El bumpo

(When will Digital_Savior admit she is wrong or present evidence she is right?)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'll get to that thread when I feel like it.



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

When I want to.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

Which shall be never. A noble person admits when they've lost; you, evidently, are not noble.

(Her reply)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

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



Imagine if the whole world operated under those concepts.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 06-17-2006).]

To be quite honest, I cannot recall her ever admitting to being wrong on any point(Perhaps I missed it if it happened), so don't hold your breath waiting for her to do so now.

Also, we all know that she cannot provide the evidence to prove Creationism (Intelligent Design) or a Young Earth due to the fact that no such evidence exists.

I am, however, still interested in hearing whatever reply she comes up with to defend her position.



Still waiting......

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

To be quite honest, I cannot recall her ever admitting to being wrong on any point(Perhaps I missed it if it happened), so don't hold your breath waiting for her to do so now.

Also, we all know that she cannot provide the evidence to prove Creationism (Intelligent Design) or a Young Earth due to the fact that no such evidence exists.

I am, however, still interested in hearing whatever reply she comes up with to defend her position.



Still waiting......

I would like to add something said by albet einstein regarding the lack of evidence of the "scientific theory" which as far as I'm concerned is proven wrong.



Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions.

This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.





"Still waiting"

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 06-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:



"Still waiting"



That's the name of an ok song by Sum 41, by the way.



Look, let's just archive this. It's going nowhere because

1. There will never be any evidence presented for creationism because it is wrong and

2. Digital_Savior is never going to admit she's wrong because it would mean admitting that she isn't actually the infallible bearer of the infallible word of God. This would subsequently cause her lots of pain because change is very painful, especially deep rooted things like this.

Let's just archive it. If any creationists have any objections, speak now or give it up already.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

That's the name of an ok song by Sum 41, by the way.



Look, let's just archive this. It's going nowhere because

1. There will never be any evidence presented for creationism because it is wrong and

2. Digital_Savior is never going to admit she's wrong because it would mean admitting that she isn't actually the infallible bearer of the infallible word of God. This would subsequently cause her lots of pain because change is very painful, especially deep rooted things like this.

Let's just archive it. If any creationists have any objections, speak now or give it up already.

Agreed.

More than a month has past since DS has posted anything in defense of her assertions.

Just a little bump as a reminder...

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

That's the name of an ok song by Sum 41, by the way.



Look, let's just archive this. It's going nowhere because

1. There will never be any evidence presented for creationism because it is wrong and

2. Digital_Savior is never going to admit she's wrong because it would mean admitting that she isn't actually the infallible bearer of the infallible word of God. This would subsequently cause her lots of pain because change is very painful, especially deep rooted things like this.

Let's just archive it. If any creationists have any objections, speak now or give it up already.

Christians can easily be congruent with science and state that the things in the Bible that may sound contradictory to science are simply metaphor to help simple people understand things. Its that easy. They can also claim God created the Process of Evolution. Its no Biggie.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Its that easy. They can also claim God created the Process of Evolution. Its no Biggie.

Supernatural Selection.

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

Always a skyhook. ALWAYS!

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Christians can easily be congruent with science and state that the things in the Bible that may sound contradictory to science are simply metaphor to help simple people understand things. Its that easy. They can also claim God created the Process of Evolution. Its no Biggie.

Creationism does not make those claims.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Christians can easily be congruent with science and state that the things in the Bible that may sound contradictory to science are simply metaphor to help simple people understand things. Its that easy. They can also claim God created the Process of Evolution. Its no Biggie.

Yeah, and intelligent, rational christians (like catholics) do just that. Of course, since we're obviously talking about creationism, I don't know why you said that.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Exerpts from Robert F. Smith's (of the ACLU) thesis titled Origins and Civil Liberties (http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v03n2p23.htm).

I agree with this guy 100%. Scientists and School Administrators that are threatened by scientific creationism (or ID) should reconsider their motives in preventing theories such as these access to the community at large.

I sense a deep insecurity and bigotry amongst the ranks of evolution science and their supporters.

EDIT: Forgot the resource link. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out, Beta.



is it true u use met and are a devil worshiper, lol.

Bump



Seriously, let's just archive this. LostCause, have you been watching this thread? I know you're christian and everything, but still.

Once again, if creationists have anything more to say let them speak. Otherwise, let's put this in the archives.

To All Christians: Please Read the Following with an Open Mind, Do not Close your eyes or ears or mind or heart to this, this is for your life, be wise.

Christianity promotes OPEN Blasphemy against the Sublime and Supreme nature of the One God. They say God came to Earth as a Man, God is in the image of Man, God had a Begotten Son who is Him, God is 3 in 1, God was a baby, God had a Mother, God died, The blood of Jesus forgives the sins of all people, etc.

Firstly, God is One, One whole, Essentially God is all there is and ever was, God is here there and everywhere within without you are dependant on it.

Secondly, God is not a man, nor is God in the image of Man, Men are not the Children of God, God does not have Children, Men are Men, they are part of God, existing within God and only By God.

Thirdly, Jesus is not a God, Jesus was in the image of a man because he was a man, I do not believe Jesus ever claimed to be God or the son of God despite what the New Testament invents about him. Jesus was a man, born as a baby, grew into age, he was a part of God as much as a tree or a grain of sand, he was no more than a human, he brought the people a message, the message was ignored as it is now.

Fourthly, Blood does not forgive sins, nor does someone ELSE dying, the Jewish tradition of Scapegoat does not apply, it was the tradition to kill a lamb or goat and forgive the sins of a village, Jesus is called the Lamb of God for this reason, to say that the death of something can forgive those who do not ask for forgiveness is a blasphemy, Jesus is not a Savior, No man can save another man, we can only save ourselves, we are our own saviors, it is up to us to communicate with the Supreme God and ask for forgiveness, there are no intermediaries, Jesus Jonas Jack and Jill can not forgive you, not by dying, not by living, not by anything, they have no power, to God is all the power.

Christians would be wise to CEASE and DESIST in the promotion of BLASPHEMY against the ONE GOD by inventing LIES about the NATURE of GOD and REALITY.

Science should have no conflict with the True God, The True God is where all things inside and out of this universe came from.

Do not be Stubborn, You are wise enough to understand that there is a God, you should be wise enough to accept the true nature of God and not to BLASPHEMY repeatedly about the SUPREME AND ULTIMATE Nature of God.

Their arguments are to make you lose God, Do not Lose God, God is not what you have been imagining or inventing in your imagination, nor is God a man or a woman or a thing created, God is infront of you at all times, open your eyes and see, you are living God, existing because of God, and it is to God you return. There is no Escape, Jesus is nothing but a man and a servant of God, one who submitted himself and accepted the Truth, he made no claims to divinity, he was not a Blasphemer, Cease and Desist.

They can break your idols, so break your idols for them, God is not an Idol, nor does God have an image, but all images are within God.

You are not the Children of God, you are the Creation of God, God in all majesty and wonder manifested you, and developed you slowly, and this earth, and evolved you, Do you not see the intricacy and beauty, will you not submit to the Reality of which you are completely dependant?

God is the originator of all things, Do not say that God did not Create some things, God manifested all things, existing and non existing, seen and unseen, known and unknown, there is NO creator but God, all men can do is manipulate what they have available, invent what is possible, the possibilities provided and manifested by God.

Drop the Blasphemous Book, the New Testament, Which Invents lie after lie about God and Jesus. You do not lose God by dropping a book full of blasphemy, Go on a journey to find the truth, or come to me and I will show you the truth, abrahimesker@hotmail.com on MSN, abrahim_esker@yahoo.com, abrahimesker on AIM.

There is one Religion and there has always been one Religion, with One God, and man repeatedly mutates it into something new, go to the root and it is one truth.

For the sake of your own being, and for your own benefit in this life and the next, cease and desist in uttering blasphemy about God with little knowledge and understanding, you are only harming yourself by promoting blasphemy, God is far beyond what many invent, but God should not be beyond understanding, God is apparent for those who choose to see, and that is a minority.

There is no Being in the Sky that is Worthy of Worship, the only worthy of Submission is the One God, Not some man in an alternate dimension but the Ultimate Reality which holds your very existance and the existance of all things with all might. All Power Belongs to God. God is not 3, God is One, Nor does God have 3 parts, If you will make divisions, then Divide God for all God's innumerable aspects, and All that is within God. God is One, Reality is One, All is One, Submit.

I am not a promoter of an Evil Word, I am not a servant of blasphemy, I wish for you to Cease and Desist in Blasphemy, if you have even a fraction of good and sense in you, you will see what I am saying as the truth. I am not Satan or the Enemy of God or Jesus. I am the enemy of Blasphemy.

Abrahim, you don't actually believe that anyone here has any respect for your rediculous rantings any more, do you? You have run your agenda into the ground.We don't need to read the same posts in every thread. No one cares any more what you have to say.

Stop the spam

Please archive this 'mam

Abrahim, I have asked you to defend these silly beliefs before but you just won't. What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you think it's profound to call reality God? Stop the rhetoric bullshit- you aren't saying anything, you're just spewing nonsense. Jesus Christ man. What's the point of calling reality 'God'? How does reality resemble the word we humans (emphasis on 'humans') use for the supreme deity of the universe?

Reality is a bunch of vibrating strings. These strings form protons, neutrons, and ever randomly moving electrons. These form atoms which form molecules which, in vast quantities, form the stars, the planets, the elements, and finally, life.

Reality is not a person, reality has no powers, no personality- it just is what it is, and that's all. Enough bullshit man.

quote:Reality is not a person, reality has no powers, no personality- it just is what it is, and that's all. Enough bullshit man.

He never said reality is a person with a personality. He said reality(I think universe would be a more acurate term)is the sum of everything together, therefore it is all powerful.

I don't agree with everything he says, a lot I think is nonsense, but talk to him on MSN, he has more interesting things to say than you give him credit for. Whether you believe it all, I don't, or not doesn't matter, it's still interesting ideas.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

Reality is not a person, reality has no powers, no personality- it just is what it is, and that's all. Enough bullshit man.

He never said reality is a person with a personality. He said reality(I think universe would be a more acurate term)is the sum of everything together, therefore it is all powerful.

I don't agree with everything he says, a lot I think is nonsense, but talk to him on MSN, he has more interesting things to say than you give him credit for. Whether you believe it all, I don't, or not doesn't matter, it's still interesting ideas.

I totally appreciate you saying that man, thank you!

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Abrahim, I have asked you to defend these silly beliefs before but you just won't. What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you think it's profound to call reality God? Stop the rhetoric bullshit- you aren't saying anything, you're just spewing nonsense. Jesus Christ man. What's the point of calling reality 'God'? How does reality resemble the word we humans (emphasis on 'humans') use for the supreme deity of the universe?

Reality is a bunch of vibrating strings. These strings form protons, neutrons, and ever randomly moving electrons. These form atoms which form molecules which, in vast quantities, form the stars, the planets, the elements, and finally, life.

Reality is not a person, reality has no powers, no personality- it just is what it is, and that's all. Enough bullshit man.

I believe Reality is what those vibrating strings exist within and by. I believe there is no God but that, chasing imaginary inventions being less relevant than my God. I believe it is relevant to understand that this is the most powerful thing in your life to which you are completely dependant. I believe that peace may come through accepting this fact, submitting to it, meditating about it, and letting it all come over you. Though to me it seems easy to understand and see, completely relevant and important, it is your choice: Open your Eyes or Close them, Open your Ears or Block them, Open your Mind or Lock it. My God is the only God, there is nothing more powerful than it, it has no partners.

You are making no sense.

Your beliefs are based on nothing. Assigning adjectives like "powerful" to something as abstract as "reality" and then say that you don't think it's a person (even though you insist on calling it God!), is not worthy of meditation and offers absolutely nothing. Your posts are a complete waste of time and border on attention whoring. This equals trolling. Stop it or people will demand your ban eventually.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

[QUOTE]I don't agree with everything he says, a lot I think is nonsense, but talk to him on MSN, he has more interesting things to say than you give him credit for.

I can enjoy talking to him on MSN even though I think the Reality Nonsense is just... nonsense. Once you get past all that, he is quite pleasant. Just don't get him thumping the Qur'an, and the more interesting characteristics of his personality will come out.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I can enjoy talking to him on MSN even though I think the Reality Nonsense is just... nonsense. Once you get past all that, he is quite pleasant. Just don't get him thumping the Qur'an, and the more interesting characteristics of his personality will come out.

And the more interesting parts of my boday, rite rite? rite? rite?!

I don't think the Reality stuff is nonsense, my intention is to make a balance, to bring the non spiritual to a kind of spirituality, to bring the looney tune religious people closer to reality, I give them a God that they can see, I take away Gods that don't exist.

I attempt to stop people from imagining false inventions of their mind, and to those sour puss athiests I try to bring them to a more meditative and spiritual understanding of everything, this way they can find peace together and within themselves.

I used to teach a mental power and religion package deal a couple years ago.

I believe Religion can be used positively with a correct and crucial understanding of its message, how all religions start with a basic understanding and essential message.

I want to use religion as a tool of motivation, I want to extend the life of those who see nothing infront of them, I want to take away other false illusions, I want to teach the masses about an essential justice, for those who disbelieve it, and a freedom to those who are restricted by illusions.

So that is what I do, my conversations and messages to atheists are different than those who already have a spiritual understand, and different than those who have a religious understanding, I want to bring them under my beautiful shining wings, to my understanding.

The Half-Naked Narcissistic Prophet Strikes Again!

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

And the more interesting parts of my boday, rite rite? rite? rite?!

I don't think the Reality stuff is nonsense, my intention is to make a balance, to bring the non spiritual to a kind of spirituality, to bring the looney tune religious people closer to reality, I give them a God that they can see, I take away Gods that don't exist.

I attempt to stop people from imagining false inventions of their mind, and to those sour puss athiests I try to bring them to a more meditative and spiritual understanding of everything, this way they can find peace together and within themselves.

I used to teach a mental power and religion package deal a couple years ago.

I believe Religion can be used positively with a correct and crucial understanding of its message, how all religions start with a basic understanding and essential message.

I want to use religion as a tool of motivation, I want to extend the life of those who see nothing infront of them, I want to take away other false illusions, I want to teach the masses about an essential justice, for those who disbelieve it, and a freedom to those who are restricted by illusions.

So that is what I do, my conversations and messages to atheists are different than those who already have a spiritual understand, and different than those who have a religious understanding, I want to bring them under my beautiful shining wings, to my understanding.

You are so inconsistant, was this just your agenda all along or are you just crazy? You used to ask extremely simple questions about religion, and all of a sudden you tell us you know it all and want to enlighten us? This can mean one of three things:

1. Your crazy

2. You knew these things all along and had an agenda

3. Your a troll

If it is number one, and you need to accept the possibility it is, you need to ask yourself why you need to try to create a religion for yourself then push it on others.

If it's number two your a deceptive asshole and shouldn't be trusted in the first place.

If it's number three, and hopefully it's this one, then fuck off.

You are also self-centered, under your beautiful shining wing? I think your making shit up to feed your ego. I doubt you have any spiritual understanding, just an understanding of what you need to tell people to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. Teach the masses? Is next concept your going to try saying is that your god? Your just making people less trusting of you and more and more annoyed with every generic repost of the same concept, and you seem to think your getting more and more enlightened and we are just being left behind. Your wrong. Get over yourself.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

You are so inconsistant

2. You knew these things all along and had an agenda

you need to ask yourself why you need to try to create a religion for yourself then push it on others.

If it's number two your a deceptive asshole and shouldn't be trusted in the first place.

You are also self-centered, under your beautiful shining wing? I think your making shit up to feed your ego. I doubt you have any spiritual understanding, just an understanding of what you need to tell people to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. Teach the masses? Is next concept your going to try saying is that your god? Your wrong. Get over yourself.

You must be allergic to feathers!

Hmm...

You are basically saying that reality is all there is, and it is everything, and should be important to us.

In other words, you are a strict materialist, but you feel the need to either disguise that by calling reality God, or you are so materialistic that you think we need to worship reality as God.

In other words, you're an atheist.

Why don't you just say that?

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Hmm...

You are basically saying that reality is all there is, and it is everything, and should be important to us.

In other words, you are a strict materialist, but you feel the need to either disguise that by calling reality God, or you are so materialistic that you think we need to worship reality as God.

In other words, you're an atheist.

Why don't you just say that?



I'm not sure how accurate it would be, but I do not believe in the God that many or most, believers and non believers, call and consider God. By Reality I don't only mean what is, but also what was, what ever will be, the subjective, the objective, everything, not only this universe, but all possibilities, realities, everything, within God, God being in the image of nothing otherwise, God being what all is within, the Ultimate Reality, Essentially One. I wrote a little story about it here http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum9/HTML/006052.html it might shine a little light on my idea and what one can do about it, also imperfectcircle explained it in a post in this forum in potentgirts topic with my name in the title!

How many posts have you made, DS, made saying that you don't have time to respond to the arguments offered you? I'd wager that the time it took you to type all of those pointless little posts taken all at once could easily have formulized any possible argument you could offer. Why can't you just admit your shortcomings? It's okay, we'll all understand. It's because you hold a position which cannot be scientifically or logically justified. In other words, you hold a position that cannot be justified.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

How many posts have you made, DS, made saying that you don't have time to respond to the arguments offered you? I'd wager that the time it took you to type all of those pointless little posts taken all at once could easily have formulized any possible argument you could offer. Why can't you just admit your shortcomings? It's okay, we'll all understand. It's because you hold a position which cannot be scientifically or logically justified. In other words, you hold a position that cannot be justified.

More importantly, what is the point of arguing a lie when she can just as easily say God created evolution and all scientific processes in the universe.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

More importantly, what is the point of arguing a lie when she can just as easily say God created evolution and all scientific processes in the universe.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Creationism does not make those claims.

She can't change her arguement without admitting she is wrong. She can't admit she is wrong because that would be unimaginable considering her life revolves around these beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

She can't change her arguement without admitting she is wrong. She can't admit she is wrong because that would be unimaginable considering her life revolves around these beliefs.

Why can't she just adapt her beliefs to the truth? She can instead of giving up God, say that God created the process of evolution...Doesn't seem like that should be too hard or a big deal.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why can't she just adapt her beliefs to the truth? She can instead of giving up God, say that God created the process of evolution...Doesn't seem like that should be too hard or a big deal.

1) Ask her those questions, not us. We don't understand how she thinks.. or doesn't think.

2) It creates a problem because when (most) Christians read that we were created in God's image they think that it must mean we have always looked the same and will always look the same.

Proof Of Intelligent Design (http://tinyurl.com/f9yz7)



Sorry guys. I couldn't help myself.

Creationist debate technique:

Say science says our religion is right.

People ask for that science.

Creationists say our religion is right.

People say wait, you didn't give evidence.

Creationists say our religion is right.

People ask for specific evidence.

Creationists don't respond and go preach "our religion is right" somewhere else.

/Debate

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Proof Of Intelligent Design (http://tinyurl.com/f9yz7)



Sorry guys. I couldn't help myself.

lmmfao.

not the best argument by design, but essentially what it all boils down to.

Lost Cause, could you at least post a reply telling us why you haven't archived it? Are you watching this thread?

So will Digital Savior ever show her face around here again?

Why doesn't anyone email lost cause?

I did a couple hours ago so we should have a response/archive soon.

My vote is for this getting archived.

Thank you all for the intellectually stimulating debate and for not giving up on this thread since I alone probibly would have let it be deleted.

Well, I just happened to open the politics forum and found another long thread by digital where she keeps up the perpetual liberal-bashing shit. If she had time to do all that reading and writing, she'd have responded to shis post. I'd say you guys won.

IMHO it's not about winning but about getting creationists to become intellectually honest enough to at least attempt to defend their position, especially if they continue to push it as the truth in courts and schools.

The reason evolution is taught in school instead of creationism is because of a few reasons.

There are fossils. You may not think they're from dinosaurs. You may say they were planted there to confuse us. Doesn't matter. There are fossils. There is something solid you can pick up and say "Hey. This is something." Whereas with creationism there's nothing like that. So, it's obviously much easier to teach a classroom full of children how we evolved from dinosaurs using fossils they can actually see instead of trying to explain to them, without any evidence and when some of them may come from Hindi families or Buddhist families that actually "God" (who you can't see, touch, or hear as far as children go) created the universe out of nothing in 7 days time, despite that there was no Sun so who knows how long a day was, and then made us out of dirt.

How do you think it would make little Hindi children feel if they went to school and their teacher told them - without evidence - that they're religion is wrong? And you may think "Sure, but they should be converted and have their souls saved." But, it's not your job to save anyones soul and it's certainly not the job of school teachers.

Bottom line? Whether or not evolution is true or creationism is true, evolution is easier to teach and right now makes more sense.

Cheers,

Lost

I posted a reminder to DS in one of the politics threads as a friendly reminder that this thread yet exists:

quote:By truckfixr:

I apologize for interrupting this thread, but I would like to remind Digital Savior that you have yet to defend the assertions you have made in the Origins and Civil Liberties thread. The thread has been kept alive for the last six weeks, waiting for the response that you promised (more than 3 weeks ago)would be made *soon*.

Please either present the evidence to support your argument, or kindly admit that your position is unsupportable and that no such evidence exists.

Once again, I apologize for the interruption of this thread.



Her response:



quote:By Digital Savior:

truckfixr, I am well aware that there is a thread I need to tend to, and I will do so when I get the inclination.

I don't need to meet your demands of fight or flight. You will wait.

I'd like to play the Angel's advocate, even if I do side with the 'devils':

Put yourself in DS's shoes. This can't really be about "winning" anymore. It's not so much that she's outnumbered, it's just a fact that her Christian ilk (on totse, anyway) do not possess either the intellect or the time it would take to assist in backing up her claims with a scientific bent. She has the burden of being an Army of One against an Army of Many in the great evolution/creationism battlefield that is this thread. And there truly is only so much time in a day to respond to multi-page questions/attacks/comments that are directed at one single person.

Even if she was the threadstarter, and brought all this on herself - one has to wonder if her intent when walking away from it was due to the fact that she enjoys observing people jonesing for her response. At least 3/4 of a whole page (if you grouped them all together) consisted of posts pointing out her absence in this thread yet her presence in others, thereby compounding the "put on the spot" pressure to respond.

Nothing she could post short of a "I suck, You win" response would satisfy anyone on here anyway. She has good sense to not care much about this thread anymore. There's a time to persevere, and there's a time to walk away. This is one of those times you just walk away.

I have to admit, I've been checking this thread religiously (no pun), awaiting the MOTHER of all refutations, vintage Digital Saviour-style. Since it's obviously not forthcoming, we've got to assume one of two things: That J.Christ has once and for all taken a backseat to Politics, or she is deliberately fucking with everyone by ignoring this thread - a kind of unspoken and mysterious "last word" jab that one resorts to when all else fails.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I'd like to play the Angel's advocate, even if I do side with the 'devils':

Put yourself in DS's shoes. This can't really be about "winning" anymore. It's not so much that she's outnumbered, it's just a fact that her Christian ilk (on totse, anyway) do not possess either the intellect or the time it would take to assist in backing up her claims with a scientific bent. She has the burden of being an Army of One against an Army of Many in the great evolution/creationism battlefield that is this thread. And there truly is only so much time in a day to respond to multi-page questions/attacks/comments that are directed at one single person.

Even if she was the threadstarter, and brought all this on herself - one has to wonder if her intent when walking away from it was due to the fact that she enjoys observing people jonesing for her response. At least 3/4 of a whole page (if you grouped them all together) consisted of posts pointing out her absence in this thread yet her presence in others, thereby compounding the "put on the spot" pressure to respond.

Nothing she could post short of a "I suck, You win" response would satisfy anyone on here anyway. She has good sense to not care much about this thread anymore. There's a time to persevere, and there's a time to walk away. This is one of those times you just walk away.

I have to admit, I've been checking this thread religiously (no pun), awaiting the MOTHER of all refutations, vintage Digital Saviour-style. Since it's obviously not forthcoming, we've got to assume one of two things: That J.Christ has once and for all taken a backseat to Politics, or she is deliberately fucking with everyone by ignoring this thread - a kind of unspoken and mysterious "last word" jab that one resorts to when all else fails.



Ok, but..

People just don't like the way she is running away from things. They have asked her to present evidence of her position and she both refuses to and refuses to admit she is wrong. It's her intellectual dishonesty that is overwhelming.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I'd like to play the Angel's advocate, even if I do side with the 'devils':

Put yourself in DS's shoes. This can't really be about "winning" anymore. It's not so much that she's outnumbered, it's just a fact that her Christian ilk (on totse, anyway) do not possess either the intellect or the time it would take to assist in backing up her claims with a scientific bent. She has the burden of being an Army of One against an Army of Many in the great evolution/creationism battlefield that is this thread. And there truly is only so much time in a day to respond to multi-page questions/attacks/comments that are directed at one single person.

Even if she was the threadstarter, and brought all this on herself - one has to wonder if her intent when walking away from it was due to the fact that she enjoys observing people jonesing for her response. At least 3/4 of a whole page (if you grouped them all together) consisted of posts pointing out her absence in this thread yet her presence in others, thereby compounding the "put on the spot" pressure to respond.

Nothing she could post short of a "I suck, You win" response would satisfy anyone on here anyway. She has good sense to not care much about this thread anymore. There's a time to persevere, and there's a time to walk away. This is one of those times you just walk away.

I have to admit, I've been checking this thread religiously (no pun), awaiting the MOTHER of all refutations, vintage Digital Saviour-style. Since it's obviously not forthcoming, we've got to assume one of two things: That J.Christ has once and for all taken a backseat to Politics, or she is deliberately fucking with everyone by ignoring this thread - a kind of unspoken and mysterious "last word" jab that one resorts to when all else fails.



Being outnumbered isn't really an issue. All that is asked of her is to respond to a select few questions. I'm sure that they seem greater in number than they actually are, as they have been repeated numerous times.

She has always in the past picked and chosen which posts she would respond to, so it shouldn't be too difficult for her to ignore the irrellevant posts that have accumulated in this thread.

I personally would be satisfied if she would present whatever evidence she claims to possess which will supposedly refute Aft3rImage's questions. She can ignore everything else in this thread.

I don't buy into the idea that she's just sitting back enjoying the notoriety. I firmly believe that she understande that she has been backed into a corner, and has no way out but to run. She hasn't the intellectual honesty to admit that she is wrong.

As was previously stated. It's not about winning. It's about being honest enough with yourself to discard incorrect ideas when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Forget discarding incorrect ideas, I would just like her and other creationists to be honest enough to attempt to defend their claims with valid evidence. It's the childish ding-dong ditch that she should be morally above. She makes a claim, asserts she is right and everyone is wrong, then runs away and refuses to deal with the thread or anything presented in it.

If she can't respond to a thread without impressing herself, she is not likely to respond. Liberal bashing in the politics forum feels better than fessing up.

I don't think anyone cares if she responds to every little post and detail.

Personally, I would be satisfied if she did just two things.

First, I'd like her to show how evolution goes against the idea of God or a creator.

Secondly, I'd like her to show scientific and mathematical evidence that supports biblical creation.

No long list of responses to cover every detail, just respond to those two things.

Would that be fair enough to everyone(especially Digital_Savior)?

The problem extends way beyond this thread, and for much more longer.

By not replying to this thread, she is essentially reserving, in her mind, the right to make the same exact ridiculous allegations in another thread without ever having to admit that they have been refuted before. Why? Because this thread didn't come to a final out come. Because we, in her mind, never manged to refute what was said because she didn't get to respond.

So she is doing exactly as she has done in other threads when faced with similar problems: She has stopped responding.

I guarantee you that if she ever manages to show her face again in any other thread dealing with the problem of creationism, she'll make the exact same allegations and never, not once, admit that they had been dealt with before. And that there is the problem. All of our complaints would be rendered meaningless and trivial if she would actually end up taking the evidence presented here into consideration when making claims. She doesn't.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-08-2006).]

Some creationists also get the idea that if they don't "see" it it doesn't exist. Or they convince themselves that they "could" reply but don't want to. Thus providing an excuse for not supporting claims or refuting rebuttals.

Hyroglyph pulled a similar thing (they appear to be a couple). He left the board/forum apparently after a conversation about Punk eek (Punctuated equilibrium). I posted information about it and evidence, he posted a strawman and a claim no evidence existed, I posted the evidence again, he still claimed it didn't exist, I posted it again, he claimed it didn't then quickly said the board wasn't a "challenge" and decided to leave instead of supporting himself.

quote:Originally posted by smallpox champion:

If she can't respond to a thread without impressing herself, she is not likely to respond. Liberal bashing in the politics forum feels better than fessing up.



This seems most likely. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt and attempt to understand where she's coming from.

Rust nailed it too, though - if she were to admit she was wrong, she'd might as well never post here again, because it would pretty much render the bulk of her Creationist argument null and void. Perhaps she is just so fond of this forum that she can't bear to discredit herself in it.

hyroglyph is her other half? Wow. You can bet on who wears the pants in that family. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I don't think anyone cares if she responds to every little post and detail.

Personally, I would be satisfied if she did just two things.

First, I'd like her to show how evolution goes against the idea of God or a creator.

Secondly, I'd like her to show scientific and mathematical evidence that supports biblical creation.

No long list of responses to cover every detail, just respond to those two things.

Would that be fair enough to everyone(especially Digital_Savior)?

You can file both those requests under: "Never Gonna Happen".

Her providing those answers would be about as likely as her becoming a Poster Girl for the left wing.

Her belief in her belief system is stronger than the facts presented right in front of her, holds more weight than reason due to it's familiarity to her, and will always be there to soften the blows of her dissenting peers in the face of debate.

She's not about to turn that loose, no matter how many people chide her about it.

If that's true, then all the more reason why we should keep exposing that intellectual dishonesty of hers.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-08-2006).]

To do anything less would be a crime. I think it's already been exposed though, even though we have yet to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Rust sure is passionate about this.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If that's true, then all the more reason why we should keep exposing that intellectual dishonesty of hers.



I support this 200%

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

Rust sure is passionate about this.

You haven't dealt with Digital_Savior like Rust and I have.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You haven't dealt with Digital_Savior like Rust and I have.

Trust me, Ive read it all. I think rust's desire to pwn digi is as strong as fuzzballs childhood dream of modding the politics forum.

The problem is this stuff works like racism. Old people who have been racist their entire life will never change. Marijuana will never be made legal because it would mean the government admitting it is wrong, which it can't do.

Thank God I'm still young. Hopefully all this crap will die out with generation X.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

The problem is this stuff works like racism. Old people who have been racist their entire life will never change. Marijuana will never be made legal because it would mean the government admitting it is wrong, which it can't do.

Thank God I'm still young. Hopefully all this crap will die out with generation X.



*X men music*

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

Trust me, Ive read it all. I think rust's desire to pwn digi is as strong as fuzzballs childhood dream of modding the politics forum.

Except Rust has fulfilled his "desire" countless times, and for poor fuzzie - it's just a pipe dream, still.

*Will continue to post as protest, keeping this thread active, until this is archived or a valid reason for it not being archived is presented*

Also if someone would like to take the liberty of summarizing the points presented against creationism so the reader doesn't have to read seven pages, that would be a good idea.

Not that I am discouraging you from posting (I like reading your stuff) - but you can relax the protest some. Lost archived this back on page 6, right after her own post.

It has been historically preserved http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Not that I am discouraging you from posting (I like reading your stuff) - but you can relax the protest some. Lost archived this back on page 6, right after her own post.

It has been historically preserved http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Thats great, and thanks.

She is having problems with her computer.

That is all.

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

She is having problems with her computer.

That is all.



Who are you referring to?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

By not replying to this thread, she is essentially reserving, in her mind, the right to make the same exact ridiculous allegations in another thread without ever having to admit that they have been refuted before.

my mom used to do that http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

You know that DS used to belong to a satanic cult? I think that a lot of her apparent behavioral and thought disorders result from some pretty traumatic childhood events (Of which I know some, but will refrain to say because I do value trust).

It occurs to me that her beliefs and lack of comprehension as to reality are understandable, when her life's events are taken into consideration. They do not validate her ways, not at all, but they do provide some insight. She will never give up her beliefs, despite any evidence presented against her. She needs her faith, without it she is nothing.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



Who are you referring to?



Digital_Savior.

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

Digital_Savior.

Yes, that's why she's been posting in the political forum all evening...

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

She is having problems with her computer.

That is all.

She has continually posted in the politics forum since she ran away from this thread. So either there is nothing wrong with her computer, or she still has access to the internet.

She simply ran away when she realized that she couldn't win.

Digital_Savior thinks you are all Kidiots and not worth replying to...something like that.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Digital_Savior thinks you are all Kidiots and not worth replying to...something like that.

Yes, rust is a kidiot... She should just admit it, she lost the argument MISERABLY. The whole kidiot thing is her being weak and not able to admit she was wrong, she's a liar to herself and to others.

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Yes, rust is a kidiot... She should just admit it, she lost the argument MISERABLY. The whole kidiot thing is her being weak and not able to admit she was wrong, she's a liar to herself and to others.

Well here is an interesting link she provided if any of you are interested in Creationist Seminar Video's which try to properly explain the Creationist point of view...

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

Why is that website mainly picking on evolution instead of backing its own theories up with claims? It's like every other creationist site out there... shit.

We know what the creationist view is, what we want is them to back up their statements with evidence (real evidence that they can defend) and to show why creationism is a valid theory.

The majority of creationism is an attempt to disprove evolution, connected with a false dichotomy that if evolution is false creationism is true.

An analogy,

Creationist: Scientists say the sky is green.

Creationist: look up, the sky obviously isn't green.

Creationist: thus it must be yellow and purple polka dot color because there is no other possible color it could be.

Bump...

*trips andBUMPs into this thread

She did this to me too. I made a thread in religion board about how I converted to Islam, I answered another member's questions and she went on to the attack. "How do you know Muhammad didn't beat his wives?" and all this other bullshit. Zay answered her, but she wanted it from me. So I did, and she never came back. She still thinks Islam is all about terror and stuff. rlpinca did the same thing. He made bullshit accustaions, I refute them and he vanishes, and continues to hate Islam.

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

She did this to me too. I made a thread in religion board about how I converted to Islam, I answered another member's questions and she went on to the attack. "How do you know Muhammad didn't beat his wives?" and all this other bullshit. Zay answered her, but she wanted it from me. So I did, and she never came back. She still thinks Islam is all about terror and stuff. rlpinca did the same thing. He made bullshit accustaions, I refute them and he vanishes, and continues to hate Islam.

For those who close their eyes ears and heart, so too will they perish in their rage!

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

She did this to me too. I made a thread in religion board about how I converted to Islam, I answered another member's questions and she went on to the attack. "How do you know Muhammad didn't beat his wives?" and all this other bullshit. Zay answered her, but she wanted it from me. So I did, and she never came back. She still thinks Islam is all about terror and stuff. rlpinca did the same thing. He made bullshit accustaions, I refute them and he vanishes, and continues to hate Islam.

She has some serious mental issues and she needs to be right to feel good about herself. Just ignore her, her claims hold no water anyway.

Nostalgic Bump

double bump sunday

[This message has been edited by Atomical (edited 07-16-2006).]

It is good that this thread will never die.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

It is good that this thread will never die.

I laughed because that comment is good since your username is Zombie. But I didn't actually laugh out loud.

kill -9 that motha

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I'd like to play the Angel's advocate, even if I do side with the 'devils':

Put yourself in DS's shoes. This can't really be about "winning" anymore. It's not so much that she's outnumbered, it's just a fact that her Christian ilk (on totse, anyway) do not possess either the intellect or the time it would take to assist in backing up her claims with a scientific bent. She has the burden of being an Army of One against an Army of Many in the great evolution/creationism battlefield that is this thread. And there truly is only so much time in a day to respond to multi-page questions/attacks/comments that are directed at one single person.

I appreciate that you can comprehend the monumental task that lies before me, but honestly I was an army of one on this forum long before this thread, and most of it's contributors, ever existed.

It is not that it is too difficult, it is that it will require complete dedication on my part. I would like to do it when I can embrace that dedication without some form of resistance. Meaning, I must find the passion to maintain the bitter battle that will surely ensue.

quote:Even if she was the threadstarter, and brought all this on herself - one has to wonder if her intent when walking away from it was due to the fact that she enjoys observing people jonesing for her response. At least 3/4 of a whole page (if you grouped them all together) consisted of posts pointing out her absence in this thread yet her presence in others, thereby compounding the "put on the spot" pressure to respond.

I guess it would make you all feel better to think that I think of myself so highly, but that is simply not the case.

I haven't been to this forum since the last time I posted, and honestly...the volume of posts analyzing me has made me sick to my stomach. It's truly pathetic.

quote:Nothing she could post short of a "I suck, You win" response would satisfy anyone on here anyway. She has good sense to not care much about this thread anymore. There's a time to persevere, and there's a time to walk away. This is one of those times you just walk away.

I care, doll. You are correct that no matter what answers I give, no one will accept them. That is the dichotomy here, which has prevented me from finding that dedication I was talking about. Thinking about what it will actually accomplish makes me sad, but perhaps that's the wrong way to approach it.

I have never walked away from anything in my life, let alone a web forum debate.

quote:I have to admit, I've been checking this thread religiously (no pun), awaiting the MOTHER of all refutations, vintage Digital Saviour-style.

Are you admitting I have refuted things here ? That's new.

quote:Since it's obviously not forthcoming, we've got to assume one of two things: That J.Christ has once and for all taken a backseat to Politics, or she is deliberately fucking with everyone by ignoring this thread - a kind of unspoken and mysterious "last word" jab that one resorts to when all else fails.

I will admit that Politics has me captivated right now...before Politics, I posted SOLELY in here, because I was captivated by it. I have a difficult time giving my attention to more than one forum at a time - I will admit.

It is crunch time, though. You all have waited long enough. I will ignore Politics for now, and finish what I started here.

I would like to ask for patience, though, because I am going to go back several pages and pick up where I left off. I am not going to answer every post, either. I will be focusing on truckfxr, Rust, Beta69, and anyone else that actually understands the topic. I cannot possibly answer everyone...it would never end.

As I answer each post, I will move on to the next. I won't be defending each post in succession (i.e. If I respond to a point truckfxr made, I won't defend it against his refutation until I have answered all the posts before it).

Basically, this is going to be a massive effort, and if I am to get to all of the points presented, I can't argue for several pages on one single point.

I'd also like to keep this ad hom free. I will commit myself to that, and I hope everyone else can do the same.

Let it begin.

Don't forget my few posts.

I eagerly(I can't emphasize this enough) anticipate your replies.

I can't WAIT to see the unbiased scientific sources you use.

It'll be interesting to say the least.

it's already over. you will just rehash old shit that has already been refuted.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I can't WAIT to see the unbiased scientific sources you use.

I can't wait to see if she uses unbiased scientific sources. I've heard, I imagine, every creationist argument imaginable, so I really can't wait to see what she has to say.

I would love to participate in this thread but I am unsure of the syntax of it all.

Are we to show evidence of evolution and and digital savor comments on it?

Or does digital savor present evidence for discussions and we comment on it?

both?

Is there any order of things to discuss before new things can be discussed, and does the discussion have much to do with the original post or just on proving creationism/evolution.



[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 07-17-2006).]

Since I will rely heavily upon the Institute for Creation Research to explain Intelligent Design (scientific creation, not religious creation), I felt it necessary to provide their mission statement and clarification of what it is they REALLY do, as opposed to what you all THINK they do (along with their motives).

quote:Educational Philosophy

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. Source (http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_philosophy/)

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has a unique statement of faith for its faculty and students, incorporating most of the basic Christian doctrines in a creationist framework, organized in terms of two parallel sets of tenets, related to God's created world and God's inspired Word, respectively. Reproduced below are the ICR Educational Philosophy and its Tenets of Scientific Creationism and Biblical Creationism.

The programs and curricula of the Graduate School, as well as the activities of other ICR divisions, while similar in factual content to those of other graduate colleges, are distinctive in one major respect. The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

This perspective differs from the evolutionary humanistic philosophy which has dominated most educational institutions for the past century, providing the most satisfying and meaningful structure of a consistently creationist and Biblical framework, and placing the real facts of science and history in the best context for effective future research and application.

More explicitly, the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism as formulated below. A clear distinction is drawn between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism but it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the Bible. ICR maintains that scientific creationism should be taught along with the scientific aspects of evolutionism in tax-supported institutions, and that both scientific and Biblical creationism should be taught in Christian schools.

Tenets of Scientific Creationism

<LI> The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

<LI> The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

<LI> Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variation) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

<LI> The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

<LI> The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.

<LI> Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates but, since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.

<LI> The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.

<LI> Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.

<LI> Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.

Tenets of Biblical Creationism

<LI> The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.

<LI> The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

<LI> All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

<LI> The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education) but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.

<LI> The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

<LI> The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ we're indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation.

<LI> The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator, on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and eternal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

In addition to a firm commitment to creationism and to full Biblical inerrancy and authority, the ICR Graduate School is committed to traditional education and to high standards of academic excellence. Each student's graduate program will consist predominantly of classroom lecture courses, with interaction between instructors and students, plus a research investigation and M.S. thesis. ICR's highly qualified and experienced faculty is in itself assurance of a rigorous and creative educational experience for its graduates, equipping them both for productive careers in their chosen fields and for making a significant contribution to the ongoing worldwide revival of theistic creationism. Source (http://tinyurl.com/z5uyf)

quote:Creation Scientists

1. Why must ICR and other creationist organizations continually appeal to authority by using these types of lists to support their case?

This list and others like it are primarily in response to false claims and appeals to authority by evolutionists. Below are some of these false claims.

“professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it” — S.J. Gould

“A few so called “creation scientists” are much touted as possessing PhDs, but it does not do to look too carefully where they got their PhDs from nor the subjects they got them in. They are, I think, never in relevant subjects.” — Richard Dawkins

“The Institute for Creation Research ... staffed by self-proclaimed 'professors' which lack any discernable credentials in the field within which they pontificate.” — The Skeptic Tank

“no real scientist believes in creation” — Anonymous

“all or most creation scientists have bogus degrees” — Anonymous

“no intelligent person believes in creation” — Anonymous

2. Your lists are extemely small in the grand scheme of things. Is that it?

No, this is a small sampling of real scientists from around the world who believe in a literal creation. Nobody has ever taken a comprehensive survey of the world's universities, research organizations, etc. to find out who is an evolutionist or creationist. Whether evolutionist or creationist, most scientists do not get involved in the creation versus evolution controversy. Also, many creationists keep their beliefs secret depending on the situation for fear of discrimination, etc.

3. Why do you list so many scientists who are in fields not related to biological evolution?

The creation versus evolution controversy is not just about biological evolution. It also includes Chemistry, Physics, Geology, real History, Anthropology, Archaeology, Paleontology, Paleoclimatology, Astronomy, Geophysics, etc. It involves many different areas like design, alleged vestigial organs, age of the earth, origin of life, Noah's flood, and much more.

4. Isn't "Creation Scientist" an oxymoron?

No. This simply means a scientist who believes in creation. These partial lists give irrefutable evidence that these two words can go together.

5. If these people are real scientists and really do or did work for these big universities and companies, why do they deny that biological evolution happens or call it just a theory when all it means is cumulitive change over time?

We see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today

Generally, they are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor, primates and humans sharing a common ancestor, etc. Some have termed this "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, and "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction.

Variations of bacteria, viruses, birds, moths, dogs, etc., which falls within limited expression of existing traits, are also a part of the creation model and thus are not a problem for creation scientists. They observe and study these things like any other scientist.

See lists of Scientists here. (http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/) Don't forget to click the links leading to the Scientists in Biological Sciences.

quote:The immediate goal of the ICR Graduate School is to foster research and provide graduate-level training in those fields of natural science that are particularly relevant to the study of origins. The long-range goal is to prepare talented graduates in science and education for future Christian leadership.

quote:The ICR Graduate School was approved by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education. This approval was granted on the recommendation of an Evaluation Committee from the Office of Private Post-secondary Education (OPPE), and became effective July 1, 1981. Approval was renewed on various occasions since then and was extended to 1992 by the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. In 1995 the Council confirmed that ICR/GS met the terms of California Education Code 94303(B)(2) for exemption from state approval. This exemption was retroactive back to 1992 and extended to the end of calendar year 1996. Since that time, a new education law was enacted in 1997. The exemption continues under the new organization, Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education under the Department of Consumer Affairs through 2007. Source (http://www.icr.edu/accreditation.html)

Creation Scientists (believers and teachers of Intelligent Design} should not have to set aside their personal faith in God in order to be recognized as true scientists.

Science (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science) is defined by Dictionary.com as:

1A. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

1B. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

1C. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study

3. An activity that appears to require study and method.

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Merriam-Webster defines Science (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Science)as:

1. the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2A. a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study &lt;the science of theology&gt; 2B. something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge &lt;have it down to a science&gt;

3A. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

3B. such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

4. a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws &lt;cooking is both a science and an art&gt;

I define science here because there are many of you that have argued that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, simply because it presupposes the cause of our existence, as opposed to Evolution, which doesn't. Not only is that a blatant falsification of the facts (the majority of evolutionary scientists presuppose there is NO creator), but is not a supportable claim when using the actual definition of science.

As you can see from the definitions above, the studies that Creation Scientists conduct are scientific, by definition. As such, to argue against it is to entertain the notion that Intelligent Design IS science, and not pseudoscience. Just because you disagree with the tenets of Intelligent Design does not rape it of it's scientific merit.

If ICR lacked the scientific merit required in order to be recognized as an accredited college by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education, they wouldn't have been granted approval.

Should you still believe that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, it is nothing short of an act of futility to argue against it using what YOU consider to be "real" science. It is logically fallacious to do so, because you admit that Intelligent Design is a "real" science, simply by arguing against it with what you consider to be "real science". If it is a pseudoscience, it cannot ever be refuted by "real" science, on logical grounds. In other words, I cannot prove the sky is blue by making Earl Grey tea.

If you cannot agree that Intelligent Design IS a true scientific theory, built on empirical data and evidence, then you should not participate in this debate.

Well I have a gut feeling this will almost immediately turn into an evolutionary debate. That's annoying because even if the creationists could completely defeat evolution (which they can't), they still wouldn't have proved their theory.



This is direct and blatant plagiarism so I claim no credit for this list.

This is a repost of what I feel is a good list of reasons creationism can't be true which have nothing to do with evolution, posted by After Image.

quote:Originally Posted by After Image:

"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is clearly asking for mathematics behind creationism, proof of how creationion and intervention is possible using physics and mathematics to support your claim.

How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model, could occur.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is asking for an explanation of how light can travel more light years than it's speed in a vacume allows it to if the creationism idea of the age of the universe is correct

Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has to do with why if the universe was created in it's present state 6000 years ago, how could it be changing so much that it would be logical to think it has been changing forever.

Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has only to do with scientific integrity. For example why would nasa, and the majority of scientists all over the world have using scientific techniques determined the relative age of the universe that is commonly agreed upon, yet the only people who don't agree and "theologist scientists" who found what they call science based on thier own belief system.

Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

Here I am specifically asking for a mathematic equation behind any creationist claims you make

Thank you."

In addition, I will be using the website Answers In Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org). To avoid long, drawn out, irrelevant arguments about the validity of THEIR claims, I am going to post all that you need to know about them. I would like this debate to be restricted to the science of Intelligent Design, which will include some elements of theology. If you expect anything else, you are not expecting an honest debate, and seek to engage in an act of futility.

AiG is honest about it's motives, and does not try to make the claim that they aren't trying to prove the Bible inerrant, and God the creator of the universe. While they admit this openly, the way they go about proving it using science is legitimate. If you do not feel it is, please do not debate points I use from their research.

quote:Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible — the “history book of the universe” — provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Q&A (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp) page—for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’s geology (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp), anthropology (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp), and cosmogony (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp).

quote:MISSION

<LI> We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.

<LI> We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.

<LI> We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the Gospel, individually and collectively. Source (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/mission.asp)

quote:<LI> The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

<LI> The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

<LI> Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

<LI> The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

<LI> The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

<LI> The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.

<LI> The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious,’ is rejected.

<LI> No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Source (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

One other major source for my information will be CreationistWiki (http://tinyurl.com/r5zd6). I suggest you start reading it now, as it will be impossible for you to catch up once we get started with the debate.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Yes, a lawyer defending creationism as a science when he has no clue about science. In fact, what creationism does is playing the lawyer in science. Fabricating, twisting, lying. Nothing new here that's worth more than a eye-rolling smiley.

How did you come to the conclusion that he has no clue about science ? Are you of the belief that one must have a degree in a certain field to be considered qualified to argue about it ?

If so, where's your degree ?

Please illustrate how Intelligent Design scientists have lied, twisted, and fabricated evidence to support their theory. Simply claiming that they have proves nothing.

from icr (http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/)

quote:ARGUMENTS FOR A RECENT CREATION

A much more fruitful argument is the one for a young creation. The universe is usually assumed to be between ten and twenty Gyr old, with the solar system and the earth having formed about 4.6 Gyr ago. Of course this is based on evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions. Our model places an age of only a few thousand years for the earth and everything else in the universe. Thus a very clear distinction between the creation and evolution models exists. There have been several arguments put forth for the young age of the earth, such as the mineral content of the ocean [36] and the helium content of the atmosphere [54]. Several arguments for recent cosmic creation have been given [44], [46], [47]. We will discuss five arguments for the solar system and three for the universe.

A Young Solar System: Comets

The existence of comets has been used as an argument for a young solar system for a long time [47]. Comets have been known since ancient times. Bright ones are rare, occurring every decade or two. Comets appear without warning, erratically move across the sky, and then just as mysteriously disappear. The seemingly unpredictable nature of comets stems from their orbits being very different from the orbits of planets. One difference is that while planetary orbits are nearly circular, comet orbits are very elliptical. This means that the comets usually travel at great distances from the sun, but once each orbit they come very close to the sun, often closer than any of the planets. The orbits of the planets are nearly in the same plane, but comets can have any inclination to that plane, with some of them orbiting nearly perpendicular to the plane.

For about 40 years the model of a comet has been Whipple's dirty iceberg theory, and much evidence has been amassed in its support. It states that a comet consists of a nucleus only a few kilometers across made of various ices and dust. At great distances from the sun, where comets spend most of the time, the ices remain frozen. However as a comet is near closest approach to the sun, the intense radiation from the sun evaporates the ices to produce a tenuous cloud of gas around the nucleus called the coma. Solar wind and radiation sweep gas molecules and dust particles outward to produce the tail. During the spring of 1996 we were treated to Comet Hyakutake, followed by Comet Hale-Bopp in the spring of 1997.

Each close passage to the sun results in a large amount of material being removed from the nucleus. Obviously, given the small size of the nucleus, a comet cannot survive many trips around the sun. Comets of short orbital period that have been observed during many orbits have become noticeably fainter as a result of material loss. It has been estimated that a bright comet could not remain bright for more than 100 passes near the sun. With a period of about 10,000 years and being so bright, Comet Hyakutake could not have been orbiting the sun in its current orbit for very long, certainly not 4.6 Gyr, the supposed age of the solar system.

If comets date from the beginning of the solar system, and they can only survive 100 trips around the sun, what is the maximum age of the solar system? If comets travel too far from the sun, they will be lost to other stars. Let us assume that a comet nucleus can travel 1/3 the distance to the nearest star and still remain part of the solar system (the maximum distance is probably less than that). Kepler?s third law shows that the maximum orbital period would be about 10 million years. One hundred trips would give an age of one Gyr. This is a maximum age: the actual would be less. This would result in no bright comets - we do see bright comets, so they could not be that old. Therefore we can conclude that the existence of comets gives us an age of the solar system far less than 4.6 Gyr.

This has long been recognized as a problem for the long age of the solar system, so in 1950 the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort suggested an explanation. He proposed that 4.6 Gyr ago during the origin of the solar system, comet nuclei either formed at great distances from the sun or formed in the inner solar system and were ejected to the outer regions. At these great distances from the sun the low temperature would allow the ices to remain frozen indefinitely. Occasional gravitational perturbations of other stars or molecular clouds would from time to time cause comet nuclei to change orbit so that they come toward the inner solar system once each orbit. As comets die they would be replaced by new incoming nuclei so that a steady state is achieved.

This Oort comet cloud is assumed to exist, even though there is absolutely no evidence for it. Of particular interest is the quote of Sagan and Druyan [42]:

"Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence."

About the time the Oort cloud was suggested, Kuiper proposed a belt of comet nuclei just beyond the planetary region as the source of short period comets. For a long time the Kuiper belt was largely ignored, because it was thought that the Oort cloud could explain the existence of both long and short period comets. Since 1980 simulation studies have shown that the Oort cloud is incapable of producing short period comets in the number observed [20], [21], so the Kuiper belt has been invoked to explain comets of shorter orbital periods. In the view of some people today the Kuiper belt is considered to be an inner portion of the Oort cloud. In recent years a few studies have searched for Kuiper belt objects, with some apparent success. One search claimed to have found about two dozen "candidate" members of the Kuiper belt. The word "candidate" is used because none of the objects photographed can be clearly identified as a Kuiper belt object. Furthermore, a follow up search failed to reproduce the earlier result. The Oort cloud is something that has been devised to salvage the great age of the solar system, but perhaps the existence of comets is telling us that the solar system is young.

Slusher [47] and others, based upon studies done about a decade earlier, discussed this argument for a recent creation. A more recent article that includes original quantitative modeling is the one by Stillman [51]. Since Slusher?s work, the Oort cloud hypothesis has been refined, and the Kuiper belt hypothesis has been developed as well. Ejection from the solar system is now recognized as an important loss mechanism for comets, perhaps exceeding evaporation in the case of short period comets. With these recent developments, this whole issue from a creationist perspective has been in need of revision, which Faulkner [22] has done. His conclusion is that this is still a valid argument for a recent creation of the solar system, but that any discussion should include Oort cloud and Kuiper belt.

Lunar Dust

Back in the 1960's estimates of the depth of the dust on the moon were made. This was important information to know during the Apollo program, because if there were a thick layer, the lunar landers could have sunk and disappeared. The dust on the moon results from meteors falling onto the surface. Each meteor strike, no matter how small, knocks some debris from surface rocks, and this gradually accumulates along with the incoming material. If we can measure the rate at which meteors are falling today, then we can estimate how much should accumulate over 4.6 Gyr. Actually, this would be an upper estimate since the meteor flux would have been greater in the past. Measurements of the meteor flux made nearly 40 years ago indicated that the lunar dust should be many meters thick. The actual depth is only a few centimeters, consistent with a recent creation but not an old one.

This remained a mystery until new meteor flux measurements in the early 1970's were far lower, consistent with the measured depth of lunar dust and an old age. Creationists apparently were ignorant of these newer measurements that were consistent with an ancient moon, and were rightly criticized [52, pp. 143-145], [53, pp. 67-82] for this lapse. Snelling and Rush [49] have reevaluated this issue, and they recommended against using this argument for recent creation.

Many creationists have abandoned this argument, but some continue to use it. It seems that there are some questions about the more recent meteor flux measurements, especially when one considers that the earlier measurements that were supposedly too high have never been explained. About the time that the paper by Snelling and Rush appeared, a new, more direct, and higher measurement of meteoroid influx was published [34]. This has been one factor in the rejection of some creationists to the warning by Snelling and Rush against this argument. The newer measurements should not be taken as the final word in this matter, and future measurements should be carefully monitored. Furthermore, laboratory measurements show that the bulk of lunar dust is made of lunar material rather than meteoritic material (the ratio could be as much as 67:1 [12, pp. 213-215]). If that is the case, then the depth of lunar dust would be more consistent with a young moon rather than a 4.6 billion year old moon.

Planetary Magnetic Fields

Many of the planets possess magnetic fields, and it is generally believed that a current in a metallic core of the planets causes these fields. In the case of the earth the current is in the iron and nickel core, while the Jovian planets have currents in a metallic hydrogen core or mantle. As with any current that is not externally sustained, these currents should eventually reduce and then vanish due to friction. Historic measurements of the earth's magnetic field show that it is decreasing. Thomas Barnes has shown that at the current rate of decay the earth's magnetic field would have been implausibly large much more than 10,000 years ago. Magnetic field reversals have been invoked to explain how the field can be decreasing today and yet be very old. There is some fossil evidence of reversals, but the CPT model predicts rapid reversals at the time of the flood, but with generally decreasing amplitude. What is left unexplained by gradual reversals over millions or billions of years is how the field is regenerated once it ceases to exist. It is assumed that some dynamo mechanism regenerates the current and hence the field, but the mechanism has not been identified. In all fairness it should be pointed out that the sun's magnetic field reverses approximately every 11 years.

Prior to the Voyager measurements of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune Humphreys [28] used a recent creation model to correctly predict the strength of those fields. This is some of the more original research done by a creationist, and is an excellent counter example to critics who complain that the creation model offers no predictions.

Interplanetary Dust

There is much microscopic dust orbiting in the plane of the solar system. Presumably this material results from the break up of comets and asteroid collisions. The problem is that solar radiation removes this material, smaller particles being ejected from the solar system and larger ones spiraling into the sun. Creationists have argued that the cleansing rate exceeds the dust production rate [47]. That is, if the solar system is 4.6 Gyr old, then there is far too much interplanetary dust currently present. An obvious solution could be that the solar system is quite young. Evolutionists [52, p. 145], who argue that interplanetary dust is in a steady state balanced between the creation and destruction rates, have criticized this argument. This subject needs a new analysis from a creation standpoint paying particular attention to the rate at which new dust is introduced.

Tidal Evolution of the Earth-Moon System

Due to tidal interaction between the earth and moon, the moon should slowly spiral outward from the earth, while the earth?s rotation slows. The rate of lunar recession has been measured by reflecting laser beams off of mirrors left on the moon?s surface during the Apollo program and timing the transit times. The current rate is about 4 cm/year, which if extrapolated into the past, would place the moon at about half its current distance 4.6 Gyr ago. This distance would not have been a problem, but such a gross extrapolation into the past is not warranted. It is generally understood that the rate of lunar recession goes as the inverse sixth power of the moon?s distance [26], and so the rate should have been greater in the distant past. DeYoung [17] has produced a plot of this functional dependence to show that for the past 1 Gyr the lunar distance has been a nearly linear function of time. At about 1 Gyr ago the slope dramatically changes, so that the moon would have been in contact with the earth less than 1.5 Gyr ago.

It is not only creationists who have drawn attention to this problem. The title of one article by a non-creationist scientist [33] asked the question, "Where Was the Moon Eons Ago?" One problem is that when the moon would have been in close proximity of the earth there would have been immense ocean tides that should have left clear records in the fossil record that are not seen. Another problem is that tidal evolution places an upper limit on the age of the earth-moon system that is scarcely 1/3 that of the usually assumed 4.6 Gyr age. It should be emphasized that this is not a clear indication that the earth and moon are only a few thousand years old, but that in a very young solar system tidal evolution is not a problem.

Evolutionists have countered that due to changes in the earth?s surface due to plate tectonics, the distribution of ocean floor and continental shelves has varied with time. Much of the tidal braking that causes lunar recession occurs in relatively shallow water near coastlines, so it is conceivable that the rate of lunar recession has an additional time dependence [52, pp. 146-148]. This explanation requires that we live in a time of unusually large lunar recession rate. However, several studies of varve and fossil coral growth have suggested that the current rate of tidal evolution has been nearly constant for several hundred Myr. These studies have generally been dismissed, but a recent new study of varves spanning the past 900 Myr [48] present strong evidence that the average rate of lunar recession over that interval closely matches the current rate. Note that this agrees with DeYoung?s contention, that the 1/r6 produces a nearly constant rate for the past 900 Myr. One could argue that the unusually high rate has coincidentally prevailed for nearly 1 Gyr, but with the shuffling of plates that should have occurred in that time, this seems extremely unlikely.

It must be noted that recent creationists reject the age and perhaps the interpretation of the varves in this recent study, but evolutionists are generally not in a position to do so. The topic of lunar recession has not been fully explored by creationists. A full discussion that goes beyond the relatively simple ones thus far is badly needed.

Lunar Ghost Craters

A final argument for the youth of the solar system that we will discuss is evidence that apparently has not been published in creation literature as of yet. The term "ghost crater" is perhaps an obscure one, and is not often heard in the post-Apollo era. Alter [5] defined a ghost as "the bare hint which remains of a lunar feature that has been practically destroyed by some later action." Alter also discussed a number of photographs that included ghost craters.

The moon has two types of terrain: the maria and the highlands. The maria are the relatively smooth, darker regions easily visible to the naked eye. On the other hand the highlands are lighter in color, much more heavily cratered, and as the name implies, are generally at higher elevations. The color difference is due to a difference in composition: the highlands are primarily composed of granite, a lighter colored, less dense rock, while the maria are made of basalt, a darker, more dense material. The density differences accounts for the different elevations between the two lunar terrains, but the difference in cratering is a matter of conjecture.

The moon is assumed to have formed 4.6 Gyr ago with the rest of the solar system. The leftover material at first was large in number and caused a huge amount of impacts on the formed bodies of the solar system. With time the amount of potential impacting bodies would have decreased exponentially, and this would have caused the formation rate of new craters to decrease as well. Under this scenario the highlands reveal a nearly primordial surface, while the maria have a more recent surface. Probably volcanic eruptions overflowed the maria, erasing most of the craters already there and preparing a smooth surface to record any impacts since the time of the overflow.

Why did the lava overflow only occur where the maria are today? A clue is provided by the roughly circular shape of the maria, which suggests that they were the sites of the largest impacts. Here is the history of the moon as generally believed [56]. The moon formed 4.5 - 4.6 Gyr ago. Many impacts followed, but decreased exponentially with time. The outside cooled and hardened first, while the interior slowly cooled. Sometime around 3.5 to 4.2 Gyr ago several final large impacts occurred, forming very large craters called "impact basins." The impacts facilitated the overflow of lava, either by providing the heat from conversion of kinetic energy to melt material or by providing deep fractures to allow molten material from the interior to reach the surface. Either way one would expect the overflow to rapidly follow the excavation of the impact basins. One would not expect that it would have taken many millions of years for the second event to follow the first.

However, it is generally thought that as much as a half Gyr elapsed between these two events [56]. The reason is the existence of many ghost craters, craters that are faintly visible due to volcanic overflow after they formed. Note that impact basin formation should have obliterated any craters that previously existed on the site, so that there can be no craters visible today that predate that event. But to be a ghost crater the crater must predate the volcanic overflow. The amount of ghost craters on the moon indicates that the amount of cratering between the two events (the formation of the impact basins and the subsequent volcanic overflow) must have been substantial. With a long time frame (4.6 Gyr) and the presumed cratering rate over time, one is forced to hypothesize a long period of time between the two events.

Above it was argued that it is more reasonable to conclude that the two events must have occurred in rapid succession. If that is the case, what else must follow? The amount of ghost craters and the brief period of time in which they could have formed forces the adoption of a past cratering rate several orders of magnitude larger than usually thought. At the same time the relative lack of fresh craters on the maria suggest that there was a much steeper decline in the cratering rate than is usually thought. Both of these concepts are unacceptable to uniformitarianism, but fit very nicely with a model of recent creation and catastrophism.

The Age of the Universe: The Break Up of Galaxy Clusters

Let us now turn our attention to the age of the universe. A galaxy is a vast collection of billions of stars orbiting about a common center of mass. Galaxies are usually found in clusters, collections of tens to thousands of galaxies. Several decades ago Fritz Zwicky noticed that the members of clusters of galaxies were traveling too fast to be gravitationally bound to one another. The result is that the cluster should evaporate over a time scale of about 1Gyr, far shorter than the 10 to 20 Gyr year age of the universe. Thus the existence of clusters of galaxies suggest that they must have been created more recently than generally thought [46]. As with some of the other arguments of recent creation presented, this one does not directly produce an age of a few thousand years. Instead it indicates an upper limit for the age that may be better reconciled with a recent creation rather than an old one.

The answer that evolutionists have devised is that the clusters are held together by the gravitational force of unseen, or dark, matter. Calculations reveal that the amount of matter required to do this is many times the mass of the visible matter. In many estimates only about 10% if the total matter of the universe is visible. If the apparent break up of galaxy clusters were the only reason for hypothesized dark matter, then one could easily doubt its existence. Binney and Tremaine devote an entire chapter of their book [10, pp. 589-641] to the discussion of dark matter. They give several lines of evidence for dark matter that are independent of galaxy cluster dynamics. These include the motions of stars in the solar neighborhood, the motions of galactic Population II tracers, and mass-to-light ratios of the central regions of elliptical galaxies. Perhaps the best probes of dark matter are rotation curves of spiral galaxies. According to Binney and Tremaine [10, p. 599], nearly all of more than 70 spiral galaxies for which there are suitable rotation curves strongly indicate large amounts of dark matter. Rotation curves of galaxies suggest that dark matter may really exist, but the identity of the dark matter remains a mystery, despite many attempts to identify it. Only time will tell if this is a good argument for a recent creation. Given this additional data, it is doubtful that the alleged break up of galaxy clusters is a good argument for recent creation. Unfortunately, when discussing this topic, many creationists fail to mention that there is other evidence for missing mass, or even acknowledge that missing mass is a proposed explanation for the observed velocities.

Spiral Structure of Galaxies

Another possible clue to a recent origin of the universe is the existence of spiral galaxies. Spiral galaxies are called such because of the very beautiful spiral or pinwheel shape that they have. The inner portions of the galaxy should orbit more quickly than the outer portions, and so any patterns such as this should be smeared out in just a few revolutions. This smearing should require no more than 2 Gyr, much less time than the supposed 10-15 Gyr that the galaxies have existed. For a discussion of this from a recent creation perspective, see [46].

This was recognized as a problem for many years, but most thought that the problem was solved by "spiral density wave" (SDW) theory suggested more than 30 years ago. Briefly stated, this theory suggests that the spiral arms of a galaxy are a density enhancements, or shock waves, that continually move around in a galaxy's gravitational field. This shock wave would form the dense clouds and bright stars that we see in spiral arms. Humphreys [31] says that SDW theory requires that a number of parameters be fine tuned to make the theory work. If this is true, then the SDW is not such a straightforward answer to the problem of spiral structure in old galaxies as is usually thought. This entire subject is in serious need of a creationist reevaluation. Creationists are urged to discuss the possibility of SDW when using this problem as an indicator for recent creation.

The Lack of Superdeca Remnants

A final young universe indicator that we will discuss is the age of superdeca remnants (SNR). Superdecae are large explosions that destroy massive stars and can rival an entire galaxy in brightness for a short time. In a given galaxy three or four superdecae are believed to occur each century, a number confirmed from the many superdecae that are observed in other galaxies each year. While a superdeca is only visible for a few months, the SNR consisting of expanding gas should be observable for millions of years. Our location in the galaxy does not permit us to observe most superdecae in the visible part of the spectrum (in the 400 years since the invention of the telescope a superdeca in our galaxy has not been observed), but many SNR's are detectable in our galaxy with radio telescopes. In fact, observations in the radio portion of the spectrum are the most common means in which SNR?s are studied.

The visibility of a SNR is a function of distance, size and expansion rate, and the age can be inferred from the observations. As a SNR ages, it becomes more extended and rarefied so that eventually it is no longer observable. Surveys of all of the observed SNR's in our galaxy reveal many young ones, generally thousands of years old. In fact, only a few older than a few thousand years are observed at all. Theoretical considerations show that many older SNR?s should be observable, but observations seem to show that most of them are missing. This appears to be a very powerful argument for a recent creation, and has been discussed by Davies [14].



truly compelling, but i refer you to page three:

quote:Not everything can be researched (research takes funding and effort!). The first filter is the process by which scientists decide what to investigate. Ideas that conflict with well established beliefs are likely to be ignored. Thus most scientists pay little attention to the claims of creationists, UFO believers, and proponents of "miracle cures", since these conflict with the well-established knowledge that has made it through all stages of the filtering process. Occasionally, this means some ideas are ignored that may eventually turn out to actually make it through the "knowledge filter". For example, at first, Einstein’s theory of relativity seemed not worthy of investigation because it obviously conflicted with the beliefs about physics at the time. But a number of experiments, carried out by people who had no interest in Einstein’s new theory, began to show that there were problems with the accepted physics of Newton. Only then did people start to take Einstein’s new theory seriously. So new ideas that conflict with accepted beliefs CAN sometimes be taken seriously, when there is a need to look for solutions to problems that the accepted theory can’t explain."



i just don't think there is enough evidence to switch to creationism.

certain creationist themes can be scientifically investigated, but i really don't think they can be taken seriously since they don't form a coherent theory.

A couple quick errors:

quote:I define science here because there are many of you that have argued that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, simply because it presupposes the cause of our existence, as opposed to Evolution, which doesn't. Not only is that a blatant falsification of the facts (the majority of evolutionary scientists presuppose there is NO creator), but is not a supportable claim when using the actual definition of science.

No, most see ID as a pseudoscience because it proposes an unsupported, untestable and unfalsifiable answer in its theory using unsupported assumptions as evidence.

The majority of scientists do not presuppose "there is no creator" as part of their theories, many freely admit a creator is possible and that it's their personal belief a creator doesn't exist.

quote:If ICR lacked the scientific merit required in order to be recognized as an accredited college by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education, they wouldn't have been granted approval.

Appeal to authority. Just because they can pass a government test doesn't mean the theory of creationism or ID is valid science.

quote:Should you still believe that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, it is nothing short of an act of futility to argue against it using what YOU consider to be "real" science. It is logically fallacious to do so, because you admit that Intelligent Design is a "real" science, simply by arguing against it with what you consider to be "real science". If it is a pseudoscience, it cannot ever be refuted by "real" science, on logical grounds. In other words, I cannot prove the sky is blue by making Earl Grey tea.

Wow, what a great twist of logic. So if I say something is wrong I am instantly suggesting it must be real science?

You forgot to bold the real important part:

AIG believes No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

How can they practice real science if they are unwilling to admit they are wrong? How can they practice real science if they are unwilling to listen to evidence that proves them wrong?

A major part of a theory is it's ability to be falsified, to that end most theories are tested by attempting to find them false. Thus it would appear AIG refuses to test its theory unless it is guaranteed to survive. That's not real science.



I see this going almost nowhere if you require everyone to accept your views before you will debate them. It's like starting a political debate with "Anyone who doesn't believe democrats always tell the truth can leave now as I refuse to debate you."

Edit: For clarity when I say ID I am refering to the theory proposed by Behe, Dembski, et al., a theory that runs contrary to creationism, and not the basic concept of an intelligent designer.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 07-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I care, doll.

That's good to hear, toots.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

it's already over. you will just rehash old shit that has already been refuted.

If you mean nothing new will be presented, then you're probably right. You can only copy and paste so much of ICR before you run out of material. And I truly think a great deal of their content has been covered (and refuted) here already. In the interest of time, I can see how that would suit her - but a condensed, bullet-pointed answer to each question asked of her would probably satisfy her antagonists.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

One other major source for my information will be CreationistWiki (http://tinyurl.com/r5zd6). I suggest you start reading it now, as it will be impossible for you to catch up once we get started with the debate.

Well my major source will be EvoWiki (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page).

It's a bit longer(and more accurate) than CreationWiki, so you might want to start reading now.

quote:Originally posted by DigitalSavior:

…Should you still believe that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, it is nothing short of an act of futility to argue against it using what YOU consider to be "real" science. It is logically fallacious to do so, because you admit that Intelligent Design is a "real" science, simply by arguing against it with what you consider to be "real science". If it is a pseudoscience, it cannot ever be refuted by "real" science, on logical grounds. In other words, I cannot prove the sky is blue by making Earl Grey tea.

You are only partially correct in your assertions. The pseudoscience behind ID can and has been shown to be simply wrong. The idea of irreducible complexity has been shown by several scientists to be incorrect.The misrepresentations of the geology used by ID proponents can be refuted. The only parts of the pseudoscience of ID that cannot be refuted are the supernatural intervention aspects. These aspects cannot be proven or refuted by anyone. There is no way to falsify the supernatural.

quote:If you cannot agree that Intelligent Design IS a true scientific theory, built on empirical data and evidence, then you should not participate in this debate.



It appears that you either did not read the earlier posts, or you have forgotten. ID DOES NOT fit the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. This has been refuted previously, in this very thread. Even Dr. Behe admitted under oath that he uses a broader definition of the word theory, when referring to ID. His definition would also qualify astrology as a scientific theory. Look Here (http://tinyurl.com/bhmd2) for the actual trial transcript where Behe admits this. The questioning pertaining to the use of his definition begins at the end of page 35, although for anyone who cares to read it, the entire transcript is very interesting.

Here also (http://tinyurl.com/95c3h) is the link to all of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial transcripts. Very long read ,but very interesting.

Your insistance that one should agree with your assertion that ID is a legitimate theory before posting in this thread is ridiculous. You are building your arguments on a false premise.

Edit: Had links reversed.Fixed now.



Also Digi, There is no reason to bring evolution into this discussion. It will only cloud the waters of this discussion.

ID must stand or fall on it's own merit. Evolution being wrong would in no way lend creedence to ID.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

DS:

Define "Religious creationism"

Tell me, how do we tell when something is a viable scientific theory?

A theory is a theory. You can either believe in it, or reject it.

A THEORY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory) is defined by Dictionary.com as:

<LI> A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

<LI> The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

<LI> A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

<LI> Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

<LI> A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

<LI> An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Merriam-Webster defines a THEORY (http://www.m-w.org/dictionary/theory) as:

<LI> the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

<LI> abstract thought : SPECULATION

<LI> the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art &lt;music theory&gt;

<LI> A. a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action &lt;her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn&gt; B. an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory &lt;in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all&gt;

<LI> a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena &lt;the wave theory of light&gt;

<LI> A. a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation B. an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE C. a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject &lt;theory of equations&gt;

The word theory is synonymous with the word "hypothesis (http://www.m-w.org/dictionary/hypothesis) which is defined as:

<LI> A. an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument B. an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

<LI> a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

<LI> the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

If I show you the science that supports Intelligent Design and you think it is flawed, don't believe in it. It's that simple. Your disbelief is not enough justification to discard it by deeming it "pseudoscience" and barring it from being taught as an equally viable theory in public classrooms.

My tax dollars pay for those classes, too, and while evolution is taught because some believe it to be the truth, ID should be taught because others believe it's the truth. Both are based on scientific evidence. Both have their flaws. Neither have been proven 100% correct.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I define science here because there are many of you that have argued that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, simply because it presupposes the cause of our existence, as opposed to Evolution, which doesn't. Not only is that a blatant falsification of the facts (the majority of evolutionary scientists presuppose there is NO creator), but is not a supportable claim when using the actual definition of science.

As you can see from the definitions above, the studies that Creation Scientists conduct are scientific, by definition. As such, to argue against it is to entertain the notion that Intelligent Design IS science, and not pseudoscience. Just because you disagree with the tenets of Intelligent Design does not rape it of it's scientific merit.

1. A dictionary is not a valid source for the definition of Science, or at least, not as valid a source as, for example, a college level Science textbook, or the testimony of expert witnesses in a landmark case which had the definition of "Science" as one of the key points of discussion.

To cite the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision of the court:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. (9:21-22 (Haught ); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).

As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter "NAS") was recognized by experts for both parties as the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." ( P-649 at 27).

This rigorous attachment to "natural" explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs' lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a "science stopper." (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer. Id."

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Both intelligent design and biblical creationism fail to make testable predictions and instead rely on the unempirical claim that a supernatural being is responsible for the evolution of life on earth.

It is therefore, perfectly fine to call both of these concepts "pseudoscience" as they both fail to meet the standards of how Science is defined in the scientific community - and has been for hundreds of years. Not only is that a fair estimation of ID and creationism, but it is one with legal precedent.

2. When, and if, an evolutionary scientist believes there is no creator, he is merely expressing his own beliefs; just as he might think that the color red is a the prettiest color on the world, so could he believe that there is no creator.

What is important is to note that when, and if, they hold those beliefs, they are not claiming their beliefs are true because evolution is true, nor are they basing evolution on those beliefs. A creator could exist regardless of whether evolution is true or false.

quote:

It is logically fallacious to do so, because you admit that Intelligent Design is a "real" science, simply by arguing against it with what you consider to be "real science". If it is a pseudoscience, it cannot ever be refuted by "real" science, on logical grounds. In other words, I cannot prove the sky is blue by making Earl Grey tea.

As Beta said, that is quite simply ludicrous.

If you make the claim that 2 + 3 = 7, you would be making an illogical and unmathematical claim ( "unmathematical" in the sense that it does not follow the rules of mathematics). I would then use proper mathematics to prove that 2 + 3 does not equal 7, but actually 5. The same applies here.

When creationists and IDers make claims, we can certainly use proper Science to refute those claims and in doing so we're not magically making those claims they've made "scientific" or proper Science; they still remain pseudoscience.

quote:

If you cannot agree that Intelligent Design IS a true scientific theory, built on empirical data and evidence, then you should not participate in this debate.

If you cannot prove that Intelligent Design is actually a scientific theory based on the criteria of what Science entails - which is not to be found in a measly dictionary - then you should not have made your claims in the first place.

quote:

1. Why must ICR and other creationist organizations continually appeal to authority by using these types of lists to support their case?



This list and others like it are primarily in response to false claims and appeals to authority by evolutionists. Below are some of these false claims.

While there are some people in the ID/creationism side that appear to hold proper credentials, there is a humongous amount of others that do not, which is the origin of the statements that article quotes.

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

quote:2. Your lists are extemely small in the grand scheme of things. Is that it?



No, this is a small sampling of real scientists from around the world who believe in a literal creation. Nobody has ever taken a comprehensive survey of the world's universities, research organizations, etc. to find out who is an evolutionist or creationist. Whether evolutionist or creationist, most scientists do not get involved in the creation versus evolution controversy. Also, many creationists keep their beliefs secret depending on the situation for fear of discrimination, etc.

Yet the same applies to evolutionists as well. What we do know is that, of the surveys that have been done and of the organizations that have made public statements on the issue (representing all of their members), the pro-evolution side has millions of members from all across the worl, while the pro-ID/creationism side does not come near to those figure. Therefore, from what we do know, the list of scientists who believe in creationism is extremly small when compared to those who believe in evolution.



quote:4. Isn't "Creation Scientist" an oxymoron?



No. This simply means a scientist who believes in creation. These partial lists give irrefutable evidence that these two words can go together.

Yet they believe in creation in spite of science and the Scientific method, not because of it. The juxtaposition between believing in creationism and all the faith-based unsubstantiated claims it makes and being a scientist who holds the scientific method as the way to find truth, is till there.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-18-2006).]

quote:If I show you the science that supports Intelligent Design and you think it is flawed, don't believe in it. It's that simple. Your disbelief is not enough justification to discard it by deeming it "pseudoscience" and barring it from being taught as an equally viable theory in public classrooms.

I very much agree, and keep that in mind.

However, what if you fail to show Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory or your evidence to support it is incorrect, would I then be justified at deeming it either a falsified theory or pseudo-science?

quote:My tax dollars pay for those classes, too, and while evolution is taught because some believe it to be the truth, ID should be taught because others believe it's the truth. Both are based on scientific evidence. Both have their flaws. Neither have been proven 100% correct.

If your criteria for something being taught in school is,

•A group of people believe it.

•Its believers think it is based on scientific evidence (remember you have yet to show ID is based on scientific evidence).

•Hasn't been proven 100% correct (remember no theory in science can ever be proven 100%)

Then anything and everything should be taught in school from flying saucers to flat-earthism to holocaust denial, etc. Even the idea that germs make you sick is a scientific theory not believed by everyone. Should exorcisms be taught equally with first aid classes?

Thanks Rust I missed that last one.

A "creation scientist" does NOT mean a scientist that believes in creation, but a scientist that believes in creationism. I know plenty of evolutionists that believe in creation (many even believe in christianity) and have read the works of many others.

It seems to me like someone is trying very hard to make a very stilted debate where almost all dissenting opinions aren't allowed in.

i'd just like to point out the the creationists do have legitimate scientific research that pokes holes in current theories; it's just that those theories still stand because of overwhelming evidence. we have no better explaination.

in this way asking schools to teach id is like askig them to teach alien encounters and conspiracy theories.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

i'd just like to point out the the creationists do have legitimate scientific research that pokes holes in current theories; it's just that those theories still stand because of overwhelming evidence. we have no better explaination.

in this way asking schools to teach id is like askig them to teach alien encounters and conspiracy theories.

Examples plz

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Examples plz

examples of what? i already posted a bunch of stuff from icr and a link on page 7...

Posting it doesn't make it legitimate (or readable).

For example, your post contained the famous "moon dust" argument, one that has been debunked so much even AIG says creationists shouldn't use it. The claims of "meters of dust on the moon" are based on poor readings taken on earth. and that's not the only questionable claim.

Do some research before you label something as "compelling."

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Posting it doesn't make it legitimate (or readable).

For example, your post contained the famous "moon dust" argument, one that has been debunked so much even AIG says creationists shouldn't use it. The claims of "meters of dust on the moon" are based on poor readings taken on earth. and that's not the only questionable claim.

Do some research before you label something as "compelling."

hold on a second. whether the scientific investigations are agreed upon in the scientific community is not the issue here. we all know that most(nearly all) scientists don't believe in creationism.

the point is it is real science. it does not agree with most of the current theory, which is why it is rejected.

in fact the article said that the moon dust has been debunked.

if you had trouble reading it, you could have easily followed the link for an easier format.



is the science biased? probably most of it.

does the science prove a biblical creation? of course not.

is it science? without a doubt.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

A theory is a theory. You can either believe in it, or reject it.

A THEORY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory) is defined by Dictionary.com as:

<LI> A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

<LI> The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

<LI> A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

<LI> Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

<LI> A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

<LI> An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Merriam-Webster defines a THEORY (http://www.m-w.org/dictionary/theory) as:

<LI> the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

<LI> abstract thought : SPECULATION

<LI> the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art &lt;music theory&gt;

<LI> A. a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action &lt;her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn&gt; B. an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory &lt;in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all&gt;

<LI> a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena &lt;the wave theory of light&gt;

<LI> A. a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation B. an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE C. a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject &lt;theory of equations&gt;

The word theory is synonymous with the word "hypothesis (http://www.m-w.org/dictionary/hypothesis) which is defined as:

<LI> A. an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument B. an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

<LI> a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

<LI> the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

If I show you the science that supports Intelligent Design and you think it is flawed, don't believe in it. It's that simple. Your disbelief is not enough justification to discard it by deeming it "pseudoscience" and barring it from being taught as an equally viable theory in public classrooms.

My tax dollars pay for those classes, too, and while evolution is taught because some believe it to be the truth, ID should be taught because others believe it's the truth. Both are based on scientific evidence. Both have their flaws. Neither have been proven 100% correct.

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

Consistent (internally and externally)

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, Occam's Razor)

Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)

Empirically testable & falsifiable ( Falsifiability)

Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)

Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)



Intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. Therefore it fails as scientific theory and shouldn't be taught in schools as fact.





[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

hold on a second. whether the scientific investigations are agreed upon in the scientific community is not the issue here. we all know that most(nearly all) scientists don't believe in creationism.

the point is it is real science. it does not agree with most of the current theory, which is why it is rejected.

Are these specific examples science? Sure (well those that don't end up requiring God to be correct).

However you specified "legitimate research" which these are not.

I would say there is a difference.

noted. however, there are a number of highly technical papers on that site that are certainly over my head.

i merely picked one that i can everybody could understand easily.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

i'd just like to point out the the creationists do have legitimate scientific research that pokes holes in current theories; it's just that those theories still stand because of overwhelming evidence. we have no better explaination.



I think everyone here would agree with me when I say that we're not suggesting that creationists or ID proponents could not possibly make research that actually follows the scientific method as we understand it today, nor are we saying that they haven't done so in the past.

When we call ID/creationism unscientific or pseudoscience, we are doing so because we are considering all the claims it makes and not just a specific one. We're considering that it makes the untestable and unempirical claim of the existence of a supernatural creator responsible for these processes and that what makes it unscientific. They could surely make other scientific arguments for their beliefs, but ultimately both theories are pseudoscience.

I think that's the point people are trying to make.

There is little, if not zero, legitimate scientific research that can lead to the conclusion of supernatural creation, or even intelligent design.

This doesn't even get into the fact that creation has ZERO(absolutely NONE) mathematical backing.

That's what I would like to see most from Digital or anyone else, math. Provide some math to back up your scientific claims.

exactly. even if it were proven 99% that the earth was created no more than 6,000 years ago, we still would have no reason to believe in creation by a supernatural being.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

noted. however, there are a number of highly technical papers on that site that are certainly over my head.

i merely picked one that i can everybody could understand easily.

Of the papers I can understand I've found few that were solidly based. One paper on ID that accidentally made it into a real peer review journal (by ending up bypassing the review process) sounded technical but was sparadic fluff.

Another I can think of off the top of my head was about Magnetic fields (I believe it's cited in the paper you linked too, #28). It uses non existant data, misinterprets other data and possibly even plagerized a graph from another work. Those practices were completely acceptable to both the writer (who I have talked with) and the Creation Research Society.

Well I hope digi didn't just drop out again...

If she did, that was the shortest (and least informative) return ever.

I want to see her get into it - enough about trying to define things in your favor, let's see the actual proof for creationism (especially all the proof that has nothing to do with evolution).

Like dood, she DOES have a life and friends and family(I hope).

You can't expect everything from her at once. Just be happy that she's at least acknowledged this thread and is starting to reply.

Rome wasn't built in a day ya know...

honestly i wouldn't be suprised if she didn't respond.

i wouldn't blame her; she is clearly defeated.

Now I will give a little background on why I believe the theory of evolution is not correct. The reason I am doing this is because I believe there are only two viable theories for our existence, and they are evolution and creation. This thread was supposed to be less about debunking evolution, and more about proving ID, and I would like it to remain as such. However, I feel it is important to explain why I don't agree that evolution is more plausible than ID.

I found an article that summarizes it nicely, but it's too large to post all at once. I will post Part 1, 2, and 3 on separate days.

For those of you already responding to me, I will remind you not to expect a reply from me until I have gone back through the thread and addressed all of the previous arguments. I'm not ignoring you. You will be answered.

Anyway, on to Part 1 (I will not be answering refutations to these articles until I have addressed the previous arguments in this thread. I am simply trying to lay a strong foundation for my ID arguments, because I know the small things will eventually come up, which will inevitably detract from the debate).

quote:EVOLUTION: Fact or Fiction?

Part 1

Many voices in the scientific community are questioning the validity of the theory of evolution. Others state it as fact. What is the truth about this theory?

Evolution. It has been called the basis for many fields of scientific study. Be it biology, geology or biochemistry, the scientific world bases many of its modern concepts and theories on the theory of evolution.

But how has evolution become so established when it is only a theory? Certainly, it must have a firm and proven foundation. But does it?

As you read, you may find that certain parts of this article are confusing or difficult to understand. Make no mistake, the rationale invented to bring supposed support for evolution is bewildering and complicated—to the point of even being boring. The facts get left behind, and the tortured and tedious scholarly language used by evolutionists stops most from examining this subject in detail. Left frustrated, most people assume evolution to be true.

However, this subject defies true logic, so it is to be expected that you will periodically become lost.

We will demystify this subject. You will see convoluted—and illogical—theories simplified in a way never presented before. While some parts are technical, the more you understand about evolution, the more you will begin to see through its “smoke and mirrors.” Although it may appear complicated, it easily breaks down in the face of simple logic.

Clarity will come from understanding what evolution is not. This opens the door to what disproving evolution truly points to—the real origin of the universe!

But before we can show what really happened, we must prove what did not happen.

Even a cursory study of this topic shows that it is still hotly contested! After many decades, much study has gone into it. The results are best summarized by a quote from the late Colin Patterson, once the world's foremost fossil expert: “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.”

He addressed his concerns to both the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, saying, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?” Each time, he was met with nearly complete silence.

The only comment came from the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar, in which one participant stated, “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.”

This led Mr. Patterson to comment that “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it.”

But what are the real facts about the theory of evolution? What do we actually know? What is the basis for its nearly universal acceptance? We will cover in detail the facts, myths and suppositions that make up the body of the theory of evolution. You will be amazed at what the evidence actually shows!

The Science of Logic

In the realm of science, logic is fundamental in interpreting data. Before delving into the raw data about evolution, it is important to understand some of the methods used to explain it. Rules of logic cannot be circumvented and, by extension, common logical fallacies should never be employed.

It is these fallacies that confuse data and leave the general public uncertain about what is being explained. Clear, simple logic should never leave one confused. Once you are aware of these logical fallacies, you will begin to notice how often they are employed in other fields—advertising, for instance. The following examples are illustrations of logical fallacies commonly employed in science. Keep these fallacies in mind while reading this article.

Hasty Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that all cars everywhere are red.

Begging the Question: This can also be referred to as reasoning in a circle, or circular logic. When an assumption or conclusion is used to validate a premise, one is begging the question. In other words, there is no factual standing for the premise, because it is based on an assumption.

Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts”to validate a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion. An example would be to state—without ever conducting a poll—that all dentists prefer a certain kind of toothpaste.

Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence.

Argument to Future: Stating that while something is not true now, it will eventually be proven to be correct with further study and investigation.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true.

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy occurs when a point is refuted or proven by simply dating the evidence as very old, thus making it impossible to be verified or proven.

This is just a sampling of the many logical fallacies covered in A.J. Hoover's book, Don't You Believe It. They will be reiterated as we come to them in this article. It is surprising how many are used by scientists when trying to explain the subject of evolution—a subject that is thought, by many, to be proven!

What Is Evolution?

The question of evolution, per se, comes in many shapes and definitions. In its most basic form, it is the brainchild of Charles Darwin. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin postulated that all living creatures and, by extension, matter itself had come from previous, simpler substances. The example you may have most often heard is that humans came from apes.

But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.

Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.

Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.

Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from, yet at times overlaps, cosmic evolution.

Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.

The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow other species to form.

This may sound complicated — because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the lines of these particular disciplines start and stop. This has led to much confusion among the general public on which research and evidence is related to which particular discipline of evolution.

For instance, there is ample evidence to prove that micro-evolution is constantly happening around us. When a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is demonstrating micro-evolution. Often, this evidence is used to “prove” macro-evolution. Such a case would be a perfect example of a hasty generalization.

This has led to much confusion in the general public, and to heated debates among evolutionists. But the problems in evolution go even deeper. Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.

So, if any aspect of these evolutionary “pillars” can be shown as unprovable assumptions, no other conclusions can be based upon them. We will cover twelve basic pillars of the theory of evolution. Most are so important to the theory that disproving them causes the whole theory to collapse.

As we cover each point, the logical fallacy that it employs will also be pointed out. You will be amazed at the “science” used to substantiate this nearly universally believed theory.

Assumption No. 1: Evolution is more than a theory — it is fact!

The first assumption is the gradual transition to referring to the theory as a tested and proven scientific fact—in essence, assuming evolution to be fact. The certainty with which such statements are made would leave most feeling sure that these scientists must have the evidence to support their claims. One statement from Theodosius Dobzhansky's book The Biological Basis of Human Freedom illustrates the point well: “Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”

Such certainty among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools in North America to teach evolution as a “historical fact.”

But not all evolutionists agree with this conclusion: “What was the ultimate origin of man?...Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural” (W. LeGros Clark, 1955).

Some evolutionists today make similar statements. Pierre-Paul Grassé, a world renowned zoologist and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated, “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an object, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977).

While these quotes speak loudly, in this first assumption, we are not trying to disprove evolution, but to show that it is not a tried and tested fact. A scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.” From the quotes above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that evolutionists themselves have not accepted evolution as true.

How could such divergent opinions exist, yet some consider evolution to be fact? The answer is clear. Evolution has not been sufficiently proven in the scientific community to be considered fact!

Further, by true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.”

What this means is that in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can never prove it—either true or false!

For example, one could observe an orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There exists a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the sky, they will see changes in its color.

If the same standards are applied to the theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test. Because there have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first condition is not met. We will cover supposed examples later in our coming brochure on this subject. Those who support this theory state that most major evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.

Recall the logical fallacies discussed above. When something is dated very old to prove a point, we are dealing with what is called chronological snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are not dealing with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to logical fallacies to validate their claims.

This is best described by Dr. Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: “His [Darwin's] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”

As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it is nothing more than a “highly speculative hypothesis.” Can you imagine something so contested, even by those who profess to believe it, taught in schools as fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how exactly is it scientific?

As you continue through the coming brochure, something will happen to your knowledge of evolution. The facts will deflect the clever arguments of evolutionists. You will be able to prove what is true—not just assume it to be.

That is the fundamental difference between creationism and evolution—proof! God's Word teaches us to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21). Proving something means to prove it either true or false. By the end of this brochure, you will have proven creation true, proven evolution false and, by the knowledge you will have obtained, be able to debunk silly assertions.

Evolution will go from something “understood only by the scholarly,” to an utterly illogical fallacy, believed only by the blind, foolish—and ignorant!

The concept of evolution implies a starting point—a beginning—from which all matter, and then life, formed. This event supposedly started with the big bang!

But what does the evidence show? Did the big bang actually happen? Source (http://www.realtruth.org/articles/0106-efof.html)

I realize this will offend every single last one of you. Even so, to be continued...

That was great, I loved the irony. I assume creationism is oddly exempt from those logical fallacies listed.

Such as a strawman fallacy. The theory of evolution is biology only although the term "evolution" is used for other theories, these other theories are also counter to creationism, however they are not part of the theory of evolution.

I loved the quotes. Especially the one where they twisted the truth.

quote:This is best described by Dr. Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: “His [Darwin's] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”

This quote is from Denton's book "Evolution, a theory in crisis" writen when he was a creationist, he has since become an evolutionist and wrote a book refuting that one. It seems a bit dishonest to bill that quote as coming from an evolutionist, don't you think?

so, still no evidence for creationism and disinformation about evolution? ok then.

I'd also like to point out that evolution has NOTHING(i.e. ZERO, ZIP, NADA) to do with origin. Every evolutionist in the world will tell you this. The Theory of Evolution(contrary to that poorly written article) doesn't explain the origin of basic life. It never has.

Sorry for stealing your thunder DS, but here are the other two parts if you want to read them now.

quote: EVOLUTION: Fact or Fiction?

Part 2

Nearly universal in its teaching, evolution stands upon many assumptions. We will discuss the facts—the truth—about this “science.”

I

n the previous issue, we looked into the illogic of evolution—and the fallacies it employs. We also explored the assumption that evolution is a scientific fact, and showed that it is not even a scientific theory. But there is much more to learn about this “theory.”

Two primary aspects of evolution form its foundation. The first one attempts to explain the origin of the universe itself. The second is an explanation of the supposed mechanism that caused non-living matter to turn into plants, which then turned into fish, on to animals and then to human beings.

The more you understand about evolution, the less you will understand why it is taught to millions of schoolchildren.

Cause and Effect—A Scientific Law

There is a great law that governs the entire universe. It is so fundamental that you often apply it without even knowing. Everyone uses it and is impacted by it, whether in industry or in everyday life. It is the law of cause and effect.

If you drop a ball, it falls to the ground. The effect is that the ball falls and hits the ground; the cause is gravity. If you get wet after jumping into a pool, the effect is getting wet—the cause is jumping into the pool. As you can see, “cause and effect” is simply common sense.

This understanding is so universal that it has been granted the status of a scientific law. As discussed in the last issue, for something to be established as a scientific law, it must come under rigorous scientific scrutiny. This further shows the fundamental nature of cause and effect. Part of this law's definition states that you may never have an effect that is greater than its cause.

This aspect of cause and effect agrees with another law of science—thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the dynamics of thermals (heat). It is made up of three basic laws, on which ALL disciplines of science are based. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is directly related to cause and effect. It is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. Consider these examples:

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If you spin a top, it will, over time, stop spinning. The energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable to unusable during the process. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws cannot be broken, nor will they contradict each other. Scientifically speaking, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, every cause will create a lesser effect!

How does a more advanced life form—the effect—stem from a simpler life form—the cause? This breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. With these concepts in mind, you may already be seeing contradictions in the theory of evolution.

Survivors Survive

One of the most basic concepts in the theory of evolution is “survival of the fittest.” Simply put, it is the concept that nature selects the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.

Sounding logical, this theory is taught throughout schools worldwide. By reading this series, you are beginning to see that we must always prove what is assumed to be true.

Notice: “Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve” (Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up, 1978).

In other words, the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed the fittest. This is circular logic! Evolutionists have assumed that just because something survived, it is the fittest of the species. You may now begin to understand why properly understanding logical fallacies becomes so important. Evolution is rampant with them!

The theory of “survival of the fittest” is what is called a “tautology,” a way of saying something redundant. For instance, “survivors survive”; “water is wet”; “matter is material” ; and so on. Such a statement does not prove anything, because it is nothing more than a truism.

Yet, even with such information, evolutionists willingly ignore the facts: “Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder... simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring.”

“What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology” (G.A. Peseley, The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection, 1982).

But some scientists may argue, “We have seen natural selection. It happens around the world on a daily basis. This theory is provable!” But is it? These scientists point to natural selection removing the unfit. But this does not create new attributes in a species or, for that matter, create a new species! For evolution to be valid, better, more advanced creatures would have to survive, lending to the creation of new species.

A famous Dutch botanist best explained the problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (Hugo deVries, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 1905, emphasis ours.).

Since all systems in nature are well balanced, there must be a mechanism that keeps those systems balanced. Therefore, natural selection is very effective for removing the unfit from a species. This can be witnessed by the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The zebra herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed.

Interestingly, the idea of natural selection did not form in the mind of Charles Darwin. In fact, natural selection was documented 20 years earlier, by creationist zoologist/chemist Edward Blyth. Darwin changed the concept from the “natural process of selection” to the “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic truism!

Like all such truisms, the concept of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, it explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this aspect of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement.

An Eternal Universe

No matter how science tries to simplify the theory of evolution, there is always the problem of explaining where the universe began. What is its origin?

There are only two possibilities: (1) It appeared at a certain point in time, or (2) it has always existed.

Both of these ideas require some investigation. Is the universe eternal? Did it form? And is this possible to prove either way?

Since we are unable to travel back in time, you may quickly think that it is impossible to know if the universe had a beginning. Matter has an amazing property. It decays! In fact, everything is moving into a further state of decay. You see this principle at work all around you. If you clean your house, it will eventually become messy again. Even if you are not living there, dust will form and its general state will decay. Your body also evidences this concept. Keeping yourself in shape is work. If you stop exercising or eating properly, you will quickly get out of shape.

These are just everyday examples of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But how does this prove that the universe is not eternal?

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with Madame Curie's discovery of radium in 1898, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has an atomic weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until the end product eventually becomes the inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time.

But, what does this mean? It means that there was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It always breaks down. This also means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, none of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have existed forever.

This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work! As Henry Moore stated, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (Scientific Creationism, 1974). And it represents absolute proof that the universe came into existence or, in other words, that the universe is not eternal! That leaves only one possibility. At one point in time, something—or someone—caused the universe to come into existence.

This brings us back to the concept of cause and effect. In this case, the universe is the effect—but what is the cause? We have seen that every effect must be less than the cause. So as vast as our universe is, there must be something greater which caused it. This is consistent with the scientific laws we have already discussed.

Of course, scientists have also come to similar conclusions—the universe is not eternal and there needs to be a “first cause.” Ignoring the true first cause, they attempt to explain the universe in many other ways. The most common is often referred to as the “Big Bang Theory.”

Big Bang—or Big Hoax?

At its very core, the Big Bang Theory states that a particular event caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial event. After the big bang, another theory takes over. The “inflationary model” was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today.

However, both concepts break laws of science. As we saw with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state—with less usable energy—not into a larger, more complex universe. How ridiculous that this FACT is ignored!

But an even bigger problem is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is memorized by high school students, and is a basic fundamental law of science. It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change its form.

This too flies in the face of the big bang theory! If energy cannot be created, then something certainly cannot appear from nothing. Evolutionary scientists also understand this problem. Often, attention is taken away from the lack of explanation of the creation of matter by asserting explanations on how the universe “grew.” By lumping the initial creation of matter with the expansion of the universe, scientists have created a series of “smoke and mirrors,” which, as we have seen before, is often the only way to explain various aspects of evolution.

Many scientists, such as Alan Guth, have also raised this point: “First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing...Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (Fred, Heerren, Show Me God, 1995). Such deceit is taught as fact in schools!

One of the greatest mathematical minds of the modern world closed the door on the inflationary model: “The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is...In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have not heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988).

Like so many aspects of evolution, even when it has been proven to be inaccurate, it is still taught as fact. The smoke and mirrors continue!

Changing the Rules?

Since we have seen that the universe could not have come from “nothing,” is it possible to explain its existence? Must the creation of the universe follow the rules of science?

Any parent is responsible for creating the rules for their household. At any time, they can change those rules. It is in their power to modify, adjust or even discard these rules. The child in that house must continue to live within the confines of those rules, no matter how they are changed.

So it is with the universe. As the Creator of the universe, God established its rules and has the power to modify them. When He created the universe and matter, He then established the laws of science.

Interestingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics actually proves that God has always existed. Remember that this law means something could not come from nothing. Science has proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe. Since something can never come from nothing, God had to always exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God's existence, while at the same time disproving evolution!

Nobel Prize winning physicist Louis Neel stated, “The progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be...leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe.” And I would also add, any rational explanation for plants, animals and people. Instead of looking for the truth of creation, science has chosen confusion, deceit and suppositions. But now you can see through two more of these evolutionary illusions, to the Being that did create you—the God of the universe!

In our brochure “Evolution—Fact or Fiction?”, we will further disprove the theory of evolution by showing more of the weak arguments used to explain how man and animals today exist on earth. Also, many of the common misconceptions about creationism will be explained. Finally, some proofs showing the REAL Creator of the plants, animals, mankind and the universe.

You will have been supplied with the facts—the truth—of your existence. What will you do with those facts?

quote: EVOLUTION: Fact or Fiction?

Part 3

Can you imagine a rock breathing? Or your house cleaning itself? Ridiculous? Of course! Yet, in essence, this is what evolution teaches. The third installment of this series addresses the many fallacies of the theory of evolution.

I

magine it is a hot summer day and you have spent too much time in the sun. Perhaps you are a little red or even sunburned. Over the next few days, an amazing process takes place as your body heals itself from overexposure to the sun.

No doubt, you paid more attention to this process if your skin got to the point of peeling or had become red and sensitive. But look at it from another angle—the amazing adaptability of skin. Through several processes, your skin is shedding its damaged cells and replacing them with new, healthy ones.

Your entire body—from your skin, to your eyes, organs, and brain—is made up of cells. In fact, your body consists of over 250 different kinds of cells totaling about 100 trillion. So efficient and effective are these “little factories” that in seven years, your body will have completely replaced all 100 trillion cells! The design of each of those 250 types varies in shape, size, density and purpose.

The inner functioning of the cell is most fascinating. You can think of any cell as a miniature factory—and miniature it is! Red blood cells, for instance, are 10 times smaller than the width of a single human hair. Yet, even though each individual cell is microscopic, if you placed all the cells in your body end to end, they would encircle the earth 200 times. Astonishing!

So far, we are only talking about the size of cells—never mind their function! Cells are made up primarily of three parts: Membrane, cytoplasm and nucleus.

The membrane surrounds the cell, and has the ability to recognize hundreds of substances. Acting as a “traffic cop,” it controls what enters the cell and what is purged.

The cytoplasm is the cell's “factory floor,” on which are thousands of machines called organelles. At any given time, there are over 20 different chemical reactions happening in the cytoplasm, for such purposes as: Communication, waste removal, repair, nutrition and reproduction. There is even an elaborate transport system to move products and waste throughout the cell.

While all of this is certainly remarkable, the intrigue of the cell goes even deeper. All of these functions are controlled by the “brains” of the cell—the nucleus. The nucleus houses all the information that the cell needs to repair and reproduce itself. This blueprint is made up of chromosomes and genes containing DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

When properly understood, DNA is one of the most breathtaking creations in the entire universe. In an age when computers are getting smaller and smaller, you may often be amazed at how tiny complex gadgets have become.

However, these pale in comparison to DNA.

If you transcribed the genetic information for just ONE person onto paper, it would fill a 300-volume encyclopedia set, each volume consisting of 2,000 pages. DNA is stored in an amazingly efficient spiral “staircase.” This is so effective in conserving space, that if you were to unravel this spiral from any human cell, it would be about six feet in length. In fact, it has been estimated, that if you placed all the DNA in the human body end-to-end, it would reach the sun and back 400 TIMES!

Yet, all the genetic information needed to replicate the over 6 billion people on earth today could fit into an area of about 1/8 of a square inch. (To learn much more about the divine fingerprint inside your cells, you may read our free article “The Wrong Assumption,” found on our website www.RealTruthMag.org) (http://www.RealTruthMag.org))

The nucleus, cellular membrane and all the machines in the cytoplasm make up every cell in your body. Now stop for a moment, and recall that there are 100 trillion cells in your body, all with these little machines, factories and “supervisors” constantly working and reproducing. The human body is amazing!

Here is an incredible fact about the largest and smallest cells of the human body: Both are the “bookends” for creating life. The smallest cell is the male sperm cell—spermatozoa. At the other end of the scale is the female egg cell—the ovum. All cells, and therefore all life, fall between these cells in size. But to create life, the largest and the smallest cells combine. It is interesting that the two most important cells of all are the largest and smallest, with all the rest falling in between. Coincidence or design?

So far, we have only discussed the building blocks that make up your body—living matter. As you are well aware, there is another type of matter—non-living. And this brings us to the next assumption in the theory of evolution: At some point in time, long ago, non-living—inorganic—matter made the jump to living matter—organic—thus starting the process of biological evolution.

A Breathing Rock?

Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a lump of coal produce a chicken? While such questions seem silly, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches. Evolution stands or falls on whether non-living matter can be transformed, through a series of random events, into organic—living—matter. This concept is called by many names and explained by many theories, but most of the time, it is referred to as “spontaneous generation,” “chemical evolution,” “abiogenesis” or “biopoiesis.”

(But even to evolutionists, the topic of life's origin remains a sticky one. Many even go so far as to assert that the origin of life is not related to the evolution of living matter.)

Renowned evolutionist Stephan Jay Gould stated: “Evolution is not the study of life's ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life's origin on our earth lies outside its domain...Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life” (“Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding,” Natural History, October 1987).

But is this really the case? Is evolution only restricted to the study of organic—living—matter? Allow geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky to answer: “Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life” (“Changing Man,” Science, January 1963).

While the argument put forth by Mr. Gould sounds logical, if we attempt to limit evolution to biology, one is being “gratuitous”—and perhaps deceitful. If evolutionists separate biological evolution from the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe, it opens a big and completely unanswered door: How did events cause the universe and then life, if evolution applies only to life? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must completely encompass the whole process—from that beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life on earth today. No amount of scientific “spin” can change this.

Consider: Why would such a prominent evolutionist blur the facts and separate this popular theory from the matter of life's origins?

Unbreakable Laws

At the absolute heart of the origins of life debate lies a fundamental scientific law—the Law of Biogenesis. It states that life can only come from life, that is, only living matter produces living matter. Are you beginning to see the inherent problem with the theory of evolution?

This law is so fundamental that Simpson and Beck's biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology states, “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell.”

Also, Martin A. Moe, a writer for Science Digest, recently wrote, “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological science has taught us that life arises only from life...” (“Genes on Ice,” December 1981).

Perhaps the most powerful statement is found as a footnote in Moore and Slusher's biology textbook: “Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization” (Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, 1974).

These are three conclusive and irrefutable statements about the force and power of this scientific law. How then did evolutionists seem to bypass this law when trying to prove evolution? Are you beginning to understand why they attempt to separate the origin of life from the evolutionary process?

Recently, there has been much ado about scientists being able to produce a synthetic version of the polio virus. Some would say that, at last, it appears that man has been able to produce life from non-living synthetic products. But is this true?

This is just smoke and mirrors as evolutionists freely admit that viruses of any kind are non-living organisms, because they must have a living host in order to reproduce. Not to mention that it took careful and deliberate design to produce even these!

So how do evolutionists explain life on earth?

A Land Far, Far Away!

We have seen that it is impossible for life to have formed from non-living matter. Even many evolutionists will admit this process is “wrapped in a mystery.” However, in an effort to propel a dying theory, they have had to change the focus of the argument: If biogenesis cannot happen on earth, then perhaps it could happen in space. Take note of the divergence from standard science in this postulate. Generally, when a theory is disproven (spontaneous generation), it is dispelled and another hypothesis is put forward. But in this case, a new hypothesis is created because of the lack of evidence to support the old ones! And such is the case with so many aspects of evolution—a theory made of straw!

This new theory states that the precursor chemicals for life came from space. Astonishingly, this theory is gaining popularity in the scientific community. For such a theory to be valid, not only would these chemicals or simple amino acids have to be able to endure space travel, they would also have to be able to survive entry into the earth's atmosphere!

A fact that is seldom mentioned in such discussions is that simple forms of life, as well as all living matter, are highly unstable. You see this all around you. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.

So, these highly unstable, simple forms of life would have to survive being ejected from a far away planet, travel through space (all while being bombarded by high levels of deadly cosmic radiation), withstand the extreme heat of penetrating the earth's atmosphere and finally survive the intense surface impact. How ridiculous! One does not need a degree in science to see how far-fetched such a theory is—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!

This whole hypothesis is nothing more than side-stepping the original issue. This is called a “bait and switch.” Instead of addressing the Law of Biogenesis, which they cannot get around, evolutionists attempt to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer (bait), thus avoiding the original problem (switch).

Biogenesis is a UNIVERSAL law. Just as it applies on earth, so does it apply throughout the universe. Moving the problem to outer space does not make it disappear!

So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who do admit to these issues? They simply apply the argument to future logical fallacy (as covered in Part One of this series). They claim it is going to take further advances in science to be able to figure out the cause for life on earth.

This answer is really a “non-answer.” Evolutionists avoid the question and give no real answer, because they have none. Meanwhile, evolution is taught as fact in schools. Such fallacies and lack of evidence are the reason why Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated that “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.”

Open or Closed—It Is Still Impossible

For the next assumption, we can use the game of “let's suppose.” Suppose that the previous assumption was not false, and that at some future time, we will discover the naturalistic method in which living matter came into existence.

Obviously, with the proof above, this is quite a supposition. But for the sake of argument, assume there was a time when only very simple organisms, such as amino acids, existed. We can even extend our game of “let's suppose” a few steps further and suppose that these amino acids had already formed into enzymes. Of course, we are being overly generous to evolution, but it will serve to prove a point.

Now we are ready to shatter this concept by once again bringing in the most fundamental and important law of science in existence today—the Law of Thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called this the premier law of all sciences. Sir Author Eddington stated that if “your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation” (The Nature of the Physical World).

These are very strong words from two world-renowned scientists. Other writers have noted that the more that you work with these laws, the more respect you gain for them. Obviously, the Laws of Thermodynamics are absolutely immutable.

While they were touched upon in Part Two of this series, we will cover them in much more detail here. Their importance to all disciplines of science is obvious from the quotes above. Therefore, to be true, evolution must fall within the constraints of Thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, evolution must fall within the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Rewinding the Top?

Thermodynamics comes from two Greek words, therme, meaning “heat,” and dynamis, meaning “power.” In essence, thermodynamics is the study of “heat power.” The Second Law of Thermodynamics states three basic concepts: (1) Systems gravitate to the most probable (likely) state, (2) systems will gravitate to the most random state, and (3) systems will increase in entropy—the scientific term for “unusable energy.”

It is best explained by world-famous science writer and scientist Isaac Asimov: “Another way of stating the Second Law then is ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about” (“In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970).

Perhaps you are already beginning to see where this law contradicts the theory of evolution.

But evolutionists have not given up yet! In an attempt to make the theory work, a debate between “open” and “closed” systems has arisen. The difference between the two is quite simple. In a closed system, there is no interference from an external source, so the Second Law applies without any complications. The system becomes more disordered over time strictly in line with the Second Law. On the other hand, it is argued that in an open system external sources of energy allow a product to have more sustained energy—or increase in useable energy.

In the case of evolution, it is stated that because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy to the earth, this allows for systems to become more complex because they have the necessary energy to do so. And since the sun is winding down, the overall Laws of Thermodynamics in a closed system (the universe) are being met.

Basically, the extra energy from the sun supposedly allows evolution to take place on earth.

But is this true? As we have seen, clever arguments can sometimes be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Energy Alone Doth Not Evolution Make

Can simply applying energy to a system allow it to move to a lower level of entropy? Is that all that is required for evolution to take place? There have been mathematical constructs to show how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does apply in an open system. Does evolution fall within these constructs?

While many evolutionists try to hide under the concept of an open system, there are some who do not. For instance, Charles J. Smith stated, “The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy [an increase in useable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology” (“Problems with Entropy in Biology,” Biosystems, 1975).

As you can see, it was understood decades ago that there are “fundamental unsolved problems” with this concept. Yet, even recently published articles fall back on it.

Raw energy alone is not enough to lower entropy! In fact, for this to happen, multiple conditions must be met. Two are summarized in the following quote from renowned scientists George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck's textbook Life: An Introduction to Biology, “But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed” (emphasis ours).

“Particular work” requires more than just raw energy. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a “bull in a china shop.” Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always destroys! This is exactly the reason you should not leave photographs in direct sunlight. Over time, this undirected, raw energy will destroy them.

There is still another condition that must be met for energy to be “useable.” There must be a mechanism to convert one type of energy into another for a specific application. Without fulfilling these conditions, you have nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that will do nothing but destroy.

There are natural examples of energy—sunlight in particular—channeled into useful work. The most remarkable—photosynthesis in plants—also serves as the best illustration. Photosynthesis, an energy conversion system, is the process in which plants convert sunlight into the usable energy needed to make plants grow. Because this process is biological, we are dealing with the Second Law of Thermodynamics in an open system. In such a case, raw energy is available in the form of sunlight. And because plants have DNA, there is a highly designed and detailed specification for this “particular work” to be carried out. All needed conditions are met and, in such a case, there is a lowering of entropy—an increase in usable energy.

There are also similar systems in our body—digestion, respiratory system, etc. Yet in all cases, the conditions described above are satisfied.

To perform specific work, there must be “information”—instructions—for the process to proceed, and a mechanism for those instructions to be carried out. As we have seen, this happens in the leaves of plants, as well as the systems in our bodies.

But you CANNOT perform the highly specific work of evolution by simply supplying energy from the sun and “hope for the best.” No matter the argument, no matter how intensely arms are waved, no one can circumvent these fundamental laws of science. They are immutable—and, as such, make evolution impossible!

Two More Pillars Fall

We have looked at two more of the false assumptions that make up the theory of evolution. The laws of science are SURE! They are absolute and have existed since the beginning of our universe. Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this, or any other planet. Dishonest, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.

As you are learning in this series, evolution is simple—simply preposterous!

By now, you should be able to clearly and effectively refute the foolish assertions made by evolutionists. More importantly, your slate has been cleaned, and false concepts have been unlearned. The true Source of all life and the universe in which you reside should now be crystal clear!

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

That was great, I loved the irony.

Me too.

I loved it when it explains that theories in Science must be falsifiable... as if evolution wasn't falsifiable and Biblical creationism was. Fantastic stuff.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

We have looked at two more of the false assumptions that make up the theory of evolution. The laws of science are SURE! They are absolute and have existed since the beginning of our universe. Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this, or any other planet. Dishonest, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.

[/QUOTE]

Having followed this thread with interest(and some frustration!), I feel compelled to reiterate the view that attacks on evolution do not prove creationism! In fact your evidences above lead one to question creationism, especially the 'fundamental' image of a creator god. If the law of biogenesis says that life can only come from life, that is a living cell can only be produced directly by another living cell, does this not disprove the notion of a creator god creating life from nothing or lifeless materials?

Example: In Genesis it states God made man from the earth, how so? If life can only come from life then this is not possible. The only way 'god' could have created life would have been to create it from something already living, presumably 'godself'. Assuming that is possible for a spiritual/incorporeal being: would that mean that all subsequent living beings/life of any form originated directly, were reproduced, from the creator him/her/itself?

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

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Having followed this thread with interest(and some frustration!), I feel compelled to reiterate the view that attacks on evolution do not prove creationism! In fact your evidences above lead one to question creationism, especially the 'fundamental' image of a creator god. If the law of biogenesis says that life can only come from life, that is a living cell can only be produced directly by another living cell, does this not disprove the notion of a creator god creating life from nothing or lifeless materials?

Example: In Genesis it states God made man from the earth, how so? If life can only come from life then this is not possible. The only way 'god' could have created life would have been to create it from something already living, presumably 'godself'. Assuming that is possible for a spiritual/incorporeal being: would that mean that all subsequent living beings/life of any form originated directly, were reproduced, from the creator him/her/itself?

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

Genesis and the earth? It makes sense to me that when a person dies and the body is seen to decay that the assumption would be that the body returns to its original form.

At that time, was the earth seen a separate from all other living things as it often is today or was the earth seen as being as vibrant and alive as anything else on the planet and thus had the potential to have all life drawn from it?

What else where they to think prior to science?



http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Sorry for stealing your thunder DS, but here are the other two parts if you want to read them now.

No, you're not, and I will just ignore you.

On to part 2.

quote:EVOLUTION: Fact or Fiction?

Part 2

Nearly universal in its teaching, evolution stands upon many assumptions. We will discuss the facts — the truth — about this “science.”

In the previous issue, we looked into the illogic of evolution—and the fallacies it employs. We also explored the assumption that evolution is a scientific fact, and showed that it is not even a scientific theory. But there is much more to learn about this “theory.”

Two primary aspects of evolution form its foundation. The first one attempts to explain the origin of the universe itself. The second is an explanation of the supposed mechanism that caused non-living matter to turn into plants, which then turned into fish, on to animals and then to human beings.

The more you understand about evolution, the less you will understand why it is taught to millions of schoolchildren.

Cause and Effect—A Scientific Law

There is a great law that governs the entire universe. It is so fundamental that you often apply it without even knowing. Everyone uses it and is impacted by it, whether in industry or in everyday life. It is the law of cause and effect.

If you drop a ball, it falls to the ground. The effect is that the ball falls and hits the ground; the cause is gravity. If you get wet after jumping into a pool, the effect is getting wet—the cause is jumping into the pool. As you can see, “cause and effect” is simply common sense.

This understanding is so universal that it has been granted the status of a scientific law. As discussed in the last issue, for something to be established as a scientific law, it must come under rigorous scientific scrutiny. This further shows the fundamental nature of cause and effect. Part of this law's definition states that you may never have an effect that is greater than its cause.

This aspect of cause and effect agrees with another law of science—thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the dynamics of thermals (heat). It is made up of three basic laws, on which ALL disciplines of science are based. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is directly related to cause and effect. It is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. Consider these examples:

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If you spin a top, it will, over time, stop spinning. The energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable to unusable during the process. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws cannot be broken, nor will they contradict each other. Scientifically speaking, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, every cause will create a lesser effect!

How does a more advanced life form—the effect—stem from a simpler life form—the cause? This breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. With these concepts in mind, you may already be seeing contradictions in the theory of evolution.

Survivors Survive

One of the most basic concepts in the theory of evolution is “survival of the fittest.” Simply put, it is the concept that nature selects the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.

Sounding logical, this theory is taught throughout schools worldwide. By reading this series, you are beginning to see that we must always prove what is assumed to be true.

Notice: “Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve” (Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up, 1978).

In other words, the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed the fittest. This is circular logic! Evolutionists have assumed that just because something survived, it is the fittest of the species. You may now begin to understand why properly understanding logical fallacies becomes so important. Evolution is rampant with them!

The theory of “survival of the fittest” is what is called a “tautology,” a way of saying something redundant. For instance, “survivors survive”; “water is wet”; “matter is material” ; and so on. Such a statement does not prove anything, because it is nothing more than a truism.

Yet, even with such information, evolutionists willingly ignore the facts: “Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder... simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring.”

“What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology” (G.A. Peseley, The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection, 1982).

But some scientists may argue, “We have seen natural selection. It happens around the world on a daily basis. This theory is provable!” But is it? These scientists point to natural selection removing the unfit. But this does not create new attributes in a species or, for that matter, create a new species! For evolution to be valid, better, more advanced creatures would have to survive, lending to the creation of new species.

A famous Dutch botanist best explained the problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (Hugo deVries, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 1905, emphasis ours.).

Since all systems in nature are well balanced, there must be a mechanism that keeps those systems balanced. Therefore, natural selection is very effective for removing the unfit from a species. This can be witnessed by the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The zebra herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed.

Interestingly, the idea of natural selection did not form in the mind of Charles Darwin. In fact, natural selection was documented 20 years earlier, by creationist zoologist/chemist Edward Blyth. Darwin changed the concept from the “natural process of selection” to the “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic truism!

Like all such truisms, the concept of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, it explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this aspect of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement.

An Eternal Universe

No matter how science tries to simplify the theory of evolution, there is always the problem of explaining where the universe began. What is its origin?

There are only two possibilities: (1) It appeared at a certain point in time, or (2) it has always existed.

Both of these ideas require some investigation. Is the universe eternal? Did it form? And is this possible to prove either way?

Since we are unable to travel back in time, you may quickly think that it is impossible to know if the universe had a beginning. Matter has an amazing property. It decays! In fact, everything is moving into a further state of decay. You see this principle at work all around you. If you clean your house, it will eventually become messy again. Even if you are not living there, dust will form and its general state will decay. Your body also evidences this concept. Keeping yourself in shape is work. If you stop exercising or eating properly, you will quickly get out of shape.

These are just everyday examples of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But how does this prove that the universe is not eternal?

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with Madame Curie's discovery of radium in 1898, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has an atomic weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until the end product eventually becomes the inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time.

But, what does this mean? It means that there was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It always breaks down. This also means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, none of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have existed forever.

This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work! As Henry Moore stated, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (Scientific Creationism, 1974). And it represents absolute proof that the universe came into existence or, in other words, that the universe is not eternal! That leaves only one possibility. At one point in time, something—or someone—caused the universe to come into existence.

This brings us back to the concept of cause and effect. In this case, the universe is the effect — but what is the cause? We have seen that every effect must be less than the cause. So as vast as our universe is, there must be something greater which caused it. This is consistent with the scientific laws we have already discussed.

Of course, scientists have also come to similar conclusions—the universe is not eternal and there needs to be a “first cause.” Ignoring the true first cause, they attempt to explain the universe in many other ways. The most common is often referred to as the “Big Bang Theory.”

Big Bang—or Big Hoax?

At its very core, the Big Bang Theory states that a particular event caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial event. After the big bang, another theory takes over. The “inflationary model” was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today.

However, both concepts break laws of science. As we saw with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state—with less usable energy—not into a larger, more complex universe. How ridiculous that this FACT is ignored!

But an even bigger problem is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is memorized by high school students, and is a basic fundamental law of science. It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change its form.

This too flies in the face of the big bang theory! If energy cannot be created, then something certainly cannot appear from nothing. Evolutionary scientists also understand this problem. Often, attention is taken away from the lack of explanation of the creation of matter by asserting explanations on how the universe “grew.” By lumping the initial creation of matter with the expansion of the universe, scientists have created a series of “smoke and mirrors,” which, as we have seen before, is often the only way to explain various aspects of evolution.

Many scientists, such as Alan Guth, have also raised this point: “First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing...Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (Fred, Heerren, Show Me God, 1995). Such deceit is taught as fact in schools!

One of the greatest mathematical minds of the modern world closed the door on the inflationary model: “The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is...In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have not heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988).

Like so many aspects of evolution, even when it has been proven to be inaccurate, it is still taught as fact. The smoke and mirrors continue!

Changing the Rules?

Since we have seen that the universe could not have come from “nothing,” is it possible to explain its existence? Must the creation of the universe follow the rules of science?

Any parent is responsible for creating the rules for their household. At any time, they can change those rules. It is in their power to modify, adjust or even discard these rules. The child in that house must continue to live within the confines of those rules, no matter how they are changed.

So it is with the universe. As the Creator of the universe, God established its rules and has the power to modify them. When He created the universe and matter, He then established the laws of science.

Interestingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics actually proves that God has always existed. Remember that this law means something could not come from nothing. Science has proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe. Since something can never come from nothing, God had to always exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God's existence, while at the same time disproving evolution!

Nobel Prize winning physicist Louis Neel stated, “The progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be...leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe.” And I would also add, any rational explanation for plants, animals and people. Instead of looking for the truth of creation, science has chosen confusion, deceit and suppositions. But now you can see through two more of these evolutionary illusions, to the Being that did create you — the God of the universe! Source (http://www.realtruth.org/articles/0201-efof.html)

Napoleon, I alone set the pace for my argument. I suppose you thought you were clever for understanding how to utilize a search engine, but really that is an elementary skill.

I will show why I don't believe in evolution, and why I do believe in ID/Creationism, on my own terms and on my own time. Try to ruin this if you want, but it doesn't affect me in the slightest. I will continue in the way I originally intended, regardless of what you do.

Tomorrow, Part 3.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Napoleon, I alone set the pace for my argument. I suppose you thought you were clever for understanding how to utilize a search engine, but really that is an elementary skill.

I say: Feather in his cap for speeding things along some. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just post the Restored Church of God link for people to read on their own time, versus c&p'ing portions of it every other day? Just in the interest of time, is all I'm saying. None of us are getting any younger here.

Additionally, it would leave more room for you to illustrate your independent thoughts on the subject. You're well-read and well-known enough around these parts to have earned enough credibility to formulate your own argument without an official "Source" begged upon by the readers for every single point.

Know why scholastic volumes tend to group their sources in a neat little index at the end of a book? Because all that supporting information would muddy up the waters that is their original premise, cluttering the text and making comprehending it a chore. They have faith that their audience will have the gumption to check out these supporting sources if and when they feel it is necessary to help validate the writer's legitimacy.

quote: Interestingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics actually proves that God has always existed. Remember that this law means something could not come from nothing. Science has proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe. Since something can never come from nothing, God had to always exist!

And what did God come from? The rule should apply to him, as an intentional being. You will assign a skyhook to his origins, and that seems terribly unfair. Even by a stretch of the imagination, a Being greater than can be conceived, one that defies the 2nd Law and is sole Creator of everything - is that not still a long haul from the being that is merciful, just or loving? I hope Part 3 in some way explains this.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

EVOLUTION: Fact or Fiction?

Part 2

Nearly universal in its teaching, evolution stands upon many assumptions. We will discuss the facts — the truth — about this “science.”

In the previous issue, we looked into the illogic of evolution—and the fallacies it employs. We also explored the assumption that evolution is a scientific fact, and showed that it is not even a scientific theory. But there is much more to learn about this “theory.”

Two primary aspects of evolution form its foundation. The first one attempts to explain the origin of the universe itself. The second is an explanation of the supposed mechanism that caused non-living matter to turn into plants, which then turned into fish, on to animals and then to human beings.

The more you understand about evolution, the less you will understand why it is taught to millions of schoolchildren.

Cause and Effect—A Scientific Law

There is a great law that governs the entire universe. It is so fundamental that you often apply it without even knowing. Everyone uses it and is impacted by it, whether in industry or in everyday life. It is the law of cause and effect.

If you drop a ball, it falls to the ground. The effect is that the ball falls and hits the ground; the cause is gravity. If you get wet after jumping into a pool, the effect is getting wet—the cause is jumping into the pool. As you can see, “cause and effect” is simply common sense.

This understanding is so universal that it has been granted the status of a scientific law. As discussed in the last issue, for something to be established as a scientific law, it must come under rigorous scientific scrutiny. This further shows the fundamental nature of cause and effect. Part of this law's definition states that you may never have an effect that is greater than its cause.

This aspect of cause and effect agrees with another law of science—thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the dynamics of thermals (heat). It is made up of three basic laws, on which ALL disciplines of science are based. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is directly related to cause and effect. It is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. Consider these examples:

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If you spin a top, it will, over time, stop spinning. The energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable to unusable during the process. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws cannot be broken, nor will they contradict each other. Scientifically speaking, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, every cause will create a lesser effect!

How does a more advanced life form—the effect—stem from a simpler life form—the cause? This breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. With these concepts in mind, you may already be seeing contradictions in the theory of evolution.



thermodynamics has to do with heat and non-living systems, not with the organization of living matter. clearly, the sun provides all the energy living things on the earth need. if the sun suddenly went out, then entropy would kick in and soon nearly all life on earth (all except those bacteria that metabolise minerals) would die.

saying that a simple form of life is the cause of a more complex form of life is a strawman.

quote:Survivors Survive

One of the most basic concepts in the theory of evolution is “survival of the fittest.” Simply put, it is the concept that nature selects the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.

Sounding logical, this theory is taught throughout schools worldwide. By reading this series, you are beginning to see that we must always prove what is assumed to be true.

Notice: “Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve” (Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up, 1978).

In other words, the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed the fittest. This is circular logic! Evolutionists have assumed that just because something survived, it is the fittest of the species. You may now begin to understand why properly understanding logical fallacies becomes so important. Evolution is rampant with them!

The theory of “survival of the fittest” is what is called a “tautology,” a way of saying something redundant. For instance, “survivors survive”; “water is wet”; “matter is material” ; and so on. Such a statement does not prove anything, because it is nothing more than a truism.

Yet, even with such information, evolutionists willingly ignore the facts: “Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder... simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring.”

“What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology” (G.A. Peseley, The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection, 1982).

But some scientists may argue, “We have seen natural selection. It happens around the world on a daily basis. This theory is provable!” But is it? These scientists point to natural selection removing the unfit. But this does not create new attributes in a species or, for that matter, create a new species! For evolution to be valid, better, more advanced creatures would have to survive, lending to the creation of new species.



wait a minute. first it is asserted that survival of the fittest is circular logic. (clearly sophism. it is not inductive logic, but observation and deduction) then you admit that survival of the fittest is observed, but since we don't observe speciation then evolution must be false? ludicrous!

quote:

A famous Dutch botanist best explained the problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (Hugo deVries, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 1905, emphasis ours.).



1905, right before the acceptance of genetics. random combination of genetic material and unexpressed traits explains 'arrival of the fittest' obviously. quoting known fallacies doesn't really help this argument.

quote:

Since all systems in nature are well balanced, there must be a mechanism that keeps those systems balanced. Therefore, natural selection is very effective for removing the unfit from a species. This can be witnessed by the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The zebra herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed.

Interestingly, the idea of natural selection did not form in the mind of Charles Darwin. In fact, natural selection was documented 20 years earlier, by creationist zoologist/chemist Edward Blyth. Darwin changed the concept from the “natural process of selection” to the “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic truism!

i fail to see the difference. perhaps you could descend to our realm for a bit, d_s and actually type your post to explain?

quote:

Like all such truisms, the concept of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, it explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this aspect of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement.



once again, natural selection is an observable process. that much is admitted by this very paper!

quote:

An Eternal Universe

No matter how science tries to simplify the theory of evolution, there is always the problem of explaining where the universe began. What is its origin?



good question. too bad evolution doesn't attempt to answer it whatsoever.

quote:

There are only two possibilities: (1) It appeared at a certain point in time, or (2) it has always existed.

Both of these ideas require some investigation. Is the universe eternal? Did it form? And is this possible to prove either way?

Since we are unable to travel back in time, you may quickly think that it is impossible to know if the universe had a beginning. Matter has an amazing property. It decays! In fact, everything is moving into a further state of decay. You see this principle at work all around you. If you clean your house, it will eventually become messy again. Even if you are not living there, dust will form and its general state will decay. Your body also evidences this concept. Keeping yourself in shape is work. If you stop exercising or eating properly, you will quickly get out of shape.

These are just everyday examples of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But how does this prove that the universe is not eternal?

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with Madame Curie's discovery of radium in 1898, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has an atomic weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until the end product eventually becomes the inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time.

But, what does this mean? It means that there was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It always breaks down. This also means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, none of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have existed forever.

one element can turn into another.

quote:

This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work! As Henry Moore stated, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (Scientific Creationism, 1974). And it represents absolute proof that the universe came into existence or, in other words, that the universe is not eternal! That leaves only one possibility. At one point in time, something—or someone—caused the universe to come into existence.



the prime mover argument? the what moved the mover?

quote:

This brings us back to the concept of cause and effect. In this case, the universe is the effect — but what is the cause? We have seen that every effect must be less than the cause. So as vast as our universe is, there must be something greater which caused it. This is consistent with the scientific laws we have already discussed.

Of course, scientists have also come to similar conclusions—the universe is not eternal and there needs to be a “first cause.” Ignoring the true first cause, they attempt to explain the universe in many other ways. The most common is often referred to as the “Big Bang Theory.”



'the true first cause'? i suppose this is supposed to be god. ok then, show me some evidence for god. you can't? then stfo.

quote:

Big Bang—or Big Hoax?

At its very core, the Big Bang Theory states that a particular event caused the formation of matter,



no it doesn't. the most popular form of this theory is that everything already existed as a singularity. other theories have to do with 'sheets' of matter. scientists are willing to debate this because they are scientists, not theologists.

quote:...with our modern universe expanding from that initial event. After the big bang, another theory takes over. The “inflationary model” was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today.

However, both concepts break laws of science. As we saw with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state—with less usable energy—not into a larger, more complex universe. How ridiculous that this FACT is ignored!

i am not a physicist, but i believe our physical laws begin to break down at a point. that's why we know have string theory.

quote:

But an even bigger problem is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is memorized by high school students, and is a basic fundamental law of science. It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change its form.

This too flies in the face of the big bang theory! If energy cannot be created, then something certainly cannot appear from nothing.

once again, it wasn't something from nothing, but a singularity.(mabye, scientists are still debating this)

quote:Evolutionary scientists also understand this problem. Often, attention is taken away from the lack of explanation of the creation of matter by asserting explanations on how the universe “grew.” By lumping the initial creation of matter with the expansion of the universe, scientists have created a series of “smoke and mirrors,” which, as we have seen before, is often the only way to explain various aspects of evolution.



it is not 'smoke and mirrors' but a consequence of reality. e=mc2. time and space are related. quote:

Many scientists, such as Alan Guth, have also raised this point: “First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing...Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (Fred, Heerren, Show Me God, 1995). Such deceit is taught as fact in schools!

we don't know. that's the thing about science, when we don't know, we admit it rather than making up a story about a man in the clouds.

quote:

One of the greatest mathematical minds of the modern world closed the door on the inflationary model: “The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is...In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have not heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988).

didn't hawking retract many of the claims he made in that book?

quote:

Like so many aspects of evolution, even when it has been proven to be inaccurate, it is still taught as fact. The smoke and mirrors continue!

Changing the Rules?

Since we have seen that the universe could not have come from “nothing,” is it possible to explain its existence? Must the creation of the universe follow the rules of science?

Any parent is responsible for creating the rules for their household. At any time, they can change those rules. It is in their power to modify, adjust or even discard these rules. The child in that house must continue to live within the confines of those rules, no matter how they are changed.

So it is with the universe. As the Creator of the universe, God established its rules and has the power to modify them. When He created the universe and matter, He then established the laws of science.

Interestingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics actually proves that God has always existed. Remember that this law means something could not come from nothing. Science has proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe. Since something can never come from nothing, God had to always exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God's existence, while at the same time disproving evolution!

Nobel Prize winning physicist Louis Neel stated, “The progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be...leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe.” And I would also add, any rational explanation for plants, animals and people. Instead of looking for the truth of creation, science has chosen confusion, deceit and suppositions. But now you can see through two more of these evolutionary illusions, to the Being that did create you — the God of the universe!

once again, a fallicious prime mover argument. where did god come from them? did another god create him? a god of the gaps isn't much to worship, i think.

even if you could prove evolution and the big bang false, we would have no scientific reason to believe that 'god did it'

that was thoroughly unimpressive.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 07-21-2006).]

So, are we ever going to get to valid evidence for creationism?

Can you actually type stuff or is this all going to be a big copy and paste?

When you finally get to evidence for creationism will you run away when it's questioned?

Quite frankly the article has no clue what it's talking about and makes a number of basic errors. Either they don't understand science (then why use them as a source) or they find it acceptable to lie (then how can we trust their data) either way not good for you.

DS: Tell me the truth, did you research anything in this article or just assume it was accurate?



Ken: Good reply, a couple additions,

quote:thermodynamics has to do with heat and non-living systems, not with the organization of living matter. clearly, the sun provides all the energy living things on the earth need.

Let's even assume that it does apply to living organisms and that a raise in entropy is a bad mutation (an incorrect assumption). 2LoT deals with the entropy in the entire system. Thus based on the assumption above all we need is a single 'bad' mutation more than a good one and we are in business. So why do we see complex life? Natural selection, something most creationists accept. It sorts these mutations. We see the end result of that sorting. Even if there were more bad mutations than good, natural selection picks out the good ones.

Think of a sifter. Pour dirt in it composed of 75% pebbles and 25% dust. Even though we have more pebbles than dust, if you shake only the dust falls to the floor.

Even their bolded claim of cause and effect is wrong. Any Quantum mechanics 101 student can tell you effects can precede causes.

quote:i am not a physicist, but i believe our physical laws begin to break down at a point. that's why we know have string theory.

String theory is an emerging 'theory' to unify the forces, perhaps you were thinking Quantum mechanics. In which case you are right, many "laws" don't function well on the quantum level.



I know many could go into more detail about the inaccuracies in that paper, although I doubt DS would care and I bet we will see the third part posted and criticism ignored.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Bump



Seriously, let's just archive this. LostCause, have you been watching this thread? I know you're christian and everything, but still.

Once again, if creationists have anything more to say let them speak. Otherwise, let's put this in the archives.

I'm not Christian.

Cheers,

Lost

Lost!

Will the additional pages of this thread be added to the already archived portion? Just wondering. It stops at page 6 in the archives, and clearly this is going to go further. Is it even possible to add the rest of this thread since you've archived it already?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Napoleon, I alone set the pace for my argument. I suppose you thought you were clever for understanding how to utilize a search engine, but really that is an elementary skill.

I will show why I don't believe in evolution, and why I do believe in ID/Creationism, on my own terms and on my own time. Try to ruin this if you want, but it doesn't affect me in the slightest. I will continue in the way I originally intended, regardless of what you do.

Tomorrow, Part 3.



You really don't need to post something that's already been posted. I know you're headstrong and hard headed and what not, but seriously, you don't need to. You can just start searching for where Darwin says that God doesn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I'm not Christian.

Cheers,

Lost

Really? I thought you said you were somewhere else. Are you catholic? ..although catholic would be christian... but I swear I heard you say that somewhere. Oh well, nevermind.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You really don't need to post something that's already been posted. I know you're headstrong and hard headed and what not, but seriously, you don't need to. You can just start searching for where Darwin says that God doesn't exist.

Sure I do. As I explained, you are not going to change how I post my argument on this topic. It has nothing to do with being headstrong or hard-headed. This is MY debate, and I will have it in whatever way I see fit. Nothing you do will change that.

Don't worry, I will get to all of this. Whether you concede your points or not will ultimately be irrelevant. I said I would answer you all, and I will. Sit there smugly all you like...you will be embarassed by the end.

quote:you will be embarassed by the end.

So far the two articles you've posted have not been impressive for reasons others have explained, so I can't be bothered to dive into. I very much doubt it will be us that are embarrased, and I have a niggling inkling that you are the one sitting there smugly going 'boy, these idiots think they are so smart, but they're wrong, wrong, wrong, PRAISE JESUS.'

quote:I said I would answer you all, and I will. Sit there smugly all you like...you will be embarassed by the end.

Hopefully.

So far you have posted two copy and paste article that have nothing to do with evidence for creationism. At least one of which is riddled with scientific errors.

This needs to get a lot better to embarrass us.

By the way, you don't need to quote the entire article if you are just going to post a few sentences at the end of it. DS did a lot of long copy and pasting, and then napolean sped it up, then DS posted it again, then other people quoted it, and it's making the page much longer then it needs to be.

Guys, guys. Digi copies and pastes tremendously long texts that I dont have the time to read. She has to be right.

[This message has been edited by Zay (edited 07-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sure I do. As I explained, you are not going to change how I post my argument on this topic. It has nothing to do with being headstrong or hard-headed. This is MY debate, and I will have it in whatever way I see fit. Nothing you do will change that.

Don't worry, I will get to all of this. Whether you concede your points or not will ultimately be irrelevant. I said I would answer you all, and I will. Sit there smugly all you like...you will be embarassed by the end.

you can't get to the 3rd part. it has already been posted. everybody has already read it. it's pointless.

Everyday I keep checking this like an alzheimer's patient who keeps forgetting his spouse died, and everyday there is no proof for creationism and the wife is still dead. How sad.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Now I will give a little background on why I believe the theory of evolution is not correct.

Whether the Scientific Theory Of Evolution is correct or incorrect has zero bearing on this discussion. The assertions that you made were that ID is a scientific theory on equal footing with the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution stands on it's own merit and has for more than one hundred years. It makes zero claims as to the origins of life or the origins of the universe. There is no disputing that it is a viable scientific theory.

The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is a viable scientific theory. It is logically fallacious to think that by debunking the theory of evolution that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design would gain creedence. ID must stand (or fall) on it's own merit.



quote: The reason I am doing this is because I believe there are only two viable theories for our existence, and they are evolution and creation.

While there is no way possible to disprove that a supernatural entity created all as we know it, there is no way to prove it correct either. This is the major problem with referring to ID as a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable. It cannot be tested. It does not meet the definition of a scientific theory. It is merely a hypothesis.

quote:This thread was supposed to be less about debunking evolution, and more about proving ID, and I would like it to remain as such.

Ok, then please stop wasting time and bandwidth and present whatever evidence you may have concerning the subject in question. Please demonstrate how ID is a viable scientific theory.

quote: However, I feel it is important to explain why I don't agree that evolution is more plausible than ID...

ID must stand or fail on it's own merit. Whether evolution is right or wrong is totally irrelevant to the validity of ID.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-22-2006).]

This discussion is going nowhere. The only proof positive for creationism is the story an anonmyous author wrote down thousands of years ago. We now know that the world is without question older than 6000 years (or 12000, they can't agree). There is no other proof positive for creation. I don't see how we could ever go figure it out. It's just not science. All you can do is poke holes in evolution and then attempt to fill them with your God. Do we need to teach whatever the islamic creation story is as well?

We can see light from stars over 6000 light years away. End of discussion.

Well this could have something to do with her defense of creationism. She could know there is so little evidence for creationism or ID and is attempting to show that evolution (although a strawman version) is just as weak as creationism/ID, thus creationism/ID is valid too.

I've seen it before. Because creationism can't stand up to proper scientific scrutiny they try to bring all of science down to meet it.

Of course they have to lie to do it, but that's acceptable for someone who has superior moral values.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Well this could have something to do with her defense of creationism. She could know there is so little evidence for creationism or ID and is attempting to show that evolution (although a strawman version) is just as weak as creationism/ID, thus creationism/ID is valid too.

I've seen it before. Because creationism can't stand up to proper scientific scrutiny they try to bring all of science down to meet it.

Of course they have to lie to do it, but that's acceptable for someone who has superior moral values.

Good point. The problem with believing that all absolute morality comes down from God period is that whatever you perceive God to be saying, becomes completely moral, even it goes completely against the natural human morality we atheists understand.

That's where you get the crusades, the witch hunts, and the inquisition. Even though it went directly against all decent human morality, they believed God sanctioned it and therefore it was automatically moral without any other justification needed.

Theists will often accuse atheists of having no morality, no virtue, or good, and that it is dangerous to rely on humans to figure it out - we instead need an all powerful dictator handing them down to us in absolutes.

Ironically, it is the belief in this absolute morality handed down from God that has caused the most immoral actions of all time.

Hey anyone know where DS went?

Here in an instant gone in a flash seems to bbe her debating motto.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

Hey anyone know where DS went?

Here in an instant gone in a flash seems to bbe her debating motto.

I dunno, I figured she'd of posted the third part by now. I've been eager to see this conversation start up properly again.

quote:Originally posted by DigitalSavior:



…The ICR Graduate School was approved by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education. This approval was granted on the recommendation of an Evaluation Committee from the Office of Private Post-secondary Education (OPPE), and became effective July 1, 1981. Approval was renewed on various occasions since then and was extended to 1992 by the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. In 1995 the Council confirmed that ICR/GS met the terms of California Education Code 94303(B)(2) for exemption from state approval. This exemption was retroactive back to 1992 and extended to the end of calendar year 1996. Since that time, a new education law was enacted in 1997. The exemption continues under the new organization, Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education under the Department of Consumer Affairs through 2007. Source...

From the California Education Code (Section 94303):

quote:Degree- Granting:

Authority and Exemptions

No person or entity may issue degrees in or from California without either an authorization or approval from the superintendent or a statutory exemption.

The law requires any person , firm, association, partnership, or corporation that offers academic or honorary degrees, educational services, or any instruction leading toward degrees within or from the State of California to be subject to it’s provisions, with the following exceptions(Section 94303):

<OL TYPE=A>

<LI>institutions offering education that is solely avocational or recreational in nature;

<LI>Nonprofit institutions operated by bona fide churches or religious denominations if the education is limited to instruction in the principles of that church or denomination or to care of the sick;

<LI>Institutions offering instruction exclusively from preschool through the twelfth grade;

<LI>Postsecondary educational institutions operated by the federal government, the State of California, or it’s political subdivisions such as cities or community college districts; and

<LI>Education sponsored by bona fide trade, business, professional, or fraternal organizations predominantly for their membership.</OL>



Degrees from private institutions exempted under this section of the law have no recognition by any agent or agency of the State of California.

Source (http://tinyurl.com/odowo)

quote:Originally posted by DigitalSavior:

…If ICR lacked the scientific merit required in order to be recognized as an accredited college by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education, they wouldn't have been granted approval.



They aren’t accredited by the state. ICR operates under an exemption from state approval. The ICR Graduate School is not required to teach the same curriculum or meet the same standards as would a state funded institution. Any degree obtained from ICR is not recognized by any state agency in California. ICR is Not an accredited , degree granting institution(by the State of California).

ICR is accredited through it’s membership to the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS),Not the State of California.

If you wish to know the requirements for accreditation by this organization, click Here (http://tinyurl.com/lzk6k). I’m quite sure that you will find that the requirements differ significantly from those of any accredited, degree granting, state university or college.





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-24-2006).]

nice truckfixr. i figured as much but was too lazy to look it up.

quote:EVOLUTION: Fact or Fiction?

Part 3

Can you imagine a rock breathing? Or your house cleaning itself? Ridiculous? Of course! Yet, in essence, this is what evolution teaches. The third installment of this series addresses the many fallacies of the theory of evolution.



a childs argument. evolution doesn't speculate on the begining of life. although this is clearly a strawman, we could consider crystals to be self-replicating molecules, and surely in different conditions long ago rna could (and indeed did, otherwise we would not be here) form spontaneously. no matter how unlikely that is, it is still more likely than 'god did it.' even if we accept that 'god did it,' we have the even bigger problem of how god came about; and here we have an infinite regress.

quote:

Imagine it is a hot summer day and you have spent too much time in the sun. Perhaps you are a little red or even sunburned. Over the next few days, an amazing process takes place as your body heals itself from overexposure to the sun.

No doubt, you paid more attention to this process if your skin got to the point of peeling or had become red and sensitive. But look at it from another angle—the amazing adaptability of skin. Through several processes, your skin is shedding its damaged cells and replacing them with new, healthy ones.

Your entire body—from your skin, to your eyes, organs, and brain—is made up of cells. In fact, your body consists of over 250 different kinds of cells totaling about 100 trillion. So efficient and effective are these “little factories” that in seven years, your body will have completely replaced all 100 trillion cells! The design of each of those 250 types varies in shape, size, density and purpose.

The inner functioning of the cell is most fascinating. You can think of any cell as a miniature factory—and miniature it is! Red blood cells, for instance, are 10 times smaller than the width of a single human hair. Yet, even though each individual cell is microscopic, if you placed all the cells in your body end to end, they would encircle the earth 200 times. Astonishing!

So far, we are only talking about the size of cells—never mind their function! Cells are made up primarily of three parts: Membrane, cytoplasm and nucleus.



wrong. prokaryotes do not have a nucleus. they are clearly simpler than eukaryotes and came about earlier. why should i trust somebody that doesn't seem to remember high school biology?

current cells have an energy converter, either chloroplasts (older, simpler forms of life have simpler chloroplasts while older ones have more complex ones) or mitochondria. these organelles have their own dna! this is important because it shows at one time they were probably separate forms of life that then formed a symbiotic relationship which over eons became a single life form.

the rest is a clearly irrelevant 'watchmaker' argument. yes, it would seem impossible for a complex life form to appear working perfectly, but that's not how it happend according to current scientific evidence.

just because something is very complex doesn't mean god did it. as said above, that clearly doesn't solve anything.



quote:

[...]

When properly understood, DNA is one of the most breathtaking creations in the entire universe. In an age when computers are getting smaller and smaller, you may often be amazed at how tiny complex gadgets have become.

However, these pale in comparison to DNA.

If you transcribed the genetic information for just ONE person onto paper, it would fill a 300-volume encyclopedia set, each volume consisting of 2,000 pages. DNA is stored in an amazingly efficient spiral “staircase.” This is so effective in conserving space, that if you were to unravel this spiral from any human cell, it would be about six feet in length. In fact, it has been estimated, that if you placed all the DNA in the human body end-to-end, it would reach the sun and back 400 TIMES!

Yet, all the genetic information needed to replicate the over 6 billion people on earth today could fit into an area of about 1/8 of a square inch. (To learn much more about the divine fingerprint inside your cells, you may read our free article “The Wrong Assumption,” found on our website www.RealTruthMag.org) (http://www.RealTruthMag.org))



and if an atom was the size of a stadium the nucleus would be a baseball or something. what does that have to do with anything?

this actually supports evolution. us complex humans share the dna of our predacessors. this 'junk' dna makes up the bulk of our dna and is not used by us.

doesn't sound like intelligent creation to me.

quote:

The nucleus, cellular membrane and all the machines in the cytoplasm make up every cell in your body. Now stop for a moment, and recall that there are 100 trillion cells in your body, all with these little machines, factories and “supervisors” constantly working and reproducing. The human body is amazing!



i agree. it is the amazing product of 3.7 billion years of evolution starting with heterotrophic bacteria.

quote:Here is an incredible fact about the largest and smallest cells of the human body: Both are the “bookends” for creating life. The smallest cell is the male sperm cell—spermatozoa. At the other end of the scale is the female egg cell—the ovum. All cells, and therefore all life, fall between these cells in size.



wrong again! just how many mistakes are in this pamphlet? sperm and eggs are gametes and have a half-set of chromosomes. it doesn't suprise me that people that don't even understand sexual reproduction don't believe in evolution.

quote: But to create life, the largest and the smallest cells combine. It is interesting that the two most important cells of all are the largest and smallest, with all the rest falling in between. Coincidence or design?



interesting and irrelevant.

quote:

So far, we have only discussed the building blocks that make up your body—living matter. As you are well aware, there is another type of matter—non-living. And this brings us to the next assumption in the theory of evolution: At some point in time, long ago, non-living—inorganic—matter made the jump to living matter—organic—thus starting the process of biological evolution.

A Breathing Rock?



wrong again. actually there are three forms of matter: living, dead, and nonliving. living and dead matter are necessarily organic ie carbon-based. so it's not just a 'rock'. once again, what we have here is an oversimplified strawman. i can't believe somebody could actually be this ignorant, which makes me think they know what they are saying is bull.

quote:

Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a lump of coal produce a chicken? While such questions seem silly, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches. Evolution stands or falls on whether non-living matter can be transformed, through a series of random events, into organic—living—matter. This concept is called by many names and explained by many theories, but most of the time, it is referred to as “spontaneous generation,” “chemical evolution,” “abiogenesis” or “biopoiesis.”



we have evidence that life did indeed evolve from simple to complex. we don't know how it came about, but we know everything didn't just appear out of nowhere. to assert otherwise is yet another strawman.

evolution does not 'stand or fall' on abiogenesis. fine, it wasn't a natural process. god created the first life form. this does not contradict evolution and many people hold that belief.

quote:

(But even to evolutionists, the topic of life's origin remains a sticky one. Many even go so far as to assert that the origin of life is not related to the evolution of living matter.)

Renowned evolutionist Stephan Jay Gould stated: “Evolution is not the study of life's ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life's origin on our earth lies outside its domain...Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life” (“Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding,” Natural History, October 1987).

But is this really the case?



yes.

quote:Is evolution only restricted to the study of organic—living—matter? Allow geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky to answer: “Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life” (“Changing Man,” Science, January 1963).

planetary bodies and language do not evolve in the same sense that living things do. time passes and things happen. that is the nature of the physical universe.

quote:

While the argument put forth by Mr. Gould sounds logical, if we attempt to limit evolution to biology, one is being “gratuitous”—and perhaps deceitful. If evolutionists separate biological evolution from the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe, it opens a big and completely unanswered door: How did events cause the universe and then life, if evolution applies only to life? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must completely encompass the whole process—from that beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life on earth today. No amount of scientific “spin” can change this.

science has this cool thing about evidence and drawing conclusions from it. we don't have enough evidence to be 99 percent certain about he origen of life. although we do have some guesses.

quote:

Consider: Why would such a prominent evolutionist blur the facts and separate this popular theory from the matter of life's origins?



mabye because evolution has always been applied to existing life only?

quote:Unbreakable Laws

At the absolute heart of the origins of life debate lies a fundamental scientific law—the Law of Biogenesis. It states that life can only come from life, that is, only living matter produces living matter. Are you beginning to see the inherent problem with the theory of evolution?



life can only come from other life in current observed conditions. it is quite possible that ancient earth...oh fuck it. here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life) is a nice undisputed wiki article on the possible origins of life on earth. don't give me bull about inaccurate articles. this isn't a polical entry. and you can research the terms somewhere else if you want.

quote:

This law is so fundamental that Simpson and Beck's biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology states, “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell.”



i doubt that quote is in context or that junior-high biology class would address the origins of life.

quote:

Also, Martin A. Moe, a writer for Science Digest, recently wrote, “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological science has taught us that life arises only from life...” (“Genes on Ice,” December 1981).



a 25 year old out of context quote just doesn't cut it. sorry.

quote:

Perhaps the most powerful statement is found as a footnote in Moore and Slusher's biology textbook: “Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization” (Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, 1974).



that's not suprising considering it is a christian textbook.

quote:

These are three conclusive and irrefutable statements about the force and power of this scientific law. How then did evolutionists seem to bypass this law when trying to prove evolution? Are you beginning to understand why they attempt to separate the origin of life from the evolutionary process?

Recently, there has been much ado about scientists being able to produce a synthetic version of the polio virus. Some would say that, at last, it appears that man has been able to produce life from non-living synthetic products. But is this true?

This is just smoke and mirrors as evolutionists freely admit that viruses of any kind are non-living organisms, because they must have a living host in order to reproduce. Not to mention that it took careful and deliberate design to produce even these!

So how do evolutionists explain life on earth?



i am begining to feel like a broken record. for reasons stated above, the directly above is bullshit. the stuff about the polio virus was probably mostly the media.

quote:

A Land Far, Far Away!

We have seen that it is impossible for life to have formed from non-living matter. Even many evolutionists will admit this process is “wrapped in a mystery.” However, in an effort to propel a dying theory, they have had to change the focus of the argument: If biogenesis cannot happen on earth, then perhaps it could happen in space. Take note of the divergence from standard science in this postulate. Generally, when a theory is disproven (spontaneous generation), it is dispelled and another hypothesis is put forward. But in this case, a new hypothesis is created because of the lack of evidence to support the old ones! And such is the case with so many aspects of evolution—a theory made of straw!



this argument is a strawman. evolution has never said anything about the origin of life other than that it happened. how, why, and how many toilet paper rolls it took to clean up has nothing to do with evolution.

quote:

This new theory states that the precursor chemicals for life came from space. Astonishingly, this theory is gaining popularity in the scientific community. For such a theory to be valid, not only would these chemicals or simple amino acids have to be able to endure space travel, they would also have to be able to survive entry into the earth's atmosphere!

A fact that is seldom mentioned in such discussions is that simple forms of life, as well as all living matter, are highly unstable. You see this all around you. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.



the weird thing about space is that there is no (or little) life. things don't break down like they do on earth. look at the moon or mars. everything is pretty much the same except for the occasional asteroid impact.

frozen bacteria or whatever would be reanimated when they warmed up, just like we have done with frozen bacteria in the arctic.

simple life forms are extremely resistant. many known life forms could easily survive an asteroid impact.

quote:

So, these highly unstable, simple forms of life would have to survive being ejected from a far away planet, travel through space (all while being bombarded by high levels of deadly cosmic radiation), withstand the extreme heat of penetrating the earth's atmosphere and finally survive the intense surface impact. How ridiculous!



and god creating everything is not? that seems to be a double standard.

quote:

One does not need a degree in science to see how far-fetched such a theory is—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!



exactly. it is a possibility. god creating everything is not scientifically verifiable and therefore is not discussed by actual scientists.

quote:

This whole hypothesis is nothing more than side-stepping the original issue. This is called a “bait and switch.” Instead of addressing the Law of Biogenesis, which they cannot get around, evolutionists attempt to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer (bait), thus avoiding the original problem (switch).



well, with a much longer time period and mass than earth, it is more likely that life evolved before the solar system even existed. once again, how life came about has never been a concern of evolutionary theory, although it is a concern of all scientists.

another strawman. in fact, that's all this entire essay is.

quote:

Biogenesis is a UNIVERSAL law. Just as it applies on earth, so does it apply throughout the universe. Moving the problem to outer space does not make it disappear!



we have no data on the universe eons ago. anything is possible, and that law does not apply i think.

quote:

So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who do admit to these issues? They simply apply the argument to future logical fallacy (as covered in Part One of this series). They claim it is going to take further advances in science to be able to figure out the cause for life on earth.



and what evidence have you for creationism?

quote:

This answer is really a “non-answer.” Evolutionists avoid the question and give no real answer, because they have none. Meanwhile, evolution is taught as fact in schools.



it is not taught as fact. it is taught as a scientific theory.

quote:

Such fallacies and lack of evidence are the reason why Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated that “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.”



it is not suprising that a christain creationist would say that.

quote:

Open or Closed—It Is Still Impossible

For the next assumption, we can use the game of “let's suppose.” Suppose that the previous assumption was not false, and that at some future time, we will discover the naturalistic method in which living matter came into existence.

Obviously, with the proof above, this is quite a supposition. But for the sake of argument, assume there was a time when only very simple organisms, such as amino acids, existed. We can even extend our game of “let's suppose” a few steps further and suppose that these amino acids had already formed into enzymes. Of course, we are being overly generous to evolution, but it will serve to prove a point.

Now we are ready to shatter this concept by once again bringing in the most fundamental and important law of science in existence today—the Law of Thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called this the premier law of all sciences. Sir Author Eddington stated that if “your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation” (The Nature of the Physical World).

These are very strong words from two world-renowned scientists. Other writers have noted that the more that you work with these laws, the more respect you gain for them. Obviously, the Laws of Thermodynamics are absolutely immutable.

While they were touched upon in Part Two of this series, we will cover them in much more detail here. Their importance to all disciplines of science is obvious from the quotes above. Therefore, to be true, evolution must fall within the constraints of Thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, evolution must fall within the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Rewinding the Top?

Thermodynamics comes from two Greek words, therme, meaning “heat,” and dynamis, meaning “power.” In essence, thermodynamics is the study of “heat power.” The Second Law of Thermodynamics states three basic concepts: (1) Systems gravitate to the most probable (likely) state, (2) systems will gravitate to the most random state, and (3) systems will increase in entropy—the scientific term for “unusable energy.”

It is best explained by world-famous science writer and scientist Isaac Asimov: “Another way of stating the Second Law then is ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about” (“In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970).

Perhaps you are already beginning to see where this law contradicts the theory of evolution.



it is a challange to the begining of life, not evolution.

quote:

But evolutionists have not given up yet! In an attempt to make the theory work, a debate between “open” and “closed” systems has arisen. The difference between the two is quite simple. In a closed system, there is no interference from an external source, so the Second Law applies without any complications. The system becomes more disordered over time strictly in line with the Second Law. On the other hand, it is argued that in an open system external sources of energy allow a product to have more sustained energy—or increase in useable energy.

In the case of evolution, it is stated that because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy to the earth, this allows for systems to become more complex because they have the necessary energy to do so. And since the sun is winding down, the overall Laws of Thermodynamics in a closed system (the universe) are being met.

Basically, the extra energy from the sun supposedly allows evolution to take place on earth.

But is this true? As we have seen, clever arguments can sometimes be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Energy Alone Doth Not Evolution Make

Can simply applying energy to a system allow it to move to a lower level of entropy? Is that all that is required for evolution to take place? There have been mathematical constructs to show how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does apply in an open system. Does evolution fall within these constructs?



energy directed under randomly organized molecules.

quote:

While many evolutionists try to hide under the concept of an open system, there are some who do not. For instance, Charles J. Smith stated, “The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy [an increase in useable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology” (“Problems with Entropy in Biology,” Biosystems, 1975).



according to google he doesn't exist, but somehow i doubt he went one to renouce evolution.

quote:

As you can see, it was understood decades ago that there are “fundamental unsolved problems” with this concept. Yet, even recently published articles fall back on it.

Raw energy alone is not enough to lower entropy! In fact, for this to happen, multiple conditions must be met. Two are summarized in the following quote from renowned scientists George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck's textbook Life: An Introduction to Biology, “But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed” (emphasis ours).

“Particular work” requires more than just raw energy. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a “bull in a china shop.” Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always destroys! This is exactly the reason you should not leave photographs in direct sunlight. Over time, this undirected, raw energy will destroy them.

There is still another condition that must be met for energy to be “useable.” There must be a mechanism to convert one type of energy into another for a specific application. Without fulfilling these conditions, you have nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that will do nothing but destroy.

There are natural examples of energy—sunlight in particular—channeled into useful work. The most remarkable—photosynthesis in plants—also serves as the best illustration. Photosynthesis, an energy conversion system, is the process in which plants convert sunlight into the usable energy needed to make plants grow. Because this process is biological, we are dealing with the Second Law of Thermodynamics in an open system. In such a case, raw energy is available in the form of sunlight. And because plants have DNA, there is a highly designed and detailed specification for this “particular work” to be carried out. All needed conditions are met and, in such a case, there is a lowering of entropy—an increase in usable energy.

There are also similar systems in our body—digestion, respiratory system, etc. Yet in all cases, the conditions described above are satisfied.

To perform specific work, there must be “information”—instructions—for the process to proceed, and a mechanism for those instructions to be carried out. As we have seen, this happens in the leaves of plants, as well as the systems in our bodies.

But you CANNOT perform the highly specific work of evolution by simply supplying energy from the sun and “hope for the best.” No matter the argument, no matter how intensely arms are waved, no one can circumvent these fundamental laws of science. They are immutable—and, as such, make evolution impossible!



the first form of life on earth was probably some type of sulfer-eating thing living near the oceanic vents.

quote:

Two More Pillars Fall

We have looked at two more of the false assumptions that make up the theory of evolution. The laws of science are SURE! They are absolute and have existed since the beginning of our universe. Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this, or any other planet. Dishonest, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.

As you are learning in this series, evolution is simple—simply preposterous!

By now, you should be able to clearly and effectively refute the foolish assertions made by evolutionists. More importantly, your slate has been cleaned, and false concepts have been unlearned. The true Source of all life and the universe in which you reside should now be crystal clear!



not really. even if evolution is proven false, we have no reason to accept creationism...unless we already believed it before reading this article.

interesting how this article doesn't talk about fossil evidence (forms of life with a common ancestor evolve differently as the continents separate). or comparative anatomy. or dna sequences. etc, etc.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 07-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Really? I thought you said you were somewhere else. Are you catholic? ..although catholic would be christian... but I swear I heard you say that somewhere. Oh well, nevermind.

Nope. Not Christian. Never been Christian.

And AngryFemme, yes, the extra pages will be added.

Cheers,

Lost

Nice reply.

quote:long ago, non-living—inorganic—matter made the jump to living matter—organic—thus starting the process of biological evolution.

A Breathing Rock?

Big strawman, missing just a bit of inbetween. Although I like the ol' "From goo to you by way of the zoo" saying better, it adds some nice rhyming.

Creationist manual to building your own jet strike fighter,

Step 1: Find a piece of sheet metal.

Step 2: Congratulations your sheet metal is a fully armed and capable state of the art jet fighter.



Since the first part seemed so adamant to teach logical fallacies, I think it's time to learn a new one

quote mining"Quote mining is the practice of compiling quotes from large volumes of literature or spoken word. The term is used pejoratively to accuse the "quote miner" of cherry picking and misquotation, where favorable positions are amplified or falsely suggested, and unfavorable positions in the same text are excluded or otherwise obscured.

The expression is also sometimes used in a slightly weaker sense, merely meaning that a quote is being used to support an idea that the original author rejects. In this second case, even a quote which is accurate can be considered a mined quote." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote-mining

The wikipedia article lists a quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin."

In this case we see very little evidence presented, only a bunch of quotes. For example, they label the idea that evolution is 'biology only' questionable while fully accepting the quote by Dobzhansky, without providing any substantial reason why, which view is more accepted by scientists, or if they even quoted people correctly.

Speaking of their argument that we need to know the origins of life because "How can life evolve if it never existed?" (first all living people need to think about the stupidity that goes into that sentence).

Ok, those who don't believe Bush is president because we don't know what the Bush family was doing in the 17th century, raise your hand.

So we end up with an article that is based solely on two appeals to authority. First that the creationists are accurately representing each quote and second that said quote represents current scientific thought (notice how much the dates jump around) and contains no actual evidence against evolution or for creationism but argues against a strawman version of evolution. But wait, didn't this very paper warn to stay away from things like that? Why yes it did.

•"Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts”to validate a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion."

•"Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true."

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 07-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

String theory is an emerging 'theory' to unify the forces, perhaps you were thinking Quantum mechanics. In which case you are right, many "laws" don't function well on the quantum level.



thanks for clarifying that. i have always thought that string theory and quantum mechanics are the same thing.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Don't worry, I will get to all of this. Whether you concede your points or not will ultimately be irrelevant. I said I would answer you all, and I will. Sit there smugly all you like...you will be embarassed by the end.

well, it's been five days. i'm not embarassed yet d_s -- but you should be. if you decide to grace us with your divine time and respond, try responding to an actual post.

Yes and no. I really should have said the standard model, as both deal with the extremely small scale. String theory tries to explain why the standard model is so effective at explaining the extremely small yet fails when scientists try to unify it with relativity.

The 'battle' between the two theories really puts a crimp on creationist claims if only more people knew about it.

The creationist groups want us to think that scientists are either so stupid that simplistic thermodynamics will destroy evolution or that there is a worldwide conspiracy against any change.

In reality string theory and the standard theory are amazingly complex. Groups that support each theory are competing against each other, even groups within them compete to see who can get to the data first. You get famous for disproving an old theory.

A simple test to this, name a famous scientist (preferably in theoretical work) any science, chances are they are famous for disproving a theory. Matter of fact one of the most famous scientists ever is famous mainly because he disproved the theories of one of the second most famous scientists ever.

Has she given up again?

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Has she given up again?

I really don't blame her but I would just like her to admit she is wrong and be honest with herself.

There is no scientific evidence for creation, there are just two anonymous stories that contradict each other and all the empirical evidence science has found in all other branches that relate to age or evolution.





[This message has been edited by IanBoyd3 (edited 07-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

There is no scientific evidence for evolution, there are just two anonymous stories that contradict each other and all the empirical evidence science has found in all other branches that relate to age or evolution.



Uh, there's plenty of evidence for evolution, I think you're thinking of creationism...

I agree, I don't blame her for quiting, she is obviously in over her head. She just needs to stop making claims that she knows what she is talking about, doing so seems quite unchrist like.

It's also obvious it's not her fault, but her sources that are the ones really in error, she just needs to gain enough humility (something I think Jesus talked about) and admit maybe her sources aren't the best place to go for accurate information on this debate.

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Uh, there's plenty of evidence for evolution, I think you're thinking of creationism...

Yea, whoops, that's what I meant. I fixed it now though.

She can still say God created the process and system of evolution.

No she can't. At least not without admitting that she has been wrong in her past assertions that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

She can still say God created the process and system of evolution.

That isn't creationism.

Besides, I don't think Digital could "lower" herself to hold a position of the Catholic church.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That isn't creationism.

Besides, I don't think Digital could "lower" herself to hold a position of the Catholic church.

Whats the big deal about saying "oops" and that "God is so great that he created the simple yet complex and beautiful system of evolution and adaption."

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Whats the big deal about saying "oops" and that "God is so great that he created the simple yet complex and beautiful system of evolution and adaption."



The big deal is the fear of the domino effect it would cause. If she were to accept that evolution occured(even though it were the process used by God to create mankind), she would then be forced to accept that the literal 6 day creation story in Genesis is metaphor and not really truth. Then she would have to accept that if this part of the bible was incorrect, that the bible is not the inerrant word of God. If the bible were not inerrant, then she would have to question the reliability of the rest of the bible...

You get the picture.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Whats the big deal about saying "oops" and that "God is so great that he created the simple yet complex and beautiful system of evolution and adaption."



1. Because that isn't creation. She's arguing for creation, not God inspired evolution.

2. That wouldn't be literal interpretation of the Bible. Digital believes in a literal Bible, so she can't believe in God inspired evolution.

I might not have enough time to be on totse as much anymore but I'll drop in from time to time.

For starters D_S did the same thing already refuted and defined as intellectual honesty.

What did she do? She defined a theory as a scientific theory, not a scientific theory as a scientific theory. This is misleading and deceptive.

As for the arguements themselves and their credibility, you guys seem to know what your talking about. As with theopathy, look into the source, what it is funded by, influenced by, and what it's objectives are. (these things to check to see if the source is bias)

Also look into the scientist themselves, sometimes a simple google search will reveal a .edu website revealing information with proof they are not credible.

"Question everything" applies to these sorts of things.

Alot of you will already know this but it might help someone new to the debate.

Also string theory is drastically different than quantum mechanics.

String theory information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory)

Also in referance to this:

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Well I have a gut feeling this will almost immediately turn into an evolutionary debate. That's annoying because even if the creationists could completely defeat evolution (which they can't), they still wouldn't have proved their theory.



This is direct and blatant plagiarism so I claim no credit for this list.

This is a repost of what I feel is a good list of reasons creationism can't be true which have nothing to do with evolution, posted by After Image.

Originally Posted by After Image:

"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is clearly asking for mathematics behind creationism, proof of how creationion and intervention is possible using physics and mathematics to support your claim.

How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model, could occur.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is asking for an explanation of how light can travel more light years than it's speed in a vacume allows it to if the creationism idea of the age of the universe is correct

Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has to do with why if the universe was created in it's present state 6000 years ago, how could it be changing so much that it would be logical to think it has been changing forever.

Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has only to do with scientific integrity. For example why would nasa, and the majority of scientists all over the world have using scientific techniques determined the relative age of the universe that is commonly agreed upon, yet the only people who don't agree and "theologist scientists" who found what they call science based on thier own belief system.

Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

Here I am specifically asking for a mathematic equation behind any creationist claims you make

Thank you."

Exactly if creationism cannot be proven true without mentioning evolution it cannot be true. This is because the criteria of proving a theory true is not proving other theories false, this is only sometimes the result of a theory being proven true, and does not need to be done if they theory it's self is true.

As for how long it will take for her to get back this thread, just look at what she said last time:

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'll get to that thread when I feel like it.



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

When I want to.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

Which shall be never. A noble person admits when they've lost; you, evidently, are not noble.

(Her reply)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

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



quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Imagine if the whole world operated under those concepts.



Yeah...well we will see what happens...

Below are a list of critisims of creationism by 3 sources (taken from wikipedia):

quote:Originally from wikipedia:



Criticism of creationism

[edit]

Scientific critique of creationism

All forms of Creationism incorporate some theological content, but they have varied considerably over time in the degree to which they try to incorporate scientific terminology. Since the origins of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries, forms of creationism have become increasingly separated from mainstream science. Many of the current manifestations of creationism, particularly Young Earth creationism, were created to defend the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation in genesis, when evolution started to become scientific consensus.

There is a fundamental difference between the scientific approach to explaining the natural world and the creationist approach. The scientific approach uses the scientific method as a means of discovering information about nature. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of scientific theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. This is a meritocratic form of systematic enquiry, where the best ideas supported by evidence and positive experimental results survive. In principle, the scientific method does not seek answers that fit a certain pre-determined conclusion, but rather works to construct viable, testable, and provable theories based on a solid evidential foundation. The evidential foundation therefore precludes any reference to revelation.

Creationism, on the other hand, works by taking theologically conservative interpretations of scripture as the primary or only source of information about origins. Creationists believe that since the Creator created everything and also revealed scriptures, the scriptures have preeminence as a kind of evidence. Consistency with their interpretations of scripture is the measure by which they judge all other evidence. They then accept or reject scientific accounts based on whether or not they agree with their beliefs, discounting that which contradicts their understanding of scriptural revelation. This perspective can be seen as a type of luddism or anti-modernism since any seemingly opposing ideas are either ignored or dismissed. Those who oppose creationism point out that such positions are fundamentally unscientific and a hallmark of pseudoscience.

Certain adherents to creationism have declared that there exist versions of creationism (namely creation science) that are based on the scientific method. It was such claims that were the basis for the legal arguments that creationism deserved equal-time in the science classroom. Skeptical critics charge that creation science is not a theory that has come about through a systematic and scientific accumulation of evidence. It is predominantly based on the assumption of a literal interpretation of religious scripture and the emphasis of the authority of scripture over other sources of knowledge is evident in creation science literature.

All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Scientific theories can be (and often are) found to be incorrect or incomplete. Since creationism rests on an article of faith, its construction assumes that the narrative accounts of origins can never be shown falsified, no matter how strong the evidence is to the contrary.

Evolutionary modern synthesis is the theory that fits all known biological and genetic evidence while being backed up by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. Contrary to frequent claims by many opponents of the theory of evolution, transitional fossils exist which show a gradual change from one species to another. Moreover, evolutionary selection has been observed in living species (for a macroscopic instance, “tuskless elephants,” see elephant).

In the last ten years, powerful DNA analysis techniques applied to many organisms have demonstrated the fundamental genetic relationship between all forms of known life (humans share 50% of their DNA with yeast, 96%[11] with chimpanzees). Even if evolution as biologists currently understand it turned out to be false, this would not imply the truth of special creation (such a binary view being a logical fallacy). It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the US) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution rages.

[edit]

The Christian critique of creationism

In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," George Murphy argues against the common view that life on Earth in all its forms is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior." This verse inspired Blaise Pascal to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."

Luther opposes his theology of the cross to what he called the "theology of glory":

A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone [I Cor. 2:2]. He sees and speaks of God's glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible [Cf. Rom. 1:20] and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere.

For Murphy, Creationists are modern-day theologians of glory. Following Luther, Murphy argues that a true Christian cannot discover God from clues in creation, but only from the crucified Christ.

Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8,

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Murphy concludes that,

Just as the son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on the cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation.

For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysical naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.

According to Emil Brunner, "God does not wish to occupy the whole of space Himself, but that He wills to make room for other forms of existence ... In so doing, He limits Himself." It is where God has limited Himself that humans must use their own intelligence to understand the world — to understand the laws of gravity as well as evolution – without relying on God as an explanation. It is only through the cross and the resurrection that one may find God.

In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, reported that he was opposed to teaching creationism in schools. "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," Williams explained. Archbishop Williams also explained that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." Williams's position is in line with that of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion. [12]

[edit]

Plea to reject nonsense

In his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim), Saint Augustine (354-430), embarrassed by Christians who would not accept this implication of the Doctrine of Creation, wrote against them. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, […] and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?



Just something to think about. Also please note this doesn't disprove god.

Edit : Trying to fix link

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

1. Because that isn't creation. She's arguing for creation, not God inspired evolution.

2. That wouldn't be literal interpretation of the Bible. Digital believes in a literal Bible, so she can't believe in God inspired evolution.

To deny a miracle of God in the name of God.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The big deal is the fear of the domino effect it would cause. If she were to accept that evolution occured(even though it were the process used by God to create mankind), she would then be forced to accept that the literal 6 day creation story in Genesis is metaphor and not really truth. Then she would have to accept that if this part of the bible was incorrect, that the bible is not the inerrant word of God. If the bible were not inerrant, then she would have to question the reliability of the rest of the bible...

You get the picture.



But if she takes them as a metaphor, that God's "days" are not the same as human days, she could still get away with holding on to the Bible. I'm not sure the Bible asks people to take everything it says completely literally, it is jam packed with metaphors to help people understand things. I don't believe ancient people even took it all literally.

It's too bad that they ruled the teaching of creationism to be illegal and they also ruled creationism and intelligent design to be synonymous.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

But if she takes them as a metaphor, that God's "days" are not the same as human days, she could still get away with holding on to the Bible. I'm not sure the Bible asks people to take everything it says completely literally, it is jam packed with metaphors to help people understand things. I don't believe ancient people even took it all literally.



She cannot take them as metaphor. She has stated that the bible is the inerrant word of God. Genesis states that God created the the heavens and the earth in six days. That's it. That's what she believes. She will consider no other interpretation, in spite of logic or reason.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

She cannot take them as metaphor. She has stated that the bible is the inerrant word of God. Genesis states that God created the the heavens and the earth in six days. That's it. That's what she believes. She will consider no other interpretation, in spite of logic or reason.



Did the Old Testament ever state that God utilizes Metaphor? I mean she takes it as a metaphor for Jesus when it states the "word" of God, but then doesn't take the other things as metaphor? She also keeps telling me Jesus appears in the Old Testament but then gives me quotes that don't say Jesus and then makes fun of me for not knowing Jesus didn't exist in the Old Testament even though Jesus doesn't.

I can in no way explain her thought processes in how she differentiates between what should be taken literally and what should be taken as metaphor, as I cannot read her mind . Perhaps she doesn't realize that her beliefs are self contradicting.

It's pretty easy for me to tell you what she believes, as she has posted her beliefs on totse for more than two years now. It's really impossible to tell you why or how she believes as she does.

pentecostal, mabye?

Maybe if hyroglyphx saw this thread now, he'd feel challenged enough.

But by conceding this argument, her whole belief system is threatened.

This is interesting.

quote:Originally posted by whocares123:

But by conceding this argument, her whole belief system is threatened.

This is interesting.

This hasn't interested me for a long time. I get tired of bullshit quickly.

Let me just say, who cares.

well, it's been nine days. have you fled again, d_s?

*looks at recent posts by Digital_Savior*

You're just stalling now.

-- Dread Pirate Roberts

quote:The problem with believing that all absolute morality comes down from God period is that whatever you perceive God to be saying, becomes completely moral, even it goes completely against the natural human morality we atheists understand. Theists will often accuse atheists of having no morality, no virtue, or good, and that it is dangerous to rely on humans to figure it out - we instead need an all powerful dictator handing them down to us in absolutes. Ironically, it is the belief in this absolute morality handed down from God that has caused the most immoral actions of all time.

I just got the book, "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis at the library today. To my surprise, the first chapter of the book discusses absolute and relative morality. It was refreshing to read how Lewis formulates his points in favor of absolute morality. In the opening portion of the chapter, he presents the dialogue of two people quarreling and attempts to go straight to the point of why people argue and what they are essentialy saying. He goes on thus:

"What interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies, 'to hell with your standards.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there are special circumstances... Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football... Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right or Wrong, you will see him going back on this a moment later." -Clive Staples Lewis

Instead of holding the book in my lap and engaging in the laborious task of typing out the whole argument, I found a website that contains the synopsis his argument:

There is a Universal Moral Law

"The first step in Lewis's moral argument is to establish that there is a universal moral law. One reason to accept this premise is that without it, all moral disagreements would make no sense. Lewis points out that we appeal to a universal moral standard all the time. If someone cuts in line at an amusement park, we say, "that's not fair." When a psychotic murderer tortures, rapes, and brutally kills his victims, we say, "that's evil." Whenever we appeal to these standards, Lewis notes that we do not have to explain why these things are considered morally bad or evil. They are morally wrong, and everyone knows it. If a complete stranger walked into your house and picked up your television and started walking out, more than likely you will get up and say something like, "Hey, stop that! That is my tv." What you are doing in that scenario is appealing to a universal moral law. You assume it is an understood standard for all people to follow a principle of not taking things that are not theirs. If this person responded by saying, "So what?", you would probably think that person was very strange or perhaps crazy. When people do not understand certain moral values (for example, sociopaths who feel there is nothing morally wrong with any actions, including killing innocent people for no reason), we think there is something is seriously wrong with them. Lewis believes that this is best explained because we (correctly) assume there is a universal moral law.

Another reason Lewis explains for why there must be a universal moral law is that all moral judgments would be meaningless. For example, when we say, "The Nazis were wrong to murder the Jews," what do we mean? Does it mean it is just my personal opinion that the Nazis were wrong? If that is so, it does not seem to make much difference what the Nazis do. It would be on par with my difference of opinion regarding chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Or consider the claims against countries who repress women or mistreat women. If there is no universal moral law, on what grounds can we judge these countries to be committing a moral evil? Without a universal moral law, all of these claims amount to mere differences of opinion, but there cannot be a right or wrong view. In other words, without a universal moral law, the Nazis happen to prefer Nazi morality, and you happen to prefer anti-Nazi morality, but there is no real standard by which we can judge which of the two views is correct. Without a universal moral law, this judgment is a matter of opinion. However, it seems clear that the moral status of certain actions (e.g., the Nazis) is not a matter of subjective opinion, and this is because we presume there is a universal moral law.

So, C. S. Lewis, if he is right thus far, has established that there is a universal moral law. At this point he hasn't appealed to God or made claims that even most atheists would find contentious. In fact, Lewis believes that the moral law is something that all humans are bound to follow, no matter how hard they try to escape from it. So, Lewis believes that this first premise is well-founded."

If There is a Universal Moral Law, then There is a Universal Moral Law Giver:

"After establishing the existence of a universal moral law, Lewis wonders at the explanation of the existence of this universal moral law. Lewis arrives at the conclusion that a universal moral law implies a moral law Giver. Moral laws, unlike physical laws, are obligations or rules that one is responsible to follow. Without a person who makes these laws, it seems utterly inexplicable that they should exist. We can imagine a molecule by molecule physical duplication of our universe existing without any moral rules, so it seems that moral laws are not entailed by any physical, natural features of the universe. If the universal moral law is not entailed by the natural, physical aspects of the universe, how do we explain the universal moral law? Lewis believes that the best answer to this question maintains that the universal moral law implies that there is a universal moral law Giver. This law Giver could not be any arbitrary being. The kind of being to which the universal moral law points would be supremely powerful (in order to create the universal moral law), perfectly good (in order to be the objective standard for the moral law), and a being who is interested in our behavior (in order to explain why he makes us subject to the moral law). In other words, the moral law Giver would have to be like the personal God of the Christian tradition.

Even though this second premise is much more controversial than the first one, Lewis has put forward a plausible explanation for the moral law. Moreover, since better explanations do not seem forthcoming, it seems that Lewis has given a substantial defense of the second premise."

Therefore, God Must Exist

"If one accepts the first two premises, then the conclusion follows logically. So, to resist Lewis's argument, one must show that one of the two premises is false. Below I will consider some of the most often cited ways to deny one of the two premises."

Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?"

"One way to deny the second premise of Lewis's argument suggests that the universal moral law can be explained by herd instinct. By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This means that we find ourselves obligated to follow our strongest impulse, which can be explained by naturalistic processes. The problem with this rejoinder is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example, there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. We would expect to be able to explain features of our physical features by appealing to physical processes, but we've seen that the universal moral law is not the sort of thing that would be entailed by any combination of physical material and laws."

Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?

"Another way to resist Lewis's argument suggests that the moral law is merely a learned social convention. (This could be seen as a way to challenge the first premise by denying that the moral law is universal, or it might be a way to deny the second premise by offering an alternative explanation for the universal moral law.) Even though we often learn morality through social conventions, that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We also learn things like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. This objection confuses how we learn moral laws with the nature of moral laws.

It is also worth noting that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality but not individuals. But it is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, if we acknowledged that morality is completely subjective (i.e., up to each individual to decide for himself) this would also lead to obvious problems. So, the alleged solution is to hold that morality is determined by societies or other social conventions. But this suggestion also leads to obvious problems. For example, how could we ever say a society has morally improved, if the moral standard is set by that society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are morally evil, since they oppose what is established according to their societies conventions. Moreover, this would make any social convention that establishes moral laws infallible, but we know that these societies can be judged as to whether they are meeting objective moral standards (e.g., the Nazis; any society that violates human rights). Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention."

Is the Moral Law My Will Itself?

"Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law."

Could There Be No Moral Law?

Another way to reject Lewis's argument is to deny the first premise. If there is no universal moral law, then there is nothing that needs to be explained. Perhaps, the critic might claim, we have these moral intuitions, but they are all false illusions of a law that doesn't really exist. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot cast it off. We cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. We cannot escape the moral law any more than we can escape the laws of logic or mathematics. Denying the universal moral law would ultimately lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa)."

http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html

Uh… there is no moral law, there is no good and evil, only subjective opinions of what is right and wrong… the reason so many people think something just has to be evil to do is because they were told that from childhood and had it shoved in their heads… it’s pretty easy to make up morals, also morals are different country to country, society to society.

All morals are meaningless in the long wrong, you may not like that but who gives a fuck what you like, it still doesn't change objective reality.

Besides, let’s get back on topic: creationism.

Also, that whole argument is based on appeal of emotion and there are far better philosophers out there who have explained you can have objective morals without a god. You fail.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

*looks at recent posts by Digital_Savior*

You're just stalling now.

-- Dread Pirate Roberts

No! I want you to feel you're doing well. I hate for people to die unhappy. --- Fezzik

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Christian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... --- Vizzini (edit mine)

As Hyroglyphx can attest to, my in laws were in town this week. They just left yesterday. I didn't have the time to enter into a serious debate. I posted elsewhere, but only because it took but a few moments to do so.

As for my recent posts in this thread, I am laying ground work for the inevitable trite arguments that will be presented by the evolutionists, who have already forgotten that this is less about disproving evolution, and more about proving ID a viable enough scientific theory to put it alongside evolution in public schools.

P.S. I love that movie. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by smallpox champion:

Maybe if hyroglyphx saw this thread now, he'd feel challenged enough.

He has returned at my request. 1 against the masses isn't a fair fight.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

pentecostal, mabye?

Non-denominational Biblical Literalist and Apologist.

Are these enough labels for you ?

quote:As for my recent posts in this thread, I am laying ground work for the inevitable trite arguments that will be presented by the evolutionists, who have already forgotten that this is less about disproving evolution, and more about proving ID a viable enough scientific theory to put it alongside evolution in public schools.

It’s rather faulty groundwork, considering it has inaccurate information about evolution and lies through its teeth.

P.S, we haven’t forgotten that this is about creationism, you’re the one who was posting anti-evolution articles just to ‘state why you don’t believe’, we were merely responding to those trite artices.





[This message has been edited by Overman (edited 07-30-2006).]

What trite arguments are those exactly?

Are you not bothered by the poor quality and inaccuracies in the article you posted, are you not bothered by the fact it breaks its own groundwork and rules?

Or did you not even read the replies?

I think I called this one, the goal isn't to provide evidence that creationism is science but that evolution is just as poor as creationism thus they should both be taught. Which is absurd, if evolution was as faulty as creationism, then neither should be taught in high school (as it is not the battle field for up and coming theories). It's sad the only way they can support creationism is to lie about evolution and break their own rules set out at the beginning. The willingness to do this brings all their talk about "morality" into question as well.

Of course, if I'm right this does mean one thing, that DS has indirectly acknowledged creationism doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 07-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Did the Old Testament ever state that God utilizes Metaphor? I mean she takes it as a metaphor for Jesus when it states the "word" of God, but then doesn't take the other things as metaphor? She also keeps telling me Jesus appears in the Old Testament but then gives me quotes that don't say Jesus and then makes fun of me for not knowing Jesus didn't exist in the Old Testament even though Jesus doesn't.

John 1:1 - 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

Please tell me how that can possibly be taken as a metaphor, and where I said I thought it was a metaphor.

<LI> Deuteronomy 18:15-19

<LI> The Messiah would be a descendant of Shem named Abraham. Genesis 22:18; chapter 12; chapter 17; and chapter 22 which was fulfilled in Matthew, chapter 1 (Christ's genealogy)

<LI> The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham's son, Isaac, not Ishmael (the father of modern Arabs). Genesis Chapter 17 and 21, fulfilled in Matthew chapter 1.

<LI> The Messiah would be a descendant of Isaac's son, Jacob, not Esau. Genesis chapter 28; chapter 35:10-12; Numbers 24:17, fulfilled in Matthew chapter 1.

<LI> The Messiah would be a descendant of Judah, not of the other eleven sons of Jacob. Genesis 29:25 (Leah and Jacob give birth to Judah), Genesis 49:8-10 (Messiah is the one to whom the scepter/rulers staff belongs) fulfilled in Luke 3:33 and Matthew 1.

<LI> The Messiah would be a descendant of the family of Jesse in the tribe of Benjamin. Isaiah 11:1-5 fulfilled in Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38

<LI> The Messiah would be of the house of David. 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5; Psalm 89:3-4, fulfilled in Matthew 1; Luke 1:27, chapter 32, and chapter 69

<LI> The Messiah would be born in a small city called Bethlehem, specifically the one formerly known as Ephratah. Micah 5:1-5, fulfilled in Luke 2:4-20.

<LI> The Messiah would be born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14, fulfilled in Matthew 1 and Luke 1.

There are numerous other prophecies Jesus Christ fulfilled. Just because the name "Jesus" wasn't used in the Old Testament doesn't mean anything. Jesus wasn't named until just before his birth, by an angel that appeared to Joseph. Matthew 1:20-21 Prior to that, God referred to him as many things (http://tinyurl.com/l35hv).

In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is referred to as Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. These names (especially Prince of Peace) can be referenced in other Old Testament scriptures, wherein Messiah is being spoken of, as well.

Jesus didn't come into being at conception in Mary's womb. He always existed, as God. He is not a separate entity, but rather a separate personality of God. Since he has always existed as God, it is ridiculous to claim that the lack of use of his name in human form is proof that he was never mentioned in the Old Testament.

Again, I reference John 1:1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

Not only does this scripture imply plurality (God is talking to Himself), but also singularity (the Word WAS God). Jesus was the word, the word was WITH God, and the word WAS God. He (Jesus, the word) was with God in the beginning. Here, we see God speaking to Himself as more than one personality.

In the Old Testament, we see God talking to "Himself" as well.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

This is clearly plural. Then He goes on to speak of Himself in a singular tense:

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

I also recall you claiming that God would not defile Himself by becoming flesh, and I feel obligated to direct you to this scripture in the Old Testament:

Genesis 3:8 - Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

It is apparent that God, the omnipotent Creator of the Universe, can do anything He pleases, including "walking" in an earthly garden. Pray tell, how can God, a spiritual entity, encompassing all things and having no rigid form, WALK ?

Perhaps if your comprehension level was slightly above that of a gnat, you wouldn't have as many problems as you do. Since you have openly admitted you have not read the Bible (rather, you claim you have, but whenever I quote scripture you act surprised about the content), nor studied it, I'd venture to say you are in no position to question MY knowledge of it, nor my belief in it's inerrancy.

Now stop derailing this thread. It is about Intelligent Design.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

What trite arguments are those exactly?

Precisely the arguments which have been addressed in the first set of articles I have posted. I haven't been able to post the third, and begin directly addressing the scientific evidence that encompasses Intelligent Design.

quote:Are you not bothered by the poor quality and inaccuracies in the article you posted, are you not bothered by the fact it breaks its own groundwork and rules?

Or did you not even read the replies?

I am not bothered by what ATHEISTS consider to be fallacies and inaccuracies. I have also said numerous times that I will not defend what I have recently posted UNTIL I FINISH ANSWERING ALL OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS. If you people would READ, you'd understand this, and say nothing, until I have caught up.

Continuing on and then claiming victory because I have yet to respond to your attacks, is fallacious logic, and doesn't make you right.

AGAIN: I WILL GET TO ALL THE POSTS. I don't have to do it NOW, and I don't have to do it SOON. I have been with family all week (in laws from out of town), and I have midterms this week. A lack of rebuttal on my part does not constitute a victory on yours. Comprende ?

quote:I think I called this one, the goal isn't to provide evidence that creationism is science but that evolution is just as poor as creationism thus they should both be taught.

You're right. This isn't about Creationism. It's about Intelligent Design. There IS a distinct difference, and you should learn it.

quote:Which is absurd, if evolution was as faulty as creationism, then neither should be taught in high school (as it is not the battle field for up and coming theories).

I have said several times that the purpose of this thread is NOT to disprove evolution (which I could easily do), but to prove Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory that should have a place next to evolution in public schools. Secularists do not hold the scepter when it comes to what our tax dollars pay for in schools, however much they contend they do, based on the gross manipulation of the 'Separation of Church and State' doctrine.

quote:It's sad the only way they can support creationism is to lie about evolution and break their own rules set out at the beginning. The willingness to do this brings all their talk about "morality" into question as well.

It is equally saddening that evolutionists lie to make their theory plausible, and deny the right of any other scientists to provide contradictory evidence (they deny them by calling them pseudoscientists, and refusing to allow them to publish their works in peer review journals. Yes, this has happened numerous times, and I can prove it some other time). Even more saddening is the fact that 83% of this nation claims to be Christian, yet we cannot recognize our Creator in institutions of learning.

Your opinion of what rules have been broken and which haven't, as well as what is moral and what is not, is irrelevant. To claim you know what is moral and what isn't is to say that you exhibit morality. This begs the question, where does it come from ? But I digress...that is a debate for another thread.

Try and stick to the context of this thread, eh ?

quote:Of course, if I'm right this does mean one thing, that DS has indirectly acknowledged creationism doesn't have a leg to stand on.

While I believe Creationism is a valid explanation of our existence, we are debating Intelligent Design. As I have already said, it would behoove you to understand the difference, in light of the debate contained in this thread.

quote:I am not bothered by what ATHEISTS consider to be fallacies and inaccuracies. I have also said numerous times that I will not defend what I have recently posted UNTIL I FINISH ANSWERING ALL OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS. If you people would READ, you'd understand this, and say nothing, until I have caught up.

Reading that, I realise that you seriously have problems.

This isn’t about what atheists consider fallacies and inaccuracies, this is about what proper scientists - not pseudo-scientific intelligent designers - have logically and reasonably proved to be fallacies and inaccuracies, also, not all scientists who admit evolution is correct are atheists.

DS:

quote:Precisely the arguments which have been addressed in the first set of articles I have posted

I see very few arguments accurately addressed in your posts. The few valid claims it makes it also breaks. The articles' writer apparently doesn't hold himself to the same standards he expects evolutionists to hold.

quote:I am not bothered by what ATHEISTS consider to be fallacies and inaccuracies.

Are you saying that you will ignore inaccuracies just because they are posted by an atheist? If so that is extremely telling. What if the evil atheist is backed up by evidence and facts? Will you ignore the truth just because of the messenger?

quote:It is equally saddening that evolutionists lie to make their theory plausible, and deny the right of any other scientists to provide contradictory evidence (they deny them by calling them pseudoscientists, and refusing to allow them to publish their works in peer review journals. Yes, this has happened numerous times, and I can prove it some other time). Even more saddening is the fact that 83% of this nation claims to be Christian, yet we cannot recognize our Creator in institutions of learning.

Well so far every attempt to show evolutionists as liars has been a logical fallacy. A bit hypocritical don't you think?

I would love you to list the creationist articles that have been submitted to proper peer review journals. I bet it is a very short list (or an inaccurate one, as I've seen " creationist peer review" claims that turn out to be false) most creationists don't submit articles to peer review using the argument that they will just get denied because of the big conspiracy against them, so why bother. Those that have are refused based on poor science.

Flat earth papers also don't appear in peer review journals, does that make them accurate?

quote:Your opinion of what rules have been broken and which haven't, as well as what is moral and what is not, is irrelevant. To claim you know what is moral and what isn't is to say that you exhibit morality. This begs the question, where does it come from ?

HAHAHAHA that was awesome.

The morality I was talking about comes from your paper thus if I don't have morality then your paper is inaccurate. Good job. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Of course I love that you just dismissed my claims without actually backing it up. I thought you weren't talking about replies till after you posted the already posted third part.



So... still waiting for that evidence for intelligent design. I can't wait to see what it is.

but you will never get it. she still hasn't responded to posts on page one.

quote:

As for my recent posts in this thread, I am laying ground work for the inevitable trite arguments that will be presented by the evolutionists, who have already forgotten that this is less about disproving evolution, and more about proving ID a viable enough scientific theory to put it alongside evolution in public schools.



yet you haven't presented one shred of evidence for id, scientific or otherwise.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 07-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have said several times that the purpose of this thread is NOT to disprove evolution (which I could easily do), but to prove Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory that should have a place next to evolution in public schools. Secularists do not hold the scepter when it comes to what our tax dollars pay for in schools, however much they contend they do, based on the gross manipulation of the 'Separation of Church and State' doctrine.

The goal of public schools is, or at least should be, to provide the child with the best education possible based on available resources and the knowledge we have. Schoolhouses hundreds of years ago before the theory of evolution, big bangs, intelligent design, and the concept of the separation of church and state were ever invented may have very well taught creationism. What else did they have?

Evolution is a theory, we all know that. But it's the best theory we currently have on the matter, and so it is what is taught in our public schools. But we can't expect our kids to learn everything there. If you want your child to know and believe in intelligent design, then you have every right to teach them about it yourself. If I want my child to go to a secular public school and not be taught religious based theories that have no place there, then I have that right too. If you really believe in creationism or intelligent design, then what are you afraid of the schools teaching only evolution for? Think they'll cause some to leave the flock? Consider it a test of faith by God.

There are more outlets of information than just tax payer funded schools. These institutions are designed to be as unbiased as possible. I don't care if 83% of the nation is Christian. I don't care if 99% was. You have no right to infringe upon the minority with a theory based on a Creator's existence in a free society such as that that exists in the US.

There's no bias against intelligent design. There's no conspiracy keeping it from being exposed. I'm sure that 83% of 300 million people would love to believe in it, but fortunately for the rest of us most of them have more sense than you.

Digital has this to say, in post #375 about logical fallacies to stay away from,

"Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence."

I would assume if she is honest and believes these articles, she wouldn't actually appeal to the people (or popular opinion) to have a supernatural force taught in science class, where it doesn't belong.

But wait a second, I'm just a moralless atheist, which means I am not allowed to point out her hypocritical actions or any hypocritical points made in the article.

quote:Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there are special circumstances...

Sounds like george bush.

On the otherhand while I find your post interesting I think morals to a great extend come from your enviroment and what is taught to you. Alot of the Nazi's believed they were right to do what they did and some of those of them that are still alive insist they did nothing wrong and would do it again if they had the chance.

I think essentually human morality comes from two things:

What people are taught

What causes suffering

People typically don't consider causing suffering a moral thing but (mostly in times of war) the group wanting to cause the suffering will view other people as "not real people" therefor they don't get the same treatment as everyone else. Thats the root of racism, and war when you think about it.

I see no evidence for a Universal Moral Law governing people, because of what I mentioned above, and because what is considered moral changes with the time, varies from group of people to group of people, and even on the individual level. Assuming everyone considers the same things moral is just plain ignorant, and incorrect.

quote: Since we did not create it, we cannot cast it off. We cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us.

A person not exposed to other people's morals, could have a drastically different perspective moral wise, than what you would consider the moral law.

Honestly I think it would be nice if there was a universal moral code but there isn't.

Sorry but that crumbles your entire god must exist arguement, although it is possible for god to exist, it isn't a requirement of morality. Obviously believing in god doesn't mean people will be moral, just look at any war.

Now back to the main topic:



If creationism is a real science that could be true then please answer these questions, which have been asked a large number of times throughout various threads without a single relevant responce:





"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is clearly asking for mathematics behind creationism, proof of how creationion and intervention is possible using physics and mathematics to support your claim.

How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model, could occur.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is asking for an explanation of how light can travel more light years than it's speed in a vacume allows it to if the creationism idea of the age of the universe is correct

Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has to do with why if the universe was created in it's present state 6000 years ago, how could it be changing so much that it would be logical to think it has been changing forever.

Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has only to do with scientific integrity. For example why would nasa, and the majority of scientists all over the world have using scientific techniques determined the relative age of the universe that is commonly agreed upon, yet the only people who don't agree and "theologist scientists" who found what they call science based on thier own belief system.

Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

Here I am specifically asking for a mathematic equation behind any creationist claims you make

Thank you.

Once again please note they have nothing to do with evolution, so should not produce a responce related to evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Christian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... --- Vizzini (edit mine)

This qoute speaks legions about your universal moral law.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

As for my recent posts in this thread, I am laying ground work for the inevitable trite arguments that will be presented by the evolutionists, who have already forgotten that this is less about disproving evolution, and more about proving ID a viable enough scientific theory to put it alongside evolution in public schools.

MY POINT EXACTLY! NOW YOU HAVE AN CHANCE TO PROVE ID AS A VIABLE THEORY!!!



"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is clearly asking for mathematics behind creationism, proof of how creationion and intervention is possible using physics and mathematics to support your claim.

How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model, could occur.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is asking for an explanation of how light can travel more light years than it's speed in a vacume allows it to if the creationism idea of the age of the universe is correct

Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has to do with why if the universe was created in it's present state 6000 years ago, how could it be changing so much that it would be logical to think it has been changing forever.

Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has only to do with scientific integrity. For example why would nasa, and the majority of scientists all over the world have using scientific techniques determined the relative age of the universe that is commonly agreed upon, yet the only people who don't agree and "theologist scientists" who found what they call science based on thier own belief system.

Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

Here I am specifically asking for a mathematic equation behind any creationist claims you make

Thank you.

Notice how all those questions are asking for proof of ID independant of evolution!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He has returned at my request. 1 against the masses isn't a fair fight.

Avoiding the key points and questions, and not giving relevant answers to them isn't a fair debate.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am not bothered by what ATHEISTS consider to be fallacies and inaccuracies.

Discrimination to people's religous choices by making atheists the "not-human" as I discussed earlier as a major factor of racism, makes me relize that many of these atheists are more moral than you.

Why should we even consider your beliefs when you ignore all who question them? Should we ignore you? Would "Comes around goes around" apply here?

quote:Originally posted by whocares123:

There are more outlets of information than just tax payer funded schools. These institutions are designed to be as unbiased as possible. I don't care if 83% of the nation is Christian. I don't care if 99% was. You have no right to infringe upon the minority with a theory based on a Creator's existence in a free society such as that that exists in the US.

Exactly.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

But wait a second, I'm just a moralless atheist, which means I am not allowed to point out her hypocritical actions or any hypocritical points made in the article.

If you don't discriminate against other peoples religous beliefs your already on higher moral ground than her.

DS, I once again, encourage you to prove ID is a viable scientific theory, below, one more time so you don't accidentaly miss it:



"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is clearly asking for mathematics behind creationism, proof of how creationion and intervention is possible using physics and mathematics to support your claim.

How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model, could occur.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is asking for an explanation of how light can travel more light years than it's speed in a vacume allows it to if the creationism idea of the age of the universe is correct

Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has to do with why if the universe was created in it's present state 6000 years ago, how could it be changing so much that it would be logical to think it has been changing forever.

Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has only to do with scientific integrity. For example why would nasa, and the majority of scientists all over the world have using scientific techniques determined the relative age of the universe that is commonly agreed upon, yet the only people who don't agree and "theologist scientists" who found what they call science based on thier own belief system.

Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

Here I am specifically asking for a mathematic equation behind any creationist/ID claims you make

Thank you.

Edit: Fixed a typo

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-30-2006).]

she did post something about the light gettign to earth in 6000-12000 years, but that was debunked as sensationism.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

she did post something about the light gettign to earth in 6000-12000 years, but that was debunked as sensationism.

That can only happen when the light is confined to an amazingly small space in fiber optic cable. Thats not sensationism, its just a detail she some how "forgot" to mention. Light can move slightly faster than it's current speed in a vacuum, when confined to these extremely small spaces, but since space is a vacuum, this doesn't occur in space, and isn't possible to occur in space, unless you think the starlight we have seen since the dawn of man was caused by fiber optics, or similar means, which is insane at best.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-31-2006).]

It also should be noted c doesn't exist in a vacuum (ironically). A drastic change in c will produce some amazing effects, as the constant is part of other physics. Take the most famous equation ever, E=Mc^2, increase c by a couple million times and see what kind of energy you get from a small nuclear reaction.

The group velocity of light can be increased beyond c but no information can be transmitted with it (thus it doesn't violate c)

(I assume we all know c is the speed of light in a vacuum)

How to get a scientific theory into school textbooks.

Step 1) Have your hypothesis.

Step 2) Research. You need to test your hypothesis through experiments.

Step 3) Peer-review. Your collegues must review you experminents, data, and conclusions

Step 4) Gain a consensus. After going through the peer-review process, other SCIENTISTS need to agree with the theory.

Step 5) Publish in textbooks.

ID has attempted to jump straight from step one to step 5. It has certainly skipped the peer-review and scientific consensus steps and thus should not be included in school textbooks as science.

I would argue that ID is even a valid hypothesis because it is inherently untestable and un falsifiable. You cannot test for a "designer" ... the only types of tests that ID research has done try to poke holes in evolution with such fallacious concepts as "irreducible complexity" and the scientific community has quickly debunked them. There is not ONE piece of evidence against evolution. And we continue to find out new mechanisms for which evolution works every single day.

Someone used to come on here regularly and regurgitate creationist propaganda which supposedely refuted evolution. One example was that no new biological information can be created. I quickly debunked that myth with the basic genetic concept of gene duplication. It's really not even hard to debate from the scientific side. It feels like teaching middle school actually.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Michael Behe(another major proponent of ID) admitted under oath during cross examination in Day 11 of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, that the definition he uses to describe a scientific theory is not the same as the definition used by the scientific community, and that using his definition, astrology could also be considered a scientific theory. So don’t try to pretend that ID is on equal footing with any valid scientific theory.

This was posted on page 3. I thought it to be particularly important to the debate, but nobody seemed to acknowledge it.

I think there is at the base level a very fundamental misunderstanding of what Intelligent Design and Evolution actually are. Neither ID nor the ToE is actually a branch of science. Rather, they are theories that employ science as a method to corroborate their claims. Having said that, we must then distinguish whether or not proponents of both are either suppresing actual scientific evidence or distorting the actual evidence to fit their preconcieved notions about this or that.

Both the ToE and ID are inferences based on observation, logic, and deductive reasoning. The evolutionists sees no compelling reason to assume that the universe and all that is contained therein was the product of a greater intelligence. Rather, they feel evidence supports that a capriciousness in the universe exists and that we are the bi-product of ebb and flow, not going in any discernable direction. Proponents of ID see that the universe and all that is contained therein is far too complex for there to be chance after chance of a wholly chaotic universe constantly 'getting it right' so often. So where does that leave us?

Having taken into consideration of all that I said, what are your objections to the theory of Intelligent Design? I think I have an idea and correct me if my assessment is wrong in any of your particular cases.

Its become apparent to me that people feel that ID smacks of theology. And for face value, I understand why some would be apprehensive. At the same time, evolution smacks of atheism and an anti-theological stance. I'm of the opinion that the majority of detractors simlpy don't understand what ID really is; that they are making knee-jerk reactions and jumping on the bandwagon. This is an appeal to authority, an authority they scarcely know anything about. They automatically equate ID to Christian Creationism. Now, while I do believe that most proponents of ID would likely be Christian, this could only be just one more compelling reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH. But this isn't the rule and they shouldn't be made to feel sorry over their personal opinions.

Some of you may know that I object to theology playing a role in the science classroom. And my belief comes not from them being diametrically opposed or incompatible in any way, but rather I feel that it bears no immediate relevance to the subject. On one level, I think it was the Creator that bestowed upon us the ability of mathematical reasoning, but that doesn't mean that the Creator should play a role in solving any given theorem. However, if there really is "Creator," or a "Greater Mind" behind the choreography, then we cannot in any sense get around discussing the Creator on some level. ID proponents assert that we do not need to define what the Creator is, or assign a theological reason, or a philosophical reason why such a Being may exist. They say, "just recognize that one might exist given the circumsatnces, given the evidence, and given all the reasons listed."

So, what is everyone's true objection to ID? I can go no further in the argument until I establish a solid reason why the objection exists.

quote:evolution smacks of atheism and an anti-theological stance.

That is not true. Plenty of religious people have excepted evolution and still hold onto their faith. Evolution has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not, and it has nothing to do with morals and afterlife and all that philosophical and theological stuff. Evolution has to do with speciation. It makes no claims about how the first living being got here, it explains how speciation occurs.

[This message has been edited by Overman (edited 07-31-2006).]

quote:That is not true. Plenty of religious people have excepted evolution and still hold onto their faith. Evolution has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not, and it has nothing to do with morals and afterlife and all that philosophical and theological stuff. Evolution has to do with speciation. It makes no claims about how the first living being got here, it explains how speciation occurs.

Could you answer what your objections to ID are? That's the only way we are going to be able to establish an acutal dialogue.

But to answer your question, far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but if evolution is true, then there is no need for a God, other than to create, perhaps, the first atom. Even that is suspect to evolutionists. And as Richard Dawkins has conceded, Darwin gave atheists the first compelling reason to be an atheist. Consider it another context. A supervising Creator is unnecessary. And anyone willing to understand the nature of evolution and the theory itself may be less willing to try to paste God onto a theory that has no need for Him.



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 07-31-2006).]

quote:Neither ID nor the ToE is actually a branch of science.

Incorrect, there is such a Branch called Evolutionary Biology.

quote:Both the ToE and ID are inferences based on observation, logic, and deductive reasoning.

ID presumes that a "designer" exists that designed the universe. This cannot be verified by "observation" and since it cannot be empirically tested then there is no place for "deductive reasoning".

quote:Proponents of ID see that the universe and all that is contained therein is far too complex for there to be chance after chance of a wholly chaotic universe constantly 'getting it right' so often. So where does that leave us?

Life as we know it may not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. Our universe had to have physical constants, and they just happen to be the ones that permit our existence, as opposed to no living creatures, or different ones. Had there been other sapient and sentient beings in a totally different universe living in totally different bodies they would have asked the exact same apparently meaningless question. and i doubt that with the existance of deserts, unbalanced climates and poisionous plants that it was "getting it right".

quote:I'm of the opinion that the majority of detractors simlpy don't understand what ID really is; that they are making knee-jerk reactions and jumping on the bandwagon.

Ad Hominem. You can't presume that we don't know what we're talking about. Such is offensive.

quote:They automatically equate ID to Christian Creationism.

ID is a type of creationist belief. Philip E. Johnson the father of the intelligent design movement himself said "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed". Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." Dembski another founder said "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." He also said : "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."

quote:So, what is everyone's true objection to ID?

It fails as a scientific theory because it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony,is not falsifiable,is not empirically testable,and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. And such theory shouldn't be taught in the same breath as Evolution , Relativity and etc, which shown its merit as Scientific Theory. Thats what the opponents of Intelligent Design in this thread and in the World are basically about.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-31-2006).]

Hyro:

quote:The evolutionists sees no compelling reason to assume that the universe and all that is contained therein was the product of a greater intelligence.

Utter BS and you should know better, and anyone who reads this thread should know better. The level of blatant lying in this thread to attack evolution through logical fallacies is amazing.

Please provide sources showing the many religious groups (such as the catholic church) are against any greater intelligence or retract your statement.

quote:At the same time, evolution smacks of atheism and an anti-theological stance.

Prove it or retract it.

Provide any evidence the theory of evolution (and not people who also happen to be evolutionists) is atheism. Provide one piece of the theory that says there is no God.

If you can provide a real piece of the theory of evolution (and not an opinion or bogus creationist version of evolution) that says there is no God, I will denounce evolution as a pseudo-science.

Now remember, contradicting your belief of a literal biblical creation is not anti-god anymore than geo-centrism is . Evolution also has nothing to do with anything before the first self replicating chemicals came into existence.



Although it wasn't asked to me, I will reply to what is wrong with ID.

At the very basic level ID is a God of the gaps fallacy and a false dichotomy.

God of the Gaps is when God is inserted into the gaps of our knowledge. ID finds possible holes in evolution then claims an intelligent being must have done it because evolution can't explain it. This poor logic is what brought us such effective things as Demon theory. It was unknown what caused illnesses, thus Demons did it. The logical and scientific response to a gap in a theory is simply "we don't know"

A false dichotomy is when someone suggests the answer is either A or B and that's that. IDists propose it's either Evolution or an intelligent designer. Which is false. It would be like saying, "You are either a republican or a democrat" we know that is wrong as there are multiple parties.

Thus before we ever get to any details the basic premise of ID is flawed.

Many here are linking ID to creationism for a couple reasons.

1) You and DS have bounced between the two, suggesting you follow both.

2) In a recent case it was exposed that an "ID" book was really a slightly changed Creationism book.

However you are right, they are separate 'theories' and ironically many creationist groups dislike IDists as much as they dislike evolutionists.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I think there is at the base level a very fundamental misunderstanding of what Intelligent Design and Evolution actually are. Neither ID nor the ToE is actually a branch of science. Rather, they are theories that employ science as a method to corroborate their claims. Having said that, we must then distinguish whether or not proponents of both are either suppresing actual scientific evidence or distorting the actual evidence to fit their preconcieved notions about this or that.

No. One is a theory that has an immense amount of evidence and is confirmed by practically all branches of Sciences, and the other is not a theory because it lacks meaningful evidence and relies on an erroneous interpretation of the Scientific Method in a desperate attempt to have it taught in the science classroom.

quote:

Its become apparent to me that people feel that ID smacks of theology. And for face value, I understand why some would be apprehensive. At the same time, evolution smacks of atheism and an anti-theological stance. I'm of the opinion that the majority of detractors simlpy don't understand what ID really is; that they are making knee-jerk reactions and jumping on the bandwagon. This is an appeal to authority, an authority they scarcely know anything about.

If you believe that evolution smacks of atheism, then you are extremely ignorant of both what evolution actually is, and who believes in evolution.

Nothing in evolution implies, commands, or necessitates a lack of a god. Nothing. Moreover, not only are many scientists themselves theists, but the Catholic Church and it's 1.1+ Billion followers also believe in evolution (or at the very least are urged to do so by the Vatican); that doesn't even include non-scientists and non-Catholics which are also believe in evolution.

So what you're saying is that a scientific theory that doesn't delve into the existence or non-existence of a god and that has billions of theists who believe in it (outnumbering atheists actually) "smacks" of atheism? That's ridiculous and you know it.

quote:

They automatically equate ID to Christian Creationism. Now, while I do believe that most proponents of ID would likely be Christian, this could only be just one more compelling reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH. But this isn't the rule and they shouldn't be made to feel sorry over their personal opinions.

They automatically equate them because the majority of ID proponents are Creationists; they're just Creationists who are trying to get around the numerous court rulings barring biblical creationism from being taught in the classroom.

quote:

So, what is everyone's true objection to ID? I can go no further in the argument until I establish a solid reason why the objection exists.

The only way you "go further" in this thread is by actually posting the evidence that your wife has a burden to post, and not changing the argument as you are now trying to do. Our objections to ID have been made clear through out this thread. If you got in late to the debate, then that's your problem: start reading.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Could you answer what your objections to ID are? That's the only way we are going to be able to establish an acutal dialogue.

That is why I listed my questions for intelligent design 3 times in the post on the top of the page.

I sort of thought posting it in bold three times would make you notice it, then again when you have selective intake of reality, you just have to ignore things that contradict you.

Feel free to post valid relevant responses to each question, with the mathematics supporting your claims.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-31-2006).]

quote:Incorrect, there is such a Branch called Evolutionary Biology.

I'm aware that evolutionary biology exists, but biology is the scientific methodology, and evolution is the inference through biological causes. It doesn't make it any more true or false.

quote:ID presumes that a "designer" exists that designed the universe. This cannot be verified by "observation" and since it cannot be empirically tested then there is no place for "deductive reasoning".

No, it makes an inference that a Creator exists and that the universe is designed. The First Cause will never be 'observable' because we weren't there. I'm not merely speaking about the First Cause, I'm speaking about the whole of cosmology, biology, geology, etc... But then again, macroevolution has never been observed, so perhaps we can use that inequality as a sufficient starting point.

quote:Our universe had to have physical constants, and they just happen to be the ones that permit our existence, as opposed to no living creatures, or different ones. Had there been other sapient and sentient beings in a totally different universe living in totally different bodies they would have asked the exact same apparently meaningless question. and i doubt that with the existance of deserts, unbalanced climates and poisionous plants that it was "getting it right".

Because you seem to be bringing up the First Cause quite often, maybe we'll just start there instead. Being that all of the chemical processes are all a product of matter, if you reduce the components down far enough, you are left with nothing. If there is nothing that exists then how can everything come from nothing?

quote:Ad Hominem. You can't presume that we don't know what we're talking about. Such is offensive.

First of all, nowhere did I use an ad hominem attack. Secondly, I wasn't presuming that you have no idea what you are talking about, being that I don't know you. I was merely making an organized post in which we might understand each others objections.

quote:Philip E. Johnson the father of the intelligent design movement himself said "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed".

I happen to agree with that. There is no sense in bringing the Bible into the discussion about ID if we first cannot reconcile the neccessity of a Creator. Aside from which, isn't that what this discussion was intended to be about? That ID is somehow biased? But your own quote displays that the "Father of ID" himself is showing no prejudice to any given specific.

quote:It fails as a scientific theory because it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony,is not falsifiable,is not empirically testable,and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. And such theory shouldn't be taught in the same breath as Evolution , Relativity and etc, which shown its merit as Scientific Theory. Thats what the opponents of Intelligent Design in this thread and in the World are basically about.

The only method that ID uses is already well-established facts concerning the laws of nature and demonstrably shows how chance plays no factor into it. It says that the obvious nature about nature, is that we were created by something as opposed to nothng. So, I'm unsure as to why anyone has such an aversion towards it.

[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 07-31-2006).]

post some evidence for creationism.

quote:Utter BS and you should know better, and anyone who reads this thread should know better. The level of blatant lying in this thread to attack evolution through logical fallacies is amazing.

What lie have I told, with or without using a logical fallacy?

quote:Please provide sources showing the many religious groups (such as the catholic church) are against any greater intelligence or retract your statement.

How can the Catholic Church be against a greater intelligence if that is the very thing give oblation to?

quote:Prove it or retract it.

Provide any evidence the theory of evolution (and not people who also happen to be evolutionists) is atheism. Provide one piece of the theory that says there is no God.

1. According to the ToE is there any kind of guidance by an outside source?

2. According to the ToE was there ever a need for a Creator to cause all that is actual?

If you respond, no, to both, then there is absolutely no need for a Creator, because a "Creator," by definition, is something that "creates." If He/She/It did not create a single thing, then He/She/It is simply existing, but does nothing at all; in which case His/Her/It's name needs to be changed from the "Creator," to the the "Being."

Its no mystery that evolution and atheism go hand in hand, because there would be absolutely no reason to believe nothing created everything without the ToE. That right there puts a serious defective flaw in your argument. Having said that, are there theistic evolutionists? Yes, there are. But the atheist cannot be an atheist without some explanatory power to back up his claims. Without evolution, he has to revert to the old thoughts about the universe being infinite. Its a no win situation for the atheist. Therefore, at its core, evolution is an atheistic doctrine.

quote:If you can provide a real piece of the theory of evolution (and not an opinion or bogus creationist version of evolution) that says there is no God, I will denounce evolution as a pseudo-science.

I just did. I appreciate that you now recognize that the ToE is a psuedo-science.

quote:Now remember, contradicting your belief of a literal biblical creation is not anti-god anymore than geo-centrism is . Evolution also has nothing to do with anything before the first self replicating chemicals came into existence.

Well, that presents quite a problem for the theory, now doesn't it? If it can't even begin then how can propagate?

quote:Although it wasn't asked to me, I will reply to what is wrong with ID.

At the very basic level ID is a God of the gaps fallacy and a false dichotomy.

Actually, the question was a general reply to anyone who would like to answer. Evolution is a god-of-the-gaps theory, but it hasn't stopped you from worshipping it. There is never going to be 100% empirical proof of God's existence.... But then again, we aren't talking about God, we are talking about a Creator(s). If you want ID'ers to not bring up theological questions, then stop bringing them up.

quote:God of the Gaps is when God is inserted into the gaps of our knowledge.

I know what a God-of-the-Gaps theory is. Don't you remember that we've gone over all of this dialogue many times before?

quote:A false dichotomy is when someone suggests the answer is either A or B and that's that.

I know what a false dichotomy is. Again, you and I have been over such questions hundreds of times in the not-so-distant past.

quote:IDists propose it's either Evolution or an intelligent designer. Which is false. It would be like saying, "You are either a republican or a democrat" we know that is wrong as there are multiple parties.

No, that's a logical deduction. Only you are saying that we must define what the Creator is. If you want the Creator to be the FSM, more power to you. That question is theological in nature. My argument on this topic is whether a need of a Creator(s) exists. And being that life is either intentional or unintentional, then evolution of Intelligence quite nicely refutes your entire premise. Can you think of a third option? There is no logical fallacy in it, only your inability to grasp the simple concept.

quote:Many here are linking ID to creationism for a couple reasons.

1) You and DS have bounced between the two, suggesting you follow both.

2) In a recent case it was exposed that an "ID" book was really a slightly changed Creationism book.

However you are right, they are separate 'theories' and ironically many creationist groups dislike IDists as much as they dislike evolutionists.

If DS and I have bounced in between the two topics, its only because people such as yourself have brought it up. Yes, I believe that the Judeo-Christian YHWH is the Creator. But I have no need to mention that when the discussion is currently about whether or not ANY Creator, of any kind, exists or not. Theology is irrelevant until we first establish whether or not a Creator is even feasible. Understand?

the first post on this thread discussed creationism rather than id.

all i can say hyro is you need to go back and read the whole thread. most of your points have already been addressed.

id/creationism/fsm/aliens/whatever don't solve the problem of origins any more than evolution does. evolution doesn't attempt to answer these questions because they are better left to philosophers and theologians, who can't agree on it either.

assuming there is a creator, then what created the creator? we have the exact same problem as we had to begin with. saying 'god did it' is like trying to power a car with a rubberband...when everything uncoils you are left with nothing.

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 07-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

So, I'm unsure as to why anyone has such an aversion towards it.



It may be that it is unable to answer simple objection, have no mathematical foundation, makes no verifiable predictions, has little evidence supporting it, and has no support outside of theology professors claiming to be "scientists".

You have increased mine, as well as many others distrust toward your theory by avoiding questions that have been repeatedly directed toward you, and failing to present any mathematics supporting your claims.

I still eagerly await the day you answer the questions which would provide some backing for your claim instead of ignoring them in hopes of them going away, and responding to other things in hopes of people forgetting they were ever asked. This is an underhanded technique used by politicians and it does not surprise me that more than one type of lier would use it. So if you would be so kind to respond to the actual objections against intelligent design instead of further avoiding them it would be appreciated.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-31-2006).]

Hyro:

quote:What lie have I told, with or without using a logical fallacy?

I quoted it above. The claim that evolutionists are atheists is a lie.

quote:how can the Catholic Church be against a greater intelligence if that is the very thing give oblation to?

Bingo. Congratulations on refuting your own claim. Theists accept evolution. Evolution is not atheism nor does accepting evolution make you an atheist.

quote:1. According to the ToE is there any kind of guidance by an outside source?

That is unknown and beyond science.

The theory says that evolution can occur through what appears to be natural mechanisms. Rain can also occur through natural mechanisms, do you believe that means God didn't cause the flood?

quote:2. According to the ToE was there ever a need for a Creator to cause all that is actual?

That is unknown and beyond science.

If by "cause all that is actual?" you mean the creation of the universe, then you have again ignored what evolution really is.

What if you were talking to someone and no matter how many times you explained christianity to you, they kept repeating "Christianity is the worship of Muhammad as God" how long before you wrote them off as ignorant and blind?

quote:If you respond, no, to both, then there is absolutely no need for a Creator, because a "Creator,"

Obviously I did not reply "no" to both. Nor have you shown where the theory of evolution specifically says there is no God. Remember just because it says it happened different from what you believe doesn't make it anti-God (unless you are God).

quote:Well, that presents quite a problem for the theory, now doesn't it? If it can't even begin then how can propagate?

The manual to my car doesn't explain how it was built, thus I guess my car doesn't exist.

The obvious answer is, the manual deals with owner operation and not building. Do you need to know how every part of the car was made to drive it?

Evolution deals with the origin of the species but not the origin of life. Another theory deals with that.

quote:I know what a God-of-the-Gaps theory is. Don't you remember that we've gone over all of this dialogue many times before?

1) I was talking to everyone.

2) You seem to conveniently forget the most basic of details.

quote:Only you are saying that we must define what the Creator is.

Please quote where I said the creator must be defined beyond being an "intelligent designer"?

quote:If DS and I have bounced in between the two topics, its only because people such as yourself have brought it up

So, you are saying you do not believe the earth is only 6000 (or round abouts) years old and that neither of you have ever brought up topics dealing with the age of the earth (a belief ID doesn't support)?



I find it quite ironic you question my ability to grasp a "simple concept." It would seem many IDists can't grasp the concept that if we don't know, that's it, we can't go making assumptions and pretending they are science.

Is that not simple?

If the car is not red that doesn't mean it must be blue.

If the sky is not black that doesn't mean it must be blue.

If science can't explain it, it doesn't mean God/Aliens/demons did it.

These are basic concepts.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Its become apparent to me that people feel that ID smacks of theology. And for face value, I understand why some would be apprehensive. At the same time, evolution smacks of atheism and an anti-theological stance. I'm of the opinion that the majority of detractors simlpy don't understand what ID really is; that they are making knee-jerk reactions and jumping on the bandwagon. This is an appeal to authority, an authority they scarcely know anything about. They automatically equate ID to Christian Creationism. Now, while I do believe that most proponents of ID would likely be Christian, this could only be just one more compelling reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH. But this isn't the rule and they shouldn't be made to feel sorry over their personal opinions.

That is entirely false. Evolution says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with regards to how evolution or the world started. It IS NOT athiestic and it DOES NOT require or even suggest that God doesn't exist.

I'm also surprised you're not aware that Catholics and most mainline protestants, in addition to most muslims and Jews, ALL believe in evolution. Surely you're not suggesting that a third of the world's religious population are athiests in denial, are you?

I'll reiterate my previous challenge to Digital to you, tell me what page in Origin of Species where Darwin says that God does not or cannot exist(or where he suggests anything remotely close to that assertion).

quote:I find it quite ironic you question my ability to grasp a "simple concept." It would seem many IDists can't grasp the concept that if we don't know, that's it, we can't go making assumptions and pretending they are science.

Is that not simple?

If the car is not red that doesn't mean it must be blue.

If the sky is not black that doesn't mean it must be blue.

If science can't explain it, it doesn't mean God/Aliens/demons did it.

These are basic concepts.

Also it is important to remember that science is not based on assumption but on experimentation.

quote:Quoted from Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org):

All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Scientific theories can be (and often are) found to be incorrect or incomplete. Since creationism rests on an article of faith, its construction assumes that the narrative accounts of origins can never be shown falsified, no matter how strong the evidence is to the contrary.

Evolutionary modern synthesis is the theory that fits all known biological and genetic evidence while being backed up by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. Contrary to frequent claims by many opponents of the theory of evolution, transitional fossils exist which show a gradual change from one species to another. Moreover, evolutionary selection has been observed in living species (for a macroscopic instance, “tuskless elephants,” see elephant).

In the last ten years, powerful DNA analysis techniques applied to many organisms have demonstrated the fundamental genetic relationship between all forms of known life (humans share 50% of their DNA with yeast, 96%[11] with chimpanzees). Even if evolution as biologists currently understand it turned out to be false, this would not imply the truth of special creation (such a binary view being a logical fallacy). It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the US) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution rages.

quote:I'm aware that evolutionary biology exists, but biology is the scientific methodology, and evolution is the inference through biological causes. It doesn't make it any more true or false.

I disagree, since the “inference” has been proven by a plethora of observable evidence, has explained ancient organisms and etc. and contributed to most fields of science, Evolution has been proven as a valid scientific theory and therefore is a valid “branch” of scientific methodology.

quote:ID No, it makes an inference that a Creator exists and that the universe is designed. The First Cause will never be 'observable' because we weren't there. I'm not merely speaking about the First Cause, I'm speaking about the whole of cosmology, biology, geology, etc... But then again, macroevolution has never been observed, so perhaps we can use that inequality as a sufficient starting point. Because you seem to be bringing up the First Cause quite often, maybe we'll just start there instead. Being that all of the chemical processes are all a product of matter, if you reduce the components down far enough, you are left with nothing. If there is nothing that exists then how can everything come from nothing?

Definition of Intelligent Design “Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” The First Cause is neither observed or cannot be induced by “deductive reasoning.” If everything is caused by something than who caused the “First Cause”? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Before something can act as a cause, it must first exist. To demand a cause for all existence is contradictory. If the cause exists, it is part of existence, if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. So your demiurge is logically impossible. Existence not “a creator” is the first cause. Therefore we can assume that the universe just exists.

“Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macro evolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.”

quote:I happen to agree with that. There is no sense in bringing the Bible into the discussion about ID if we first cannot reconcile the neccessity of a Creator. Aside from which, isn't that what this discussion was intended to be about? That ID is somehow biased? But your own quote displays that the "Father of ID" himself is showing no prejudice to any given specific.

You misunderstand the quote. He wishes to promote a theistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept that’s why he claims we should temporarily get the Bible out of the discussion, in order to make it seem like a scientific theory. Then when they have “succeeded”, they can talk of “biblical issues”. To put in context:

•The mechanism of the wedge strategy is to make it attractive to Catholics, Orthodox, non-fundamentalist Protestants, observant Jews, and so on..." He went on to elaborate "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."

• Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

•"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.

•The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.

quote:The only method that ID uses is already well-established facts concerning the laws of nature and demonstrably shows how chance plays no factor into it. It says that the obvious nature about nature, is that we were created by something as opposed to nothng. So, I'm unsure as to why anyone has such an aversion towards it.

Incorrect. ID distorts Science in order to discredit evolution. Tell us these “well-established facts” and “demonstrations”. They have been exhaustibly refuted in this thread. Read it then come back to us.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Its no mystery that evolution and atheism go hand in hand, because there would be absolutely no reason to believe nothing created everything without the ToE. That right there puts a serious defective flaw in your argument. Having said that, are there theistic evolutionists? Yes, there are. But the atheist cannot be an atheist without some explanatory power to back up his claims. Without evolution, he has to revert to the old thoughts about the universe being infinite. Its a no win situation for the atheist. Therefore, at its core, evolution is an atheistic doctrine.

So, essentially, your argument is:

1. Some atheists use evolution to support their arguments.

2. Therefore, evolution is an atheistic doctrine.

Is that the essence of your arugment? Let's apply your "argument" to other things.

Mathematics:

1. Some atheists use mathematics to support their arguments.

2. Therefore, mathematics is an atheistic doctrine.

Awesome.

Logic:

1. Some atheists use logic to support their arguments.

2. Therefore, logic is an atheistic doctrine.

Well, now that you mention it, it does seem that logic is an 'atheistic doctrine'. I mean, you've just shown just how illogical, unreasonable you are... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



Your argument is illogical. Just because evolution is used by atheists to further support their position, does not mean that evolution itself is "atheistic". Does evolution deal with the existence or non-existence of a deity? That's the only question we need to answer in order to determine whether it is "atheistic" or not, and the answer is a resounding "No".

No, evolution is not atheistic, and your atrocious "argument" does nothing but show how willing you are to abandon logic and reason in order to support your beliefs.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

You misunderstand the quote. He wishes to promote a theistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept that’s why he claims we should temporarily get the Bible out of the discussion, in order to make it seem like a scientific theory. Then when they have “succeeded”, they can talk of “biblical issues”. To put in context:

•The mechanism of the wedge strategy is to make it attractive to Catholics, Orthodox, non-fundamentalist Protestants, observant Jews, and so on..." He went on to elaborate "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."

• Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

•"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.

•The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.

ID distorts Science in order to discredit evolution. Tell us these “well-established facts” and “demonstrations”. They have been exhaustibly refuted in this thread. Read it then come back to us.



You are a very wise person hespeaks and you see exactly how he is minipulating the situation. As I have said many times he is avoiding the questions...and I'm sick of repeating myself. So good job. You too Rust.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-31-2006).]

Just affirming the superiority of the theory of evolution over Intelligent Design.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I think there is at the base level a very fundamental misunderstanding of what Intelligent Design and Evolution actually are. Neither ID nor the ToE is actually a branch of science. Rather, they are theories that employ science as a method to corroborate their claims. Having said that, we must then distinguish whether or not proponents of both are either suppresing actual scientific evidence or distorting the actual evidence to fit their preconcieved notions about this or that.

ID is at best a hypothesis, but it is not a theory. A theory requires evidence in support of it. ID is simply looking at life and saying "that looks like it was designed." This is a bad explanation. It was bad 500 years ago and it especially bad now that we have an alternative---evolution.

quote:Both the ToE and ID are inferences based on observation, logic, and deductive reasoning. The evolutionists sees no compelling reason to assume that the universe and all that is contained therein was the product of a greater intelligence. Rather, they feel evidence supports that a capriciousness in the universe exists and that we are the bi-product of ebb and flow, not going in any discernable direction. Proponents of ID see that the universe and all that is contained therein is far too complex for there to be chance after chance of a wholly chaotic universe constantly 'getting it right' so often. So where does that leave us?

Actually evolution is specific to LIFE--not the universe. But you bring up an interesting point. ID proponents believe that the only explanation for life is a creator yet they have no explanation for the creator itself. Thus ID can solve nothing.

quote:

[SNIP]

So, what is everyone's true objection to ID? I can go no further in the argument until I establish a solid reason why the objection exists.

The problem with ID is exactly as I stated in my previous post. It is trying to jump the gun and get into textbooks without going through peer-review or gaining a scientific consensus. If ID wants to be taken as a legitamate science it must compete as such. Peer-review is ESSENTIAL to the institution of science.

quote:No. One is a theory that has an immense amount of evidence and is confirmed by practically all branches of Sciences, and the other is not a theory because it lacks meaningful evidence and relies on an erroneous interpretation of the Scientific Method in a desperate attempt to have it taught in the science classroom.

Okay, then since you feel this way, we'll have to get down to specifics, because at this point, its all just chatty banter.

quote:Nothing in evolution implies, commands, or necessitates a lack of a god. Nothing.

If there is no need of a Creator, then there is no compelling reason to assume that one exists. As it is, that isn't the case. But to be sure, read the whole article I quoted from and then tell me why evolution wouldn't logically be the progeny of atheism.

http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html

quote:Moreover, not only are many scientists themselves theists, but the Catholic Church and it's 1.1+ Billion followers also believe in evolution (or at the very least are urged to do so by the Vatican); that doesn't even include non-scientists and non-Catholics which are also believe in evolution.

Since when have I claimed parity with Catholicism as if your figure should mean anything to me? The Vatican is a religious institution that runs the show more like a professional football team, trading Bishops and Cardinals like they were players going to a different team. In my opinion, holistically, the Catholic Church are a bunch of compromisers. I disagree with so much of it on a theological level, (and you already know this), so why you are mentioning it as if you've proven something meaningful if beyond me.

quote:So what you're saying is that a scientific theory that doesn't delve into the existence or non-existence of a god and that has billions of theists who believe in it (outnumbering atheists actually) "smacks" of atheism? That's ridiculous and you know it.

Any theory that doesnt at least consider it, and those that immediately rule it out as an a priori is highly suspect. As far as the atheist/evolutionist connection, this connection is a logical deduction when viewing what the ToE asserts. The only thing ridiculous is you playing dumb about it.

quote:They automatically equate them because the majority of ID proponents are Creationists; they're just Creationists who are trying to get around the numerous court rulings barring biblical creationism from being taught in the classroom.

So what if they are creationists? You said that you don't want theology taught in the science classroom, and neither do I. So, if Creationists and Intelligent Designers agree on many points through observation, so what? You are trying to make it impossible for anyone to be scientifically minded and theologically inclined at the same time, as if it were some sort of crime.

Aside from which, you do realize that Direct Panspermists are also under the intelligent design umbrella, don't you? They don't believe in a Creator, per se. Intelligent Design doesn't merely encompass creationists. So if an Intelligent Designer happens to be a creationist, then its as asinine as a believer also being a theistic evolutionist.

quote:The only way you "go further" in this thread is by actually posting the evidence that your wife has a burden to post, and not changing the argument as you are now trying to do. Our objections to ID have been made clear through out this thread. If you got in late to the debate, then that's your problem: start reading.

I'm not changing any argument. I asked what everyone's aversion towards ID was. I asked nicely. And instead of just answering the question honestly and politely, the people actively engaged in the conversation have honed in on one point I made, which that atheism is the logical deduction of the ToE.

If you want to now discuss specifics, then lets do that. Its my understanding that the OP was on whether or not ID has any scientific merit.

So, what would you like to discuss?

post some evidence for id.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I'm not changing any argument. I asked what everyone's aversion towards ID was. I asked nicely. And instead of just answering the question honestly and politely, the people actively engaged in the conversation have honed in on one point I made, which that atheism is the logical deduction of the ToE.

If you want to now discuss specifics, then lets do that. Its my understanding that the OP was on whether or not ID has any scientific merit.

So, what would you like to discuss?

Why havn't you answered a single one of the questions posted several times throughout this thread asking for proof of your claims?

They are in the first post on page 10 if you are have any intent of backing up your claims.

So what have we learned recently.

•No matter how many times he has been told, and no matter how little evidence he provides, Hryo still claims evolution is atheism. Even though it contradicts his own posts.

•We still have no evidence for ID, and no real responses to any criticism.

And now we learn why most discussions with creationists are really for those reading the thread for information and not the creationists themselves.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Okay, then since you feel this way, we'll have to get down to specifics, because at this point, its all just chatty banter.

It's not just me who feels this way; pretty much everyone else here feels the same way. The specifics have already been laid out in this thread; what we want discussed, and what we have against ID have all been made exceedingly clear.

What you're doing is coming extremely late to a discussion, after your wife requested your help it seems, and demand that we repeate everything that was said because you're too lazy to read the thread.

quote:If there is no need of a Creator, then there is no compelling reason to assume that one exists. As it is, that isn't the case. But to be sure, read the whole article I quoted from and then tell me why evolution wouldn't logically be the progeny of atheism. http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html



1. As it has been explained to you countless times before, evolution does not deal with "creation". It deals with the history of life, not the genesis of it. Evolution, therefore, does not remove the "need" for a creator, as its definition doesn't even deal with the "creation" of life or of the universe.

2. The article you provided is worthless. It depends on the same logical fallacy as you do, plus many more. Just because evolution provides an explanation de-void of any miraculous events, does not mean that it is atheistic.

Also, I like how you ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that the man that wrote that article you provide actually quotes himself in the article! If that's your idea of a valid article, then you should reconsider fleeing totse again just as you did last time.

quote:Since when have I claimed parity with Catholicism as if your figure should mean anything to me? The Vatican is a religious institution that runs the show more like a professional football team, trading Bishops and Cardinals like they were players going to a different team. In my opinion, holistically, the Catholic Church are a bunch of compromisers. I disagree with so much of it on a theological level, (and you already know this), so why you are mentioning it as if you've proven something meaningful if beyond me.

I think I made it very clear why I mentioned Catholics in my post. I'll repeat what I said in that post:

"If you believe that evolution smacks of atheism, then you are extremely ignorant of both what evolution actually is, and who believes in evolution."

I'm pointing out how ludicrous it is to assert that evolution is an 'atheistic doctrine' when the majority of those who believe in evolution are theists! At what point does a theory that does not deal with any isse concerning the existence or non-existence of a deity, and that is believed in by a theistic majority, becomes an 'atheistic doctrine'? Only when you are desperate to label it as such.

quote:Any theory that doesnt at least consider it, and those that immediately rule it out as an a priori is highly suspect. As far as the atheist/evolutionist connection, this connection is a logical deduction when viewing what the ToE asserts. The only thing ridiculous is you playing dumb about it.

1. It doesn't "consider" it, because it doesn't deal with it. If evolution actually dealt with the creation of the world or of life, then you'd have a point. Since it doesn't, then your objection is as ridiculous as claiming that Arithmetic - a branch of Mathematics - should be 'highly suspect' for not considering the issue of a Creator.

2. It is not a logical deduction at all. Your argument makes no sense. Evolution is not only believed by a theistic majority, but it does not deal with atheistic beliefs. The only "argument" you have has already been shown to be illogical and unreasonable: simply because some atheists use evolution to support their position does not mean that evolution itself is 'atheistic'.

quote:So what if they are creationists? You said that you don't want theology taught in the science classroom, and neither do I. So, if Creationists and Intelligent Designers agree on many points through observation, so what? You are trying to make it impossible for anyone to be scientifically minded and theologically inclined at the same time, as if it were some sort of crime.

I don't understand why you're asking me that question. Go back and read what I'm replying to. I'm mentioning that they are Creationists to show how the issue of Creationism can come up in debate about Intelligent Design, and vise-versa.

quote:

I'm not changing any argument. I asked what everyone's aversion towards ID was. I asked nicely. And instead of just answering the question honestly and politely, the people actively engaged in the conversation have honed in on one point I made, which that atheism is the logical deduction of the ToE.



Asking what everyone has against ID is changing the subject since we've already moved from that a long time ago. The discussion has moved now to DS substantiating the numerous claims she has made. As such, anything you do besides actually substantiating the assertions she makes is, essentially, changing the subject.

Whether you asked nicely or not, is unimportant to me. I don't care. Frankly, I'd rather you insult me till you are blue in the face while actually presenting the evidence we've been demanding for weeks, rather than having you ignore this and start asking us questions that have been answered through out the discussion. But we all know you're not going to do this; your purpose here is to obsfuscate, ignore, and stall, all in the name of Jesus.

quote:

So, what would you like to discuss?

You wouldn't be asking that if you had bothered reading the thread. It's an insult to come late into a thread where people have dealt with the questions you're asking before - where people have been waiting an outrageous amount of time for evidence - and demand that we waste our time answering them again.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Frankly, I'd rather you insult me till you are blue in the face while actually presenting the evidence we've been demanding for weeks...

more like three months.

I think it should also be pointed out that Atheists who use evolution to disprove or question the existence of God are ENTIRELY WRONG. Evolution has ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY ZERO TO DO WITH GOD. NOTHING. ZIP. NADA. ZILCH.

I can't stress this point enough. Evolution says NOTHING about God, religion, or creation. I repeat, NOTHING.

So after 10 pages this discussion has moved from Point A to.. Point A.

What have we learned so far?

1. Evolution is atheistic because it doesn't mention a god or designer. In fact, everything that has no mention of god is, in fact, atheistic. Engineering? Atheistic! Biology? Atheistic!! Dentistry? Atheistic!!!

2. Evolution is obviously false (which I can prove of course, but won't because I am replying to posts that I selectively choose), so that means ID is correct. After all, it has to be one or the other!

3. What we don't know or understand, is quite obviously god. The earth is flat, because we've never seen the end of it. What other feasible explanation is there?

4. I can answer every one of your posts, but I don't because I am really just laughing at all of your illogical statements! HAHAH!

5. A place is accredited if it wants to be. Anyone wishing to attend Malaria's Institute of Higher Learning gets a free PhD with every $3000 spent on t-shirts and mugs!

they told me i was bi-polar, lol.

i argeud with them three days straight until they realized they were the ones who were wrong.

Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is clearly asking for mathematics behind creationism, proof of how creationion and intervention is possible using physics and mathematics to support your claim.

How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model, could occur.

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This is asking for an explanation of how light can travel more light years than it's speed in a vacume allows it to if the creationism idea of the age of the universe is correct

Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has to do with why if the universe was created in it's present state 6000 years ago, how could it be changing so much that it would be logical to think it has been changing forever.

Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?

(Nothing to do with evolution)

This has only to do with scientific integrity. For example why would nasa, and the majority of scientists all over the world have using scientific techniques determined the relative age of the universe that is commonly agreed upon, yet the only people who don't agree and "theologist scientists" who found what they call science based on thier own belief system.

Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

Here I am specifically asking for a mathematic equation behind any creationist claims you make

Thank you.

Hyro, can you please answer Aft3r ImaGe’s questions? I’ve been dying to see a response to these from DS for ages, but I guess you’ll have to do.



[This message has been edited by Overman (edited 08-01-2006).]

It's good to know that the heavy hitters will enter this purely political debate on the side of science.

http://tinyurl.com/nparo

I see that in the 2 or 3 months of my absence that nothing has changed. Totse is still as discourteous as before and the arguments my detractors use are still the tired, antiquated arguments that are far less than laudable. So, I'm going to put this one to bed once and for all so that I may return to my own forum.

THE INFERENCE OF DESIGN

After the failures of the Oparin/Haldane and Miller/Urey tests to support abiogenesis, the origin of life became an unimportant aspect of the theory of evolution, to be viewed more as a superfluous element that should recieve little attention. But how could it be so easily dismissed? Lately, in my new forum, I have been discussing the origin of the universe. Those of the pro-evolution persuasion have recently, to my suprise, taken allegience with the old train of thought, which is that the universe might be infinite. They only say this becasue they understand the implications that if the universe had a beginning, then it must have a suitable cause, for nothing that happens is apart from causation. And if they cannot account for such an inequality without a reasonable explanation, this fact acts to discredit them. A purely naturalistic explanation fails because as I stated elsewhere, if you keep reducing anything material, at some point you are left with nothing at all. And absolute nothingness doesn't even have the potential to be actual.

But, the universe does have a beginning. And it would be well with the evolutionist/atheist to recognize this because without that central belief, he has to deny the big bang theory. We know there was a singularity from observation and we know there must be a beginning, philosophically. Philosophically, the universe cannot be infinite because you cannot add to infinity. But you and I are additions to the universe. Therefore, if we are apart of the universe, and the universe is eternal, then we would not have a beginning either. Clearly this is not the case. So, the atheist/evolutionist has nowhere to go, with no explanatory power. And so, as a result, he now deems it as an inconsequential part of a metaphysical mystery. But if they can't even explain how evolution got started then why should I even believe what they have to say about anything else?

To be sure of all of this, Dr. William Lane Craig, a creationist and Christian apologist, has refined an old argument made by a 5th century Arab, named Kalam. Using Kalam's argument, Craig has designed the Kalam Cosmological argument to explain the deeper teleological and ontological arguments. The syllabus of his argument goes on thus:

The first premise

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of

its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by

successive addition:

2.21 A collection formed by successive

addition cannot be actually infinite.

2.22 The temporal series of past events is

a collection formed by successive addition.

2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of

the universe.

2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

The second premise

4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless,immaterial,timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:

4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.

4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.

4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial,timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:

4.21 The Creator is uncaused.

4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist.

4.22 The Creator is beginningless.

4.22a Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist.

4.23 The Creator is changeless.

4.23a An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.

4.24 The Creator is immaterial.

4.24a Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless.

4.25 The Creator is timeless.

4.25a In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.

4.26 The Creator is spaceless.

4.26a Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless.

4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.

4.27a He brought the universe into being out of nothing.

4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.

4.28a The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.

5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin

Duly noted Charlie, so lets tackle your conundrum so that your theory truly will break down once and for all. So lets play a game of odds, because afterall, that's admittedly what life is to the evolutionist.

What does it take to create DNA/RNA? DNA is composed of several different subunits that acts as the schematics to tell any given cell how to build a particular protein. Of the four bases (A,T,C,G) it requires twenty separate enzymes, but distinct that must be in a sequential order just to arrive at single protein. At 15 sites per enzyme they have to be filled by particualr amino acids. And a trial assembly needed to find this specific set is said to be 10^40,000. Okay, that's incredible. And yet, the evolutionist has the temerity to speak about ID as if it believes in fairytales, when it is they that believe in things that do not exist. And for how pragmatic they claim to be, this is simply hilarious only because their claims are so unfounded.

This is what "Irreducible Complexity" is all about. And Behe clearly makes an excellent argument because people don't vehemently attack straw men. Rather, they attack that which threatens them.

But all of this gets off-topic. The question is whether or not proponents of Intelligent Design use actual scientific method or not. To even question it is ridiculous. It's obvious that they do. And no amount of manipulation, media distortion, evolutionist ad hom, and the wishing of it not to be, is going to change the disposition.

And this time, instead of attacking my character, which has always been beyond reproach on Totse, answer the questions given to you. There is no sense in me following suit with your abject misery.

I think the reason why many christian evengalengical people believe in creationism and attack evolution, especially when it comes to our own species is simply because that Genesis says that god created man in his own image. Evengalengicals literally believe that the bible is the word of God but I also think it goes beyond that. Humans are very ego centric creatures that to be quite honest believe in their own superiority because we can malipulate our own enviroment, use tools, and have highly developed brains.

But when it comes down to it we are just another lifeform on this planet and well, the theory of evolution shows that we are just animals also. Evengalengicals and others of the religious community consider that just unacceptable because we were created in the image of god and no other. They view the theory of evolution as a threat to their connection to God and other religious doctrine because humans are just another species of life on this planet and evolve as such, just like the other animals on this planet.

Once again, this was VERY important to the discussion. It was posted on page 3.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Michael Behe(another major proponent of ID) admitted under oath during cross examination in Day 11 of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, that the definition he uses to describe a scientific theory is not the same as the definition used by the scientific community, and that using his definition, ASTROLOGY could also be considered a scientific theory. So don’t try to pretend that ID is on equal footing with any valid scientific theory.

quote:I think the reason why many christian evengalengical people believe in creationism and attack evolution, especially when it comes to our own species is simply because that Genesis says that god created man in his own image.

Has it ever crossed your mind that you are just ignorant to the facts and that the people who reject evolution reject it on scientific merit and not because of a religious belief? There is a large number of people who are simply imbued by the notion of evolution but know nothing about it themselves outside of some nominal academic understanding. And so, they end up appealing to authority and taking their faith concerning evolution on the basis of whom they consider 'expert testimony.' But most evolutionists feel that the word 'faith' is some sort of dirty epithet even though upwards of 95% of their knowledge derives from an informed faith.

Evolution is a powerful dogma and the adherents have been force-fed propaganda, consequently, the same kind of propaganda they charge Christians with. I grew up believing in evolution because it was taught to me, not a Creator. Through experience, I came to realize that I was taught a lie.

So, perhaps you just don't know any better.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I see that in the 2 or 3 months of my absence that nothing has changed. Totse is still as discourteous as before and the arguments my detractors use are still the tired, antiquated arguments that are far less than laudable. So, I'm going to put this one to bed once and for all so that I may return to my own forum.

THE INFERENCE OF DESIGN

After the failures of the Oparin/Haldane and Miller/Urey tests to support abiogenesis, the origin of life became an unimportant aspect of the theory of evolution, to be viewed more as a superfluous element that should recieve little attention.



oparin/haldane theory in the 1920s and the miller/urey experiment in the 1950s were never requiered to solve abiogenesis. over fourty years earlier darwin and wallace proposed the idea of natural selection and evolution which stand regardless of how and when life began.

quote:

But how could it be so easily dismissed? Lately, in my new forum, I have been discussing the origin of the universe. Those of the pro-evolution persuasion have recently, to my suprise, taken allegience with the old train of thought, which is that the universe might be infinite. They only say this becasue they understand the implications that if the universe had a beginning, then it must have a suitable cause, for nothing that happens is apart from causation.

if nothing happens without causation, doesn't god also need a cause?

quote:And if they cannot account for such an inequality without a reasonable explanation, this fact acts to discredit them. A purely naturalistic explanation fails because as I stated elsewhere, if you keep reducing anything material, at some point you are left with nothing at all. And absolute nothingness doesn't even have the potential to be actual.



of course, this suggests that there was always something. keep in mind that that something has to be part of the universe.

quote:

But, the universe does have a beginning. And it would be well with the evolutionist/atheist to recognize this because without that central belief, he has to deny the big bang theory.



first off, most evolutionists are not atheists but believe in god. second off, big bang theory and the origens of the universe do not effect evolutionary theory. science not one big theory that you have to take or reject, but rather a series of modules that can be investigated and refined or rejected.

quote:

We know there was a singularity from observation and we know there must be a beginning, philosophically.



currently scientists believe there was a 'singularity.' but we certainly don't "know" this from observation. this really illustrates a lack of scientific competence.

this thread is about id/creationism being taught in the science classroom as scientific theory, not in a religion or philosophy course where it would be quite welcome.

quote:

Philosophically, the universe cannot be infinite because you cannot add to infinity. But you and I are additions to the universe. Therefore, if we are apart of the universe, and the universe is eternal, then we would not have a beginning either. Clearly this is not the case.



this is ridiculous. can an infinite function only have one value for the range?

quote:

So, the atheist/evolutionist has nowhere to go, with no explanatory power. And so, as a result, he now deems it as an inconsequential part of a metaphysical mystery. But if they can't even explain how evolution got started then why should I even believe what they have to say about anything else?

because of the overwelming geologic, biological, and genetic evidence that suppors evolution from a common ancestor?

quote:

To be sure of all of this, Dr. William Lane Craig, a creationist and Christian apologist, has refined an old argument made by a 5th century Arab, named Kalam. Using Kalam's argument, Craig has designed the Kalam Cosmological argument to explain the deeper teleological and ontological arguments. The syllabus of his argument goes on thus:



keep in mind that we asked for emperical evidence for a scientific theory that opposes evolution.

quote:

The first premise

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of

its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by

successive addition:

2.21 A collection formed by successive

addition cannot be actually infinite.

2.22 The temporal series of past events is

a collection formed by successive addition.

2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of

the universe.

2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

The second premise

4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless,immaterial,timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:

4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.

4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.

4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial,timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:

4.21 The Creator is uncaused.

4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist.

4.22 The Creator is beginningless.

4.22a Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist.

4.23 The Creator is changeless.

4.23a An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.

4.24 The Creator is immaterial.

4.24a Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless.

4.25 The Creator is timeless.

4.25a In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.

4.26 The Creator is spaceless.

4.26a Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless.

4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.

4.27a He brought the universe into being out of nothing.

4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.

4.28a The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.

5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.



apply the analouge of P1 to P2 and you have an infinite regress, which P1 and P2 claimed was not possible. therefore P1P2 is not valid.

it could be arued that it remains valid because a creator by definition is not created. in this case i simply disagree with the premise. furthermore the premise is the same as the conclusion.

quote:

"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin

Duly noted Charlie, so lets tackle your conundrum so that your theory truly will break down once and for all. So lets play a game of odds, because afterall, that's admittedly what life is to the evolutionist.

What does it take to create DNA/RNA?



wait a minute. darwin said complex organ. that's because darwin was never concerned about the begining of life.

quote:DNA is composed of several different subunits that acts as the schematics to tell any given cell how to build a particular protein. Of the four bases (A,T,C,G) it requires twenty separate enzymes, but distinct that must be in a sequential order just to arrive at single protein. At 15 sites per enzyme they have to be filled by particualr amino acids. And a trial assembly needed to find this specific set is said to be 10^40,000. Okay, that's incredible.



yes, it is incredible. can you provide me with some mathematical numbers for the likelyhood of god?

quote:And yet, the evolutionist has the temerity to speak about ID as if it believes in fairytales, when it is they that believe in things that do not exist. And for how pragmatic they claim to be, this is simply hilarious only because their claims are so unfounded.



evolution is not unfounded. as has been said many times, an evolutionist can believe in creation by god and also in evolution.

it is clear from fossils, comparative anatomy, and dna that we all share a common ancestor.

quote:

This is what "Irreducible Complexity" is all about. And Behe clearly makes an excellent argument because people don't vehemently attack straw men. Rather, they attack that which threatens them.



irreducible complexity is about a complex organ like the eye or something. who attacks what? what are you even talking about? evolutionists don't attack anything.

quote:

But all of this gets off-topic. The question is whether or not proponents of Intelligent Design use actual scientific method or not.



no, it's not. if you had read the thread you would know that i already brought up that id'ers do indeed use the scientific method. it's just that id doesn't form a coherent scientific theory.

quote:

To even question it is ridiculous. It's obvious that they do. And no amount of manipulation, media distortion, evolutionist ad hom, and the wishing of it not to be, is going to change the disposition.



i don't think that it is questioned by anyone on this thread.

quote:

And this time, instead of attacking my character, which has always been beyond reproach on Totse, answer the questions given to you. There is no sense in me following suit with your abject misery.



i have never attacked your character. i just answered your post, now answer mine:

can you provide scientific evidence for id or not?



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 08-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Has it ever crossed your mind that you are just ignorant to the facts and that the people who reject evolution reject it on scientific merit and not because of a religious belief?...

Blah blah blah. Same empty claims, same empty accusations, same empty channel.

So have you provided any valid evidence against evolution?

No.

Have you provided any valid evidence for ID?

No.

Have you provided any valid evidence evolution is dogma?

No.

This is a problem with creationism, it's full of empty soundbites, which reels in plenty of people but gives them nothing to actually 'fight' with.

This is why DS and Hyro constantly reply with these soundbites such as "the people who reject evolution reject it on scientific merit and not because of a religious belief?" but can never actually show what these scientific merits are. This claim is attached to the creationists religion and thus can't be wrong which is why we get made up versions of evolution and poor logic to try and make sense of the empty statement.

The mind is an amazing thing, especially when it starts with a conclusion and tries to twist the facts around it. Notice that Hyro seems to be able to hold contradicting facts by compartmentalizing them. According to Hyro Evolution is both an atheistic anti-religous belief and accepted by theistic religious people.

i am not entering this debate but i have been following it but i would like to give a hand to hyroglyphx because he hasn't left the debate like digital savior

i am not entering this debate but i have been following it but i would like to give a hand to hyroglyphx because he hasn't left the debate like digital savior

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I see that in the 2 or 3 months of my absence that nothing has changed. Totse is still as discourteous as before and the arguments my detractors use are still the tired, antiquated arguments that are far less than laudable. So, I'm going to put this one to bed once and for all so that I may return to my own forum.

Discourteous? This coming from a man that after coming extremely late to a discussion has the gall to demand that the participants rehash topics that had already been dealt with because he is too lazy to read? Don't you know that it is discourteous to talk about the courtesy of others, especially after you've been discourteous as well?

Your false niceties are meaningless if when you present them, you also ignore the points others make, evade answering questions, and continuously refuse to provide any evidence substantiating your claims.

It's absurd for you to expect not to be annoyed by these underhanded tactics of you use.

quote:After the failures of the Oparin/Haldane and Miller/Urey tests to support abiogenesis, the origin of life became an unimportant aspect of the theory of evolution, to be viewed more as a superfluous element that should recieve little attention. But how could it be so easily dismissed?

This is a bold face lie; keep in mind that he utters it after he dares complain about courtesy. One would think that it would be a common courtesy to not lie in a discussion, or to actually come to the discussion with some knowledge of the topic at hand. However hyroglyphx, it seems, doesn't even have the

decency to provide this common courtesy.

1. Evolution and Abiogenesis were considered different theories long before those experiments you cite ever took place. The fact is that what evolution entails( even when Darwin described it which was different than how it is now described) only deals with what happens after life has come about.

2. The Urey-Miller experiment was not a failure. That there is some doubt to whether or not it accurately represented the Earth's atmosphere? Sure. That doesn't make it a failure, and more importantly, there has been a myriad of other experiments done using different parameters (so as to represent other possible concentrations of elements in the Atmosphere) that have proved to be successful as well.

quote: They only say this becasue they understand the implications that if the universe had a beginning, then it must have a suitable cause, for nothing that happens is apart from causation. And if they cannot account for such an inequality without a reasonable explanation, this fact acts to discredit them

Not only is this irrelevant to evolution being true or false, or to whether or not Creationism/ID has valid and meaningful evidence to support it (which is what we have been waiting here for), but even if we accept it as true, there is still absolutely nothing that necessitates this "cause" to be a supernatural deity. Your "argument", therefore, is worthless on all accounts.

The same applies to the Kalam Cosmological argument you cite, though Mr. Craig offers some, ultimately baseless, changes.

For a thorough refutation of his arguments, I suggest you read this article. (http://talkreason.org/articles/Craig.cfm)

quote:

What does it take to create DNA/RNA? DNA is composed of several different subunits that acts as the schematics to tell any given cell how to build a particular protein. Of the four bases (A,T,C,G) it requires twenty separate enzymes, but distinct that must be in a sequential order just to arrive at single protein. At 15 sites per enzyme they have to be filled by particualr amino acids. And a trial assembly needed to find this specific set is said to be 10^40,000. Okay, that's incredible. And yet, the evolutionist has the temerity to speak about ID as if it believes in fairytales, when it is they that believe in things that do not exist. And for how pragmatic they claim to be, this is simply hilarious only because their claims are so unfounded.

Making some terrible calculations and passing it of as valid Math isn't going to support your ridiculous beliefs. Please provide the calculations you did to arrive at that ridiculous number, or admit that you cannot.

While you provide those calculations of yours, please consider that you deliberately ignore the fact that there would be a great number of simultaneous attempts going on, making that number you've given worthless.

quote:

But all of this gets off-topic. The question is whether or not proponents of Intelligent Design use actual scientific method or not. To even question it is ridiculous. It's obvious that they do. And no amount of manipulation, media distortion, evolutionist ad hom, and the wishing of it not to be, is going to change the disposition.

As it has already been mentioned in this thread more than once: Behe himself admits under oath that he requires a very different interpretation of Science in order to allow Intelligent Design to be considered a valid theory. Ooops!

quote:

And this time, instead of attacking my character, which has always been beyond reproach on Totse, answer the questions given to you. There is no sense in me following suit with your abject misery.



Your character came under attack the moment you came here trying to change the argument, accusing us of not knowing what we were talking about, evading the problems we have pointed out, and refusing to provide any evidence to support your allegations.

"Discourteous" comments are something that can be easily brushed aside, allowing the discussion to continue. Not providing evidence to support what you say, and ignoring the problems we've pointed out in what you say, does not allow the discussion to continue. What you are doing is much worse.

Like I said, I think I speak for others when I say that this "courteous" demeanor of yours is worthless if it is not coupled with some evidence and answers.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-01-2006).]

Actually he has only recently rejoined it, he left the thread and the forum many pages ago (page 3 or such, I can't remember) apparently because the forum wasn't "challenging" enough. This was right after he refused to read my posts or visit my supporting links that refuted his claim that Punctuated equilibrium had no evidence for it.

quote:answer the questions given to you.

Hahaha, if only irony could kill, everyone in this thread would be dead now.

Overall this really shows the danger of putting your faith into any scientific theory. If were were discussing something DS and Hyro had little or no invested in, I bet we would see completely different people. They wouldn't make up a false version of one side or the other and they wouldn't stick to it to the point they contradict themselves. They also wouldn't pull out false indignation or excuses to get out of the debate or leave claims unsupported.

However, they have invested a lot in this debate. Creationism is directly linked to their faith, if it falls so does their belief in God. Which can make people do some pretty strange things to protect that belief. Creationist groups understand this and prey on it. As long as they can convince people creationism is the only true christian way, no amount of evidence will sway them. Politicians have been using a similar ploy for thousands of years.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Actually he has only recently rejoined it, he left the thread and the forum many pages ago (page 3 or such, I can't remember) apparently because the forum wasn't "challenging" enough. This was right after he refused to read my posts or visit my supporting links that refuted his claim that Punctuated equilibrium had no evidence for it.



And he'll leave now as well. He'll cry about our insulting and discourteous comments while of course ignoring the fact that he has ignored our objections to his "points", refused to provide evidence to support what he has said, deliberately ignored things we have discussed with him in past threads, and even made similar discourteous comments. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:After the failures of the Oparin/Haldane and Miller/Urey tests to support abiogenesis.

In the Stanley-Urey Experiment, The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life; they demonstrated that a more complex molecule — a few simpler amino-acids — could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals.

Because of the Stanley-Urey Experiment the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis became feasible and in fact appeared to take place.

In the early decades of the 20th century, Aleksandr Oparin (in 1924), and John Haldane (in 1929, before Oparin's first book was translated into English), independently suggested that suggested that the organic compounds could have undergone a series of reactions leading to more and more complex molecules. He proposed that the molecules formed colloid aggregates, or 'coacervates', in an aqueous environment. The coacervates were able to absorb and assimilate organic compounds from the environment in a way reminiscent of metabolism. They would have taken part in evolutionary processes, eventually leading to the first lifeforms.

So they weren’t “failures”.

quote:The origin of life became an unimportant aspect of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution concerns only the changes in populations of living organisms on the earth. It assumes that the earth and life already exist. (Kenneth S. Saladin, Ph.D. of Biology) It never became an unimportant aspect, evolution never discussed such.

quote:They only say this because they understand the implications that if the universe had a beginning, then it must have a suitable cause, for nothing that happens is apart from causation.

"Cause" is a temporal concept - by definition, it requires time; things which exist outside of time do not have to be caused. However, time is merely a property of the universe, and so the laws of time (ie. cause) cannot be logically applied to the universe itself as a whole Similarly, time can begin, but not require a cause, since all human concepts of a caused beginning have something before that beginning (including the cause); this is not true of time itself. If one believes that time is infinite, and then indeed there is no need for a "first cause" and therefore no need for God.

However, it is not yet certain whether science agrees or disagrees with this - some scientific models continue to suggest a eternal, cyclical, or oscillatory universe rather than a one-time event.

Even though the Kalam Argument has no bearing on Evolution, it is itself refutable.

1. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause.

2. It supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/stephen_hawking's_cosmology_and_theism_(1994).htm

3. quote:Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe. Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.

Within Big Bang Cosmology, the initial singularity is depicted as the ontological consequence of the thermodynamic expansion of the universe. If Craig wishes to deny the ontological existence of the singularity and still remain within relativity theory, he must also deny the thermodynamic contraction of the universe which leads to the singularity.

4. quote: The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.

You fail to notice that the singularity is not a mechanically operating set of conditions, but rather, a lawless and in deterministic point which can potentially emit any configuration of particles at any time with equal likelihood.

In other words, if God wills the universe to exist in a timeless state of eternity, then the existence of the universe could not have a beginning, but would have always existed

,since the intention of God to create the universe would have existed from eternity. Additionally, if God creates the universe outside of time, then there is no time at which the universe does not exist and thus, the universe always existed. It seems that regardless of whether a mechanical set of conditions or God caused the universe outside of time, the universe 'always existed', since there is no time at which it did not exist.

5. quote:The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.

You have to prove how the universe shows “design” and “incomprehensible fine-tuning”.

Conclusion: Craig believes that if he has shown this premise to be true, he has proven the existence of the theistic God. However, it is rather obvious that this is not the case. Rather, we arrive at the conclusion that the initial Big Bang singularity is the cause of the universe. And even if God created the universe..."Now, it's really irrelevant, the whole thing is really irrelevant to evolutionary theory because if God created our planet, if we grant that, it doesn't affect evolution one bit." (Kenneth Saladin)

For the "incredible" DNA/RNA

“They've found that such systems produce nearly every one of the 20 amino acid proteins are made of, all five of the bases that DNA and RNA are made of, and many other organics {16}. What has really impressed the chemists is how easily these organics form {17}, so easily their spontaneous formation on the primeval earth seems almost inevitable. They even form in interstellar dust and have been found in meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites. Even high school students have successfully repeated the Miller-type of experiment for science fair projects.

[SLIDE 37: Flow chart of protobiogenesis] I won't have time to go into details, but I want to point out that every single step that would be required for the naturalistic origin of cells has been shown experimentally to be not just possible, but probable, in complete contradiction to the wishful thinking of creationists that one or more of these steps would prove impossible. The basic building blocks like amino acids and nucleotides polymerize spontaneously to form short peptides, proteins, and nucleic acids {18}.” Evolution vs. Creationism-The Saladin-Gish II Debate (1988)

"The probability of every occurence in the universe is also extremely small. George H Smith

quote:And Behe clearly makes an excellent argument because people don't vehemently attack straw men. Rather, they attack that which threatens them.

Under cross examination (in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,) Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would would qualify as a theory by definition as well.

Proponents (of ID) assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

quote:The question is whether or not proponents of Intelligent Design use actual scientific method or not. To even question it is ridiculous. It's obvious that they do.

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse, and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny, have weighed against intelligent design being considered valid science.[77] To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[77]” (Wikipedia)

We've refuted your claims, try again with something valid.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-02-2006).]