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.
This article was originally published with the title 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
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.
Man 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 sci