nevertheless rigorously followed the scientific method, in the form of the 19th century. And of course it was 'peer reviewed' - and has been ever since. But this is the 21st century. Perhaps you haven't noticed.
The huge volume of Darwin's published work, in the form of books, field notes, articles and manuscripts, can be found at:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
Oh, but dangnation, I keep forgetting: you can overturn his entire body of work, because you can already 'prove' what you believe, can't you, Neal T?
Keelyn (to Neal T): "You(r) research must be done. Will you please send a copy, now, of the abstract to the technical paper you are going to publish? I gladly supply an email address.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not post my own email address on a public thread, but as I trust Keelyn, I can forward my own to the address provided when Keelyn has given notice here that your forwarded abstract has been received. That way we both can read your findings, Neal T.
You have publicly stated on this thread for all to read that you already can prove what you assert (namely: that a disembodied supernatural intelligent designing agency not only exists, but plays an active, involved role in the natural world). Unless you can produce such 'proof' without further delay, then you're running out of road fast.
I will let you know immediately, ambertooth, I soon as I receive Neal's abstract. I would assume that should be any day now. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Ambertooth... the storm is coming."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, he got that right. It's pouring rain here. And the wind! Wow! It must be the "storm." :)
Tell that to FullofWonder. He does not believe that they do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve it or not, I will give you something for which you will call me lots of names.
It seems that the fossils which are used to study the ancient lifeforms are generally found in rocks which have been formed by sedimentary action. The perfection of the imprints in the rocks suggest that the creatures were buried in a sudden landslide, leaving the creatures remains no time to decompose. Often found are many creatures which seem to have been buried in the same catastrophe. Even the dinosaur bones are often found as though they were buried suddenly because the bones are essentially all there. The frozen mammoths of Siberia seem to have been killed and deep frozen very suddenly. Slow deposition would have composted the remains long before silt would have covered them. Tree trunks are found embedded in coal seams. Could this suggest a major worldwide catastrophe? To me it does.
So have at it. That is what I understand is useful evidence found in the ground. The wisdom of this thread's guardians should be able to deal with this intelligently.
FullofWonder: "Believe it or not, I will give you something for which you will call me lots of names."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNah. Your comment isn't worth it, FoW. All you've done is just dish up the sort of standard creationist fare that I've already heard a hundred times before: nothing original there for me to get my teeth into anyway. Frozen mammoths? Check. Embedded tree trunks? Check. Sedimentary action? Check. You can indulge your amateur speculations all you want because, you see, science has this thing called 'palaeontology', and those who have studied for years in order to achieve their professional qualifications in this field are called 'palaeontologists'. Practice saying this long and difficult word a few times and you might get the hang of it.
So tell me: if you needed a serious operation, who would you sooner have wielding the knife above you? An experienced qualified surgeon, or your local gardener?
Thought so.
Look, FullofWonder, you're in a vulnerable situation right now. You already have acknowledged that this is your first attempt at debating this material on the Internet(I'll take your word for it, although I've come across hustlers before), so at least realise where you are. You are commenting on a science site, where those who read what you write are people who know about - and use on a professional basis - such techniques as morphometrics, or nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, or raman spectroscopy, or how to compare radiometric dating techniques such as uranium-lead or potassium-argon against each other to corroborate deep time dating readings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd then you come along and think you've got the deal by the tail when you bring up stuff like " leaving the creatures remains no time to decompose." Ever consider stagnant anoxic water? Just a thought. How about collapsed desert dunes? Just another thought. Sorry, but there must be quite a few silent readers out there chewing incredulously over your last comment and facepalming like crazy.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but there must be quite a few silent readers out there chewing incredulously over your last comment and facepalming like crazy.
My reply:
I confess there is at least one. Strangely, you previously declared there is no need to post any more rebuttals to such comments. Further, FullofWonder's comment identifies facts that are classic excuses for young-earth/biblical creation, all of which have been comprehensively refuted as such many times long ago by several authorities. So there is no difference in quality between his comment and other creationists' comments, the posting of which has been identified as evidence of self-serving saltation in order to demonstrate one's own scientific acumen. Finally, FullofWonder merely identified his facts without bothering to explain in any way how his facts demonstrate to him a young-earth creation. To accept FullofWonders challenge without additional explanation from him would be premature at best, and would only help to contribute to thousands more apparently needless comments.
jpill69: "Strangely, you previously declared there is no need to post any more rebuttals to such comments."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, jpill69, that was Keelyn's comment, although the point that you make is worth underscoring: FullofWonder takes the well-worn creationists' route of striving to shoehorn the 'evidence' as he interprets it into an already-existing scriptural scenario. For 'major worldwide catastrophe' *hint, hint* read Biblical flood. So creationists interpret any evidence in support of this model, and deny any evidence which contradicts it. This is, of course, the antithesis of the way in which science actually works. Scientists go wherever the evidence leads them.
This is the reason why creationism cannot exist outside of a religious context. It is incapable of operating independently of its own religious beliefs. IDers, mindful of this, only protest the harder (as Neal T's comments here prove) that ID is independent of religion, and conversely, try desperately by repetition to convince themselves and others that evolutionary theory is 'religious'. There is only one answer to such sophistry:
Show me an atheist who endorses intelligent design.
Even this is irrelevant, of course, as scientists of many diverse faiths (and none) still can - and do - practice good science.
The demand for Peer Review is a Red Herring. Possibly Michael Behe's publication in a popular press book provides a far better review than any scientific journal's peer review. Here anyone who could buy the book or borrow it from the library could read it and make a judgement on it. Some who would read it would be peers of Dr. Behe and their comments would soon be registered and argued about, especially in this internet age. It does not take long for dumb arguments to be shown to be dumb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA number of questions can be asked about a scientific journal's peer review.
a) How many reviewers were asked to comment? Three or five is hardly a representative sample of scientists who could have been able to comment. Even our statistics class considered a sample size of 20 to be a small sample.
b) Were the reviewers chosen randomly? Or were the reviewers selected for their expected responses from a list of friends?
c) Did the persons selecting the reviewers have a vested interest in one or the other of the outcomes of the review? For instance, would he lose his job if he published against the wishes of the board of directors? Or did the publication go out to a completely disinterested party to make the choice, then go with the reviewers provided by the disinterested party?
d) Was the publication committed to publishing even if the reviewers generally disagreed with the publications own bias? That is, if a majority of the reviewers had good things to say about a document which stated conclusions which went contrary to the publications bias, would the publication accept the judgement of the reviewers and publish, "tho the sky may fall"?
These are some of the questions we ask when we hear the results of a survey about the efficacy of a drug treatment, or the popularity of a brand of toothpaste. Why not scientific results?
Initiated a couple of giggles. Not worth any further comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "The demand for Peer Review is a Red Herring."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMust be time for your meds again, FullofWonder.
I've actually just re-read FullofWonder's last comment. I hardly can believe it (heck, he's a creationist - of course I can), but it's obvious that he thinks that a 'peer review' is some sort of chosen body of representative scientists, or something. If I made a faux pas of this scale, I'd either change my log-in name out of shame, or crawl away and die of embarrassment. The phrase 'blissful ignorance' must have been coined with creationists in mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, jpill69, that was Keelyn's comment...
My reply:
I stand corrected. As events have made Keelyn's point moot, hopefully once again we can all satisfy our own reasons for posting here .
Evolutionists articles are peer-reviewed by other evolutionists. That's like the fox guarding the hen house. All of them a sucking funding from public and government sources and it is not in their financial or career interest to shoot the golden goose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific theories need to stand on their own merits and should follow the evidence. Certainly the best empirical evidence for the origin of life is creation.
Evolutionists are dishonest if they claim their theory is not religious. Religion is what drives evolution. Everything from so called vestigal organs to "A creator wouldn't do that!" arguments are part of the record since Charles Darwin first tried to sell his theory.
Interestingly a recent poll in England shows that 66 percent favor the teaching of alternate theories.
The storm is coming
Neal T: "Evolutionists articles are peer-reviewed by other evolutionists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..And what creationists write is peer-reviewed by.. umm.. hang on.. it'll come to me in a minute..
Neal T, have you forwarded your 'proof' to Keelyn yet?
Neal T: "The storm is coming"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOooh, now I'm weally fwightened..
Positive evidence for creation is found in the observed fact that the DNA in living cells is a digital information system. The origin of digital information systems only comes from intelligence. Nature does not produce digital information systems other than in fairy tales.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth, no need to be frightened. Truth is liberating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Evolutionists articles are peer-reviewed by other evolutionists. That's like the fox guarding the hen house. All of them a sucking funding from public and government sources and it is not in their financial or career interest to shoot the golden goose."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYawn. Physicists review other physicists, geologists review other geologists, astronomers review other astronomers, etc. Neal loves to play the conspiracy card. Please note that the term "evolutionists" encompasses many specialized areas within the biological sciences. I guess Neal thinks a more unbiased and qualified review group would be the collective night crew at a Wal-Mart. Yawn.
Neal said: "Scientific theories need to stand on their own merits and should follow the evidence. Certainly the best empirical evidence for the origin of life is creation."
Yawn.
Neal said: "Evolutionists are dishonest if they claim their theory is not religious. Religion is what drives evolution. Everything from so called vestigal [sic] organs to "A creator wouldn't do that!" arguments are part of the record since Charles Darwin first tried to sell his theory."
Yawn. Caffeine, please.
Neal said: "Interestingly a recent poll in England shows that 66 percent favor the teaching of alternate theories."
Wow, so that bothers you too, huh? I mean that apparently 66 percent of the people in England don’t seem to realize that there are no alternative scientific theories to evolution. I agree, it's not impressive – more a pity I would say.
Neal said: "Positive evidence for creation is found in the observed fact that the DNA in living cells is a digital information system. The origin of digital information systems only comes from intelligence. Nature does not produce digital information systems other than in fairy tales."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYAWN!
Neal said: "Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, Neal, when can I expect that abstract? You have my email address. ambertooth is anxiously waiting, too.
By the way, you still haven't answered some of my questions. In your last post directed at me, you mentioned anger. Are you still angry? I said I would be willing to talk to you about you anger problems. And you still haven’t answered this question:
Neal, how many kids dying from leukemia have YOU cured with a prayer?
Is there a reason why you refuse to answer that? Are you embarrassed in some way? Is it connected to your anger issues?
Neal said: Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're sure, Neal, that you weren't lying for Jesus when you said that?
Neal T: "The storm is coming"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello, viewers, and the weather report for creationists for the coming foreseeable future predicts winds gusting 8-10 knots and expected to reach the other side of the teacup in approximately three quarters of a second. And now back to Keelyn at the newsdesk..
Neal T at 11:52PM on 10\26\09: " Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, Neal T, last night there were a bunch of purple elephants discoing in my deepfreeze - and I can prove it. But as I'm not going to, you'll just have to take my word for it. You will, won't you?
Empty rhetoric and little puppy nibbles is all the evolutionist side has to offer here. The little intellectual content that their side offered has been spent. DNA is a digital information system and digital information systems only originate by intelligence. CHECKMATE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's look at the 29 Evidences for a Creator.
Neal said: "Empty rhetoric and little puppy nibbles is all the evolutionist side has to offer here. The little intellectual content that their side offered has been spent. DNA is a digital information system and digital information systems only originate by intelligence. CHECKMATE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's look at the 29 Evidences for a Creator."
YAAAAAWN!!!!
Neal said: "Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09"
I'm still waiting for delivery of that abstract, Neal. And you are still avoiding discussion of your anger issues. Oh, and you still haven't answered this question:
Neal, how many kids dying from leukemia have YOU cured with a prayer?
I'll check back later tonight for that abstract.
Neal T: "Empty rhetoric and little puppy nibbles is all the evolutionist side has to offer here. The little intellectual content that their side offered has been spent. DNA is a digital information system and digital information systems only originate by intelligence. CHECKMATE."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*jabs himself with various sharp implements as he tries to stay awake while reading Neal T's boringly-repetitious comments* So, if you already can prove what you claim, as you have here stated, then why do you continually delay posting it?
Evidence for Creation #1 of 29:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnity of life. Intelligently designed products (architecture, art, etc) have distinctive and common characteristics that can identify it with the same designer. For example, experts of renaissance era paintings can identify their artist and even dismiss forgeries by matching characteristics of the painting that are specific to a particular artist. The common digital language of DNA and RNA within all life forms points to one designer.
Neal T: "Let's look at the 29 Evidences for a Creator."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this kind of like Martin Luther's 99 theses? Or maybe the 1001 Arabian Nights? Or the 12 labours of Hercules? How about the 10 green bottles hanging on the wall? Or the 101 dalmatians? Let me guess: one of those '29 Evidences' is something along the lines of; "DNA is a digital information system and digital information systems only originate by intelligence."
You'll have to do better than that, Neal T. A lot better..
Neal T: "Evidence for Creation #1 of 29:" etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the other 28 are as full of sophistry as #1, you'd be wise to save yourself the time and effort.
More puppy bites and empty rhetoric. I'll continue on to #2 later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Evidence for Creation #1 of 29: Unity of life. Intelligently designed products (architecture, art, etc) have distinctive and common characteristics that can identify it with the same designer. For example, experts of renaissance era paintings can identify their artist and even dismiss forgeries by matching characteristics of the painting that are specific to a particular artist. The common digital language of DNA and RNA within all life forms points to one designer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, I'll make it really easy for you. Your 'Evidence for Creation #1' contains a quantum leap of presupposition between the first two sentences and the third. The first two sentences can be empirically established because they cite sources of human manufacture. After that, your statement falls apart because you go on to presuppose that because this is so, then your following claim must also be valid. But the veracity of this last claim you cannot establish BEFORE you establish the existence of such a disembodied supernatural designing agency in the first place, which you have yet to do. In short, Neal T, that you are PREsupposing the claim which you make in your third sentence is what makes your 'Evidence for Creation #1' invalid, and is why I reasonably described it as mere sophistry.
You don't have to take my word for it, of course. Just submit it to any accredited and creditable outlet. I guarantee they would throw it straight back at you for the above reason.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfossils in sedimentary rock...perfection of the imprints...same catastrophe...bones essentially all there...mammoths frozen suddenly...tree trunks embedded in coal seams...That is what I understand is useful evidence found in the ground
My reply:
From the above it is obvious you have never seen fossils in the ground, nevermind talked to people who have. And you still don't explain why you believe these "facts", even if they were accurate, would point to a young Earth created 10K years ago.
Do the world a favor. Make the time to go to your regional natural history museum, and just talk to the people who work there. Better yet, sign up for a field trip, and really learn about these things, instead of parroting some creationist website.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...renaissance era paintings...
My reply:
How this is considered evidence of creation is quite the stretch even for Neal.
Evidence of The DaVinci code, maybe. Hard to believe anybody would waste their time posting such tripe.
FullofWonder at 03:54 PM on 10/31/09: "Often found are many creatures which seem to have been buried in the same catastrophe. Even the dinosaur bones are often found as though they were buried suddenly because the bones are essentially all there."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving read jpill69's response, I checked back to FullofWonder's original statement about this. It also contains the above statement, which I'm sure must bring an incredulous smile to the face of any qualified palaeontologist who should read it, who could only wish that it were true. The original environments in which the fossils of Mesozoic fauna are found vary from (as I previously briefly mentioned) stagnant anoxic lagoons (this applies to the Solnhofen fossil beds), accumulations of fine ash from vulcanism events (as with the remarkably preserved Liaoning fossils), collapsed dried-out river banks (as with the Tenontosaurus-Deinonychus find), collapsed desert dunes, as with the Gobi fossils (Protoceratops, Velociraptor, Oviraptor, and others), which unusually occupied the same arid environment that exists in the region today - and so on. None of these have anything whatever to do with any linked catastrophe event. In fact, only in very select instances are they linked to an event which might be termed 'catastrophic' in geological terms, such as the vulcanism event which overwhelmed a herd of some 10,000 maiasaurs in what is now Montanta.
erratum: 'Montana'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI once found a whole raft of assorted Jurassic bivalves on an outcrop of strata where they were weathering out of an inland hilltop. There was no mystery to this, and certainly no 'catastrophe'. They once occupied a sandy sea bed that crustal movements had forced upwards to become part of western Britain. My own SciAm log-in name comes from a fossil of a mosasaur (not a dinosaur, but certainly the tyrannosaur of the Creaceous seas) tooth which I keep on my desk. The detail even in this one fossil is striking, with an amber-colored enamel area whose tip has been worn from use in life, and a long fibrous-textured root, about the same tooth-root proportions as that of a tyrannosaur. It is a fully-mineralised fossil. FullofWonder does not have a monopoly on 'wonder'. The unadulterated science produces its own sense of wonder. Something which creationists shut themselves off from.
Evolution presupposes unity of life based on common descent and the support for common descent is what? Unity of life!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you guys can pull out circular reasoning based improbable events of natural processes and a trillion just so coincidences, a better explanation is to see the common characteristic of design.
Whether it is art, engineering, architecture or any product of design it is not only reasonable, but expected that the same designer will produce various designs that have similar characteristics. It is a fundamental property of design.
As another example of design one could look at stonehenge and a more recent finding of "blue stonehenge". After all Stonehenge is just a circular formation of rocks. Couldn't nature alone do this? Why infer design? Blue Stonehenge is linked to the more famous Stonehenge BY DESIGN. Archaeology and forensic science infer design as well as other sciences. CHECK
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you guys can pull out circular reasoning based improbable events of natural processes and a trillion just so coincidences, a better explanation is to see the common characteristic of design.
My reply:
The only one here using circular reasoning is you. The only one here proposing improbable events is you. The only one here presenting just-so coincidences is you. Your use of fantasy to justify your own intellectual corruption is frankly pathetic.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo coincidences or improbable random events are needed for evolution? Tell us what process originates DNA like snowflakes? List the improbable steps of multiple mutations needed to create a simple organ?
Like the non-existent Darwin fish, evolutionists are content with pulling evidence from their imaginations, calling people names and when their intellectual capital is spent, refer critics to the Great Oz of peer reviewed magazines.
Fundamental Design properties and DNA code is observable in real time, but "macro-evolution" has never been observed. Design is a reality that can explain what we see in the lab, evolution is blind faith in nature leaping over its usual abilities to do the improbable. Evolution relies on freak accident to construct the masterpiece of life.
Checkmate.
No abstract received yet. What a surprise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Evolution presupposes unity of life based on common descent and the support for common descent is what? Unity of life!"
Yawn. Wrong. Evolution presupposes no such thing. Common descent is an explanation (a theory if you will) verified on the evidence from paleontology, geology, genetics, morphology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, and numerous other lines of evidence, particularly genetic sequencing (unknown to Darwin). No circular reasoning here, Neal, except your head going around in circles.
Neal said: " &a trillion just so coincidences &"
I'm not certain what trillion coincidences you are referring too. Can you describe them individually, please?
Neal said: "Whether it is art, engineering, architecture or any product of design it is not only reasonable, but expected that the same designer will produce various designs that have similar characteristics. It is a fundamental property of design."
All human constructs. If anything, it is a fundamental property of the individual human mind that produces the design.
Neal said: "DNA is a digital information system and digital information systems only originate by intelligence."
Here's another digital information system, Neal. Me giving you the middle finger. Or, me giving you two middle fingers. Two middle fingers is what I call check, discovered check, double check, and mate. And, like everything else you mention (except DNA), it is produced by an intelligent human source.
Really, Neal, your regurgiposting of creationist bullshit, already demonstrated to be wrong, is boring. That’s why I said it was pointless to keep responding to your claptrap. And by the way, you should really cite your sources, Neal, even if your source is a dope. Did you really think no one would notice? None of the "digital DNA' trash you post is original with you. (Yes, DNA is a form of digital information – no dispute) But all you have really been doing is to parrot from Mayer’s "Signature in the Cell" garbage. It has been easily refuted. It is simply the same old argument from incredulity, which is, "I can't imagine how this could have happened without an intelligent agent doing it, therefore it couldn't have happened without an intelligent agent." Of course, that intelligent agent is the deity you happen to happily serve. That really is circular reasoning. But as ambertooth and others have pointed out, you need to demonstrate that such an intelligent agent exists – something you have consistently failed to do. Until you do, it is perfectly reasonable for me to rely on chemistry and assume that DNA arose by natural processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been asked of you by others, "What do you hope to accomplish HERE?"
I remained you:
Neal said: "Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09"
Are your last few posts the beginnings of your abstract? Your technical paper? Or just more creationists crap? You don’t have a checkmate, Neal. You haven't even got the pieces out of the box, set up the board, and made a move. PUBLISH!
And since you refuse to answer this question:
"Neal, how many kids dying from leukemia have YOU cured with a prayer?"
I can only assume your answer is zero. And that upsets you. Yes, you are a good source of little “puppy bites” and totally empty rhetoric. A total waste of time. Post away, Neal. You will never accomplish anything significant to science. Your "storm" is dud. Talk to you in 20 years – we'll see where things stand.
And by the way, ambertooth, feel free to email me anytime. As someone who actually understands and appreciates real science (and probably knows more about biology than I do), I would enjoy talking to you. Awesome how you got your SciAm logon name.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFarewell, Neal.
Neal T: "Checkmate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to 'check' your facts again.. 'mate'. Truly, only a blockheaded creationist would have the nerve to go on squawking such kindergarten-level triumphalism without actually having 'proven' anything.
Neal T: "Whether it is art, engineering, architecture or any product of design it is not only reasonable, but expected that the same designer will produce various designs that have similar characteristics. It is a fundamental property of design."
Yup. Still presupposition. Do you genuinely not get it, Neal T? Are you pretending to be dumb? Go back and carefully read my comment to you at 12:56 PM on 11/02/09 to see why your statement won't wash. I've explained this so many times to you before, and you just go on committing the same error. Conclusion: creationists are stupid.
And what happened to those other 28 'evidences for creation' that you were going to post? Or could it be that, my having demolished 'evidence #1', you got cold feet? Who could blame you. The huge irony in all of this is that the comments which you, FullofWonder, Lionel777 and other creationists have left here provide an over-abundance of evidence as to why creationism is bankrupt reasoning (and I use the term 'reasoning' in a flippant, conjectural sense) - more than anything that those such as myself who endorse the science might have said in response. That you either are too stupid or too stubborn (or both) to see the gaping holes in your own argument says enough.
Keelyn raises another point that I been thinking about lately as well: creationists who comment on Internet threads cannot think on their feet, or produce their own original ideas. All they really do is regurgitate the same old warmed-over turgid presupposition and lamely-flawed fallacious reasoning that they've read on some creationist website or in some creationist book - including you.
And THIS is the reason why you, Neal T, really have no intention of publishing your ideas. Because you already know that those ideas are not your own. So any attempt to publish and claim originality would at best be plagiarism. Hence: you CANNOT publish anything. You don't even need to bother to deny it. I know that I'm right about this.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad that we were able to finally accept the digital nature of DNA.
Please demonstrate that the builders of Stonehenge existed. I want to see the actual builder in a lab or in court with proof that he actually did it before I will believe that Stonehenge was not a freak of nature. Oh, you don't need to see the person to believe it was designed? Still Checkmate.
Your argument is based on ignorance of not being able to explain how life originated via chemical evolution while ignoring the observable traits of design.
Me too, Me too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth says: creationists who comment on Internet threads cannot think on their feet, or produce their own original ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth? Have you read some of your own posts?
FullofWonder: "Ambertooth? Have you read some of your own posts?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo prove me wrong. Demonstrate that your idea that all fossil fauna are linked to a single catastrophic event is original to yourself. Don't hold back. Just pretend that you have never even read the Book of Genesis.
Gentlemen. I have been shown to be deficient in my understanding of fossils. I accept that correction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I do not have any problem with the existance of any of the animals and plants found fossilized. Each of them is as wonderful as the lion or bird of paradise we can see today. Of course they existed.
My problem is the lack of explanation for the origin of life. Nothing in science has yet explained how life came from non-life.
Nothing in science has explained how something came from nothing.
Nothing in science has explained how sex appeared in the process of life.
Nothing in science has explained the origin of the elements.
Sometimes the lack of any evidence suggests that that particular evidence cannot and will not be found, so maybe we should look elsewhere. Don't just keep saying, "It must be here somewhere, I know it." Of course the answer will be, "creationists give up looking too soon."
Science can only study what can be found in the natural world. They can only guess as they extrapolate past their available data.
We who believe in a creator believe that the creator has communicated some extra information directly to us which we could not learn through observation of nature. This extra information gives us an advantage in understanding over those who put the blinders of naturalism on when they look around.
Good morning, Ambertooth. You are right on the bit, so to speak. It is only just past 0700 and you are coming right back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "We who believe in a creator believe that the creator has communicated some extra information directly to us which we could not learn through observation of nature."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRarely for a creationist, you actually have summed up your entire position in one sentence. But this is probably because you do not realise that you have done so. The operative word in your sentence is, of course, "believe". You can 'believe' it, but you cannot prove it. Such maudlin mysticism as you describe begs the question: WHAT 'extra information' exactly are you talking about?
Please explain your terms.
FullofWonder: "It is only just past 0700 and you are coming right back."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. Shows how limited your horizons are. In my part of the world it's almost 4:30 in the afternoon.
Well, my horizons are so limited I can hardly see across the street because of the fog.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "Of course the answer will be, "creationists give up looking too soon.""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. The correct answer is of course: 'Creationists don't even look in the first place.' If they did, their arguments would collapse.
Rarely for a creationist, you actually have summed up your entire position in one sentence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA compliment. Thank you. That was what I was trying to do. And I think what you saw written was what I was trying to say.
So when you say: "We who believe in a creator believe that the creator has communicated some extra information directly to us which we could not learn through observation of nature.", this priviledged 'extra information' would be..?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "Nothing in science has explained how something came from nothing. Nothing in science has explained how sex appeared in the process of life. Nothing in science has explained the origin of the elements."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing in creationism has satisfactorally explained anything whatsoever, except by resorting to sophism. Compared to that track record, science comes through with shining colors.
FullofWonder: "Science can only study what can be found in the natural world. They can only guess as they extrapolate past their available data."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least try and get your terms right. If 'they' extrapolate, then they are by definition not guessing.
Actually, the "privileged extra information" most often manifests to me in the form of amazing coincidences in my personal life. These are not testable by anyone else, of course, but the volume and quality of them testify to me that there certainly is a supernatural power lurking out there, albeit one with a very ironic sense of humor. This God has amazed me by several times answering my most desperate prayers in matters that were really long shots. It took awhile, but the prayers were literally answered to the letter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut on the level that everyone can share, the sun and the moon were among the earliest deities that humans worshipped. By an astounding coincidence, they are so close in apparent size the eclipses may happen. Moreover, the sun's rotational rate (on average) is once every 30 days, which is the same as the moon. No obvious astrophysical reason for these coincidences.
Many theorists think that without the moon life would have been ever more unlikely to arise. Certainly the moon plays a critical part in the life cycles of many creatures, including humans with our Halloween urge.
What I have always maintained is that if a person suspects that even one, tiny little part of this existence is mystical or magical, then every part of existence has to be suspect of hidden supernatural elements. There is no such thing as a partially mystical universe.
I have no evidence that the main supernatural power is embodied in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic anthropomorphic God, although I saw exactly that in a dream, when a dirty and tired-looking God came out of a fiery subterranean workshop to grant me an audience. But I choose to believe in a God of this character, because all the alternatives whether Odin or Thor or Zeus or Siva or Krishna, all seem rather frightening to me. Not that Jehovah should not engender fear of God in us, but somehow I feel I intrinsically understand a little better how to duck my Lord's wrath, whereas with Zeus anything might tick him off.
Ambertooth asks: this priviledged 'extra information' would be..?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ...."
FullofWonder: "My problem is the lack of explanation for the origin of life. Nothing in science has yet explained how life came from non-life."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience will find the answer. Your more immediate problem would seem to be finding and supplying any substantive evidence whatever in support of your idea (it's not even a hypothesis) that all fossil fauna are linked by a single catastrophic event, which is what you are claiming.
FullofWonder: "Ambertooth asks: this priviledged 'extra information' would be..?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ...."
This is not, of course 'information' as such; merely a scriptural text. And being a scriptural text, it is only valid for those who accept its scriptural authority. I asked for 'information'.
Ambertooth: This is not, of course 'information' as such; merely a scriptural text. And being a scriptural text, it is only valid for those who accept its scriptural authority. I asked for 'information'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Information" is not made valid by belief. The information is true if it describes what is really out there. It is false if it misrepresents what is out there. Belief is a measure of the receivers response to the information. General Lee's lost order was found by a Union soldier and passed to General McClellan. Now the information was true. But General McClellan's level of belief controlled what he did with the information. A readers belief or disbelief in a scriptural text does not change its relationship with truth. If it describes something which is a part of reality in an accurate way, it is true, whether we like it or not.
The origin of the natural world is outside the ability of science to observe or explain. But, the creator could have communicated something about the act of creation to us, telling us something we could not know otherwise.
Ambertooth claims : your idea (it's not even a hypothesis) that all fossil fauna are linked by a single catastrophic event, which is what you are claiming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, Now. You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about a "single" event. I understand other catastrophes happened too. I'm not as stupid as I look.
Ambertooth: Science will find the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly faith, only faith.
Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of life, but there is plenty of evidence to OBSERVE properties of DESIGN in the lab. No wishful thinking is involved. While evolutionists can refer to their peer-reviewed articles telling them the answer is over the next hill, there is no waiting or fumbling around to see design.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, Ambertooth and jpill69, why don't you believe that Stonehenge was the result of purely naturalistic processes? You haven't met the designers have you?
You MIGHT be an Evolutionist IF:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. You observe design in nature, but have to keep telling yourself that it wasn't designed. (Courtesy of Francis Crick).
2. Your only source of information about the world comes from peer-reviewed articles.
3. You believe that the theory of evolution is responsible for modern civilization.
4. You believe that digital information is only about counting with your fingers.
5. You don't believe that a Creator would have designed the world like it is, but insist that this is a scientific observation.
6. You keep a bust of Charles Darwin in your basement.
7. You must see something to believe it, unless it is evidence for evolution.
8. You have a Darwin Fish bumper sticker on the back of your vehicle and believe that Panfish actually have four legs.
9. You are not a detail person.
10. You have unresolved issues of anger towards God.
You MIGHT be a creationist if:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. You observe design in nature, but cannot separate out subjective from objective interpretation.
2. Your only source of information about the world is filtered through the bias of your narrow-focus religious beliefs.
3. You believe that the theory of evolution is the source of all that is wrong with civilization as we know it.
4. You believe that digital information is some sort of whacked-out 'proof' for intelligent design.
5. You believe that an invisible supernatural interventionist designing agency designed the world as it is (pity that you cannot actually prove it, otherwise you'd be home and dry).
6. You keep a bust of Michael Behe on your mantleshelf (caution: this is idolatry).
7. You do not require any evidence whatever to believe what you believe.
8. You wear an 'I'm dumbing down for Jesus' t-shirt.
9. You are not remotely, nor can you be considered to be by any conceivable stretch of the human imagination, a detail person.
10. You have unresolved issues of anger towards Charles Darwin.
Ah, Neal T's comments! They're a gift that just keeps giving..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing original from you. Par for the course.
Ambertooth and jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo do you believe that Stonehenge was designed without having met the designer?
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I do not have any problem with the existance of any of the animals and plants found fossilized. Each of them is as wonderful as the lion or bird of paradise we can see today. Of course they existed.
My reply:
So, you don't have any problem. Ok, let's put aside for the moment your expressed belief in a young-earth creation. Let's ignore the fact that all of your doubts are with science and not creation. Let's prentend that you have made an effort to educate yourself about the facts. In other words, let's just accept your statement above at face value and see what happens.
Fossils record the apperance of thousands of species throughout the world. Creation/ID says every species was a special act of Creation of intelligent design. Not some. Not most. Every one. From the smallest to the largest. From the oldest to the most recent. Every one.
Fossils also record another very important phenomenon. You alluded to it when you wrote "of course they existed". Past tense. Fossils also record extinctions. Almost as many extinctions as creations. Creation/ID says they all died in a single catastrophic global flood. You say you disagree with Creation/ID on this point, and accept the fossil record.
Fossils also record three basic patterns. One pattern is of radiation of similar species over areas, as if one species began at one particular spot and changed as it spread out. The second pattern is of a radiation of similar species over time, as if one species began at one particular moment and changed as time progressed. The third is of a progression of features, as if the newest species copied and improved on the features of its immediate predecessors. Fossils do not show new species out of place or out of time. Creation/ID says these patterns are mere coincidence or a test of faith.
The questions that sincere creation/ID believer might ask themselves are: why does the Creator create so many intelligent designs just to make them go extinct soon after? Were those extinct designs not so intelligently designed after all? If so, why reuse so much of the same design for the next intelligent design? Why doesn't the Creator create new species now?
More to the point, why should a Creator create life exactly as if life evolved with common descent when everybody knows godless materialist evolutionists will use that as an excuse to
have fun and do other sinful things?
Neal T: "So, Ambertooth and jpill69, why don't you believe that Stonehenge was the result of purely naturalistic processes? You haven't met the designers have you?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*incredulous gasp* Truly, Neal T, this has to be just about the most daffy, most ludicrous 'proof' that you have yet come up with. Stonehenge is a human artefact, and can be established to be such. As can the Great Pyramid, the Easter Island statues, Pueblo Bonito, the Machu Picchu inti huatana, The Carnac Alignments, Newgrange, Petra, Avebury, the Uffington white horse, the Nazca lines, Silbury Hill, Great Zimbabwe, etc. etc. etc. Well, I haven't met any of those designers either (although I have been to a few of those places). You know, Neal T, this may come as a total surprise to you, but you see, we don't actually have to know the names of individuals concerned in order to establish whether or not something is a human artefact.
See me after school, Neal T, for an extra assignment on the subject of 'telling the difference between a human and a natural artefact'.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing in science...
Nothing in science...
Nothing in science...
My reply:
Two points.
First: you assert these things when all of your posts suggest your scientific 'training' is limited to creationist comic books.
Second: What you describe is called a God of the Gaps; your faith depends on what Science doesn't know, which is a very poor faith indeed. Even if your assertions have any basis in reality, history has shown Science closes such gaps surprisingly quickly. Who knows, Science might find answers even you can't ignore before this thread ends.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTruly, Neal T, this has to be just about the most daffy, most ludicrous 'proof' that you have yet come up with.
My reply,
Neal has raised this bar very high. How can he keep on besting himself post after post?
jpill69: "The questions that sincere creation/ID believer might ask themselves are: why does the Creator create so many intelligent designs just to make them go extinct soon after? Were those extinct designs not so intelligently designed after all? If so, why reuse so much of the same design for the next intelligent design? Why doesn't the Creator create new species now?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69, I've put this very proposition to creationists on a number of occasions. The only answer they ever give is something along the lines of 'Ah, we cannot know the inscrutable reasons why the Almighty does these things', or some such easy-option cop-out statement. Maybe you'll have better luck.
ambertooth: "Science will find the answer." (To life's origins.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "Only faith, only faith."
Well, FullofWonder, if humanity followed your line of thinking, we'd all still be cowering in some cave believing that the thunder that rumbled in the dark sky outside was the voice of an angry god. Mercifully, however, some of us use rationale.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout faith in Christ, your continent would still be crucifying people and throwing people to the lions for sport. Atheism was tried in the USSR. I'm sure you're old enough to well remember the horrors of that.
ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "we don't actually have to know the names of individuals concerned in order to establish whether or not something is a human artefact."
Really, isn't Stonehenge made of all natural stone? Couldn't an earthquake and erosion and some other natural force produce the circle of stones? Yes it could, but the best explanation for Stonehenge is intelligent design.
You don't have to see the designer to infer design.
CHECKMATE again
ambertooth: "Science will find the answer." (To life's origins.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you misunderstood.
I was saying your statement that Science will find the answer is a statement of faith too. The future is an unknow for each of us.
Neal T: "Without faith in Christ, your continent would still be crucifying people and throwing people to the lions for sport."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd just when I thought that you could not sink any lower, I see that you're now attempting to turn this into a trans-Atlantic schism. By way of reply, I could say something like: without faith in Christ, a Tsalaki (Cherokee) friend of mine would not regard the arrival of the Christian Pilgrim Fathers and 'Thanksgiving' as a day of mourning. But I won't. I could add: without faith in Christ, many do-gooding proselytising missionaries would not have embarked upon a wholesale destruction of ethnic cultures in various continents with the arrogance to imagine that they were 'improving' things by teaching those cultures that nakedness was 'sinful' and other mind-crippling Christian guilt-trips. But I won't. I could also add: without faith in Christ, one Christian group would not have turned against another and brought about the genocidal Albigensian Crusade which decimated the population of southern Europe. But I won't. Because the moral arrogance of your statement is as despicable as its historical fatuousness. At least you reveal yourself in all your sycophantic and decidedly unChristian hypocricy, and I am content with that.
Jpill69 says: First: you assert these things when all of your posts suggest your scientific 'training' is limited to creationist comic books.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, now, jpill69. stick with the issue. You do not know what I read. A weak argument attacks the person.
Jpill69 says: Who knows, Science might find answers....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this like saying, "I sure hope science finds answers so I don't have to consider an alternative"?
Always trotting out the "Science will find answers someday" is a faith statement just as much as our statements are faith statements.
Neal, Ambertooth has a point. Christianity has some terrible actions to be accountable for. Many just as bad as those perpetrated by the twentieth century ogres. We cannot be too proud of ourselves. A direct evidence of sin in peoples hearts, me thinks. That is why we understand that we need a saviour.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69, I've put this very proposition to creationists on a number of occasions. The only answer they ever give is something along the lines of 'Ah, we cannot know the inscrutable reasons why the Almighty does these things', or some such easy-option cop-out statement. Maybe you'll have better luck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, jpill69, you know the answer I would have to give so I will not expand on it.
But having an answer to that question does not really resolve the real issue. The real issue is: Did an intelligent and powerful creator make what we see: Did what we see appear out of nothing and develop by fits and unguided starts? And what are the implications if either happening is the truth?
The only sensible decision is to follow the truth wherever it leads. Anything else is absolute stupidity.
FullofWonder:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI refuse to agree with Ambertooth's twisted version of history. His twisted version has been repeated so many times by others that people actually believe it.
There were some atrocities committed in Christ's name, but it is an atrocity in itself to equate this with the millions that have been butchered by those that did not believe in Christ. Furthermore much of the persecution was done by the "political religious system" against those that actually followed Christ.
Also, a true Christian is one born of the water and Spirit in the name of Christ, not those who simply have inherited it by tradition. No wars have been started by Spirit filled Christians.
Numbers killed by SOME atheist/deist dictators in the 20th century include:
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
The men above were firm believers in Darwinism. Darwinism helped to spawn the greatest atrocities in human history. Communism is heavy influenced by Darwinism.
What is really disturbing about Ambertooth's twisted history is that in this world today Christians are still being imprisoned for their faith, tortured and killed. There is very real suffering happening now to those that will not deny Christ's name. We are not talking a handful, we are talking about tens of thousands. Have you ever read Fox's book of martyrs or subscribe to the Voice of the Martyrs magazine?
Christ's name has been mocked on account of those that use his name to cover their crimes. We should never forget that tens of millions have been killed because of their faith in Christ. As far as missionaries, Ambertooth is completely ignorant of all the lives that they have helped and saved, how many hospitals and schools they have built, and how many people groups were given a written language in their tongue because of them. A middle-aged doctor friend of mine left a comfortable lifestyle to do missionary work in Africa. He later caught Malaria, but went back to Africa to help some more.
Interestingly it is Christianity that formed many of our morals and laws, so that the things that Ambertooth finds so despicable. Ambertooth's romantic version of pristine African and native American cultures is a joke.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou know the answer I would have to give so I will not expand on it.
My reply:
And why is that the answer you have to give? I thought you wanted to follow the truth. Isn't that what you wrote? Yup, it sure is... "follow the truth wherever it leads". That's what you wrote, and that is my expressed purpose for posing my questions to you. So we both say we want to follow the truth to where it leads. Why should you get cold feet now? Follow the truth where it leads and answer my questions honestly. Or are you going to stick with that dumb cop-out answer you say you have to give? Because if you do, then I would have to ask a follow-up question:
You have suggested truth is not revealed through His Works but through the Bible. You also suggested that God ignores His own natural rules and creates new life by Intelligent Design. These are answers to questions you already settled in your mind. You didn't say to yourself "who can say?" You DID say, and not just to yourself. You posted your answers here. That is why I am writing this post. My questions are of the same kind as the ones you already answered for yourself, and they deserve the same consideration. To do anything less is to turn your back on the truth.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this like saying "I sure hope science finds answers so I don't have to consider an alternative"?
My reply:
Nope. It is like saying "the Earth turns."
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, now, jpill69. stick with the issue. You do not know what I read. A weak argument attacks the person.
My reply:
Spare me. I said nothing about what you read, and I did not attack your person. I clearly and explicitly described my impression of your posts, posts that I have read, so I know what you wrote. Your posts and your self are not the same.
And for the record, a dishonest person cries persecution in order to avoid the issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Interestingly it is Christianity that formed many of our morals and laws"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven more interestingly, it was actually Babylonian culture. And Sumerian culture supplied us with the concepts of medicine, astronomy, an education system, writing, etc. And pagan Ancient Greece gave us democracy. All of them non-Christian. Fancy that.
Neal T: "Darwinism helped to spawn the greatest atrocities in human history."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYesterday, I flippantly wrote that you might be a creationist if "You believe that the theory of evolution is the source of all that is wrong with civilization as we know it."
You have just demonstrated that my statement was factual.
Neal T: "I refuse to agree with Ambertooth's twisted version of history."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot my version, Neal T. I cited historical facts which can be independently verified. Going on the way in which you have rushed to refute them with your preposterously sanitised whiter-than-white counter-version of history, you obviously found those facts uncomfortable. On the other hand, what you stated about Christians being fed to the lions in today's world was mere personal surmisal. I note that even FullofofWonder is now publicly disagreeing with you.
And it's now too late for you to play your sick numbers game about how many thousands were killed by whom. The Christians whom I know are good and decent people. In the comments which you have made here, you have clearly shown yourself to be otherwise. So the only possible conclusion to be drawn is the following:
Nothing that you could do or say from here on would convince me that you really are a Christian. In fact, if you'd been on Golgotha a couple of millennia ago, you would have been swinging that hammer and driving those nails home with a fine frenzy. Because, as your comments on this thread demonstrate - and certainly your last comments here - that is the kind of person you are, Neal T.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.persecution.com/ gives some news of the persecution going on today against Christians. The media doesn't find it interesting and goes mostly unreported.
My friend of mine was driving down the highway coming into the capital city of Saudi Arabia and saw Christians who had been executed hanging on poles next to the highway.
jpill69 says: You have suggested truth is not revealed through His Works but through the Bible. You also suggested that God ignores His own natural rules and creates new life by Intelligent Design. These are answers to questions you already settled in your mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI nowhere said that I think truth is not revealed through His Works. I am quite convinced that truth is revealed in the natural world and in God's direct communications with humans. Both are equally true.
Neither did I say God ignores his own rules. At no time have I seen evidence that withing the natural rules life comes from non-life. Or sex comes from non-sex, or the elements come from nothing at all. I think God made the rules at the same time he made all the other stuff. Why he chose to let some creatures become extinct is certainly beyond a human answer so I won't even try.
Neal T: I refuse to agree with Ambertooth's twisted version of history. His twisted version has been repeated so many times by others that people actually believe it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, Neal, we have sometimes been our own worst enemy. England in the 1500s was a terrible time for Christians because other Christians were harrassing them and burning them at the stake. Many people emigrated to America to escape.
jpill60 says:And for the record, a dishonest person cries persecution in order to avoid the issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd sometimes the persecuter persecutes because his ideas do not really convince.
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really am aware of the violence that went on against Christians by those who called themselves Christians. Often it was violence perpetrated by some kind of state sponsored traditional demonination against actual followers of Christ that took their Bible and walk with God seriously. The Reformation of Christianity by Bible believers was difficult because of the power of the state. That is why the American colonies did not want a state sponsored religion in America. They did not want to remove God from the public square, they just didn't want a state sponsored religion persecuting those who did not agree with it.
Every man is capable of the worst of crimes and that is why we need a savior and those that call themselves Christians need to submit their lives to God daily.
What I refuse is Ambertooth equating the hundreds of millions of deaths by ruthless dictators to Christianity. The teachings of Christ are clearly of love and service to mankind and the majority of those that are commited Christians bring a lot of good into the world.
Adding to the complexity of the living cell is its apparent ability to harness quantum mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=easy-go-easy-come&page=2
FullofWOnder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI nowhere said...
My reply:
Reverting back to semantic dodges, I see. Well then, I nowhere said you said...
With that pointless point put aside, perhaps we can now address more interesting issues.
Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. I accept that you say you give at least equal weight to the fossil record as you do to revealed truth. However, you have repeatedly supported creation/ID, which asserts as a basic tenet the saltational creation of new species, a concept contrary to natural laws. Further, as I said, the fossil record shows patterns of life's development that is apparently inconsistent with creation/ID. It seems to me that at the very least you should make some effort to reconcile this apparent contradiction between your expressed support of fossil evidence and your exoressed support of creation/ID. Up to this point you have not. Why not?
Further, I did not ask you why God chose to let some creatures become extinct. That is a purely philosophical question of God's intentions, one meant for another time and place. What I asked you was a more mundane, practical question that mere humans like us should have no problem answering. What I asked you was why God would repeatedly use, reject, and then reuse designs? This is a pattern consistent with imperfect natural invention, but is apparently contradictory with an omnipotent deity. Again, it seems to me that at the very least you should make some effort to reconcile this apparent contradiction. Up to this point you have not. Why not?
Finally, you repeated confessions of seeing no evidence for this or that phenomenon is pointless. Frankly, I am unconvinced that you have bothered to look for any. The Proof by Intellectual Laziness is one used by many posters to this forum, who consider it their God-given right to have other people do such work for them. As I recall, this is one of your introdutory features to this forum.
Neal, I have no interest in trying to justify the actions of the Christians of other times and places. It is my understanding that the people who carried out various terrible actions on one sort of believer or another were often people who were considered correct believers in their time. From our perspective their actions cannot be justified and are seen as wrong and horrible. I would give them the beneffit of the doubt ans say they thought they were doing right. We cannot blame only the civil powers. Back in those days the civil powers generally accepted the churches right to have significant input into politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd sometimes the persecuter persecutes because his ideas do not really convince.
My reply:
What a pointless statement. This also means sometimes he doesn't. What you fail to acknowledge is your presumed persecution is in reality just feeling sorry for yourself. I am sorry that you feel that way, but it is your problem. Get over it.
The facts are you alleged persecution where there was none. At the same time, you ignored the isssues. QED.
Well, jpill69, I consider the fossil record to show us creatures buried in some way in the past. Beyond that, I understand that each of the creatures fossilized were complete creatures, not on its way between one creature and another. I understand that many of the fossils are the remains of great-grandparents of creatures even living today. So do some creatures get stuck in the evolutionary process? Do they know when they are good enough? Why the creator would let some creatures go extinct is, as you say, beyond us. Why he would use the same model for something else suggests that the basic model was sound. But why? Your guess would be as good as mine. An answer to this question does not solve the creator/random evolution problem, however.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "What I asked you was why God would repeatedly use, reject, and then reuse designs? "
Perhaps you could give an example of a design that was used, then, "rejected" and reused to clarify what you mean by "rejected".
Have you considered classic cars like the Ford Mustang, that has had newer models replace some very good designs, only for the more classic look to reappear years later?
Did you ever think that perhaps the design was "reused" because it was simply a GREAT DESIGN?
Did you ever think that a design that lasts MILLIONS of years (according to evolutionist dating) has to be a good one?
By what standard of years do you measure a good design? 10 years, 1 million years, 1 billion years?
Why would you think that a species that lasted millions of years was a bad design? Nearly all of man's inventions are obsolete in less than a generation.
Did the Bald Eagle nearly become extinct because of poor design?
I can see why "extinction" would give you the creeps and is an obsession with you and Ambertooth, because that is where your theory is headed.
The storm is coming.
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy he would use the same model for something else suggests that the basic model was sound.
My reply:
You answer ignores the issue of extinction and replacement. If creation suggests that the design was perfect as creation/ID says, then extinction and replacement must suggest that the design wasn't good enough. Why would that be? Is it because God isn't a very good creator? Is it because God can't make up his mind? Is it because God is designing to a moving target?
FullofWonder wrote:
Your guess would be as good as mine.
My reply:
So make a guess. By deciding that God creates each new specie outside natural causes, you already commited yourself to guessing how God works. My question is no different than the question you already answered.
FullofWonder wrote:
An answer to this question does not solve the creator/random evolution problem, however.
My reply:
And how do you know that? You never even thought about it before you read my question moments ago, so how can you be so sure so quickly? If divine revelation, please share it.
Neal T: "Did you ever think that a design that lasts MILLIONS of years (according to evolutionist dating) has to be a good one?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'According to 'evolutionist' dating'? If you simply mean geological time, then say so. Your use of the words 'according to' suggests that you personally use some other time reference that is different from that of science. Since you are on record earlier this year as saying that you accept geological time, explain how your own time reference differs from that used by qualified scientists.
Neal T, do you accept geological time or not? Yes or no?
FullofWonder: "I understand that each of the creatures fossilized were complete creatures, not on its way between one creature and another."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn which case, your understanding is deficient. Go away and learn something about fossil transitional forms. You were a searcher after the 'truth', right? Then search. The information is not exactly hard-to-find.
FullofWonder: "We cannot blame only the civil powers. Back in those days the civil powers generally accepted the churches right to have significant input into politics."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly partially right. 'Back in those days', the Church sometimes WAS the civil power, as with the Papal States in 14th and 15th century Italy. The Pope raised armies and hired known mercenary captains (the Condottieri) to wage war on his own neighbor states. And during the Schism Europe was plunged into strife with one Pope in Rome and another in Avignon warring against each other.
FullofWonder: "I would give them the beneffit of the doubt ans say they thought they were doing right."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you give Pope Innocent III 'the benefit of the doubt'? It was at his instigation that the Albigensian Crusade was raised. The result: some two hundred thousand to as many as a million Cathars together with their Catholic supporters were rounded up, tortured and burned. The populations of entire towns were slaughtered. Those numbers were staggering for their time, and even for our own. Now equate those 13th century figures to today's European population and you're talking holocaust. And this was not atheists against Christians, or even one faith against another, but Christian-against-Christian slaughter.
To FullofWonder and Neal T: My point in again raising this issue is to make clear that there are good and bad Christians, just as there are good and bad Moslems, good and bad atheists, good and bad people, irrespective of faith or creed. It would be a lot more realistic - and certainly more honest - if this was just admitted to, instead of pretending as Neal T does, that, apart from one or two bad apples, Christians are whiter-than-white, squeaky-clean, and "bring a lot of good into the world".
Once, when a creationist raised this very issue, he challenged me to name the person who was last killed at Christian hands. I simply looked up the records of the U.S. Department of Corrections and posted the name and details of the last State execution, which was then two days previous to my post. As a Christian, you either accept God's commandments or you don't.
(In case anyone is wondering how the creationist referred to at the end of my previous comment responded, the answer is: he didn't. After that, I never had a reply.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not justify the past atrocities of the Roman Church. They hijacked Christianity and persecuted those that tried to reform it and speak out against it. Ultimately the reformers prevailed. I believe that even the Roman church has repented of many of these past actions publicly. More repentance needs to happen on the part of all those that call themselves Christians.
The life of Christ and the gospels is a high standard that lifts the worth of a human life and inspires people to serve and love. It does not justify wrong doing and hate and selfishness, but points humans to a better way. Without that standard people on your continent would still be crucifying people and throwing them to the lions.
People can try to twist it for their own selfish ends (like the Roman church and others), but they can't beat it in the long run. Humans aren't perfect and that is why we need a savior. Those that have seriously committed themselves to being a follower of Christ have brought a lot of good into the world. We fall short of the ideal, but we have an ideal and a standard. Atheism has no such ideal. The concept of love and compassion of being the right way to live (even for atheists) is ultimately the triumph of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I agree that there were also many people exercising their positions for their own advantage, knowing that their actions were inconsistant with the name that they were wearing. Shame on them. Certainly comparing the numbers killed in medieval times with the numbers killed in the 20th century is misleading because the 20th century population was much greater as well. On the other hand numbers does not lessen the evil of the actions, whoever does it. One murder is no less wrong than a million.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Ambertooth, I will not justify the past atrocities of the Roman Church."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 'Roman Church' of that time was, of course, 'the Church'. It was the only game in town after it had established its monopoly by wading through the blood of other serious Christian alternatives such as the Gnostics, Bogomils and Cathars. This is the way in which the Holy Roman Empire, which WAS the Christian Church, established itself. Martin Luther was still over the historical horizon.
Neal T: "Without that standard people on your continent would still be crucifying people and throwing them to the lions."
Say this a third time and you'll become a fully-fledged, card-carrying, trouble-baiting Internet troll. The fact that you even repeat it a second time is why I refuse to consider that you are a Christian, as you so unconvincingly claim to be.
Neal T: "Atheism has no such ideal."
..And this is what brands you as a reactionary bigot. I know what you think, Neal T: you think that, because you are a Christian (as you claim to be, although your comments establish otherwise), that you are in some mysterious way 'superior' in moral rectitude to an atheist. Well, the news is: you're not. Everyone and anyone, regardless of faith or creed, is only as good and as decent as their own personal actions and deportment in life, and you have shown on more than one occasion here (I could cite your above reprehensible troll-baiting remark for one) that you clearly set your own bar lower than a limbo-dancer's.
By the way: do you accept geological time or not? It seems to have conveniently slipped your memory to say.
.. Oh, and don't think that you are a Christian because you go and pray for people in hospitals. That you do so, Neal T, is one thing. That you make sure that everyone KNOWS that you do... that's sanctimony.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many hospitals and soup kitchens and homeless shelters do atheist organizations operate. Let's see...
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I have said previously awhile ago. I certainly don't believe the age measurements are infallible, but the best evidence indicate an old age for the earth. I feel that since the Bible does not give dates, neither old or young earth theories can be supported by the Bible, but creation itself can be. The best we can do with dating is to read what is recorded in the earth itself.
Regarding the other subject of atheism, Mary Eberstadt eats your lunch at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTBkNTYyODdlM2I2MDJlZjk3YmU3NzE5ZjRjNDU5N2M=&w=MA==
FullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhenever man departs from the teachings of the Bible he is in trouble, whether its Darwin, Christians, or in-name-only Christians.
Someone is not even a Christian if they have not been born again of the water and Spirit. The "church" is made of those that have been born again, not of those that have simply inherited a religious background or signed a membership roll.
Neal T: "How many hospitals and soup kitchens and homeless shelters do atheist organizations operate. Let's see..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a fatuous, hypocritical, sanctimonious, trivilising argument. I'm sure there a a few more appropriate adjectives, but frankly I'm not going to waste further time thinking of them. Ever hear about all the various and very numerous NGO's who distribute charity and silently do what is necessary in the world? How about Médecins Sans Frontières? The Red Cross? Oxfam? These are all 'religion-blind' organizations. I'm certain that no doctor ever got thrown out of Médecins Sans Frontières because he or she happened to be an atheist.
But, of course, in your narrow little world, only Christians are virtuous and hold the world patent on altruism. Pathetic.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou give the impression that organizations founded by dedicated Christians, only serve Christians, which if that is what you mean, you are wrong again. But, since those facts probably aren't written in a peer-review article, you probably weren't informed.
You mention the Red Cross. The founder of the Red Cross was a committed Christian, Henry Dunant. While Darwin was giving his wife fits about his doubts that a creator would create the world like it is, Henry Dunant actually did something to make it a better place. While Darwin was passively letting his nephew promote eugenics, Dunant was putting his faith into action.
"Dunant grew up during the period of religious awakening known as the R鶥il, and at age eighteen he joined the Geneva Society for Alms giving. In the following year, together with friends, he founded the so-called "Thursday Association", a loose band of young men that met to study the Bible and help the poor, and he spent much of his free time engaged in prison visits and social work. On November 30, 1852, he founded the Geneva chapter of the YMCA and three years later he took part in the Paris meeting devoted to the founding of its international organization."
Perhaps atheists should get together and create an organization like the Red Cross, maybe call it the Red Face. It would certainly be a fitting symbol.
Sergio,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNearly every seven-year-old child believes as fervently in Santa Claus as you believe in your deity. Belief is simply something one chooses to accept, without any evidence to back it up.
People have made up all sorts of gods for scores of millennia. Why is yours any more real than the gods of trees, rocks, the moon, or the sun?
phal4875,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho's Sergio??? If you are as confused about where you are posting your comment as you are about the existence of God it is no wonder that you are an atheist.
Neal T: "You mention the Red Cross."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you do not mention any of the other named organizations. And.. nowhere in my comments do I deny that Christian organizations, or individual Christians, do good work. Of course they do. Where we differ is that you in your hypocritical bigotry pretend (or even seriously imagine) that ONLY Christians are actually capable of this, and do so. And whether the founder of the Red Cross was a Christian or a Buddhist, or some other faith, the International Red Cross remains strictly neutral as part of its charter. There is even a misunderstanding that the 'cross' has to do with a Christian cross. It does not, and was chosen as the most easy to recognise (and in emergencies, the most easy to draw) symbol. Nevertheless, the misunderstanding gave rise to the more overtly religion-orientated Moslem Red Crescent, who also do exceptional work under the most difficult circumstances. But, of course, as they are not Christian, I am sure that you will belittle their endeavors. How about atheist doctors working for Médecins Sans Frontières? I guess that they fall short of your one-eyed jack Christian standards as well.
But then, you're not a Christian, are you, Neal T? Not really.
Neal T: "Who's Sergio???"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that, being a bit slow on the uptake, you would not realise that you could just click on the blue 'comment' to see exactly which post was being responded to. Still, to save you the laborious mental strain of working out how to do this, here is the relevant comment:
sergio at 01:40 AM on 12/08/07: "It's amazing how a point of view of a cristian angers everybody, my childern are in private schools, I was in a public school and withstood all your rubish, and my tax dollars are paying for that."
Now, either sergio is bona fide, and his spelling reveals public school shortcomings, or he's a wind-up troll taking both parties for a spin. You be the judge. If the former, it sure doesn't say much for the intelligence of believers as represented by sergio.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "Where we differ is that you in your hypocritical bigotry pretend (or even seriously imagine) that ONLY Christians are actually capable of this, and do so."
I did not say that or imply this, but I refuse to deny the great contributions of Christianity to the world. Acknowledge that and perhaps we can get back to talking about evolution.
Umm, for anyone who may be interested in REAL science:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/a_creationist_at_the_chicago_m.php
Well, that's just a few examples of some of the really exciting research currently going on in the field of biology.
Now, who was it that posted (guess who):
"I can see why "extinction" would give you the creeps and is an obsession with you and Ambertooth, because that is where your theory [evolution] is headed."
What were those big research projects currently going on in Intelligent Design? I'm having a really hard time finding anything about these "research projects." Does anyone on here know what they are? And what are all those tools that Intelligent Design has provided that helps advance our understanding of life and the Universe? I'm having a hard time finding those, too. Does anyone know?
Oh well someone said, "The storm is coming." Of course, someone said that Christ is coming again, too (for about the last 2000 years). So, when is the "storm" due to hit? Does anyone know?
Just had a few minutes thought I would drop that in for anyone interested. I know some people on this thread are interested in REAL science. And some, apparently, aren't.
Keelyn, I noticed this part from Dr. Myers regarding Paul Nelson:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the only skill he has mastered is the art of ignoring what he doesn't like and incorporating fragments of sentences into his armor of ignorance. It's very sad."
Is there a storm coming? I think I hear the wind blowing. Let me check...
...never mind. It was just some religious bigot whining about being persecuted.
Acknowledge that and perhaps we can get back to talking about evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo cigar. I am certainly not going to put my name to a statement which I personally do not endorse just because you would like me to. History has shown that the inception of Christianity into the world has caused much misery and strife, and while some 'contributions' have been noteworthy, there are enough shady areas as well. And in spite of it being the largest faith, this 'largest' is only superficial, as it is the most deeply factionalised of all religions. A member of one denomination would not dream even of crossing the road to worship in the church of another.
Neal T at 09:09 PM on 11/03/09: "Also, a true Christian is one born of the water and Spirit in the name of Christ, not those who simply have inherited it by tradition."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem not to be aware of your own astonishing arrogance. According to your above statement, 'true' Christianity is an exclusive club, and it is you who defines the rules of membership, and who is 'truly' eligible. You apparently consider yourself a member of that exclusive inner circle (by who's reckoning? Your own?), and yet on this thread, and for all to read, you have been blockheaded, baiting, hypocritical, triumphalist, bigoted, deceitful and lying (unless you actually get around to presenting your much-vaunted 'proof', of course). These are not qualities that I understand are compatible with Christianity, and certainly are not the qualities that the Christians known to me possess. Even FullofWonder, for all that I disagree with about his views, has shown more basic decency than you in all the months which you have been here.
So don't try the more-pious-than-thou act, Neal T. You have established here that you are otherwise, and that your own standards of behaviour far from meet your specifications of 'true' Christianity. When this thread is deleted (as, like all threads, it eventually will be to make room for others) you can perhaps take comfort in the thought that your very visible hypocricies will be lost in the digital ether.
Keelyn: "Umm, for anyone who may be interested in REAL science:" (followed by link)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA good (and dryly amusing) article, Keelyn. I've been following Pharyngula for a while, and can recommend his article on the Kansas Niobrara Chalk which FullofWonder, if he genuinely is sincere about evaluating actual evidence, should certainly read (but only if he means what he says, of course):
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/a_creationist_at_the_chicago_m.php
Sorry, Keelyn - I pasted your own link. Here's the Niobrara one:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/niobrara.php
*I am a teenager with dyslexia so please forgive my spelling and/or grammer errors* I am honestly for creationism but I will not discuss that in this posting. I am exactly nuetral on this matter. I do not think that they should teach only evolution, or one of the many creationistic theories. One of the origonal arguments for teaching evolution in schools was that children were being taught only one side of the story. That is my same argument today. I beleive that they, being the department of education and the devisions controlling the public schools, shouldn't just teach one side of the story. It is up to us to decide what we are going to beleive in. For me it is harder to beleive that we are 1 in a trillion rather than we were created by a higher being for a purpose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour ad hominem arguments against FullofWonder and others clearly illustrate that either you do not know much about evolution or the theory can not stand in the face of critical analysis. I opt for the second.
For those interested in a summary of some of the contributions of Christianity go to http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/threat.html
An excerpt reads: "The Vikings provide an example of how the gospel can positively affect a people group. Vikings were fierce plunderers who terrorized the coastlands of Europe. James Kennedy says that our word berserk comes from their fighting men who were called "berserkers." Gradually the teachings of Christ contributed to major changes in these people. In 1020 A.D., Christianity became law under King Olav. Practices "such as blood sacrifice, black magic, the 'setting out' of infants, slavery and polygamy" became illegal."
Perhaps the Vikings are one of the people groups that Ambertooth is sad about losing culture to Christianity.
Wasn't it Wilberforce, motivated by his service to Christ, who worked to outlaw slavery in Great Britain?
The list could go on and on. I read a good point that if it hadn't been for Christ, we would be living in Nietzsche's world. Think nihilism or extinction.
I like the alternative. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty!
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...FullofWonder, if he genuinely is sincere about evaluating actual evidence, should certainly read (but only if he means what he says, of course)
My reply:
He likes to talk the talk, and says he will follow the truth where it leads, but when it comes time to walk the walk, when someone takes his claim seriously, he turns his back on the truth and walks the other way, as he did most recently with my little sub-thread. And despite his repeated claims to be soooooo interested the evolution of sexual reproduction, he has yet to submit a single post that shows anything beyond merely asserting his ignorance of it.
My impression remains that if he is any kind of friend of truth, he is of the fair-weather variety.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo tell us what is your standard for how long a species should survive in order for you to consider it a good design?
Neal T: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Neal T, perhaps you will find it someday. But going on your present track record, that would seem to be a slim chance indeed.
Nuetral Josh wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me it is harder to beleive that we are 1 in a trillion rather than we were created by a higher being for a purpose.
My reply:
...and even harder to believe you are any more neutral than our current full-of-wonderboy.
If you want to teach religion or philosophy, then do so in those classes. Creationism in a science class is as appropriate as baptism in a math class.
And for what its worth, your purpose in life is something you need to determine for yourself.
Neal T: "Your ad hominem arguments against FullofWonder and others clearly illustrate that either...." blah blah blah.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have just posted a link to a very comprehensive article on the Niobrara Chalk deposits, suggesting that FullofWonder read it. Please explain the way in which this is an 'ad hominem' argument.
PS.: It will, of course, only be considered an ad hominem argument if FullofWonder DOESN'T read the article, thus proving my point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Ambertooth, Your ad hominem arguments against FullofWonder and others clearly illustrate that either you do not know much about evolution or the theory can not stand in the face of critical analysis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..Which is itself an ad hominem statement. Fancy that.
Nuetral Josh: "I am honestly for creationism but I will not discuss that in this posting."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen why did you, Nuetral Josh? I think that you nailed it when you said "It is up to us to decide what we are going to beleive in.". It is because creationism IS belief that it is not in the science class. And I 'believe' in your neutrality like I believe that creationism is worth more than a wooden nickel.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo tell us what is your standard for how long a species should survive in order for you to consider it a good design?
My reply:
There is no point in giving my opinion on this point, even if I had one. I am not the one making a claim that species demonstrate intelligent design from a creator. That is your claim, a claim you have not yet bothered to defend beyond your assertion of it and some trivially false logical fallacies.
I realize logic is your weak suit, so I will try to explain this to you as simply as I can. I am taking FullofWonder at his word to follow the truth where it leads. IF (notice the conditional here?) the creation of a species by a creator suggests a perfect design, THEN (notice the consequence here?) the extinction of that species suggests the design was less than perfect. The one follows the other as night follows day.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "If you want to teach religion or philosophy, then do so in those classes. Creationism in a science class is as appropriate as baptism in a math class.
And for what its worth, your purpose in life is something you need to determine for yourself."
You can hardly get a statement out about creationism without making further metaphysical claims in the next breath. Your statement just further proves that religion drives evolution.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Vikings provide an example of how the gospel can positively affect a people group.
My reply:
So when viking-descended Norman christian William invaded England in 1066 and killed his related viking-descended Saxon christian Harold, what does that say about your positive "affect"? Oh, I forgot you think its ok if christians are the ones doing the killing.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisblah.... blah... blah...
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "IF (notice the conditional here?) the creation of a species by a creator suggests a perfect design, THEN (notice the consequence here?) the extinction of that species suggests the design was less than perfect."
"Perfect Design". Is this a change from just plain old Design? Let's clarify, because I think you are the only one that suggested "Perfect" (more metaphysical claims on your part).
I claimed Design. You bring up this word "perfect" because you feel that God would have or should have made "perfect" designs (metaphysical), without regard to other design considerations.
What does "perfect" mean? Another metaphysical standard jpill69?
It appears that your stand of "perfect design" (in contrast to just plain old design) means that species should never go extinct, not regarding other considerations than design (yet another metaphysical claim regarding what God should have done).
So, tell me, did the Bald Eagle nearly go extinct because of an "imperfect Design" or was there another reason?
Perhaps you now believe in just plain old run of the mill Design, but not "perfect" design. Clarify please.
Neal T"(to jpill69): "Your statement just further proves that religion drives evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your statement just further proves that you have a fixation with trying desperately to claim this fallacious point.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease clarify to our new guests that even though you have faith that evolutionists will someday discover the purely naturalistic explanation for origin of life this is not belief.
Naturalism and materialism is all there is and that is a fact because you said it is. Let them know that evolution is a fact because naturalism is a fact. Make sure you stress that you only deal with the facts and not with faith. Also stress that even those we can observe design in nature, this is only an illusion because the fact of naturalism just has to be accepted.
Neal T: "Naturalism and materialism is all there is and that is a fact because you said it is."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also stated that you could 'prove' your case. Well, by gosh and by golly, here we are a couple of weeks later, and there's zippo to see in the way of any 'proof' whatsoever from the Neal T direction. Wow, what surprise.
Science has a foundation of sound epistemology. Creationism only has the Bible. Take away the scripture, and what is left of creationism? Exactly. So what drives creationism? Do I hear 'religion'?
Exactly.
Neal, why are you so confused over who is claiming what? Are YOU now saying that your creator's designs are not perfect?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T at 11:52PM on 10\26\09: " Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen why don't you do so?
Ambertooth and jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding Stonehenge. It's made of all natural stone. It is conceivable that purely natural processes and events could have formed Stonehenge. Highly improbable, but one could imagine it so. Furthermore, no one living has met its builders.
What characteristic of this all natural site makes design the best explanation for it? My question is not "who" designed it but rather what makes you think it was designed?
Spare me further ad hominen arguments and explain why you infer design to it?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never used the word "perfect" -- you did. See you imply metaphysical stuff and you don't even know it. "Perfect" is very subjective and since you used it, perhaps you could tell us what you mean by "perfect" design in contrast to just plain old run of the mill design?
Tell us jpill69, since you insist on defending your theory with metaphysical arguments, what is YOUR standard of perfection that the creator should have used? The universe is silent and stands on tip toes to hear your pronouncement from Mount Olympus.
Neal, I know you know that you are the source here for the argument for intelligent design from a creator. Your semantic quibbling is unconvincing. My argument does not rest on a point of perfection. If you agree that your creator creates imperfect designs, then I am more than happy to drop the adjective from my description.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat characteristic of this all natural site makes design the best explanation for it? My question is not "who" designed it but rather what makes you think it was designed?
My reply:
What makes you think stonehenge is "all natural"?
Neal T: "Ambertooth and jpill69. Regarding Stonehenge..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone else noticed the way in which Neal T suddenly started digging up (pun intended) his motheaten old 'Stonehenge' argument immediately AFTER I posted his previous assertion that he could 'prove it', and I then rechallenged him to do so? Why, if I was feeling rather uncharitable, I might think that he's desperate to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
You know what, Neal T? I AM feeling uncharitable. Produce the 'proof' that you claim to have. I mean, some folks here might begin to think that you don't really have it. Oops.. there I go being uncharitable again. Shall I give you the benefit of the doubt, then, Neal T?
Tough chance. Where's that 'proof' of yours, Neal T?
Neal T: "Spare me further ad hominen arguments and explain why you infer design to it?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI for one will spare you further ad hominem arguments (although I sure don't make any promises because against you they're such fun to do) IF you promise to spare those here who actually know how to apply rationale that you will desist (spelled s-t-o-p) your penchant for constructing your enfeebled 'case' (I've seen better cases at an airport check-in) upon the shifting sands of PRESUPPOSITION, which is where your stupid 'Stonehenge' thing heads for each time, even if you're too.. well.. creationist (wouldn't want to be ad hominem).. to realise it yourself.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone else noticed...
My reply:
Yes. If you feel we are competing for his limited attention span, I am happy to defer to you. My point was directed to FoW anyway.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStonehenge is made of large stones (hence the name). What else did you see there? What's not natural? Please clarify.
Regarding the perfection discussion:
The problem with admitting to "imperfect" design is that the standard (which you haven't defined) is subjective. So there's a problem agreeing with something that YOU haven't even defined yourself! A greater mind than yourself could even show you where in your striving for "perfection" in a single species, you miss the big ecosystem picture, not to mention eternity.
Come to think of it, this same kind of "creation must be perfect if there is a creator God" was what Darwin struggled with. His work was conducted under this false assumption and it looks like your stuck in the same dead end alley as he was.
1. The Bible is clear that God did not create this world to be without pain or weakness or inefficiencies. In Job 39:15-17 God gives an example of a purposefully made weakness of the ostrich. In a balanced ecosystem within the constructs of our physical universe there must be give and take and trade offs for the greater good of the whole ecosystem.
2. This world is just a temporary place and was not designed to keep us comfortable (the Garden of Eden was a temporary exception). Heaven is the better place for eternity and the things that we endure assist many people in their deeper quest for God. It is through pain and problems that character and virtue is forged into a man and woman.
This gets into a religious discussion, but since your theory continues to use metaphysical supports, I thought I would include these for the simple reason that a Creator could have bigger purposes than your narrow little obsession with efficiency or whatever fuzzy concept of "perfection" you have.
A 14 billion year old universe, a 4 billion year earth, with species lasting millions of years and some hundreds of millions of years, I fail to see what your griping about.
Neal T: " In Job 39:15-17 God gives an example of a purposefully made weakness of the ostrich."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo save everyone looking it up, here's the relevant verses, Folks:
Job 39:13-17
13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks?
or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
14 which leaveth her eggs in the earth,
and warmeth them in the dust,
15 and forgetteth that the foot may crush them,
or that the wild beast may break them.
16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labor is in vain without fear;
17 because God hath deprived her of wisdom,
neither hath he imparted to her understanding.
Yup.. the usual primitive bronze age bs. If this were true, then ostriches would have become extinct shortly after this was first written. But then, someone who actually swallows this hath indeed been deprived of wisdom, and hath not been imparted with understanding. Your science is about four millennia out of date, Neal T.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you go again. You criticize the scripture without knowing what your talking about.
Brian C. R. Bertram's The Ostrich Communal Nesting System (1992). Among the relevant points offered by Bertram:
Ostriches definitely "leave" their nests -- in a study of 57 nests, Bertram found that "most were destroyed by predators after surviving for different and unpredictable periods of time." [25] As a result, "The great majority of ostrich nests did not produce any chicks, mainly because of predation." [71] Only 5 out of 57 had successful hatchings. [77]
The secondary female ostriches -- what Bertram calls "minor hens" -- laid eggs in the nest, but thereafter "took no part in attending or guarding it, nor later in incubating it." [57] This sounds like "forsaking" and "cruel" behavior, subjectively speaking, to me.
Bertram confirms the behavior of shoving the eggs of minor hens out of the nest as needed for space; only 20 eggs at most could be covered. This happened "at most incubating nests" [65]. The eggs shoved out "eventually rotted or were destroyed." [66]
The male spends 71% of the incubating time on the nest; the major hen, 29%; the minor hens, as noted above, none.
At least we both agree that the Ostrich has been able to forgo extinction. So when a creature does not go extinct, it is because it evolved great efficiencies. But when a creature goes extinct it is because a creator would not allow that, but since evolution makes junk that's expected.
Congratulations you have a theory that allows ones imagination to explain every possible scenario without being able to predict hardly anything accurately.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same chapter in Job also talks about the Peacock. Did you really want to mention the Peacock? Go ahead make my day.
Check
Since the ostrich has been occupying the planet for at least some ten million years right up to the present day, in terms of survival strategy it clearly is doing something very right. Both male and female ostriches show parenting skills, and the proportion of ostrich eggs laid in a clutch to those lost to predation by jackals and other hunters ensures the progression of the generations. Shame on Job for getting his facts wrong enough to do the ostrich such a disservice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Neal T, if you are merely content to quote-mine Bartram from an apologist Bible site, then you can make the facts match to suit. I suggest that you do some more independent study of ostrich parenting behavior. But even that is by-the-way, because the Bible specifically says of the ostrich that "God has deprived her of wisdom". That being so, how has this bird managed to survive for all those many millions of years? Kind of gives the lie to God, don't you think? Of course you don't. You'll just go on twisting and turning rather than double back on your tracks. The ostrich is smarter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't muddle your response. Job did not mention anything about the hen not laying enough eggs. Your reading non-existent things into the Bible does you a greater disservice, than Jobs accurate description of the ostrich.
It is ironic to see you defending the efficiency of the Ostrich design.
How about that Peacock?
erratum: 'Bertram'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "It is ironic to see you defending the efficiency of the Ostrich design."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease quote me where I have used the term 'design'. As for the rest, I'm sorry if I was in error about the actual wording ued in Job. I thought that it was "God has deprived her of wisdom". Please could you correct me and tell me the actual words used instead of this phrase. Thank you.
Neal T: "Don't muddle your response."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not the one who seems to be muddled. And if you are not, then tell me: did you, or did you not, quote-mine Bertram from a Biblical apologist website? Yes or no?
Neal T: "How about that Peacock?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about your 'proof'?
I asked you twenty minutes or so ago, Neal T. I'm timing you out. So if anyone wants to check, the source (complete with reference numbers which he neglected to remove!) for Neal T's little verbatim quote-mining exercise is the following apologist Bible website:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.tektonics.org/lp/ostrich.html
I think that I need hardly add that the various 'quotes' used on the above particular webpage do not give a rounded picture of ostrich behaviour. I have drawn upon my previous museum knowledge, but I'm sure there are independent and creditable science and natural history sources where more worthy information on this subject can be gleaned.
Neal T, your semantic rant is a consequence of my apparent misunderstanding of your description of intelligent design, and your obvious inability to understand the simplest logical constructs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, I believe that in the past you have used the word perfect to describe a creator's intelligent design. You say you have not, and I am too tired to disprove you. Since I prove my point either way, my offer still stands. Take it or leave it.
Second, in the use of the logical construct "If X then Y", there is no inference made as to the author's understanding of X. It is merely a condition stated to establish the logical consequence Y. So, as an example, if I were to write "If Neal is an idiot, then he will not understand this explanation", this statement makes no inference as to my current belief in your idiotness. It is yours to show me one way or the other.
Regarding Stonehenge, I don't really care. I believe you have at some point in the past acknowledged Stonehenge as a manmade artifact, but I'm too tired to look for it. If you have not, I hope you will correct me soon. If you have, then you have simply identified one of many artifacts whose manmade design origins are well-known. On the other hand, if YOU (and by YOU I mean not me) want to characterize Stonehenge as natural, then YOU (ibid) have merely identified a naturally occuring artifact and not an intelligently designed one.
Wait, you're not claiming Stonehenge was created by God, are you?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no idea what you are talking about. Go get some rest and come back refreshed with a clear statement.
Have a nice evening.
Neal T: "jpill69, I have no idea what you are talking about."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course you don't. jpill69 was using rationale; a concept unknown to quote-mining 'I-do-all-my-'research'-on-the Internet' creative-with-the-facts creationists like you. If I sent you a birthday card (fat chance) it would be a picture of an ostrich building Stonehenge.
Still, having exposed your quote-mining yesterday, I'm feeling vaguely sorry for you (but only VERY vaguely), so I'll see if I can explain what jpill69 is telling you in a way that you can grasp, which in substance is no different from what I have told you many, many times before:
We can establish that Stonehenge is a human artefact. No problem. This is jpill69's 'X' condition. You (you, Neal T personally) would then go on to say: because we can demonstrate by certain characteristics that Stonehenge has been 'designed' (your term), we can therefore demonstrate that certain naturally-occurring systems which appear to have similar characteristics have also been 'designed' (your term). This is jpill69's 'Y' condition. Are you with me so far?
BUT I would further state (and this is where your argument comes unglued) between conditions 'X' and 'Y', you have slipped in an unquantifiable PRESUPPOSITION. Namely: you have not established that the property to 'design' 'Y' exists in the first place. So before you can go winging off about 'X' proves 'Y' (which is the substance of your daffy 'Stonehenge' argument) you FIRST have to establish that property 'Z' exists. Property 'Z' of course being what I would call your supernatural invisible interventionist designing agency, or: God. And that, Neal T, is the substance of what jpill69 and myself have been telling you, but which you seem not to grasp. So: you first have to empirically establish God. Good luck with that.
Have you actually been to Stonehenge, by the way? I have, and more than once.
The debate over origins is the most important question we face as human beings..If all men are not created equal by a just and soveriegn God we can justify any form of government, any form of special privelage for those who hold power. If our human rights and worth are not derived from a greater being then those who hold the reins of power..Those in power must be the fittest and most evolved among us..All tyranny is based on the tyrants belief they have the power because are more worthy then their fellow man. If we are not created equally how could it be that we evolved equally? Is not evolution and the survival of the fittest the antithisies of equality of all members of a species? If we are not created equally the meek will not inherit the earth..The violent, and those who have no fear of killing those who compete with them for power and wealth will. If we are not created with equal worth by a loving God..There is no punishment for those who take what they want by force or cunning, and who is to say that is not natures way. If the cosmos is all there is or ever will be..those born with out physical or mental health or the means to contribute up to someone elses standards has not the same material worth as others...after all if we are only evolved matter then those with defects are less materially important to the species;they are not created eually with God given rights and worth..What gives the less fortunate worth and purpose and human rights is not derived from government but from things that can not be derived from matter. Things like kindness, mercy, tenderness, self sacrifice love and friendship with your fellow man wether it benifiets you or not..An atheist might say I can feel these things and I dont believe they came from a god...I would say to them you can feel these things because you were created in God's image and He is the one who gave you that capacity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth and jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the contrary, you call your "Z" a property and then call it the designer. Is it a designer or a property? This is your confusion, because you think that it is necessary to identify the designer rather than see properties of design.
My point is that design can be infered from the complexity of the arrangement of the stones at "Stonehenge", irregardless of knowing who the designer was. Humans are intuitively skilled at identifying design. The task is to identify those properties of design that we intuitively know. Begin with, what is the difference between a pile of rocks and Stonehenge.
If I found an arrowhead, I don't have to know the guy who made it to believe that someone made it, because it contains properties of design that differentiate from a small stone.
DNA is more than just a pile of amino acids in warm little pond.
7wesley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent points. I call it "The Atheist Delusion" to think we could enjoy liberty or equality without God. They write their own history to erase the contributions of Christianity. They of course don't see it, but that is why its a delusion.
Neal T: "On the contrary, you call your "Z" a property and then call it the designer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy actual words were "Property 'Z' of course being what I would call your supernatural invisible interventionist designing agency, or: God."
Did you get that, Neal T? I said 'YOUR' .. 'designing agency'. I was, as I thought that I had made abundantly clear, using YOUR terminology. I swear, there are moments (and they occur frequently enough) when you show all the signs of having a degree of cranial density that would make a Pachycephalosaurus envious. The rest of your comment pretty much proves it. Do you genuinely not understand the term 'presupposition', or is it just that in the wonderful, whacky world of creationism, presupposition is simply allowed as a legitimate part of the equation? Because if you follow this line of thinking, then you disqualify yourself from science by default. So which is it, Neal T? Too thick to comprehend the term, or too unscientific to care? You tell me.
Let me clearly recap my statement for the exclusive benefit of Mr Thicky: "Property 'Z' of course being what I would call.." (here, I am referring to my own term 'Property 'Z',) "..your supernatural invisible interventionist designing agency, or: God." (here, I am referring to your term, a 'designing agency'). Of course, Mr.. I mean, Neal T, if you still disagree, then please post the quote where I use the term 'designer' as MY OWN term to refer to God. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7wesley, you raise very important points, and that is why I wish to reply to you. It seems to me you are saying that a belief in God makes tyranny less likely. I wish that were true. The sad fact is that tyrants have used Gods word to justify their privileged positions throughout history. From human slavery to royal obeisance to papal infallibility, all invoke Gods word to justify the special privileges of a few over the many. Every European monarch KNEW they were appointed by God. Even today, many of the haves justify their special status over the have-nots because they see it as the just reward for a righteous life as promised by God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease do no confuse what I say with blaming God or religion in particular. I do not. In fact, I agree there are examples where tyrants have justified their behavior because they considered themselves selectively superior, and those they suppressed were simply declared less fit. The fact is that the privileged have used any and all arguments they find persuasive to rationalize their privileged positions. Such is human nature. Historically, these excuses have been religious-based, and only recently have science-based justifications become convincing.
Further, you confuse survival of the fittest with survival of the most ruthless. Fitness specifically refers to the relationship between an individuals expressed actions and the environment that the individual lives in. I dont agree that murder, violence and selfishness are usually fit behaviors in a human environment, and I would not want to live in an environment where it was. I do agree that kindness, mercy, tenderness, self sacrifice love and friendship are usually fit behaviors. Whether you believe your good behavior came from God, or whether an atheist believes his good behavior came from inside himself, I am unconcerned. My only legitimate interest lies in how people behave, not why they behave.
I freely admit I am not an expert in science. My educational background is in history. The notion that Christianity is some how more violent than atheism can not be found among the facts..Although atheism as a state religion is a realitivly new addition to man's foolishness, it has acounted for more deaths since the french revolution than all the other forms of religious ideaology combined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe only have to mention a few names like Stalin, Mao, Hittler, Castro, Pol Pot and all of the lesser tyrants in eastern Europe , Asia and Africa..If you include the starvation atheistic philosophy has caused you can come to the conclusion that atheism has caused more death , sorrow and suffering than any other single world view and in the shortest amount of time..
When I began to study History and the Biblical text I was amazed at what I found. The stereotypes I had been taught about people of faith were shattered.
I had heard of the religious tyranny of Europe , the crusades , the inquisition etc. and I do not doubt these things accured. However when I began to study the Bible I made a shocking discovery . The cruelty visited on man by people calling themselves christians had absolutley nothing to do with biblcal christianity and was even done contrary to its teachings. In fact I could not find one instance where cruelity or indifference to the suffering of others is taught as a virtue.
I cannot mount a sophisticated technical argument against evolution but I can judge wether a scientist has answered my very real doubts about the validity of their argument against creation and for evolution..
I am now retired I have lived long enough to hear a lot if not most of the arguments in this debate and I have come to this conclusion.
When God created mankind He gave everyone of us the ability to know that we are indeed created. This knowledge is in the very core of our being , along with the the awareness of His providence. I think the obejection to creation is not entirely a scientific one although it is argued against in those terms. Neither do I believe there is lack of scientific evidence for creation or enough evidence for evolution..This debate is not a simple dissagreement over interpretation of the facts or evidence if it was it would have been settled long ago..
This arguement is not only about science it is about not wanting peer ridicule or censure.it is about political orthodoxy and keeping one's job. Evolution is no longer just a scientific theory but has become an enforced Ideaology
7wesley wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis arguement is not only about science it is about not wanting peer ridicule or censure.it is about political orthodoxy and keeping one's job. Evolution is no longer just a scientific theory but has become an enforced Ideaology
My reply:
For someone who admits to their ignorance of science, you sure have some very strong opinions about it. Further, for someone who claims an education in history, you seem extraordinarily dismissive about christianity's complicitly in some of the most outrageous acts against humanity. Shall we start with the genocide of the entire western hemisphere?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we have the word of God as a compass. Tyrants may twist it for their selfishness, but ultimately man has a guide that says the tyrant is wrong and we need to make things right. It is the Bible that first held up Love and Compassion as the ultimate virtues of a persons character, not bravado and cruelty. The Bible is clear that he that hates his brother does not know God. Tyrants may say they are on God's side, but God says they are not.
This article is a useful tool for those intelligent individuals seeking to resist the encroachment of the backward and detrimental thinking and policies espoused by the those pushing the creationist agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I am disappointed that, in order to make use of this tool, one has to pay Scientific American. I think that Scientific American would be doing a service to science in general and in fact to all of mankind by making this article available for free to the general public.
Foxnews has a great article opinion article called "10 Biblical Truths that Shape my world view". Biblical truth has a way of lifting the mind and heart to aspire to take the High road. It is positive and refreshing in a world filled with whiners and gripers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we have the word of God as a compass.
My reply:
That compass spins around like a top. Everybody twists it and cherry picks what they want to believe. People claim the word of God to mean opposing things at different times and places. Every denomination and sect claims to act according to God's will. They can't all be right.
Neal said: “I call it "The Atheist Delusion" to think we could enjoy liberty or equality without God. They write their own history to erase the contributions of Christianity. They of course don't see it, but that is why its [sic] a delusion.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Neal is what I call "The Dunce Delusion." Or, just as accurately, "The Delusional Dunce." Take your choice. History hasn't been rewritten - nothing has been erased. It's all truthfully documented for anyone who willing to take the time and effort to find and read it. Of course, some people choose to ignore those parts of history they find disagreeable. And then they accuse others of "rewriting" history. People should notice that, as usual, Neal makes a blanket statement, "They write their own history to erase the contributions of Christianity," but doesn’t provide even one example to verify it. Maybe he just didn't want to go to all the trouble of finding some. On the other hand, maybe (and most likely) he just doesn't have any. At the very least, it's one of the most outrageous forms of the pot calling the kettle black considering how creationists seem to go out of their way to downright lie, misquote, misrepresent, and parrot the utter blind ignorance of others in a never ending vile campaign to discredit and defame Charles Darwin. In an effort to save space, I am happy to provide numerous examples of that upon request. Perhaps that was Neal's intention as well – to save space?
I have to wonder why Neal and other of his ilk are not as adamant to nail to a proverbial cross people such as Alfred Noble (inventor of dynamite – just think of how people his invention has killed). What about Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Neils Bohr, Joseph Carter, Richard Feyman, and of course, Albert Einstein? Just think of how many people these men were responsible for killing either directly or indirectly - for years and years. One could say that they are still causing people to die. We could even throw Edward Teller into the group – he’s a vile killer, too – depending on your perspective. One might want to take the time to check the religious affiliations some of those individuals. With very little effort, I could make a long list of great religious scientists and philosophers whose writings and inventions have ultimately been the source of death and suffering because some twisted minds have misunderstood and misused them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, I don't expect people like Neal to be able to connect the dots – their thinking is too linear. For Neal, it's really all about his religion (he will deny that, but it’s true). For people like Neal, it's not about science, evidence, facts, or truth; it's all about a perceived conflict. Whenever anything appears to conflict with their religious dogma, the dogma invariably trumps – always.
People should also notice how Neal just ignores questions despite being given ample time to address them. Instead, he just keeps parroting the same old creationist crap over and over. He is consistent in one thing, though; his arguments from incredulity and his argumentum ad ignorantiam. For example, his "digital information" argument (which, incidentally was demolished) works essentially like this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I, Neal T, can not possibly see how …blab, blab, blab, therefore, it can’t be and that’s that. Therefore, the only possible answer is god (and of course, that could only be the god that I, Neal T, gives obedience and worship to – no other is possible)."
More succinctly, if my name is not Ms. Smith, then my name is Ms. Jones. No other possibilities exist. (like, Brown, Black, White, Young, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, etc.). That’s an example of an argument from incredulity.
And Neal consistently conflates evolution with abiogenesis (even though the error has been pointed out countless times). It has been acknowledged many times that naturalist science does not know precisely HOW life first originated. But, evolution is not an origins theory - it simply describes how life has evolved and diversified over time. That's an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
How about some examples of questions Neal has yet to address (because he ignores them):
1. Please describe scientifically the "Intelligent Designer"
2. Please describe scientifically the processes of the "Intelligent Designer"
3. Please describe scientifically a method to test for the "Intelligent Designer"
4. Please describe one scientific project currently underway by the Intelligent Design community
5. Please describe any tools that Intelligent Design has provided that can be useful to scientific research (one would do)
6. Please describe any predictions that Intelligent Design makes that can explain the diversity of life better than evolution
7. Please list any contributions to the advancement of science made by the Intelligent Design community
And I believe ambertooth has some questions in recent posts that Neal simply ignores.
Oh, and need I remind Neal that he said:
"Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09"
No proof has been received yet. We are still waiting to read the other 28 of 29 evidences of creation. Are they coming anytime soon?
LOL!!!! It figures that Neal would be drawn to "Made up News." Thank nature for the virtue of deafness that I can't hear Rush Limbaugh on the radio (and I can ignore the CC whenever Fake News is on). Gee, maybe there is a god. Fox News. LOL!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: " Biblical truth has a way of lifting the mind and heart to aspire to take the High road. It is positive and refreshing in a world filled with whiners and gripers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrection. It "lifts" you. I'm already on the high road and refreshed without it. So, you are just speaking for yourself, yes?
And I would remind Neal (and people of his ilk) that this is a science site - his god delusions are irrelevant. The question is, does he have some science to contribute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgreenbean: "However, I am disappointed that, in order to make use of this tool, one has to pay Scientific American. I think that Scientific American would be doing a service to science in general and in fact to all of mankind by making this article available for free to the general public."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCut SciAm a little slack, greenbean. This article was available to read online in its entirety right here for almost two years.
Keelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4. Please describe one scientific project currently underway by the Intelligent Design community
5. Please describe any tools that Intelligent Design has provided that can be useful to scientific research (one would do)
My reply:
These are the two that I think particularly demonstrate ID's intellectual bankruptcy. One of the interesting things about court trials is that people are obliged to admit things they otherwise would not. Thus, Michael Behe admitted under oath that DiscoTut has NO research programs, and NO plans for any. Further, when questioned about his 'scientific' definition of Irreducible Complexity, Dr. Behe admitted under oath that it was not a valid criticism of evolution, because evolution does not work by removing parts from functional systems, but by putting existing functional parts together to make new parts with new functions. Finally, Dr. Behe's hypothesis as written was proved false, because his allegedly irreducibly complex examples work just fine without all their parts, and the individual parts by themselves serve useful functions. Despite this, and just like Neal, Dr. Behe and Discotut continue to spew their mindless propaganda as if he never said it over 4 years ago.
Makes me wonder how they face themselves every morning.
7wesley: "I freely admit I am not an expert in science." and: "Evolution is no longer just a scientific theory but has become an enforced Ideaology"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese, 7wesley, are the first and last sentences of your comment. Clearly, the one contradicts the other. If you have no professional experience of the workings of science, then you are ill-provided to pass judgement on your melodramatic 'enforced ideology'. Do you also consider e = mc2 an 'enforced ideology? Because as a piece of science, that famous equation has probably as much coverage in education as evolutionary theory. So why be opposed to the one and not to the other? Could it be that your objections are grounded, not in science, but in religion? Well, of course they are.
So if you have sincere and sound science-grounded arguments for any alternatives to evolutionary theory (and mark well that I said 'alternatives', because just presenting any number of objections to a particular theory means nothing in science), then present them.
The rest of your comments are too histrionically bigoted to be worthy of response.
Neal T: "But we have the word of God as a compass."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPretty rich coming from someone who has shown willing to lie, prevaricate, quote-mine and obfuscate their way through several months of comments. Guess you're not too clued-up on how to read a compass, Neal T.
Neal T: "The Bible is clear that he that hates his brother does not know God."
Wow. Considering the degree to which you detest Charles Darwin, things sure aren't looking to good for you.
Keelyn: "And I believe ambertooth has some questions in recent posts that Neal simply ignores."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, Keelyn, were it just questions! He also waltzes straight over outright twistings of my statements which I confront him with. He refuses to acknowledge that his 'arguments' are founded upon worthless presupposition, as I have demonstrated ad nauseum. He flatly ignores (which is the same as lying) the fact that I have posted the link to his quote-mining web *source, which he previously could not bring himself to confess to having used. He chickened out of presenting his other 28 'evidences for creation' after I had demolished his 'evidence #1'. Knowing my European location, he has striven more than once to open up a trans-Atlantic divide. I can't be bothered with more, but this is the so-called 'Christian' who speaks of Christian 'virtue'. What a joke.
*This was about the ostrich fiasco which he initiated by citing the Book of Job. It turned out (as I discovered merely by googling it) that all his information was coming from a Christian apologist website (which itself was quote-mining) whose only intention was justifying the so-called 'accuracy' of what the Book of Job claimed about the ostrich.
And for the record, here is just another recent example of Neal's complete intellectual bankruptcy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T wrote at 10:54 AM on 11/06/09:
You can hardly get a statement out about creationism without making further metaphysical claims in the next breath. Your statement just further proves that religion drives evolution.
I notice how creationists assert without evidence metaphysical arguments, and then when I answer their metaphysical point in kind, Neal claims this 'proves' religion drives evolution. Of course, when nobody replies to creationists' baseless assertions, Neal claims this 'proves' evolutionists are afraid to discuss the issues. This of course is a false Hobson's dilemma, because I choose to reply as I deem appropriate without regard to how Neal will inevitably corrupt it to his own purposes.
For the last few days I have been visiting sites where creation vs evolution is being debated. I am very encuoraged about the future of science in this country. As a creationist I am elated , we are winning the arguement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evolutionist backs are against the wall. Very few of them any longer attempt to answer the objections the public has with their theory. They will refer to some evidence they think supports their veiws and if challenged they descend into anti-religious tirades..In most of the sites evolutionist spend most of their time trying to ridicule and humiliate anyone who dissagrees with them. This tatic works behind the closed doors of evolutionary academia but is a detrimate to their cause in open society. Creationist have punched numerous holes into the fabric of evolutionary theory.. Instead of trying to patch up their argument the evolutionist spend most of their time hurling insults,trying to wound or questioning the intellect or charachter of those who question them . This pattern is played out over and over all over the internet. I began watching this debate in the early 1980s. As a biblical creationist I have never been more encouraged.. More and more creationist appear to be thoughtful scientists questioning a faulty missconception..And the evolutionist appear like religious fanatics screaming heresy..trying to destroy anyone who dissagrees with them.
In most sites where evolution is debated the evolutionist spend their energy trying to defeat their detractors in an individual debate with insult laden semantics..when a fact or theory of theirs is questioned instead of trying to make their point understood, insults are hurled the name calling begins..
The reason creationists do not take this personally is we know that God has implanted in all His creatures the knowledge of thier creator and we know that many evolutionists have bullied into denying their creator..
True science is the effort to discover and understand God's creation for the betterment of our fellowman..I believe evolution is carefully guarded house of cards that is going to eventually come crashing down ..
More scientists who do not deny the God given knowledge of their creator need to find the courage to stand up and share their own missgivings about this theory...Jesus once told a group of His enemies " You do not reject me because I am not speaking truth ; you reject me because you love the praise of men more than the honor that comes from God alone"
7wesley wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the last few days I have been visiting sites where creation vs evolution is being debated.
My reply:
Specify them.
7wesley, all that I can really say is that if your own rambling little triumphalist tirade is the best that you can manage by way of suppying your own 'science-based' replacement theory to evolution, then science has nothing to fear. For myself, I have been debating creationists on the Internet for two years, and I have come across all manner of foul-mouthed vindictiveness, trolls, liars and pathological nonsense from those claiming to be creationists, and that includes one or two who comment on these SciAm threads. Your overly-melodramatic and ramblingly histrionic absurdities will not, I assure you, cause either science in general or myself personally, to lose a wink of sleep.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, do you have any actual science to bring to the table or not? Because unless you do, your train ain't goin' nowhere fast.
7wesley : "True science is the effort to discover and understand God's creation for the betterment of our fellowman" and also: 7wesley: "I freely admit I am not an expert in science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is wrong with this picture?
7wesley : "And the evolutionist appear like religious fanatics screaming heresy..trying to destroy anyone who dissagrees with them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow remarkably ironic that you should use the simile "religious fanatics" to imply frenzied, mindless bigotry. I wonder if you actually are aware of the chronic faux pas that you have made.
7wesley : "and we know that many evolutionists have bullied into denying their creator.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBullied? In what way, and against whom? Provide instances to support your assertion.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe wheel that squeaks gets the grease. You are the king of ad hominen arguments on this discussion.
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy reference to rewriting history was refering specifically to Ambertooth's twist on it. If you want an example of an atheist rewriting history, read his posts.
7wesley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID: "More and more creationist appear to be thoughtful scientists questioning a faulty missconception..And the evolutionist appear like religious fanatics screaming heresy..trying to destroy anyone who dissagrees with them. "
Their irrational behavior is certainly recognized by more and more people. Like the guy on the witness stand whose story is falling into little pieces, they become louder and more defensive.
They cling religiously in faith to the irrational hope that just over the hill some process of nature will be discovered that can generate life from non-living chemicals. They see design in the DNA of a cell, but have to keep telling themselves it wasn't.
To summarize:
1. They see design but have to keep telling themselves that it wasn't. (Francis Crick the co-discoverer of DNA said that)
2. They have no explanation for the purely naturalistic orgin of life.
Given those facts, how can someone that is not at least open to the concept of creation has a lot more bias than science. This is where religion drives evolution.
I am not an expert in law..but I can recognize when it is unfairly applied ..I am not an expert in medicine but I know snake oil and bleeding are not legitimate therapy... I am not an expert in science but I know non-living things do not produce life.. ......I could fill volumes of instances where children with faith were ridiculed or unfairly treated for questioning evolution. It happened to one of my children..Almost every family who have taught their children biblical creation can testify that mistreatment of children of faith in schools and colleges is very common.. I encourage all who read this to go any place where evolution vs creation is debated you will immediately realize how cruel, personal and even vicious the attacks become when an evolutionist feels his beleifs are threatned. If you think this debate is fought fairly ask yourself...If a science teacher or proffesser were to publicly announce they are sceptical of many of the evolutionist's claims and thought Intelligent Design was worth looking at... We all know what would happen........and so does every educater in the land......Many scientists today simply remain quiet rather than risk their livelyhood....I believe everyone of us deep inside know we are created beings....I am asking that scientists and educaters of this generation somehow find the courage to right the ship ...We all know what it will cost them personally ....but the future of science is worth the sacrifice..I would remind them even those who will try to ruin you......They know just as you do that they are a created being , they deny it to others and even themselves for various reasons .......who knows when they see your courage it may inspire them...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal, you wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. They see design but have to keep telling themselves that it wasn't. (Francis Crick the co-discoverer of DNA said that)
My reply:
It would be really nice if you would make up your mind once and for all if you are going to continue to deny Dr. Crick his due because he is an atheist, or if you are going to give Dr. Crick credit for all the things he has said and done, not just the things you can quote-mine to fit your fairy-tale agenda.
...and then you wrote:
2. They have no explanation for the purely naturalistic orgin of life.
My reply:
and the only explanation you have is your superstitious pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
...and then you wrote:
Given those facts, how can someone that is not at least open to the concept of creation has a lot more bias than science. This is where religion drives evolution.
Neither am I open to the concepts of astrology, flat-earth geology, Velikovsky's astronomy, telekinetic spoon-bending, or the Easter bunny. ID belongs in that same set. If my mind were open enough to accept ID then my brains would simply fall out of my head. This is where religion drives me nuts.
When scientists defend their precious dogma by obscuring the issues and intimidating its critics, it is a sure sign that what they are defending isn't science. Religion drives evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did read what ambertooth posted. That's why I posted what I posted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to wonder if Neal reads anything I read. I mean, he ignores my questions and just keeps regurgitating the same crap that's been refuted so many times it would make a surgeon faint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Their irrational behavior is certainly recognized by more and more people. Like the guy on the witness stand whose story is falling into little pieces, they become louder and more defensive."
Oh, yes. I see - an obvious reference to Mike Behe and intelligent design. Yes, their silly stories sure do fall into little pieces. I'm glad Neal finally noticed that. He must have read the transcripts from Kitzmiller.
Neal said: "They cling religiously in faith to the irrational hope that just over the hill some process of nature will be discovered that can generate life from non-living chemicals."
This is another example (used over and over) of one of Neal's argumentum ad ignorantiam - in this case, a total ignorance of chemistry. And apparently Neal is unaware that there are a number of ongoing investigations in abiogenesis (by REAL scientists, by the way) that seem to be producing some very exciting results. I wouldn't call that an irrational hope - I would call it scientific investigations for explanations. Which reminds me, what exactly were those scientific investigations that intelligent design proponents were doing again? Neal failed to address that question before. Oh, that's ok - I see that jpill addressed it for Neal - and the answer is --- NONE. Imagine that. No wonder Neal despises real science and real scientists.
7wesley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, I notice you didn't bother to identify any of those debate websites you claimed to visit. Call me cynical, but I can't help but wonder if this site is the only one you know about.
Second, as someone who grew up in the only Baptist family in an otherwise Roman Catholic neighborhood, I can appreciate how thoughtlessly cruel some children can be when they see someone as different. For you to extrapolate this childrens' story into the adult world is an unconvincing stretch of credulity. When teachers teach ID as science, they have reneged on their duty as teachers. When professors claim ID is science, they are no different from psychic charlatans. When such violations of the public trust are prosecuted, it is because of incompetence and criminal negligence.
I have no problem that you and your kind want to worship your false idols. Just don't pretend it's science.
Neal said: "They see design in the DNA of a cell, but have to keep telling themselves it wasn't."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, Neal sees APPARENT design and decides it must be by his …intelligent creator. But, Neal ignores all the questions I asked about scientifically establishing the existence of a creator - intelligent or otherwise. But, that doesn't surprise me.
Neal said: "They see design but have to keep telling themselves that it wasn't. (Francis Crick the co-discoverer of DNA said that)"
So what? A lot of people have investigated DNA since Crick and Watson. Shall we quote from that the tens of thousands who are still investigating DNA that don't share Cricks design notions. Maybe, we should check and see if Crick’s comments have been taken out of context. Creationists have a reputation for doing that from time to time, you know.
Neal said: "Given those facts, how can someone that is not at least open to the concept of creation has a lot more bias than science. This is where religion drives evolution."
Nope. Evolution is driven by serious scientific inquiry. Intelligent design is driven by religion.
And just a reminder:
Neal said: “Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it." @ 11:52PM 10\26\09”
Hmmm. 11\09\09 it is – and no proof received yet. It's probably coming any day now.
And the remaining 28 of 29 evidences of creation (of which the first one has already been blown to pieces) - where are those? Oh, coming any day now, I'm certain. Yawn.
7wesley said: "I am not an expert in law"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will accept that statement.
7wesley said: "I am not an expert in medicine"
I accept the validity of that statement, as well.
7wesley said: "I am not an expert in science"
And the rest of your post makes that abundantly obvious. Spare everyone the pity\fairness card; no one cares about your sob stories. Science is not about fairness; it's about facts and evidence - something you do not have any of that could legitimize creationism as any form of science. And that is the basis of the ridicule. Believe anything you wish, but don't try to pass it off as science. That will only prolong the ridicule (and rightly so).
7wesley said: "I believe everyone of us deep inside know we are created beings"
Don't show such hubris. That's what YOU believe. Please don't apply it everyone - I don’t share your belief, regardless of what you may think.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen scientists defend their precious dogma by obscuring the issues and intimidating its critics, it is a sure sign that what they are defending isn't science. Religion drives evolution.
My reply:
And what do you call it when you argue your silly science to hide your own religious agenda? As for what you are defending, I think St. Augustine said it well:
"It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [a non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. "
jp, I Googled, creation vs evolution debate..also Googled creation ... also googled evolution... googled apologetics debate,,,I Googled origins debate...I Googled Intelligent design debate etc. etc. I gave special attention to video debates with both sides represented...I could give you the name of every site I visited but it would be alot of work..Instead if you use my method you will be able to find most of the sites I visited
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops. Yet another embarassing faux pas. Please insert the following correction where appropriate:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen such violations of the public trust are prosecuted, it is for incompetence and criminal negligence.
7wesley, my doubt is not that you could, but that you did. It is easy enough to go back through your browser history to see the websites you visited. You don't have to name them all, how about just 3 of the ones you found most interesting?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7wesley, you might try Googling "proper punctuation" while you're at it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a little paraphrase for you (and Neal) from Carl Sagan. He said:
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. In all of history, there have been fifty or so Galileos and Newtons. But, there have been millions of Bozos. If someone is laughing at you, odds are it's because you're a clown."
Neal T: "Ambertooth, The wheel that squeaks gets the grease. You are the king of ad hominen arguments on this discussion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..He said, applying a snide ad hominem metaphor..
I guess, Neal T, in your own use of ad hominim, you desperately are trying to deflect attention away from your quote-mining, refusal to answer questions, or failure to acknowledge your own twisting of my statements (you still have not supplied a quote where I have used the term 'designer', as you claimed. If you cannot, then I'd suggest that you keep very quiet about your 'twisting' accusations towards me.).
What's that you say? You're not lying? So where is your 'proof' which you claim to have? And where are your other 28 'evidences for creation'? And where are your responses to Keelyn's other questions? Yesterday Keelyn gave you a golden chance to respond and show us all that you are something more than empty air. You have not taken it. I draw my conclusions.
Neal T: "Religion drives evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is another of Neal T's little mantras. I think that he must imagine that if he keeps saying it enough times, he might make it true.
Neal T: "My reference to rewriting history was refering specifically to Ambertooth's twist on it. If you want an example of an atheist rewriting history, read his posts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo prove me wrong by producing the following:
Please supply documentary evidence that the Albigensian Crusade which I described in my comments never actually took place. Please further supply documentary evidence that the persecution and wholesale murder of the Gnostics never actually took place. Please also supply additional documentary evidence that Christianity has never violently suppressed opposition to its current dominant ideology, whatever that happened to be at the time. Or are you one of these so-called 'Christian' denialists who claims that those who perpetrated such monstrously inhuman acts were 'not really Christians'? I bet you are. Funny how independent academics actually endorse my 'twisted' version of history.
7wesley: "Many scientists today simply remain quiet rather than risk their livelyhood"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're simply taking the well-trodden conspiracy theory route. Unless.. Please give some information about the career scientists with whom you have worked that leads you to draw this conclusion, which I assume is grounded in your own personal working experience.
7wesley: "I could fill volumes of instances where children with faith were ridiculed or unfairly treated for questioning evolution."
I know one courageous young lady attending school in a Bible Belt state. When her teacher began to assert in the geography lesson that the Biblical world flood and Noah's Ark was fact, she stood up and objected. Now that takes courage.
keelyn... Your insults are childish, I usally am doing several things at a time..too busy to worry about spelling or punctuation...this is not my only gig...sarcasm is the lowest form of debate ...not ment to inform but to injure..what I have read of your posts you in your late teens at most you have a lot to learn about how to change peoples minds...and treat people who dissagree with you.. you can get a point across without being cruel or vindictive.. I am a gentleman if you knew me personally we would be friends my closest friends are liberal proffessors they love me as much as I love them
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjp... I would gladly do that if I thought for one minute it would prove to you I am an honorable man ...you have yet to mature to the point where you can believe someone can honestly dissagree with you without duplicity...I will not let you make me jump through hoops to prove my veracity.....I am retired, I probably have children much older and with more education than you...You like Keelyn need to learn how to treat people who disagree with you....No two people will agree on every issue...If you do not learn how to debate respectfully you will have very few friends in this life and miss out on much joy....If you would like we can be friends and enjoy many hearty debates...if not this is the last post I will answer of yours that contains condecending sarcastic insults....I hope you choose to be my friend..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7wesley: "....I am asking that scientists and educaters of this generation somehow find the courage to right the ship ...We all know what it will cost them personally ....but the future of science is worth the sacrifice."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience would have no future if creationists had their way. That is why creationism belongs in the religious instruction class, and why the Education Board found it necessary to issue guidelines to ensure that what is taught in the science class is, and remains, legitimate science. Creationism is not legitimate science. Unless you can cite some published papers in the accredited literature authored by creationists.
7wesley (to jpill69): "If you would like we can be friends and enjoy many hearty debates..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is your attitude, 7wesley, then you're on the wrong website. This is a science-based website, not a general debating forum. If you as a creationist have any comments which are grounded in science to add to this thread, then please do so. Otherwise, I politely suggest that you follow your 'hearty debates' on one or other of the more appropriate forums which you say that you have visited.
You have responded to Keelyn and jpill69. Perhaps when you have the time you would be good enough to address my most recent comment to you at 04:58 AM on 11/09/09.
ambertooth...those who work in academia on both sides of the issue do not need my personal experience to know what is going on....There are two heroes in your story ..the little girl and the brave teacher who risked her career and her income to teach what she believed to be the truth....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7wesley: "There are two heroes in your story ..the little girl and the brave teacher who risked her career and her income to teach what she believed to be the truth...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe state was South Carolina, the teacher was a 'he', and that teacher was rightly reprimanded by the board for imposing his own personal religious views into the geography curriculum where they clearly were inappropriate. So stop playing the 'victim' role.
7wesley, I am bound to make the observation that, apart from this one point, you have yet to reply to ANY of the comments which I have so far addressed to you. You also have yet to provide a single specific example of anything which you have here asserted. It is no hard work to make all manner of assertions about science 'repressing' creationism, as you have been doing here so far. I can assert that there are at this very moment ten blue unicorns prancing in my living room. Anybody can assert anything. But if you assert that you have objections to evolutionary theory, then your objections need to be grounded in sound science, and not in religion. Are they? If so, then please provide that science.
7wesley: "ambertooth...those who work in academia on both sides of the issue do not need my personal experience to know what is going on...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that was not what I was asking you, now was it? Your above statement is merely a pretext for attempting to demonstrate that no 'personal experience' is necessary to make the assertions about science which you so copiously provide here, which is simply another way of admitting that your assertions are not grounded in any personal professional experience of your own.
But if you indeed have no personal experience of working with career scientists, then upon what do you base your assertions? Heresay? Wishful thinking? What you have read somewhere on the Internet? I guess it must indeed be wishful thinking, as you mention those who work "on both sides of the issue". In reality, there are no 'both sides', as you would know were your 'personal experience' to extend somewhat further than it does. Well, perhaps in your local community this is so. But the world is a very large place, and right now, your provincialism is showing.
7wesley, how can I put this in a way you might understand? Try this: I am not an expert in demagoguery, but I know when someone is pushing snake oil. My idea of a respectful debate is when both sides rely on evidence and persuasion. It should go without saying that when someone explicitly refuses to make even the most trivial effort to back up what they say, that person has no intention of showing respect or debating honorably. It seems to me the only way I can respect you is if I bend over and kiss you any time you spew some smelly hot air about what you claim to know or what other people should think. Let me know how that works for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisambertooth ..I could give my personal experience but I am not going to..and not for the reasons you think...One of my children is a national celebrity up to this point they have avoided any hint of scandal.....in some but not all debates I have wittnessed..the evolutionist dug in the background of the person debating them to find anything they thought might be embarrassing and sprung the information on them when the evolutionist was loosing the debate . It is a common practise...My child's celebrity brings plenty of scrunity to my family...I do not desire any more... as far as answering your posts I answer the ones that interest me most and are the most coherant ...as far as answering your last post ...you put too much blind trust in established authority.. in govenment and academia...Stalin and Hittler would have loved you ..tyrants depend on blind faith in government and their academic allies...I try not too answer posts that might cause me to hurt someone's feelings.....you asked for my opinion there it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7wesley said: "Your insults are childish, I usally [sic] am doing several things at a time..too busy to worry about spelling or punctuation &"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat insults? I simply made some observations. It is not my fault that you cannot multitask effectively - thats no excuse for bad grammar, spelling, or punctuation. It makes your posts that much more difficult to understand.
7wesley said: "sarcasm is the lowest form of debate &"
Perhaps, but I wasn't being sarcastic. And I don't know what "debate" you are referring to.
7wesley said: "what I have read of your posts you in your late teens at most you have a lot to learn about how to change peoples minds&"
Wrong. I'm 22 as of last August 30th. And I'm not trying to change your mind about anything - I know better then to try.
7wesley said: "you can get a point across without being cruel or vindictive &"
I agree. And I hope I did get my points across.
7wesley said: "I am a gentleman &"
I have no doubt you are a gentlemen.
7wesley said: "if you knew me personally we would be friends &"
Perhaps so.
7wesley said: "my closest friends are liberal proffessors [sic]"
If you say so. But, my closest friendships transcend shallow ideologies, sir.
7wesley: "Stalin and Hittler would have loved you.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, 7wesley, you just blew it. Such atrociously melodramatic statements are the very reason why others treat your comments with the rightful scorn which you are so quick to accuse others of. They are one of the reasons why creationists are simply not taken seriously, and one of the reasons why it is near-impossible to engage creationists in any meaningful debate. Shame on you for attempting to score such cheap-jack points.
Instead of flailing around asserting this, that and the other about the imagined 'injustices' of science, and refusing to provide any evidence of same (which if you were committed, you easily could provide without drawing your children into the debate, so don't use that as an excuse), I asked you to provide any meaningful science in support of your claims. Can you do this? More to the point: can you actually do this without resorting to the petty and histrionic personal attacks that you now have proven yourself capable of?
Two years of debating them has taught me never, never to turn my back on a creationist. You confirm that my strategy is a sound and wise one.
7wesley: "you put too much blind trust in established authority.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's how well you know me. In fact, you don't know me at all, so why jump to such a presumptuous conclusion about me? Those who do know me personally will tell you that I am notorious for questioning everything, at every turn. And while I'm not actually a bomb-throwing anarchist, 'established authority' is something for which I have a healthy and vigorous disdain. Got any other cheap psychological proclamations?
Oh, how quickly you have revealed your true colors on this thread, 7wesley. All that sham 'gentleman' stuff. Your comments reveal otherwise.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI absolutely stand by the assertion that the church demonination that murdered and tortured people were not Christians.
By it's very name "Christian" means CHRIST-LIKE. Christ taught that hating someone was wrong, and certainly murder is not like Christ. I do not define who is a Christian, Jesus did. The invitation to become a Christian is open to all (whosoever will let him come and drink of the waters of life").
There is however, a process called being Born Again that Jesus said was necessary to become a Christian. The Apostle Peter said, this happens when we trust in Christ and Repent of our sins and are baptized in water in the name of Jesus, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).
Just because someone goes to church and signs and a membership roll does not make them a Christian according to the words of Jesus and his Apostles.
Amber think about it real hard...both Hitler and Stalin were atheists both were evolutionist Both did not allow religion in schools or in government Both made it crimanal to teach children the Bible Both thought Christians were parasites...they both demanded evolution only be taught in the schools...Amber I do not think for a second you approve of the murders these monsters committed..but your political and religious veiws are so simular that when you realized what they were it would have been too late...that is all I meant....this missunderstanding is why I usally dont answer post like yours....your incredibly naive and that is not meant in a cruel way
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: “Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes.
The theory of evolution is the hypothesis that a single living cell, through the gradual addition of complexity has produced all the life that now exists.
This idea is not scientific, because it has no basis in observation. However, instead of requiring scientific theories to be likely, evolutionists require merely that they are naturalistic . Evolution is founded in a bunch of metaphysical assumptions, and it is far from objective to the origin of species.
The theory is cleverly devised and presented in such a way that in order to be falsified a person has to show that one could not imagine it to have happened. Observation is not needed, only imagination. How does that muddled hogwash (Darwin's quote to prove it, on request) get advanced to the level of science? Like an astronomer saying that multi-verses must exist unless one can show that they don't. You've got one of the biggest money sucking scams in history going on.
The proof is in the fact that large scale change has NEVER been observed. Evolutionists hide behind long amounts of time to shield their sorry theory from producing actual evidence of large scale change.
Well, one need look no further than the tens of thousands of generations of bacteria that have been breed in the lab. If large scale change is possible, bacteria would be the place to see it.
The fact is that other than small scale mutation, no large scale change has been observed in tens of thousands of generations of bacteria. You guys can continue to believe that another ten thousand generations will do it, but if it doesn't happen, then what? Nothing, because evolution does not truly depend on observation.
Pointing out a few fossils that could be imagined to be transitional does not make them so. Common design is just as good at explaining these and better at explaining those fossils that appear abruptly in the fossil record (i.e. trilobite, platypus, etc).
You can continue your ad hominen arguments all day for every new vistor to this site, but what we are looking for is evidence from your side.
Positive evidence for design does not rely on speculation or even faith, because the properties of design are observed in the lab. DNA is a digital information system. Natural HAS NEVER been observed to originate digital information. Digital information has always been the product of intelligence.
Positive evidence for design does not rely on speculation or even faith, because the properties of design are observed in the lab. DNA is a digital information system. Nature HAS NEVER been observed to originate digital information. Digital information has always been the product of intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheckmate
7wesley: "Amber think about it real hard..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot even my friends call me 'amber', you jerk. And I have thought about it 'real hard'. And my conclusions are the same. You're just blowing smoke rings out of.. oh, never mind.
7wesley: "your incredibly naive and that is not meant in a cruel way"
Passing judgment from a distance about people you've never even met seems to be something of a speciality of yours. Either you actually seriously mean what you say, in which case your arrogance is breathtaking, or you are a hustling Internet troll baiting for a reaction. Which is it, 7wesley?
Neal T: "Ambertooth, I absolutely stand by the assertion that the church demonination that murdered and tortured people were not Christians."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Catholics are not Christians? I'll make a note of that. Well, well. I seem to have gotten under your skin on this point, Neal T. Good. And cut the 'I-am-a-born-again-Christian' crap. Lying, denying, quote-mining, triumphalist braying, more denying. No true Christian behaves as you do.
7wesley wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this......they both demanded evolution only be taught in the schools...
my reply:
Since you are the second one to post this nonsense, as if it makes any difference one way or the other, Stalin in particular and the Communist part in general hated Darwinism as a capitalist tool to supress the proletariat. Up until the 1950's, the official Communist doctrine was Lysenkoism, which has about as much in common with Darwinism as does ID. It was only after the repeated crop failures from Lysenko's policies and the destruction of many sincere scientists's careers and lives that the Communist Party finally relented to the realities of Darwinism.
As someone trained in history, you should know this. So much for your bona fides.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural HAS NEVER been observed to originate digital information.
my reply:
DNA is a "natural" product. QED
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...the properties of design are observed in the lab.
my reply:
So specify said observed properties, by quantity and quality. Such is something Behe and Dembsky have never done.
Kids ,kids I am going to go back on my word and tell you some sites that I visit....The reason is because I want to show you what Intelligent thoughtful discussion about evolution and creation can look like .....there are sites in US News and World Report were top scholars and proffessors and authors on all sides of this issue meet and discuss their veiws...without insults without cruelity and in a respectful manner..Many of us on oppisite sides have become very fond of eachother..we treat eachother with respect...most of us have taught proffessionally....so I will warn you they like all teachers will not answer your questions the way you want them answered. They will answer them in a way they think you need to hear ... evolution has many competing theories your greatest critics may be evolutionists..especially if you are rude and disrespectfull to their friends who happen to be creationists...not all the sites are like this it depends on the age and level of education of who is in the room...college kids on both sides often get to hurling insults...if there gets to be too many of them, the more clear thinking people will leave.....it is kind of a crap shoot to find a time when the best minds are in the room but when they are the conversation is fabulous and you have the opportunity to put forth your best arguement without being insulted. We try to destroy the other's arguement not the other person....try it if you want... Leave your stereotypes at the door if you want to engage the best minds.. you dont want your fellow evolutionists be embarrassed for you..or of you...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7wesley wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...there are sites in US News and World Report ...
my reply:
not exactly a science site but more to the point, you didn't post any URL's. Go back to your web browser, look at your history, and cut-and-paste the URL's you consider relevant.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo anyone that disagrees with you is lying? Just more ad hominen posts. What evolutionary theory needs is a creative mechanism, capable of building complex structures like vision and breathing systems over and over in diverse lines. Speculation about how an occasional jump might occur won't do the job.
No wonder 66% of people in England are skeptical of evolution. The land of Darwin is getting weary with the smoke and mirrors that are used to prompt up a theory that never seems to really get explained. Less than 40% have drank the Kool-aid. Incredible for a 150 year old theory. If the theory was up for election it would lose in a landslide.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Catholics are not Christians?
my reply:
I know of many Protestant christians who consider Roman Catholics as cult members, to the degree they refuse to break bread with them. My impression is they are even more polarized in England. And wasn't there a small problem about this over in Ireland? Now those guy knew the meaning of nasty.
Neal T: "Ambertooth, So anyone that disagrees with you is lying?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, Neal T, not "anyone who disagrees with me". Just someone who make the following very specific claim:
Neal T at 11:52PM on 10\26\09: " Some limited genetic change, small mutations and such are very much a part of science, but the other stuff is a bunch of hogwash and I can prove it."
..And then fails to make good his assertion. So I'm going to say straight out that I do not believe that you have any such proof, and that you were lying when you made your claim. Of course, you can always prove me wrong (and thus turn the entire scientific community on its collective head, which I would have thought you would have been straining at the leash to do), and actually produce your 'proof'.
Otherwise you were lying when you made your claim.
jpill69: "I know of many Protestant christians who consider Roman Catholics as cult members, to the degree they refuse to break bread with them. My impression is they are even more polarized in England."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's right, jpill69. They had a little thing going in the 16th century called the Dissolution. Many Catholics were forced to flee for their lives, and many others weren't successful. The divisions within Christianity run so deep, even the Russian Orthodox Church and the Vatican haven't exchanged Christmas cards for a thousand years. Christianity is the most deeply-riven of all religions. In fact, considering that one denomination generally will not even worship in the church of another, I would consider it reasonable to think of all the many Christian denominations in terms of having 'speciated'. Evolution at work, Folks...
jpill69 : "DNA is a "natural" product. QED"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone else here notice the difference in the caliber of language? Neal T squawks 'checkmate', and jpill69 closes with 'Quod erat demonstrandum'.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey had a little thing going in the 16th century called the Dissolution.
My reply:
It wouldn't surprise me too much if Neal and 7wesley blame Darwin for this as well.
God's word is the judge of all men. It clearly says that people become Christians by being born again. What people call themselves doesn't matter. The question is not whether someone calls themselves Catholic or whatever. The question is, have they been born again? God will hold everyone responsible for how they have responded to the word of God. You can mock it, but you can't change it anymore than you can keep the sun from rising.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact without evidence because naturalism is the only concept accepted. Therefore, evolution can not be disproven in the minds of its fanatics and neither does it need to be proven. A hypothesis of the mechanism of evolution can be put forth as evidence, disproven and replaced by a new mechanism but that does not change the fact of evolution.
You falsely hold out that the creator must be found in the lab to prove creation, but your standard does not apply to evolution. Evolution depends on highly improbably events and processes of nature that we have NEVER observed. The digital property of DNA storage system is an observable property of design.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is, have they been born again? God will hold everyone responsible for how they have responded to the word of God.
My reply:
A better question is, can you prove it? How will your God respond to your denial of His works?
29 evidences for Creation. #2 of 29:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNested hierarchy of Species. A predictable property of design is that the same designer often creates in a hierarchy or series. Authors write a series of novels, automobile and computers are manufactured in a series of similar models based on a common design.
Neal, evolution and creation are both empirical facts. The universe exists, which means it was created. Life adapts, which means it evolves. We can look at the world with open eyes and minds and see the reality of these things. The question at hand is HOW? You reject evolution as an explanation not because it is bad science, but because you don't like the implications you read into it. These implications do not come from evolution but from within you. The solution to your problem isn't to change evolution but to change yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is astonishing that you can say something like the nonsense of creationism when in absolute truth it takes more blind and unscientific faith to beleive in evolution than it ever will to beleive there is a supreme and supernatural creator of all things. the amount of perfect randomness required for evolution to even be partialy considered as science is just dumbfounding. i would much rather beleive in a God that loves me and may exist than to take a chance on the fact that God does not exist. if i beleive and He does exist i have just gained eternal life. if i choose to not beleive and He exists i have earned myself eternal hell and damnation. what do i have to lose. i dont care if i am "intilectual" or not because at the end of life it dose not matter what your IQ is on either ends of the spectrums of the evolution V.S christianity or any other religion. i would much rather live for love and true purpose than for worldly knowledge searching for the answers to life inside the tiny box we call the universe. I believe thet Jesus is the way the truth and the light, the begining and the end, the creator and the soon to come judge of all mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm. What's even more astonishing is for nitwits like you to come on to a science site to prattle your ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, YAWN! The hell with it. It isn't worth the trouble to type it all out.
jesusiscreatorofallphysicalandspiritual: "i would much rather beleive in a God that loves me and may exist than to take a chance on the fact that God does not exist. if i beleive and He does exist i have just gained eternal life. if i choose to not beleive and He exists i have earned myself eternal hell and damnation. what do i have to lose"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether you consider yourself 'intilectual' or not, jesusiscreatorofallphysicalandspiritual, there is such a thing as intellectual honesty, which should prompt you at least to give poor Pascal credit here for this famous 'Pascal's wager'. And for *%#@ sake, choose a shorter log-in name.
Neal T: "29 evidences for Creation. #2 of 29: Nested hierarchy of Species. A predictable property of design is that the same designer often creates in a hierarchy or series. Authors write a series of novels, automobile and computers are manufactured in a series of similar models based on a common design."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup. Presupposition again. Epic fail.
Neal T: "God's word is the judge of all men. It clearly says that people become Christians by being born again."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis statement reveals volumes about your own mindset. So as you see it, Christianity has nothing whatever to do with standards of decency or a personal moral compass. As long as you've been 'born again', that gives you a license from God to come on here and LIE (where's your 'proof'???), deny, bait, quote-mine, etc. But, hey, all that's okay, because you've been 'born again'. And by God's definition (which inevitably rests upon personal interpretation), any Christian who has not been 'born again' is not a 'real' Christian.You say as much here, so don't deny it.
Neal T, you're no more a so-called 'Christian' than I am. I know atheists, and enough of them, who conduct themselves with way more standards of personal decency than you do here. So you've been 'born again'. What as? A compulsive liar?
Neal T: "You falsely hold out that the creator must be found in the lab to prove creation, but your standard does not apply to evolution. Evolution depends on highly improbably events and processes of nature that we have NEVER observed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint #1: Unless you DO establish God's existence within the parameters of science, then all of your 'evidences for creation' will be founded upon the false premise of presupposition, which makes them nul and void. Now, how many times does that make that I've explained this to you?
Point #2: Google: 'examples of observed evolution'. But from the selection of websites that you get, make sure that you choose credible science-based sites, and not those dishonest apologist sites that you pinch your QUOTE-MINING from.
I have a challenge for the evolutionists in this site..List all the books they have read written by creationists on the subject of intelligent Design..human genetics...or biology of any kind.....geology... or anyother subject..there are thousands of books written by creationist authors with science degrees... you would not respect someone who critisized evolution if they had not at least read a few books written by evolutionists....If you will take this challenge I will match it by posting 2 books to your one written by evolutionists that I have read....since creationists have an advantage in a challenge like this ..I will not post anything I was made to read in my schooling.....if you care to we can each post a short summary of three chapters of each book...so we are sure no one is cheating.....or we could have our library send a list of books we have read on these subjects....I know I respect a person alot more if they have read the material they are critisizing....One more rule I will not post books on evolution written by creationists and you can not post books on creation written by evolutionists.....I know you would not respect my opinion if the only knowledge i had of evolution was that of it's critics...That street goes both ways......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjp I will post 20 urls for you of the debate sites i like the most.....my computer deletes history ,cookies,and ad ons everytime I get off line..someone told me it kept the computer in better shape if I did it...so it may take me a day or so.. A member of my family is in the hospital I am kind of busy....I promise I will get those up..I am not stalling for time...right now I dont have any time to stall for..
7wesley: "I have a challenge for the evolutionists in this site.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo dice, 7wesley. You have chosen to comment on an accredited science website. Creationism has no legitimacy as accredited science (yes, even in spite of all those 'thousands' of books written by creationist 'scientists' which you claim). And I have no respect whatever for a religious belief that attempts to pass itself off as so-called 'science', because it then is neither religion nor science, but an ugly hybrid of both with the virtues of neither. And if you deny that creationism is religion-based, then remove the Bible from creationism. What do you have left? Exactly.
Religion, being unquantifiable belief, lies outside the brief of science. So, no: the 'street' does not go 'both ways'. You either are prepared to accept the methodology of science, or you are not.
7wesley: "A member of my family is in the hospital I am kind of busy.."
I wish you well with that. But all of us have our own lives beyond the Internet, and you would not even want to know what I go through in between my commenting here.
7wesley: "I know I respect a person alot more if they have read the material they are critisizing...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypically for a creationist, you seem to see this in terms of the number of books which you have read on the subject, and that x amount of reading 'counts' for something. It does not. Science concerns itself with research, and data derived from that research, and the conclusions which are reached as a result of evaluating such data. How much hands-on research have you done, 7wesley? Take away all the books you have ever read, and what are you left with?
Shall I tell you one instance of what true scientific research actually involves? It means dragging yourself up out of a warm ship's bunk at four in the morning, every morning, for the duration of a marine bilogy field trip, to climb up on deck and haul in a deep-sea trawl to sort through, examine, and evaluate the organisms in it - and doing this all by the light of deck lamps with the stink of diesel fumes in your lungs on a pitching deck. I am speaking from personal experience.
To a creationist, they think that they've got a full house by reading books and combing the Internet. There is a difference.
ambertooth, That is the kind of closed minded predjudice that breeds sucspicion among the public..It does not do you science or even evolution any service at all...when a scientist refuses to broaden their knowledge about a subject they say is a threat to science..it sounds like fear more than science..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am thourghly convinced the creationist are going to win this debate....Many creationist know more about evolution than most evolutionist..Sooner or later the constant harranging about creation and ID being a religion is going to wear thin...Alot of people are saying so what if its a religion lets see what they have to offer...Increasingly the closed minded attitude of evolutionist is making them look like they are frightened that the creationist are really on to something. Every evolutionist knows there are serious gaps in the knowledge of how our world works.. If you know anything at all about ID or creationism ..you know it is not only about the Bible......they may have some things that could fill in those gaps who knows how that could benifit mankind...
The reason I believe creationist will win this debate is not so much what they are doing, but how the evolutionist are reacting to them.....I am sure the latest poll results have been posted in here.... but if not..over 60% of people in USA...Canada and UK now believe evolution does not have the answer to origins...
7wesley, please get your history facts straight. It is well documented that Hitler was not an atheist; he was, for the most part, a Roman Catholic – anything but an atheist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php
You can Google so many more. It’s easy – Google, "Hitler religion"
Is that it, Neal? Is this your entire "proof," or do you have more to add? I need to know; I wouldn't want to deprive you of giving a full explanation - it wouldn't be fair to you. It wouldn't be fair to the sources I plan to submit it to for critique and comment, either. Although no editor of any respectable journal would even consider opening your envelope of nonsense, let alone take time to comment on, I do have several other prospects that are sure to have fun with it. And they all have several well-known biologists who provide articles and comments. So, if you have more to add, let me know and I'll wait for a few days. If not, I'll just present it as is. And don't fret - I intend to give you full credit for each and every word. And I'll post all the critiques and comments, if any. It's sometimes questionable with things like this whether people will actually take it seriously enough to bother to comment. I guess it depends on how bored they are. We'll give it a fair try, anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, as time is very limited for me right now and I have no interest in engaging Neal in any of his biblical babblings, I have told him before that he really should cite his sources, even when the source is a dope. For example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "What evolutionary theory needs is a creative mechanism, capable of building complex structures like vision and breathing systems."
That's a line from an article by Phillip E. Johnson, granddaddy of the intelligent design movement, and holder of absolutely no scientific credentials whatsoever.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF3-93Johnson.html
Sometimes I think Neal deliberately fails to cite his sources because it gives the appearance that he is actually thinking.
Well, once again Neal writes - and strikes. He strikes the discordant chord of profound ignorance. Anyone surprised? As most of us realize, Neal recently provided #1 of 29 evidences for creation - "The Digital Nature of DNA." That "evidence" was soundly obliterated, regardless of how many times Neal tosses it on the table like a week old pizza, hoping someone will eventually gobble it up and say, "yummy." Well now, he's done it again:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "29 evidences for Creation. #2 of 29:
Nested hierarchy of Species. A predictable property of design is that the same designer often creates in a hierarchy or series. Authors write a series of novels, automobile and computers are manufactured in a series of similar models based on a common design."
Sorry, Neal. Absolutely, totally, and thoroughly wrong! I don't provide this link for Neal, because he would just give it the traditional creationist hand wave. But, for those who would like to understand nested hierarchies, and a detailed explanation of why they do not apply to novels, automobiles, computers, buildings, headlights, rocks, headlights, and any number of other inanimate objects, please see the following link. It's written by people who actually know what they are talking about and not living under the "Dunce Delusion:"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
7wesley: "If you know anything at all about ID or creationism ..you know it is not only about the Bible.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen answer yes or no to this question: if your were an atheist, would you be a creationist? ID, the ugly sister of creationism, was cynically floated by creationists as a means of attempting to circumvent the ruling about teaching religion in the science class. This is the reason why creationists are so desperate to claim that ID is 'independent' of religion. It's not, of course.
As for 'breeding suspicion among the public', I think that you have mistaken me for someone who actually gives a toss about this. Creationists - including you, 7wesley - always see this in terms of a 'debate' to be 'won' or 'lost' (witness Neal T's 'checkmate' squawkings), or about taking polls about public opinion. The findings of science are not arrived at by a public poll. Science is not a democracy, where the hypothesis that gets the most votes is chosen.
I note that you skirted around answering my question asking you how much hands-on research you personally had done (also in the field). Oh, yes, I forgot: you've read a lot of books, haven't you?
7wesley, if even one of the comments which you have made here so far contained even a smidgeon of some sort of evidence in support of your overly-verbose flummery, I might be persuaded to think that there is something to what you say. But as it is..
keelyn ... only a person with dullest of blind faith would believe NEAL would get any kind of fair treatment in that proccess..and that is the reaon you suggested it .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this29 Evidences for Creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#3 of 29: Consilience of independent phylogenies.
A significant property of design, is that a common designer will frequently reuse basic modules again and again. Professional programmers as well as "hacks" will reuse code modules as is or tweek them for their new designs. Rather than "reinvent the wheel" it is very efficient to reuse code modules. This is not slacking, in fact it is a common and expected practice. Reuse of code modules is a sign of EFFICIENCY IN DESIGN, not lack of creativity. So too, with the DNA coding that is sometimes shared across various species. It is an observable trait of efficiency in action.
29 Evidences for Creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#3 of 29: Consilience of independent phylogenies.
A significant property of design, is that a common designer will frequently reuse basic modules again and again. Professional programmers as well as "hacks" will reuse code modules as is or tweek them for their new designs. Rather than "reinvent the wheel" it is very efficient to reuse code modules. This is not slacking, in fact it is a common and expected practice. Reuse of code modules is a sign of EFFICIENCY IN DESIGN, not lack of creativity. So too, with the DNA coding that is sometimes shared across various species. It is an observable trait of efficiency in action.
Keelyn: "Sometimes I think Neal deliberately fails to cite his sources because it gives the appearance that he is actually thinking."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is, of course, the reason why he has never acknowledged the quote-mining Christian apologist website from which he had 'borrowed' an entire comment. Even when confronted by me with the link - as you have done here, Keelyn - for anyone to independently check, he becomes 'selectively blind'. Typical of creationist dishonesty. And 7wesley actually seems to imagine that such morally-suspect shenanigans are a serious 'threat' to science. I for one am not losing any sleep.
Neal T: "29 Evidences for Creation. #3 of 29: Consilience of independent phylogenies."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup, still the same old presupposition. Another 'fail', I'm afraid, young Neal. See me after class for an extra assignment on 'why presupposition renders any argument worthless.'
Neal T, since you are obviously not making all this stuff up yourself, please cite your source for others to check.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding Nested Hierarchy of spieces from Theobald, he said "Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc." Perhaps he is not aware of the same manufacturer using the same frame and engine for different models. Certainly car manufacturers plan on using as many of the same components as possible as a matter of planning and efficiency and cost.
7wesley: "keelyn ... only a person with dullest of blind faith would believe NEAL would get any kind of fair treatment in that proccess..and that is the reaon you suggested it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo far, Neal T has had since the Spring of this year to establish some sort of a case for what he is claiming on this thread. Clearly, the SciAm moderators have given - and continue to give - him all the rope that he chooses to take to do this. And still he comes up with the same old fallacious reasoning, the same old presupposition, the same old LIES, claiming that he has 'proof' without actually posting it. There is not a soul stopping him from authoring a paper of his own. But, as I have pointed out before, he will not - indeed CANNOT - do this, because he knows that in any case the ideas which he propounds here are not original to himself, and, if published, would therefore be plagiarism.
Pleading the 'victim' is not an unknown strategy among creationists. They should try honesty sometimes. At least were they to do this, they might be competing on equal terms with the science which they both envy and detest. But like I said, I for one am not losing any sleep over this.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least Keelyn brought up a specific point of rebuttal, rather than your same generalized and empty replies. Your replies remind me of the old Cowboy Woody toy that when you pulled the string on its back, it would say one of three canned sayings... "There's a snake in my boots".
Neal T: "Ambertooth, At least Keelyn brought up a specific point of rebuttal, rather than your same generalized and empty replies."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, Neal T, perhaps it's because I already have explained my point to you, serially, in detail, and with endless forebearance, in many previous comments on this thread. Up till now. But if you still genuinely do not understand why the 'evidences for creation' which you have been presenting are resting on foundations of sand, perhaps you should check back and read all my many previous responses to you on this subject. Weeks ago, I recall actually pointing out to you that were you ever to present 'your' so-called evidence to an accredited source, it would be thrown straight back at you because of your use of presupposition which renders your arguments invalid. Do you perhaps think that I was just being jocular? Do you think that I did not really mean it? Try it, and see.
And now, please cite the source from which you are gleaning these 'evidences'.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you go again. Pulled the string again... "present your so called evidence to an accredited source", and again "present your so called evidence to an accredited source", and again "present your so called evidence to an accredited source", and again "present your so called evidence to an accredited source".
Ambertooth how much of what you say about evolution is your own orginal thought? Do you or any one else in here use anything else than what someone else has said to refute his claims...I maybe wrong but every thing I have seen in here originated some where else...Most creationist are more concerned about the broader implications of this debate then trying to get acclaim from a rigged system...People in here need to ask themselves ...would you like to have your work on this subject peer reveiwed by creationists......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience will always be debate driven.. boundries will always be questioned and defended..... unless there is lack of liberty and only one side of a debate has academic freedom...when there is no outlet in academia for all sides...science can not sort out the winners and losers. It is left to judges and legislatures....not scientists
As far as the historical comments directed at me..we all know about the problem of history being revised by those with an agenda.....if academic freedom can be encouraged and maintained,,,History will sort that out...
Neal I would like you to read verses 10 thru 12 in chapter 5 in the book of Mathew....
Guys this is my last post I have to spend less time on line..I have way too many irons in the fire....wish I could have met all of you personally....Sorry I did not Answer all the posts directed at me...I usally did not even have time to read them all......Goodby
Jesus.... wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...it dose not matter what your IQ is on either ends of the spectrums of the evolution V.S christianity...
My reply:
You seem to have bought into the idea that a belief in God and acceptance of science are mutually exclusive. I say to you sincerely and emphatically they are NOT Those who claim to believe His word but deny His works are false prophets. You choose to reject your intellect, but your brain can do so much more than keep your ears apart. Use your mind to understand the world you live in.
7wesley wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a challenge for the evolutionists in this site..
My reply:
Are you proposing a contest, as in dueling books? Ambertooth raised a legitimate point, in that the mere quantitiy of books read doesn't show anything meaningful. On a personal note, I don't have as much time to read as I would like. Further, I usually choose books by subject and less so by author, and my profession and personal inclination bias my selections to books that are heavy on technical details and light on the metaphysical. So, if that is all you are after, I can save everybody a lot of time and stipulate that you have read more creation science books.
On the other hand, you raise a legitimate point as well, to which I agree with some modification, in that I respect a perrson's OPINION a lot more if they are OPEN to reading material they are criticizing. To that end, and to avoid the
problems outlined above, I propose a counter-challenge. You name a book written by a creationsist, and I name a book written by a scientist (there's no such thing as an evolutionist, and the label is emotionally equivalent to 'colored' people). You paraphrase my book and I paraphrase your book. And if you wish, you can even criticize the book, which is a distinct exercise from paraphrasing. How about it?
PS I realize 7wesley has bid this site adieu, but I suspect he will be back sooner or later.
Neal T: "Ambertooth, There you go again."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you tell me: what is your intention in being here, Neal T? What do you hope to achieve? Do you actually have any serious intention of introducing your ideas into mainstream science or not? Or are you so deluded that you seriously think that anything that is said on this thread by anyone, yes, including yourself, will make the slightest difference to existing science?
But even this is not my point, as much as you try to maintain that it is. So here is my real question to you: do you truly and sincerely understand why the arguments which you present here are invalid? I have explained in detail many times to you why this is so. Just tell me if you understand the reason: yes or no?
And yet again, I ask you to cite the source from which you take your 'evidences for creation'.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see no evidence or macroevolution. Present something other than referring me to a website.
I see evidence of design.
God is the creator and designer. Who is denying his works? You have God hidden so far back away from reality that one has to guess what you figure his works actually were.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are you obsessed with what my motive is? Because you are not competent enough to argue why you believe evolution to be a fact and so you must attack my motives?
I would much rather focus on the strengths and weaknesses of evolution vs. creation rather than motives. Let it go. It will be all right, just let it go.
7wesley: "People in here need to ask themselves ...would you like to have your work on this subject peer reveiwed by creationists......"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough you say that you have left the thread, 7wesley, maybe you'll look in on this comment, because your above statement actually raises some interesting issues. My own reaction, which I have made here several times before to other creationists, is that your statement implies that science is a kind of club, with each scientist closing ranks and looking out for the other against all those renegade outsider ideas that constantly clamour at the doors of science. This is ludicrous. Trust me: no-one is more brutally critical of a scientist's work than.. another scientist. When a new paper is published, then the knives come out. That you apparently think that it is otherwise only shows your own ignorance of these processes.
In my experience, creationists are always looking to have the boundaries of science redrawn to accommodate what otherwise would not pass muster as legitimate science. This is the reason why they strive to have the supernatural included as 'science', although the reality is that to do so would render science meaningless. So ask yourself in turn: would you actually like to have God proven within the parameters of science? Just think: no more 'belief'. Faith would become redundant, because faith would no longer be required to 'believe'. As would the free will either to believe or not to believe. The very thing that you seek - to have a new religion-based science - would not only be the end of science. It would, for the above reasons, also be the end of religion as such. Of all the creationists with whom I have had contact, not one has shown any awareness of, or thought the thing through to, an awareness of this stark fact:
The achievement of the creationists' goal would signal the end of religious belief as such.
And NO creationist has yet tackled my other thorny proposition: supposing creationism succeeds, and all science has a creationist base? What about other non-Christian religions, creeds and beliefs? Where do they fit into this Christian Bible-based science club (because then it really would be a one-faith-only clique)? You might boot out all those nasty atheist scientists, but where is the space for the sincere beliefs of scientists who are polytheistic Hindus, neo-Pagans, Moslems, etc. etc. (because all these exist). This is not some trick question. This raises, as it is intended to, serious issues which every Christian Biblical literalist must face if they think seriously about the future at all. Is there any creationist out there who is prepared to square up to the plate and answer, fairly and reasonably, the issues which I have raised here?
To answer your original question: frankly, if I had a paper to submit, I'd be dead nervous as it is of having it peer reviewed by scientists.. I mean it.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see no evidence or [of?] macroevolution
My reply:
You don't see it because you refuse to look at it. If you define macroevolution with any workable precision, it will show there is no difference between it and the small changes you accept accumulated over time.
Neal T: "Ambertooth, Why are you obsessed with what my motive is?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot an obsession. An entirely resonable question in view of all your collective comments here over the months. Please have the courtesy to answer my two questions:
1] Do you understand my point as to why your arguments are invalid? Yes or no?
2] Yet again, I ask you to cite the source from which you take your 'evidences'. How hard can this be? Or are you anxious to conceal something?
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, I'll answer this time, but then let it go.
1. I understand why from your point of view my arguments are invalid. The reason is your commitment to scientific materialism, leading you to assume evolution is the only allowable explanation and therefore a fact. Evidence that does not fit with the theory, does not disprove the theory.
2. Sources. I have studied this for 30 years, having believed in the theory of evolution before I began to analyze its weaknesses. Most of my comments are just the assimilation of everything I have read or thought about personally. As far as the 29 evidences for creation, I'm surprised you haven't caught on yet. The comments about design regarding each evidence are mine. My training and experience is in system design and information systems, so its a good fit. I want a hardy discussion of the points, not a bunch of ad hominen and motive-obsessed replies.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou assume the EXTRAPOLATION from micro to macro evolution is true. This is where you got hung up a few months ago with the household item thought experiment.
You thought Dawkins' BOX-EYE was the best thing since sliced bread. I think I understand why you believe in evolution as you do.
It would be nice if you could provide some evidence to justify your extrapolation.
Neal T: "I understand why from your point of view my arguments are invalid."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou always say this, but, sincerely, Neal T, this is NOT 'my point of view', as you put it. I said to another creationist on another thread on SciAm, when he complained about the grilling that he was getting from the pro-science commenters, that it was really nothing to what he could expect should he ever venture to float his ideas in the world. The magnifying glass nit-picking scrutiny, the tearing-apart to see what makes those ideas tick, and general raking-over with a fine tooth-comb of a new hypothesis that goes on, is what awaits you or anyone else who wishes to have any of their ideas accepted, whether those ideas are religion-based or material-based. And frankly, your 'evidences' groan under the weight of inadmissible presupposition, and would be simply dismissed out-of-hand for that reason. But as I have already said to you: you do not need to accept my opinion on this. Just do it, and see what reaction you will get. But don't say that I did not warn you.
So how CAN you expect simply to "focus on the strengths and weaknesses of evolution vs. creation" if the arguments as you put them forward would be considered inadmissible in the first place?
And if you have no intention whatever of changing things, then why bother to comment here at all? I represent the status quo. You want to change that status quo. How, then, do you plan to do this? As I pointed out before (I've pointed about pretty much EVERYTHING before), this thread will of course in time be deleted to make room for others, and all your comments will disappear into the ether. What have you gained? These are reasonable questions to put to you, in view of the sheer amount of time and effort (many months) which you have invested in commenting here.
Do you have reasonable answers?
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be nice if you could provide some evidence to justify your extrapolation.
My reply:
It would be nice if you would provide a useful definition of macroevolution.
Neal T: "My training and experience is in system design and information systems, so its a good fit."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is your greatest weakness, Neal, and what is prompting you to use your professional experience as a falsely-applied analog for natural systems. It is this factor which causes you to make the same mistake each time again:
Car = design. DNA = design. This is how you deploy your rationale. But between car and DNA is a presupposition which annuls the connection which you seek to make between the human artefact and the system occurring in nature. You have not established that the agency to 'design' DNA exists in the first place. You are pre-supposing it. There, I've explained it yet again. No ad hominems. No 'motive-obsessed replies' (whatever they are). Just straight, comprehensive logic.
Neal, try to follow this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether its an arrowhead, stonehenge, or a watch, the logic remains the same. You have identified a set of manmade objects. This is a subset of all manmade objects. The elements may have other features in common, but that is not relevant to their placement in this set. The only thing that matters is that they are manmade.
To make a set of all digitally-encoded manmade objects, that would be a new set, and you would include in that set the union of the set of all manmade objects and the set of all digitally-encoded objects. Once again, they may have other features in common, but each element must at least be digitally-encoded AND manmade.
Ok so far? Because here comes the part you have trouble with.
Now you say you are going to make a set of intelligently designed objects. You take the previous set of digitally-encoded manmade objects, and you add to it DNA. Then you assert This proves DNA is intelligently designed.
I say to you, No, it doesnt. DNA doesnt belong in that set.
And you say, Yes, it does. It is digitally encoded just like the other objects.
And I say, But it is not manmade, so it doesnt belong.
And you say, I defined a set of intelligently-designed digitally-encoded objects. All of the objects in this set have a creator.
And I say, All of these objects except DNA are manmade because that is the set you started with.
And you say, Your materialist worldview blinds you to the Truth.
Now do you understand the problem?
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that you can sustain the tone of your last post. You ask a good question about establishing the agency of design.
First, one could say unknown purely naturalistic processes formed the first life. No agency has been established in this case. If it has, please tell me specifically what it was.
Perhaps you are familar with the SETI project. If you are, then perhaps it would be helpful in explaining properties of design. How does SETI search for extraterestrial Intelligence, look for an "intelligent" signal. How would it tell the difference between background noise and a signal produced by an intelligent source that it never met? What would be some of the characteristics of such a signal to differentiate it from naturally occuring radiation?
We are in the information age. Biology is very much based on information. That is the future, and Darwinism is not an enabler of discovering the frontiers of the wonderful information that is contained within a living cell. Cell researchers would be better served by a model that expects intentional and innovative design, not an industrial age model that didn't have a clue what was on the inside of a cell.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that you can sustain the tone of your last post.
and
...not an industrial age model that didn't have a clue what was on the inside of a cell.
You know, as much as you feel like the victim, as much as you feel like you don't deserve any the abuse that you see directed at you personally, you are not blameless. There is no way you can know anything about current science and write the above with any kind of honesty or integrity. As far as I am concerned, it is your scornful hyperbole like this that quite literally begs to be responded in kind, and I am hard-pressed to give you the grace to allow that you are not writing these things with deliberate intent to incite.
In other words, the deal is you mind your P's and other people will mind their Q's. Otherwise you can go back to being nailed on the cross.
Neal T: "Perhaps you are familar with the SETI project. If you are, then perhaps it would be helpful in explaining properties of design."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly the SETI Project is familar to me. But in naming this example you merely return to your flawed analog. I have yesterday pointed out that the most fundamental and consistent mistake that you make is to use your own professional experience in information systems as an analog for the biological sciences. For you, this has a built-in 'gratification-reward' factor (I use the term psychologically, not disparagingly), because as an IDer it allows you to view the natural world as being inherently 'designed' by a presupposed supernatural agency.
But this is radically different from the way in which science actually proceeds. Were a scientist actually to put forward the idea that the test of an echinoderm is 'designed' to give the animal structural integrity, several thousand other scientists would immediately scream 'first establish that such a designing agency exists!' Not because it had anything to do with belief as such, but because to fail to do this would be bad (and inadmissible) science.
Each time again you wave this factor aside as if it doesn't really count, or is not that important. But it is what renders your arguments void, it is what you are up against, and it is real.
I strongly suggest that you take jpill69's last two comments here to heart. You are far from blameless in the tone of the comments which you provoke from others. You have shown yourself willing to endlessly prevaricate, you are selectively blind about questions put to you, and you refuse to acknowledge your own quote-mining sources, even when these are stuck under your nose. You arrogantly consider yourself a cut above, not only non-Christians, but even those Chistians whom you (yes, you, not God) consider not to be 'born again'. And you make false claims (spelled 'l-i-e') about a supposed 'proof' which you have. No, Neal T, you are far from being the aggrieved victim that you now attempt to pass yourself off as.
I will ask you again what I asked you yesterday, which within the context of this thread is a valid and reasonable question: I represent the science status quo. You seek to change that status quo. If you have no intention of publishing any material, how do you expect to achieve that? (Bearing in mind that commenting on this thread does not count.)
Neal T, I'm now directing my following proposition to you:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSupposing creationism succeeds in its objectives, and all science has a creationist base? What about other non-Christian religions, creeds and beliefs? Where would they fit into this Christian Bible-based science club (because then it really would be a one-faith-only clique)? You might boot out all those nasty atheist scientists, but where is the space for the sincere beliefs of scientists who are polytheistic Hindus, neo-Pagans, Moslems, etc. etc. (because all these exist). This is not some trick question. This raises, as it is intended to, serious issues which every Christian Biblical literalist must face if they think seriously about the attainment of their goals.
No creationist to whom I have put this has provided me with an answer. Perhaps you will. Otherwise, I'm going to draw the conclusion that creationists chasing scientific respectability are like my dog chasing cars: if he ever caught one, he wouldn't know what to do with it.
ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe in the dual revelation of both the Bible and nature. I don't feel that there is a conflict if both of them are understood correctly. They both can inform us to help us understand what really happened. For example, since the Bible does not give us creation dates, the natural record can. From nature we can infer a designer and from the Bible we can learn the purpose of creation and who the creator is.
You raise a very good question about teaching the Bible, because there are significant numbers of people who believe in creation that are old earth and many that are young earth. Which one do you teach in a public school? I propose that the strengths and weaknesses of all, including evolution be taught in order to develop critical thinking among the students.
At the very least, design can be clearly and scientifically infered from nature, though it does not tell us who the designer is. Biologists can learn something from astronomers in this regard and not be held captive by artificially imposed limits to where the evidence can direct them.
Even for atheists its constraining because evolutionary based biology is closed to thinking that life on earth could have been the product of design by an advanced alien civilization.
The SETI scientists are looking for intelligence, why can't biologists?
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease consider the difference between direct personal insults and insulting and attacking a point of view or opinion.
Neal T: "Which one do you teach in a public school? I propose that the strengths and weaknesses of all, including evolution be taught in order to develop critical thinking among the students."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCritical thinking is laudible. So is a proper understanding of the scientific method, and it's importance in evaluating what is true science and what is pseudoscience. If the methodology of science is not taught and understood, then unestablished pseudoscience, to which creationism belongs, can be slipped under the door of the science class as an impostor. And if creationism can be allowed into the science class, then so can astrology, UFOlogy, the Burmuda Triangle, and Bigfoot, and for the same reason. If a student does not understand the sleight-of-hand that is used to mask the fallacious 'arguments' which creationism presents as credible reasoning, then that student is poorly-equipped to make a judgement call as to why it should not be taught as 'science'.
So the 'strengths and weaknesses' of what is accredited science can be evaluated in the science class. This, of course, includes evolutionary theory. Although the theory is now so deeply-embedded into every area of the biological sciences that its strengths are clear-enough to evaluate, and its 'weaknesses' are mostly in the perceived minds of those who oppose it on religious, not scientific grounds.
Neal T: "The SETI scientists are looking for intelligence, why can't biologists?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChecking the material about the SETI Project (which is now defunct as far as any government funding goes), apparently the main criticism levelled at it is that it did not meet scientific criteria, because it made (and makes, for those private projects which still continue it) unfalsifiable assumptions. You might like to bear this in mind, Neal T, as it demonstrates my previous point to you about using it (and all such information systems) as a false analog for the biological sciences.
Neal T, I refer you to my two questions put to you in my posts at 08:37 AM on 11/11/09, and at 05:12 AM on 11/11/09, which you have not answered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "Even for atheists its constraining because evolutionary based biology is closed to thinking that life on earth could have been the product of design by an advanced alien civilization."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow this is the sort of statement that has a big flashing neon sign above it saying 'I am a dopey atheist-baiting creationist'. And just when you seemed to be holding your balance. Well, I guess that you managed to do so for as long as you could, but the old Neal T just won't stay down, will he?
If you think that the above hypothesis is an option, then expand upon it. Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing, because I recall a cartoon of a couple of aliens landing their interstellar craft on a prehistoric barren Earth. One rushes out of the hatchway, takes a dump over the side of a crater, and the other jokingly says "Gee, Zorb, maybe your turd will evolve into an intelligent life form.." If this raises a smile with anyone, then my work here is done.
Neal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease consider the difference between direct personal insults and insulting and attacking a point of view or opinion.
My reply:
Such a distinction is one you, Neal T, make selectively depending entirely on which end of stick you face.
Further, your statement that I pointed out is a stupid lie. It is a lie because I know you know it is factually false for any time since Leeuwenhoek, and to suggest that modern cell biology hasn't a clue is simply denying reality. Your statement is stupid because it is trivially easy to disprove.
If taken at face value your statement can only mean that you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to know. If taken as hyperbole it can only mean that you interests lie in grandstanding for effect (also called preaching to the choir) with little interest in rational dialog. Either way proves your dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy.
Finally, I have described your logical fallacy regarding DNA four times, and Ambertooth has done so at least as many times. For your part, you refuse to acknowledge the point directly, and simply continue to spew your nonsense as if nobody said anything at all. This is just one of many examples that proves your lack of commitment to dialog.
By doing such things, you, Neal T, become part of the problem. Your hypocritical whining remains unconvincing. You merely add insult to injury by pretending to be God's tool.
Neal T: "You raise a very good question about teaching the Bible, because there are significant numbers of people who believe in creation that are old earth and many that are young earth. Which one do you teach in a public school?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is, perhaps, stating the obvious to say 'Neither'. Whether you happen to be an old-earth creationist, a young-earth creationist, or a getting-on-for-middle-age-earth creationist, none of these have anything whatever to do with science as such, and therefore fall outside the school curriculum.
That having been said, I was not even aware that I had "raised a very good question about teaching the Bible", unless you are referring to my question about how Christian creationists in a future (and fancifully hypothetical) creation-driven science would treat those scientists of other non-Christian faiths and creeds, which you have failed to answer.
I can't help being struck by the rather embarrassing provincialism of the average creationist's line of thinking. Most creationists are locked into an American-focused vision of the world. How would the creationists' vision of the future of science mentioned above go down in India? This is just one example, but it's a pertinant one, because India has a huge and very productive scientific community. These are the sorts of hard questions to which no creationist in my experience is game enough to give an answer.
The acceptance of the theory of evolution is likely to only go downward because it is not feasible to sustain without answering the evidence that contradicts it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt will continue to be taught as dogma in some public schools, while it will continue to be glossed over by most biology teachers who can't find anything in the theory that is known for sure other than controversy.
It is hindering the advancement of biology in as far as scientists take it seriously. Most, however, could care less about common descent and are only interested in the noncontroversial aspects of small scale change that effect the practical sciences. Blowhorns like Dawkins will go on scamming money from their books, while serious scientists will continue to advance intelligent design theories and evolutionists will continue to trumpet half-baked fossils as the missing link and build careers for themselves by drinking the Kool-aid.
What will be taught in schools will eventually be closer to reality, evolution having failed too many times to answer to the evidence. As the complex information of the cell, its nanomachines, networking system, and ability to utilize quantum mechanics is further understood, the probability of accepting any theory that is based on randomness or chance will become clownish.
The storm is coming.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not say that modern cell biology doesn't have a clue. Quite the opposite. Darwins era of the industrial age did not have a clue. Some are stuck in the industrial age with Darwin who thought the cell was a simple mess of chemicals. Yet another wrong conclusion drawn from a theory that predicts nothing accurately.
How much longer Darwinism can stand in the face of modern cell biology is the question. It's not a matter of if, but when it will fail in the eyes of mainstream science. Like the Berlin wall coming down. A lot of people are waiting to get out, but can't because of the scientific materialism that keeps them in an intellectual gulag.
The complete sentence you posted at 9:17 PM on 11/10/09 follows:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Cell researchers would be better served by a model that expects intentional and innovative design, not an industrial age model that didn't have a clue what was on the inside of a cell."
From which I understood 2 points; 1. that you believe the industrial age model had no clue about cellular construction, and 2. that you believe modern cell researchers understanding is little different from that of the industrial age. You affirm my understanding when you posted this at 04:54 PM on 11/11/09
"I did not say that modern cell biology doesn't have a clue. Quite the opposite. Darwins era of the industrial age did not have a clue. Some are stuck in the industrial age with Darwin who thought the cell was a simple mess of chemicals.
You make these assertions without evidence, because they are utterly without factual basis. Either you have no idea what you're talking about and don't want to know, or you are simply grandstanding for effect. Either way, you lose.
Neal T, your posturings are boring. It has been pointed out to you ad nauseum by both jpill69, myself and others that your so-called 'evidences' are founded upon logical fallacies, and the specific reasons for why this is so have also been explained to you serially. That you continue to be selectively blind to this is now neither here nor there. In fact, for me it's actually encouraging, because it demonstrates that you, Neal T personally, has as much chance of being taken seriously in the real world as any other deluded creationist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe outwardly-measured tone that you adopt when putting forward your 'evidences' might be marginally convincing-enough to fool those who do not know any better, but if in some eight months of commenting on this one thread you have managed to come no further than the histrionic hyperbole that you so generously display in your last two comments, then, as Keelyn once so adroitly remarked to you, your schoolboy 'storm is coming' carries no more potency than the much-vaunted second coming, which also has been perpetually about to happen for the last two thousand years and counting.
Your studied ignoring of even the most fair-and-square and seriously-intentioned questions (check my recent posts to you) speaks more eloquently than had you attempted an answer. Clearly, the only conclusion to be drawn is that ALL that you say is mere empty posturing, and a sincere and serious dialogue about the issues, in spite of your protestations to the contrary, means nothing to you. You want to prove me wrong? Then answer my questions in the next comment which you make here. If you do not, my point is established.
There is, however, an alternative explanation to your behaviour. In reality, you could be an Internet troll, whose only satisfaction comes from baiting others into responding to you. Maybe this is indeed how you get your cheap thrills. The fascinating thing is, some months ago I actually watched someone on another forum site who started off apparently being a sincere-enough, well-intentioned Christian creationist, make a chilling descent over a period of months into becoming a fully-fledged troll, blind to all dialogue, blind to reasoned questions, trotting out the same old stuff, and baiting and goading others into reacting for all she (yes, it wasn't a guy) was worth. I'm not even sure if she was that aware of her own transformation, which was both insidious and invidious, any more than you might be. But, after several moderator warnings, she was blocked from the site.
Well, troll or not, what is in no doubt is your want of any true Christian spirit. No true Christian that I personally know behaves as you do here. That for me says enough. I have now made this observation to you several times. It is notable that not once have you denied it, and it's too late now.
7wesley said: "keelyn ... only a person with dullest of blind faith would believe NEAL would get any kind of fair treatment in that process [sic]..and that is the reaon [sic] you suggested it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt wasn't a suggestion. It was a statement of intent. It still is. And since Neal has not added anything new to his "proof," I will assume that is all he has and I will submit it as is. Oh, and fairness does not concern me - we are talking about science here, or at least we are supposed to be. Do you think the geological community was "fair" to Alfred Wegener? His hypothesis at least had some scientific merit.
Neal said: "29 Evidences for Creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#3 of 29: Consilience of independent phylogenies.
A significant property of design, is that a common designer will frequently reuse basic modules again and again. Professional programmers as well as "hacks" will reuse code modules as is or tweek them for their new designs. Rather than "reinvent the wheel" it is very efficient to reuse code modules. This is not slacking, in fact it is a common and expected practice. Reuse of code modules is a sign of EFFICIENCY IN DESIGN, not lack of creativity. So too, with the DNA coding that is sometimes shared across various species. It is an observable trait of efficiency in action."
Nope. Sorry, Neal. Wrong again. For those interested to know why Neal is wrong, please see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_consilience
and then see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html#pred3
Oh, and there is one more place - but, I'm saving that for later.
Neal said: "Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding Nested Hierarchy of spieces from Theobald, he said "Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc." Perhaps he is not aware of the same manufacturer using the same frame and engine for different models. Certainly car manufacturers plan on using as many of the same components as possible as a matter of planning and efficiency and cost."
Yeah. And perhaps you should reread the article for comprehension of the detailed explanation of exactly why "using the same frame and engine for different models" FAILS as an example of nested hierarchies.
Neal said: "2. Sources. I have studied this for 30 years, having believed in the theory of evolution before I began to analyze its weaknesses. Most of my comments are just the assimilation of everything I have read or thought about personally. As far as the 29 evidences for creation, I'm surprised you haven't caught on yet. The comments about design regarding each evidence are mine. My training and experience is in system design and information systems, so its a good fit."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that is downright lie. Neal hasn't studied squat. If he had, he would know something of what he was talking about. Instead, Neal parrots. Since he reluctant to reveal to ambertooth and jpill the sources of his bullshit, I'll do it for him. His "29 comments for creation" come more or less verbatim from Ashley Camp’s critique of Dr. Douglas Theobald’s "29 Evidences for Macroevolution." Camp is another two-bit creationist lawyer like Phillip E. Johnson. And just like Johnson, Camp has absolutely no credentials in any discipline of science. He say he studies phylogenies, but actually he only pretends to study something he really doesn't understand. And Dr. Theobald has a full rebuttal to Camp's critique. Sort of a rebuttal to the rebuttal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
And here is another source of Neal's crap:
http://www.conversantlife.com/science/ten-questions-to-ask-your-biology-teacher-about-intelligent-design
And a rebuttal to that:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/ten_questions_to_ask_your_biol.php
And all of the rest of Neal's succeeding posts are just more regurgitated bullshit that he has been repeating over and over.
There's medication available these days for kind of delusions, Neal. Maybe you should seek professional advice. On the other hand, maybe ambertooth is right - you're just a troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeelyn: "(Neal t's) "29 comments for creation" come more or less verbatim from Ashley Camp’s critique of Dr. Douglas Theobald’s "29 Evidences for Macroevolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaha! I knew it. Thanks, Keelyn. Looks like between us we have so far traced every principal source of Neal T's 'original' ideas. Here's Neal T's comment at 04:49 PM on 11/10/09, in reply to my insistence that he cite his '29 evidences' source: "As far as the 29 evidences for creation, I'm surprised you haven't caught on yet. The comments about design regarding each evidence are mine." Quod erat demonstrandum.
Keelyn: "Neal hasn't studied squat."
Now that's a little unfair, Keelyn ;). I'm sure, like 7wesley, he has read lots and lots of books, and spends lots and lots of time 'studying' on the Internet as well. After all, if you can 'study' like this, why should you bother with all that messy hands-on research and all those too-much-hard-work-and-major-headaches-to-organize field trips?
Oh, and now that I am slightly more awake,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "As the complex information of the cell, its nanomachines, networking system, and ability to utilize quantum mechanics is further understood, the probability of accepting any theory that is based on randomness or chance will become clownish.
The storm is coming."
Right. LOL. Speaking of "clownish," if Neal had the slightest f'ing clue about the concepts of QM, he would realize what an utterly STUPID statement that is.
"... the probability of accepting any theory that is based on randomness or chance ..."
That sort of takes the wind right out of the "storm."
Later.
More ad hominen arugments and just links to websites that supposedly disprove design theory, rather than offering something from your own understanding more often. Someone mentioned something about a victim. I certainly don't feel like victim, but perhaps the evolutionists here do since they are taking defensive positions and whining all the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like serious feedback about my posts minus the ad hominen mess. As far as the 29 evidences, Keelyn was only partially correct. The 29 evidences main header comes from Theobald, but the explanation from design theory is from my own understanding. Number 4 coming up shortly.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore ad hominen arugments ....
My reply:
Identifying your stupid lies and your logical fallacies are not 'ad hominen' (sic) 'arugments' (sic). Neither is pointing out your lack of integrity in failing to address and correct them. On the other hand, your whining is most certainly an ad hominem argument.
Neal T: "More ad hominen (sic) arugments (sic) and just links to websites that supposedly disprove design theory..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, the entertainment value of Neal T's comments is one reason that makes it worth coming back here. Notice how he slips in the phrase 'design theory', and before that the word 'disprove'. So let's get these ducks in a row:
There is no 'design theory' in the first place. There is not even a 'design hypothesis'. One might marginally speak of a 'design idea', but that's as far as it goes. Nowhere in the entire body of science is the 'idea' (let's get the terminology right) even remotely formalized as an accepted hypothesis, and 'theory' is not even over the horizon. So how can you disprove a theory which does not exist in the first place?
Neal T: "I would like serious feedback about my posts minus the ad hominen (sic) mess."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, the correctness of scientific terminology aside, I'm going to nominate 'ad hominem' as Neal T's current favorite show-off term. I'm guessing that he's recently discovered what it actually means, which is why he's so keen to use it to such excess. Next stage: learning how to spell it correctly. His favorite show-off term before that was 'metaphysical' (anyone remember Neal T's 'metaphysical' comment phase?).
*feigned unctuous tone* Gee, Neal T, thanks for finally addressing all my reasoned, fair-minded questions.. *Thinks* Maybe next time I'll try asking some UNfair, UNreasonable questions and see if I have any better luck, although I'm not holding my breath..
So you see, Neal T... if YOU "would like serious feedback", then YOU also have to GIVE it yourself, and address questions put to you. Because if you keep being smitten with the selective blindness that you have so far shown here, then if I were you I'd keep really, really quiet about expecting 'serious feedback'. Oh, yes.
Neal T: "Number 4 coming up shortly."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo I hear the sound of knives being sharpened?
keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you know as much about quantum mechanics as digital information, we are in for another round of education for you before moving on. So you think that qm doesn't happen in living cells?
Neil, I don't think you have ever Keelyn's citations for Talkorigins, and even if you did, I don't think you understood them. They have been posted here before, and they not only flatly contradict your alleged 'proofs' but also explain why your 'proofs' are dead wrong. You say you read it, but you sure don't act like it. Such is the behavior of someone who has no commitment to dialog.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo prove me wrong and post a reasonable SUMMARY (not your opinion and not a criticism) of Keelyn's Talkorigins citations.
erratum, please replace where appropriate:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil, I don't think you have ever Keelyn's citations for Talkorigins
By way of pre-emption, Ken Miller has an interesting book with a chapter devoted to QM and DNA, called "Finding Darwin's God". And another book by JohnJoe McFadden called "Quantum Evolution"
Third time's a charm (blush)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil, I don't think you have ever READ Keelyn's citations for Talkorigins
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've studied talkorigins for years, so nothing there comes as a surprise.
Regarding quantum mechanics or computing, I think Dr Millers writing you refer to is about quantuam mechanics in a metaphysical way. My comment was referring to the ability of cells to perform quantum computing.
As far as Ashley Camp I read part of a page from him, but what little I read didn't give me any new information. What I said about design were my ideas. If Camp and I agree on things, then more power to him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this29 Evidences for Creation - #4 of 29:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModified Forms: the possible morphologies of common design.
Custom modification of existing designs is an indication of intelligent and artistic creativity. Product lines will be planned and developed around themes and patterns of design. Custom modification can be observed in the work of artists, computer manufactures and retailers, authors, engineers and all fields of design. So to with the varied forms of life. An example would be the similarities between marsupial and placetal animals.
29 Evidences for Creation. #5 of 29
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChronological order of life forms.
Another feature of top-down design of life is the chronological and progressive introduction of life forms. Major design projects first need a good infrastructure before the addition of further components. Computer software and hardware engineers frequently face this challenge, along with other fields of design. For example, software may be capable of many functions, but could be limited by the speed of the processor or network. Certainly Windows 2008 server OS or IE version 8 would not be able to run on an IBM XT desktop, etc.
The earth's intrastructure and ecosystems were built from the bottom-up based on top down design. One basic example comes to mind, for example, the bacteria was introduced first before the mammals that would need it for digestion. Great oil deposits (and many other elements such as copper and gold) were made long ago for the provision of man in order for an advanced civilization to exist.
Neal said : “I would like serious feedback about my posts minus the ad hominen mess. As far as the 29 evidences, Keelyn was only partially correct. The 29 evidences main header comes from Theobald, but the explanation from design theory is from my own understanding. Number 4 coming up shortly.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere wasn't anything ad hominem about it. I wasn't directing anything at your personal character (which is what ad hominem means). You made a number of ridiculous statements and I said so. It's as simple as that.
And your explanations come mostly from Camp. Removing some of Camp's nonsense and replacing it with your own ad hoc nonsense doesn't make it any more correct. It's still wrong. You can go through all 29 (which you seem intent on doing) and they will all be just as wrong. Have at it. I'll wait until you have them all done and just address them as a group. And if you are using them as part of your "proof," I will submit those along as an update for critique and comment. Let me know.
Neal said: “keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you know as much about quantum mechanics as digital information, we are in for another round of education for you before moving on.”
Probably. But, I'm always happy, Neal, to give you an education. Most everyone on here is. The trouble is your steadfast refusal to be educated about some things. Am I to understand that you are now having a change of mind about that?
Neal said: "So you think that qm doesn't happen in living cells?"
Huh? I'm baffled, Neal. I have reread my posts and I can't find where I implied that. Could you enlighten me, please?
Neal said: “My comment was referring to the ability of cells to perform quantum computing.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGASP! Really, Neal? That is really fascinating; cells perform quantum computing? I wish you would post more about what you know on that. It seems really interesting. Seriously.
But first, I would like you to post exactly what point you are trying to make that prompts you to even bring it up.
Neal said: "As far as Ashley Camp I read part of a page from him, but what little I read didn't give me any new information. What I said about design were my ideas. If Camp and I agree on things, then more power to him."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh ha. Please see my earlier comment. And it would be a remarkable coincidence - one creationist agreeing so completely with another - if it didn't happen almost invariably.
I knew you would get it, jpill. My confidence in you has not wavered. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't you just make up all your nonsense as one complete group and dump them all at once? It will take less time that way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've studied talkorigins for years, so nothing there comes as a surprise.
My reply:
Your posts prove otherwise. Either that or you are a seriously challenged learner.
Talk is cheap. Show me that you actually understand Keelyn's citations.
Keelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI knew you would get it, jpill. My confidence in you has not wavered. :)
My reply:
Funny thing about confidence. The older I get, the better I wuz.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Dr Millers writing you refer to is about quantuam mechanics in a metaphysical way.
My reply:
I bet you read that off a creationist website, unless you have a totally different meaning than is accepted for 'metaphysical'. Please elaborate.
LOL. I still have confidence in the "older."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNight, jpill
Neal T: "As far as Ashley Camp I read part of a page from him, but what little I read didn't give me any new information."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour feigned dismissive approach to Camp did not, it would seem, stop you from stooping to plagiarise his title and format for your own, and then, even under pressure, attempting to pass it off as original to yourself. Keelyn esposed you, Neal T, as I had done previously about your quote-mining from the apologist site Tekton (which itself quote-mines). It's worth remembering that if you can find it on the Internet, then so can someone else. And you do not clear your name of plagiarism just by saying that you added a few bits of your own. Try doing that in a court of law.
Neal T: "29 Evidences for Creation. #5 of 29"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your further 'evidences'; personally, I will not give you a scrap of 'feedback' about anything unless you show me that you can do something more than studiously ignore my questions to you. Because those questions were, in the context of this topic, more than reasonable. Here's one of them again:
What is your purpose in posting these 'evidences' here? If you just expect a bit of informal feedback, then fine. But you have yourself chosen to post them on an accredited science website, so the chances of someone responding to you who actually knows what they're talking about are dramatically greater than were you just to post them on some neutral Internet forum. And nothing that is said on this thread will change anything whatsoever. The science stays the same.
So again, my question is: if you're happy with science as it is, then, fine. But if you seek to change the status quo, as you affirm with almost everything you say here, how do you intend to do that, Neal T, if you have no serious intention of authoring something of your own? Because posting your 'evidences' here (even if they were trail-blazingly original, which they're not) won't do squat.
Brilliant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am looking for informal feedback from this site, so can you drop the obsession with motives?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the 29 evidences, apparently you guys missed the comparison between Theobald's 29 evidences for evolution and my observations for design. It sounds like you've read more Ashley Camp than I have.
Long ago I said that the creation model can explain all the evidences of evolution equally as well or better. So as we go through the so-called evidences for evolution using Theobald's outline, I intend to show this. After we are done with the 29, we'll go on to the bonus round, since the creation model does not need to hide some of the evidence and has more positive evidence to support it.
Actually, jpill69, one of the articles regarding quantum computing came from Scientific American.
Go here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation
To quote: "Now biophysicists at the University of California, Berkeley, have shown that plants use the basic principle of quantum computing—the exploration of a multiplicity of different answers at the same time—to achieve near-perfect efficiency. "
So how do you explain the evolutionary development of quantum computing to near-perfect efficiency? Apparently this ability goes back to green sulfur bacterium—Chlorobium tepidum, one of the oldest photosynthesizers on the planet.
BenC1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you. I thought that the design evidences were compelling. Of course the design in life we see is beyond brilliant.
Neal T: "I am looking for informal feedback from this site, so can you drop the obsession with motives?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let's get things clear: when someone asks you a question, you engage in radical evasiveness, forcing that person who is only looking for a decent answer from you to ask you the same thing over and over again. This forced repetition you then describe as 'obsession'. As it is, it's taken me days of prodding finally to drag this answer from you. Neal T, you really are a spanner, and no mistake.
Now that you finally have clearly stated that all you are looking for here is 'informal feedback', it immediately begs the question: why, then, when such feedback is given, do you categorically ignore it? It has been serially demonstrated to you that your 'arguments' are based upon logical fallacies and presupposition, which renders them invalid. And as if these weren't enough, it has further been carefully explained to you the ways in which your analogs are flawed (nasty things to have, flawed analogs).
Neal T, ANY 'informal feedback' which you so far have received here (and you have sure had enough of it), you have rejected as not being to your liking. And if you think that the 'informal feedback' that you receive here is a little harsh, wait until your ideas are aired in the real world.
But then, they won't be, will they, Neal T? Because you must now realise that ANYTHING which you post here will do nothing to further you 'cause'. You surely have one, otherwise you would not constantly be venting gases about some 'coming storm' or other. So: how DO you intent to change the scientific status quo, if you now admit that every word that you have ever said on this thread means NOTHING in that direction?
P.S.: Interesting that you assume that BenC1 was supporting you. 'Brilliant' could equally have been referring to the accompanying article. Maybe yes, maybe no, but if he doesn't clarify it, then there's no way to know what his obtuse one-word comment was referencing.
Neal T, I see what is going on here. Ambertooth, Keelyn, and jpill69 have no intention of using this site as a discussion forum for scientific issues. They just write hundreds of words of insult and nonsense to fill pages of the forum so anyone honestly interested in the science will lose track of the scientific comments as they wade through their self-congratulary essays. I would suggest that you would be better off spending your time with people who are really concerned. You might have noticed that they have already driven a couple of respondants away who were not willing to participate under their terms. I even wonder why the Scientific American managers of the site have allowed them to continue in the tone that they have been using. It makes one wonder about the claim of accreditation for Scientific American. It would suggest it does not take much to get accredited if you are willing to kneel before Darwin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo okay, then, Fullof Wonder.. then maybe YOU will take a crack at answering my various unanswered yet entirely reasonable questions here. Off you go..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder: "I even wonder why the Scientific American managers of the site have allowed them to continue in the tone that they have been using."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow typical for a creationist to play the eternal victim. Clearly, the SciAm moderators must agree that those who have experience of the scientific method, and base their comments upon such a sound and accredited basis, have something that is both worth saying and listening to, however sorely their patience is tried by those who argue from the point of view of untried pseudoscience and fallacious quasi-religious reasoning.
FullofWonder: "It makes one wonder about the claim of accreditation for Scientific American."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou petty-minded ingrate. It is thanks to the fair-mindedness of the moderators of this site that Neal T has been allowed to vent his facile anti-science arguments here for the last eight months, and it is thanks to those same moderators that you, FullofWonder, and others of your ilk, are given the rope to express your anti-science views on an accredited science website. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Boy, I sure hope that the moderators read YOUR last shamefully ungrateful comment.
FullofWonder: "You might have noticed that they have already driven a couple of respondants away who were not willing to participate under their terms."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup, like I said: creationists always see themselves as the victim. The only terms that exist here are the terms of commenting under moderation as exemplified by the Scientific American site moderators. Under those terms, anyone can come, and anyone can comment, and anyone can leave. Clearly, the concept of taking responsibility for one's own actions is not a familiar one to you.
I reiterate that I sincerely hope that the Scientific American moderators DO read the last few comments here, just to have a taste of how selfishly ungrateful creationists who use these provided Internet facilities are capable of being.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFullofWonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the empty responses and links simply show the great void in evolutionary evidence, and they wonder why after 150 years they still can not sell their wares to a majority of the public.
The quantum computing ability of bacteria and plants is astounding.... "Near-Perfect" efficiency according to Scientific American magazine.
So there exists this ability of ancient bacteria that mankind has not been able to beat in efficiency. But according to evolutionists, people who believe that this efficiency was designed are in the same group as people who believe the world is flat. It takes a great deal more faith to believe quantum computing crawled out of a warm pond on its own than to believe it was purposely designed.
Here's a challenge for evolutionists - explain how bacteria developed quantum computing ability early in earth's history.
pride will keep anyone out of heaven, scientist of not. Not until one stops being his own god, will he ever humble himself and let God be God over his life and accept the sacrificial work of the Lamb of God, Jesus the Christ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo how do you explain the evolutionary development of quantum computing to near-perfect efficiency?
My reply:
Why do I need to explain it?
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth, Keelyn, and jpill69 have no intention of using this site as a discussion forum for scientific issues.
My reply:
Ah, yes, the wonder of the Internet searchers has returned, to bestow on us once again his ad hominem christian-biased anti-historical points of view.
Please tell us, FullofWonder, do you intend to discuss any scientific issues before the Second Coming? I'd like to know so I can stop holding my breath.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the empty responses and links simply show the great void in evolutionary evidence...
My reply:
The only empty responses and links I see are on your side of the table. As God isn't bothering to answer these questions for you, perhaps you will finally take a crack at answering them for yourself.
Soteria wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispride will keep anyone out of heaven, scientist of not.
My reply:
Are you paying attention, Neal? It seems to me this one is meant for you personally.
Ambertooth says: So okay, then, Fullof Wonder.. then maybe YOU will take a crack at answering my various unanswered yet entirely reasonable questions here. Off you go..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems you entirely forget the initial response I received when I posed the comment how sex seems to be a great wonder in the evolutionary scheme of things. How creatures seem to reproduce using a common egg/sperm model, with a great variety of different ways of using the process. And plants seem to have a common pollen model. I was hoping to read a clear evolutionary explanation of such wonderful mechanisms, but all I got was a comment that no answer would be forthcoming. So, is the pot calling the kettle black?
It's easy to grumble that the persecuted resent the persecution when you are the persecuter.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a challenge for evolutionists - explain how bacteria developed quantum computing ability early in earth's history.
My reply:
An even bigger challenge is for you to explain how your answer explains anything. ID is just an excuse for dishonest, lazy thinking. If you accept "God did it" as a final answer, then who did God? And sorry to say, presuming an eternal God is no different than presuming eternal bacteria. If you Neal T, are going to demand deterministic, material solutions from 'evolutionists', then you are obliged to follow your own standards, and provide your own deterministic, material alternatives.
"It's easy to grumble that the persecuted resent the persecution when you are the persecuter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, maw. Bring me three more nails. Got me another christian martyr wants to be put up for the night.
Neal T: "All the empty responses..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, yes, I know the feeling. It's that feeling I get each time I post some question addressed to you and you are suddenly struck blind. The same as that other feeling I get when you whine about not having any 'informal feedback', when you get it in abundance but because it's not what you want to hear you totally ignore it. Those sorts of 'empty responses' you mean, Neal T? 'T' for troll.
Neal T: "Here's a challenge for evolutionists.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's an even more fundamental challenge for creationists:
Keelyn at 01:55 AM on 11/08/09:
"1. Please describe scientifically the "Intelligent Designer"
2. Please describe scientifically the processes of the "Intelligent Designer"
3. Please describe scientifically a method to test for the "Intelligent Designer"
4. Please describe one scientific project currently underway by the Intelligent Design community
5. Please describe any tools that Intelligent Design has provided that can be useful to scientific research (one would do)
6. Please describe any predictions that Intelligent Design makes that can explain the diversity of life better than evolution
7. Please list any contributions to the advancement of science made by the Intelligent Design community"
These seven questions of Keelyn's, which are at the most fundamental basis of any creationism/intelligent design postulation, and must be answered if c/ID is to have any credibility whatsoever, have still to be answered by either Neal T, FullofWonder, 7wesley, or any other of their ilk. I wonder why?
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems you entirely forget the initial response I received when I posed the comment how sex seems to be a great wonder in the evolutionary scheme of things.
My reply:
It's been at least a couple of weeks, but I can still remember almost like it was yesterday. You were oh-so-keen to show how unbiased you were, but you couldn't make up your mind whether you wanted to make a point against evolution or or ask a question you think has no answer. Apparently you still can't make up your mind, and apparently you still think you're fooling somebody with your silly "I'm-just-a-poor-misunderstood-christian-looking-for-a-straight-answer" act.
So, in the time since your first post to this forum, how much time have you spent thinking about sex and evolution? Inquiring minds want to know.
1. Please describe scientifically the "Intelligent Designer"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe term "Intelligent Designer" is descriptive in itself and speaks of the qualities and work of the creator. Evolutionists use the term "natural selection" to describe observable events and even more so purely speculative processes.
2. Please describe scientifically the processes of the "Intelligent Designer"
The processes? Vague question, but if I knew, wouldn't that make me capable of designing life? Quantum computing can be detected in living cells, but scientists do not know how to reproduce it. That doesn't mean they deny the existence of quantum computing.
3. Please describe scientifically a method to test for the "Intelligent Designer"
The designer does not need to be detected in order to scientifically infer design. If you disagree with this then you believe that in order to believe anything was designed you must first see or detect the designer.
4. Please describe one scientific project currently underway by the Intelligent Design community.
You of course by definition do not accept anything as scientific unless it agrees with evolution.... so why even ask the question? For open minded people there are several organizations and many scientists. See this link for some...
http://www.iscid.org/
5. Please describe any tools that Intelligent Design has provided that can be useful to scientific research (one would do)
All valid scientific tools are part of the ID tool chest. It exceeds that of Darwinism because ID is not limited to only naturalistic explanation.
6. Please describe any predictions that Intelligent Design makes that can explain the diversity of life better than evolution
See 29 evidences for creation to date #1 - #5.
7. Please list any contributions to the advancement of science made by the Intelligent Design community"
The majority of men who founded the major branches of science believed in a creator.
jpill69 says:So, in the time since your first post to this forum, how much time have you spent thinking about sex and evolution? Inquiring minds want to know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the wonder which fills my mind continually. The things I read about sex and evolution all assume that sex is a given. I wonder how it came to be in the first place using the evolution paradigm. It needs to be pretty complicated to get started, and it needs to work the first time. So how did it come to be? Any ideas which would withstand the scrutiny of hard science?
FullofWonder wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the wonder which fills my mind continually.
My reply:
And I invite you yet again to share what your mind-filling wonder has determined. Don't be shy.
Keelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this6. Please describe any predictions that Intelligent Design makes that can explain the diversity of life better than evolution
You wrote:
See 29 evidences for creation to date #1 - #5.
My reply:
Other than invoking a grand conspiracy across all of the natural sciences, can you explain how the study of current and past lifeforms shows not only the complete opposite of your predictions, but instead shows extremenly good correlations to the predictions of common descent?
I'm in a particularly generous mood towards you tonight, Neal. Maybe it's the wine coolers. At any rate, I have no intention of saying anything that you might interpret as an ad hominem; I only intend to make a few observations - maybe a few questions. jpill and ambertooth have both noted your apparent aversion to answer questions, but you were cordial to respond to the seven questions I had posed earlier, after ambertooth reposted them, and I appreciate that. And will comment on your responses - it's not my intention to be nasty; I simply intend to give my personal take on them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet’s begin (with Neal said: '---------" as usual);
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said (to Fullofwonder): "All the empty responses and links simply show the great void in evolutionary evidence, and they wonder why after 150 years they still can not sell their wares to a majority of the public."
I don't see the responses and links have shown any great void. On the contrary, they lead to vast amounts of many independent lines of evidence that conclusively verify the validity of evolution. That's one of the great things about the Internet; science (short of what governments may deem to keep secret for security reasons) is freely available to anyone with the equipment to access it. Considering how ubiquitous computers and Internet access is these days, that would be just about anyone, anywhere, who is actually interested enough to seek it out and that would include you. Very little, in any discipline of science, is kept a secret. Because you willfully choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is wrong. I think you know that. What I would ask you is, why do you so adamantly reject it? Let's be honest, Neal; you have no formal training in biology (or any other branch of science). Your out-of-hand rejections would seem to me to be unqualified. After all, you do not work day to day in biological research; in essence, you are a less than armchair amateur disputing the work of thousands of scholars. So, judging from many of your previous posts, I have to conclude that the real reason you reject evolution (or more precisely these days, modern evolutionary synthesis) is because you see a conflict with your religious beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm open to being corrected if you explain. You know I don't share your religious beliefs (or any religion), but even if I did I can't see the conflict. Seriously, what am I missing? If I am correct, however, then I would conclude that you also reject other theories that are overwhelmingly accepted in the mainstream science community. For example, do you also reject the current standard cosmological model (i.e., CMD Big Bang theory - this is the area I am pursuing an eventual career in)? If so, why? Do you perceive a conflict here with your religious beliefs (it is a serious question, because I don't see a conflict)?
But, you do make a very valid point, Neal; evolutionary theory is a very hard sell to the general public. I won't argue with you on that point - I think you’re absolutely correct. And I think that’s a shame, because it demonstrates so well how science illiterate the general public is; and not just about evolutionary theory, but all science in general. And that, I think, is a very bad reflection on scientists. With few notable exceptions (perhaps most notably the late Carl Sagan), most scientists are too busy working in their own little worlds to reach out, capture, and educate the public. As a result, most people are easily conned by the simplicities of creationists (that would include proponents of intelligent design). Most people are religious (another point I will not dispute) and too busy with family, work, personal hobbies (of an unscientific nature) to concern themselves with the complicated intricacies, and often esoteric nature, of science - they simply aren’t interested. I don't fault them for that - I rather expect it. My brother had no interest in science; for him, if the conversation didn't center around baseball, it wasn't worth the talk. So, you will understand why I get so upset when I see creationists (and that includes intelligent design proponents) attempting to push what I consider unscientific into a public science curriculum. That's the time and place to capture people - even if they are not really interested in science or plan to pursue a career in science, they can still learn the basics of good science. And the basics include an understanding of what science is and what science isn't; in other words, how science is conducted and how science isn't conducted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI realize we disagree on what is and what isn't science. But consider something, Neal. Your recent posts have been about DNA quantum computing (and you didn't answer my question of what point were trying to make by bringing it up). This is a very serious line of research - I’m somewhat familiar with it - vaguely I will admit. It has a lot of potential. No doubt we disagree on what it all means, but surely you notice that all the research being conducted in this area is being done by genuine scientists doing genuine science - there is not a creationists or intelligent design proponent amongst them. None of the published papers, not any paper submitted for review, promotes in any way intelligent design. Not one. I want to ask you; if every mainstream scientist in the world suddenly stopped what they were doing for the next five years, just how far do you think productive science would progress with creationists (and\or ID’ers) at the helm? It's a serious question - answer it seriously with reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "1. Please describe scientifically the "Intelligent Designer"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe term "Intelligent Designer" is descriptive in itself and speaks of the qualities and work of the creator. Evolutionists use the term "natural selection" to describe observable events and even more so purely speculative processes."
What is the difference? Describe HOW the creator works and the evidence for it.
Neal said: "2. Please describe scientifically the processes of the "Intelligent Designer"
The processes? Vague question, but if I knew, wouldn't that make me capable of designing life? Quantum computing can be detected in living cells, but scientists do not know how to reproduce it. That doesn't mean they deny the existence of quantum computing."
I don’t know, Neal. Would it? It does not mean it was intelligently designed, either.
Neal said: "3. Please describe scientifically a method to test for the "Intelligent Designer"
The designer does not need to be detected in order to scientifically infer design. If you disagree with this then you believe that in order to believe anything was designed you must first see or detect the designer."
In other words, we can't test for the designer. So, yes, we must first see the designer and know something about the designer.
Neal said: "4. Please describe one scientific project currently underway by the Intelligent Design community.
You of course by definition do not accept anything as scientific unless it agrees with evolution.... so why even ask the question? For open minded people there are several organizations and many scientists. See this link for some...
http://www.iscid.org/"
Because, it is a legitimate question. Intelligent design proponent say they are doing scientific research, it is only appropriate that they describe what it is and how it is useful for advancing science. And science is more than just evolution. I checked your link – Nothing there useful to advancing science - creationist stuff many times refuted in detail. You may disagree.
Neal said: "5. Please describe any tools that Intelligent Design has provided that can be useful to scientific research (one would do)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll valid scientific tools are part of the ID tool chest. It exceeds that of Darwinism because ID is not limited to only naturalistic explanation."
All scientific tools. What has ID added? What other explanations other than naturalistic? Describe them. And then describe how to test them.
Neal said: "6. Please describe any predictions that Intelligent Design makes that can explain the diversity of life better than evolution
See 29 evidences for creation to date #1 - #5."
But so far, 1 through 5 are flawed - all for the same reason. (explanation for another post - it would take too much space and time here. But, please continue with the other 24. I need them)
Neal said: "7. Please list any contributions to the advancement of science made by the Intelligent Design community"
The majority of men who founded the major branches of science believed in a creator."
Believing in a creator, Neal, is one thing. Using the "creator" as an answer (let alone an explanation) for a natural process is something else. None of the scientists you may have in mind ever attributed a naturally observed process to the supernatural - either they found a natural explanation or they simply did not address the issue.
See? No ad hominem.
How creatures seem to reproduce using a common egg/sperm model, with a great variety of different ways of using the process. And plants seem to have a common pollen model. I was hoping to read a clear evolutionary explanation of such wonderful mechanisms, but all I got was a comment that no answer would be forthcoming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause it is tiresome, FullofWonder. The mechanism is very well understood - just google "evolution of sex" - you will find all kinds of information on how sex evolved. It's very easy. And you can google "nucleosynthesis" to understand how all the elements currently known were produced (in super nova). It's no secret. The theory was developed by Fred Hoyle, originally. It's well verified. Treat yourself.
Neal T at 10:17 AM on 11/13/09: "I am looking for informal feedback from this site"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, well. Keelyn has just offered Neal T several hundred measured, well-argued, sustained and polite words of 'informal feedback', which is certainly more than I would have had the patience for. But I fear that, since Neal T already has demonstrated that in reality the only 'informal feedback' that he is interested in hearing is 'informal feedback' which actually agrees with him, I for one shall await his reaction (if any) with interest.
Neal T: "The designer does not need to be detected in order to scientifically infer design. If you disagree with this then you believe that in order to believe anything was designed you must first see or detect the designer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrect! As I have made clear more times than I can count, you DO need to "first see or detect the designer" if your inference is to have any scientific validity. You're not arguing philosophy, Neal T. You're attempting to compete on equal terms with science. Which means that, contrary to what you evidently seem to think, you cannot adjust the rules as you go along to ensure that every word that you utter is admissible as argument. Science exists in the real world. That is one glaring difference between it and you.
I will expand upon point 5 of Keelyn's '7 questions to creationists' about predictions. The recent discovery of the prosauropod Aardonyx celestae is highly significant for science in that it is is both a transitional and a predictive fossil. Transitional, because it provides hard evidence of a stage of the Sauropodomorpha being nominally bipedal, as with the Plateosauridae, to obligatory quadrupedal, as the with the later sauropods. And it is predictive, because science already had determined that such an animal must have existed before its fossil was even discovered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would therefore like a creationist to put forward an explanation, with an equivalent example, of how creationism would go about determining such predictive evidence. If creationists choose to comment on an accredited science site (although they show precious little decent gratitude for the privilege, as in evidence in FullofWonder's comments of yesterday), then let's get down to some science.
I will await a creationist's science-based response.
Neal T: "The designer does not need to be detected in order to scientifically infer design. If you disagree with this then you believe that in order to believe anything was designed you must first see or detect the designer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisambertooth: "Correct! As I have made clear more times than I can count, you DO need to "first see or detect the designer".
To spare you the hard work of making yet another prima facie comment, Neal T, I'll make it clear that I was of course referring to the natural world. Any artefact of human manufacture, from Stonehenge to your toenail clippers, can be empirically determined, whether we happen to be on first-name terms with their designers or not. So don't try inserting another of your false analogs. (*Deep breath and count to three to avoid the temptation to include a follow-up wisecrack to my last remark.*)
Keelyn, your replies are great, and represent a tremendous investment in time and thought. I can only hope all replies are at least as good. If only your wine coolers worked as well on me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to add some of my own comments to Neal's answers 1 & 2, on top of the one I already wrote for answer 6.
Keelyn wrote:
1. Please describe scientifically the "Intelligent Designer"
Neal wrote:
The term "Intelligent Designer" is descriptive in itself and speaks of the qualities and work of the creator. Evolutionists use the term "natural selection" to describe observable events and even more so purely speculative processes.
My reply:
The "qualities and work of the creator" can as easily mean life designs itself in an iterative self-organizing process. As this does not require an outside intelligent agent, I'm pretty sure this is not what you have in mind, and so you need to come up with a better answer.
Keelyn wrote:
2. Please describe scientifically the processes of the "Intelligent Designer"
Neal wrote:
The processes? Vague question, but if I knew, wouldn't that make me capable of designing life? Quantum computing can be detected in living cells, but scientists do not know how to reproduce it. That doesn't mean they deny the existence of quantum computing.
My reply:
No, it would NOT make you capable of designing life in practice. By your own example, the identification of something called quantum computing in living cells does not allow the ability to duplicate it. Using an everyday example, just because I can describe how my car works does not qualify me as an automotive engineer. This question deserves a legitimate answer from you.
And what the heck, I might as well duplicate my own previous post here:
Keelyn wrote:
6. Please describe any predictions that Intelligent Design makes that can explain the diversity of life better than evolution
Neal wrote:
See 29 evidences for creation to date #1 - #5.
My reply:
Other than invoking a grand conspiracy across all of the natural sciences, can you explain how the study of current and past species shows not only the complete opposite of your predictions, but shows very good correlations to the predictions of common descent?
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny artefact of human manufacture, from Stonehenge to your toenail clippers, can be empirically determined, whether we happen to be on first-name terms with their designers or not. So don't try inserting another of your false analogs.
My reply:
I can't understand how Neal thinks he is helping his case by repeating his logical fallacy.
jpill69: "I can't understand how Neal thinks he is helping his case by repeating his logical fallacy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find myself almost hoping that he does so, jpill69. It just nails the point home that his 'case' is built upon shifting sand.
The trouble with evolution is that scientists always solve their problems by inserting millions of years and saying "life will find a way" when, in fact, science has NOT found that way. If you believe the entire universe exploded from a singularity smaller than the eye of a needle then maybe YOU did descend from an ape. I'll take six DAY creationism any day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissemjaza: "I'll take six DAY creationism any day."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, semjaza, you're obviously very confident of your stance, so perhaps you could fill in some of the details here that other creationists seem to be rather shy about answering. Such as: explain the way in which creationism can provide predictive evidence, and give an example (one will do) of a creationist predictive discovery which confirms such evidence. Because if you are unable to do this (or any other creationist, of course), then I for one am going to have to conclude that the current accredited evolutionary theory is way more efficient at doing this that the pseudoscience of creationism. Okay, the floor's yours, semjaza..
(P.S.: Just out of curiosity, if you are so devout a Christian, why did you choose to name yourself after the corruptingly dark angel (some Biblical scholars even consider that the name 'Satan' derived from Semjaza) who was the leader of the two hundred Watchers who descended to Earth to desecrate humankind, as described in the heretical Book of Enoch? Just wondering..)
There are many things that could be replied to because there were many posts in reponse to my previous answers to Keelyn. The comments are getting closer to the kind of feedback I was looking for. The more specific you can be the better. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for Jpill69, can you please clarify what you mean by your statement: The "qualities and work of the creator" can as easily mean life designs itself in an iterative self-organizing process. At what point did the creator get things rolling???
I saw a couple remarks about asking for predictions of the creation model. I've posted several about this before, yet received little or no feedback. I'll give you one of them again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists have claimed for years that there are "Junk rna and dna" because of expected evolutionary leftovers. More and more research is showing this to not be the case. Here's one example among many:
"Not 'Genomic Junk' After All: LincRNAs Have Global Role In Genome Regulation" .... link here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714125004.htm
From the start of the Junk RNA and DNA business creationists and ID researchers have written extensively rejecting this. So, this is one example of evolutions many predictive failures and design success.
Design theorists also predicted complexity throughout life, even in early prokaryotic cells. Quantum computing is certainly an advanced and complex ability and fits well with intelligent design. Evolution predicted simple early life, but prokaryote cells have been found to be much more complex and NO evolutionary ancestry has been discovered.
Congratulations, semjaza. Simple-minded people frequently have difficulty coping with quantities greater than two. You made it all the way to six.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a good thing the Bible doesn't describe an 11-day creation, otherwise semjaza would have to take off his shoes to figure it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...can you please clarify what you mean by your statement...
My reply:
As I clearly stated, the ambiguity lies with your reply to Keelyn, which requires no outside creator or originating device.
With that said, you would do well to stop wasting time and energy with artless distractions like the above and provide some clarifications of your own. Otherwise, some people might get the impression you have no interest in honest dialog.
Hey, FullofWonder, I sure do hope you post the URLs to some of those debating websites you found so impressive. You remember, all those you said creationists were kicking evolutionary behinds. I realize your must be distracted by distracting things, like sex and evolution and all, and of course having to post how noboby answers your own question for you, just in case anybody forgot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI sure hope you post those URLs in your lifetime, because I'm not sure they have an internet connection in heaven.
Wow ! I dont think you are even American. The forefathers left Europe to have Religious Freedom from the King of England. I am sure though you learned about History from the same people that have lied to you about Evolution. The Study of Molecular and Cell Biology prove there are many questions Evolutionists cant answer. Our NAtional Motto is " In God We Trust " find out where that came from? God Bless America
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow ! I dont think you are even American. The forefathers left Europe to have Religious Freedom from the King of England. I am sure though you learned about History from the same people that have lied to you about Evolution. The Study of Molecular and Cell Biology prove there are many questions Evolutionists cant answer. Our NAtional Motto is " In God We Trust " find out where that came from? God Bless America
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is to Ninja Fresh. I think the same person that has tought you about American History is the same person that has lied to you and has you believing Evolution. The forefathers came to America to escape the rule of the King of England to have religious Freedom. American Christianity, which is so different from the English Christianity of the time. As for Evolution, study up on molecular and cell Biology which will give you enough questions against evolution based on DNA questions. Then get angry ( my fellow American?). You have been lied to just like alot of America today. After all these Darwinists need the funding to eat. Or else who would hire someone who has been fired for lying at their previous jobs !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalso what about our National American Motto " In God We Trust"? If you claim to be an American then find out about our National Motto.
Amerigo: "Wow ! I dont think you are even American."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Internet recognises no borders, and the world is larger than America.
Amerigo: "As for Evolution, study up on molecular and cell Biology which will give you enough questions against evolution based on DNA questions."
Sounds like you've been 'studying' the same websites as Neal T.
Neal T: "The comments are getting closer to the kind of feedback I was looking for."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut like Zeno's second paradox, I'll wager that no matter how many comments you receive, they will never, never, quite manage to be close enough to 'what you were looking for'. What sort of comments do you imagine that you would receive if your 'evidences' were in a book that was being reviewed in a professional context? Neal T, as your behaviour here has repeatedly shown, you're a sham. Keelyn could have given you several hundred more words, and you still would have made the above remark.
Neal T: "I saw a couple remarks about asking for predictions of the creation model. I've posted several about this before, yet received little or no feedback. I'll give you one of them again."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour claimed 'predictive' evidence is not an example of true scientific prediction, but merely an example of science accommodating new data as it becomes available. I had previously mentioned Aardonyx celestae. Let's take Tiktaalik as another example of predictive evidence. Scientists predicted from available fossil evidence that such an animal must have existed. They then predicted the most likely geological location where it might be found (on Ellesmere Island). That is how the fossil of Tiktaalik was discovered. Now, using this example as a parallel, how would creationism go about finding such a fossil? Indeed, COULD creationism find such a fossil using ONLY its own methods? Whatever they are, because so far, all the creationist reconstructive work from fossil evidence that I've seen (such as the dinosaur animatronics in the Creation Museum) has relied wholly upon the hard work of true palaeontology.
Amerigo: "American Christianity, which is so different from the English Christianity of the time."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, how quickly the schisms in Christianity develop (currently some thirty eight thousand and counting).
An observation arising from Amerigo's response to Ninja Fresh: Statistically, the highest proportion of creationists worldwide can be found in America (fundamentalist Christian creationism) and Turkey (fundamentalist Islamic creationism). In a (highly tenuous) hypothetical future of creation-based science, I predict war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should have added my point to my previous comment: there are very good reasons why science remains neutral on matters of religious belief. My previous comment demonstrates one of these reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmbertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed, COULD creationism find such a fossil using ONLY its own methods?
My reply:
I am convinced creationism not only could not but would not. In order to look for transitional forms, you first have to allow the possibility that they exist, something creationists can't get themselves to do with the existing physical evidence. Creationists close their eyes, turn their heads, wave their hands, and walk away from the truth, as demonstrated so readily and so often by this forum's representatives of infinite regression.
Another factor strikes me, jpill69. Neal T is so anxious to keep his 'arguments' within what he sees as his own area of expertise (the information systems which lead him to draw false analogs with the biological sciences), that if he strays beyond the confines of these tight borders (my questions citing palaeontological examples) then he's immediately lost. But you're right, of course: creationism does not (indeed, CANNOT) recognise transitional fossils, because they well know that even to acknowledge just one would make their whole house of cards collapse. So they call Tiktaalik 'just a fish', and so on. Yeah, right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used to think that Neal was like a challenged carpenter; all he knows is how to use a hammer, so to him every problem looks like a nail. Nowaday, I wonder if even that gives him too much credit. I mean this sincerely, he better hope no database customers find out about his apparent inability to understand elementary set theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69: "I mean this sincerely, he (Neal T) better hope no database customers find out about his apparent inability to understand elementary set theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, in the ornithischians, both the hypaxial and epaxial tendons became ossified, resulting in the basal inflexibility of the tail, and making it more mobile distally and less mobile anteriorly. Whereas with some saurischians, the vertebral prezygapophyses became elongate, as well as in some instances the zygapophyses and the chevrons as well, making the reverse the case, which caused the tail to be more mobile anteriorly, and almost immobile distally. How do I know this? I have worked on the reconstruction of these animals professionally. Are you taking notes, Neal T? Hope so. I'll be asking questions afterwards.
Neal said: "I saw a couple remarks about asking for predictions of the creation model. I've posted several about this before, yet received little or no feedback. I'll give you one of them again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists have claimed for years that there are "Junk rna and dna" because of expected evolutionary leftovers. More and more research is showing this to not be the case. Here's one example among many:
"Not 'Genomic Junk' After All: LincRNAs Have Global Role In Genome Regulation" .... link here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714125004.htm
From the start of the Junk RNA and DNA business creationists and ID researchers have written extensively rejecting this. So, this is one example of evolutions many predictive failures and design success."
Neal, what you are implying is so misleading, at best. Some would say that your implication is just downright dishonest. First, you misrepresent (either by ignorance or dishonesty) exactly what the term "junk" means to biologists. The fact that SOME functionality has been found in SOME "junk" sequences of DNA does not mean that ALL "junk" DNA now has functionality. That's called making scientific progress. Please reread what "junk" actual means. The number of links I could provide to real research in this in this area is staggering and none of it suggests what you are implying. So, it is hardly a failure of evolution. As far as "ID researchers" are concerned - what a surprise. They're wrong, as usual. And as ambertooth pointed out, it is not a success for "design" since there is not official "design theory" except for the one that resides in your mind.
You are also missing another not-so-subtle point that I have noted previously; ALL of the research you link to is being conducted by genuine scientists conducting genuine research. None of them advocate, endorse, or otherwise imply that their research is evidence of intelligent design. You don't show some scientific research that is being done by ID'ers that could be useful to mainstream biologists.
Neal said: "Design theorists also predicted complexity throughout life, even in early prokaryotic cells."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComplex in comparison to what? Complex in comparison to you? This has been discussed previously.
Neal said: "Quantum computing is certainly an advanced and complex ability and fits well with intelligent design."
Really? Please describe in detail how it fits.
Neal said: "Evolution predicted simple early life, but prokaryote cells have been found to be much more complex"
They have been found to be more "complex" by WHO and in comparison to WHAT?
Neal said: "…and NO evolutionary ancestry has been discovered."
Wrong again. This has been discussed and pointed out to you before, as well. Start with some research on stromatolites. Then move on to processes of fossilization and mineralization.
Ambertooth, I'm surprised to find that I actually know what you said here, but I haven't a clue why you chose to include that particular line of mine with it. I fear I've been selected to receive a national achievement award, only to find out it's a Darwin Award.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSemjaza starts posting and immediately all the worn out ad hominen attacks start flying. Many more new people that believe in the creator post here. I guess from an evolutionist standpoint it could be intimidating, because you go to the well of your evidence and find a dry hole
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69, YOU SAID: "As I clearly stated, the ambiguity lies with your reply to Keelyn, which requires no outside creator or originating device."
YOU ALSO SAID : "The "qualities and work of the creator" can as easily mean life designs itself in an iterative self-organizing process. "
To summarize, you apparently believe in a creator, unless your statement I quoted you above was from someone that uses jpill69 as a name also. So is your creator eternal or not?
Step out of the fog and speak up for what you believe in, or do you find it easier to make criticize other than actually state your position.
So will JPILL69 say something more than vague statements about his creator.
AGAIN, JPILL69, IS YOUR CREATOR ETERNAL OR NOT?
Keelyn and others,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to share an observation of the evolutionists and creationists on this site and how they view life.
Creationist views often express a profound sense of awe at the beauty and complexity of life.
Evolutionist views often express an opposite view of life being simple and often ugly and junky.
It is amazing that anyone in our century would question the complexity of a living cell, yet the bias of evolutionists refuses to see the obvious. It is sad.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGAIN, JPILL69, IS YOUR CREATOR ETERNAL OR NOT?
My reply:
Argument by CAPLOCKS remains unpersuasive.
If (this indicates a logical condition that makes no inference as to my opinion of its veracity) you wish others to refrain from discussing your personal flaws,
then (this indicates a logical consequence of said condition)you need to refrain from making your personal flaws an irreducibly complex component of your replies. Only by such mutual arrangements can honest dialog be encouraged.
Regarding your confusion, I acknowledge authorship of both statements. As I clearly stated both times, my statements clearly express a logical consequence of your statement, which I clearly identified as your statement. Did you not in fact author the following statement at 09:26 PM on 11/13/09?
'The term "Intelligent Designer" is descriptive in itself and speaks of the qualities and work of the creator.'
Are you alleging that I misrepresented or misquoted you?
Please clarify.
In any case, by making my statements, I made no inference or reference regarding my beliefs in a creator.
If (see above) you want me to discuss my beliefs in a creator,
then (ibid) I need to believe such a discussion is relevant to the topics at hand, and is not just another attempt by you to evade your many prior obligations to this forum.
Neal, what is amazing is that you dishonestly pretend the question is about complexity, when in fact the question is about how said complexity develops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is sad is that you deliberately blind yourself to the grandeur and magnificence of obvious evolution.
You continue to insist that your perceptions of reality must be reality. You are one of almost 7 billion people with a tendency to the same illusion. Most people get over it in childhood. You have a lot of catching up to do.
JPILL69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't this discussion about evolutionsts thinking that creationism is nonsense? This discussion includes discussion of how life formed. Including a creator or the lack of one. Hello? If you do not believe in a creator, then just say so. You are not at all clear. I'm wondering if you do not even know yourself. Perhaps you concept of a creator is not one of an actual being or God or god or gods. You are confusing. At least Ambertooth is clear.
So, my question AGAIN. Do you believe that the creator is eternal? If you can not formulate a coherent reply, then a simple YES or NO will suffice, I suppose. I'm sure you could do better.
Ambertooth said: "Of course, in the ornithischians, both the hypaxial and epaxial tendons became ossified, resulting in the basal inflexibility of the tail, and making it more mobile distally and less mobile anteriorly. Whereas with some saurischians, the vertebral prezygapophyses became elongate, as well as in some instances the zygapophyses and the chevrons as well, making the reverse the case, which caused the tail to be more mobile anteriorly, and almost immobile distally. How do I know this? I have worked on the reconstruction of these animals professionally. Are you taking notes, Neal T? Hope so. I'll be asking questions afterwards."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, that is just small potatoes to what really can be imagined. Why stop with dinosaurs? The only Positive motto in evolution is "if you can imagine that it happened, then it did".
Like a crime scene where the detectives jump to the wrong conclusion about who's guity. Years later when the poor chap has spent years rotting in jail, DNA IS USED TO CLEAR HIM, and the circumstantial evidence is proven wrong. DNA trumps circumstantial evidence. If detectives can come to a false conclusion from evidence that is a few hours old, how much more so would archaeologists tend to get it wrong for bones that are millions of years old? If it is assumed that evolution is true, then you have already biased the conclusion.
It is similar to shooting an arrow and then drawing a target around it to prove your evidence.
Even evolutionists, that are honest, admit that huge gaps exist in the fossil record of intermediate fossils. For evolution to be true millions more intermediates should have been found, not just a few choice pickings from the immense Mosiac of life forms. Since common descent says that ALL life arose from a common ancestor, even ONE species that clearly has no evolutionary ancestry disproves the theory. Of course, that is nearly impossible because they always say that it hasn't been found yet. What about the prokaryote cells, the Trilobite, and even man? No direct link to homo sapien has been found. Just circumstantial evidence that is open to interpretation based on ones view - strict scientific materialism or open minded.
That a Creator could have purposefully designed life to be similar and varied to various degrees is not only possible, but a reflection of what we see. Evolutionists see intermediates, creationists see designs based on similar patterns. Creation is more powerful explanation when it comes to the sudden appearance of new life forms.
One question for Ambertooth regarding the Tiktaalik fossil. What makes this prediction of it being an intermediate better than the previous prediction that the Coelacanth was?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't this discussion about evolutionsts thinking that creationism is nonsense?
My reply:
You confuse belief in creationism with belief in a Creator, which illustrates your own narrow-minded religious bigotry.
You also confuse accepting the reality of evolution of life on Earth with a denial of God. I find it an amusing irony that on this point many creationists and atheists agree, even if they hate to admit it.
On the other hand, I have been nothing if I have not been clear and consistent on this point: scientific theories of the evolution of life on Earth say nothing about the existence of God, and when your faith is dependent on denying the physical evidence, you have a very weak faith.
Regarding your questions about my beliefs, once again I could not be more clear than if I was optical glass; my beliefs are irrelevant to these discussions. So, your problem is simply an inability to understand a clear answer. Deal with it.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists see intermediates, creationists see designs based on similar patterns. Creation is more powerful explanation when it comes to the sudden appearance of new life forms.
My reply:
Then explain how the patterns of current and past life show the opposite of your creationist predictions and have strong correlation to the predictions of common descent. This is only the sixth time I posted this in the past 2 weeks.
Before Darwin, Paley (the Watchmaker author) wrote about a “secret spring” to describe the complex designs he believed must exist within life. A watch, like biological organisms used energy to function. But watches did not get their own energy in the first place or reproduce new watches, as did living organisms. Paley reasoned that organisms must have unseen complexities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaley worked within the design perspective. With Darwinism , coming later that perspective shifted a lot. Darwin imagined that life first might have started in a warm little pond where protein molecules happened to come together to form the first living creature. If organisms arose by purely unguided, natural processes then one would not expect elegant designs or marvelous mechanisms. The fundamental unit of life, the living cell, was described as just a building block or as an elementary organism, rather than complex machine.
Is the cell complex? Yes, by any measure of the word it is complex. As a baseline, compare it to anything in our world that was created by man and the prokaryote or eukaryote cells are more complex.
I challenge you to name one manmade invention that is more complex than a living cell.
I'm throwing down the challenge to evolutionists.
Go ahead and make my day!
Come on, Neal, stop with the dumb repetitive arguments. I freely admit an ordinary cell is the complexiest. Ok? That solves nothing. Once again, the issue is HOW the cell became complex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a little postscript here. Neal is so keen on steering the conversation to beliefs because he thinks belief in creationism is equivalent to understanding evolution. They are not. Even if there was any part of evolution not based on physical evidence, that could be taken away and there would still remain the physical evidence. The only thing creationism has is belief. Take that away and there's nothing left.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal said: "Semjaza starts posting and immediately all the worn out ad hominen [sic] attacks start flying. Many more new people that believe in the creator post here. I guess from an evolutionist standpoint it could be intimidating, because you go to the well of your evidence and find a dry hole"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, Neal. semjaza made it immediately clear that he is a YEC. In the face of mountains of freely available evidence that thoroughly contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, he chooses to reject reality. To me thats idiotic and I said so ad hominem. You don't really think at this point I am going to try and seriously engage that nonsense by actually taking the time to post even a little bit of the evidence, do you? It would be pointless. So, if that sends him off in a tizzy, that's too bad. The only reason you see a dry well, Neal, is because you refuse to lower the bucket and get the water. Try it (for real I mean). For the rest of us, the well is wet with evidence.
Neal said: "I want to share an observation of the evolutionists and creationists on this site and how they view life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationist views often express a profound sense of awe at the beauty and complexity of life.
Evolutionist views often express an opposite view of life being simple and often ugly and junky.
It is amazing that anyone in our century would question the complexity of a living cell, yet the bias of evolutionists refuses to see the obvious. It is sad."
Well, your observation is seriously flawed, Neal. But your statements tell me a lot about you. Speaking for myself, if I wasn’t insatiably AWED by the beauty, complexity, and mysteries of the Universe, I wouldn't be spending what will amount to tens of thousands of dollars and wrenching billions of neurons in the pursuit of a formal education that will give me the expertise to truly study just one small sliver of all that AWESOME beauty, complexity, and mystery. I'm certain every scientist would express the same AWE. So, let me fix those statements for you:
1. Creationist views often express a profound sense of awe at the beauty and complexity of life. Oh, but it's just too complex for me to strain my brain on, so - goddidit. There - mystery solved. That was so easy - no work at all. God is glorious.
2. Evolutionist (scientist – most any discipline) views often express a profound sense of awe at the beauty and complexity of life and the Universe. So, let's figure it out using natural explanations. It will require a lot of time and hard work, but it's worth it.
And that's the real essence of it all for you, Neal; giving glory to your chosen deity. The real truths of nature aren't really important to you at all. All that matters is that your god gets the unquestionable credit. That's why you just wave away any evidence you don't like. It really pains you every time science ratchets down a few notches your undetectable miracle worker. That's sad. No biologist (or real scientist) questions the complexity of the living cell - the difference is in understanding HOW it came about. If you prefer supernatural answers to naturalistic explanations, fine. But, please don't insist that your supernatural answers are useful as a scientific methodology. They’re not.
Neal said: "Isn't this discussion about evolutionsts [sic] thinking that creationism is nonsense?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes.
Neal said: "This discussion includes discussion of how life formed."
No. This is supposed to be a discussion of how life EVOLVED AFTER life formed. We don’t know with certainty HOW life first originated. (Still working on that)
Neal said: "The only Positive motto in evolution is "if you can imagine that it happened, then it did""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly if the evidence supports that imagination.
Neal said: "Like a crime scene where the detectives jump to the wrong conclusion about who's guity. Years later when the poor chap has spent years rotting in jail, DNA IS USED TO CLEAR HIM, and the circumstantial evidence is proven wrong. DNA trumps circumstantial evidence. If detectives can come to a false conclusion from evidence that is a few hours old, how much more so would archaeologists tend to get it wrong for bones that are millions of years old? If it is assumed that evolution is true, then you have already biased the conclusion."
No, evolution is conclusively demonstrated to be a fact. Still, archaeologists, paleontologists, and scientists in many other fields spend YEARS analyzing data. Sometimes, they get it wrong! Imagine that! Someone (another scientist) notices sometime wrong (probably in light of new evidence) and science corrects itself. Of course, creationists interpret that as evolutionary biology crumbling to pieces. LOL.
Neal said: "Even evolutionists, that are honest, admit that huge gaps exist in the fossil record of intermediate fossils. For evolution to be true millions more intermediates should have been found, not just a few choice pickings from the immense Mosiac of life forms."
Speaking of creationists nonsense. Please read up on fossilization - PLEASE. But, at least you admit that there ARE intermediates.
Neal said: "What about the prokaryote cells, the Trilobite, and even man? No direct link to homo sapien [sic] has been found."
More creationist nonsense (lies in other words). And no fossils are even needed – the evidence abounds in the DNA itself. That's the same DNA you love so much.
Neal said: "That a Creator could have purposefully designed life to be similar and varied to various degrees is not only possible, but a reflection of what we see."
How do you know that? You have yet to describe any known properties about of the "creator, " so how could you know the "creator's" intentions?
Neal said: "Creation is more powerful explanation when it comes to the sudden appearance of new life forms."
No, it isn't. It's a canned answer. An explanation requires a mechanism to be shown. And by the way, your "sudden appearances" occurred over a span of millions of years.
Do you realize how many times and ways your "Paley crap" has been debunked. It’s laughable that you even bring it up. Your challenge is absurd and pointless. Declined. (Stipulating for you that no man-made device yet matches the complexity of a biological unit. That still does not prove that biology as we understand it is the result of intelligent design)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T : "Semjaza starts posting and immediately all the worn out ad hominen (sic) attacks start flying."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, duh. This thread, as the article's title makes abundantly plain, deals with creationist nonsense. Including yours. Semjaza has to date not commented further. Perhaps he was too shocked rigid to discover from my response to him that his name means 'Satan'.
And please for once try and spell 'ad hominem' correctly.
Neal T : "Creationist views often express a profound sense of awe at the beauty and complexity of life. Evolutionist views often express an opposite view of life being simple and often ugly and junky."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's so good to have this statement from Neal T right there in black and white on the thread. It declares for all to see his narrow-minded arrogance and bigotry towards anyone who does not happen to share his beliefs. I for one still get a terrific kick out of dealing with this material, even forty years after I began. It literally awes and excites me. The scientists with whom I have worked have shown both passion and humility toward the material in their chosen areas of expertise, from extinct megafauna to the smallest bivalves, irrespective of their personal beliefs or lack of same. FullofWonder, as so abundantly made plain by his presumptuous log-in name, also thought that creationists had the world patent rights to a sense of wonder. Neal T, if you're determined to be bigoted, you'd be wise to choose an area within your personal working experience.
Neal T : "I challenge you to name one manmade invention that is more complex than a living cell. I'm throwing down the challenge to evolutionists. Go ahead and make my day!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou'd make my day if you clearly explained what makes your challenge pertinent in the first place. But seing as how you apparently like to throw out challenges, and seeing as how you totally ignored my previous challenge to name a clear example of a predictive fossil discovered by a creationist using creationist methods (a wild guess, I know, but I'm taking your silence as meaning: 'because there aren't any'), then I challenge you again. And this time, I'm simplifying the challenge to give you a much broader scope:
From all the many, many thousands that have been discovered and classified, name one (yes, you heard right: just ONE) fossil organism that has been discovered by a contemporary creationist using ONLY creationist methodology, and which bears a nomenclature formally recognised by science.
I'm going to keep a note of this challenge, which I am sure, if creationist 'science' is both valid and thriving, should be a pushover to answer, and will, I am equally sure, have a ready response from a creationist eager to demonstrate the worth of their methods. Although it might be worth bearing in mind that, as current science can, and does, do the above with systematic (pun intended) efficiency, then creationism has to establish, not only that it can do (and has done) the above, but can do it with GREATER efficiency than accredited science currently does by employing evolutionary theory.
I will allow myself a certain modest conceit and call this 'the ambertooth challenge'.
Neal T (in response to my ornithischian/saurischian comment): "Sure, that is just small potatoes to what really can be imagined."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if it was "just small potatoes", why did you not respond by citing an equivalent example of such detailed analysis of fossil evidence which has been arrived at solely by using creationist 'methodology'? Ah, yes, I almost forgot: 'God did it'.
Keelyn wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Evolutionist (scientist most any discipline) views often express a profound sense of awe at the beauty and complexity of life and the Universe. So, let's figure it out using natural explanations. It will require a lot of time and hard work, but it's worth it.
My reply:
And that is as life-affirming as it gets. No superficial, deny-the-facts mythology comes close to the inspiring power of realizing that the Universe is rational and can be understood by those willing to use their brains for something other than keeping their ears apart.
Keelyn wrote:
And that's the real essence of it all for you, Neal; giving glory to your chosen deity.
My reply:
And this is the saddest part of all. There is no glory given to any deity from an offering of willful ignorance.
JPILL69 SAID: "Then explain how the patterns of current and past life show the opposite of your creationist predictions and have strong correlation to the predictions of common descent. This is only the sixth time I posted this in the past 2 weeks"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you kidding? My posts regarding creation model predicts go back over a year.
Evolution predictions do not hold up for a great variety of data in the fossil record or lab. For starters here are some examples:
1. the origin of protein folds
2. the origin of living cells
3. origin of bacteria and archaea
4. origin of eukaryotes
5. the origin of animal phyla.
If you have faith that living cells and animal phyla can just show up without intermediate ancestry, then you are asscribing miracle like powers to natural selection and mutation. Is that what you envision?
JPILL69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have two observations on your thought process.
1. You have a real bias with saying God did something in the world, because you think that this will stop scientific inquiry. You say this a lot, but I'm asking you to ground that statement with a fact. Could it be that scientific inquiry has more to do with an individuals' temperment than his view of origins? There have been evolutionists on this site that are just as lazy and content with someone else doing their thinking for them as the population is in general.
2. More importantly, please consider this not to be said in a mean way, but you are very much a generalist in your thought process. You do not need a "creator" for your concept of God, yet you say that life is his works. You do not need Richard Dawkins to elaborate on his BOX EYE illustration to believe that the other 28 components of the eye can easily evolve. You can't fill in the blanks, but that's okay because details do not seem to matter to you.
Once again, is your God, eternal or not? YES / NO
I don't think that is a tough question.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "I for one still get a terrific kick out of dealing with this material, even forty years after I began. It literally awes and excites me. The scientists with whom I have worked have shown both passion and humility toward the material in their chosen areas of expertise, from extinct megafauna to the smallest bivalves, irrespective of their personal beliefs or lack of same."
What is it that "awes and excites" you?
Keelyn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU SAID, "An explanation requires a mechanism to be shown."
And that is exactly why I do not believe in evolution. Simply saying that natural selection or mutation did it is ascribing these natural processes powers that have not been observed. What do you not get about common descent? The myriad of intermediate fossils necessary for life to have evolved have not been found. Not finding evidence is not evidence.
I've laid down the challenge for you guys to name one manmade item that is more complex than a single prokaryote cell. Surely there are things that man has made that you would find complex, yet you hestitate to ascribe complexity to a prokaryote because of its implications of design.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think another CHECKMATE is coming on.
It is frustrating to read the drivel and ranting's posted from both sides, firstly creationism is not based on god but on a bible which is a rough collection of writtings from numerous soruces over a 600 year pierod for 1:AD -mid 600's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly christianity is just a sect of judaism just as islam is a sect of christianity, all share the same monothestic god and each have the angel gabriel as the messenger etc...
Now Evolution is about how things evolve not how they are created, it is about "HOW" life changes and does not answer the question"WHY" it was created.
Evolution and religous faith are not enimies of each other.
1.the universe in 14 billion years old ( gave or take a few hundred million)
2.the earth is 4.6 billion years old( not an arguement a fact)
3.modern humans are possibly 2 million years old.
I mean lets take some so called bilical facts.
1.noah floods( a story the jews stole from the sumerians the epic of gilgamesh and then christian stole it)
2.adam and eve is the story of how man changed from hunter gatherer to farming the land, he lost his freedom and became as god the father of nature but also tied to it.
3.Genisis Everything was made in 6 days and on the seventh god rested( why did god need a rest ..tired was he)
Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness. (funny he did not create the stars to day 4)
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans. (no sun, no moon, no stars = no chance)
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land. (no sun, no moon, no stars = no chance)
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars. (finally)
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves" (Living Bible).
Day 7: God rested. (maybe if he had done things in the right order he would not have been so tired)
if your looking for science in the quran, torah or the bible these books are not scientific documents: "Looking in the Bible for a scientific account of origins is like looking in the phone directory for a recipe for angel cake." Tom Harpur
aggellos,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately its mostly wrong and I can show you point by point. Where do you want me to begin?
aggellos,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you seemed to be obsessed with God being "tired", may I suggest you we start there?
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think that is a tough question.
My reply:
It's an irrelevant question, and one you post solely to avoid your obligations. Which makes it a dishonest stupid question. Which is an apt description of most of your questions.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think another CHECKMATE is coming on.
My reply:
If you wear dark pants nobody will notice.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is so hard about answering yes or no?
IS GOD ETERNAL IN YOUR OPINION? YES/NO
You dish out a lot of opinions. You question FullofWonder specifically about God, but you can't answer a simple question.
It's not like the question isn't plain and somehow missed among the other posts. If you can't answer this why do you question FullofWonder?
If I missed one of your questions, bring it on again. It's easy to miss among all the posts. I will not dodge any question intentionally.
SO IS GOD ETERNAL OR NOT? YES / NO
Your avoiding it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on now.
ambertooth: "I for one still get a terrific kick out of dealing with this (fossil) material, even forty years after I began. It literally awes and excites me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "What is it that "awes and excites" you?"
It's called: "The unfolding and never-ending satisfaction of pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge, and doing so by using the human intellect alone rather than resorting to any cop-out easy-option supernatural solutions". *sigh* You wouldn't understand.
Neal T: "I think another CHECKMATE is coming on."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou'd be wise to hold that checkmate until you have actually explained why it is so soul-searingly relevant in the first place, since jpill69 has already answered you. And until you have answered my other painful questions, most notably 'the ambertooth challenge', which you seem intent on avoiding. Clearly my challenge seems to make you rather uncomfortable, since you have not mentioned it. Here it is again:
ambertooth at 05:06 AM on 11/16/09: "From all the many, many thousands that have been discovered and classified, name one (yes, you heard right: just ONE) fossil organism that has been discovered by a contemporary creationist using ONLY creationist methodology, and which bears a nomenclature formally recognised by science."
Well?
Neal T: "What is so hard about answering yes or no?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should know. If there was a doctorate in avoiding a simple yes/no answer, you'd have one.
Neal T: "I will not dodge any question intentionally."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*ambertooth rolls sideways off his chair shaking with helpless laughter..*
You:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have a real bias with saying God did something in the world, because you think that this will stop scientific inquiry. You say this a lot, but I'm asking you to ground that statement with a fact.
ME:
No, you're not. Unlike you, I try to "ground" all of my assertions in fact. In this case, I several times described its effect on the history of western medicine, to the overwhelming response of... nothing. This might explain why you can't remember now. This is what happens when you fall behind on fulfilling your obligations.
If you're unsatisfied with my answer, you should know that my expressed bias hardly distinguishes me, and you might find more satisfactory answers elsewhere. Dr. Kenneth Miller and Judge John E. Jones III are two names that come immediately to mind. Good luck!
YOU:
Could it be that scientific inquiry has more to do with an individuals' temperment than his view of origins?
ME:
Perhaps. Which mean also perhaps not. You need to be more specific if you want a more specific answer.
YOU:
There have been evolutionists on this site that are just as lazy and content with someone else doing their thinking for them as the population is in general.
ME:
This is an example of your baseless assertions. You make a generalized insult, without any evidence, without any indication of what you're referring to specifically, without anything to attach any kind of specific reply, and then you pretend that you deserve more than you give.
YOU:
2. More importantly, please consider this not to be said in a mean way, but you are very much a generalist in your thought process.
ME:
It doesn't surprise me you would write that. Because you're wrong.
YOU:
You do not need a "creator" for your concept of God...
ME:
That is yet another of your baseless assumptions. Do not put words in my mouth.
YOU:
You do not need Richard Dawkins to elaborate on his BOX EYE
ME:
Your problems with Dr. Dawkins was his voice and your insistence on characterizing his 'Box Eye' as something more that what he said it was.
YOU:
...but that's okay because details do not seem to matter to you.
ME:
You and your superficial comic-book creationism work only by rejecting all details.
Neal T: "My posts regarding creation model predicts go back over a year."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy earliest record of a response to a comment of yours on this thread goes back to the last day of May of this year. Please post a specific time and date for others to verify your assertion that you have been commenting here for "over a year".
Here's something interesting. In my very first comment to Neal T on the last day of May of this year, I said "If you have actual verifiable scientifically admissible evidence which might stand up as an alternative to evolutionary theory then please present it. Otherwise, your comments should be addressed to theology or to ethics." Well, here are the long winter evenings drawing in, and here I am still waiting for such "scientifically admissible evidence". *sigh* And I was so hoping that finally I'd come across a creationist who might, against all the odds, actually produce something of substance. Kind of disappointing really, in a fun sort of way. Back to the Department of theology and ethics you go, Neal T.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeal T: "I think another CHECKMATE is coming on."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpill69: "If you wear dark pants nobody will notice."
Oh, too good! Wow, jpill69, I do believe that's two months in a row that you've won the golden ambertooth award for the riposte of the month!
Aggellos,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul Davies wrote an interesting book called "Cosmic Jackpot". In it, he shares an allegedly true story about a man who gave a public lecture about the nature of the Universe. In the middle of it, an old woman from the audience jumped up and denounced the lecturer, claiming that she KNOWS how the Universe is put together: the Earth rests on the back of an elephant which rests on the back of a giant turtle. Bemused, the lecturer asked the woman what the turtle rests on. The woman shot back, "You may be clever, young man, but you can't fool me. It's turtles all the way down!"
Paul Davies shares this story to show that whenever anybody tries to explain Life, The Universe, and Everything, their narration sooner or later comes to a starting point, a point which they have no additional evidence or explanation. Their choice of origin is dependent on the narrators' culture and their current state of ignorance. The lady in the story could have just as easily replaced her infinitude of giant turtles with a single omnipotent everpresent superturtle. Or Genesis. Or The Big Bang. Or an infinitude of multiverses. Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. The problem is one culture's final answer is another culture's laughing stock. There can be no reasoned resolution to which is right, because each one describes a point that can only be accepted on faith. Rather than waste time arguing pointlessly over origins, it seems to me to make more sense to simply recognize our shared faith in our separate ignorance, and move on to issues that at least in principle have a chance of being resolved.
Neal wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. the origin of protein folds
2. the origin of living cells
3. origin of bacteria and archaea
4. origin of eukaryotes
5. the origin of animal phyla.
You don't say how creationism/ID explains/predicts these things.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou still haven't answered the very simple question about whether you believe your God is eternal or not.
"Giant turtles and Flying Spaghetti Monsters"? You can throw up your hands and make clownish statements, but I don't know of anyone who believes these things are real. You can deny the truth of the Bible in Genesis that has been available for thousands of years. Perhaps you would like to specifically point out something in Genesis that you can disprove? Anyone can spout baloney. I challenge you to disprove something specific from the book of Genesis.
The creation model predicts that because life did not evolve from non-living chemical processes, it should appear early and when it appeared it would already be complex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is seen in the fossil record? The first cells to appear are already as complex as they are today.
What is observed in the lab? DNA is not formed by natural chemcial processes like snowflakes or crystals. As origin of life researchers (Leslie Orgel,etc) have observed the cell is identified with specified complexity. DNA is encoded digital information machine.
1. the origin of protein folds
2. the origin of living cells
3. origin of bacteria and archaea
4. origin of eukaryotes
5. the origin of animal phyla.
Evolution predicts many incremental steps leading from simple to more complex. It failed to predict the complexity of the living cell. The fossil William Paley was indeed closer than Darwin to the truth of the complexity of the cell.
Ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGinseng may help you with your memory.
1. DNA is a digital Information system encoded by in a base four language. Language is the product of intelligence. Therefore DNA is the product of intelligence.
No one on this site has disproven this.
2. Complexity, including quantum computing, appears early in green sulfur bacterium called Chlorobium tepidum. Simplicity in early life was predicted by Darwinists, early complexity was predicted by creationists. What has been found is early complexity in the fossil record.
No one on this site can give an example of a manmade product that is more complex than a prokaryote cell.
3. Phyla appear in the fossil record fully formed and complex without evolutionary intermediates. An prime example, but not the only one, is the Cambrian Explosion.
Neal, how do you think being a clown for Christ is useful?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Neal's comments over the last few weeks, I now realize that he has no intention of engaging in meaningful dialog, and that he has every intention of disrupting the entire forum as best he can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize for coming to this realization so late, and I thank those who waited patiently for me to figure it out for myself. When I first started posting to this forum, I saw Neal as someone who chose to swim against the tide in order to get across an important if unpopular idea, and was being overwhelmed by the numbers. Even though I disagreed with his opinions, I admired his effort.
I have just reviewed Neal's early comments, and my opinion remains they are vastly superior to his recent offerings. If that original Neal still existed, I would respect his efforts and support his right to be heard.
Neal T at 10:23 AM on 11/12/09: "I would like serious feedback about my posts minus the ad hominen (sic) mess."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot half as much as we would.
Neal T: "Ginseng may help you with your memory."
An ad *hominem, Neal T? Tsk, tsk. Maybe you need to swallow a few sackfulls of ginseng yourself to help you to 'remember' all the questions which I ask you which you consistently ignore, and address yourself to 'the ambertooth challenge', which obviously precipitates an acute attack of embarrassed silence in you every time you read it.
Neal T: "No one on this site has disproven this."
Of course they haven't. Duh. You cannot 'disprove' a logical fallacy, because a logical fallacy is not 'proof' to begin with. Either you're just troll-baiting in continuing even to mention this squalid little bit of so-called 'proof', or you really are that thick and genuinely do not understand why your argument is invalid. If so, you're probably the only one left who doesn't, and that includes the silent Internet audience on this thread who must by now be wildly facepalming along to your every comment.
*Neal T, please make a note of the correct spelling, and try to get it right, even just once, if only to salvage some vestige of what little self-esteem you might have left. If you care, which I doubt.
jpill69: "Neal, how do you think being a clown for Christ is useful?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe's not even that, jpill69. Half a dozen times now, I've straight-out accused him of not actually being a Christian at all. Not once has he denied it. He just pretends to be a born-again 'Christian' so that he can assume an air of smug self-righteousness. Regarding the rest of what you say, I have already made the observation here that on another Internet forum I watched over several months as a creationist started out attempting some sort of reasonable dialogue, then gradually descended into becoming a fully-certified baiting Internet troll. That is what has happened to Neal T. He has no arguments worth the name any more. Just goes on parroting the same turgid idiocies, quote-mined comments, and logical fallacies, and remains selectively blind to questions put to him. Witness his last few posts here. He's a baiting troll, alright.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll take some of your last comments as a compliment. My first comments on this site had to do with Darwinisms negative influence on race relations and the spawing of eugenics and other human value demeaning type things.
While the people involved in eugenics didn't value all human life, it was something that they were "literally in awe and excited" about.
29 evidences for Creation. #6 of 29 - Anatomical functionality
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of the most renowned evidence for design are the various highly efficient functional characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology.
From eyesight, smell and hearing, to navigation systems, defensive mechanisms, and even sonar, the variety is immense. Biological systems can often be observed to operate at higher efficiency levels than any human manufactured machine. One example of this is the bacterial flagellum.
From wikipedia (Flagellum):
"The bacterial flagellum is driven by a rotary engine made up of protein (Mot complex), located at the flagellum's anchor point on the inner cell membrane. The engine is powered by proton motive force, i.e., by the flow of protons (hydrogen ions) across the bacterial cell membrane due to a concentration gradient set up by the cell's metabolism (in Vibrio species there are two kinds of flagella, lateral and polar, and some are driven by a sodium ion pump rather than a proton pump[17]). The rotor transports protons across the membrane, and is turned in the process. The rotor alone can operate at 6,000 to 17,000 rpm, but with the flagellar filament attached usually only reaches 200 to 1000 rpm.
Flagella do not rotate at a constant speed but instead can increase or decrease their rotational speed in relation to the strength of the proton motive force. Flagellar rotation can move bacteria through liquid media at speeds of up to 60 cell lengths/second (sec). Although this is only about 0.00017 km/h (0.00011 mph), when comparing this speed with that of higher organisms in terms of number of lengths moved per second, it is extremely fast. By comparison, the cheetah, the fastest land animal, can sprint at 110 km/h (68 mph), which is approximately 25 body lengths/sec."
Bacterial cells, Archaeal cells, Eukaryotic cells all of their own version of flagella.
29 evidences of creation. #7 of 29
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAtavism Rarity.
Biological organisms have built-in error checking and correcting mechanisms to greatly limit the amount of mutation and deformation. Error checking and correcting mechanisms are common in computer systems and electronics and is a property of design.
29 evidences for creation. #8 of 29.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMolecular functional characters. Some of the most renowned evidence for design are the various highly efficient characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology.
One example of highly efficient function below the molecular level is green sulfur bacterium—Chlorobium tepidum. From Scientific American here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation
Quote:
"Green sulfur bacterium—Chlorobium tepidum one of the oldest photosynthesizers on the planet—to 77 kelvins [–321 degrees Fahrenheit] and then pulsed it with extremely short bursts of laser light. By manipulating these pulses, the researchers could track the flow of energy through the bacterium's photosynthetic system. "We always thought of it as hopping through the system, the same way that you or I might run through a maze of bushes," Engel explains. "But, instead of coming to an intersection and going left or right, it can actually go in both directions at once and explore many different paths most efficiently."
In other words, plants are employing the basic principles of quantum mechanics to transfer energy from chromophore (photosynthetic molecule) to chromophore until it reaches the so-called reaction center where photosynthesis, as it is classically defined, takes place. The particles of energy are behaving like waves. "We see very strong evidence for a wavelike motion of energy through these photosynthetic complexes," Engel says. The results appear in the current issue of Nature.
Employing this process allows the near-perfect efficiency of plants in harvesting energy from sunlight and is likely to be used by all of them, Engel says. It might also be copied usefully by researchers attempting to create artificial photosynthesis, such as that in photovoltaic cells for generating electricity. "This can be a much more efficient energy transfer than a classical hopping one," Engel says. "Exactly how to implement that is a very difficult question."
Did you get the last paragraph? Do you understand that this bacteria is one of the earliest life forms? Evolution did not predict early complexity of life, and this is a classic failure of the theory.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe's a baiting troll, alright.
My reply:
When can I say? When you're right, you're right. I noted your review of another creationist on a different forum who followed Neal's descent into a full-fledged internet troll. There might be something that creationists share in common that makes them susceptible to such a degrading loss of abilities. Maybe it's the water.
jpill69: "When you're right, you're right."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, jpill69. In my months of 'debating' them (and I use the word in a loose, jocular sense) I've come across all manner of creationists. On forums more loosely-moderated than this one, the sheer viciousness and filth that they vent would make a marine blush. And I have certainly come across many a creationist troll, and perhaps even more typically, creationists who reel out stacks and stacks of cock-eyed so-called 'proofs', and then sit back and pretend that they're seeking constructive feedback. In reality, of course, they only want to hear opinions which agree with their own. Even the most rational and constructive dissenting voices are perceived by them as 'obstructive'. And, of course, they're psychological free-loaders: they always expect something for nothing. They fish for reactions, without ever reacting in their turn to statements which are put to them. Creationists see the world in a 'give-and-take' way: others give, and they take.
Ambertooth wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists see the world in a 'give-and-take' way: others give, and they take.
My reply:
It is my nature to believe everyone has some interest in engaging in meaningful dialog, to share their point of view and respond to those who share in kind. I get discouraged when my belief is proved false. Nevertheless, now that I got it in this particular case, it is easy enough for me to steer a different course.
From "The Flagellum Unspun" by Dr. Ken Miller:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any discussion of the question of "intelligent design," it is absolutely essential to determine what is meant by the term itself. If, for example, the advocates of design wish to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with an overarching, possibly Divine intelligence, then their point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share, along with many scientists.
This, however, is not what is meant by "intelligent design" in the parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of its designer.
Certainly, the issue of design and purpose in nature is a philosophical one that scientists can and should discuss with great vigor. However, the notion at the heart of today's intelligent design movement is that the direct intervention of an outside designer can be demonstrated by the very existence of complex biochemical systems. What even they acknowledge is that their entire scientific position rests upon a single assertion – that the living cell contains biochemical machines that are irreducibly complex. And the bacterial flagellum is the prime example of such a machine.
Such an assertion, as we have seen, can be put to the test in a very direct way. If we are able to search and find an example of a machine with fewer protein parts, contained within the flagellum, that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted. As we have also seen, the flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting apparatus that carries out an important function even in species that lack the flagellum altogether. A scientific idea rises or falls on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence in the case of the bacterial flagellum is abundantly clear.
jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd so Dr Miller, as I've discussed with him, makes extrapolations that are unfounded. He mentions a few components and thinks he has resolved the evolution of the flagellum. It's like Dawkin's 4 piece BOX EYE. Like a magicians trick they redefine the problem and then solve the redefined problem. The real problem remains unresolved.
I like Matt Chait's comments about this at http://beyondevolutionistheregodafterdawkins.blogspot.com/2009/06/mutations.html
To quote:
"Is that the refutation of Behe? This silliness misses Behe's point entirely. Yes, someone could use my stomach for a wine sac; could use my intestines to tie down luggage to the roof of a car, and play castanets with my teeth. That someone would, of course, not be me, because I, no longer having a stomach or intestines would be long dead. Behe's whole point is that there must be a CONTINUOUS biological function. If any organism along the way uses its digestive system to play music, tie luggage or for any other purpose, what, in the world are they going to digest with? The point is that the digestive system, or the locomotion system, or the circulation system has to change increment by increment while still being a working digestive, locomotion or circulating system. How was this organism metabolizing before it 'learned' to metabolize? How was it eliminating before it 'learned' to eliminate? Unlike when we remodel our home and move out to a hotel for a month while new plumbing and new wiring is installed; biologically we couldn't have moved into a primordial hotel for fifty million years while our body was developing new nervous and digestive systems. Moving out is what we call death, the end of the line, biologically, evolutionarily, or otherwise. However long these evolutionary processes were supposed to take, all the basic biological processes must have been CONTINUOUSLY functional throughout the entire process; and not only functional, but functional at a level of efficiency that enabled them to compete with other organisms that were not going through the radical upheaval of a process of evolution.
Ambertooth and jpill69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou guys wanted me to post evidence for design and so I post a lot of it and then I get called a "baiting troll". Perhaps you see it as bait because you do not have much to refute it and so you have to revert back to attacking motives.
Of course I am not going to agree with you because I've already looked at the evidence of evolution and there is too much evidence that doesn't fit its predictions.
In order for me to seriously rethink my position, you've got to show me hard evidence that macroevolution has been observed, along with the mechanisms that cause it. Transitional fossils are completely subjective and make sense to you because you want it to. In these kinds of subjective areas when evidence to the contrary is shown they can not just be blown off by saying they weren't fossilized but must have existed, etc. Imagining something to be so just because evolution is the only theory allowed is something that is not allowed in any other field of science.
As I am attempting to show with the 29 evidences of creation, Theobalds evidences for evolution only look at it from an evolutionary perspective, when design is either an equal or better explanation for the same things he used as evidence.
Evolutionists have been extremely creative in bringing out their subjective evidence, but their attempts to attack design using strawman arguments are wearing thin. More people are seeing the fragile evidence for evolution and calling a spade and spade. It's your deal.
If you and Michael Chait would bother to read and understand Michael Behe's own words, you would at least two more things than you do now:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Irreducible Complexity is defined by taking existing systems apart, which does not argue against evolutionary theory, as that is defined by putting new systems together.
2. There are literally thousands of procaryotic species without flagellae specifically, or any other method of independent motion for that matter, so to be without one is hardly the "death" Chait's argument rests on.
This is the kind of thing that happens when a self-described accountant (Chait) and an Information Technologist (Neal) think they know more about bacteria than a Professor of Biology.
errata, please cut-and-paste:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you and Matt Chait would bother to read and understand Michael Behe's own words, you would know at least two more things than you do now:
I beg to differ that this nation was "never a Christian nation." I quote this directly from the Declaration of Independence (you can look it up if you want to): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, that's interesting. A creator? I wonder who that might be. The Flying Spaghetti Monster perhaps?
Also from the pledge of allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,one Nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
And have you forgotten the reasons for the founding of this nation? The Seperatists came from England in order to escape religious persecution and so that they could worship God freely and happily. By the time of the Revolutionary War, man other reasons, along with religious persecution, pushed the American colonies over the edge and into revolution. They fought to maintain their freedoms, all of them.
Now, if you argue that this nation was never a Christian nation, either you're purposely ignoring factual history, or you have some evidence that I'm unaware of. If so, please inform me.
No references makes one question the veracity of the article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReal science...defined is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena AND/OR the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.
There are more than enough questions regarding Darwins Theory of Evolution to allow the possibility of Intelligent Design to be addressed in all of academia to include grade school.
Point of contention:
1)Have we found the 'Missing-Link' yet...I think not!!! 2)What is the Scientific Explanation of a fish in the process of eating another fish found in the state of fossilization? Tends to depict a fossilization process that was extremely fast NOT one that lasted years upon years!
3)The more we learn, the more facts arise that bring Darwins Theory of Evolution into question!
Two birds of, lets say a different breeding, is not evolution of any sort...it is cross-breeding! No evolution here...move on...move on!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood point! But, we can not throw the baby out with the bath water...which is to say facts are still facts, even if the facts have been proven to be otherwise. As if a color-blind person was given the job do determine the color of a group of objects and then a group of people followed up with another determination proving the color-blind person was, in fact, color-blind! A fact can change but the later then becomes the accepted fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA little biased and all inclusive. Surely, some of those that believe the bible have experiential reason for what they believe, not just blind faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause if Christians believe that God inspired the Bible and the Bible says that God created the world in six days not a couple billion years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a very bad analogy seeing as Newton's law is a scientific law while Darwin's idea of evolution is a THEORY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>You cannot argue fact with someone that has so stridently dismissed it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed. Sometimes I think humanity has split into two species: thinking people and bricks.
>in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know this is published in the USA, but can we tone down the cheerleading a bit? Or perhaps show us some objective criteria for measuring scientific advancement and some stats that can be subjected to peer review. Now that would be scientific...
Lol, I love how these people act like they have quote "real science". And yet, there is no empirical evolution "science". Anyway, I don't have time to argue with all you folks, so I will just leave you with a link. These videos are long but provide great proofs for creation, and fuel for non-supported complaining on these forums. Anyway, here it is. If you are short on time, you can try the "Answers with Ken Block" just to the left there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.answersingenesis.org/media#/video/ondemand/best-evidence
Intelligent design, this is a religious doctrine, passed off as science. There is no scientific fact behind the design. Evolution, is a series of facts, which comes to one conclusion: Complex life derived from simple one-celled protozoia. The geologic evidence supports an age of earth of 4.57 bya. To purposely deny this and other facts, is to bury your head in the sand, you can deny facts all you want,but, the facts are still there, and so are the fossil evidence of Pre-Cambrian, and Cambrian life existed. Just this evidence alone, contradicts intelligent design,a.k.a. young earth advocates, a.k.a. creationist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this70% of the mutations of the human DNA are deleterious, bad, reduce fitness and reduce intelligence. We have mapped over 4000 genetic defects so far and still finding more propagating in the human species. There is no evolution at all, never has been. We have more new diseases than ever in history and you believe in fairy tales of magical mutations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDNA is absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence of de-evolution with 100% no possibility towards more complexity or more fit to survive. Preserving what we have left of our genome is what we need to focus on, not perpetuation the medical industry with drugs that add to the degradation o the human genome's ability to have correct cell replication.
Evolution is a fraud, and is full of mystical human "magical thinking" emotion mental garbage faith and belief. There is no magic "evolution fairy" that fixes our genomes.
If you want to believe in evolution you are just delusional.
This is THE definition of evolution:
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
There is no advances towards more intelligent, more complex nor more fit to survive. Humans are heading for extinction by not taking care of their existing genomes from self destructive habits.
Wake up from you delusions and look at the facts.
I just canceled my subscription of SA, the title of this article is so anti-science its insulting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO publication especially a scientific publication should ever completely down a theory especially when the evolutionary theory is not a fact.
Just because the majority accept and support evolution (myself included) doesn't make it the rule.
At one point scientist all agreed that the world was flat, that was the popular theory of the time, of course it was proven wrong.
Quick thought: what happens if Aliens come down tomorrow and divulge that they planted our DNA and engineered our planet in like. What would become of every "theory" we currently have??
If science is anything its the search for truth, without an open mind there is no science.
I thought that this page closed long ago! Good to see that it isn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos, BrianMontgomery. And much applause to you for the courage you display in showing that "courage of conviction" also involves open-mindedness and honesty - an admission, in our pursuit of truth, that the beliefs we hold and attempt to defend just might have fundamental problems requiring us to further investigate arguments for and against those beliefs. The progression of science and the improvement of knowledge is by necessity established on that principle.
And although I must admit that I've violated that principle many a times, I would think, nevertheless, that a candid and honest assessment of the facts and inferences supporting or opposing our beliefs is a sure guide for us along the path of our pursuit of truth.
And by the way, given the tone, color, and sheer puerile vitriol implicit in this article's title, and spewed throughout its body (as you justly pointed out), SA could learn a thing or two from you! They would certainly be all the wiser. But I’ve got a very sneaky suspicion that SA’s penchant to gratify its insatiable hatred towards Christianity is far greater than their hunger for truth.
They’d much more prefer a general consensus made up of a group of men and women harboring scientific, philosophical, and theological biases suggesting that they’re anything but true scientist, in the strict sense of the word, and a general public duped by that body to merely proclaim them to be right, or the winner of the debate; the truth of true science, and scripture be damned!
Finally, I realize that there are many men and women within the ranks of the enemy (anti-creationist) who are very sound, and highly qualified scientist, but that’s exactly where the problem lies for me and many others; sincerity and conviction will never trump integrity - that’s the key!
I’ve read a lot of this debate, much more than I intended to in fact, and very fascinating it is too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo points: why is it that creationists don’t question other scientific theories (eg gravity?) Why do they only question the science that the Bible appears to contradict (evolution)? Are they really interested in science, or are they just defending their ‘patch’?
Second point: I live with the fact of evolution every day. I have a chronic viral infection: medications frequently fail in some people because the virus changes slightly, and is no longer impeded by the drug. It has evolved. So did God create the new drug-resistant virus? When did he create it? Because it only came into being when the virus met the drug. Is God still creating new creatures, in which case we would still be somewhere in the first 7 days of Genesis? Why does God need to keep on creating new creatures like this? Hasn’t he got it right yet?
Creationism can be easily proven as fallible, based on the claim that the universe is only 10,000 years old. The speed of light (SOL) is the considered constant by which quantum physics uses as its foundation for measure. Therefore either all visible cosmography (stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc), whether visible by optical or radio telescopes, must be only 10,000 light years away (and the visible universe is then only 20,000 light years in diameter) or the SOL is off by a factor of millions. The SOL constant is what allows us to measure that our own Milky Way Galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter (ten times the size of the expected 'creationist' universe).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBasically for the concepts of Creationism to be taken seriously, we would need some basis of measurement that would confirm such assertions
SA analysis of the merits of creationism here and posters is just like the recent issue referring to the Indians as the First Americans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot true, not well thought through, and perhaps other motivations are influencing conclusions.
The American people are a specific people in time and space.
An american is the people and citizens of a nation that came into existence in the 1700's.
They are a people with an identity segregated from other men in other nations. Likewise historically a segregation of identity within the boundary of America. Other Nations in the AMERICA'S also only exist as they determined at some date.
if one is not an American by identity or citzenship then one is not an American.
The ancient peoples who came into this part of the planet are in no relationship with Americans.
Therefore they are not the first. They were not at all. They were peoples identifying themselves in tribes or later nations or empires.
Just because one walks on the land as another walks on the land now or later does not make him the same one.
The Indians were not Americans and in fact were immigrants to America like the rest after the revolution.
I say SA calls them the first Americans, like others do, because they really are trying to say as a people they have first or existing moral claim to America.
They have none as segregated identity's but only as citizens. tHis only after a lot of fighting and final allowance by the actual Americans.
in fact in Canada this is the very words. They are called First Nations. First as opposed to unrelated later ones, and plural to indicate segregation back in the day.
This First American stuff is attempts to give moral and practical rights to another peoples home.
No one calls the Palestinians the First Israeli's.!
The reason being about giving or denying moral or practical claim of people to a certain piece of land.
Likewise SA is inaccurate in its study and analysis of the merits of creationism and the whole origin controversy.
There is misunderstanding here.
It shouldn't be the creationist, me, pointing it out.
It gives credibility to us.
I wonder if you read the article at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf teachers start teaching creationism or intelligent desing or religion (wich are all the same) then they also should start teaching pastafarianism.