I heard a quite frightening rumor that George Bush was planning on removing the theory of evolution from the education syllabus. This brings me on to the point of the thread. Who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, and how do you explain the primitive to modern day species of man, i.e homo erectus, homo habilis etc.

He couldn't do that, and I doubt he even wants to.

Sounds like a baseless internet rumor.

I don't believe that G.W. is really a part of the movement, but there is a group of evangelicals that are actively trying to have the so called "Theory of Intelligent Design" taught in public schools along with evolutionary theory.I fail to comprehend how such a (so called) theory ,which is based on opinion, and not on scientific knowledge could be considered as subject matter in public schools.

Excerpt from posted link:

".....ninth-grade curriculum now must include the theory of "intelligent design," which posits that life is so complex and elaborate that some greater wisdom has to be behind it......"

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL

Almost as frightening as the news that Kerry was going to outlaw the Bible. Come on....

I heard that rumor, too.

I'm almost positive it's hearsay.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by -Mephisto-:

and how do you explain the primitive to modern day species of man, i.e homo erectus, homo habilis etc.

They exsplain Homo Erectus and Neandrathols as deformed or diseased humans. Is Homo Habilis the "Hobits"? I think they will just say they are midjets that several generation of midgets just happened to die in the same place.

To tell you the truth, all argument about creation is worthless. I feel as an individual that the how/who/where/when/why's of creation, are irrelevant to anything going on today.

To borrow something from a friend:

"Tell me that God created the earth"

.....

"Ok, sweet, now tell me that we evolved."

....

I don't know if you get it, but it's implying that no matter who or what ridiculous chain of events caused our existence, we are still who we are, in the world we are in today.

I worry not about the coming of our existence, I worry only about what is here now, and who I am now, for that is all I know to be entirley true.

If either creation or evolution were proved right, all it would do was prove which of two groups was right, it would not further man in any way, or change the world as we know it.

That's a semi-buddhist point of view

Hey I'm not trying to turn this thing into a politics/is there a god debate, i just wanted to know if anyone didn't believe in Darwins theory of evolution.

I do not believe in evolution, but in the creation.

I would rather believe that I am the purposefully designed creation of God, Who wants to have a personal relationship with me, than that my great^10 grandfather was an ape in a tree, and that I am the twenty-third cousin, twice-removed, of the worm in my garden soil.

^^^This is exactly why intelligent design should not be taught in a science class.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

To tell you the truth, all argument about creation is worthless. I feel as an individual that the how/who/where/when/why's of creation, are irrelevant to anything going on today...

If either creation or evolution were proved right, all it would do was prove which of two groups was right, it would not further man in any way, or change the world as we know it.

Interesting idea, but at the very least it would stop most of the arguing and let us move on to some other question. Very good point, though. It reminds me of that story about the Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian who all get drunk together.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 01-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract^^^This is exactly why intelligent design should not be taught in a science class.

And why is the belief in evolution any more scientific than the belief in creation? Have we interviewed any transitional forms lately?

Why is evolution always perceived as "science" and creation always considered "religion", when both points of view require faith to adhere to?

CEREBRAL - And science !

http://www.creationministries.org/projects.asp

Ugh, I don't have time to explain this in full right now. For now I'll just say the theory of evolution (scientific theory, NOT layman's theory) is based on evidence, whereas intelligent design is based on PC pandering to religious conservatives.

If that's true it's just something he said for young earth creationists. He can't do that, It'd harm him way too much...

Oh, I know personally some creationists and here's Intelligent Design movement in few words:

"OMG! Macroevolution cannot explain certain structures like flagellum! PWNED!1 LOL!!1 You C Earth was created in 7(!!!!!!!!) DAYS!§11 Become a reBORN Xtian!!!!!11"

But then there's actually pretty intelligent folk involved. I believe thay're quite right that all evolution cannot be explained at the moment with current knowledge, but these ID fellows just try to falsify theories instead of creating new ones...

Digital: I accept the scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Just posing the question concerning the dual standard imposed by the advocates of evolution.

Creationism has objective scientific merit, whereas most evolutionary "evidence" has been shown to either be outright falsehood (piltdown man was constructed from a jawbone fragment later discovered to be from a pig) or improperly observed/recorded/described facts.

DS, I wouldn't call the experiments in the link you posted experiments at all. They consist of demonstrating natural processes like a bird's feather in flight or frozen water expanding, then go on to say "HA! How could this be anything BUT intelligent design!" The explanation of each one contains a massive logical leap, in fact there was nothing logical about any of them. Misleading and unscientific.

Cerebral, creationism is based on faith, and what people want to believe. If that works for them, that's fine, but it should not be disguised as any sort of real science.

I was going to say more, but fuck it. You don't seem interested in what someone who disagrees with you has to say anyway. If you're up for a real discussion instead of producing false data and straw men like the Piltdown man, please say so. I would be glad to explain anything about evolution that seems silly or wrong to you.

Don't like these ideas? Come up with something better.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 01-10-2005).]

One thing that seems silly to me is the idea that an incredibly complex organ such as the human brain could evolve unguided from an amoeba, without any intelligent plan or direction. If our brains are just the result of a long series of random processes, then the results formulated by our brains are equally based on randomness and disorder. How could any conclusions we make using that type of brain then be considered logical?

On the other hand, if our brains behave in a logical and rational manner, and show the capability of making logical decisions, then does it not make sense that this intelligence came from a First Intelligence?

Evolutionary scientists observe and record facts and figures, and make hypothesis' and theories based on their presupposition that evolution is true.

Creationist scientists observe and record facts and figures, and make hypothesis' and theories based on their presupposition that creation is true.

Which is better or more logical? Depends on your own personal presupposition.

Cerebral, even Darwin himself was reluctant to deny creationism. I don't know where you got those ideas about creationist and evolutionist scientists.

More later when I have time (I hate the first day of classes!).

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Ugh, I don't have time to explain this in full right now. For now I'll just say the theory of evolution (scientific theory, NOT layman's theory) is based on evidence, whereas intelligent design is based on PC pandering to religious conservatives.

*LAUGHS*

If you can honestly say that creation science is not REAL science, and look yourself in the mirror, then arguing with you is pointless.

I don't know what magical fairy land evolutionist's think that Christians get their science from, but I can assure you, it is the same place they do.

Listen, if we have made up our own method for proving a young earth (etc), then Christians ought to be awarded some sort of medal.

Science is science. TWISTING science to support a theological viewpoint is one thing...but to make up a science is...*sighs*

Gimme a break.

By the way, that certainly wasn't the best science I could provide. (it was meant as more of a joke, than anything)

I have posted much more detailed, almost incomprehensible (to the LAYMEN) science on this forum before, and no one bothered to read it.

It was either too difficult, or they didn't want to see the truth in the science presented.

Not ALL Christians are scientific morons, you know.

quote:Originally posted by jurainus:

If that's true it's just something he said for young earth creationists. He can't do that, It'd harm him way too much...

Oh, I know personally some creationists and here's Intelligent Design movement in few words:

"OMG! Macroevolution cannot explain certain structures like flagellum! PWNED!1 LOL!!1 You C Earth was created in 7(!!!!!!!!) DAYS!§11 Become a reBORN Xtian!!!!!11"

But then there's actually pretty intelligent folk involved. I believe thay're quite right that all evolution cannot be explained at the moment with current knowledge, but these ID fellows just try to falsify theories instead of creating new ones...



You mistake ID fellow's for supporting their science out of pride.

Ever consider that they actually want to prove God's existence, that all men may see the truth, and believe (thus receiving salvation) ?

It's not about winning !! It's about gaining your soul (for God).

Pwning people has nothing to do with it.

It's time to grow up, kids.

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

DS, I wouldn't call the experiments in the link you posted experiments at all. They consist of demonstrating natural processes like a bird's feather in flight or frozen water expanding, then go on to say "HA! How could this be anything BUT intelligent design!" The explanation of each one contains a massive logical leap, in fact there was nothing logical about any of them. Misleading and unscientific.

Cerebral, creationism is based on faith, and what people want to believe. If that works for them, that's fine, but it should not be disguised as any sort of real science.

I was going to say more, but fuck it. You don't seem interested in what someone who disagrees with you has to say anyway. If you're up for a real discussion instead of producing false data and straw men like the Piltdown man, please say so. I would be glad to explain anything about evolution that seems silly or wrong to you.

Don't like these ideas? Come up with something better.



Untrue.

Put down the animosity for a moment, and consider...

Using simple processes to help others focus on the intricacy of creation, and the impossibility of spontaneous combustion and evolution, is the point.

Do you even care to know who Russ Miller is ?

He used to be a pagan. A scientist. As a matter of fact, he refuted Creation Science fervently.

He's not an idiot...and he has seen science from both sides (evolutionism vs. creationism).

Elsewhere on the website I provided, it says, "Creationists do not fight science. Science is defined as knowledge derived from the observation, study and testing of evidence. Most branches of modern science were begun by Creation believing scientists. Real science is a Christian’s best friend because observable, testable facts support Creation and destroy evolution. Darwinian Macro evolution is unobservable and non-testable so it is not science but rather a religious philosophy which rids the world of it’s Creator. Creationists are fighting to get the false science of evolutionism exposed for the religious belief that it is and return “science” to the study of observable evidence." http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp#5 (feel free to look at the rest of the site if you'd like)

Anyway, the science he uses to prove the Young Earth hypothesis (I say that for the evolutinoist's benefit), is SCIENCE.

Not crackerjack, 5th grade science...

Not pretend, magical mushroom science.

Just science.

Are you concerned that scientists will one day find proof of our origins?

"They’ve already found volumes of proofs but they have made accepting their findings an impossibility by ruling out the correct cause of our origins before they started their testing. Take a group of mathematicians for instance, who have ruled out the number 2. No matter what, 2 can not be considered as a possible answer. Next, they set out to answer the equation 1 + 1=? They’ve made it impossible to come to the correct conclusion, unless they are willing to admit their initial assumption was wrong. Likewise, evolutionary biased "science" rules out creation as even a consideration. No matter how many principles of science evolution violates, no matter how much evidence screams intelligent design or global flood, etc, special creation is not allowed to be considered. They’ve ruled out the correct answer based on their religious bias and therefore, unless they accept that their religious assumptions are wrong, will never have the true answer to our origins." http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp#5

quote:Originally posted by -Mephisto-:

and how do you explain the primitive to modern day species of man, i.e homo erectus, homo habilis etc.

Never has an “ape-man” held up to true scientific scrutiny. They always turn out to be 100% human (Neanderthal man, Rhodesia man, Peking man, Homo Erectus, Cro-Magman, etc.), 100% ape (Ramapithecus, Lucy, Taung, Flat Faced man, the Australopithecines, etc.), or pure “mistakes” (Piltdown man, Java man, Homo Habilus, Orce man, Nebraska man, etc.). No doubt that some people lived in caves, but they were still 100% human. http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp#5

If they have been found to be 100% human, then there has been no "missing link", and therefore the theory of evolution is not plausible.

Wow, that's a lot to respond to. I guess I'll just start at the beginning and work my way through.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If you can honestly say that creation science is not REAL science, and look yourself in the mirror, then arguing with you is pointless.

Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places, but I have yet to see REAL science being used by creationists. Honestly, I'd like to see it. It would give us common ground to start from.

The faq on Creation ministries has some real science, but they leave some key stuff out.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Science is science. TWISTING science to support a theological viewpoint is one thing...but to make up a science is...*sighs*

Gimme a break.

Huh? I don't understand, does it appear that I've been making stuff up?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Not ALL Christians are scientific morons, you know.

Never said they were. I go to a state school in the midwest, so I know plenty of good christians who are also good scientists.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ever consider that they actually want to prove God's existence, that all men may see the truth, and believe (thus receiving salvation) ?

It's not about winning !! It's about gaining your soul (for God).

Pwning people has nothing to do with it.

It's time to grow up, kids.

I agree, except for the gaining souls for god part. I'm agnostic, so I just wanna know (or find out that I can't know).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Untrue.

Put down the animosity for a moment, and consider...



If there was animosity in my earlier posts, it was because I'm pissed off at my roommate right now. I've put it aside, will you do the same?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Using simple processes to help others focus on the intricacy of creation, and the impossibility of spontaneous combustion and evolution, is the point.

Do you even care to know who Russ Miller is ?

Never heard of him until your post.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He used to be a pagan. A scientist. As a matter of fact, he refuted Creation Science fervently.

He's not an idiot...and he has seen science from both sides (evolutionism vs. creationism).

Was he a scientist, pagan, or evolutionist? It says on that website that he developed a nationwide management recruiting firm, and that he's a lifelong christian. Nothing about any scientific credentials (not that I place too much stock in credentials, it just helps to weed out the amateurs from the real experts).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Elsewhere on the website I provided, it says, "[b]Creationists do not fight science. Science is defined as knowledge derived from the observation, study and testing of evidence. Most branches of modern science were begun by Creation believing scientists. Real science is a Christian’s best friend because observable, testable facts support Creation and destroy evolution.

Exactly. Nothing is a more useful tool for convincing the skeptics like me.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Darwinian Macro evolution is unobservable and non-testable so it is not science but rather a religious philosophy which rids the world of it’s Creator. Creationists are fighting to get the false science of evolutionism exposed for the religious belief that it is and return “science” to the study of observable evidence.

I freely admit the theory of evolution needs more data to back it up, but it HAS come a long way in the last 50 years. However, creationism is also unobservable and non-testable, and it has remained unchanged (as far as I know).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

(feel free to look at the rest of the site if you'd like)

Anyway, the science he uses to prove the Young Earth hypothesis (I say that for the evolutinoist's benefit), is SCIENCE.

Not crackerjack, 5th grade science...

Not pretend, magical mushroom science.

Just science.

I've looked over the rest of the site, and there is some good stuff there. But some of it makes me wonder. Such as when the question is posed "If the earth is only a few thousand years old, why can we see light from stars that are billions of light years away?"

This man you claim to be a scientist answers this question first with scripture (I guess if you're a christian that's how you'd look at it, but it's not very convincing to the rest of us). He then talks about science, but goes on to say that in spite of other possible explanations (I ask, what's wrong with the Doppler effect?), he believes scripture answers the question. I can and will cite other examples if you like, but as I read through the faq it all looks a bit shady to me.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Are you concerned that scientists will one day find proof of our origins?

"They’ve already found volumes of proofs but they have made accepting their findings an impossibility by ruling out the correct cause of our origins before they started their testing. Take a group of mathematicians for instance, who have ruled out the number 2. No matter what, 2 can not be considered as a possible answer. Next, they set out to answer the equation 1 + 1=? They’ve made it impossible to come to the correct conclusion, unless they are willing to admit their initial assumption was wrong. Likewise, evolutionary biased "science" rules out creation as even a consideration. No matter how many principles of science evolution violates, no matter how much evidence screams intelligent design or global flood, etc, special creation is not allowed to be considered. They’ve ruled out the correct answer based on their religious bias and therefore, unless they accept that their religious assumptions are wrong, will never have the true answer to our origins."

Here he scolds scientists and other researchers for ruling out creation as a possibility (which, I'll admit, more and more do every day), yet he only accepts creation as "the correct cause of our origins"? Hmm, a scientist indeed.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Never has an “ape-man” held up to true scientific scrutiny. They always turn out to be 100% human (Neanderthal man, Rhodesia man, Peking man, Homo Erectus, Cro-Magman, etc.), 100% ape (Ramapithecus, Lucy, Taung, Flat Faced man, the Australopithecines, etc.), or pure “mistakes” (Piltdown man, Java man, Homo Habilus, Orce man, Nebraska man, etc.). No doubt that some people lived in caves, but they were still 100% human.

If they have been found to be 100% human, then there has been no "missing link", and therefore the theory of evolution is not plausible.

I've only just started my human origins and development class, so I don't know about this question for certain. I'll ask my prof about it next week. But...

Isn't it a little arbitrary to classify everything as either ape or man? Where do you draw the line? We can keep drawing lines and claiming a need for missing links between these subgroups and those sub-subgroups, but where does it end? When every generation between them and us is accounted for?

Gah, my homework! I spent so much time replying to your posts, I've none left for posting arguments of my own. Damn you, Digital savior! http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I'm enjoying this, more tomorrow.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 01-11-2005).]

btw, I seem to remember you mentioning in a thread awhile back how you worked at the religious studies dept. at a university. Doing any teaching?

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." — H. L. Mencken



Anyway, I did some researching, and I'm almost 100% sure that it's just a rumor.

The reason so maybe people believe it is because they wouldn't put that past old George Bush. Scary. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

btw, I seem to remember you mentioning in a thread awhile back how you worked at the religious studies dept. at a university. Doing any teaching?

I believe that was Lolita, not Digi, but I could be wrong.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

And why is the belief in evolution any more scientific than the belief in creation? Have we interviewed any transitional forms lately?

Why is evolution always perceived as "science" and creation always considered "religion", when both points of view require faith to adhere to?

Because the theory of evolution follows the scientific method, "Intelligent design" does not. Because the theory of evolution has evidence, intelligent design does not.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Never has an “ape-man” held up to true scientific scrutiny. They always turn out to be 100% human (Neanderthal man, Rhodesia man, Peking man, Homo Erectus, Cro-Magman, etc.), 100% ape (Ramapithecus, Lucy, Taung, Flat Faced man, the Australopithecines, etc.), or pure “mistakes” (Piltdown man, Java man, Homo Habilus, Orce man, Nebraska man, etc.). No doubt that some people lived in caves, but they were still 100% human. http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp#5



They were always considered human or ape! They either belong to the genus homo, like we do ( and thus human), or Pan, Gorilla or Australopithecine, for apes.

Neanderthal man, Rhodesia man, Peking man, Homo Erectus, Cro-Magman, etc are all Humans. And have been considered humans by evolutionists.

quote:

If they have been found to be 100% human, then there has been no "missing link", and therefore the theory of evolution is not plausible.

The missing links from the same genus show evolution from species to species. Missing links from those in different genus shows evolution from genus to genus!

Has anybody ever considered that evolutionism isn't necessarily contrary to creationism? Who's to say that [insert diety here] didn't create through evolution?

In the Christian bible:

In Genesis it was written that god created the world in 6 days and rested the seventh. What is a day to god? Could not god's day be a billion years to humans?

That is merely the beginning to a possible unification. You just assume that they are opposing philosophies, without considering that they may be complimentary. Open your minds, with a crowbar if need-be.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

They exsplain Homo Erectus and Neandrathols as deformed or diseased humans. Is Homo Habilis the "Hobits"? I think they will just say they are midjets that several generation of midgets just happened to die in the same place.

You say that, like it is impossible... arent there pigmy tribes... and dont they die, possibly in the same general place... even maybe several generations.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

To tell you the truth, all argument about creation is worthless. I feel as an individual that the how/who/where/when/why's of creation, are irrelevant to anything going on today.

To borrow something from a friend:

"Tell me that God created the earth"

.....

"Ok, sweet, now tell me that we evolved."

....

I don't know if you get it, but it's implying that no matter who or what ridiculous chain of events caused our existence, we are still who we are, in the world we are in today.

I worry not about the coming of our existence, I worry only about what is here now, and who I am now, for that is all I know to be entirley true.

If either creation or evolution were proved right, all it would do was prove which of two groups was right, it would not further man in any way, or change the world as we know it.

That's a semi-buddhist point of view

If creation by God were proven, it would do more than prove who was right, it would prove that the God's Moral Law were objective, not subjective... and it would give people less excuse for denying God.

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Ugh, I don't have time to explain this in full right now. For now I'll just say the theory of evolution (scientific theory, NOT layman's theory) is based on evidence

No, it is based on interpreting the evidence, just like creation science.

Heres an idea how about Science is BULLSHIT, Creation is BULL SHIT. Therefore the only thing left is me and thats all i care about. Now to put something on you care about lets go for science shall we. Now whos see Mystery Men where they have the fucked up advice-man. Well theres science in a nutshell. The more we know about the position the less we know about the velocity and how bad it can fuck us in the ass. The "law" of the conservation of mass. HOW THE FUCK DID MY PERVERTED ASS GET HERE THEN?!

Heres how it goes there is something out there that doesn't give a flying fuck about any of you and made us all ugly so we could think we're perdy and it could laugh giggle or whatever immortal beings do if its immortal. Know dumbass human can ever figure how death occurs and messes up our lifes work and thats the pure reason why religion was invented. To explain the unexplainable and give us hope. But to tell you all the truth your living compost. There you go

QUOTE Originally posted by xcarc:

Has anybody ever considered that evolutionism isn't necessarily contrary to creationism? Who's to say that [insert diety here] didn't create through evolution?

Millions of people have considered it. Many Christians, in there attempt to make sense of what science says and what the Bible say's, have used this idea. This is called compromise.

In the Christian bible:

In Genesis it was written that god created the world in 6 days and rested the seventh. What is a day to god? Could not god's day be a billion years to humans?

Sure, God's day [i]could[/b] be billions of years to humans, but the Hebrew word for day is used with an ordinal and also with "evening and morning", which imply a literal solar day as understood by humans. Also, in the Bible, there was no death before sin. So, if God created, using evolution as His "tool", that would put (billions of years of) death before the creation of Adam and Eve....

That would mean that the Bible is wrong... that would mean then, that God lied or is non-existant. Therefore, either a literal 6 day creation is true or evolution is true.

there can be no inbetween. Theistic evolution is really the same thing as atheistic evolution.

That is merely the beginning to a possible unification. You just assume that they are opposing philosophies, without considering that they may be complimentary. Open your minds, with a crowbar if need-be.

Thanks, now i've got my brains laying all over the floor and my wife is pissed... she just shampooed the carpet.

OMG they are going to teach kids something that might hurt my Ego, ban it, BAN IT.

Now, today in bible class we will learn how pride and arrogance are sins.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Ahh, unsupported mantra.

If that is true how come no one but creationists consider creationism to be a credible interpretation?

If that is true how come creationist organzations admit to ignoring anything that contradicts their views?

I guess, "ignore it, since it proves me wrong." is an interpretation of the evidence as well. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

No, it is based on interpreting the evidence, just like creation science.

QUOTE Originally posted by Beta69:

Ahh, unsupported mantra.

If that is true how come no one but creationists consider creationism to be a credible interpretation?

Amazing that you ask this, but have you ever wondered if there are scientist who used to not believe, and now do? How many do you think would get grants or approval from the institutes they work for?

So one answer could be fear, as new christians.

If that is true how come creationist organzations admit to ignoring anything that contradicts their views?

I know of at least one that doesnt. In fact, they even have something on their web site... http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

I guess, "ignore it, since it proves me wrong." is an interpretation of the evidence as well.

the same has been done by secular scientist, from time to time. I guess we can chalk that up to 'human nature' i.e. sin

quote:Amazing that you ask this, but have you ever wondered if there are scientist who used to not believe, and now do? How many do you think would get grants or approval from the institutes they work for?

So, it is really a giant conspiracy that keeps creationist from being accepted.

People challenge evolution all the time and don't fear they wont get approved for grant money. Of course, if you try to challenge evolution using already falsified claims and dishonest claim, you should be worried about getting approved for grant money but it is not because you challenge evolution but because of how you do it that is the problem.



quote:So one answer could be fear, as new christians.

You just pointed out a great aspect of creationism. Practically everyone that is a creationist is a christian first. The belief that the bible is literal truth is paramount to creationism.



quote:I know of at least one that doesnt. In fact, they even have something on their web site...

Yes they do,

"6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

Now go back and read my last post, AiG is one of the organizations that I was specifically talking about. They assume the bible is true, then pick and choose evidence depending on how well it supports their assumption. This is NOT science.



quote:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

I would give them credit for the don't use list if they didn't have so many errors on their site. Notice that they only correct errors from other creationist organizations. There is a reason for this, the in fighting that these christian organizations have with each other is almost worst than their attacks against atheism and evolution. Many of those were aimed at Hovind. He has attacked AiG back on his site.



quote:the same has been done by secular scientist, from time to time. I guess we can chalk that up to 'human nature' i.e. sin

Examples?

I'm sure it happens in real science too. The difference is that there are measures in place to reduce the chances of it happening (the whole idea of peer review), contrary to creationists who champion the idea that they ignore anything they don't agree with. Once an idea has been solidly shown wrong, it is left behind in science and anyone that clings to it is left behind as well. Many creationist sites, including AiG have theories and claims that have been shown to be false for many years now, yet they still treat them as truth.

Beta, there is an AiG seminar near my home this weekend. I plan on going, time permitting.

Please, post some arguements that you have or questions, and i will try to ask them. I'll report back, and if you want, we can discuss them.

I have been to one a few months ago but i missed most of it.. got there late.

Although i am planning on going, and will do my best to honestly report the answers, there is something that might work even better (or atleast a simultaneous idea) ...

on the AiG site, it has a schedule of events.. maybe you could find one near you and go ask them questions too. This way, you would be there to rebute them if you were able. I know the first one i went to was free, but i did notice that their big seminars do cost.

Just a thought. The problem that i see with my first idea is reporting accurately..but maybe i can find a tape recorder or something.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

I would rather believe that I am the purposefully designed creation of God, Who wants to have a personal relationship with me, than that my great^10 grandfather was an ape in a tree, and that I am the twenty-third cousin, twice-removed, of the worm in my garden soil.

you can believe whatever you want but it doesn't make it reality

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

And why is the belief in evolution any more scientific than the belief in creation? Have we interviewed any transitional forms lately?

Why is evolution always perceived as "science" and creation always considered "religion", when both points of view require faith to adhere to?

simply because there isn't any empirical evidence to support your claims. let's look at history, our Ancestors believed that the earth was flat and some even believed that the earth was held up on a back of a turtle. but because they believed it so passionately , did it mean it was apart of reality?

quote:Originally posted by unknownone:

you can believe whatever you want but it doesn't make it reality

Likewise reguarding particals-to-people evolution.

quote:Originally posted by unknownone:

simply because there isn't any empirical evidence to support your claims. let's look at history, our Ancestors believed that the earth was flat and some even believed that the earth was held up on a back of a turtle. but because they believed it so passionately , did it mean it was apart of reality?

amazing that the bible covers a few of these things...(taken from the evidence bible)

Job 38:12,14

12. "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place,

14. The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

the picture here is of a clay vessel being turned or rotated upon the potter's wheel

Luke 4:40

40. When the sun was setting, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them.

At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500b.c.), the Bible spole of the earth's free float in space:

Job 26:7

7. He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

i think that darwins theory of evolution makes sense .

Interesting. Plenty of questions most require more detail than can generally be given in a verbal question.

Three quick ones would be,

1 A) In the K-Ar dating papers, why wasn't Ar-Ar dating used to double check the results and make sure the samples didn't have too much parentless argon?

1 B) Why does the dating in conflict paper not correctly explain how C-14 dating works?

2) How do you explain twin nested hierarchy?

3) How do you explain whales with Legs?

There are plenty more, but I doubt all (if any) could be asked, and shotgunning isn't the best thing to do.

Of course, some understanding of the questions helps, so a quick background.

1 A: Ar-Ar dating has been known to date young formations and can show when a sample has been contaminated with parentless argon. Since the articles say that we can't know what samples contain parentless argon, Ar-Ar would appear to answer their critique of the K-Ar dating system, yet they completly ignored it.

1 B: Yes I said three, but this one was tacked on. In the article they fail to mention that the traditional C-14 method also detects background radiation and all samples with less C-14 radiation than the background radiation will read at the background radiation and are considered to be too old to know the age of with C-14. But in the article they take the background radiation as a correct dating.

2: Nested hierarchy is where characteristics of animals are group up, like modern taxonomy. Another nested hierarchy is grouping the animals by DNA similarities. Twin nested Hierarchy is the term given to the fact that morphological (taxonomy) and DNA nested hierarchies match up.

This is not expected if creationism were true, but is expected if evolution was true.

3: This has been brushed aside by AiG before, but they have yet to address the evidence shown here, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1



As I said, plenty of more, such as the famous skull guessing game (with explanations of course) and how did the flood organize the fossils and isotopes (this one would need to include detail to prevent them from glossing the surface as is all too common.)





quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Beta, there is an AiG seminar near my home this weekend. I plan on going, time permitting.

Please, post some arguements that you have or questions, and i will try to ask them. I'll report back, and if you want, we can discuss them.

I have been to one a few months ago but i missed most of it.. got there late.

Although i am planning on going, and will do my best to honestly report the answers, there is something that might work even better (or atleast a simultaneous idea) ...

on the AiG site, it has a schedule of events.. maybe you could find one near you and go ask them questions too. This way, you would be there to rebute them if you were able. I know the first one i went to was free, but i did notice that their big seminars do cost.

Just a thought. The problem that i see with my first idea is reporting accurately..but maybe i can find a tape recorder or something.

P8OY, the first half of your post is incomprehensible. Can you clarify, please?

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

One thing that seems silly to me is the idea that an incredibly complex organ such as the human brain could evolve unguided from an amoeba, without any intelligent plan or direction. If our brains are just the result of a long series of random processes, then the results formulated by our brains are equally based on randomness and disorder. How could any conclusions we make using that type of brain then be considered logical?

Very good. Often, we're not very logical at all, as exemplified by your next comment.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

On the other hand, if our brains behave in a logical and rational manner, and show the capability of making logical decisions, then does it not make sense that this intelligence came from a First Intelligence?

In other words, "We think logically, therefore we have inherited logic from a divine source." Now I ask you, is this logical? And just how intelligent is it for some designer to give us unnecessary molars that must be removed (by a painful process) as we mature in order to prevent more serious health problems? Or construct an imperfect support structure for our entire bodies (the spinal column) that is easily damaged and causes MOST people a good amount of pain later in life?

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Or construct an imperfect support structure for our entire bodies (the spinal column) that is easily damaged and causes MOST people a good amount of pain later in life?

ummm, shouldnt billions of years of evolution have solved this problem... same coin, diferrent side....except, with sin, death and destuction entered the world.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

ummm, shouldnt billions of years of evolution have solved this problem... same coin, diferrent side....except, with sin, death and destuction entered the world.



Wow. Okay, evolution is quite random. Mutations are random, those that cripple the species die off, those that aren't multiplied quickly also die off. The only ones that stay are nuetral and positive ones posessed by organisms capable of reproduction (meaning those that aren't sterile and such...). A weak support doesn't really hamper us that much...or other primates for that matter. Primates are more intelligent than other organisms, and the less evolved primates are also quite fucking strong, capable of surviving and reproducing easily.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Interesting. Plenty of questions most requi

<< sniped>>>

otopes (this one would need to include detail to prevent them from glossing the surface as is all too common.)

OK, i copied, and pasted into my mail. I'll print it out, and bring it along.

Your right, shotgunning is probably not the best approach. Maybe, during break or after, i can show them what you posted, and we'll see what happens. They do agree with my world view and my faith, but I am interested.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

ummm, shouldnt billions of years of evolution have solved this problem...

Nope! Dude, evolution is an ONGOING process. That means it's NOT OVER. STILL HAPPENING. You will not hear anyone argue for evolution by saying it has created perfect beings. Understand?

Seriously man, learn a thing or two about what you're arguing against. I'm taking a religious studies class about christianity (taught by a christian, no less). When was the last time you went out of your way to learn about secular ideas from a non-christian source? Sounds to me like maybe it was half past never.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 01-12-2005).]

There is proof that we may have evolved,which is a logical way to believe but to be sure of it is to find the missing links..oh and if anyone happens to see them, let me know..ill then have to visit my old religious teacher :P (Im open minded so dont slate me)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tesseract:

Nope! Dude, evolution is an ONGOING process. That means it's NOT OVER. STILL HAPPENING. You will not hear anyone argue for evolution by saying it has created perfect beings. Understand?

yes...do you?

in order to go from non-life to one celled organisms, all the way up to Tesseract, you need increase in information...and some of that information has to stay, inorder to be reshuffled the next time...

think about it like this:

if you have a big box of puzzle pieces, and you shake them, some will stick together, maybe even the right ones. Now continue to shake the box. Some of those pieces that were together may get more pieces to fit, and some will lose what they have gained, but eventually the pieces that gain will become fragile and fall apart, unless there was something in that box besides the puzzle pieces (a table perhaps, i.e. entropy hold). This is where Samuel Wilburforce (sp?) lost the "Great Debate" against Huxley. He missed the point that random chance does not hold the correct information apart from incorrect... random chance knows no alliegence.

When was the last time you went out of your way to learn about secular ideas from a non-christian source? Sounds to me like maybe it was half past never.

think what you want.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



yes...do you?

in order to go from non-life to one celled organisms, all the way up to Tesseract, you need increase in information...and some of that information has to stay, inorder to be reshuffled the next time...

think about it like this:

if you have a big box of puzzle pieces, and you shake them, some will stick together, maybe even the right ones. Now continue to shake the box. Some of those pieces that were together may get more pieces to fit, and some will lose what they have gained, but eventually the pieces that gain will become fragile and fall apart, unless there was something in that box besides the puzzle pieces (a table perhaps, i.e. entropy hold). This is where Samuel Wilburforce (sp?) lost the "Great Debate" against Huxley. He missed the point that random chance does not hold the correct information apart from incorrect... random chance knows no alliegence.



You would have a point if it were random mutations alone. It is not. Evolution is random mutation + Natural Selection. Natural Selection is what ensures that the puzzle pieces that are correct, remain there. You see, Natural Selection isn't random. It ensures that possitive traits ("correct puzzle pieces" to use your analogy) are passed on through generations via a higher chance of survival and thus of reproduction, while negative traits ("incorrect puzzle pieces") would hinder survival, and thus slowly eliminate themselves.

Therefore your point is completely moot when taking into consideration Natural Selection.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



You would have a point if it were random mutations alone. It is not. Evolution is random mutation + Natural Selection. Natural Selection is what ensures that the puzzle pieces that are correct, remain there. You see, Natural Selection isn't random. It ensures that possitive traits ("correct puzzle pieces" to use your analogy) are passed on through generations via a higher chance of survival and thus of reproduction, while negative traits ("incorrect puzzle pieces") would hinder survival, and thus slowly eliminate themselves.

Therefore your point is completely moot when taking into consideration Natural Selection.



But are you taking into account, before life got started? "natural selection" from the big bang (or shortly thereafter) up until just after life first started?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



But are you taking into account, before life got started? "natural selection" from the big bang (or shortly thereafter) up until just after life first started?

No. Natural Selection would imply living organisms, of course. But life didn't suddenly start with the Big Bang. It took close to 10 billion years for the first living organism to arrive. That is definetly enought time, and enough "chances" (which would amount to billions of times that 10 billion) for the first RNA molecules to form out of. Your analogy still doesn't hold water.

You should read up on Nucleosynthesis (Shrotly after the Big Bang of course). The Big Bang had very good conditions for the creation of elements, which is all it takes to create the first combination of RNA molecules. Your analogy doesn't even begin to do that justice.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No. Natural Selection would imply living organisms, of course. But life didn't suddenly start with the Big Bang. It took close to 10 billion years for the first living organism to arrive. That is definetly enought time, and enough "chances" (which would amount to billions of times that 10 billion) for the first RNA molecules to form out of. Your analogy still doesn't hold water.

You should read up on Nucleosynthesis (Shrotly after the Big Bang of ocurse). The Big Bang had very good conditions for the creation of elements, which is all it takes to create the first combination of RNA molecules. Your analogy doesn't even begin to do that justice.



but nobody has proven how life could come from non-life without help

Self-reproducing RNA molecules are merely strains of elements (in the form of sugars, phosphate groups etc.). Those elements existed shortly after the Big Bang. What else is needed other than time? 10 billion years is a long enough time, for the favorable conditions and the arrangement of the elements to take place.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

but nobody has proven how life could come from non-life without help



Now you're talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life. These are two completly separate theories, which stand on their own merit, and are not dependent on each other.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

I would rather believe that I am the purposefully designed creation of God, Who wants to have a personal relationship with me, than that my great^10 grandfather was an ape in a tree, and that I am the twenty-third cousin, twice-removed, of the worm in my garden soil.



i'd rather believe that i was 6 foot 3' with bulging muscles and a supermodel on my arm, but i don't because it's not true. get a grip.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



You mistake ID fellow's for supporting their science out of pride.

Ever consider that they actually want to prove God's existence, that all men may see the truth, and believe (thus receiving salvation) ?

It's not about winning !! It's about gaining your soul (for God).

Pwning people has nothing to do with it.

It's time to grow up, kids.

Intelligent Design advocates don't try to prove the existence of God. They're affaraid of being count as creationists. They often say silly things like: "It could've been aliens or some uuber-yeti creature"

So to these ID guys it's ALL about winning. And so it's to my creationist friend. We are both Christians(althought he doesn't acknowledge as christian). I guess my friend is using his obsolete arguments on me just to make me a baptistish type of christian...

quote:Originally posted by jurainus:

Intelligent Design advocates don't try to prove the existence of God. They're affaraid of being count as creationists. They often say silly things like: "It could've been aliens or some uuber-yeti creature"

So to these ID guys it's ALL about winning. And so it's to my creationist friend. We are both Christians(althought he doesn't acknowledge as christian). I guess my friend is using his obsolete arguments on me just to make me a baptistish type of christian...

Nope. No aliens or Big Foot here, Billy Joe, you can leave Roswell now...

Anyways, natural selection will only help so long as evolution itself is correct, and quite frankly, it isn't. Evolutionists will undoubtedly say that creationists only try to conform evidence to suit their arguments, but natural selection is the same. For example, why is it that chameleons only change color to suit their mood, rather than for camouflage? What, I mean natural seletion says that animals change to suit their envornoment right? Humans that think pretty logically, why aren't there other species of man or humanoid and developed creatures in existance. We can pretty much agree that humanity is as far up the evolutionary chain as you can go, so why haven't other animals adopted this? Oops, did I expose your fraud? I had a whole set of flaws in nature that don't do justice to natural selection itself, too lazy to type it up.

The whole argument of "well, if God created the world and people, why do they have spines that can cause injury later in life and unuseable molars... blah blah" is weak. I'd like to know, if anything, where it says God created perfect organisms. Nowhere. Only the Lord is perfect. And surely, 10 billions or so years of evolution would have fixed these minor things, as we've had spines long enough to correct their flaws.

Speaking of God creating everything, and a previous mention to the Big Bang, I happen to wonder this: Where exactly did matter come from. There HAD to be a blank slate sometime, and that was pre-Genesis.

And finally, the principle of evolution itself conflicts with the law of entropy. For background, the law of entropy states that nature has to be at its lowest order and energy state. Done. Now, evolution would require a rather large amount of energy and order to keep it going, after all, flaws must be corrected and effecients of life-forms must be perfect. Let's see, proven and founded law vs. sketchy theory? Simply put, evolutionists manage to dodge other scientific laws with "evidence" molded around their argument. In my book, that's no better than how they see creationists.

quote:Originally posted by Pandemic7:



For example, why is it that chameleons only change color to suit their mood, rather than for camouflage?

Err.. They do both. They change their color to that of their current surroundings, but they also change it to fit its mood.

Much like the human face carries with it multiple jobs, one of them being expressing emotions.

quote:

What, I mean natural seletion says that animals change to suit their envornoment right? Humans that think pretty logically, why aren't there other species of man or humanoid and developed creatures in existance. We can pretty much agree that humanity is as far up the evolutionary chain as you can go, so why haven't other animals adopted this? Oops, did I expose your fraud?

What the hell did you expose? Evolution happens over the course of hundreds, thousands, if not millions of years. That we don't see other animals as evolved as us does nothing to refute it.

Moreover, evolution is not intelligen; not all animals will arrive in the same destination. Given a billion years, dogs will not necessarily arrive at logical thinking beings. If the surrounding enviornment necessitates them being logical thinking beings, then they will either evolve, or die, like it has been the fate of countless of species.

quote:

I had a whole set of flaws in nature that don't do justice to natural selection itself, too lazy to type it up.

Well, seeing as the ones you posted left more to be desired, maybe you should post others.

quote:

The whole argument of "well, if God created the world and people, why do they have spines that can cause injury later in life and unuseable molars... blah blah" is weak. I'd like to know, if anything, where it says God created perfect organisms.

That argument is against Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, surprisingly enough, implies... intelligence. Thus, it is a legitimate argument to show the lack of intelligence in the creation of our spines or that of any other animal.

quote:

Nowhere. Only the Lord is perfect. And surely, 10 billions or so years of evolution would have fixed these minor things, as we've had spines long enough to correct their flaws.

Humans haven't been along 10 billion years, not even 1/10th of that, thus there has not been 10 billion years to "fix" this.

Moreover, that it hasn't been "fixed" shows only that it either does not currently hamper the reproduction of the animal having such flaw, or that no random mutation has occured.

quote:

Speaking of God creating everything, and a previous mention to the Big Bang, I happen to wonder this: Where exactly did matter come from. There HAD to be a blank slate sometime, and that was pre-Genesis.

Lets say that there was a god that created existence:

1. That does not invalidate the Big Bang.

2. That does not invalidate evolution.

3. That does not mean the Christian God is correct.

4. That does not mean the Intelligent Design is correct.

As you can see, that does not help your argument in any way.

quote:

And finally, the principle of evolution itself conflicts with the law of entropy. For background, the law of entropy states that nature has to be at its lowest order and energy state. Done. Now, evolution would require a rather large amount of energy and order to keep it going, after all, flaws must be corrected and effecients of life-forms must be perfect. Let's see, proven and founded law vs. sketchy theory? Simply put, evolutionists manage to dodge other scientific laws with "evidence" molded around their argument. In my book, that's no better than how they see creationists.

The law of entropy does not preclude evolution.

Here. Learn:

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What the hell did you expose? Evolution happens over the course of hundreds, thousands, if not millions of years. That we don't see other animals as evolved as us does nothing to refute it.

Moreover, evolution is not intelligent, in that not all animals will arrive in the same destination. Given a billion years, dogs will not necessarily arrive at logical thinking beings.

Put now a new question is taken up. Bringing up natural selection into this, how is it that despite a very limited number of environments in our planet (physical and circumstantial), why is it that there are so many species of animals? Why didn't life just "evolve" the same? There's no point in a predator and prey system. In fact, the stability of nature despite a series of "random mutations" is just a statistical anaomaly.

quote:That argument is against Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, surprisingly enough, implies... intelligence. Thus, it is a legitimate argument to show the lack of intelligence in the creation of our spines or anything else.{/QUOTE]

It never fails to impress me at how patently stupid many people can be. The trick to understanding creation is that it's fought from our turf (ie. the Bible), not a half-baked level of "science", and I use the term loosely, like evolution. As I asked before, where does it says that God created perfect life-forms. OBviously you'd have to look in the Bible, and it states no such thing. No, the term 'intelligent' does not necessarily imply intelligence in the sense of perfection, but that of orderly structuring in nature.

[QUOTE]Lets say that there was a god that created existence:

1. That does not invalidate the Big Bang.

2. That does not invalidate evolution.

3. That does not mean the Christian God is correct.

4. That does not mean the Intelligent Design is correct.

This part made me laugh. By accepting the fact that a God did create the universe, it's only natural that an atheist but arbitrary system on creation of life goes right out the window, and Genesis takes over, meaning numbers 3 and 4 are purely bullshit. As I've stated, evolution (no matter how random or orderly people care to believe) is statistically impossible, because the intricacy of nature itself could NOT have been made my atheist, arbitrary means. This is one of the few actual replies I get about where matter was created from, mainly because there's no non-bullshit atheist response to it.

quote:The law of entropy does not preclude evolution. Evolution is both random mutations, which do not imply "order", and Natural Selection, which is simply the success in reproduction of an organism given the positive traits it has.

Please. Tell me how that goes against the laws of entropy?

I read some of obstruction in the second law of thermodynamics, and I was just bombarded with stuff about activation energies, and trying to refute creationist statements with 'complex molecules and such don't need to be created with a mechanism, etc.' Yawn. Veering to the point, that everything in the secular world had to be created. As I've said, mutations and changes require energy, in a layman analogy, like contructing a building. You're going to need manpower to do it. And nature always wants to use as little as possible or no energy whatsoever. I think somewhere along the line maybe 'enthalpy' and 'entropy' have been mixed up. I honestly don't know. However, I do know of an entropy taugh in my Chemistry class bearing the same statement as I've said. To back it up, a nice little line from Dictionary.com:

quote:entropy - Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society

This only means that nature doesn't try to mutate organisms or cause change. Refering to thermodynamics, activiation energy would mean divine intervention, seeing as nature isn't going to do it itself.

quote:Originally posted by Pandemic7:



Put now a new question is taken up. Bringing up natural selection into this, how is it that despite a very limited number of environments in our planet (physical and circumstantial), why is it that there are so many species of animals? Why didn't life just "evolve" the same?

I already answered this. Because evolution does not follow a predisposed path.

quote: In fact, the stability of nature despite a series of "random mutations" is just a statistical anaomaly.

How do random mutations happening over the course of thousands of years provide any sort of meaningful de-stabilization? Mutations would change as much as me changing my diet: nil.

If you're speaking of entropy. See below.

quote:

As I asked before, where does it says that God created perfect life-forms. OBviously you'd have to look in the Bible, and it states no such thing

I already answer this! We're arguing about INTELLIGENT DESIGN. That's another theory, independent of what the bible claims. Thus, that the bible doesn't say that god created perfect beings is completely irrelevant!

Get it? What the bible says is irrelevant when arguing about intelligent design...

quote: No, the term 'intelligent' does not necessarily imply intelligence in the sense of perfection, but that of orderly structuring in nature.

I never claimed it did.

quote:

This part made me laugh. By accepting the fact that a God did create the universe, it's only natural that an atheist but arbitrary system on creation of life goes right out the window, and Genesis takes over, meaning numbers 3 and 4 are purely bullshit

Sorry but no. If you cannot comprehend the possibility of a god creating the universe, and then letting evolution take hold, then you're simply wasting my time, because that shows a severe lack of mental capacity on your part.

Existence being created by a god does not equal Christianity, nor does it equal intelligent design.

quote: As I've stated, evolution (no matter how random or orderly people care to believe) is statistically impossible, because the intricacy of nature itself could NOT have been made my atheist, arbitrary means.

Right. Lets ignore the laws of probability that completely refute your laughable argument, if it can even be called that.

quote: As I've said, mutations and changes require energy, in a layman analogy, like contructing a building. You're going to need manpower to do it. And nature always wants to use as little as possible or no energy whatsoever. I think somewhere along the line maybe 'enthalpy' and 'entropy' have been mixed up. I honestly don't know. However, I do know of an entropy taugh in my Chemistry class bearing the same statement as I've said. To back it up, a nice little line from Dictionary.com:

Your argument is already refuted in the article I posted. It is not my fault that you purposefully decide to remain ignorant, when facts are presented to you.

Either read the article and provide a rebuttal, or admit that you cannot.

Here, more links so that you have no other excuse other than your own willfull ignorance:

http://www.secondlaw.com/

http://www.secondlaw.com/five.html#act

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

quote:

This only means that nature doesn't try to mutate organisms or cause change.

And just how did you arrive at that genius observation? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-14-2005).]

If you get a chance to ask the questions, or even if you don't you should think about them. If Radiometric dating is so wrong, why does AiG ignore certain methods? If creationism is right can creationists use the theory to scientifically explained twin nested hierarchy?

I thought I would point out, in reference to the quote, It doesn't Matter. Evolution assumes life exists just like when you learn how to drive a car, you assume the car exists. Do you need to know how to build a car to learn how to drive it?

Sure, we don't fully know how life came from non life, so what? That doesn't falsify evolution. This type of argument is known as a strawman and it is very common for creationist organizations to try and use them. You have repeated it here a couple of times, "Particles to man evolution" and guess what, it is made up BS. It is (condensed), First cause, Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution. Each are seperate. Just because the particles part hasn't been fleshed out, doesn't mean the simple organism to man part isn't true. And just because the particles part hasn't been fleshed out, doesn't mean we can start throwing God around and start saying, "You don't know? Well then that proves it, God did it." That has never solved anything and if you look at history, "I don't know [supernatural force] did it." has been laughed at as being an ignorant view. God can exist without trying to distort science into showing he exists. Exactly what does that say about the christian faith if organizations have to come up with lies just to get people to believe?



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

but nobody has proven how life could come from non-life without help

This is pretty simple people.

Does the earth and universe

seem to have been created in

6 days?

Did god make millions of years of

fossils just to make you think

life evolved?

quote:Originally posted by Pandemic7:

Put now a new question is taken up. Bringing up natural selection into this, how is it that despite a very limited number of environments in our planet (physical and circumstantial), why is it that there are so many species of animals? Why didn't life just "evolve" the same? There's no point in a predator and prey system. In fact, the stability of nature despite a series of "random mutations" is just a statistical anaomaly.



No point to a predator and prey system? How do you think those organisms have survived for so long? Because it WORKS. They depend on each other. That's the point of the predator and prey system! The way their bodies work and the way they live are good enough that they can overcome adverse conditions long enough to reproduce.

There is no "right" way to evolve. That's a fallacy based on speculation.

As for my arguments about the spine and molars being "weak", I think the title of the Intelligent Design idea MIGHT just imply intelligence in the design. Gee, is that too much of a stretch?

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 01-14-2005).]

I came across this passage in a book I'm reading for a class, and I thought it seemed pertinent.

quote:Originally written by Daniel Quinn:

As you tell it, the birth of man was a central event -indeed the central event- in the history of the cosmos itself. From the birth of man on, the rest of the universe ceases to be of interest, ceases to participate in the unfolding drama. For this, the earth alone is sufficient; it is the birthplace and home of man, and that's its meaning. [Humans] regard the world as a sort of human life-support system, as a machine designed to produce and sustain human life.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:



Did god make millions of years of

fossils just to make you think

life evolved?

In the early years of young eath creationism people said he did. Today people say he created billions of years worth of light to make it look like there are stars. Logic really is not usefull in creation/evolution for either side. The Creationists say thaty God is all powerfull and he could make the world any way he wanted for any reason, the Evolutionsists say the world is the result of random events and God has nothing to do with it. The people on both sides have deep rooted beliefs that thier whole world hinges on. So if it does not ofend you too much to know that other people believe the wrong thing it is best to drop the whole subject. The only people you have any chance of influencing are children, and it is not hard to instill beliefs in children. The best that can come from a debate like this is one side can plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the others that one day may cause a change of heart.

What is that smell? It's the smell of a load of bullshit. Evolution does NOT say everything is random chance, it does Not say that God had nothing to do with it and many evolutionist do not base their world view on the theory.

Seriously, learn what your talking about before you make yourself look like a dumbass.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I haven't taken the time to read this whole thread, but has anyone here posted that it's possible that both creationism and evolution are true and complimentary? That an eternal God created the our non-eternal universe via the big bang, and created humanity over billions of years of evolution?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

What is that smell? It's the smell of a load of bullshit. Evolution does NOT say everything is random chance, it does Not say that God had nothing to do with it and many evolutionist do not base their world view on the theory.



Random mutations are central to evolution, natural selection would be usless without anything to select. Nothing in the theroy of evolution says anything about God so it is safe to say it says he has nothing to do with it. In America a horifyingly small number of people believe in straight evolution, the one that do hold sciencein high regard. If evolution was disproven it would invalidate almost every aspec of biology as we know it acept anatomy, that would shake up alot of people even if they were not biologists.

Yes, random mutations organized through natural selection. In a way you could say that typing is random keystrokes organized by the persons brain. Does that make this post pure random chance that it makes sense?

Saying nothing about God is different from saying that God wasn't involved. Many theistic evolutionists believe that evolution is true and God was involved. They understand how to seperate philosophy and science.

How evolution effects others sciences doesn't exactly effect peoples world views. However, the way science works is that whatever falsified evolution would still be able to explain the linked sciences equally or better.

Bah, I didn't even read all the posts. All I have to say is that ID theorists are lazy fools. They can't explain the data at hand so they fall back on the biggest crutch ever...God. Lazy jackasses.

quote:Originally posted by Gnool:

I haven't taken the time to read this whole thread, but has anyone here posted that it's possible that both creationism and evolution are true and complimentary? That an eternal God created the our non-eternal universe via the big bang, and created humanity over billions of years of evolution?



That has been pointed out. But please show, according to the Bible, how it could be death, before sin i.e. the fall of man brought sin into the world, and sin brought death into the world. And since, according to evolution critters have lived and died before man entered the world.

Both sides make some good points. I just want to add a few things.

Evolution happens quickly. Usually massive climate change or disaster or isolation reduces a population to a small number. That is why we don't find "missing links". Many animals have lived that left no fossil record.

Intelligent human-like species also evolved. Neanderthals evolved in europe while sapiens evolved in africa. There were others. Neanderthals were pretty advanced. They had advanced tools and knives, buried their dead with valuable artifacts. The physical differences were adaptations to extreme cold. Their limitation is they did not have the voicebox aligned to talk like we do. There is evidence we may have been the cause of their extinction.

It didn't all happen by random chance

The probability of life existing in our universe is in the trillions. Even less for advanced life. The creationists have got the materialists beat here.

See my thread on the Anthropic Principle (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003465.html). It addresses alot of these concerns.

Once we recognize that biological mutation (which includes the mutation of prebiotic molecules) is a quantum event, we realize that the universe bifurcates in every such event in the transcendent domain, becoming many branches, until in one of the branches there is a sentient being that can look with awareness and complete a quantum measurement.

At this point the causal pathway leading to that sentient being collapses into space-time reality. John Wheeler calls this kind of scenario the closure of the meaning circuit by 'observer-participancy.' Meaning arises in the universe when sentient beings observe it, choosing causal pathways from among the myriad transcendent possibilities. If this sounds as if we are re-establishing an anthropocentric view of the universe, so be it. The time and context for a strong anthropic principle has come -- the idea that 'observers are necessary to bring the universe into being.' . . . We are the center of the universe because we are its meaning. (p. 141) Self-Aware Universe

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

If you get a chance to ask the questions, or even if you don't you should think about them. If Radiometric dating is so wrong, why does AiG ignore certain methods?

Before i say anything about the AiG seminar, i have a few questions to ask you.. nothing major, not trying to trap you or anything like that (even though i do have a purpose for these questions). But these questions are completely my own after having read the article mentioned below with no reflection on what the AiG guy said..

Reguarding the article that you refered to when you asked 1 A) In the K-Ar dating papers, why wasn't Ar-Ar dating used to double check the results and make sure the samples didn't have too much parentless argon?

1. Was this the article that you meant? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp

2. What was the affiliation of the Argon Lab? By that i mean: was it AiG own? Was it Christian or Secular? For that matter, how does one go about choosing a Lab that checks dates, or is it a "do-it-yourself" sort of thing?

3. Other than your question of why ar-ar method wasnt used, are the techniques and the description of this particular analysis typical, compared to other analyses (sp?) (i hope this was asked correctly)

4. I think there were more questions i had, but i cant remember, and i would rather not re-read it, cuz rocks have always been kinda boring to me lol, but if i have to, i will

^^^ the angry face was meant to be at the end of the post, not at the top.

just saying this for clarity

Okay... I didn't feel like reading every page, so I don't know if this point has been made or not, but whatever.

Evolution isn't purely a theory of every being having a common ancestor. This is a very common mistake people make.

The Theory of Evolution was first published by Darwin in the 1800's. His ideas were sparked by several things, one of which was artificial selection. Artificial Selection, hereafter AS, is when specific animals or plants are bred for desirable traits. These traits then continue on to the next generation. Darwin pondered if that happened in nature, if Natural Selection occured.

Many years after he gathered most of his data, he published On The Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection.

See that last part? Natural Selection.

Now, it is true that it is impossible to test Darwin's common ancestor idea. However, it is not impossible by any stretch of the imagination to test Natural Selection.

On the Galapagos Islands, a place Darwin visited, he studied most of the animals and plants without much gusto, for he was somewhat disappointed. Indeed, a species bird he studied would later be renamed Darwin's Finches. These finches are all very alike, except for one key aspect: their beaks.

If it was a dry season, the seeds on the ground would be large and hard. The next generation born into the dry season would have more large beaked finches than short. If, during that same generation, the season changed to wet, seeds would become smaller and soft, and the next generation born into the wet season would be more small beaked than large. Within two generations of animals, Natural Selection is clear and undeniable.

There are many more examples, of course, but I need not use them to display my one point.

Christians need to stop trying to claim The Theory of Evolution has no scientific evidence. The entire thing may not be correct, or proveable, but the entire thing is not wrong or inproveable either.

Also, Darwin was a believer... He even said as he died that he feared he would not be going to the same place as his wife. Darwin never questioned God... He merely questioned the church.

quote:"1. Was this the article that you meant? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp

One of them, yes. Another is New Zealand.



quote:"2. What was the affiliation of the Argon Lab? By that i mean: was it AiG own? Was it Christian or Secular? For that matter, how does one go about choosing a Lab that checks dates, or is it a "do-it-yourself" sort of thing?"

I don't know, I don't believe it was AiG owned but secular. One would go about choosing a lab by looking at the equipment they have, rates they charge, turn around rate, and quality of handling. However, the lab is only a processing department, it is your own responsibility to take a clean sample and know the ins and outs of the dating method. It is like photography, you send negatives in to the lab to be developed, but you still have to know how to work a camera and take a good picture to get good results.



quote:"3. Other than your question of why ar-ar method wasnt used, are the techniques and the description of this particular analysis typical, compared to other analyses (sp?) (i hope this was asked correctly)"

I'm not quite sure what you are asking so I will take it two ways.

1) Yes, the way the lab reported the results is typical. You will receive a date range based on the assumption that you gave them a perfect sample. It is your responsibility to make sure this information is valid.

2) No, the way AiG approached the data is not typical. Although statistically the problem of excess argon is very low it does still exist. The low and wild dates can be a sign that something is wrong. The correct procedure would be to double check your results, against other K-Ar dating of the same lava flow (they should agree within the range of K-Ar) and to compare your results against other dating methods such as Ar-Ar, which has the added benefit of being able to detect excess argon.

Old dates of certain lava flows are often accepted by scientists without double checking with separate methods because of other data. In the similar way that you accept the claim that London and Paris are more than a mile apart without checking for yourself.



I am curious to see if they gave you a stock answer or something more meaty.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 01-16-2005).]

QUOTE Originally posted by Beta69: quote: One of them, yes. Another is New Zealand.

Please dont make me read this, rocks are boring lol

quote:"I don't know, I don't believe it was AiG owned but secular. One would go about choosing a lab by looking at the equipment they have, rates they charge, turn around rate, and quality of handling. However, the lab is only a processing department, it is your own responsibility to take a clean sample and know the ins and outs of the dating method. It is like photography, you send negatives in to the lab to be developed, but you still have to know how to work a camera and take a good picture to get good results.

fair enough

quote:"1) Yes, the way the lab reported the results is typical. You will receive a date range based on the assumption that you gave them a perfect sample. It is your responsibility to make sure this information is valid.

again, fair enough

2) No, the way AiG approached the data is not typical. Although statistically the problem of excess argon is very low it does still exist. The low and wild dates can be a sign that something is wrong. The correct procedure would be to double check your results, against other K-Ar dating of the same lava flow (they should agree within the range of K-Ar) and to compare your results against other dating methods such as Ar-Ar, which has the added benefit of being able to detect excess argon.

Old dates of certain lava flows are often accepted by scientists without double checking with separate methods because of other data.

also, fair enough

I am curious to see if they gave you a stock answer or something more meaty. /QUOTE

(not sure if the twin nested hierarchy was a stock answer)

There are a few reasons i asked these questions, infact, the reasons i read this report about boring rocks, are because of my shame.

I could tell you i didnt go, but that would be a lie.. but shamefully, i'll have to give you excuses, which is just as bad as a lie, in my book.

Background:

First, let me say that i live an hour away from the seminar and i am a procrastinator. I had some chores to do around the house before i left. The topics that i wanted to hear started at 1:00 pm. I left my house at 12:10, and before i went, i needed to go 4 miles in the other direction, to get gas. My brother also wanted to go. I told him i would pick him up, which is about 10 miles beyond where it was. Considering that i went about 28 extra miles, and left 10 minutes late, getting there only 20 minutes late might give you an idea of how fast i drove, and while driving fast, i read your questions, thinking that i might prepare alittle... shame on me.. anyway...

There were 2 speakers: Buddy Davis (his talks were aimed more for kids, altough if i didnt pick my butt, i wouldnt have minded hearing him)

Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist. 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Dr. Jason Lisle: Creation Astronomy (7th Grade & up)

2:00 PM to 3:00 PM Dr. Jason Lisle: Q&A (7th Grade & up)

OK, more excuses: When i copy/pasted your questions, i didnt look at them closely, so i didnt really know what i would be asking or what you would accept as good answers (as opposed to if they were mine own, or if i had not been so irresponsible, or at atleast prepared alittle).

This next part are not excuses: He is an astrophysicist, and your questions were not in his field. And basically, if i had asked them during Q & A, i would have had to set the question up as "somebody that doesnt think AiG is legitimate science wants to know..." (since i didnt prepare) plus, during Q & A, he was giving short answers (possibly stock), possibly due to the audience level and time contraints (in order to answer as many questions as possible).

So i chose to go and ask, as best possible, after it was over. Here, as best i can remember, are his answers (and hopefully an explaination for my questions, reguarding http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) boring rocks more on this at the end):

Ar-Ar -- He said he didnt know out side his field, but refered me to Creation Magazine article "Radio-dating in rubble" which he said might refer to a more technical article in the TJ magazine (which is why i asked you if that was the one you meant)

Twin Nested -- (Probably a stock answer, but this too, is out of his field, so i dont know if someone in that field would have had a better answer) He said that if they had DNA simularities, they would probably have similar taxonomy features.

talkorigin question -- I didnt ask. Since i didnt prepare (i didnt even click the link), i didnt even know what the question was.

C-14 -- I didnt ask, because i assumed the article "Radio-dating in rubble" might have some answers.

I really am sorry that i both let you down, and since this was really about whether AiG is legitimate, i didnt even give AiG a chance to defend itself.

Because of my lack of prep. and my "ass-picking", i figured i would atleast read the article, and see if i could redeem myself, even if it would be minute. Which still does not matter reguarding the legitimacy of AiG.

OK, now back to the Ar-Ar topic. What i got out of the article, was that, since they knew when the rocks were formed (1986, right?), they were really dating these for the purpose of testing and showing K-Ar dating to not be accurate. So what would the point be in using Ar-Ar to date the young formation?

Yes, i understand what you said that i could be used to show contamination. However, in the article, it said, "Dalrymple22 recognized that these anomalous ‘ages’ could be caused by ‘excess radiogenic 40Ar’ from natural contamination, or caused by isotopic fractionation of argon. Krummenacher23 offered similar explanations for unexpected argon isotope ratios from several modern lava flows. and it also pointed out that the processes used, should have "seem to exclude or isolate laboratory contamination"

It also goes on to ask questions about the bad dates given, so that would mean that they already figure that there is contamination.

Would Ar-Ar show where the contamination comes from? Or just confirm that there is contamination (which they already know is there)?

I hope my take on the article was atleast sorta close to relative to your question.



My sincere apology.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

3: This has been brushed aside by AiG before, but they have yet to address the evidence shown here, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1



Wow!!! So much to go through! Right now, i'm kinda glad i hadnt clicked on this before the seminar. I would have never remembered all of his responses.

xtreem

quote:"OK, more excuses: When i copy/pasted your questions, i didnt look at them closely, so i didnt really know what i would be asking or what you would accept as good answers (as opposed to if they were mine own, or if i had not been so irresponsible, or at atleast prepared alittle)."

Don't worry, extra studying would only be for your benefit, from my experience with AiG I think you would have been given about the same answers no matter how much research you did.



quote:"This next part are not excuses: He is an astrophysicist, and your questions were not in his field."

Don't worry about that either, many people at AiG don't write about things in their field.



quote:"Ar-Ar -- He said he didnt know out side his field, but refered me to Creation Magazine article "Radio-dating in rubble" which he said might refer to a more technical article in the TJ magazine (which is why i asked you if that was the one you meant)"

Unfortunately the more technical article doesn't go into why they don't try to double check their results. In some of their articles they even provide misinformation about Ar-Ar suggesting that it has the same flaws as K-Ar.



quote:"Twin Nested -- (Probably a stock answer, but this too, is out of his field, so i dont know if someone in that field would have had a better answer) He said that if they had DNA simularities, they would probably have similar taxonomy features."

Although technically correct, it doesn't get to the heart of the issue. That taxonomy features that appear the same can be made from different DNA. The point being that an intelligent designer that creationism suggests should be able to mix and match pieces. Just because an earlier mammal has a certain eye design, doesn't mean the next mammal should have that same type of eye, but that is what we see.

DNA also contains a large amount of junk, basically unused turned off bits of DNA. This junk DNA is unrelated to the look of an animal, yet animals that share the same taxonomical look share the same junk DNA.



quote:"talkorigin question -- I didnt ask. Since i didnt prepare (i didnt even click the link), i didnt even know what the question was. "

That's ok. And no it wasn't about the whole page, although that entire article is good. It was specifically about the whales being found with legs. AiG has said that basically they wouldn't consider the argument valid until a whale was found with more than just a stump. The articles cites and shows pictures of whales with more complicated leg bones. AiG has completely ignored this.

quote:"Would Ar-Ar show where the contamination comes from? Or just confirm that there is contamination (which they already know is there)? "

AiG's argument is that contamination can cause a young sample to appear old. If we don't know the age of the samples or if they are contaminated, then it is just an assumption that the samples are millions of years old, but they really could be contaminated young samples from a young earth. Although they pretty much know their samples are contaminated (and would be because of their extremely young age) they suggest that we just don't know on samples of undetermined age, so it invalidates K-Ar.

Ar-Ar just shows that the sample is contaminated, but that answers the critique AiG brought up. We can tell if the old dates from unknown samples are from contamination or if they are actually old, through Ar-Ar dating. Ar-Ar dating also has the benefit of being able to be trusted on younger samples.