Religious right fights science for the heart of America (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1407422,00.html)

During my high school years (1999-2003), I never once heard anyone question evolution in science class. I live in Nebraska, so the Creationism fever that Kansas has must not be catching. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I really don't want to start the whole evolution vs. creationism debate again, I'm just curious about your region's stance on the issue. Is it favorable towards Creationism, neutral, etc.

Science is the study of how the natural world works

Religion is guide to living life

The two have nothing to do with each other, and the states that want to quarral about creationism and evolution quarreling over nothing. The two are separate and should remain so.

Personaly, i belive in evolution, but i dont let that get in the way of those who take RE

Social, I don't believe for one second that you don't want a 'Creation vs. Evolution' thread, because your question is not only completely unparallel with your intelligence level, but it is also easily answered with a simple Google search.

Has it not occured to you that Christians have been too passive about their religion, and they are not going to take the blatant misrepresentation and abuse that we receive on the TV anymore ? That it is time to stop allowing ONLY evolution to be taught to our children in schools ? That we cannot allow longstanding representations of our faith to be torn down and spit upon (ex: depiction of Ten Commandments in court, in school, and in government) ? This is what we believe in, and this is what our country was founded on. We have made every effort to tolerate other religions, beliefs, and "feelings". That is how we have come to be afflicted with the apathy that has forced us to fall silent. I think our voices are coming back to us...

Our beliefs and values have been ridiculed and stripped of their validity methodically over the past several decades. I can speak for myself, and the other Christians that I know, when I say that we are simply sick of it.

To be honest, I am quite shocked at how your post exudes intolerance. Doesn't seem very Buddhist to me...or very Social. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I am not trying to attack you, but what you have said is ridiculous, in my opinion.

To directly answer your question, however, I will say that I believe in evolution to the point that it defines changes to a living entities physiology, slowly over time. I don't believe that evolution allows for a complete change of a species, in order to "survive".

That suggests a flaw in the original creation's design, which is not only against my beliefs, but completely unsupported by ANY evidence...scientific, or otherwise.

I don't think it would be any more right to allow only creationism into our schools, though. I think a healthy balance of knowledge about all subjects is the best method to use, as our children should be able to make their own decisions, as much as they should be educated in why they make them. I think it is wrong to forcefeed certain aspects of knowledge.

I hope I have not offended you...I simply think you can do better.

By the way, how is the "quitting smoking" going ? Well, I hope !



God Bless.

And why are we always dubbed the "Religious Right", which has absolutely NO positive connotation to it, as opposed to "people of faith with conviction" ?

We have conviction.

Who is it hurting to stand for our faith ? It's not like our doctrine commands us to go around killing unbelievers or anything.

The reason I ask that is because I wonder why this battle between the Christians and the non-Christians has to turn into a childish bout of name-calling.

I don't allow the term "left-wing extremist", or "liberal fascist" to cross my mind. It's not a fair assessment of everyone that disagrees with Christianity.

In the same light, it is not fair to say that people of conviction for their faith in Christ are the "Religious Right". As though we are an uprising, intent upon staging an anti-pagan coup upon America.

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught in public schools as a "theory", because this is exactly what it is. This does not mean creationism should be endorsed in schools. Let's make break it down.

FACT: Creationism cannot exist apart from religion.

FACT: Schools funded by tax dollars have absolutely no business endorsing any particular religion, by order of Constitution.

FACT: Science is not a religion so don't pull any of that bullshit on me.

FACT: Secularity is not the same as atheism, but merely the logical separation of religion from certain institutions.

Therefore, schools should not teach creationism alongside of evolution, since a school cannot teach creationism without endorsing a particular version of it to the exclusion of other versions. But, they should not be anti-creationist, either. Let schools teach children the currently accepted scientific theories, but also encourage them to have open minds so that they may accept the change of theories as they occur. Creationism should be taught in church or by parents.



Oh, and the ten commandments are of Judeo-christian origin, so do not belong in public buildings. There are other religious things that should also be stricken, but at least this is a start.

By the way, this country was not founded on solely christian principles

liberal fascist...



Bwahahahaha! I like that term. Thats wonderful, and it conjures a great image, but....



From dictionary.com

Liberal

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.

Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Liberalism

The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.

An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

Liberalism

A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.

A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.



Now... for Fascist

often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.

A reactionary or dictatorial person.

and... of course, fascism

often Fascism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Oppressive, dictatorial control.



Now... isn't that term just a little bit self contradictory?

And besides, Creationism is not science.

"Creation scientists" make me sick, they start with a conclusion that they have no intention of changing, and work backwards, selectivly taking data that supports them.

A lot like lawyers.

Its funny how many Extremist christians actually are lawyers... Fred Phelps, and most of his brood are. I guess the more lawyers you have in your family, the more rubbish lawsuits you can clog up the courts with.

I heard that Jerry Falwell was starting some "Christian Law school". : http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

On the subject of the fuss about relious expression, I honestly couldn't give a shit.

I find a little bit of a problem with it in the courthouse, since it's meant to be a place of impartial descisions, but if they put say, the Nine Nobel Virtues in the same room, with the same promience, I for one certainly wouldn't have a problem.

I agree that the term religious right probably isn't the best, after all, that implies that it's made up of a diverse group of people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jedi... rather then... yeah.. uhh...

(if you can't say something nice, don't say anything)

But it is worth noting that there is also the "relgious left", although they tend to be a fair bit less vocal, what with all the time that community outreach programs, running charities, ect takes up.

I can really see a role for the traditional churches in our society, but the nutcase pentecostals that bomb abortion clinics? no.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That suggests a flaw in the original creation's design, which is not only against my beliefs, but completely unsupported by ANY evidence...scientific, or otherwise.

That is simply incorrect. The evidence has been posted here before. That you didn't read it is another story.

I'm sorry Social, I'm not going to let this blatant lie or msitake, go without a reply.

quote:I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught in public schools as a "theory", because this is exactly what it is. This does not mean creationism should be endorsed in schools. Let's make break it down.

Are you saying that by teaching Creationism, schools would be forced to endorse it ? That rationale would then apply to evolution as well. If one cannot be endorsed (by your assumed definition), then neither can the other.

Also, it seems that by teaching history which includes the ideals of the Nazi's, the fascist's, and the Marxist's, we must be in support their ideology as well. Right ?

quote:FACT: Creationism cannot exist apart from religion.

How can that be a FACT ?!!

That just downright angers me.

FACT - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed. Something believed to be true or real. Something that has actual existence: a matter of objective reality.

How can you apply any facet of these definitions to the statement you just made ?

Religion is man-made, and has nothing to do with God. God (or its many derivatives) is placed at the center of the intended purpose of any given religion, which somehow justifies it in the eyes of man. Basically, controlling people is the actual purpose of religion, and if one can justify that by saying, "God says so.", wouldn't it be taken advantage of ?

However, Creationism in and of itself is the "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."

The Bible does not represent religion. It is the handbook for living, as interpretted by men via the Holy Spirit of God.

Men felt the need to build a religion around the concepts provided in the Bible, and so the Bible has been mistakenly associated with religion, because that is what man has done to it (which was certainly the intention of the devil).

RELIGION AND CREATIONISM ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE.

Just for the sake of the argument, however, what if they weren't ?

You could say that evolution and paganism cannot exist without each other, and should therefore not be taught in schools. How much more fair is that statement than yours was ?

Retract it, please, or I will dissect it for you. (not a threat...please don't missunderstand me)

quote:FACT: Schools funded by tax dollars have absolutely no business endorsing any particular religion, by order of Constitution.

I recommend that you study the Constitution, then. If you are referring to the "separation of church and state" comment, that was never included in the Constitution.

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers.

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The tax dollars of the religious pay for public schooling just as much as the tax dollars of the non-religious. Why do only the non-religious get to make the decisions about what is or is not taught in our schools ?

Obviously, non-religious tax payers will not want anything remotely supporting religion in the curriculum.

In all fairness, religious taxpayers will not want anything remotely opposing God in the curriculum.

How can we find a happy medium ? How can we not exlcude one group, in defense of another ?

By teaching them both.

quote:FACT: Science is not a religion so don't pull any of that bullshit on me.

If somebody has said that science is a religion, they haven't a clue what they are talking about.

However, I think you have misunderstood the underlying point of that idea.

Basically, many Christians believe that science is dominated by those that reject God by denying His existence.

These people can be called "pagans".

Paganism is viewed to be a belief system that exists within the confines of the definition of the word "religion".

I think that is the difference between what you think is being said, and what is truly being said.

quote:FACT: Secularity is not the same as atheism, but merely the logical separation of religion from certain institutions.

Again, I think you misunderstand.

Secularism is the belief in the "now". Worldly rather than spiritual.

quote:Therefore, schools should not teach creationism alongside of evolution, since a school cannot teach creationism without endorsing a particular version of it to the exclusion of other versions. But, they should not be anti-creationist, either. Let schools teach children the currently accepted scientific theories, but also encourage them to have open minds so that they may accept the change of theories as they occur. Creationism should be taught in church or by parents.

Evolution shouldn't be taught by parents ?

Creationism presents its own series of scientific theories. How are evolution's scientific theories any better than that of creationism ?

How can our children be open minded when they are only taught one thing in school ? They are aware that Creationism is rejected. I don't see how that can promote open-mindedness.

I have addressed most of this paragraph in my previous responses, so I will just leave it alone.

quote:Oh, and the ten commandments are of Judeo-christian origin, so do not belong in public buildings. There are other religious things that should also be stricken, but at least this is a start.

You must have failed history class, with flying colors. I am sorry, but you just don't seem to understand anything you are talking about...which means you should refrain.

But yes, let's start with annhiliating Christianity from our country...always start with Christianity.

THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

Those principles are defined by the Ten Commandments.

Therefore, it is not so ridiculous to see why the Ten Commandments are displayed in our places of worship, education, and judicial proceedings.

To take them out would be to deny what we fought for (by rebelling against the Church of England), and stood by for MANY years.

I think you want them out for the same reason all other athiest's do...you are afraid of the implications.

If I have made an assumption by saying you are an athiest, forgive me, and correct me.

quote:By the way, this country was not founded on solely christian principles

I did not see that you had said this when I typed my previous response.

You are right...this country was not founded on ANY specific principle ALONE.

Christianity was, however, a predominant, driving force.

I am not saying that because I want to have a pissing contest with you.

Nor am I saying it because I am a Christian, and I think this idea justifies my beliefs.

I say it, because it is FACT.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:



Now... isn't that term just a little bit self contradictory?

Oh, sure it is ! I am in total agreement. That is why I think it is a ludicrous thing to say...

And I have heard it said far too many times to tolerate that Christians use terminology like that. We don't.

Those that do are ignorant, and should not be used as models of what this particular religions encompasses.

That was the point I was trying to get across, but apparently I failed.

My apologies.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Religion is man-made, and has nothing to do with God.

What do you say define religion?

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Tell the Israelites to bring me an offering. You are to receive the offering for me from each man whose heart prompts him to give. 3 These are the offerings you are to receive from them: gold, silver and bronze; 4 blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen; goat hair; 5 ram skins dyed red and hides of sea cows [a] ; acacia wood; 6 olive oil for the light; spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; 7 and onyx stones and other gems to be mounted on the ephod and breastpiece.



8 "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.

Exodus 25 NIV

Having rituals, ritual tools and a place to do them sounds pretty religious to me. And God himself comitioned these things.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

And besides, Creationism is not science.

It cannot be said with any kind of validity that Creationism is science.

Just as Evolution is not science.

They are both "theories" (since neither has been definitely proven), with supporting scientific evidence.

quote:"Creation scientists" make me sick, they start with a conclusion that they have no intention of changing, and work backwards, selectivly taking data that supports them

Wouldn't it strike you as odd if I said that "Evolution Scientist's" made me sick ?

That is kind of weird...I think your issue lies deeper.

I also think that you have not objectively listened to, or studied, ANYTHING a scientist of the Christian persuasion has presented. This is probably due to personal convictions and doubts of your own, which should not be a factor.

Also, I can say, with all certainty, that the same thing can be said of some Evolution Scientist's (in regards to "starting with a conclusion that they have no intention of changing, and working backwards, selectivly taking data that supports them". Evolution Science maintains that there is no possibility of a spiritual entity responsible for creation. How is that science ? How is that not exclusion ?)

quote:But it is worth noting that there is also the "relgious left", although they tend to be a fair bit less vocal, what with all the time that community outreach programs, running charities, ect takes up.

What ?!

Are you trying to insinuate that only the left-wing religious fanatics participate in philanthropy ?

ALL religious people do !

That was absurd.

quote:I can really see a role for the traditional churches in our society, but the nutcase pentecostals that bomb abortion clinics? no.

What you just did was group extremist's (who don't need a religion to justify themselves) together with Creationist's.

*sighs*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I did not see that you had said this when I typed my previous response.

You are right...this country was not founded on ANY specific principle ALONE.

Christianity was, however, a predominant, driving force.

I am not saying that because I want to have a pissing contest with you.

Nor am I saying it because I am a Christian, and I think this idea justifies my beliefs.

I say it, because it is FACT.

Digital,

This response is to your entire post.

<<<Standing Ovation>>>

Beautiful!!!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That is simply incorrect. The evidence has been posted here before. That you didn't read it is another story.

I'm sorry Social, I'm not going to let this blatant lie or msitake, go without a reply.

Why should you be sorry to Social for replying to me ? *confused*

It's not a lie, and I have read far more information on this subject than can ever be posted here on Totse.

The common misconception amongst several of you here is that you are so much more intelligent, and have far better access to relevant information supporting either belief (evolution vs. Christianity).

What makes you think that I haven't studied as much, if not more, as you have ? Because I believe differently ?

In a similar fashion, I can say that I have posted plenty of evidence supporting Creationism, as well as the existence of God...mostly from the Bible, but definitely some science.

You have not read it, as evidenced by your responses to my post's in the past...and then you try to accuse me of the very same thing (which you have no proof of) ?

I cannot assume that you didn't read what I posted anymore than you can.

Your comment is not only hearsay, but completely immaterial to the statement I made.

The suggestion of a flaw in the Creator's design (which I personally disagree with, because I believe in God, and that His design is perfect, not without flaw [flaw could very well be a part of His perfect design...how could we know ?]) was the aspect I was focusing on.

There is no evidence of flaw, since there is no evidence within evolution science supporting the existence, or lack thereof, of God.

I thought science was "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Flaw cannot be measured, observed, investigated, or explained, without something to compare it to (i.e. lack of flaw).

Therefore it cannot be scientifically proven or disproven.

See what I am saying now ?

I am not saying that God's creation is not flawed.

You are saying that there has been evidence here on Totse proving that God doesn't exist. (which has nothing to do with what I was saying)

You are also saying that possibility of macroevolution doesn't somehow suggest that there is a flaw in the Creator's design (if you believe in a Creator).

I think it does. The necessity for completely new taxonomic groups in order to survive suggests that the original taxonomic groups weren't equipped properly to survive.

I also said "suggests". Since this is all essentially hearsay (cannot be proven, and based on personal opinion), I don't see how you can claim what I said was a "LIE".

I didn't claim it as fact.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Why should you be sorry to Social for replying to me ? *confused*

Not for replying to you, but for replying to you about Evolution vs. Creationism, which is what he said he did not want the thread to turn in to.

quote:

The common misconception amongst several of you here is that you are so much more intelligent, and have far better access to relevant information supporting either belief (evolution vs. Christianity).

What makes you think that I haven't studied as much, if not more, as you have ? Because I believe differently ?

This has nothing to do with what you or I have studied. This has everythign to do with the evidence having been posted on totse numerous times, in threads you have participated in, and are now claiming no such evidence exists.

quote:

In a similar fashion, I can say that I have posted plenty of evidence supporting Creationism, as well as the existence of God...mostly from the Bible, but definitely some science.

Then please re-post this "Scientific" evidence.

quote:

You have not read it, as evidenced by your responses to my post's in the past...and then you try to accuse me of the very same thing (which you have no proof of) ?

The difference being I never claimed no such evidence existed, you on the other hand did. Hence it is YOUR burdern to prove no such evidence exists.

quote:

The suggestion of a flaw in the Creator's design (which I personally disagree with, because I believe in God, and that His design is perfect, not without flaw [flaw could very well be a part of His perfect design...how could we know ?]) was the aspect I was focusing on.

There is no evidence of flaw, since there is no evidence within evolution science supporting the existence, or lack thereof, of God.

You said that you did not believe in macro-evolution, as that would imply a flaw in the "design". You then say there is no evidence supporting this, thus implying there is no evidence for macro-evolution.

"That [ macro-evolution ] suggests a flaw in the original creation's design, which is not only against my beliefs, but completely unsupported by ANY evidence...scientific, or otherwise."

quote:

You are saying that there has been evidence here on Totse proving that God doesn't exist.

Two different things.

You are misunderstanding me.

No, I'm saying that there is evidence for macro-evolution, which you said/implied there was not. See above.

If you did not mean this, then I'm sorry, but that is the only way I could interpert your statement.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-09-2005).]

Rust - I editted the last partof my statement.

Please re-read, and then reply again.

Sorry...it didn't make the point I was driving at the first time.

Meanwhile, I will get the links I posted before with the science I referred to.

If I post actual books on the topic, which cannot be referenced online, will you read them ?

Honestly...I don't want to waste my time.

P.S. I like this debate we're having. It's sensical, and respectful. At the risk of sounding overly feminine, I would like to ask that we continue along these lines.

Also, please post your evidence for macroeveolution, as it can be argued.

-------

It cannot be said with any kind of validity that Creationism is science.

Just as Evolution is not science.

They are both "theories" (since neither has been definitely proven), with supporting scientific evidence.

-------

I would strongly object to anyone calling creationism a theory, because there hasn't been a shred of "evidence" that hasn't been debunked, or revealed as outright falsehood.

Calling it a theory puts it on the same level as say, Relativity, which while just as fantastic in its claims, can, and has, been proven to be true.

I've yet to see one convincing piece of evidence for creationism, please, I sincerely would be delighted to see some.

I really would (seriously)

-------

Wouldn't it strike you as odd if I said that "Evolution Scientist's" made me sick ?

That is kind of weird...I think your issue lies deeper.

I also think that you have not objectively listened to, or studied, ANYTHING a scientist of the Christian persuasion has presented. This is probably due to personal convictions and doubts of your own, which should not be a factor.

Also, I can say, with all certainty, that the same thing can be said of some Evolution Scientist's (in regards to "starting with a conclusion that they have no intention of changing, and working backwards, selectivly taking data that supports them". Evolution Science maintains that there is no possibility of a spiritual entity responsible for creation. How is that science ? How is that not exclusion ?)

-------

Actually, I HAVE looked at the "evidence" for creationism, and I can debunk half of it with a 12th grade Australian Education in science. I wasn't always an athiest, ok?

I tried as hard as I could to prove Christianity to myself, but I can't bring myself to trust in something without anything to go on.

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with anything spiritual, nor does it have anything to do with the origin of life.

You would need to look into abiogeneis for that, evolution is changes over time.

There is NO process of peer reveiw for these "scientists". One of them publishes a crackpot article, and immeadiately ten-thousand other people plagurize it and distribute it, taking it as completely irrovocable fact.

The reason they make me sick is that their methods are that of Lawyers, not of Scientists.

They just try to pile up an enormous mass of irrelavent, oddball evidence, to overwhelm the reader with quantity, rather then quality.

What ?!



-------

Are you trying to insinuate that only the left-wing religious fanatics participate in philanthropy ?

ALL religious people do !

That was absurd.

-------

Ok... I deserve that.



-------

What you just did was group extremist's (who don't need a religion to justify themselves) together with Creationist's.

*sighs*

-------

Well, I'm rather certain every abortion clinic bomber was a creationist.

But we all know the retort to that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:You are also saying that possibility of macroevolution doesn't somehow suggest that there is a flaw in the Creator's design (if you believe in a Creator).

Of Course it does. That's why I don't believe in Creationism.

quote:

I think it does. The necessity for completely new taxonomic groups in order to survive suggests that the original taxonomic groups weren't equipped properly to survive.

I also said "suggests". Since this is all essentially hearsay (cannot be proven, and based on personal opinion), I don't see how you can claim what I said was a "LIE".

I didn't claim it as fact.

The thing is, you said there was no evidence for it, which is what I'm debating. There IS evidence for macro-evolution. Whether you want to accept it or not, is another story. But to imply that there was no evidence, which is what I took offence to, is a lie or a mistake, like I said originally.



The evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Has it not occured to you that Christians have been too passive about their religion, and they are not going to take the blatant misrepresentation and abuse that we receive on the TV anymore ? That it is time to stop allowing ONLY evolution to be taught to our children in schools ? That we cannot allow longstanding representations of our faith to be torn down and spit upon (ex: depiction of Ten Commandments in court, in school, and in government) ? This is what we believe in, and this is what our country was founded on. We have made every effort to tolerate other religions, beliefs, and "feelings". That is how we have come to be afflicted with the apathy that has forced us to fall silent. I think our voices are coming back to us...

This is why i dont like Christians. They remind me to much of Nazi's. You must push your belif onto everyone else. This is also why i think america sucks because they put up with bullshit like this.

If you wont religion in school have it in a seperate class. Teach creatism but leave science alone.

You dont see Budists complaining that their teachings arnt in school so why the hell should you complain.

Ahhhh this is what pisses me off.

You wonder why we are always mean and rude to christians, well this is why. because you cant leave people alone you have to push and bully your way until no can oppose you.

So, you're saying you have no relatively decent argument to refute what I have said ?

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

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It cannot be said with any kind of validity that Creationism is science.

Just as Evolution is not science.

They are both "theories" (since neither has been definitely proven), with supporting scientific evidence.



You've made this assertion http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) in another thread, and I'm still waiting for this evidence you speak of.

And please, if you have a problem with the term "religious right", then don't use the term "pagan". It's equally negative.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 02-09-2005).]

America wasn't founded on christianity.

Alot of the founders happened to

be christian.

There's no place for creationism

in a science class. For the same

reason you don't do faith healings

in health class.

As someone said above, it's the opposite.

Science is the process of looking

for reality. Christians start with

a reality, and work backwards to find

evidence to back it up.

Science is still in progress, and

real scientists admit we may never

know the ultimate truth.

Christians think they know already,

that's the danger of religion.

In defence of my original post, wait, I don't need to defend it, never mind.

To Digi

So, which version of creationism to you want taught? You are of course aware that most religions have origin myths, right? Your definition of creationism is skewed.

You seem to find offense at my use of FACToids, but fail to see the intended humour. My point was that anybody can make up information and call it a fact. You yourself have passed off unsubstantiated claims as fact more than once. (I predict you will ask for proof of this, but myself have no desire to use the easy search function)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Social, I don't believe for one second that you don't want a 'Creation vs. Evolution' thread, because your question is not only completely unparallel with your intelligence level, but it is also easily answered with a simple Google search.



Well, I can explain the "unparallel with your intelligence level" part http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif). I've had bad jaw joint pain (TMJ, I guess) in the last week, so I've been taking prescription painkillers for the last 4 days. So I wrote my original post while in the Land of the Poppy (so to speak). I guess I should have followed the old adage that says: "If you're going to do something, do it well." http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

In truth, I really did not want to bring up this old argument again (I'm not up on the specifics of the evolution vs. creationism debate, so I wouldn't have anything of value to add). But I guess I was naive to think that I wouldn't bring it up by posting it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:

[b]

I think our voices are coming back to us...

Our beliefs and values have been ridiculed and stripped of their validity methodically over the past several decades. I can speak for myself, and the other Christians that I know, when I say that we are simply sick of it.





Yes, this has been my observation, as well. In my opinion, we may be in the early stages of a "Christian revival" in some sectors of our society. The "taming" of the Super Bowl this year shows that our society has made a statement that TV has gone too far, and needs to be curbed. We have a president who says that his religion has the final say in all of his decisions. He also won 52% of the popular vote in the 2004 election. Wouldn't you say that America is a Christian society, for the most part?

(part 2, the Totse gods wouldn't let me post the whole thing at once)

quote:



To be honest, I am quite shocked at how your post exudes intolerance. Doesn't seem very Buddhist to me...or very Social. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)





I'm sorry, that was not my intention when I wrote it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) But now as I reread it, I see how it could convey that message. Misommunication on my part.

quote:



I don't think it would be any more right to allow only creationism into our schools, though. I think a healthy balance of knowledge about all subjects is the best method to use, as our children should be able to make their own decisions, as much as they should be educated in why they make them. I think it is wrong to forcefeed certain aspects of knowledge.





My father shares that opinion with you. We were talking about this the other day, and his opinion was that we should have a class in school that covers all of the creation "theories". Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, atheist, etc. would all be included. He added that it might help the students "see clearly". He was referring to a saying of Ryokan that goes like this:



In the entire ten directions of Buddha's universe

There is only one way.

When we see clearly, there is no difference in the teachings.

What is there to lose? What is there to gain?

If we gain something, it was there from the beginning.

If we lose anything, it is hidden nearby.



quote:



I hope I have not offended you...I simply think you can do better.

By the way, how is the "quitting smoking" going ? Well, I hope !



God Bless.

No, you haven't offended me at all. You remind me of the monk who hits his fellow monk with a stick during meditation when he falls asleep or when his posture needs correcting. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I've been off cigarettes completely for 38 days. Thanks for asking.

Every custom, rule etc of society leads to benefits for the survival of that society. Show me one thing that does not benefit the individual or culture in a way. What more do you want as proof of evolution, survival of those that adapt those that don't die.

But why does everyone use evolution to disprove science? Can you predict how a projectile will fly by using the bible?

In my experience, every major "disproof" of evolution if bullshit. My sister attends a Christian university. After a lecture on the invalidity of evolution, she immediately called me to enlighten me of these things her minister with a doctorate in some science told her. I don't remember all of it, but it included such gems as the claim that evolution violated the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Her "professor" hadn't even told her what those laws were, much less what they meant. After I had done so, I explained how the first law was irrelevant, and the second was actually incompatible with Genesis. Everything he told her was utter bullshit.

And to make a point, digital, I actually went and explained to her how my shattering those arguements did not disprove God. I'm a rationalist, not an asshole.

But the point remains, that if thats the best a creationist professor, at a fairly large and decent school can come up with, then creationism is a load of bunk.

The man who invented intelligent design even claims that the theory should not be taught in high school because it's too complex. It seems probable that the "educators" who want it taught are cutting it down to utter bullshit to try to make it seem more paletable.

Finakky, I am in favor of an impartial teaching of evolution, including all critiques that have sane, scientific backing.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I am in favor of an impartial teaching of evolution, including all critiques that have sane, scientific backing.

Yes, I would have no problem with that, as well, but to some the definition of "sane, scientific backing" is different. Some believe that creationism has that sort of backing (I am not one of them, but I am by no means an expert on the subject).

[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 02-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Religious right fights science for the heart of America (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1407422,00.html)

During my high school years (1999-2003), I never once heard anyone question evolution in science class. I live in Nebraska, so the Creationism fever that Kansas has must not be catching. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I really don't want to start the whole evolution vs. creationism debate again, I'm just curious about your region's stance on the issue. Is it favorable towards Creationism, neutral, etc.



I never had to hear about the theory of evolution in highschool. 9th grade gen. science=Teacher was a fanatical moreman so no evolution. 10th grade biology=teacher just skipped it.

Why do tey teach it if they cant prove it? Explain to me where we got laungwage from? What about neanderthals? [lumper/splitter/hilly flanks theories aren't proof there just some stupid archaeologists geuss] Cant?

I'm curious, what sort of lesson plan would the teaching of "intelligent design" or "creationim" entail. It would seem that it would either be a very short lesson (short explanation of the watchmaker arguement) or it would inevitably lead to teaching some sort of religious doctrine.

Not trying to be an asshole, just wondering.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:



Why do tey teach it if they cant prove it?

Why should creationism be taught if it can't be proven?

Night, the difference between the two is that no concert of evidence found up to this day has supported creationism (which isn't even a theory, but merely a hypothesis that has been slashed at the ankles many times). Evolution, something that is a theory, has evidence from almost all fields of science that support it, and very little that even brings up a conflict with pre-existing evidence.

Think of it like this: What would you want your child learning of these two: The inner workings of the digestive tract and other bodily systems, OR that their fecal matter is concentrated evil? That's essentially the balance of validity between evolution and creationism, respectively.

Hope I shed some light on why they teach a theory rather than hypothetical trash.

I ask again, what kind of lesson plan would a teaching of creationism or "intelligent design" entail?

And i once again feel deeply sorry for America.

Me too, this whole religious conservative backlash is getting out of hand. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Skulls may be oldest known human remains (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/16/oldest.humans.ap/index.html)



"A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species."



Some food for thought.

I'm not going to get into this whole debate, but I'll say religion should not by a part of schools. I also think they should get rid of the "Pledge of Alligience." Don't bother questioning me why.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Skulls may be oldest known human remains (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/16/oldest.humans.ap/index.html)



"A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species."



Some food for thought.

That's bullcrap man, the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Give me proof its only 6,000 years old. And dont use the bible. Stupid circullar logic.

*Bump*

Still wondering what kind of lesson plan would an "intelligent design" entail.

DAMNIT.. i knew there was a damned reason I don't come to this area of the boards.

God i can't stand religon.. or people who practice it.

I myself, don't belive in god. I belive there MIGHT be a god.. but that if there was.. he'd have to prove to me that he exists.. because where i come from, and the way i have been raised is that you don't get respect without having earned it.

And some dick with a robe that rapes little boys telling me that I'm going to hell for not beliving isn't helping my desision about god anybetter.

Side notes: I don't really care what you have to say about me and religon.. you can go ahead and say it. I'll just blow it off.. because till god proves himself to me, i'm happy to take the trail to hell.. i have my pitch fork pre-ordered.

side note 2: I was raised catholic.. i was baptised.. or however you spell it.. and i even did comunoin.. or how ever the hell you spell that too..

I'm still waiting for some evolutionist to figure out where the neanderthals went. And for the lesson plan, SKIP EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISUM. Just leave it out and if there are any question the instructors should inform the students to find it out on their own. The state should be religiously neutral not for or aginst any religion or in athieisums cas, non-religion.

The lord has proven him/it self to me, but evolution hasn't proven anything except for producing a bunch of bones.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

I'm still waiting for some evolutionist to figure out where the neanderthals went. And for the lesson plan, SKIP EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISUM. Just leave it out and if there are any question the instructors should inform the students to find it out on their own. The state should be religiously neutral not for or aginst any religion or in athieisums cas, non-religion.

The lord has proven him/it self to me, but evolution hasn't proven anything except for producing a bunch of bones.

Evolution is science. The theory of evolution makes up a massive chunk of biology curriculum. Would you like schools to abstain totally from teaching biology?

What you don't seem to get is that teaching evolution isn't teaching atheism. C and E are only opposing viewpoints if you want them to be. You have no ground to stand on. You are like a cartoon, suspended in the air, afraid to look down because you know you will fall.

quote:Originally posted by Monochrome:

Can you predict how a projectile will fly by using the bible?

No, but that has nothing to do with salvation, which is the sole purpose of God and His Bible.

How would an explanation of any said projectile's flight pattern benefit the word of God ?

Irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

In my experience, every major "disproof" of evolution if bullshit. My sister attends a Christian university. After a lecture on the invalidity of evolution, she immediately called me to enlighten me of these things her minister with a doctorate in some science told her. I don't remember all of it, but it included such gems as the claim that evolution violated the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Her "professor" hadn't even told her what those laws were, much less what they meant. After I had done so, I explained how the first law was irrelevant, and the second was actually incompatible with Genesis. Everything he told her was utter bullshit.

And to make a point, digital, I actually went and explained to her how my shattering those arguements did not disprove God. I'm a rationalist, not an asshole.

But the point remains, that if thats the best a creationist professor, at a fairly large and decent school can come up with, then creationism is a load of bunk.

The man who invented intelligent design even claims that the theory should not be taught in high school because it's too complex. It seems probable that the "educators" who want it taught are cutting it down to utter bullshit to try to make it seem more paletable.

Finakky, I am in favor of an impartial teaching of evolution, including all critiques that have sane, scientific backing.

So, because your sister is not a walking, talking tape recorder, she can't possibly have understood her teacher's point, and therefore deduced that it was truth ? If anything, she'll just fail the class.

I am sure it took a lot of studying, and a significant amount of time for her teacher to learn what he has, and prepare it adequately to be presented in a classroom.

Maybe this will clarify:

The First Law of Thermodynamics states the following: The total amount of energy in our universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. Furthermore, energy can be transformed from one form into another, but it cannot be created and cannot be destroyed.

As a consequence, the current amount of energy in the universe has been in existence for a long time. Natural processes cannot create energy, thus this energy could have been produced only by a force outside our universe.

According to evolutionists, complex organisms evolved from simpler ones. Simple organisms were formed from matter and energy. They state that matter and energy appeared from nothing. This contradicts the First Law.

On the contrary, Creation is supernatural, stands above the laws of nature. God can create matter, energy and laws that govern them.

**********************

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Increasing Entropy, is a general and universal law that can be formulated in several ways:

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy available for useful work decreases in an isolated system, although the total amount of energy remains constant. This is because energy can transform only into lower forms of energy through natural processes. For example, electric current passing through a light bulb ends up transforming into heat, which is the lowest "quality" energy consisting of chaotic molecular movement.

This Second Law introduces the concept of entropy, a measure of disorder. Entropy constantly increases in any isolated system. In other words, the system becomes disorganized and energy becomes less usable.



Based on this law, the amount of information conveyed by a system continually decreases and its quality deteriorates.



Basically, the law states that natural processes disorganize the state of objects and systems. Over time, everything decays and becomes disorganized. The universe irreversibly heads toward maximum disorganization.

Just think about what happens with our house if we "comfortably" leave it by itself for a while, we don't clean up, arrange and mend all the time. Natural processes constantly destroy and disorganize it. Our house needs our useful and expedient work to maintain the order. Even atomic particles search the lowest energy levels, they "like comfort".

The amount of information and the complexity of our universe perpetually decreases instead of increasing. According to evolutionary theory, life on earth progresses from simple to complex and never vice versa. Everything becomes more and more organized and entropy constantly decreases.

Thus, evolution contradicts both laws of thermodynamics.

According to the First Law, the cosmos could not have created itself, thus an external force must have existed to create it.

According to the Second Law, if our universe was infinitely old, it would be dead and destroyed already. But this is not the case, so it must also have had a beginning. Sometime in the past the universe had been created and the cosmic processes were started.

Every star, the perfectly designed nature and all the accurate laws of nature bear testimony to the existence of a Creator who created them all.

***************************

If someone has said that Intelligent Design is too difficult to teach or understand, he oughtn't to talk about it at all.

That is science, in and of itself. It's all difficult ! That is a totally unrespectable view, and if that is true, I completely agree with you.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed that explanation. I am sure you, or someone else, will come up with some witty quips refuting it. I can't do anything about it, since I am not a scientist. I do understand what they are saying, though...and it makes sense to me.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Why should creationism be taught if it can't be proven?

Why should either be taught exclusively ?

BOTH, or NEITHER.

That is the only solution.

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

Me too, this whole religious conservative backlash is getting out of hand. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Backlash is apparently only acceptable when it is coming from liberals.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Hope I shed some light on why they teach a theory rather than hypothetical trash.

Need I remind you that even today, evolution is regarded as hypothetical trash by some ?

When the theory was introduced, it was not complete. It has taken YEARS of study for it to progress to the point that it has.

Why then is Creationism not treated with the same amount of tolerance ?

Think about how long evolution has been on the human scientific agenda, and then compare that to how long Creationism has.

Give Creationism a few decades, and look back on it. It will have progressed, just as Evolution has.

As we discover new things, and understand the mechanics of our universe a little better, new answers come, just as new questions do.

Your statement is nothing short of obtuse.

Is it intentional ?

quote:Originally posted by ASH_shop_S-mart:

I'm not going to get into this whole debate, but I'll say religion should not by a part of schools. I also think they should get rid of the "Pledge of Alligience." Don't bother questioning me why.

Then don't bother sharing your useless opinion.

Make it, and back it up.

Otherwise, I think I speak for the whole group when I say, "SO ?!"

quote:Originally posted by xcarc:

Evolution is science. The theory of evolution makes up a massive chunk of biology curriculum. Would you like schools to abstain totally from teaching biology?

Hmmm...so, what did the planet do BEFORE evolution was taught ?

I believe biology has been studied LONG BEFORE evolution was introduced.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Why should either be taught exclusively ?

BOTH, or NEITHER.

That is the only solution.

Yes, I agree. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) (for reasons I mentioned in my post to you)

CONGRATS ON THE 38 DAYS !!

A link on the Thermodynamics explanation: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-003.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

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

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

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

CONGRATS ON THE 38 DAYS !!

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

quote:...and when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men.

Matthew 6:5

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

So, because your sister is not a walking, talking tape recorder, she can't possibly have understood her teacher's point, and therefore deduced that it was truth ? If anything, she'll just fail the class.

I am sure it took a lot of studying, and a significant amount of time for her teacher to learn what he has, and prepare it adequately to be presented in a classroom.

Or mabye the teacher was a jackass, you dont no either so you cant say.

quote:Maybe this will clarify:

The First Law of Thermodynamics states the following: The total amount of energy in our universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. Furthermore, energy can be transformed from one form into another, but it cannot be created and cannot be destroyed.

As a consequence, the current amount of energy in the universe has been in existence for a long time. Natural processes cannot create energy, thus this energy could have been produced only by a force outside our universe.

According to evolutionists, complex organisms evolved from simpler ones. Simple organisms were formed from matter and energy. They state that matter and energy appeared from nothing. This contradicts the First Law.

On the contrary, Creation is supernatural, stands above the laws of nature. God can create matter, energy and laws that govern them.[/B]

You cannot say that you agree with a law that states energy cannot be created but belive that God can create energy. That would mean that the law must not exist.

And also i belive that earlier you said that we should wait a few decades and creatism shuld have changed with science. Thats stupid you cant say that the bible and such is correct and turn around a few years later and change it.

[This message has been edited by Fai1safe (edited 02-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Fai1safe:

You cannot say that you agree with a law that states energy cannot be created but belive that God can because the law must not exist.

that's not what she said. try to pay attention... she's saying that evolutionary theory contradicts the very scientific laws that are supposed to support it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The First Law of Thermodynamics states the following: The total amount of energy in our universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. Furthermore, energy can be transformed from one form into another, but it cannot be created and cannot be destroyed.

As a consequence, the current amount of energy in the universe has been in existence for a long time. Natural processes cannot create energy, thus this energy could have been produced only by a force outside our universe.

this is your first mistake. there is nothing outside the universe. the word universe, by definition, is meant to encompass everything... so if you find something outside the universe, guess what? it's a part of the universe.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

According to evolutionists, complex organisms evolved from simpler ones. Simple organisms were formed from matter and energy. They state that matter and energy appeared from nothing. This contradicts the First Law.

no, they don't state that. there are many competing theories on the origin of energy and matter. they are very diverse, and some even question the possibility of no origin. humanity is very far from resolving this puzzle.

the big bang theory is often erroneously considered to be the scientific community's 'official stance'... it is not. it was a theory that caught a lot of publicity because it was exotic and it incorporated controversial principles of quantum physics. it tied many questions together neatly. unfortunately, it has not been so widely publicized that it met with many detractors and that stephen hawking himself has since modified and recanted the bulk of it.

i've often heard from creationists that the progress from simple organisms to more complex organisms is a violation of that same law of entropy... not sure if that's what you were getting at, so i'll just say this for now - it isn't. that's a misunderstanding of the law, and the process of evolution.

1. Kindly don't insult my sister. She was reading the notes and handouts she'd been given to me, and she honestly believed it. ANd furthermore, even if I convinced her otherwise, she's smart enough to answer what the teacher wants come test time.

2. I completely agree that an act of God would have to be supernatural, and by definition, not constrained by physics. But you're arguement for this is idiotic. FIrst, the earth is not isolated. Thats how plants get energy. And to claim that there wasn't enough energy of the earth to support more complex live than amoeba is patently absurd, given that you are alive now. No evolutionist claims that matter an energy came from nowhere. The matter an energy cam from the enviroment around those theoretical initial lifeforms.

See, this is why I claim creationism is bullshit. That was a horribly articulated attack, defeated simply by not accepting your erroneous conclusion, and actually thinking about the situation with the slightest hint of scientific and logic training.

3. The universe in it's current incarnation isn't infinitely old. It's approximately 15 billion years old. Before that, before the Planck time, the forces were one, and the universe was a ball approximately a Planck length radii, with a temperature somewhere in the realm on 10^37K. Time had no meaning here.

ALso, by your own example, living things can clean up sone of the entropy. ELse how could a human come from a fetus? By your own arguement, a ball of cells turning into a human would have to be considered a more complex form coming from a less complex one.

Then throw in a couple semi-widely known scientific facts, and it almost looks like you have a decent arguement.

4. "If someone has said that Intelligent Design is too difficult to teach or understand, he oughtn't to talk about it at all."



That was actually the Chrisitan scientist who developed the damn theory. I think Einstein would understand Special Relativity better than you, hm? Similarly, I don't think you have any grounds to claim to be a greater expert in Creationism than the man who developed the theory.

Better luck next time.

I live in Kansas and I don't know anyone who literally believes creationism. To the original poster, don't pass ridiculous generalizations over an entire state based on something the legislature is doing. I, for one, oppose creationism. It isn't science. For the people who want a sticker on books saying evolution is just a theory....no shit. They have no grasp of what a THEORY is. Just another example of people who don't know what they're talking about....

quote:Or mabye the teacher was a jackass, you dont no either so you cant say.



He has a PhD., right ?

*blinks*

The monkey in chief, don't need no dang science.

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=103875

quote:Or mabye the teacher was a jackass, you dont no either so you cant say.

Maybe, but what is more likely ? That the teacher with a PhD is dumber than his 19 year old student, or vice a versa ?

quote:Originally posted by Tesseract:

You've made this assertion http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) in another thread, and I'm still waiting for this evidence you speak of.

And please, if you have a problem with the term "religious right", then don't use the term "pagan". It's equally negative.





I am sorry, but that is just not true.

PAGAN - One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.

Boy, oh, boy ! What NEGATIVITY !!

If you fit that description, then you ARE a pagan !

"Religious Right" is a coined phrase used to identify Christian fanatics.

I am not offended by it...I think it's ridiculous.

You can call me whatever you want, and it won't matter to me. But I like to point out when Christians are being attacked, in contrast to when non-Christians are. The difference between the two is astonishing (Christians are relentlessly assaulted verbally by the media).

Apples and oranges...AGAIN.

Oh, and I got the "assertion" inuendo. Very funny... http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

America wasn't founded on christianity.

Alot of the founders happened to

be christian.

There's no place for creationism

in a science class. For the same

reason you don't do faith healings

in health class.

As someone said above, it's the opposite.

Science is the process of looking

for reality. Christians start with

a reality, and work backwards to find

evidence to back it up.

Science is still in progress, and

real scientists admit we may never

know the ultimate truth.

Christians think they know already,

that's the danger of religion.

Well, ummm...no, no and no.

I don't do faith healings, EVER.

I pray, and hope God does what I think is best. If healing does nto occur, then there is a reason for it.

I don't believe faith healing ought to be ANYWHERE but at a Benny Hinn revival. (what a quack !)

Creationism recognizes science as a viable support system, and practices its tenets in order to provide a foundation for the ideology behind Creationsim.

I don't see how you can say that one kind of science should be included in a public school curriculum, and not another.

If science is merely observation, then that encompasses all sorts of observation, and interpretations thereof.

SCIENCE - 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 2. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Where in that description does it say that science is the search for REALITY ?

We don't even understand our own reality yet, so who is to say that we can even begin to understand the reality of God and spirituality ?

The "reality" of this conversation is that Creationism will never be taught in schools. Pagans won't let that happen.

So, what difference does it make ?

Evolution hasn't been fair to any other "theory" since it was introduced. Why should it change ?

I am not even going to go into the "foundation of our country" argument again. Apparently you missed it the last 40 times we had it. Suffice it to say, you're wrong.

quote:Yes, this has been my observation, as well. In my opinion, we may be in the early stages of a "Christian revival" in some sectors of our society. The "taming" of the Super Bowl this year shows that our society has made a statement that TV has gone too far, and needs to be curbed. We have a president who says that his religion has the final say in all of his decisions. He also won 52% of the popular vote in the 2004 election. Wouldn't you say that America is a Christian society, for the most part?

Yes.

And as good as this "revival" may seem to the common Christian, we should FEAR any specific group dominating all others.

Christianity in and of itself would not be the end of America, but men certainly could be.

Men make Christianity whatever they want it to be, and therefore ruin it.

Men will use Christianity, just as they used Catholicism, to promote THEMSELVES instead of God, and to gain wealth and power.

All I really want is for God to come back for us soon.

I don't really care if Christianity makes a comeback or not. Read Revelation...it will be as it is written, no matter what we do.

quote:Originally posted by Garibaldi:

I ask again, what kind of lesson plan would a teaching of creationism or "intelligent design" entail?

http://www.icr.edu/flash.html

Take a look at that, and see if that doesn't answer your question.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

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

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

I can't post things from Christiananswers.net, because it is biased, yet all you ever post is information on Talk origins.

From a Christian perspective, the author's of that site are biased as well.

Science is science, no matter what angle you look at it from.

I will do my best to address what Talk Origins has posted, though I am no scientist...and you did nothing to refute the explanation I gave of Thermodynamics.

quote:And also i belive that earlier you said that we should wait a few decades and creatism shuld have changed with science. Thats stupid you cant say that the bible and such is correct and turn around a few years later and change it.

It's not stupid if you understand what I had said.

I wasn't talking about the Bible changing...I was talking about science developing and helping us to understand new things about our universe.

We did not understand (scientifically) our world in Darwin's day the way we do now.

What we have come to understand can be considered "progress".

Evolution has changed systematically with every new thing we understand, through science.

Are you saying that you are dumb enough to believe that Creationism won't experience the same change from new understanding of our universe scientifically ?

Are you so pig-headed that you think the answers we have now are the end-all-be-all of everything ?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

1. Kindly don't insult my sister. She was reading the notes and handouts she'd been given to me, and she honestly believed it. ANd furthermore, even if I convinced her otherwise, she's smart enough to answer what the teacher wants come test time.

2. I completely agree that an act of God would have to be supernatural, and by definition, not constrained by physics. But you're arguement for this is idiotic. FIrst, the earth is not isolated. Thats how plants get energy. And to claim that there wasn't enough energy of the earth to support more complex live than amoeba is patently absurd, given that you are alive now. No evolutionist claims that matter an energy came from nowhere. The matter an energy cam from the enviroment around those theoretical initial lifeforms.

See, this is why I claim creationism is bullshit. That was a horribly articulated attack, defeated simply by not accepting your erroneous conclusion, and actually thinking about the situation with the slightest hint of scientific and logic training.

3. The universe in it's current incarnation isn't infinitely old. It's approximately 15 billion years old. Before that, before the Planck time, the forces were one, and the universe was a ball approximately a Planck length radii, with a temperature somewhere in the realm on 10^37K. Time had no meaning here.

ALso, by your own example, living things can clean up sone of the entropy. ELse how could a human come from a fetus? By your own arguement, a ball of cells turning into a human would have to be considered a more complex form coming from a less complex one.

Then throw in a couple semi-widely known scientific facts, and it almost looks like you have a decent arguement.

4. "If someone has said that Intelligent Design is too difficult to teach or understand, he oughtn't to talk about it at all."

That was actually the Chrisitan scientist who developed the damn theory. I think Einstein would understand Special Relativity better than you, hm? Similarly, I don't think you have any grounds to claim to be a greater expert in Creationism than the man who developed the theory.

Better luck next time.

Surah, it wasn't even close to my intention to insult your sister.

What I derived from your post was that YOU thought your sister to be a moron.

your #2 point didn't make sense to me at all. It was poorly written. Please try and calm down, and write it again. I would really like to see where you are coming from. Thanks. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I don't see anything erroneous about my post. I gave you definitions of the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics, and why evolution doesn't follow them.

How was that erroneous ?!

You think the earth is 15 billion years based on what ? Flawed, inconsistent dating methods ? Or was it just that Darwin told you so ?

How can you confirm ANYTHING before the existence of man ? Man documents...amoeba's do not.

You have to have just as much faith to believe in what YOU do, as I need to have to believe in what I do.

The only difference is that GOD exists, and He ordained the truth, LONG BEFORE man conceived of science.

Your example of a human fetus doesn't even remotely support your comment on entropy. Entropy makes it impossible for us to accurately date anything, because no one can truly say what the exact amount of carbon was at the moment that any given living thing expired.

If "living things can clean up sone of the entropy" was a part of the Evolutionary theory, then it would still nullify itself, since that leaves an infinite amount of possibilities that cannot be defined.

So, here is something on ENTROPY: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-040.htm

Please, go ahead and tell me this isn't science, and that it doesn't at all make sense.

By the way, "Christian Science" is not even remotely the same thing as "Creation Science". Unless you used the wrong terminology, you just made yourself look like an idiot. (which I don't believe you are) Don't say "Christian Scientist" as a title. It is a completely different religion.

And yes, I answered the same post twice. *grin*

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:

The monkey in chief, don't need no dang science.

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=103875



Are you saying that this is somehow the reason why Creationism is gaining in popularity, and Evolution is only gaining holes ?

*LMFAO* !!!!!!!!!

Bush has been in office for approximately 5 years.

What is your excuse for the degredation of Evolution before he was in office ?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

I'm going to deal with these links one at a time. Too much info to digest all at once.

--------------------------------------------



THERMODYNAMICS – The measure of the disorganization or degradation of the universe. (Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, 1997 Edition, page 253)

To be fair, the Dictionary says that thermodynamics is, “Physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy.” NOT just heat, but ALL forms of energy.

The evolutionist’s on Talk Origins are hyper-focusing on the heat of the sun making the earth an “open system”. This obviously does not include all other forms of energy to which the earth is exposed. I am not saying the earth either is an open OR a closed system, rather I am pointing out that Talk Origins’ view on thermodynamics is skewed, for the purpose of refuting Creationist’s, instead of simply explaining entropy. If the science refuted Creationism, they wouldn’t have to try and defend evolution. It would be obvious, and Creationist’s wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, period.

Talk Origins: “…heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.”

Neither I, nor any other Creationist I have spoken with have argued that. I don’t understand how that can be used as refutation.

The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot's earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the "fall" or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize.

Talk Origins: Creationist’s believe that entropy is the same as disorder.

I don’t think that Creationist’s believe that at all ! “whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize.”

There is no support for what Talk Origins has said (that Creationism twists science to suit its theories), and that is proven when one studies the principles of Creationism with objectivity.

Also, can you please explain how Evolution ( Dictionary.com: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.) supports the 2nd law of thermodynamics ? I just don’t see it. Not because I don’t want to, but because it is logically, and scientifically impossible.

Now, to deal with the rest…

Hydrological Sorting – The reference given on this page for hydrological sorting is from a book written in 1974. Does Talk Origins have anything current ? Even Evolution has progressed in its understanding of the universe since 1974. By the way, have you READ anything by an actual Creationist for yourself, so that you can understand the science ? Also, Talk Origins doesn’t bother to refute the “hydrological sorting” theory, they just claim that it contradicts our understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I can’t debate what they don’t explain.

Disorder and Closed Systems: “According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a 'law of disorder'. The major revolution in the last decade is the understanding with an expanded view of thermodynamics, that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws ( basic laws: http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution10.html ).” http://www.entropylaw.com/ So, evolutionist’s have changed the definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the last 10 years to accommodate their theory. But will it change again ? Is it honest, unbiased science ?

By extension, I need to bring up the topic of fossils, since they are the main source of “proof” for both evolutionist’s and creationist’s alike.

Fossils - http://www.icr.org/newsletters/drjohn/drjohnjuly04.html (where fossils are found, and why that is important), http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-244.htm (importance of dating them correctly to support Evolution/Creationism), http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-244.htm ( Dating Gaps).

The truth, as I see it, is that Creationist’s have just as much science supporting their theories as Evolutionist’s do.

Which means that the possibility of Intelligent Design exists.

Evolution is only having holes punched in it because it's basically the principal behind all biological sciences of the modern day...almost any biological theorum with a hole in it, is also a hole in evolutionary theory. It doesn't mean that evolutionary theory is weaker, just that some of the details are mixed up until someone works them out.

Creationism, on the other hand, doesn't have any holes, because it in itself is an unevidenced void of ignorance towards scientific principles.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://www.icr.edu/flash.html

Take a look at that, and see if that doesn't answer your question.

Thanks Digital for giving me an answer. Seems well thoguht out, but I don't think it should be taught (at least not in the way they are presenting it).

Basically, they're reverse teaching something. They've already got the "answer". The answer is creationism is right and evolution is wrong. You can't have valid scientific instruction coming from that sort of base.

"The purpose of the ICR Graduate School is to discover and transmit the truth about the universe by scientific research and study, to correlate and apply such scientific data within the supplemental integrating framework of Biblical creationism, and to implement them effectively in traditional graduate degree programs with standard core curricula in science and education."



How is this objective?

RUST -

Boltzmann's View of the Second Law as a Law of Disorder

"The active macroscopic nature of the second law posed a direct challenge to the "dead" mechanical world view which Boltzmann tried to meet in the latter part of the last century by reducing the second law to a law of probability following from the random collisions of mechanical particles (efficient cause (see Swenson (1990)). Following the lead of Maxwell who had modeled gas molecules as colliding billiard balls, Boltzmann argued that the second law was simply a consequence of the fact that since with each collision nonequilibrium distributions would become increasingly disordered leading to a final state of macroscopic uniformity and microscopic disorder. Because there are so many more possible disordered states than ordered ones, he concluded, a system will almost always be found either in the state of maximum disorder or moving towards it.

As a consequence, a dynamically ordered state, one with molecules moving "at the same speed and in the same direction," Boltzmann (1974/1886, p. 20) asserted, is thus "the most improbable case conceivable...an infinitely improbable configuration of energy." Because this idea works for certain near equilibrium systems such as gases in boxes, and because science until recently was dominated by near equilibrium thinking, Boltzmann's attempted reduction of the second law to a law of disorder became widely accepted as the second law rather than simply an hypothesis about the second law, and one that we now know fails. It became the apparent justification from physics for solidifying Cartesian incommensurability and establishing the view of the two incommensurable rivers-the "river" of biology, psychology, and culture, or the epistemic dimension of the world characterized by intentional dynamics and flowing up to increasingly higher states of order, versus the "river" of physics flowing down to disorder. Such a view is entirely inimical to a science of ecological relations, since, as noted above, it is precisely through the interface of these two rivers that these relations occur, and if the interface is incommensurable then the relations are effectively prohibited, or at best, incomprehensible."

Just thought you might want to see an explanation of why Talk Origins may say that Creationist's think Entropy is the same thing as Disorder.

This is NOT what Creationist's think.

quote:Originally posted by Garibaldi:

Thanks Digital for giving me an answer. Seems well thoguht out, but I don't think it should be taught (at least not in the way they are presenting it).

Basically, they're reverse teaching something. They've already got the "answer". The answer is creationism is right and evolution is wrong. You can't have valid scientific instruction coming from that sort of base.

"The purpose of the ICR Graduate School is to discover and transmit the truth about the universe by scientific research and study, to correlate and apply such scientific data within the supplemental integrating framework of Biblical creationism, and to implement them effectively in traditional graduate degree programs with standard core curricula in science and education."



How is this objective?

You're welcome. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

The website I gave you was for an accredited college in California called the Institute for Creation Research. The founders, as well as the teachers and students, are Christians who happen to be studying science. (for everyone else that didn't read it)

If Evolution can say that there IS NO GOD using science, then equally ICR can say that there IS A GOD using science.

As I said before, either both should be taught, or neither should.

The "answer" you talk about is obvious...we couldn't believe in God, who gave us the Bible which states that it gives us all the answers we need, and say that we didn't already have the answer when searching (through science) for supporting evidence.

Evolution says Creationism is wrong.

What's the difference ?

By the way, when you say that ICR has a "well thought out" curriculum, you seem to degrade the level of education that is not only required of the staff, but of the graduates.

"The programs and curricula of the Graduate School present the standard factual scientific content of comparable courses in accredited secular institutions, using standard scientific textbooks, journal articles, and other learning materials. In addition, where appropriate, supplemental interpretive material is presented in accordance with the distinctive ICR mission and beliefs and in accord with the cherished American principles of academic freedom and civil rights, as applicable particularly to private Christian educational institutions.

While somewhat innovative in the current educational context, this approach to the understanding and teaching of science is essentially the same as that of the founding fathers of science (Newton, Boyle, etc.), and of our nation and its first schools and colleges. In no way does this philosophy subtract from the standard scientific content, but rather enriches it. Opposing philosophies are treated extensively and fairly, so that graduates are well equipped in all areas covered by secular institutions, with the supplementary advantage of learning also the rationale for the creationist interpretation of scientific data related to origins and Earth history." http://www.icr.org/abouticr/ed-phil.htm

Tenets of Creationism - http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

Research - http://www.icr.org/abouticr/research.htm

Professors - http://www.icr.org/abouticr/faculty.htm

A quick note on thermodynamics that seems to be missed......entropy is always increasing overall, but there are small systems where the entropy decreases, but since overall entropy is increasing it doesn't affect it.

Cases in point: fetuses becoming humans, evolution of species, etc.

Digital, entropy doesn't make dating things impossible. Radioactive decay has little to do with the overall disorder of systems.

Just a few things I thought I'd point out...

Seriously though, every single argument I have seen in favor of creationism is based on either a) The Bible, or b) Severe ignorance of basic scientific principles...if people payed some attention in their classes, or had a teacher who knew what they were talking about (I've had 1 teacher through K-12 that was more versed in the sciences than me), there would be a lot less bullshit in a clearly one-sided debate (meaning only one side has any credibility).

Credibility? A bunch of bones and how long they supposedly decompose? My main argument is based on logic that some things are just too impossable to creaate. We know the age of the earth [more volcanoe lava dating and stuff] and there isn't enough time.

If there was no insult intended, then I appologize for erroneously percieving one. Actually, reading your response, I considered the possibility that you were a proff in a similar situation, if not her teacher. It can be a small world sometimes.

I'm going to go a bit afield before I get back to the thermo, if I may?

The true matter at hand isn't creationism vs. evolution. It's entirely possible that both theories are incorrect.

As for carbon dating, or other methods, I'll decline comment now, and get back to you in a year, when I can do them.

The 15 billion year number doesn't come from evolution. It comes independently from both the ambient temperature of the universe, and background microwave radiation. For both of there, the only currently plausable explaination is a Big Bang theory. ANd while theoretically God could have done something to facilitate them 6000 years ago, would you at least agree that anyone who respects empiricism can not work under that assumption?

Also, once again I have to stress that my main support for evolution comes not from a faith in science, but hope in people. Any scientist worth the name who discovered that evolution had to be false would be forced by consciense to reveal this information. The fact that I've never had a creationist professor, in spite of several of them being deeply religious, further leads me to accept that evolutio is the best theory we have going now. Times like these make me almost regret my hatred of biology (most physicists are such because we can't stand working with living things. Give us cold, impartial math).

I also must stress, that by beginning with a conclusion, creationism does not follow the scientific principle. It is not science, at the indisputable least on a technicality.

Back to the thermo:

1. Evolutionists never claim that matter and energy came from nothing. The creationist arguement seems to be that in the theoretical instance that we began with a single celled organism, for that to move to a multi-cell organism, it would require the spontaneous generation of matter and energy. Thats absurd. The earth is awash in potential sources for energy and matter. All thats required is for an organism to possess a method to obtain it.

By contrast, God creating everything out of nothing does violate the first law, unless one delves into quantum physics. Of course God would be above such things, and allowed to violate it, but I am technically correct.

2. The total amount of energy available for useful work would decrease, woere it not for that convenient ball of fire in the sky. If the total amount of energy aggregate is increasing, then it is possible for entropy to increase, while percentage entropy does not.

For the rest, I'd have to ask you to define what consists of a lesser form of energy. A natural reaction can transfer kenetic to potential, and then immediately back again. Which is the lesser form? Again I hate biology, but it seems logical that life forms would be able to extract energy as necessary from their enviroment, which prom a purely physical sense, would not be a natural reaction. DOn't most animals have something like a 30-40% effeciency rate for their metabolisms? Anything less than 100% would indicate that the second law does not apply to that instance, because it isn't considered a natural reaction. Thats why there is such a low effeciency.



SO, I really have to disagree with evolution defying those two laws.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I can't post things from Christiananswers.net, because it is biased, yet all you ever post is information on Talk origins.



Who ever said that? Please, quote me EVER saying this.

---

quote:Talk Origins: “…heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.”

Neither I, nor any other Creationist I have spoken with have argued that. I don’t understand how that can be used as refutation.

You're just building a giant strawman.

Talk origins is saying what the LAW says, not what creationists say. You conviently ommit the part where it clearly states: "It says that".; "It" being the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

quote:Talk Origins: Creationist’s believe that entropy is the same as disorder.

I don’t think that Creationist’s believe that at all ! “whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize.”

There is no support for what Talk Origins has said (that Creationism twists science to suit its theories), and that is proven when one studies the principles of Creationism with objectivity.

Another strawman. The article merely stated that frequently both are used as synonims. This doesn't even matter in the article! They put absolutely not weight on this.

You completly evade the argument by going for something as trivial as this and not refuting the article itself.



quote:Also, can you please explain how Evolution ( Dictionary.com: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.) supports the 2nd law of thermodynamics ? I just don’t see it. Not because I don’t want to, but because it is logically, and scientifically impossible.

The point is it has NOTHING to do with it. THAT's the point. It is creationists who use it to somehow "refute" evolution and support their claims, not the otherway around.

quote:Hydrological Sorting – The reference given on this page for hydrological sorting is from a book written in 1974. Does Talk Origins have anything current ? Even Evolution has progressed in its understanding of the universe since 1974. By the way, have you READ anything by an actual Creationist for yourself, so that you can understand the science ? Also, Talk Origins doesn’t bother to refute the “hydrological sorting” theory, they just claim that it contradicts our understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I can’t debate what they don’t explain.

1. That book is a reference to the creationist claim of the second law of thermodynamics, NOT hydrological sorting.

2. There's a link that refutes hydrologic sorting in that very same article and you have the gall to claim they don't refute it?



quote:Disorder and Closed Systems: “According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a 'law of disorder'. The major revolution in the last decade is the understanding with an expanded view of thermodynamics, that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws ( basic laws: http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution10.html ).” http://www.entropylaw.com/ So, evolutionist’s have changed the definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the last 10 years to accommodate their theory. But will it change again ? Is it honest, unbiased science ?

1. Read it again. It NEVER states that the law changed. It states that "how people VIEW it" has changed.

2. That science changes is a testament of it being based on evidence, on evidence that changes based on experimentation, not on rigid and dogmatic beliefs that do not change, regardless of the mountains of evidence refuting them.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

RUST -

Boltzmann's View of the Second Law as a Law of Disorder

"The active macroscopic nature of the second law posed a direct challenge to the "dead" mechanical world view which Boltzmann tried to meet in the latter part of the last century by reducing the second law to a law of probability following from the random collisions of mechanical particles (efficient cause (see Swenson (1990)). Following the lead of Maxwell who had modeled gas molecules as colliding billiard balls, Boltzmann argued that the second law was simply a consequence of the fact that since with each collision nonequilibrium distributions would become increasingly disordered leading to a final state of macroscopic uniformity and microscopic disorder. Because there are so many more possible disordered states than ordered ones, he concluded, a system will almost always be found either in the state of maximum disorder or moving towards it.

As a consequence, a dynamically ordered state, one with molecules moving "at the same speed and in the same direction," Boltzmann (1974/1886, p. 20) asserted, is thus "the most improbable case conceivable...an infinitely improbable configuration of energy." Because this idea works for certain near equilibrium systems such as gases in boxes, and because science until recently was dominated by near equilibrium thinking, Boltzmann's attempted reduction of the second law to a law of disorder became widely accepted as the second law rather than simply an hypothesis about the second law, and one that we now know fails. It became the apparent justification from physics for solidifying Cartesian incommensurability and establishing the view of the two incommensurable rivers-the "river" of biology, psychology, and culture, or the epistemic dimension of the world characterized by intentional dynamics and flowing up to increasingly higher states of order, versus the "river" of physics flowing down to disorder. Such a view is entirely inimical to a science of ecological relations, since, as noted above, it is precisely through the interface of these two rivers that these relations occur, and if the interface is incommensurable then the relations are effectively prohibited, or at best, incomprehensible."

Just thought you might want to see an explanation of why Talk Origins may say that Creationist's think Entropy is the same thing as Disorder.

This is NOT what Creationist's think.

Again, this was merely a trivial point in the article. Now you "refute" this, which you haven't even done since there might be creationists who use them as synonims, as if this where somehow a rebuttal to the argument. It isn't. You just focused on a trivial comment, nothing else. Either refute it, or admit that you cannot.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Are you saying that this is somehow the reason why Creationism is gaining in popularity, and Evolution is only gaining holes ?

*LMFAO* !!!!!!!!!

Bush has been in office for approximately 5 years.

What is your excuse for the degredation of Evolution before he was in office ?

I think you are confusing my view on cause and effect. Bush didn’t cause this rise of fundamentalist propaganda; he is an effect of it.

The link I posted was a concrete example of the Bush regime’s general disdain for science, beliefs mirrored by his constituents: Fire and Brimstone, bible thumpers, interspersed with Industrialists and a good ole heaping of rednecks.

The link supports this thread quite nicely, as Bush has become the face of the religious wrong, err, I mean right.

My excuse for the “degradation” of Evolution before Bush took the reigns is simple: There is none! It is merely the result of a surge in fundamentalism that has been growing since the Reagan era.

These fundamentalists cannot bear the cognitive dissonance between reason and blind faith. How to reconcile this dissonance? Why, let us make up a bunch of pseudo-science publications and web sites that no credible scientist would even stoop to argue with.



You appear to have respect for Professors, so let me ask you this: How many of them do you think are strict creationists? 0-1%?

Why do you think that the best educated, smartest people are rarely, if ever, fundamentalists?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You're welcome. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

The website I gave you was for an accredited college in California called the Institute for Creation Research. The founders, as well as the teachers and students, are Christians who happen to be studying science. (for everyone else that didn't read it)

If Evolution can say that there IS NO GOD using science, then equally ICR can say that there IS A GOD using science.

As I said before, either both should be taught, or neither should.

The "answer" you talk about is obvious...we couldn't believe in God, who gave us the Bible which states that it gives us all the answers we need, and say that we didn't already have the answer when searching (through science) for supporting evidence.

Evolution says Creationism is wrong.

What's the difference ?

By the way, when you say that ICR has a "well thought out" curriculum, you seem to degrade the level of education that is not only required of the staff, but of the graduates.

"The programs and curricula of the Graduate School present the standard factual scientific content of comparable courses in accredited secular institutions, using standard scientific textbooks, journal articles, and other learning materials. In addition, where appropriate, supplemental interpretive material is presented in accordance with the distinctive ICR mission and beliefs and in accord with the cherished American principles of academic freedom and civil rights, as applicable particularly to private Christian educational institutions.

While somewhat innovative in the current educational context, this approach to the understanding and teaching of science is essentially the same as that of the founding fathers of science (Newton, Boyle, etc.), and of our nation and its first schools and colleges. In no way does this philosophy subtract from the standard scientific content, but rather enriches it. Opposing philosophies are treated extensively and fairly, so that graduates are well equipped in all areas covered by secular institutions, with the supplementary advantage of learning also the rationale for the creationist interpretation of scientific data related to origins and Earth history." http://www.icr.org/abouticr/ed-phil.htm

Tenets of Creationism - http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

Research - http://www.icr.org/abouticr/research.htm

Professors - http://www.icr.org/abouticr/faculty.htm

Well first of all I meant no offense when I said "well thought out".

However, I never recall a science book saying that there is no God. I've never read any evolution research that said "because of these findings, there is no God". Where have you seen this?

Also, I don't see why there is so much of a problem between the "Intelligent Design" theory and the Evolution theory. I mean, assuming of course we're talking about Intelligent Design as it's presented (a creator being of some sort that designed and created life) as opposed to creationism (The one true god of the Judeo-Christian Bible, Jehovah, created the universe and life in 7 days, etc. etc.)

If someone were a true adherent of Intelligent Design (having a somewhat Deist mindset), I don't see why it would conflict with evolution. Perhaps this God/Creator/Force designed evolution to work how it works, what species live and which ones die out, etc. Of course, if you're trying to teach Creationism, I can see the conflict.

Also, you state that either "both are taught, or neither be taught". A reasonable proposal, however, it's coming from an "it's either A or B" mindset. A lot of people forget this when arguing over evolution vs. creationism. What if both are wrong? What if the creation story of the Hindu's is right? Or Pagan creation stories? How about the telling how life was created by Gaia and Uranus (grandparents of the Olympian gods). So we should teach all these theories or none of them I suppose.



[This message has been edited by Garibaldi (edited 02-22-2005).]

You are considering the difference between MICROevolution, and MACROevolution, aren't you ?

Once you answer that, I will answer your post.

Thanks for clarifying the "well thought out" statement. It just seemed a little demeaning (not intentionally) to the people who are HIGHLY educated that run this college.

quote:Again, this was merely a trivial point in the article. Now you "refute" this, which you haven't even done since there might be creationists who use them as synonims, as if this where somehow a rebuttal to the argument. It isn't. You just focused on a trivial comment, nothing else. Either refute it, or admit that you cannot.

*LOL*

Oh, man...you sound like a parrot.

If this had been the case in DEFENSE of evolution, you would most likely have capitalized on it.

Either it is all congruent, or it isn't. Talk Origins is full of crap. Plain and simple.

I also spent a lot of time compiling that data (science you have repeatedly asked for), and then you don't even bother to refute it with any kind of scientific debate.

Nevermind.

Not worth it, Rust.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Seriously though, every single argument I have seen in favor of creationism is based on either a) The Bible, or b) Severe ignorance of basic scientific principles...if people payed some attention in their classes, or had a teacher who knew what they were talking about (I've had 1 teacher through K-12 that was more versed in the sciences than me), there would be a lot less bullshit in a clearly one-sided debate (meaning only one side has any credibility).

SEVERE IGNORANCE ?

These are scientist's, across the board.

Please show their "ignorance".

If you can't, don't make the claim.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

Credibility? A bunch of bones and how long they supposedly decompose? My main argument is based on logic that some things are just too impossable to creaate. We know the age of the earth [more volcanoe lava dating and stuff] and there isn't enough time.

If God was true to the definition (meaning CAPABLE OF ALL THINGS), creation of this universe would be child's play.

We also do NOT know with any kind of solidity how old the earth is. I guess you didn't read the website I posted in which all dating methods are shown to be flawed, and therefore unreliable.

That is a ridiculous statement.

WOLF - Real quick...

"In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years." http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html

July 20, 1998 Newsweek - "SCIENCE FINDS GOD. Indeed, participants at a conference "Science and the Spiritual Quest" organized by the Center for Theology and Science (which also included theologians) expressed the view that, as Stenger observed, "science and religion are now converging, and what they are converging on is God."

And the Newsweek essay advanced the dubious claim that while "The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith ... for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints at the very nature of God." http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism6.htm Of course, the authors of this piece go on to disagree with Newsweek (though they agree whenever their point of view is supported), but I thought it important to show that this issue has been reported on.

Unbelievers in the scientific arena definitely outnumber believers, but that certainly doesn't discount the fact that there are still 4 out of 10 !

This doesn't prove who is right or wrong, either.

Just because a majority believes a certain way doesn't mean it is right.

And vice a versa.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-22-2005).]

is that a poll of u.s. scientists? i ask because i'd say that's a pretty clear condemnation of the legitimacy of creationists and biblical literalists in the realm of science... considering that over 75% of the u.s. population at large is christian, only about 0.4% profess to be atheist, and only 13% are secular/nonreligious.

after all, how many of those 4 out of 10 believers do you suppose are biblical literalists? maybe 2?.. so maybe more than 10% of the total population of scientists, (i even doubt that), but no chance in hell do they make for over 20%.

so wolf's point is still valid - specifically, that with increased education and training in critical thought, it appears that evolution holds much more sway than creationism.

if not, why would there be such a disparity between the christian population at large and christian scientists specifically?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 02-22-2005).]

^and i agree that those statistics say nothing about who is wrong or right... although they are tantalizing, aren't they?

i got them from here

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html



[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 02-22-2005).]

Creationism is not a science simply because it starts with a conclusion, which has been stated. Intelligent design does not refute micro-evolution, on the contrary, Intelligent Design uses it. I have yet to see that it disproves macro-evolution, but if it does, why did the creators of intelligent design not simply use that knowledge to clarify our understanding of macro-evolution instead of going on a vendetta against scientific institutions?

The reason Intelligent Design is not considered to be real science is because it is unnecessarily complex. Science is about finding the simplest theory that can accurately describe phenomena. If one theory describes the same phenomena with equal accuracy, but is more complex, science says that the more complex theory is then discarded. What will most likely end up happening in objective scientific communities (I know its redundant, but done so to stress the objectivity) is that the parts of Intelligent Design that do disprove parts of evolution theory will be used to change it to suit our new understanding and the rest will be discarded, since that would make the rest unnecessary complexity.

[This message has been edited by Bobsyouruncle (edited 02-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*LOL*

Oh, man...you sound like a parrot.

If this had been the case in DEFENSE of evolution, you would most likely have capitalized on it.

What I "most likely" would have done in your delusional brain is of no concern here. The fact is, you focused on a trivial comment made by the author and then expect me to somehow miraculously take that as a refutation. It isn't.

quote:

Either it is all congruent, or it isn't. Talk Origins is full of crap. Plain and simple.

It's full of crap? Oh, then you're in luck because this means you don't have to waste much time in refuting it! Just fire away, I'm all ears.

quote:

I also spent a lot of time compiling that data (science you have repeatedly asked for), and then you don't even bother to refute it with any kind of scientific debate.

Where!? Tell me! You mean those links you posted at the end of your post? Just tell me so. I didn't reply because the only one with any argument against evolution is the one about "dating gaps" and that is easily refuted with the links I've given you in the past. Just tell me, because I'm ready, willing, and able.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You are considering the difference between MICROevolution, and MACROevolution, aren't you ?

Once you answer that, I will answer your post.

Thanks for clarifying the "well thought out" statement. It just seemed a little demeaning (not intentionally) to the people who are HIGHLY educated that run this college.

Yes, I am considering the difference between Macro and Micro Evolution. I'm a bit unsure where you're going with this, but go on.

I'm assuming you'd be more tolerant of the teaching of Micro Evolution as it has much more scientific backing than Macroevolution. Most "Young Earth" creationsists I've talked to believe in quite a bit of Microevolution (so that the Noah story makes more sense).

quote:Originally posted by Bobsyouruncle:

Creationism is not a science simply because it starts with a conclusion, which has been stated. Intelligent design does not refute micro-evolution, on the contrary, Intelligent Design uses it. I have yet to see that it disproves macro-evolution, but if it does, why did the creators of intelligent design not simply use that knowledge to clarify our understanding of macro-evolution instead of going on a vendetta against scientific institutions?

The reason Intelligent Design is not considered to be real science is because it is unnecessarily complex. Science is about finding the simplest theory that can accurately describe phenomena. If one theory describes the same phenomena with equal accuracy, but is more complex, science says that the more complex theory is then discarded. What will most likely end up happening in objective scientific communities (I know its redundant, but done so to stress the objectivity) is that the parts of Intelligent Design that do disprove parts of evolution theory will be used to change it to suit our new understanding and the rest will be discarded, since that would make the rest unnecessary complexity.



I didn't say Creationism was science because it started with a conclusion.

I didn't say Intelligent Design refuted microevolution !!

Geez, people, are you reading the same thing I wrote ?!

The sheer fact that macroevolution has NOT been successfully reproduced or witnessed ALONE proves that it either doesn't exist, or we have much to learn about our universe.

The reason Intelligent Design (though I was predominantly talking about Creation Science, which IS different) is not considered real science is because it states that there is a God, and there are enough pagans to rebel against that idea to make it "FACT"...

The reason macroevolution cannot be true (provided that God exists and that the Bible is true) is because it completely goes against the account of Creation as detailed in Genesis.

If we compromised and said, "Yeah, this fact in the Bible can be parallel with man's limited understanding of how the universe began.", how could we claim to have conviction, and complete faith in what God tells us ?

Let me ask you a question...have you read the Bible ? Please tell the truth. I have questions I could ask you to prove if you truly have or not, provided you would be willing to stand up to such a challenge.

I don't find anything about science "simple". As defined, science is not possibly "simple", by virtue alone.

"The parts of Evolution that cannot be proven are covered up or manipulated to suit the agenda of those that reject God."

You think that the way Creation Science views the world is crazy, but Creation Science views the Theory of Evolution the same way.

Evolution has no hope, which God promises us...that is why we reject it. Not because we can't recognize the merit of science, and not because we are not capable of practicing science the same way a pagan can.

*sighs*

Where are Bishop, and Xtreem when ya need 'em ?

I don't think you all understand how difficult it is to debate with 6 different people at a time.

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

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The sheer fact that macroevolution has NOT been successfully reproduced or witnessed ALONE proves that it either doesn't exist, or we have much to learn about our universe.



200 years have never been witnessed. No human in the universe has lived more than 200 years*. Does that mean that 200 years haven't occurred? No. It means it is currently impossible to "witness" it. It does not mean that there is no evidence for its existence, which there is, it just means it hasn't been witnessed. The same applies to evolution.

Therefore, that it hasn't been witnessed does not serve to discredit it, since it is currently impossible to witness what you call "macro-evolution".

That's without even arguing the angle that the universe itself has witnessed it as shown by the myriad of fossil, and genetic evidence.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-23-2005).]