Creationism is science?

[Sterling]

Ok I will try this again. I think this is utter crap so I wanted the feelings of fellow DUers so I could form a proper response. I am not a wingnut I thought that much was obvious since I have been here for three years ut some mods are new I guess.

Here is a link to the original thread that was locked that contains the entire idiotic fake science rant.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1026139&mesg_id=1026139




Author: Doug Sharp
Subject: Apologetics
Date:

Essays by Author
Essays by Subject
Ess ays by Date


There is an aching sense gripping Americans today that something is missing from their lives. Change is taking place at
lightning speed, giving use new technology and conveniences we have never known before. Yet it seems that our quality of
life is deteriorating, not improving. The accumulation of these "conveniences" creates a cutthroat pace of life that is always
demanding for more of our time and resources. We have to run as fast as we can just to stay in one place. The
overwhelming number of choices we have to make, a thousand places we have to be, and hundreds of dangerous traps and
pitfalls amplifies this feeling. e

[NYC]

1. No.

Creationism is not science.

[lazarus]

2. of course it isn't

It's not even remotely a science. "God did it" is quite simply not a scientific explanation for anything.

[Cannikin]

3. cre·a·tion·ism

n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"



Sorry....I've still got those 'Look it up, dear' commercials from the 1980's in my head...and the cool thing about a dictionary, unlike the bible, it involves no interpretation!:hippie:

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Creationism is the opposite of science....

It starts out with a pre-conceived notion based on a belief in a diety and then tries to force the facts (or ignores them entirely) in order to force a notion.

[papau]

6. I agree-showing "science" also requires a bit of faith does not equate

the two - and that is all he has really done.

[Capablanca]

19. I see, totally unlike the "Big Bang Theory"

Can you see the contridiction in your logic? Have you read the "theories" on evolution? They all start the very same way, with a presumption. One "theory" is no more scientific than the other. To state otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

[Pithlet]

21. Intellectual dishonesty

is taking a religious belief, and trying to pass it off as science. The two are completely different things. Science is based on a method. There are no tenets of faith in science. Religion is based on faith. There are tenets that a believer is supposed to adhere to, no matter what evidence to the contrary may come up.

As for the rest of your post, it shows you really don't know much about how the method of science works. Just because something is called a theory doesn't mean it's pure speculation. Gravity is based on a theory also. You and I are in the midst of the evidence it exists every day, so it is a theory that would be very hard to disprove. But, it is a theory, nonetheless. If I disbelieve it, it doesn't go away.

[Capablanca]

24. Faith?

Belief that you came from a rock takes more faith my friend. And the "Big Bang"??? Give me a break... Scientists change views on this yearly.. That takes faith.

[Pithlet]

28. There's no way to disprove

creation "science". That is the difference. And, you said it yourself; scientists change their views. Yes, they do, when evidence presents itself. How often do you see that creation story changing? It's not a matter of faith, it is a matter of evaluating the evidence as it comes to light.

[Capablanca]

185. changing theories and dogmatic positions

You are right to say that scientists constantly change these theories. Yet these are taught as fact. They change and are again taught as fact. This process continues even to the point that the schools fall behind the theories. Yet the textbooks still teach outdated theories.

Why the dogmatic stance? It kind of reminds one of what we get accused of. A religious fervor and a dogmatism for an unproven theory that takes faith to believe. If you read the history of the first proponents of evolution you will see that they were out to prove that God did not exist and the world was not created. They believed that man is in a state of positive evolution and will reach greater and greater heights. This my friend is a core belief in the religion of Humanism.

The difference between what I say about the "science" of Evolution and creationism is this; Your faith is fact and my faith is religion according to you.

[Pithlet]

194. Actually, I don't know what your religion is

And, you really don't know what I have faith in, so I don't know how you can assume my "faith is fact". I don't know what that means.

I was only pointing out that science and religion are two different things. Science doesn't teach anything as fact. In science, you never have to accept anything "just because they say so". Anyone can reproduce and discover for themselves the things that science "says" if they are so inclined. That is where your misconception is, and why you don't see the difference between the two. Science is a method used to learn about the world and the universe. There is nothing in science that says I HAVE to believe anything.

[Capablanca]

212. Science and Religion

My friend your definition of science and mine are dramatically different. Science is the process of uncovering what is true. Gravity was called a theory earlier in response to one of my posts. Gravity was a theory that was and is unequivocally proven to be a fact. You say "Science doesn't teach anything as fact". REALLY??? Is this your attempt to address my point that the schools teach this theory as if it is fact even though the theory changes faster than the textbooks? I think this has been an interesting debate and if it were to be judged on quantifiable information and logic then you lose this last round.

[DrWeird]

214. Gravity has been proven unequivocally true.

And it is still referred to as "The Theory of Gravity." Even though it is a fact.

Evolution has also been proven unequivocally true, and it is still referred to as "The Theory of Evolution," even though it is a fact.

Of course this is just a semantic argument. It doesn't change the fact that humans evolved from apes.

"schools teach this theory as if it is fact even though the theory changes faster than the textbooks?"

What changes are you talking about? The fact that humans evolved from apes has been taught for one hundred and fifty years. That hasn't changed.

[Capablanca]

219. Piltdown Man is one and the age of the earth another

Piltdown Man was proven to be a fraud and still shows up in some textbooks. The age of the earth varies billions of years depending on the expert or the textbook. The chart of evolution of horses showing a progression. You probably have seen it a hundred times. That chart shows smaller horses growing into bigger horses. This is taught as proof of macro-evolution and is in fact micro evolution.
The horse is still a horse... The horse does not become a dog or a human!! There are literally dozens of these types of examples yet if a person questions this they are attacked as being dogmatic. I ask you who is being dogmatic if schools insist on teaching these items as fact even though they are debunked or false?

By the way do you know the difference between macro and micro evolution?

[wuushew]

222. What are these "Piltdown approved" textbooks?

Names, authors, date of publication please.

If you have read threse and can provides quotes that would also be useful. I shall await your reply.

[Capablanca]

230. You first

I will as soon as you answer my question? Do you need a hint?

[wuushew]

239. Why should the person questioning a claim be forced to to disprove it?

This is freepish mentality and is akin to to me trying to prove that Bill Clinton is not a rapist and felon. The burden of proof in any argument should lay with the claimant.

In regards to your original question, what is it specifically? Are you displeased that scientists disagree on values, measurements and the strength of scientific theory/conjecture? Science is a tool by which seeks to objectively describe and predict things in nature. It also contains powerful self-corrective tools, that until challenged lead to wider and wider acceptance of scientific ideas. You in your posts have raised many ideas in common with fundamentalist evangelicals that I know. Evolution as a branch of science does not treat itself different than similar methods in chemistry, physics, or engineering. We reap the benefits of scientific progress everyday by using the Internet or driving in our cars. Creationists have no program with our modern scientific methods in these areas even though the same scientific methods are used as are in paleontology and evolutionary theory. In regards to macro vs.micro evolution that is an invented idea not by the scientific community but by xtians to avoid the issue of the completeness of evolution. I.E. that observable generational mutations do not lead to speiceation. It is true that to observe the formation of a new species, especially one as complex as a horse may take many thousands or millions of years. However Donkey's and Horses are closely related, to an extent that they are are able to mate and produce infertile mule offspring. A horse is no different to a bacterium save in respect to its life cycle. spieceation can be observed in bacteria so why creation the artificial "macro" vs. "micro" classification. All life on Earth shares many identical biochemical processes. Comparison between organisms is both highly useful and practical. Denying analogy and deductive reasoning dooms the progress of human knowledge is that what you seek?

[Capablanca]

244. Wrong again

Are you sure about your statement that Christians invented Micro vrs. Macro evolution? This is a commonly understood concept that is basic science 101. Where do you get these ideas? And yes I like logic and fact as well as deductive reasoning. This is why I do not like macro evolution being taught as fact.

[DrWeird]

231. Piltdown Man was proven a fraud shortly after it was "discovered"

I don't know what textbooks you've been reading but I've never seen it used as evidence for evolution.

I have seen elementary mathematics textbooks make mistakes, and if Piltdown Man does appear in modern biology texbooks as proof of evolution, then I chalk it up to bad editing. And although I've never seen this in a biology textbook, or the small horses to large horses, or the chicken embryos, I have noticed that there is a large creationist movement telling me there are these things in biology textbooks. So please tell me in which modern textbooks these things are in, and please tell me how a sloppily written textbook means the theory of evolution is wrong.

Frankly most colleges don't teach to prove that evolution is true. For the same reason that geology classes don't go on and on about how the world is round. They assume you've already been taught that, and are intelligent enough to know it.

The age of the earth has consistently been shown to be around 4.8 billion years since the advent of Uranium-Thorium dating, with an intrinsic margin of error, and has never varied "billions of years."

The difference between micro and macro evolution is only one of scale. The term "macroevolution" is mostly one used by creationists. Often when one says "but evolution can't be proven in the lab," and an intelligen person replies, "actually evolution has been observed in the laboratory", and the creationist says "but, but, but we mean macroevolution, bigger than what you've seen in the lab, you can't prove that in the laboratory!"

As far as I can tell it's usually meant as the evolution of a large morphological change, or a new species. Large morphological changes, such as a new set of limbs, has been observed in the laboratory by the mutation of a single gene. When confronted with this fact creationists fall back on the last definition of a new species. Although the use of the word species is quite vague.

No one denies the fact that chihuahuas and great danes are decended from a common ancestor, only a few centuries ago. Taxonomically they are under the same species, Canis familiaris. This is only a convention, however. By using the strict definition of the word, chihuahuas and great danes are different species, they cannot and/or will not mate with each other. (you can take chihuahua sperm and fertilize a great dane ovum and bring about viable offspring, but not naturally, you can also do this with organisms that are widely considered two different species).

You may then say, wait a minute, those are two different dogs that have been bred through artificial selection. I'll say OK, good. Then consider it one long laboratory experiment. We have created two and more completely different species, two and more competely different species, from a single common ancestor in a controlled environment.

Chew on that. I eagerly await your reply.

[Capablanca]

242. Big dogs and little dogs.... ARE STILL DOGS

It is not believers in creationism that understand the difference between macro and micro evolution. This is a commonly understood scientific concept.

Let me put this in simpler terms for you.. A person evolves over time whether it be their intellect, their skills, or their knowledge. This is a form of micro evolution within the individual. Everyone understands this process and has been a part of it. A person can evolve to great and superior heights and accomplish great and might feats. Yet he is still as human as the tribal native.

Just because a poodle cannot get her tail end up high enough or the great dane his poodle prodder low enough does not make them a different species any more than the two individuals mentioned above. You are wrong about the difference between macro evolution and micro being one of scale. This is the Achilles heal of evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have used a type of bait and switch approach to try to show"proof" for their theory. They show evolution within a species, which is provable and easily understood, (micro) as proof of the fact that one species becomes another. (macro)

Your silly story about great danes and small dogs trying to mate paints a funny picture but no matter how hard you try to tell us that they are two different species we all know that they are dogs.

I do not have school textbooks on my shelf that show what I am about to say. I have watched a video that showed the textbooks and the statements I made before were in these books. If you wish to become enlightened on the subject I will send you for free the tapes by Dr. Kent Hovind.

[RapidCreek]

254. Let me see if I understand you here Capablanca

You are telling me that you believe that Dinosaurs, Human Beings, Sparrows, Rabbits, Milk Cows, Wiener Dogs, Saber-toothed Tigers, Carcharodon Megalodon, Chickens, kangaroos and Mastodons were all running around at the same time? If so, how? If not, why not?

Do you understand the dependant interaction of species? If so please explain how the above animals could possible coexist. If not, Why not.

Are you telling me that you believe that Carbon Dating is a fallacy? If so why?

You made the statement that currently used text books are supplying the Piltdown man as evidence of evolution. You have provided no proof at all. If you are going to make a blanket statement back it up.

Evolution does not now...nor has it ever suggested that one species "becomes" another....NEVER. If you want to assert yourself an expert on the claims of those who believe that evolution is science and creationism is not then learn about what the theory actually puts forth.


RC

[Capablanca]

262. De-volving arguements

The arguements I am getting are starting to sound desperate. How can Cows and chickens can't coexist? Well to be fair the Dr. Doolittle list included Dinosaurs. Did you realize that many of these creatures were herbavores? An elaphant coexists with chickens and kangaroos now. What a strange question.

Now for the wild part...
"Evolution does not now...nor has it ever suggested that one species "becomes" another....NEVER"....... Your quote.

Well now we are getting somewhere. Perhaps you should define species for me. So you, like me, do not believe that one species evolves into another? I am pleased to have developed another convert.

Carbon Dating has been shown to be unreliable. The fossils created by the lava from Mt. St. Helens are millions of years old according to this dating method.

I already told you that anyone who would like a free tape showing these textbooks should give me their address and I will send you the information I discussed.

[RapidCreek]

269. yep that is my quote

Evolution-a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Get that? Successive generations. It ain't an instant occurrence.

As to the question I asked about coexestance....you did not answer it. I asked if all of the animals I posed could co-exist. In otherwords...live at the same time in the same place. Can they? If your assertions about creationism are to be taken seriously then they must have.....In fact they must now. No animal could ever have become extinct....and if you suggest that some have then with every extinction there will forever be one less species of animal or plant present on the earth. Every animal or plant which directly depends on the one which has gone extinct must also go extinct and on and on which eventually must lead to all life going extinct....because creationism makes adaptation to environs and food supply unnecessary. Which leads to my point....When as you say "God created the earth and all it's creatures" He must have created all those listed above at one time....and they all lived together on the same world at the same time. All that are now extinct and all that are presently living...correct? The worlds climate never changed. The icecaps didn't melt and refreeze. Land masses, mountains, valleys, Oceans and rivers all are in stasis....for eternity. Everything then was as it is now...exactly....right?

[DrWeird]

272. Wrong again.

"Carbon Dating has been shown to be unreliable. The fossils created by the lava from Mt. St. Helens are millions of years old according to this dating method."

1. When Mt. St. Helens erupted it only released ash and hot gasses, the lava was restricted to the lava dome. 2.Lava doesn't create fossils. 3.Fossils are not organic tissue. 4.Carbon dating is only performed on organic tissue.

More information from degree mill doctorates?

[Piltdown13]

302. Just had to respond...

Where has it been reported that "fossils created by the lava from Mt. St. Helens" are millions of years old, according to C-14 dating? I'm curious, because the entire statement makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. The main problem is that C-14 is incapable of producing an age anywhere near even one million years old; its range only extends to about 35-40 thousand years BP (perhaps up to 100 thousand years with the "supercharged" version of the technique, though these dates are not generally considered reliable without independent confirmation). So, I'd advise you not to trust any source that claimed that anything was millions of years old according to C-14 testing. The closest you will get is an "infinite" radiocarbon age, which simply means that the sample is older than can be reliably discerned by the method (i.e., over 40-100 thousand years).

[RapidCreek]

256. Oh and another thing.....

I am God. I made Evolution. Proove I am not. Proove that I didn't

RC

[Cannikin]

267. Wait a minute...Rush? Is that you?

[DrWeird]

259. More and more falsities.

Microevolution is used to describe changes in organisms on a small scale. Bacteria acquiring resistance, for instance. It's got nothing to do with some psychobabble personal growth crap.

Under the technical definitin of species, great danes and chihuahuas are different species. They cannot and will not mate. A great dane's penis is larger than an entire chihuahua. Members of species may be able to have viable offspring, but what makes them different species is that they don't in nature. Even that can be stretched. Wolves and dogs are different species both technically and taxonomically, and they can mate and produce viable offspring. And everybody knows dogs were breed from wolves.

Lions and tigers are two different species and they're both cats.

Oh! You saw it on the video! By Dr. Kent Howard! You mean this Dr. Kent Howard? From Patriot University?

<http://www.chick.com/information/authors/hovind.asp>

Ah, the good doctor. Believes that the world is 6,000 years old, and that Noah took dinosaurs onto the Ark and were later hunted to extinction. (Noah took baby dinosaurs, so they would fit).

[DrWeird]

265. Oh, and another thing

"Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who gives frequent public lectures on evolution and creationism. He is well-known for repeating the claim that the remains of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand were actually those of a recently deceased plesiosaur.
Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill ."

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/>



Tell me. Doesn't the Bible say something about not giving false witness? Are all of your arguments based on what some nutjob with a phony degree says?

[snowFLAKE]

280. Kent Hovind does belong to the Landover Baptist Church, no?

If you're not familiar with Landover, check it out:

http://www.animaldefense.org/landover.html

Please, please, please tell me his web site is a parody of similar intent (although I fear it isn't).

[Rabrrrrrr]

243. Ha ha! Excellent, DrWeird!

You nailed them on the old "never been in a laboratory" deflection ruse. I never thought of it that way, but by golly, you is right - we've been using the Earth itself as our laboratory ever since we first domesticated animals and started breeding the wildness out of them, breeded stpidity into them, and breeded them to make more milk, more meat, or have more power to pull a cart.

Wonderful! Thanks!!

And as to the age of the earth/age of the universe baloney we hear when they say, "Yeah - but you people can't decide if the universe is 10 billion years old, 15 billion yaers old - if you have the facts, then tell us!" and they refuse to admit that science was not handed down with all knowledge, but that's an, dare I say it, evolutionary process of learning new things.

So we used to think the universe was 10 billion years old? So what? We tossed a big old telescope up into the sky and lo and behold, by golly we could see 15 billions years ago! And I bet that in another 50 years, we'll develop stuff that might take us back to 20 billion years, 25 billion, maybe even 400 billion. Who knows? I don't.

But scientists will amend their opinion as more data comes in.

Creationists have faith in the set of hypotheses put before them, no matter what evidence or experience might show = scientists have faith in their method to conintually discover new things and new truths at which time they throw away the stuff that doesn't work any more.

That's me, firing my salvo, and now getting off my soapbox.

[RapidCreek]

257. How was the Piltdown man proven to be a fraud?

By the bible? Or via science? If you don't believe in the scientific process then you cannot use it to disproove the piltdown mans existance...you must use that which you believe in...the bible.

Are you suggesting that horses have always been what they are today...since the beginning of time?

Do you really believe that a fellow named Noah put two of every animal on a boat? If so find out the biomass of every species of plant and animal which lives in your state...calculate the biomass and tell me how big that boat would need to be. Next explain how...if only two of each animal were present how this fellow Noah managed to feed these animals...keeping in mind that some must eat others and others must eat plants to survive. Feel free to use evil science or your much more logical bible to proove your position.


RC

[Pithlet]

234. You still don't get it

Science is not a list of truths.

You say "Science doesn't teach anything as fact". REALLY???

Yes. When science is taught in schools properly, the method is taught. Anything that science has "revealed" is taught BECAUSE it was the scientific method, not some book written years ago, that revealed it.

Your definition of science seems to be that it is just a bunch facts. Your definition is wrong. Therefore it is completely different from mine. Believe me, I'm not ashamed to point that fact out.

[PVnRT]

93. We came from a rock?

Excuse me, but doesn't Genesis say Adam was created from dust? Kind of hypocritical to attack evolution when you believe that, isn't it?

[Capablanca]

97. No... We wre created by God

To believe in evolution is to believe that we came from a rock. If you need sources, I will give you dozens of evolutionists who say this very thing. Maybe your ancestors are rocks but mine are not.

[ldf]

102. to believe we came from a rock

makes THOUSANDS of times more sense than what you are pushing.

i have a brain, and can think. so what if my brain came from a rock.

just because the bible says something does NOT make it true. the bible says a lot of crap.

and there is absolutely nothing you can say that can convince me otherwise.

if you want to convince me, PROVE IT!

hmph. i knew you couldn't.

[PVnRT]

104. Who created Adam out of dust

Quit dodging the question.

[TrogL]

156. Straw man

"we came from a rock" is an oversimplification of evolutionary theory.

This is how anti-evolutionists attack evolution - they change the story and attack the new version.

[RapidCreek]

255. Do you believe that God is incapable of creating a system of

EVOLUTION?

RC

[bowens43]

287. Do it.

Give us some links to pages where evolutionists claim that we came from a rock. This should be good.

[zonmoy]

292. Actually

the bible says we are made from dust which is powdered rock. So the bible actually proves you wrong.

[TrogL]

154. No, that's improving the theory

Theory: It's time to go home
Observation: I look out the window. It's broad daylight.

New Theory: It's not time to go home.
Observation: My watch says 2 p.m.

Newest Theory: It's not time to go home.

[DrWeird]

22. How about an example?

I don't follow you.

[Sparky McGruff]

42. Falsifiability. The hallmark of a SCIENTIFIC theory.

"Creationism" can never be considered a science because its central tenets can never be disproved.

If I can demonstrate flaws in the theory of evolution, the theory must either be discarded, or changed to fit the facts. This is a fundamental property of any scientific theory -- it's not an option. If a theory is cannot be proven false, it belongs outside the realm of science. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it's not science.

If I somehow put together a perpetual motion machine in my basement, the second law of thermodynamics will have to be changed. It's not an option -- scientific theories must fit the known facts. The second law of thermodynamics would have to be replaced with a model that fits the facts as we know them. Even though the second law of thermodynamics is a fundamental part of physics and chemistry, IT CAN BE PROVEN WRONG.

Ask a "creation" believer what evidence would have to be found to make them throw out or modify their "creationist theory". Answer: None. God told me, so I believe. This is a matter of faith, not science. No matter what the evidence may be, it can be molded into the creationist theory.

Lots of things fall outside of the realm of science: Who's the best presidential candidate? What college football team really are the national champions? Is there a God? All of these things can be argued for or against, but they can never be proven, and most importantly, they can never be disproven.

[creativelcro]

80. To state that all theories are the same is intellectual dishonesty

The Big Bang theory makes clear predictions that people are still testing. What predictions does creationism make ? Just give me one empirical prediction that the theory makes. That there should not be fossils ?

[TrogL]

150. A theory that has a whole bunch of observations supporting it

and no observations that disprove it is considerably better than a theory that is unproveable.

[bowens43]

288. You obviously are a having a definitional problem.

You need to do a little research into what exactly 'theory' means to a scientist. A theory to scientist isn't just a wild ass guess.

[YNGW]

5. In order to have an accurate scientific experiment...

... doesn't it require that you be able to simulate or otherwise recreate that event in order to study it and measure it? That may not be phrased just perfectly, but I'm confident you know what I'm talking about.

It obvious that neither creationism nor evolution can be recreated by scientific experiment. Both require faith of some type. To me, it's up to each individual to weigh the evidences and make their own decision.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Tell that to the resistant bacteria and virii that crop up.

Or look the reason you have to get a new flu shot every year. That is natural selection (the driving force of evolution) in action. Unless of course people are trying to make the argument that God is still cooking up new virii and bacteria every other day.

And I'd still like to know what happened to the 90 percent of organisms that died at the end of the Permian era and then a few million years later what became of the 75 percent of the organisms that died at KT boundary.

[YNGW]

10. Let me clarify

My main point is the faith. With both, you go back to a point where you can't go back any further.

With creationism, you go back to G-d. Where did G-d come from? A creationist will tell you that G-d is eternal, he has always been, and that we as humans have finite minds, we are unable to comprehend time without beginning or end. So to try and understand a being that is eternal in nature is something of which we are incapable of fully grasping.

With evolution, you go back to a point, let's say for example the Big Bang. Well, were did the matter for the Big Bang come from? If someone has an answer, where did that come from? Where was the beginning? What was the universe like 500 septillion years ago? How did the universe even start?

You see, at some point you have to say "We just don't know." That's where the faith on both sides comes in. That's why we leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves.

It's 9:00EST and I'm going to the den and relax. Have a good weekend everyone.

[TrogL]

164. It was always there

The universe is always there. It always will be there. It always was there.

Discussion of what was before or is after the universe is impossible because that discussion is within the universe.

[YNGW]

217. Prove It.

You can't. It is only by your "faith" that you believe this to be true.

[DrWeird]

16. Evolution can be tested.

Here's how you do it.

According to Darwin's hypothesis, all living things must have evolved from "simpler" common ancestors.


Therefore, since the modern whale is a mammal, there must have been some transitional creature that would have had characteristics of a land mammal and a whale, at some point where modern whales did not exist.

Now to test the theory, dig in geological strata of some certain age where whales did not exist, and viola. You find a transitional fossil that is "half whale half land mammal". Thus there was a time when there were only land animals, then this transitional cajigger, then modern whales.

Can you do anything else? Sure, according to Darwin's theory humans would have evolved from apes. So you go and dig in the appropriate place and lo and behold you've found australapithecenes and other creatures that are halfway between ape and human, and one quarter of the way, and three quarters of the way, and so on, as much as you can quantify that kind of thing.

So keep doing that, and you've got yourself a nice tree. Simple bacteria way back at the beginning of life on earth, they diversify, you get plants, things that eat plants, like invertabrates. Then you see vertebrates come along, then you get fish. Then things start to go up on land, like land plants, and the invertabrates start to diversify, insects come up on land, fish diversify into sharks and lobe-finned fish, and hagfish, and all that wonderful stuff. Fish start to come up on land, like the modernday mudskipper, and then lo and behold you've got amphibians in the fossil record, frogs and salamanders and what not. Not long after that you've got reptiles, which soon evolve into bird-like reptiles and mammal-like reptiles. Guess what shows up after that? Mammals and birds! Early mammals of course were quite primitive but following the same pattern you get all sorts of diversification, mammals that live in the ocean, mammals that can fly, mammals that eat plants, and mammals that can swing from trees.

All of this has been shown in the fossil record. Evolution is fact.

Now there's only one question remaining. How did it happen.

As far as I know there are two plausible explanations.

1. God did it. Well, that's a pretty weak explanation. It's a cheat for starters. Plus there isn't any evidence for it. There isn't even any evidence he exists. We've got the Bible, but then again that says the world was created in six days six thousand years ago, so we know that part is bullshit. So let's say God created the world 4.5 billion years ago. And then created bacteria, and then two billion years later he created plants, and so on and so forth. OK. I'll by that. I guess that's a perfectly good explanation. It means to me that God's a pretty tricky bastard, but I can live with that.

2. Natural selection did it. This is what I believe. And scientists. And most non American people with a western education. The Pope for instance. Natural selection acocunts for everything. It is a good mechanism. And it has been observed in the laboratory.
Therefore, it is the only sound scientific explanation.

[YNGW]

69. Reply

>Evolution is fact.

Obviously things are evolving even as we speak. The question is how did it all get set in motion? What is the origins of the universe? How did the universe come into existance?

No one can explain that on the evolution side. At this point, they simply have faith that it happened somehow.

[creativelcro]

83. Fine, if you want to make creationism your religion that is OK

Just keep it that way and don't try to pretend it is a scientific theory. I expect people to be logical, that is, to admit that certain assumptions lead to certain predictions that can be tested etc etc. Logic alone does not give answer to most existential questions, and it is ok to create your own answers based on your own feelings about them (e.g., your dad was good to you, great, you can believe in a good God controlling things when you are grown up). Just stop whining about faith-based statements not being at the same level as verifiable scientific statements. They are not.

[YNGW]

91. Reply

>Just stop whining about faith-based statements not being at the same level as verifiable scientific statements. They are not.

I'm not sure where this came from. I have not expressed an opinion one way or the other regarding "faith-based statements not being at the same level as verifiable scientific statements."

I'm pointing out that on both side of the aisle, there comes a point where you can't explain any further back. At that juncture, both sides must have faith that things took place and brought them to the point from which they can be explained. People are free to decide these things on their own and to base their lives and their actions upon those beliefs.

[Dr.Phool]

87. No

They have evidence that it happened, not faith. Theres a difference.

[creativelcro]

90. Evidence for what ?

[YNGW]

92. Reply

>They have evidence that it happened, not faith.

That's great. What existed before the universe?

[rman]

103. What existed before the universe has nothing to do with evolution

evolution also does not explain how life came to be in the first place, it only describes how life evolves.

Even the big bang theory does not tell what was before the universe, it only describes how it came to be.

So, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[YNGW]

108. Sure it does. It's part of the evolutionary process.

One can't cookie-cut a portion out and say "This is where the evolutionary process began and everything prior to this has nothing to do with the evolutionary process."

I'm not arguing whether or not a species evolves or not. We're evolving right now though it's so small as to be unnoticeable. So, in that respect, you're also barking up the wrong tree.

>evolution also does not explain how life came to be in the first place

But creationism does. I'm just trying to have both start at the same place. The same place would be "How did the universe come to be?" Creationists say G-d. Evolutionists say "Something out there caused it, but we don't know what or how." But, I've already posted on this.

>Even the big bang theory does not tell what was before the universe, it only describes how it came to be.

So, in other words, the evolutionist must have "faith" that something was there which caused it. This falls perfectly in line with every statements I've made to this point.

Summation:

Both sides of the argument eventually must rely on "faith" of something they can't explain, whether it be G-d or whether it be "something happened". Which side one falls on is up to the individuals own research and study.

[RapidCreek]

268. Not really

Scientists posit something out there caused the Universe. You say God made it. I say who made God. You say God has always been there. Yet your compatriots have no proof and SEEK NO PROOF beyond FAITH. The difference is is that ALL scientists by definition SEEK to find the answer to things they have suspicions might be true though possibly not yet proved and you DO NOT. If you supply an unprovable categoric answer to a question and site as proof, FAITH you are NOT a scientist and you ARE NOT engaging in the pursuit of science. As such creationism did not spring from science and by it's very origins one cannot logically assert it ever did.

The point of school is to train people to think and to question and to pursue answers to those questions with postulation and scientific investigation...it is not to train people not to question and not to postulate and not to pursue answers to the questions in a logical fashion. That task falls to which ever brand of religion of whose categoric edicts you prefer to have unquestioning faith are true.

RC

[Bill McBlueState]

295. but

You can't throw out all the scientific work that has been done on

-how galaxies evolved
-how stars form
-how our solar system formed
-how Earth in particular formed
-how life began on Earth
-how life on Earth evolved

just because cosmologists don't *yet* understand how the Universe evolved over the first fraction of a second of its existence.

So let's say a God was necessary to start the universe. That in no way implies that the creationists have anything valid to say about how speciation occurs, or how old the Earth is.

You can't look to the holes in our knowledge and say "Oh, that's where God did his thing and science is bull." Because some day those holes may be filled in, and then where does God go?

[treepig]

117. this thread kinda reminds me of ann richard's description of debating

with mr. g. w. bush when they were running for governor of texas.

no matter how logical or well constructed ms. richard's arguments were, mr. bush would just spout off his non-sensical talking points (which people bought into of course, because they were simplistically satisfying).

anyhow, is there really any point having a discussion with someone who can't differentiate between the origin of life and evolution?

if you believe so, good luck!!

[YNGW]

120. Reply

>differentiate between the origin of life and evolution?

The two overlap. Unless you address this, you're left with half-a-theory. There's more to it than "This is how species evolved". There's that little part of "How did the universe and all we know come to exist at all?"

Now, if you're uncomfortable answering the questions, that's another issue.

[treepig]

130. yeah, sure, when every thing you post is merely

based on what you "feel" is correct, you can claim whatever you want. doesn't make it true however (but i suspect i'm just wasting electrons here and should stop falling for blantant trollism).

[YNGW]

136. Huh!?!

>yeah, sure, when every thing you post is merely based on what you "feel" is correct, you can claim whatever you want. doesn't make it true however

Both side can make that claim.

I've merely stated that there is a point on both sides where "faith" must come into play because it can't be explained any further. Is that so hard to comprehend?

If you can provide indisputable documented evidence on how the universe was formed, we'd all love to hear it.

[treepig]

143. my point was that evolution has nothing to do with the formation

of the universe.

simply that.

why you wish to confuse the two issues is anybody's guess. mine is that you're just following typical creationist obfuscation tactics.

[YNGW]

151. Because...

... you can't have one without the other. Evolution is dependent on the origins of the universe in order to explain how the process started.

Why do you seemingly have a problem with both sides requiring "faith" as their origins?

[treepig]

157. evolution simply is the process by which life changes

the theory has absolutely nothing to do with how life originated or how the universe came to be.

by your reasoning, everythingis linked the origin of the universe/beginning of life.

for example, a discussion of the proces by which my ford aspire was manufactured would need to include an explanation for the origin of life and/or the universe, because by your definition, this automobile could not have come into existence without the universe first originating. sure, that's true enough, but hardly relevant.

[YNGW]

167. Reply

>evolution simply is the process by which life changes

I realize that. But until the origins of the universe can be satisfactorily explained, then how the evolutionary process began remains a mystery.

Look back at my former posts, I clearly point out that we are evolving right now, even as we speak. I've never denied that.

But, it's not enough for me to believe that the process is in motion. I want to know how it all started. Without that, both sides are just floating out there.

For the last time, creationists have it starting with an eternal G-d. Ask an evolutionist and s/he'll tell you that s/he doesn't know how it all got started, but somehow it "just happened". Thus, both require "faith" in things that can't be explained.

That's the only point I've been trying to make, that at some point both require "faith" in things that can't be explained. I've been very consistent. I didn't think it was all that complicated.

And, I don't know how to make it any more clearer than that.

[treepig]

196. i assume that your god is part of the universe,

if so, even evoking him or her doesn't offer an explanation for the origin of the universe

if you're looking for the answer to a narrower question, specifically "how did life originate on earth?" that's answered more easily. and the answer is "RNA"

Researchers working out their understanding of this machinery wondered: which came first, DNA, RNA or protein? The first information molecule must have been able to reproduce itself and carry out tasks similar to those done by proteins today, which limited the choice. Proteins were obviously important, since so many cellular functions depended on them; but proteins are even bigger and more complicated than DNA and can't make copies of themselves without DNA and RNA. The chemicals making up DNA include parts of RNA, so DNA was out. That left RNA.

Scientists imagined an "RNA World", in which primitive RNA molecules assembled themselves randomly from building blocks in the primordial ooze and
accomplished some very simple chemical chores. But as far as anyone knew, RNA couldn't do anything but carry information from DNA to ribosomes.

That changed in the early 1980's, when two biochemists, Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech, discovered independently a kind of RNA that could edit out unnecessary parts of the message it carried before delivering it to the ribosome. Since RNA - ribonucleic acid - was acting like a type of protein known as an enzyme, Cech called his discovery a ribozyme. The two were awarded the Nobel Prize for Biochemistry in 1989.

Ribozymes rocked the molecular biological world. There was much rejoicing among true believers in the RNA World, but the skeptics scoffed. An RNA's being able to cleave itself was all well and good, they argued, but what about all the other chemical reactions that RNA would have to perform as the sole information molecule and enzyme? They demanded more proof, in the form of other RNA-driven reactions.

the rest of the story is at:

http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html

[YNGW]

200. Reply

> even evoking (G-d) doesn't offer an explanation for the origin of the universe

It is AN explanation. It's up to the individual as to whether they wish to accept or reject it, just as they can choose to accept or reject the explanation of "we don't know". What people choose to believe or not believe is immaterial to me. If two people are on opposite sides of the debate and it's obvious they aren't going to be persuaded against what they know to be true, it's best to simply agree to disagree and move on.

[rman]

282. "G*d-did-it" is a useless explanation

It can not be tested, therefore it is unscientific. A theory is more than just "an idea"; there has to be supporting 'material' evidence, and there has to be no evidence that falsifies the theory.

"G*d-did-it" does not help us understand the world (universe) we live in, and we need to understand it (the more the better) in order to survive in it.
Science typically does help to better understand the world. Creationism does not.

[wabeewoman]

247. "they simply have faith that it happened somehow"

I'm sorry but this is rather obvious. If it didn't happen would we be here?? Just because you have no provable hypothesis for something does not mean you have 'faith'. The sky was blue long before we knew why it was blue. The biggest problem is that science education has been neglected in the schools (and home schoolers may get none at all)for the last 15-20 years and so there are all these creationists arguing theories when they don't understand the basic hypothesis theory or the definition of species or evolution. It is a sorry thing but it isn't a matter or belief or science. It is a matter of ignorance or maybe it would be more polite to say, a lack of learning.

[Bill McBlueState]

293. not to put too fine a point on it...

You should be careful to distinguish between evolution, which describes the origins of the diversity of life we see today, and cosmology, which attempts to explain the origins of the universe. Biological evolution is pretty well understood and accepted by the scientific community. Cosmology also has some well-established tenets, but there's a lot more to be done in that field.

Cosmologists have done a good job of explaining how the universe evolved from 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang (an *unbelievably short* period of time) until the present day. But before that, it's all very much up in the air. Now, you can say that some God acted for that short period of time, or that some God "started" the Big Bang, but in a few decades, people will probably understand even more about the beginning of the universe, allowing even less time for that God to act.

So any approach that says "Science doesn't understand this, so some God must be involved" runs the risk of falling apart once the next scientific advance is made.

[TahitiNut]

298. Since TIME itself 'began' with and is an intrinsic part of the Universe ..

... I find supernatural descriptions that rest upon the notions of 'beginning' and causality itself to be logically specious. Stated another way, how can God (any notion of an omnipotent Alpha-to-Omega God) be subordinate to the constraints of time (including causality) when time itself was/is 'created'?? To even begin to have faith in "Creation," I must regard it as a "now thing" - transcendent of time itself -- the penultimate "IS-ness".

To regard a faith in such a God as somehow contradicted by something as infinitesimal as the time-oriented relationship between living things on one very small speck in the corner of but one very small part of the staggeringly huge Cosmos that we can see with our abysmally limited senses seems ludicrous in the extreme. Maybe that's just me. :shrug:

[cushla_machree]

331. faith?

"At this point, they simply have faith that it happened somehow."

same could be said for creationism. they simply have faith even though all the evidence points to the contrary. Creationism can never be proven using the scientific method. Nothing in the world, besides a book, says it is so. I'll take evolution, thanks.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

59. A scientific experiment is designed to disprove the theory,

not prove it. The second principle of a scientific experiment is that it is reproducible by others. This is where "cold fusion" fell apart about a decade ago.

Creationism starts from the end result ("God did it") and adjusts the facts to fit.

No faith is involved in the scientific method, just thinking, testing, observation and a willingness to question the accepted wisdom. The theory that a meteor strike had an effect on the mass extinction of the dinosaurs was laughed at by the scientific community when first presented in the early 80s. Subsequent investigation has made it the dominant theory -- for now. Somewhere out there is a high school student who may be able to explain inconsistencies in the existing theory -- or come up with a totally different theory altogether.

Creationism says God put dinosaur fossils in the earth when he created it 6,000 years ago. How can that be tested?

Faith is belief absent proof. Science requires proof.

Calling something "flawed science" or "bad science" is a popular technique Bush* and his flunkies use when they want to shove thru their stupid ideas without any supporting evidence.

BTW, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that says life evolved from rocks.

[YNGW]

70. Reply

>Faith is belief absent proof.

How was the universe formed?

[TrogL]

168. The question is ridiculous

It's like describing the storyline of a movie when the projector's turned off. It's like describing the chemical composition of the acetate three feet before the first sprocket hole on the reel. It just isn't there.

Yes, I know it's a stupid analogy.

[YNGW]

225. Reply

>Faith is belief absent proof.

How was the universe formed?

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

No, it isn't. For one to believe the universe was formed, or for one to believe that the universe has always been there, you must have "faith", because there's no way to prove it.

[TrogL]

158. Tabletop evolution

Bacteria, when confronted with an antagonist, mutate. That's why we have drug-resistant bacteria. That's evolution.

[PVnRT]

160. That is 100% verifiable

What the creationists argue, however, is that because they can't get life to form in an aquarium from some amino acids tossed inside of it within a month or two, there's no evidence and thus macroevolution is BS.

[ima_sinnic]

8. what a bunch of crap!

so evolution is hard for the human pea-brain to fathom therefore it must be rejected, seems to be basically what this idiot is saying. there seems to be some dissonance in simple-minded people like this that does not allow for the reality of evolution at the same time as faith in a higher being.

life evolved! omigod, so the bible is NOT literally true--oh dear, now the world is going to come to an end.

grrrr! this stuff gets me so p-o'ed I can't think straight. the idea that a collection of myths and legends that are peculiar to a culture should have precedence over all other demonstrated evidence is outrageous and defies reason. why should I believe the so-called judeo-christian myth of creation over, say, the shinto one or the African one of the spider Anancy or the ancient Greek ones of Zeus et al.?

[Malva Zebrina]

9. God did it is not a rational explanation for anything

as far as I am concerned.

Once one gets into believing a god intervenes,and is interviening in our lives, and, concurrently NOT interviening in the lives of others, even though they pray and beg the god, ad infinitum, that person is indeed, vulnerable to all of the political claims of a man like Bush. This is the danger of religion that demands "obedience" or else.

There have been many, over time, Popes, Bishops,Cardinals and just plain old parish priests-then there came the noted anti-semite, Martin Luther, and so we then saw Protestant beginnings. And we now have "ministers" and it perfectly fine to declare yourself a minister, even though you did finish high school. Fine--OK, no objection on my part, but when it comes to telling the rest ofus what to do, no way-there is no ligitimacy there at all.

NOw we have about 800 Christian sects in existance, the last time I looked. That strikes me as odd and to be honest, I am amused by it.

Yes, to the original poster, we have changed and we have lost our souls to the corporations and the appeal to an accumulation of wealth and "stuff" that we can buy with that wealth. Meanwhile, no one knows why they are getting fat and getting Diabetes at the age of twelve to be forever locked into a progressive disease that is most likely to end up in several different ill health scenarios , the details of which I will not elaborate upon here. From the looks of it, it is fast morphing into every man for himself in an obscene, and unconscionable display of Randian Objectivism philosophy. We will NOT survive that way. It is impossible. NO matter howmauch the human being will try to separate and seek happiness on his;her own, it cannot be accomplished by distancing onesself from the rest of humanity. We need to help those who are less fortunate and so on down the line. We need to not worship things and the money that would buy those things as we work two jobs to have the money to buty those things for our kids, because, well because we work so much that we are not able to be there manay times for and with our kids. They are being reared by someone else for a good part of the day. So the cheap and the short of it is that we can buy stuff for our kids to make up for it, maybe.

This is not healthy--and I do not believe anyone who would tell me it is healthy. This is anxiety ridden, competitive, stressful way of life.

We need to congregate, not separate.

[papau]

13. "God did it" may be the only "explanation" we ever have for some things

and why is that a fate that is too horrible to accept as a possible?

I still ask if faith - or lack of it - is a requirement for being a member of the Democratic Party.

If not, then this discussion should be in the Lounge!

peace

:-)

[eridani]

37. You don't get the difference between proximate and ultimate causes

Either the laws of the universe just happen to be that way, or they had an author. Either way, they are what they are, and science is about unravelling them.

Sorry, but if I ask a student why formic acid elutes sooner than acetic acid on an ion exclusion column, and s/he says "Because that's the way God wants it," that's an automatic zero. Whether God is or is not the ultimate source of natural law is totally irrelevant.

[Malva Zebrina]

110. I will tell you why

because we are all human beings on this planet. Some pray to a different god, and some think drums contain the spirit. There is NO ONE who has a special "in" with a god because all are prayhing to different gods. Get it?

If a person in South Africa, plays his drum to seek spiritual help and is rewarded with that from the different god, then how can anyone preach a certain one god helps only those who believe in that one god?

It makes no sense. If one does not even believe in a one god or any god and still is happy, productive, and a contributing member of society, helping his fellow human beings, how can anyone claim a god bestows good will on only those who believe in him? Or bad will for that matter.

[Blue_Chill]

345. People can claim anything they want

Like those that claim there is no God with certainty. Humans are flawed so don't make the mistake of thinking that religious institutions could ever speak for a higher being.

Think about it like this, if there is a God we would be so below him/her/it that pretending that we would be able to understand him/her/it is laughable. We live a very short time on a tiny spot of dust in the universe, and knowing this you think that you would be able to understand a creautre responsbile for all of creation? HAHA!

You don't know and I don't know, and even if we did know we wouldn't know. You get it?

[Honesthumanbeing]

34. replied to the wrong post

see below

[DieboldMustDie]

11. Of course it is...

and so is phrenology. ;)

[0007]

106. I agree, but quackery is still alive for the sale of the ignorant.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. One problem I really have with Creationism is how it's proponents..

...always want to teach the Genesis creation story.

I have never heard of anyone suggesting that we teach Nyx and Chaos caused the Earth to spring forth out their love.

Or that the earth sprang forth the primordial lotus flower.

Or that the great spirit breathed life into the Earth.

Or any of the other dozens of creation myths that are associated with the various religions on the planet.

No, it's always the diety of the Judeo-Christian bible they want to teach.

And what these people fail to realize is that science does not speak to existance or non-existance of God. It merely uses facts as can be assertained through observation and analysis to explain what is and indeed what was.

[GiovanniC]

26. Actually...

I'll tell you how the world was created. A woman fell onto the back of a tortoise, and so all of the beavers and the birds and the fish and the otters and all of the animals from the air, land and sea brought mud and peat and twigs and built the earth on the back of a tortoise shell. And don't ask me where the beavers, and birds, and fish and otters and mud and sh*t came from before they built the earth on the back of a tortoise, because I don't know. You just have to have faith in the Great Spirit.

By the way, I agree with you fully. Ra bless you.

[plaguepuppy]

30. It's tortoises all the way down!

[necso]

14. One of the measures of science

Is the extent to which thinking coalesces around one or a small number of theories to explain something. Creationism is not limited to Judeo Christian creationism. There are many creationist "theories" firmly held by numbers of people. On the other hand, true scientific thinking about the origin of the planet (accumulation of mostly rocky materials around a star) and the development of life (natural evolution, possible seeding by other naturally evolved life from Mars or Venus --- this is unlikely but possible and has a small following) are and have been largely agreed upon.

If the "money-changers" wish to teach creationism we should insist that they include all other creation stories --- this would make for a great deal of material. It might also decrease their enthusiasm for it.

As for their creationist evidence, it is all bunk. (Irreducible complexity my butt.) Moreover, how they turn this evidence into evidence for "Christian" creationism is beyond me.

[Must_B_Free]

15. The science is "misleading people"

take a look at the history of Joseph Smith for an advanced course.

He started his PT Barnum sideshow religion in the 1830s when he "translated" the scrolls that came with some mummies he bought.

It wasn't until 1850 that he refined his con into a complete fabricated "Bible, Book 3"

[ConsAreLiars]

17. A useful bit of reading from Scientific American

Feature Article
July 2002 issue

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

[On the Road]

18. You Just Have to Ignore This Stuff

or it will raise your blood pressure too much.

But as far as countering creationsism; here's my viewpoint as someone who read creationism literature in college with interest and sympathy, even if I never bought into it completely:

I do not think it's useful to baldly deny that "creationism is science". The biological and earth sciences not only CAN be creationist, before Darwin most scientists WERE creationists, even if they were only the deist kind.

The goal is to get a creationism to take its obligations as a science seriously. They cannot do this. Since Darwin, the science that creationists do is purely destructive. It is confined purely to casting doubt on a century and a half of real scientists.

Do not let them get away with pointing out a supposed flaw in some geological formation. Ask THEM to explain it. Not the grade-school way the article does. With a specific, detailed hypothesis with supporting evidence.

To criticize a geological formation, a creationist should be able to provide a detailed explanation for how those strata developed. Example: "The 'precambrian' layer came from the original creation, the next two sedimentary layers came from the time before the flood, the next layer came from the immediate effect of the flood, the next came from the sediment as the flood receded. All the rest are more recent."

The creationist should be able to not only able to provide an explanation, but provide support. Show the mechanism the sediment could have formed into this specific rock in this amount of time. How patterns of sediment around the world are consistent with a general flood -- where it started, when, how the earth changed as a result.

None of them can do this, but this is what they expect of a scientist. If creationism were really a science (which it could be), it would be doing these things. It is not, because it is a hoax. It pretends it's doing them. Many people who don't know science don't know the difference.

In responding to someone who sends you something like this, the key is not just shutting someone up, but getting them to see what creationism would have to do in order to be a science.

[mike1963]

32. But the only rational conclusion (for the creationists) is that a deity

purposely planted enormous amounts of evidence against the literal interpretation of Genesis. What a strange thing for a god to do.
:eyes:

[Ilsa]

20. The fundamentalists believe

in the science of creationism until they need the real science of medicine, etc. Funny, how nuclear decay, etc is "imprecise" to these folks until they need a PET scan or MRI or scan using a radioactive isotope. Of course, then it is a miracle of God that someone can peer into the body this way.

[INTELBYTES]

23. No, I much prefer the "we were accidental protiens that sprouted fins...

then wiggled on to land, mutated legs and arms and became typing maniacs on the D.U.. Now that's science!!

[TrogL]

170. Straw man

Oversimplify a theory, then attack the new version. Classical creationist thinking.

That's logical fallacy.

[RapidCreek]

261. Sad thing is...no evolutionist has said such a thing

Which you would be quite well aware of if you had any understanding of the theory of evolution. That is something you said. Don't try and argue from an obviously ignorant position by dancing about with strawmen.

RC

[greekspeak]

25. There is science involved in some creationist science

The problem is that they take Genesis, then take science and tie it into knots to prove Gensis. For instance, plate techtonics is difficult to deny. So plate techtonics happened...when Genesis's "fountains of the earth" opened up in the Noahic flood account, they sent the continents skidding apart. If people did not seriously seek to make this the science taught in the classroom, it would be a funny curiousity. Unfortunately, we can't sit back and laugh. We have to work to keep this nonsense out of the classroom.

[plaguepuppy]

27. There's a deeper problem here - both are wrong

This Darwin vs. Creationism duality is just another Punch and Judy show that offers us a chance to root for rival puppets and get to feel virtuous, either in the cause of rationalism or the deity. Speaking as one who has a biology degree from MIT and a lifelong interest in geology, there clearly are deep problems with Darwinian evolution and "young-earth" creationism, but the creationists have also raised legitimate issues about evidence in field geology that contradicts the official model of gradual change, evidence that the world of academic geology simply labels "anomalous" or dismisses in arbitrary ways. A certain school of creationists uses this anomalous evidence to claim a very young age for the earth, but looked at another way this same evidence (for example the so called drift deposits and bone caves) can argue for a recent global catastrophe on a much older earth. This is the sort of field evidence that used to be called "diluvial", i.e. caused by the Flood. Before modern geologic correctness began filtering the evidence there was a large literature describing features that suggest catastrophic jumbles of animal and plant deposits that appear to have been transported by water. This global flood event tends to date rather consistently to 7-10,000 years ago.


The problem with Darwinism is the extreme paucity of "transitional forms" but also a set of issues sometimes called intelligent design theory. This has to do with the problem of creating a complex system such as the clotting cascade, or on another level the eye, in a piece by piece manner in a series of small steps. These complex systems only work when all the pieces are in place - anything short of the complete assembly does nothing at all. So each of these small steps toward the final working version will actually be a burden to the organism, and a greater burden as it gets closer to completion. If having a half-built eye is a selective disadvantage, and if it took say 1000 steps to create one from scratch, how would it ever make it to the final working version?

It's been likened (in Darwin's Black Box) to a frog trying to hop across a thousand-lane freeway. There's a finite if not very good chance to make it across a single lane, but the chance of making it all the way across gets very close to zero. And the lanes get wider the further he goes, since the burden of a 2/3 finished eye or immune system or flagellum is greater than a 1/2 finished one.

[mike1963]

33. You typed a lot of fancy words, but you didn't really say anything...

sounds like you have bought into Behe's theory of "irreducible complexity" which has been shown ad nauseum to be, well, bullshit.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe your claim of a "biology degree from M.I.T." (Just as an aside, I was accepted there back in 1959 but decided on Rice as it was closer...and I'm not a biologist, I'm an engineer)

Do you have any knowledge or opinion of Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker"?

[plaguepuppy]

35. Hey, I'm sorry, but it's true

Class of '74 with department honors - but good on you for turning it down, that obviously makes you smarter. But I was in Salvador Luria's class the day he got the Nobel for inventing phage transduction techniques. So spare me the patronizing ...

And if your only refutation of what I said is "You typed a lot of fancy words, but you didn't really say anything..." and "been shown ad nauseum to be, well, bullshit." it doesn't sound like you learned more than swearing at Rice. So do you want actually discuss the issues or you just want to declare all the important questions proved "ad nauseum" and insult anyone who disagrees?

[Honesthumanbeing]

44. Behe teaches at my school

And I've spoken to his opposition in the cognitive science department. The claim is that he neglects the concept of "scafolding" (sp?) which, in a general sense, asserts that "irreducibly complex" structures could have resulted from a complex evolution in which certain elements that supported the existence of that complex structure along each step of the way (think of the scafolding necessary to construct an arch before the insertion of a keystone) would become no longer necessary after completion and then disappear. Still, this may be a misrepresentation of what Behe is saying--I read "darwin's black box" a while ago but don't recall the argument completely.

[plaguepuppy]

48. Is he still at Lehigh?

Scaffolding sounds like it only pushes back the problem to another level - you have to arrive at something bigger and more complicated than the final product and then simplify that to the final version.

[Honesthumanbeing]

52. yes, I believe he is

You may be right about scaffolding requiring additional elevels of complexity, although within the realm of complexity theory that is very debatable. I don't think I'm qualified.

[INTELBYTES]

72. LOL, what are your credentials to dispute him?

What a great rebuttal you gave him! He gives an outstanding explanation and you think because you call it bullshit it will smell like bullshit? I give him much more credibility!

[TrogL]

172. MIT does have a biology department

at least they mention it on their website. I theorize that they do in fact have one. I'm willing to accept that "on faith" because it is disprovable. If I felt like it, I could charter a plane, go there and attempt to find the building, talk to the professors, maybe sit in a class or two and see if they're actually talking about biology. If I got there and find an empty field, I've lost faith in my theory that MIT has a biology department.

Many years ago I heard a theory that the world was 6000 years old (approximately). I attended a science class that discussed particle decay. I went to the Ontario Science Centre and WATCHED particle decay with my own two eyes in a bubble chamber. From the particle decay came an understanding of half-life. From half-life came a realization that a 6000 year old earth is not believable.

I can do this same journey with "evolution". I cannot with "creationism".

[TrogL]

38. The evolution of the eye

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html

What Good Is Half An Eye?

Some people who ask this question have a basic misconception. They are thinking of "half an eye" as if it were a half-built house.

The actual situation is that "half an eye" was just a low quality eye. The animal could see half as well as animals do today.

[plaguepuppy]

43. There are problems with that reasoning

It may sound plausible with respect to an eye, which can be imagined in some crude form that could work, but there is no plausible pathway that can take you from a photosensitive spot in a little concavity on the skin to a working compound eye. Not only no fossil record of such a pathway, but no sequential way to go from one to the other in a lot of small steps and still have a working eye along the way.

And in other structures, particularly things on the order of "molecular machines" like cilia and flagella, they just don't work at all unless all the right pieces are in place. Yet they are far too complex to be created from a single random mutation.

And as long as you are cutting and pasting from debunker sites, what the hell does he mean by "It has been calculated that a complete fish eye could have evolved in less than 350,000 years, with almost no mutations."? Evolved from what? With "almost no mutations"? Calculated by whom?

[DrWeird]

60. Well that is completely untrue.

Not only is there a plausible pathway, and not only is it seen in the fossil record, every intermediate on the way from photoreceptive patches to complex eyes still exists in living lifeforms.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html>

[blindpig]

68. gradualism has competition

Please see Gould's work on punctuated equilibrium. It has its detractors but seems like good work to me. "It's a wonderful life" is a great read.

[Nikia]

75. I agree with you

There are many unanswered questions regarding origins of life and macroevolution. Macroevolution is accepted by mainstream science, not because it is a scientifically sound theory, but because it has no other explanation for how we got from no life to single celled organisms to multicellular organisms to humans merely by chance. Microevolution has been observed and there are reproducable experiments with bacteria and fruitflies to prove that theory. Fossils of extinct animals have been found. From this, scientists attempt to speculate on how this happened. The problem is that we do not have a complete fossil record. Most necessary intermediates have not been found. Many fossilized species consist of one fossilized species. We cannot know if that species was representative of the species as a whole or even a different species than related fossilized organism. For example, a billion years from now intelligent organisms find one fossilized human with six fingers and write papers on it and attempt to put it in the evolutionary tree.
As a person with a biology degree, I understand microevolution as true science. I consider macroevolution and origins theory as less scientific in that scientitists are less likely to arrive at the true answer and will never know for sure. I feel about it the same way that I feel about archaeology, a few facts, a few assumptions, and we make up a story that may have varying degrees of truth to it.

[TrogL]

173. It is ludicrous to expect a complete fossil record.

Think of it this way. Suppose you have 30 copies of an old encyclopaedia, one in each of 30 libraries. Over the years, copies are stolen, libraries throw them out to make room for copies of newer versions, libraries burn down, books are damaged in floods, books are damaged by insects, books are damaged or vandalized by patrons. In three centuries it would be surprising if there were any copies of any books of any of the encyclopaedias left.

Given how difficult it is to make a fossil (YOU try it) it's amazing we have any fossil record at all, never mind a complete one.

[funkyflathead]

29. I guess it could be

If you wanna believe it, go ahead.

Evolution is just a theory too.

Nobody can prove how the Earth was created.

By an Earth goddess? Roman gods? Big Bang? Allah?

Whatever floats your boat.

[TrogL]

174. Predictability

The problem with "creationism" is that as theory it's absolutely useless. It cannot be used to predict anything.

Put some bacteria in a jar and irradiate them to cause mutations. Evolution predicts some variant on the original bacteria. Creationism predicts a giraffe.

[David Zephyr]

31. Read the Opening of My Hero, Jack London's "The Iron Heel"

Where at the turn of the last century he was mocking metaphysicalists in comparison to scientists.

Jack London has already said it all on this subject...and all those years ago.

[ConsAreLiars]

40. Read it here

http://www.literature.org/authors/london-jack/the-iron-heel/index.html

[David Zephyr]

236. Thanks for the Links!

Are you a London fan?

:hi:

[Honesthumanbeing]

36. There are assumptions inherent in evolution

And one of them is stated explicitly by darwin in "origin of species." Evolution requires that:

1: The earth has been around for billions of years.
2: The laws of physics have remained the same throughout this time period.
3: Materialism is the only valid philosophical standpoint.
Deduction from 2 and 3: Consciousness bears no essential relationship to reality besides being a part of it.

As far as I can tell, the belief in premise "1" is a result of ASSUMING premise "2" and then observing the consequences for a physical theory extrapolated into the past. Premise 3 is routinely assumed by most scientists--it is virtually required for science to proceed. Premise 2 is the "theory of uniformity" that Darwin admits must be assumed for the theory of evolution to work. Nowadays it is implicitly accepted.

The theory of evolution does accept certain premises, as does scientific thinking in general. If you don't believe this, go read a little philosophy of science--or better yet, some philosophy in general. For all of you that say there is no faith in science, you are just being dishonest. Explore the premises on which your thinking and beliefs rest. I'm not saying to abandon them by any means, but every healthy minded intellectual person has a sense of what is behind his thinking.

If you assert that there are no assumptions to what you believe, then you are being just as dishonest and closed minded as the religious thinking that you are attacking with this assertion.

[plaguepuppy]

39. Science is a human activity

And humans have a pathological need to think that they understand far more than they really do.

Try here for some interesting perspective on the historical roots of Darwinism as a movement:
http://www.biped.info/articles/collins1.html

[Honesthumanbeing]

41. interesting angle here

I've never seen science contested from a political power structure standpoint. Whenever I see an argument from this angle, my radar screams "conspiracy theory!" but I will give this a fair read. Thanks for the link.

[opihimoimoi]

45. Creationism is Emotionalism, allows acceptance of the unproven

Or, allows for Delusion.

We are so stupid we don't even know it.

[Honesthumanbeing]

47. nothing is "proven" in science

And here's a proof:

Science is based on induction.
Proof requires deduction.
Deduction != induction
QED.

Yes, I've oversimplified this issue, but far less than you!

[TrogL]

50. Sorry, bad premise

There is lots more to science than "induction". Most science is deduction.

Incidentally, your "proof" isn't a syllogism.

[Honesthumanbeing]

53. I didn't say it was a syllogism

Actually my proof assumes premises about the notion of equality that I didn't justify. Here's a more properly deductive proof, using only logic and set theory:
1. The set of all arguments known as "Scientific inferences" is a subset of the set of all arguments known as "inductive inferences."
2. The sets "inductive inferences" and "deductive inferences" are mutually exclusive.
3. The set of all arguments that are known as "proofs" is a subset of the set of all arguments known as "deductive inferences."
QED.

That's to address your concern that my argument is invalid, given the premises. Now, you assert that premise 1 is false. I assure you, you are incorrect. Deduction belongs to the realm of reasoning from premises. Induction belongs to the realm of asserting premises based on empirical evidence. Science is mostly inductive in what it asserts. You can make deductions from science itself, but we are talking about the foundations of science, not the applications.

[TrogL]

176. Premise 1 is still wrong

and you're still using a three-stage syllogism, and you changed your argument. Now it's "science is mostly inductive".

You just contradicted yourself.

[Honesthumanbeing]

189. actually, no

We disagree about premise one, but your interpretation of it as saying that science is "mostly inductive" is flat out wrong.
Definition:
Given two sets "A" and "B" we say that "A" is a subset of "B" if every element of "A" is also in "B". That is, the following implication holds: If x is an element of "A", then x is an element of "B."

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Subset.html
So:
"1. The set of all arguments known as "Scientific inferences" is a subset of the set of all arguments known as "inductive inferences.""
Therefore, the premise asserts that ALL "scientific inferences" are also "inductive inferences."

[NashVegas]

229. Aye

Creation is art. It is the act of intuitive construction.

Science loathes intuition and is jealous of art. It's results are imperfect and often cannot be duplicated.

To use science in tandem with creationalism theory is contradictory to the notion of faith. It is an attempt, even by the supposedly religious, to supplant a god with science.

God has a lot more in common with Picasso than Einstein. And I say that as a totally non-religious person.

[plaguepuppy]

46. Try some history of science

Actually history and sociology of science is a fascinating subject of interest to many not of a conspiratorial bent. It's a lot less final and immutable than both practitioners and rational-minded laypeople would like to think.

For an interesting look at the power of the information filter in institutional science, and how effectively evidence that doesn't fit the dominant model can be nullified, take a look at Forbidden Archeology by Cremo and Thompson(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892132949/qid=1074321744//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/104-4909569-1142302?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

[Honesthumanbeing]

49. As long as you are giving me all these interesting links...

Here's my own inspiration on this subject:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081956205X/qid=1074322090//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-7429231-9344911?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

If you don't wanna buy a book, check out www.owenbarfield.com

[ConsAreLiars]

51. You, like them, confuse theory with faith

Faith claims to have the full and complete "truth" about everything.
Facts are irrelevant. Faith-based "truth" remains unchanged (until social/political/economic expediencies generate new eternal "truths" for the faithful to recite).

Scientific theories try to model reality as accurately as possible.
Facts matter. If the theory yields predictions or assertions about reality that are inaccurate then the theory is modified or revised.
Science never claims to be completed. It is a method for deepening our ability to understand how things are and how things work, not a final and complete "answer."

There is no conflict between science and faith, since science makes no claim about any "unknowable" that resides behind or beyond the reality of this material world, and beliefs about that have no bearing on the mundane world. Unless, of course, some folks decide that one should be eliminated and replaced by the other. Unfortunately, this "creationism" stuff is a political movement intended to do just that.

[Honesthumanbeing]

54. i agree with most of what you said

Although I believe there are assumptions inherent in the method of science, that are embedded in the very language you use to describe it. But this is too complicated an issue to get into. My main point of contention here is that science has no basis for asserting things about the past when it is based on the evidence of the present. Science is testable in the realm of connecting the present to the future (making predictions) but much less so when the realm of inquiry is the past. It has to make a whole lot more assumptions to apply itself to this realm of understanding.

[ConsAreLiars]

55. "when the realm of inquiry is the past"

In science the realm of inquiry is never "the past" per se. It is a method for looking at the evidence NOW available. If a theory about how things work says that fossil records, for example, should show some predictable characteristics ("predictable" in the sense that the facts of the matter are still unknown), then scientific testing of that theory remains possible since the relevant facts, when obtained, might either confirm or dis confirm the adequacy of that theory. A variant is in comparing two theories to whatever evidence already exists, and judging which is more thoroughly consistent with the facts.

The essence of science is knowing that the "map" is never the whole of reality, but only a guide - a guide that is testable and thus one that can become more accurate as work continues. Scientific theory, to be useful, has to say something about, and thus capable of being tested against, reality. "Predictions" about the what will be (or is) known about the past's impact on evidence now present are of the same quality as predictions about future events - probably better.

[Honesthumanbeing]

57. science is good at one thing

Science is capable of stipulating cause and effect. It is good at manipulating the future in terms of the present. It has succeeded by virtue of its method of experimentation, which by its very nature assumes materialism. The theory of uniformity is nothing but materialism extrapolated back into the past. In reference to the past, it is totally biased as to what it accepts as "evidence" because, among other things, it trusts its own materialism more than it trusts the thoughts and writings of previous generations.

[ConsAreLiars]

64. That is just weird!

"it trusts its own materialism more than it trusts the thoughts and writings of previous generations."

Of course it does. Science is based in and depends on reality-testing. That someone in the past had a different and less adequate view is not just irrelevant, it is a certainty. If you want to believe the tales from Mesopotamia as recapitulated in Genesis, or the chronology of the Aztecs or the esoterica of the Upanishads - that is up to you. But none of them invoke or invalidate or repudiate the scientific method. They are outdated, and often tainted, attempts to explain things, but their age is no more evidence of their value than is the age of the fruit in my larder a measure of its nutritional value.

[Honesthumanbeing]

161. I won't argue this with you

I trust the thoughts of previous generations more than I trust modern science's extrapolation of the past, and one of the main reasons is, I feel, modern science has forced us to misinterpret what people back then really thought. This is a very complex issue, and I don't have the time to argue it here.

[PVnRT]

165. The thoughts of previous generations?

People used to think that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that we were all surrounded by the aether that pressed against our eyes, allowing us to see, that sickness was caused by the invasion of demons...you trust those judgments as opposed to what science has proven? Please explain your position.

[wabeewoman]

253. The problem with trusting the thoughts of previous

generations is how do you really know what they were and do you believe that each person in those generations all believed the same thing? All you need to do is take a look at the diverse and sometimes totally false books on the same topic today and you get an idea how silly that sentence is. If that doesn't convince you, try playing a game of gossip. That's one of my pet peeves with the bible. Prove to me who wrote it, when it was written and that what they were saying wasn't just heresay.

[Honesthumanbeing]

275. to you and the above poster:

I completely understand the sentiment reflected in the argument you are making. To explain why I disagree with that argument in a way that does my own thoughts justice, I would literally have to write you a book. I do plan to write a book on my thoughts relating to this issue someday--I have lots of writings on this matter that will some day come together into something that makes the case I want to. The viewpoint I have is shared by a philosopher known as Owen Barfield, and you can find his thoughts on the subject in his book "Saving the Appearances", which might tell you a good deal about why I think what I do.

Please don't see this as an evasion of your questions--it is just the opposite. I am overwelmed with the task of presenting a justification for a view that is derived from a very comprehensive philosophy.

[TrogL]

177. I totally agree

We should try this discussion in E-Prime, the dialect of English lacking the verb "to be".

[rman]

65. maybe, but not the assumptions you mention

"The earth has been around for billions of years."
"The laws of physics have remained the same throughout this time period."

Those are not assumtions, those are based on evidence.

"Materialism is the only valid philosophical standpoint."

Materialism nor philosophy have anything to do with science.

"Materialism" is a cultural thing; it's the phenomena that people want to buy stuff because they think it makes them happy.

[Terwilliger]

78. Plenty of assumptions in the evolution school of thought

ALL assumptions in the creationist realm...everything that creationism is springs from a book written thousands of years ago (thereabouts) as opposed to continuing scientific research and data

So, the assumptions argument is moot.

[fabius]

56. My sister, PhD biologist, says...

"Evolution is a FACT, not a theory".

The facts don't go away just because we have a certain ideology. Creationism is a reaction to Darwin's initial work, which really shook the foundations of the fundamentalists. Strangely, the more mainstream religions, (Catholic, Anglican) never had much of an overt problem with evolution.

To me there is nothing that says evolution is inconsistent with a Creator. Who created the Big Bang anyhow? If you go back far enough you find an event where we can't discover what went before, and there is the Mystery.

"Creationism" on the other hand is kind of like all the other "science" perpetrated by the right wing. Pollution makes clear skies. Global warming is natural. etc.

Creationism does not use the scientific method, which is to test the hypothesis by observing and analyzing observable facts. Creationism selects and adjusts the facts to suit the desired outcome. Just like most Bush administration activities.

[Honesthumanbeing]

58. your sister...

Should have her PhD revoked for making such a dogmatically unscientific statement. The meaning of "doctor of philosophy" has really sunk to an all time low.

[DrWeird]

61. The vast majority of PhD biologists disagree with you.

The same vast majority think Behe is a psuedoscientific hack who should have his doctorate revoked.

[Honesthumanbeing]

62. I don't think you understand what I am arguing

I'm not asserting creationism is right and evolution is wrong. I am protesting an unscientific attitude of asserting that a given theory is fact. It is contrary to the way that science is supposed to operate--it is never supposed to assert an absolute certainty.

[rman]

66. a theory is fact for as long as it has not been falsified by evidence

you seem to be saying there is no evidence for evolution.

[TrogL]

178. Now say that without using the verb "to be"

[Terwilliger]

81. You're right

How do you weigh, in your own mind, the certainty of "Creationism" with the certainty of "Evolution"

Given facts, research, data, etc., which would you say is a more credible theory?

[Honesthumanbeing]

159. Evolution

Evolution is the more convincing theory. Creationism was created by Christians who don't realize that they can counter evolutionary theory on philosophical grounds.

[Terwilliger]

197. Philosophically, religion is a joke

so why does your philosophy counter evolution? Kinda "they cant prove theirs so our theories are undisturbed" kinda thing?

See, that would be great. Problem is, you and your folks use your counter-arguments to screw with my laws and my freedoms. Keep those philosophies to yourself.

[YNGW]

228. Reply

>Problem is, you and your folks use your counter-arguments to screw with my laws and my freedoms. Keep those philosophies to yourself.

And that isn't going to happen. If someone holds a particular religious belief, it is certainly going to effect the way they live including how they vote. There's nothing anyone can do about that except wish they wouldn't, which won't get anyone very far.

[Terwilliger]

238. That includes putting a commandment plaque in the courthouse?

Or mandating that all kids follow a particular set of slogans plucked out of a religion?

If you like your religion, keep it to yourself.

[YNGW]

250. Reply

I'm not saying people like it, I'm just saying to expect people not to have their religious views effect how they vote or how they want their government to perform isn't realistic. They're going to do it whether other people like it or not. They're not going to keep it to themselves.

[Honesthumanbeing]

276. what the hell are you talking about?

Who are "you and your folks"? Are you calling me a creationist? I am not.

I do not intend to screw with your laws and freedoms; this is not about politics. I share my philosophies with people because I want to show them how I see the world. If they are so condescending that they don't believe my philosophy has even the merit to be examined, and will never take me seriously, then I don't really bother. So won't bother with you any longer. To be honest, you sound a lot like a conservative here--terrified that your freedoms will be disrupted by any challenging of the status quo. Liberalism about tolerance and understanding, and I frankly don't see a lot of that here in the realm of intellectual inquiry.

[treepig]

82. you seem to have no idea what the word "theory" means

in a scientific concept - perhaps you should educate yourself just a little before you go on making yourself appear to be a complete moron?

your post is especially appalling in light of the information already linked in this thread, see post #17 for example:

Myth #1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.


In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

[Nikia]

95. And the genetic code is carried by proteins

This was the scientific theory to explain reproduction and development that was taught until it was discovered that nucleic acid carried the genetic code. Scientists developed this theory because it was plausible with the evidence that they had, just as evolution is plausible with existing evidence. They did not have all the evidence and we do not have all the evidence with evolution either. Very few missing links have been found. What is a missing link anyway? Is a python an intermediate between a lizard and a snake? If in the future, a couple of fossilized pythons are found in lower rock layers than other snakes would it be assumed to be an ancestor? There are many questions to be answered and perhaps more evidence will be found. Evolutionary scientists should not be offended by any of these questions or be afraid to explore all the possibilities.
As a scientifically educated mind, I cannot consider the theory of evolution (at lest macroevolution and biogenesis) to be as scientifically sound as the theory of gravity or other theories based on years or even centuries of independently repeatable experiments.

[treepig]

99. now that's just silly

there was never sufficient evidence to raise the proposition that "the genetic code is carried by proteins" to the level of a scientific "theory"

further, the search for missing links has moved well beyond (the usually futile) searching for fossilized intermediate life forms (if you really have the background you claim to, you must surely realize how improbable a fossilization event is). now, much more sophisticated analysis can be accomplished by using molecular biology to analyze the evolutionary relationships of life forms, in fact there's an entire scientific journal devoted to this topic:

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/6/2/2/9/2/1/index.htt

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution is dedicated to bringing Darwin's dream - to "have fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of Nature" - within grasp. The journal provides a forum for molecular studies that advance our understanding of phylogeny and evolution.

This journal plays an important role by publishing the results of molecular studies that identify the actual clades to which different species and higher taxa belong. Such knowledge will further the development of phylogenetically more accurate taxonomic classifications and ultimately lead to a unified classification for all the ramifying lines of life.

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution publishes high-quality papers that result from or encourage the collaboration of molecular biologists and computer scientists with the community of systematic and evolutionary biologists. In addition, the journal presents new findings on or insights into evolutionary processes and mechanisms as expressed at the molecular level, as well as papers that deal with the methodology of reconstructing evolutionary history from molecular data (such as papers that describe new or more powerful computer algorithms for constructing phylogenetic trees from homologous nucleotide sequences or from homologous amino acid sequences).



on edit, perhaps you'll also want to mention the phlogiston "theory" in support of your premise that evolution "theory" is on shaky grounds:

phlogiston theory a hypothesis regarding combustion. The theory, advanced by J. J. Becher late in the 17th cent. and extended and popularized by G. E. Stahl, postulates that in all flammable materials there is present phlogiston, a substance without color, odor, taste, or weight that is given off in burning. “Phlogisticated” substances are those that contain phlogiston and, on being burned, are “dephlogisticated.” The ash of the burned material is held to be the true material. The theory received strong and wide support throughout a large part of the 18th cent. until it was refuted by the work of A. L. Lavoisier, who revealed the true nature of combustion. Joseph Priestley, however, defended the theory throughout his lifetime. Henry Cavendish remained doubtful, but most other chemists of the period, including C. L. Berthollet, rejected it.

[DrWeird]

210. A few things.

That proteins may carry genetic information was always a hypothesis in the early days of molecular biology and was shown to be incorrect quite quickly.

Secondly, the missing link is a creationist term. If you mean animals that are halfway between ape and human, those have been found.

Thirdly, pythons are snakes. But if you mean if they find human fossils from two billion years ago, will this prove the theory of evolution wrong? Yes, good thing for the theory there is no such fossil. Just a few horrible plaster frauds made by creationists.

Fourthly, evolution has also been based on 150 years of independently repeatable experiments.

[Nikia]

241. Answers to a few things

The protein hypothesis was taught to my microbiology professor as fact when he was in college. I remember that because he made it a point of mentioning it a couple times. I used it as an example of how theories can change when more information is learned.
According to macroevolution evolution by chance, there must be intermediaries for every living creature. Every set of related organisms must have common ancestors. There are few intermediaries for any living or fossilized creature. As far as the intermediaries between ape and human, how do we know if they aren't like the six fingered man since some intermediaries are represented by one or two individuals? Would the six fingered man be classified as a differnt species? What about a 4 foot Pygmy and a 7 foot man? I took biological anthropology also and the skulls we measured of human ancestors weren't outside of human extremes and there wasn't exactly a clear evolutionary pattern: smaller than average skull, followed by larger than average skull, followed by smaller skulled human. My point is that we don't know that we are finding representatitive individuals.
The python and other constrictors are thought to be more primitive snakes. They have bone spurs on their pelvis where lizards have legs. Other snakes did not evolve from pythons though. From a future fossil record though, one might conclude that other snakes did evolve from pythons.
Testing for genetic relationships may be a good idea for establishing better evolutionary trends than fossils, but it obviously works better for establishing relationships amongst living organisms.
I suppose that I am like some agnostics/atheists raised in a Conservative religious tradition are with religion, the more that I learned about science and evolutionary theory, the more that I doubted that it actually could have happened that way. The simple version that I learned as an elementary school student seemed so simple and to make so much sense. What I learned in my college biology and other science classes (independent non religious private college) complicated it to the point that it all seemed proposterous. I suppose that I consider myself agnostic on the origins of life and how we got to where we are today, life wise. I am a Theist but it is not necessary for my faith that God created everything in six days.
Incidently, I used to be incredibly interested in archaeology and intended on majoring anthropology, emphasizing on archaeology. I took a class in it and found it was based on a lot of speculation. Writing my final paper, I felt like I was bullshitting the entire thing with all my referenced articles to be based on a few found artifacts and lots of speculation. I get the same kind of feeling when I read most papers on macroevolution such as an article speculating to as why wings and feathers would evolve in reptiles and become birds.
For science I prefer things like controlled repeatable experiments. If things do not work as predicted, we consider other factors which also can be controlled for and do another experiment with those controls in place. We haven't been able to do an experiment creating life, turning single celled organisms into multicellular organisms, or create mutations causing a viable new Family or higher taxa.

[snowFLAKE]

279. You must have an ancient professor considering that:

1. DNA was discovered about 1860

2. Chromosomes were hypothesized to be the carriers of genetic information by 1920 or so.

3. DNA was conclusively shown to carry genes within ~20 years (of point #2)


Now, briefly addressing your point "We haven't been able to do an experiment creating life . . . " Well, consider the difficulty of performing this experiment when all the components of a cell are not even known. Now, however, with the complete sequencing of the genomes of several organisms, and increasingly high-throughput methods to analyze the protein complement of cells as well, it is only a matter of time before all of the components of a cell are known. Then, if anyone cares to fund the effort, it will be fairly straightforward (but highly tedious) to carefully use chemical synthetic methods to create all the parts of a cell de novo, assemble them, and voila "life!!"

Already this method has been used to create a "living" virus so your point that we haven't been able to an experiment creating life is not even correct right now (although you may be able to get off on the technicality that some do not consider viruses to be "alive")

[LibertyorDeath]

63. Creationism is utter crap The Bible is a parable

Every body after me the Bible is a parable
Every body after me the Bible is a parable
Every body after me the Bible is a parable

Using junk science to try and prop up fiction is a desperate act of

extreme insecurity. No amount of "faith" will ever change this Fact.

[RebelOne]

67. I'm with you. The Bible is a parable.

The Bible is a parable.
The Bible is a bunch of myths and fairy tales.
The Bible was a bunch of contemporary novels written by men and not by any mythical being called god.

[INTELBYTES]

73. It take more "faith" for me to believe I came from a fish....

than it does for me to believe a Creator put me here.

Oh yeah,
Everybody after me, evolution is a myth!
Everybody after me, evolution is a myth!
Everybody after me, evolution is a myth!
Everybody after me, evolution is a myth!

No amount of wishing you came from an ape will ever change this fact!

[creativelcro]

85. Reality may be very different from what you think.

Just because you cannot imagine something may simply have to do with lack of imagination or denial than wih reality itself. That's the point of science. That you can discover things that are counterintuitive. The Middle Ages showed pretty clearly how things get when faith is put above observation-based logic and methods.

[TrogL]

179. Straw man

Take a complex theory and oversimplify it, then horse-laugh at the new version.

Logical fallacy

[Rabrrrrrr]

205. A myth?

Wow. WHAM! Right in the face of evidence.

I don't think evolution is a myth. It might be incomplete - who knows what we'll find out later? Who knows if we're off by a million or two years in either direction? - but I believe it's pretty well close enough to trust it as the working theory/fact that it's been for a hundred years. Certainly haven't seen anything to declare itan outright falsehood. And it's absolutely not a myth, though you might have been using the term "myth" in it's general (though wrong) usage of meaning "falsehood", so I won't split hairs on that one.

But who's to say that putting us through an ape phase wasn't part of the divine creation? I can't say it wasn't, and evolution doesn't deny God at all. In fact, I don't think there's any science that either confirms or denies God's existence. But for, who believes, I find in science magnificent and beautiful language telling us about how God works, so far beyond anything that's written in the first two chapters of Genesis (which is two entirely different creation stories, BTW). I mean - wow - who'd have thought that God is working on time scales humans couldn't even conceive of until the 1800s? Who'd have thought that God is working through quarks and neautrinos and all that other incredible stuff, swirling patriculate masses being created ex nihilo, colliding and annihilating, and yet somehow it ends up as people, planets, and galactic clusters. I think evolution tells us that our God is creator of incredible beauty and creativity. IMO.

:hi: from the Revelation thread!

[Nikia]

246. I wish that I could remember a book that I browsed in Barnes&Noble

It was about the science of God. It proposed that god planned to create the universe and life as he did. He cited the improbably of all events coming together as they did (as do most Creationsit). He did propose that evolution did occurr but not by chance or actual divine intervention. He said that evolution is written into our genetic code and we evolved much quicker than by chance that way. He also said that all the miracles in the Bible were planned as well. I thought that it was an interesting possibility.
Even though our evolution class focused on microevolution, we discussed papers and articles every week lead by a different student. One of the more devout Christians in the class lead the discussion on the politics of teaching Creationism. He said that he personally had discussed the subject with his pastor and convinced him that God could have created life through evolution and that a belief in evolution wasn't atheism.
Like I said, I am agnostic on origins theory and macroevolution. I would like to see more work on the genetic and moleculear aspects of evolution.

[mainer]

71. Read what Mrs. Carl Sagan writes:

Perhaps one of the most eloquent and moving articles ever written about science vs. creationism. I cried when I read her tribute to her husband:
-------------

"So here are Adam and Eve, who have awakened full grown, without the tenderness and memory of childhood. They have no mother, nor did they ever have one. The idea of a mammal without a mother is, by definition, tragic. It's the deepest kind of wound for our species; antithetical to our flourishing, to who we are.

Their father is a terrifying, disembodied voice who is furious with them from the moment they first awaken. He doesn't say, "Welcome to the planet Earth, my beautiful children! Welcome to this paradise. Billions of years of evolution have shaped you to be happier here than anywhere else in the vast universe. This is your paradise." No, instead God places Adam and Eve in a place where there can be no love; only fear, and fear-based behavior, obedience. God threatens to kill Adam and Eve if they disobey his wishes. God tells them that the worst crime, a capital offense, is to ask a question; to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. What kind of father is this? As Diderot observed, the God of Genesis "loved his apples more than he did his children."

This imperative not to be curious is probably the most self-hating aspect of all, because what is our selective advantage as a species? We're not the fastest. We're not the strongest. We're not the biggest. However, we do have one selective advantage that has enabled us to survive and prosper and endure: A fairly large brain relative to our body size. This has made it possible for us to ask questions and to recognize patterns. And slowly over the generations we've turned this aptitude into an ability to reconstruct our distant past, to question the very origins of the universe and life itself. It's our only advantage, and yet this is the one thing that God does not want us to have: consciousness, self-awareness."




http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html

[INTELBYTES]

74. This is wrong on so many levels...

If you ever decided to crack the Bible open you would probably realize that on your own. But coming from a monkey might make that too difficult for you.

Adam and Eve did not need a "mothers" love. They walked in the presence of the Lord. Not a "disembodied voice". Genesis 3:8 say, "The man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden..." Well, I guess a "disembodied voice" could walk. What is this "love" that they were missing from a "mother"? God is the essence of Love. He was the one that designed love to begin with. So I don't think they were deprived of "love". God did not threaten to "kill" them. He gave them one rule, and that was if you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you will surely die. This was a warning to them. The death was not a physical death, but a separation from God Himself, or a spiritual death.

God actually designed for Adam and Eve to eat the apple. He knew full well, as he knows everything, that they would eat the apple. That is the whole message behind the Blood of the Eternal Covenant. God had a plan, way before the garden, to reconcile us to Him through Christ.

[Dr.Phool]

84. The bible turned me into an atheist

If people really took the time to study this book, they'd soon realize that it's a book of fables, atrocities, lies and mistakes.

I grew up in a fundamaniac family, and went to church at least 3 times per week. I really believed. But when I sat down and studied that book, other than what the preachers spoon feed their congregations, I saw it was all nonsense.

You can go to www.infidels.org and print up about 30 pages of biblical falsehoods, mistakes, and contradictions.:wow:

As for Jesus, I don't believe he was a real person, but rather a mixture of several "messiahs" running around the region. In a historical perspective, there are entire libraries written during that era about that region. NOWHERE is Jesus evened mentioned even in passing. Only in the New Testament, which was written about 40-100 years after his supposed life and death.

I hate to rain on anyones parade, but ALL available evidence points to evolution by natural selection. No credible evidence points to creationism. by credible, I mean not distorted, misinterpreted, faked, or false.:nuke:

[INTELBYTES]

86. LOL, the Bible turned you into an atheist? What were you before?

Or did you evolved into an atheist?

[Dr.Phool]

89. I guess it's a natural

evolutionary process. Start out as a fundamaniac Baptist, over years add exposure to science, curiosity, biblical study, and skepticism and, Voila!!! you have an atheist:evilgrin:

[treepig]

88. anyone who thinks the evolution supports that humans

come from monkeys, clearly doesn't have even the foggiest concept of evolutionary theory.

but it's nice of you to come here and quote bible verses. is ok if i come to your church and give a biology lecture?

[TrogL]

180. My priest DOES lecture biology

makes for some very strange sermons

[snowFLAKE]

278. HeHehehe

That's funny.

BUT, I suspect your priest knows biology much better than some of the posters on this thread (simply because, with the tremendous level of ignorance displayed, how could he not?)

[randr]

76. What is frightening is that these

people are now free to impose their superstitions on the rest of us. The National Parks system now displays creationism propaganda along side scientific display at many sites.
Listening to responses re: B*'s flight to Mars, I actually heard someone say that we need Mars when the Earth wears out.

[Terwilliger]

77. No, alchemy

"I pronounce that....god made the woild in 7 days"

*POOF*

"See, what did I tell you?"

[creativelcro]

79. It's not science. If it were it would make testable predictions

and its supporters would go out trying to find the evidence. Instead, they are against any evidence that could undermine creationism.

[PVnRT]

94. No, as it is not based on any verifiable evidence

In order to prove that creationism (that is, seven days and KAPLOW there's the earth), you basically have to prove God exists. If you cannot do that, you cannot prove that He created the earth in such a way. Most of their arguments seem centered on finding archaeological evidence that certain things in the bible actually did happen as put down in the book.

Thus, they figure, if they find the ruin of Noah's ark, creationism must have occurred. Which is just plain idiotic.

[progressiverealist]

96. "Creation Science" is utter crap (from a Lutheran/ chemistry professor)

fundie Christian types do as well with science as science does with attempting to "verify" or "disprove" religious beliefs. That is, not very well.

[opihimoimoi]

100. When a group of people reject Sanity and Reason to delve into mysticism

It only confirms the presence of OLD BRAIN, aka Emotionalism; which allows Truth, Logic, Reason, Common Sense, and Sanity(New Brain) to be over ridden/rejected.

Read JANUS, Arthur Koestler, for an exciting venture into the realm of understanding ourselves.

Come, lemme pour some drinks of Reason and Sanity straight up/water back.

[plaguepuppy]

171. Um, let me see if I've got this right...

Old brain bad, new brain good?

Well, it's simple but it sounds wrong somehow. How long exactly has that fallible "old brain" kept the species alive? And how long has it taken for that spiffy new brain to take us to the brink of destroying the planet?

[opihimoimoi]

273. By rejecting Reason and Sanity and instead embracing Emotion...

we doom ourselves.

[Rabrrrrrr]

274. Right on, bra!

Come, we go drink beer, eat sushi, contemplate evolution of protozoa into us and wonderfully tasty ahi

[mmonk]

98. No

creationism is a belief system without empirical evidence or testing methods. It does not belong in the classroom concerning science and science in relation to the origins of the universe. It's rhealm is in religion, philosophy, and maybe culture studies. Any attempt to put it in the same category of science is dishonest.

[0007]

101. Thank you Sir Sterling - And I'm glad you perisisted after the locking of

your original thread by a new moderator.

Your question; Creationism is science?

I ask why go to history to discover this fundamental fact? The degree of truth in history is the same as the degree of truth in the historian.

[ecstatic]

105. I went to the Zoo the other day; I lost respect for the evolution theory

In the past I felt that creationism, although I believed in some aspects of it due to my faith, should not be taught in public schools as it was not a real science. After taking several college level biology courses, I came to accept the theory of evolution.

The other day, I was forced to go to the Zoo for the first time in my adult life. There I saw elephants, zebras, giraffes (extremely tall, beautiful animals BTW), the ostrichs, etc. etc. After looking at these creatures that were so astronomically different than us as humans, I can no longer accept the idea of evolution.

Sure, evolution has its points that cannot be denied: I DO believe in adaptation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. We do change over time in response to our environment (which explains the various racial groups that have arisen in different continents).

However, the theory has is wrong when it purports that we ALL originated from the same source (which came about through a Big Bang? wtf?).

It takes more effort for me to believe that a group of atoms collided and eventually formed life and that that life parted ways and in some cases morphed into dinosaurs, in other cases morphed into plants, then in yet other cases, morphed into monkeys, and then humans.

At the end of the day, we must have been created by someone. Theres no escaping it, even if you believe in evolution you still have to wonder: Where did the first atom come from? Where did the big bang come from? Where did the planets come from?

Assuming we had a creator, I doubt He/She/It would leave the process as messy as the one we're expected to believe in biology class. Animals/humans/plants were placed on the earth first, and yes, these creatures did change over time, converging or diverging with other species. But thats the end of the story (at least in my opinion, until we find some irrefutable proof).

[PVnRT]

109. All organisms on this planet

are based on the same 20 naturally ocurring amino acids, which combine to form proteins, and so on. And I have never heard that we all sprang from one single source. Where exactly did you get this?

[ecstatic]

122. Yes, that is what evolution theory says

all organisms on this planet are based on the same 20 naturally ocurring amino acids, which combine to form proteins, and so on. And I have never heard that we all sprang from one single source. Where exactly did you get this?

Assuming we were created, why would it be hard to accept that the Creator used the same amino acids in his design of all living things?

In response to your second point, here is a direct quote from my Biology textbook, which is stated as fact, BTW:

"Life arose from nonlife about 3.8 billion years ago when interacting systems of molecules became enclosed in membranes to form cells... All living organisms contain the same types of large molecules... Photsynthetic single-celled organisms released large amounts of oxygen into Earth's atmosphere, making possible the oxygen-based metabolism of large cells and, eventually, multicellular organisms."

[treepig]

125. perhaps its oddly appropriate based on the mis-information here

in this thread already, but just to clarify, there are 22 naturally occurring amino acids, not 20:

Selenocysteine: the 21st amino acid.

Mol Microbiol. 1991 Mar; 5(3): 515-20.

Great excitement was elicited in the field of selenium biochemistry in 1986 by the parallel discoveries that the genes encoding the selenoproteins glutathione peroxidase and bacterial formate dehydrogenase each contain an in-frame TGA codon within their coding sequence. We now know that this codon directs the incorporation of selenium, in the form of selenocysteine, into these proteins. Working with the bacterial system has led to a rapid increase in our knowledge of selenocysteine biosynthesis and to the exciting discovery that this system can now be regarded as an expansion of the genetic code. The prerequisites for such a definition are co-translational insertion into the polypeptide chain and the occurrence of a tRNA molecule which carries selenocysteine. Both of these criteria are fulfilled and, moreover, tRNASec even has its own special translation factor which delivers it to the translating ribosome. It is the aim of this article to review the events leading to the elucidation of selenocysteine as being the 21st amino acid.

22nd AMINO ACID IDENTIFIED

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8021/8021notw1.html

Methanogen uses stop codon
to genetically encode l-pyrrolysine

Nature uses only a handful of amino acid building blocks to generate immense complexity from a relatively simple genetic code. There are just 20 genetically encoded amino acids in mammalian cells; a few organisms use 21. Now, researchers at Ohio State University have discovered a 22nd .

[PVnRT]

127. Ummmm, your quote does not prove your point

That is, that all life sprang from the same organism, bacteria, whatever. All that quote says is that some cells began converting gases in the atmosphere into oxygen, which allowed for the development of cells that use oxygen. It does not say that everything came from the same original organism, as you are.

[ecstatic]

133. did you read the part about the photosynthetic single-celled organisms

giving rise to the multicellular organisms (which over time gave rise to all modern life)?

[PVnRT]

137. Your quote does not say that

"Life arose from nonlife about 3.8 billion years ago when interacting systems of molecules became enclosed in membranes to form cells... All living organisms contain the same types of large molecules... Photsynthetic single-celled organisms released large amounts of oxygen into Earth's atmosphere, making possible the oxygen-based metabolism of large cells and, eventually, multicellular organisms."

Let's break it down.

The first sentence merely says that amino acids formed proteins which got encased in membranes to make cells - it does NOT say that they all formed the same organism at first.

The next sentence says that they are formed from the same molecules, which is true. We share the same amino acids and DNA as every other living thing on the planet. By the logic you seem to be applying here, that means that we are all the same organism.

The final part of your quote says that those first organisms (emphasis on plural) converted carbon dioxide and other stuff into oxygen, allowing for the development of other organisms.

Sorry, there is nothing in there saying that we all started from the same organism.

[ecstatic]

144. well duh

The final part of your quote says that those first organisms (emphasis on plural) converted carbon dioxide and other stuff into oxygen, allowing for the development of other organisms.

I don't recall ever saying we arose from one single organism. I said the same source--that source being photosynthetic organisms.

Thanks for focusing on the wrong thing and missing the overall point of my post(that evolution, while a valid theory, is incomplete and not credible when it purports that "life arose from nonlife."

[PVnRT]

152. "Same source"

Saying that we all came from the "same source" implies that we all came from the same organism. You can say that because of those organisms that released oxygen, other organisms evolved, but to say that we're all from the "same source" is simply incorrect.

The whole point of science is to investigate natural phenomena and find a way to explain it. Evolution has been studied for 150 years - why is it expected that we should know everything in that time? The study of physics started with the Greeks two thousand some years ago, and we don't have that all worked out yet - why is evolution held to a stricter standard?

[treepig]

112. oh my, have we all obtained our biology education in kansas?

oh well, guess at least the republicans are happy at the state of ignorance this country is in.

and i'm getting a whole new perspective on things by going by my feelings. why, just the other day i climbed up a really tall ladder, and the earth still looked flat. now i really don't feel that all those new-fangled theories about a spherical earth could possibly be true, after all i've seen evidence to the contrary with my very own two eyes.

[ecstatic]

124. funny insults, but you still haven't answered the following questions

Where did the universe come from? Where did the planets come from?

Again, I agree with the idea of evolutionary agents being at work, etc. I DON'T agree that, as my biology textbook states, "Life arose from nonlife."

Take a good look at yourself and all the technology around you. The mere fact that you're thinking and typing on this board should tell you that something more is at work. We are not here merely by chance or luck in the evolution train. Why would evolution be so kind to us as to allow us to be more than mindless creatures hunting food in the jungle or creatures without the capacity to think--driven by instinct only?

I'm asking you to look beyond your textbook here.

[YNGW]

131. Unfortunately, funny insults..

...is all some of them have.

It's not enough for you to have formed your own opinions based upon your own study and research. If it doesn't agree with them, then dad-gummit you're wrong.

This type of attitude does not endear our party to the common man. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

[PVnRT]

140. Yes, some of them are insulting

Meanwhile, however, you continue to ignore every argument put forth by those that disagree with you, simply waving your hands and crying "elitism!" or "personal insults!" instead of addressing anything that has been said.

[YNGW]

220. Reply

No one has put forth an argument worth consideration, otherwise, I would have addressed it.

Maybe you believe someone has put forth an argument worth noting, and that's fine. Several people believe that arguments are worth consideration when, in fact, to another individual they are not. I decide for me what is worth considering and what is not. You probably do the same.

Good Day.

[treepig]

139. WTF?!?!?

is the meaning of this statement?

"Why would evolution be so kind to us as to allow us to be more than mindless creatures hunting food in the jungle or creatures without the capacity to think--driven by instinct only?"

are are you saying that humans are the only species on the planet capable of thinking or intelligence?

now that's just plainly bizarre!!

almost as bizarre as not being to differentiate between the "origin of life" and "evolution," which are two entirely separate fields, scientifically speaking.

on edit: the exact molecular change that has allowed human (i.e., a higher level of) intelligence to develop (compared to closely related primates) has been identified:

We are so close in our DNA that if you were a visitor from another planet analyzing DNA samples of earth species, you would assume that there were greater differences between chimpanzees and gorillas than between chimpanzees and humans," said Ajit Varki, M.D., Professor of Medicine with the UCSD Cancer Center and Divisions of Hematology-Oncology and Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Varki is senior author of two new papers describing a genetic mutation at the root of a structural difference between an important cell surface molecule common in humans and chimpanzees.

more at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980929073615.htm

[ecstatic]

155. then I guess we agree then and I'm arguing on the wrong board

almost as bizarre as not being to differentiate between the "origin of life" and "evolution," which are two entirely separate fields,

Like I said before, my biology textbook which sits before me clearly states: "Life arose from nonlife."

Where do they get this? From the theory of evolution! Then again, maybe I am on the right board!

I'm arguing that the theory of evolution has it right on most points except when they claim that life arose from nonlife, and that "humans evolved from apes" (yes, I know it is much more complex than that but I'm summing it up in a nutshell).

Without knowing exactly how this universe came to be, it is impossible to know which came first: the animals or the evolution!? I believe that the animals/plants came first, and that evolution was set in motion AFTER that fact.

[treepig]

199. still, just what does the statement "Life arose from nonlife"

have to do with the theory of evolution.

chemists have now made the polio virus in the lab, starting from simple chemical reagents. upon introducing the "artificial" virus into cells it came "alive" yes, i know that technically, viruses are alive, but this experiment demonstrates conclusively the "live arises from nonlife" nevertheless, this experiment had nothing to do with evolution. now, if the researchers had followed the virus through generations of replication, it would almost certainly change - now that would be evolution!

and if you wish to argue your "beliefs" - yup, this would be the wrong place for you. rational scientific discourse leaves aside "beliefs" and focuses on verifiable hypotheses

[truthspeaker]

339. there is a LOT of evidence that humans came from apes

I mean, a lot.

[Rabrrrrrr]

263. So if life did not arise from non-life, then that discounts Adam

being from dirt.

adam means man
adamah means dirt/earth-soil-stuff

God created ha'adam (the adam) from ha'adamah (dirt), God formed the sexually undifferentiated earth creature, then breathed life into it.

Where is that different from the idea of life from non-life?

And since that's but one of the creation stories of humanity, who's to say that ha'adam, when created, couldn't have been more than a microbe? Or who's to say that ha'adam wasn't an ape, and that when the bible says that God breathed the spirt (ruach) into it, that spirit wasn't just life as is generally understood, but actualls means "self-awareness"?

Could be.

[truthspeaker]

337. "Where did the universe come from?" has nothing to do with evolution

Evolution is NOT atheism. It is a scientific theory. It is possible to accept the scientific theory of evolution and still believe in a creator god.

You're focusing on one phrase, "life came from non-life", which, while the textbook you're looking at may imply differently, is not a central part of the theory of evolution. The evolution of life from a small number of common ancestors is well supported by the evidence. How the first life arose is not understood at this time, although there are several credible hypotheses. But NONE of those hypotheses says there is no Creator. That is not a question science can even address.

[F-5]

113. I agree with ya.

I also believe evolution is a bunch of crap.

My take on evolution:

Humans and other multi-cellular organisms did NOT come from single-celled bacteria. I don't know what the person who came up with that idea was smokin', but that seems impossible. If the theory of evolution was right, then how come single-celled organisms are living today as well as multi-cellular organism?

The Big Bang:

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory, but it doesn't explain a thing. I believe the Big Bang didn't just happen all of a sudden. I believe someone had started it. I do not believe that life, planets, stars, and all that other good stuff came from some hydrogen atoms. I also find that as pure BS.

I get criticized for my views all the time in the science department here on campus. They expect me to believe in the big bang and evolution because I'm a geologist. They're wrong. I will not support some half-thrown together theories just because I'm a scientist.

Nobody will change my views unless there's undisputed fact to prove otherwise.

[PVnRT]

114. "Half-thrown together theory"

Never mind that it has been studied and written about and refined for a century and half, it's a "half-thrown together theory." Ever studied chemistry? Know how many of those theories sound "half-thrown together"? And don't get me started on quantum physics...

What, exactly, then, do you believe? That God said "POOF!" and the world was fully formed in seven days?

[F-5]

115. I have my beliefs and you have yours.

I don't care what has been studied and written. Those "scientists" offer poor arguements for their findings. Nothing for me to believe otherwise.

Unless you have some other type of "proof," lay off my beliefs. You will not change them.

[treepig]

121. "I don't care what has been studied and written"

folks, in a nutshell, rampant anti-intellectualism of this sort is exactly what's wrong with our country.


no wonder 73% of people don't care the iraq war was based on lies, because my oh my, does it ever feel good that we over there and kicked some ass.

[F-5]

126. So, with a 3.78 GPA...

I'm an "anti-intellect"? Just because I don't hold you're similar point of view on how the universe came to being, you have to call me stupid?

I think this is the lowest and most unfair point of view I have ever read here on the DU. You should respect MY beliefs and MY point of views and you have NO right to call me stupid because of them.

This makes me sick.

[treepig]

148. i didn't call you stupid

i said you exemplified the anti-intellectulism that is destroying this country.

further, i've not said anything on this thread about how the universe came into being. that's a topic entirely separate from evolution. surprising that somebody with a 3.78 gpa wouldn't know that . . .

[F-5]

153. You were insinuating that...

I am stupid by saying that I "exemplified the anti-intellectulism that is destroying this country."

Someone with a half a brain could see that...

[treepig]

204. no, i was insinuating that you were willfully ignorant, not stupid

although, upon further reflection, perhaps there's no difference . .

[ecstatic]

141. I could be more intelligent than you

but I'm using my intelligence to form a different conclusion than the one you have formed.

You still are unable to explain what set off this Big Bang that began the transformation of the nonliving into the living.

Your hatred of religion and/or atheism is irrelevant to this discussion, and I suspect that is why you have such scorn and disrespect towards those like myself who accept that science alone cannot explain everything.

no wonder 73% of people don't care the iraq war was based on lies, because my oh my, does it ever feel good that we over there and kicked some ass.

I did not believe in the Iraq war and don't believe in it now. What a worthless cheap shot!

[F-5]

145. It is worthless.

It's also cheap, unfair, and most of all, wrong.

I disagree with someone and all of a sudden I've supported the war in Iraq. :eyes: :grr: :grr: :grr:

Never once since my existence have I supported ANY war.

[treepig]

146. you have exactly the same mentality that leads to the support

of the iraq war,

namely, all the evidence be damned - i'm just going to go ahead and believe what feels good to me.

[F-5]

149. I could say the same thing about you...

and how would that make you feel? Would you be pissed? Would you be suprised someone would say that about you?

Look at it through my point of view before you start calling me a warmongerer.

[treepig]

203. look, i never said you personally supported the war

but, if one were to make a venn diagram of those in this country who believe in creationism, and those who supported the war, i'd be willing to wager that there'd be a huge overlap between these two categories


p.s. i'm too lazy, but if anyone's up to making such a diagram, here's a website to help you out:

http://www.venndiagram.com/venn01.html

[YNGW]

116. It's his opinion

You have yours.

Why do we have people within our party who get uptight when others don't see things exactly the way they do? It's things like this that are a complete turn-off to many people.

As far as I know, every candidate out there claims to believe in G-d. Will we speak to them in the same manner?

[F-5]

119. Thank you YNGW.

You get a free Pepsi on me. :)

[YNGW]

123. You're welcome.

I like Coke.

It constantly amazes me on DU how what I call "elitists" can't accept people who have a different opinion than they. If you don't see things the way they do, they'll either call you names or talk to you in a condescending manner, like you just don't have the mental capacity to understand what they, the enlightened ones, know to be true. It's like swimming through smoke. I love it. Com'n in. The water's fine.

Welcome to DU.

[PVnRT]

134. Oh please

I'm an elitist? Give me a fucking break. Point out where I was condescending, I dare you. Oh, and also point out where I started calling people names. Apparently you think it's "elitist" for anyone to have the utter temerity to disagree with you.

I guess discussion is OK with you, provided people don't disagree with you, eh?

[YNGW]

142. Reply

Did I name you? No.

You undoubtly are aware of people on this site who believe if you don't agree with them then you shouldn't even be here. That's the one's to whom I am speaking about. I don't have a problem with people who disagee provided they don't start acting "uppity" and better because they believe their opinion to be superior. People have different opinions. That's what makes the world interesting.

Good Day.

[Meowser]

135. "Elitists"? Isn't that what the Right-Wing labels Democrats?

If you perceive mountains of evidence and well-honed arguments as 'elitism', then you have the problem not "DU" or "Democrats".

How do you know creationism is true? Can you verify it? There is plenty of concrete evidence to support evolution, though I have to say Adam & Eve is a nice story and all.

[YNGW]

147. You make a good point.

My point.

I don't care what RWers "label" people. That's the least of my concern.

Let me ask you this. If I wrote:

"How do you know evolution is true? Can you verify it? There is plenty of concrete evidence to support creationism, though I have to say that Big Bang Theory is a nice story and all."

Would you consider that to be a condescenting statement?

There are ways to make points without belittling others viewpoints. Some people at DU have a problem with that. I've noticed. The Admin's have noticed and made notes regarding the flame wars. I was just warning F-5 about it. I wrote the post to him, and he didn't take it wrong. Why would you?

Good Day.

[TrogL]

184. We find it upsetting

We have a methodology for thinking called logic. We have a methodology for exploring the world called the scientific method. It's done us well in the past.

Then we are expected to throw all this out and believe in a theory for which there is no coherent methodology.

[YNGW]

195. Reply

There's no reason to find it upsetting. No one is forcing anyone else to believe or not believe anything.

We do, however, need to accept the fact that varying opinions do exist, and respect the right of the individual to have that belief without attacking the individual, or making it as though if they don't see it "my way" that somehow that person is less "enlightened". It's one thing to say "I find evolution to be a half-thrown together theory", and it's another thing to say "What do YOU believe, that G-d when 'Poof' ...." (emphasis mine). One attacks a theory. The other attacks the person for *holding* their theory. It would have been more prudent to say, "We hold opposite beliefs. I believe creation is not a reliable theory". That doesn't attack the individual and allows for a more civilized atmosphere in which to discuss.

[treepig]

208. a fundamental mis-understanding of science is that "opinions"

count for anything.

in science, an opinion has absolutely no value. you (or anyone) just can't come up with an opinion based on nothing but fantasy and then expect that their opinion should be treated with respect. if you've ever worked in a scientific lab, it's good to have lots of ideas floating around. however, it's even better if your closest colleagues are your harshest critics and shoot down your half-baked ideas/opinions before you go public with them, and subject yourself to a huge dose of ridicule.

so if you wish to go to your church and spout of your opinions on creationism, that's fine, perhaps you'll even be treated with respect. if you wish to actually bring them into the realm of rigorous scientific scutiny, however, you really shouldn't expect anything but well-deserved ridicule. just like if i came to your church and started on an anti-god tirade - i'd fully expect to be roundly condemned, i wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

[YNGW]

223. Reply

I never said I was a creationist. I simply said on both sides of the aisle there comes a point when you cannot explain the origins of the universe. Where did G-d come from? Where did the elements that started the Big Bang come from? At that point, each side simply has "faith" that something was there and that something "got the ball rolling" for lack of a better term.

Frankly, I've never seen so many evolutionists run from the concept of "faith" when it comes to the origins of the universe. It's really remarkable.

[treepig]

235. the reason evolutionists run from the concept of "faith"

is because has no place in science.

perhaps a simple analogy will help you grasp this concept. if you brought a hockey stick to a baseball game, it would be absolutely useless, not because baseball players are necessarily opposed to hockey sticks, but simply because it holds no relevance or utility to the present situation

[YNGW]

252. Reply

There is no provable theory to explain the origins of the universe from the viewpoint of the evolutionist. Any beliefs beyond that which can be scientifically proven is based upon "faith". Evolutionists can't prove how the universe came into existance. However, they can speculate. That speculation is simply their "faith" based upon what they believe might have happened. Perhaps the word "personal belief" might comfort some, because that's all "faith" is, one's personal belief or trust or confidence based upon the evidence they have at hand in order to explain what cannot be scientifically proven.

[RapidCreek]

271. The problem is this

Human beings are uncomfortable with the concept of infinity. Everything in our lives has a beginning and an end. When faced with the prospect of something which logically has no beginning or end we seek either to understand this peculiarity via science or attempt to put it into a homocentric one answer for everything box called religion and/or faith. The sad fact is...is that most religion seeks to quell thought and as such it hampers science and ultimately our growth and continued success as a species. We don't have teeth or sharp claws...we don't have brute power...What we have is a brain and when we consciously strive not to use it we will go the same route as a an animal equipped with sharp teeth, claws or brute power that refuses to use them. We shall go extinct. This is what frightens me about Christianity....it's ultimate goal is our extinction which of course requires our ignorance. Sporting creationism as science is a purposeful erosion of the pursuit of intellect....it attempts to bring to a close self examination and an understanding that we are not superior to any other living thing on the planet...but simply a link in the food chain....A wholly unnecessary link at that. Let's face it...it's a whole lot easier to say God did it and that's good enough for me, than to figure out what exactly it is God or nature has done. Whether or not God did it or not is really immaterial. If god had not wanted us to think, to explore, to inquire he would not have given us a mind equipped to do these things. He or it would have made us nothing more than slugs or worms and we would oose about under rocks. He would have instilled in us no sentience no self awareness and no desire to do anything but have faith that he will allow us to eat shit breath and fuck. If there is a God this was quite obviously NOT his plan or that is what he would have made us.

Frankly I have never seen so many Christian run from the concept that their "God" gave them a brain to think with as it pertains to the origins of the universe. Guess your God didn't know what he was doing on that count or was it the Devil who gave you that thing between your ears.

RC

[PVnRT]

129. Excuse me?

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion board, that is, where things are discussed. I'll keep my mouth shut from now on, I mean, I wouldn't want to disagree with anyone.

By the way, why do you assume that since I accept the theory of evolution, that I am an atheist? And which Democratic candidate is saying that Creationism is gospel truth and should be taught in schools instead of evolution?

[ecstatic]

128. The point is, this universe began somehow

Evolution doesn't explain how.

Without being able to explain how "it all started", we don't know whether humans really evolved from apes or if we were created first and started evolving later.

Do you see the major difference now?

[PVnRT]

132. Evolution

is a scientific theory that attempts to explain how organisms change, not where they came from. The Big Bang theory is not part of evolution, despite what its detractors think.

How do you ignore all of the evidence that, as we go farther back in time, human skeletons resemble those of great apes and their ancestors? Coincidence?

[0007]

162. The world and the mind arise and set together as one;

but of the two the world owes its appearance to the mind alone; That alone is real in which the (inseparable) pair, the world and the mind, has raising and settings; that Reality is the one infinite Consciousness, having neither raising or setting.

[Trajan]

175. Fallacies ...

"The point is, this universe began somehow"
Posted by Truth Hurts A Lot
Evolution doesn't explain how. "


Isnt this a 'god of the gaps' fallacy .... filling in with 'god' whereever no present hypothesis explains an observed phenomena ?...

Isnt this also an ad ignorantiam fallacy , pleading from ignorance ? ...

Cmon ... you can do better ...

[dpibel]

186. The Theory of Pixies

Edited to properly capitalize Pixies throughout.

Now, understand: I think science does a wonderful job of explaining a whole lot of things, and it's very, very good at using testable hypotheses and doing things like, oh, metallurgy and zoology and medicine and things like that.

But you have to admit, science operates on imperfect knowledge.

So it's simple: Everywhere there's imperfect evidence/knowledge in science, well, the Pixies did it!

Like, for instance, you science types can't tell me where life came from originally (never mind that has nothing to do with evolution), so: The Pixies Did It!

Then, the Pixies went away, leaving their bacteria and protozooans, and whatever else they made alone for a billion years or so.

Then there was a great efflorescence of life forms. But you can't tell me exactly how that happened, or why, or give me examples of transitional life forms that satisfy me, so: The Pixies Did It!

Anytime I can point to something that science can't explain to my satisfaction, well, that's proof of Pixies. I don't have to prove Pixies to you; I don't have to explain how Pixies work. All I have to do is demand that you prove it wasn't Pixies. If you can't do it: Pixies!!

Now, if you show that something that used to be the work of Pixies actually has a mundane, materialistic explanation, that's no problem! It just proves that, in that one instance, nature could do the job so the Pixies didn't have to. But it doesn't change the fact that all the other Pixie stuff is still Pixies. As long as you can't explain EVERYTHING, Pixies still did the stuff you can't explain.

Don't ask me to prove Pixies. I know Pixies in my heart.

[Trajan]

251. Humanity operates on imperfect knowledge ...

Science doest require perfect knowledge ... just a reasonable conclusion based on sound logic and epistemological honesty ...

Science isnt for everyone: .... and no one is demanding that you personally accept science either .... so feel free to deny as many scientific conclusions as you wish ....

This position doesnt give its holder license to be dishonest in argument ...

Btw: .... What Pixies ? ...

Again: ... argumentum ad ignorantiam ...

[BlueJazz]

270. I really like the idea of these "Pixies".

Will they make sure I "live on" after I die cause' I'm such a chicken-shit
bastard that I can't accept the fact that I'm truly not that important in the grand scheme of things and am constantly terrified of dying??

Do they live in the sky or another dimension?
If I ask questions about them will I be scorned for "Blasphemy" ??

[TrogL]

183. Maybe you should stick to geology

and stay away from uranium, radium and other radioactive elements as you don't understand them.

You obviously flunked biology.

[cushla_machree]

332. well

"how come single-celled organisms are living today as well as multi-cellular organism?"

Why wouldn't they be living today? Why are there wolves still when we have dogs? Just because something else evolves doesn't mean its predecessor was not a good design or it would have to dissapear. Its not a rigid process where once something else evolves, whatever came before goes "poof." Single celled organisms are the most abundant life on Earth. Highly successful, so why would they dissapear? Ever taken a course on developmental biology? It shows the transition from single cell to multicellular life. There are a lot of slime molds that are single celled, then come together. (cellular slime molds, spend most of their lives as separate single-celled amoeboid protists, but upon the release of a chemical signal, the individual cells aggregate into a great swarm. Cellular slime molds provide a comparatively simple and easily manipulated system for understanding how cells interact to generate a multicellular organism).

what about the bacterial symbiosis theory? your mitochondria have DNA in them that are more related to bacterial DNA than human. Explain that.

believing in evolution doesn't mean there is no god, or god did not create humans (whether from dust or from a pre-existing ape-like creature, or that god directed evolution itself). you can ask a lot of interesting questions, why did humans develope such sophisticated language? GOD or by chance?

i however, can't see how anyone with an advanced degree could discount natural selection or evolution. dinosuars anyone?

[TrogL]

181. So you examined a subset

and reached a conclusion which you applied to the whole.

You don't see the illogic of this?

The question "where did the big bang come from" is ludicrous. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, no time, no matter, no structure before the big bang.

Here's my "belief".

God created the "big bang". Implicit in the "big bang" was evolution.

I cannot prove the first statement. You can see the second before your eyes.

[DrWeird]

192. I don't look much like my Aunt Kathy.

But genetic testing will show that we share a common ancestor two generations ago, and about fifty years.

I don't look much like a chimpanzee, but genetic testing will show that we shared a common ancestor approximately 1.8 (?) million years ago.

Same thing can be said about elephants, zebras, giraffes, ostriches etc. etc.

And guess what, in an amazing bit of coincidence this all coincides with the fossil record.

Oh, and btw. The world is round and it revolves around the sun.

[treepig]

206. most humans shared a common ancestor with chimps about

5 to 7 million years ago.

personally, my ancestors split off around 946 a.d. (but since that was the "dark ages" record keeping wasn't all that good, so i don't the exact day or even month)

guess, you're somewhere between the two extremes - pretty cool!

[DrWeird]

207. Sounds good.

Where am I getting the 1.8 million number from? First cro-magnon?

[treepig]

209. i think cro-magnun's were about 500,000 years ago

i have a nice chart with all the dates, but it's on my computer at work

iirc, the fossil record may have indicated humans and chimps had a common ancestor some 1.4 to 1.8 mya, but this number has been revised to an earlier date based on more recent genetic analysis.

[Piltdown13]

306. Just a guess --

1.8 million is the approximate earilest date for Homo erectus; that could be what you're thinking of. :-)

On edit -- Cro-Magnons, also called anatomically modern humans, first appear in Africa around 100-120,000 years ago (some dates are still up in the air, as are the species assignments of some fossils, but that's a good estimate).

[kcwayne]

296. Where did God come from

You deduct that one must believe in God because at some point science has to answer the question Where did the first atom come from?

In claiming that only a God could have created the first atom, you have just replaced the point at which science does not yet have an explanation with a mystical solution that begs the same question. If God created the atom, then what created God? This question never ends.

If God has no requirement for creation, then why should matter and/or energy have a requirement to have been created? The fact that we do not understand this is not grounds to reach for God as the cause. All you have done is insert a mystical solution which provides no further understanding question.

[drdigi420]

107. creationism is to science as

fiction is to fact

creationism is merely a myth perpetrated by those using an ancient fairy tale to control others by fear of eternal torture in a 'lake of fire'

god was invented as a terrorist weapon to use to threaten people into following their rules

the simpler folk couldnt see that it was bullshit and followed the lead of the con men (aka clergy)

its a con, it's that simple

some people still fall for it

[opihimoimoi]

111. Yup, nough said

Because we cannot explain something... doesn't mean we should accept the opinions of others as fact. Makes us vulnerable to con games.

Go look at Jan, Pat, Jerry, Jimmy Swaggert, Tammy Faye, Oral, etc they ain't toiling in the strawberry feilds I have to tell ya.

[Nikia]

118. Some Creationists try to be scientific

Check out creationscience.com. This is more than saying "God did it and that's the way it is. The Bible creation story is correct because the Bible says so." You have to give this guy and others like him credit for attempting an alternate hypothesis based on science.

[TrogL]

187. I've read it - it's nonsense

It's riddled with logical fallacy, tail-chasing arguments, appeals to authority and just plain lunacy.

[Bozita]

138. The Hubble telescope decision was made by a true believer

[0007]

169. What may I ask Sir, what is a true believer?

A true believer of astronomy? Or a true believer of God?

Who was this true believer whose decision for the Hubble telescope was made?

[DrWeird]

211. Moreover...

what was the Hubble telescope decision?

[ecstatic]

163. QUESTION for evolutionists: Do you believe evolution came first or second?

I believe that some form of animals and plants were created first, and that evolution was set in motion AFTER that fact (as the organisms interacted with their environments).

Without knowing exactly how this universe came to be, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know which came phenomena came first: life or evolution?!

Does evolution theory claim to explain the origin of life? Yes! I've pasted this comment directly from my textbook several times:

"Life arose from nonlife about 3.8 billion years ago when interacting systems of molecules became enclosed in membranes to form cells... All living organisms contain the same types of large molecules... Photsynthetic single-celled organisms released large amounts of oxygen into Earth's atmosphere, making possible the oxygen-based metabolism of large cells and, eventually, multicellular organisms."

[F-5]

166. You're right.

You can't talk of evolution unless you talk about how the organisms came to be.

[DrWeird]

191. Sure you can.

Humans clearly evolved from apes. Proven fact. At that's the point that sticks in the craw of all the stupid jesus freaks who deny evolution.

[RapidCreek]

327. can I knowledgeably discuss the evolution of the internal combustion

engine over the last 20 years if I cant' explain the origins of a non pedile conveyance? Lacking that knowledge should the holes in my knowledge concerning the overall evolution of the internal combustion engine be filled with claims that God did it? If I were to rely on the rational that God did it, would this fill in those gaps? Would I be inspired to investigate and fill these gaps in with first a hypotheses and after utilizing scientific process supplanted with a provable explanation? Lacking any scientifically derived knowledge to the contrary, if someone were to ask me how the engine in my car came to be and I couldn't explain the origins of the earth would an answer of "God made it" be sufficient?

Can I know how a heart, lungs and liver work without knowing exactly how a brain works? Can I knowledgeably discuss the mutation of viri without knowing the origins of viri? Has the virus that causes AIDS always existed? Did god make it 4000 years ago? Has it covered the globe since that time? If you believe these answers to be true should we be satisfied with that pattern of thinking? Why was humanity never effected with it prior to the last 50 years if this is the case? Abstinence? If abstinence is the answer how could we exist today? If some guy named Noah built an Arc did he have two of every plant, animal, fungi, bacteria, (one) viri etc. on his arc? If so how did he manage to survive? Tell you what....next time you get sick....refrain from taking any medication, serum or antibiotic which was developed outside the boundaries of what we know about mutation. Have faith! God did it. Since we don't how organisms came to be.....all other knowledge that we arrive at beyond that point must be invalid.

RC

[Terwilliger]

198. That's inaccurate

evolution, coupled with planetary science, paleo-archaeology, etc. put together a picture of life emanating from the forces of the universe

life came before evolution, yes, but that first instance of life is not some creation...now, you can picture it like that, and more power to ya, but that's not science

You love your dog, your wife, your god...leave that out of my laws or the conductance of governmental affairs

[Rabrrrrrr]

201. That's not a relevant question

Obviously evolution came second - you can't have evolution until you have life; otherwise there is nothing to evolve.

As that blurb you posted says, there was a time of no life, and then kerwhammo, life appeared and began to evolve.

At least, that's my understanding of evolution: that it talks only about the evolution of life, not geology or star formation or universe creation.

I maintain a properly scientific open mind to the possibility that I could be wrong.

[CityZen-X]

182. Science Cannot Prove

A major tool in science is hypothesis. You cannot through hypothesis prove the existence of God. Therefore creationism cannot be a science.

"God created man in his image, and man returned the favor."

[Capablanca]

213. Reverse the logic

And where do you land? What does that say about macro-evolution?

[DrWeird]

221. But unlike God, you can test and prove macroevolution.

First off, the only difference between macro and micro is scale.

If macroevolution occurs, then two diverse organisms will be related. Thus, test the DNA. The results show that, yes, two completely different species share a common ancestor.

You don't need to reproduce a natural occourence in order to prove it occurs. You can't reproduce a supernova in a laboratory in order to prove it occurs. You can prove it occurse, and gather huge amounts of data by observing it.

You don't need to even observe it. The fact that the earth was round was proven before we could observe earth from space, by noticing effects that the round earth caused.

[Capablanca]

227. Common Designer

Micro evolution is provable and macro is not. We know that a poodle for example is still a dog even though it is a puny little mutant of a dog. Dogs begat dogs. Not once has science shown that one species begats another.

Now I do agree that there there is commonality in DNA. That shows, my friend, more proof for creation and a Master Designer than for macro evolution.

[treepig]

233. you are correct that "not *once* has science shown . . .

that one species begats another."

rather, it has done so many times,

see http://www2.eou.edu/~jrinehar/bio102/specevnt.htm
1) Speciation in the polychaete worm Nereis acuminata. In 1964, 6 individuals of the worm N. acuminata were collected in Long Beach Harbor, CA, and allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were sent to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on the east coast, where a separate population was established. For over 20 years the Woods Hole (WH) population was used in toxicology experiments, and was thus exposed to different environmental conditions than the population at Long Beach. From 1986-1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm, and two such populations, designated P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg et al. (1992) performed crosses with these and the WH population to see how often broods were successful, thus determining presence or absence of reproductive isolating mechanisms. The results:



CROSS: PERCENT SUCCESS

WH x WH 75%
P1 x P1 95%
P2 x P2 80%
P1 x P2 77%
WH x P1 0%
WH x P2 0%


Thus there was post-mating isolation; premating isolation was also observed based on behavioral data. In addition, the WH population showed a slightly different chromosomal structure than P1 or P2. Conclude: speciation has occurred.
But don't believe me! Check out the reference: Weinberg, J. R., et al., Evolution 46: 1214-1220.

2. Sympatry in the apple maggot fly (Rhagoletis pomonella). The normal host of this fly is hawthorn, but once fruits were brought into the New World, the fly found a fondness for them. In the 1800's the fly was documented to infest apple, cherries, roses, pears, and other members of the rose family. The flies have been extensively studied genetically (see, for example, Bush, G. L. 1994. Trends in Ecol. And Evol. 9: 285-288, for a current review).

It turns out that offspring of females from one of the two major hosts (apple or hawthorn) prefer to oviposit (lay eggs) on fruits of that host. The differences between the populations are clear:
a) they differ in structure of several enzymes, therefore genetic difference
b) they show different times of emergence, thus temporal isolation
c) the host preferences are heritable

It is pretty clear that this represents a case of sympatric speciation in action, since gene flow has been strongly curtailed between the races.

3. Sympatric speciation in plants. The literature is full of examples of plants speciating sympatrically; plants are so plastic in their genetics that they can often tolerate genetic conditions that would not be tolerated in many animals. Consider the example of the hemp nettles, genus Galeopsis. Natural events have produced a new species, Galeopsis tetrahit, that cannot breed with the other two species, Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa. The production of the rare diploid gametes along with doubling of chromosomes has produced the tetrahit species. It looks different than the others, cannot reproduce with them, and contains four sets of chromosomes, two from the one parent and two from the other. A new species, and we saw that the events producing the species could be recreated in the lab just by doing crosses. For reference, see Muntzing 1938, Hereditas 24: 117-188.

So next time this argument that we have no clear examples of speciation is offered as proof that evolution is bunk, well-documented examples of speciation can be presented to counter the argument.

[ecstatic]

317. Those species are very similar

and is much more closer to micro-evolution in my book.

It still takes a *lot* of faith to proclaim that complex organisms like humans evolved from single celled prokaryotes.

[Rabrrrrrr]

319. Ah - now I see the truth

When things aren't going your (the Creation Scientist's) way, just redefine the terms from their normal usage; thus, one never has to concede a point.

Don't like an evolutionary point? Well, then, just "invent" micro- or macro-evolution, and claim insufficiency of the original point.

Don't like it when the scientists catch on and lob a micro- or macro-evolutionary proof-point? Then sidetrack the dialogue into non-universality - "Okay, maybe there was evolution in that ONE *specifc* biologic example you offered, but does it hold true for rocks? For all rocks? No, it doesn't. Thus, God exists."

Takes a lot more faith, I think, to look at the evidence and say "Nope" then to look at the evidence and say "Maybe".

[0007]

248. I'd say that Ann Coulter came from the Afghan hound dog

no doubt about it. Long skinny legs with long hair flowing over a rather large snoot, with an extra long skinny neck with a big adams apple.

[gristy]

188. Wow. What a thread.

The difficulty for many of the creationists posting here is that they do not understand or choose to not understand science or its close cousin, the scientific method. Many posters have done a good job here explaining these concepts. The logic used by creationists to avoid these basic concepts and set up straw men sends my head spinning. Oh, well.

[Rabrrrrrr]

193. Boy, you got that one right

I'm a Christian, and trained in science, and I would never call Creation Science a science by any stretch of the imagination. It's as much of a "science" as is "theology" - all unprovable conjecture. Not that it doesn't hit the truth at times, but one has no way of knowing whether one has hit it or now.

I don't want my Bible to be a scientific textbook or history textbook. It's a faith textbook - nothing more, nothing less.

Like Bill Hicks asked, "Okay then, why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?"

[Capablanca]

215. Actually they are...

Dinosaur was a word invented in modern times. The original writers of the scriptures would not have used this word. Words like Behemouth in Job describe a mighty dinosaur. Look it up in Job and tell me what other animal it could possibly be? The Bible talks about dragons in various other places. Could it be that these were dinosaurs?

[wuushew]

216. Are you implying that Job lived prior to the Cretaceous period?

Looks like the biblical age of the Earth must be forced back again 4,004 B.C. my ass.

[DrWeird]

218. Well now you're just being ridiculous.

The Bible says it was a whale. It also says it was a fish. Resolve that one.

[Capablanca]

224. Job 40 verse 15-24 is NOT A FISH!!!

Behold now Behemouth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. Behold now, his strength in his loins, And his power in the muscles of his belly. He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron.

He is the first of the ways of God;..

What kind of whale eats grass??? What kind of fish has limbs of iron??

WHO IS BEING SILLY??? Tell me what animal you think this is besides a fish?

[wuushew]

226. African Elephant

or other large herbavor mammal.

[Capablanca]

232. Tail like a Cedar....???

Have you ever seen an elaphant's tail??? Reconcile that with the verse that says "tail like a cedar"... First fish now this... Keep trying.

[wuushew]

240. Ancient Israelites/King James editors had poor writting skills

Is does not say the creatures tail was "the width and girth of a cedar". It simply says waves its tail like a cedar. We are given no futher insight to what this passage means. For the absolute word of Gawd the bible is written like shit. Can you atleast admit this passage is worded poorly and unclearly?

[DrWeird]

237. Whoops, thinking of the whale/fish that ate Jonah.

Still, it's pretty silly reading that and thinking "DINOSAUR!"

Btw, didn't grasses evolve after the fall of the dinosaur?

And isn't the Behemoth supposed to come back at the end times along with seven headed firebreath dragons and giants and raise havoc upon the earth?

[RapidCreek]

309. what dinosaur has bones made of bronze tubes?

He bends his tail like a cedar? Pray tell...how specifically does a tail bend like a cedar...you know, as opposed to limbs which are like bars of iron. Bars of iron don't bend very well. Neither does cedar for that matter. Keeping this in mind how did this beast move about? What type of iron is being referred to here...wrought iron, cast iron or pig iron. How did these iron limbs not rust? I mean since this beast had bones made of bronze tubes and limbs like iron bars, would not the proximity of dissimilar metals cause a corrosion problem? I am assuming since you equate religious writing with that of a scientific nature we can take these descriptions of this beast in the same literal fashion you maintain everything in your bible must be taken, correct? If not, why not?

I would ask you sir or mam...what animal has ever had bones made of bronze tubes? If indeed one existed, as you claim, those bones should be lying about all over the place.....you know...in that they, according to you, aren't any older than 4000 years, correct? If they are not lying about...why aren't they?

Since you claim the bible is a scientific text, please explain, within the boundaries of scientific method, how it is that you and or the author arrived at the conclusion from the description of the Behemoth (singular) given in the bible that this creature is a Dinosaur.


RC

[wuushew]

312. Me Grimlock..me smash decepticons/neocons

[RapidCreek]

318. Hehehehe what can I say?

RC

[Rabrrrrrr]

258. of course they didn't use the word dinosaur - and much more

That's just silly to imply that I would expect the Hebrew people to use the word "dinosaur".

The Hebrew word that you mention in Job, Behemoth (Be-hey-moth) (BHMWT) is a word that is likely derived from the Egyptian word Pehemout, which also means hippopotamus; though it could be the crocodile (the coptic word for crocodile is also very close to BHMWTH). Though it appears, from my quick scan of the hebrew resources I have that is a hapex legemenon, I think we can be quite confident that it is not referring to a dinosaur, but is more than likely talking about the hippopotamus, which eats grass, hangs out in reeds, is very steady in water, has thick skin that si fantastically resistant to swords, and has a thick, incredibly stuff tail. For the people of that time of that area, the hippo would likely have been the most fearsome, largish, amazingly strong animal they knew, apart, perhaps, from the elephant.

And let's also grab us some historical context - at this juncture in Job, God is setting a nicely poetic methodology of establishing his (God's) power. First, God says first to Job that Job has no power; then God says, and look - even the river monster I have power over - then God brings up Leviathan so as to say, and if that still doesn't cinvince you, then I say I have power even over Leviathan! And if we do our homework and check some history, we'll find out some neat things that also lead us to want to interpret BHMWTH as "hippo". First, to the Egyptians, the hippopotamus was a god (or if our other case, the crocodile, that, too, was a god, so we're on a god level). The Hebrew people spent time in Egypt, and thus would know that, and such knowledge would be part of their consciousness. So, when God is saying "Look, I have more power than this beast", God is also saying, "Look, even over this god I have power!" And Leviathan we know as a great sea creature - but also not a dinosaur, since in the Bible it's always used as a singular noun, not one of many Leviathans, but just the one. Leviathan symbolizes chaos - so in Isaiah, we have God cutting Leviathan in half to create order in the universe and begin creation (though that bit doesn't show up in either of the creation stories in Genesis). So now, in Job, we have God saying - I have more power than you, i have more power than the most fearsom god-animal you know, I have power even over Chaos itself, so don't get haughty with me. That is God's message to Job.

We cannot proof-text, and must look at Scripture within it's context, and it's historical setting, and the specific literary tradition that is being used.

To make the claim, from one set of verses written down about 500 BCE, that the writer of Job is talking about dinosaurs, when NO ONE else talks about them in the preceding 2000 years of history that the Bible covers, is rather, I hate to say it, obtuse, especially considering that no one mentions it AFTER Job, and in all the countless tens of thousands of records, both written and visual, that we have starting at approx. 2000 BCE that none of them make mention of anything dinosaur-like.

This word's root (BHMH) is the word used throughout the creation stories to mean 'beasts' (as an animal collective - that is, "look at all those beasts on that farm: horse, sheep, cows"; not a supernatural kind of beast) and 'cattle'. There is another Hebrew word HY that also means "living thing" and can mean "beasts", and that word also is used in the creation stories. And BHMH is used throughout the rest of the Old Testament, hundreds of times, from Genesis to Leviticus to Deutoronomy to Kings to Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes, and it always means "cattle" or "beast".

And just to be really sure I know what I'm talking, since I only did a lot of extra work in Hebrew Bible, I didn't major in it, I walked to the other side of my apartment and asked the Old Testament professor (and ordained Methodist minister) I live with, and he concurred with my reading on this (and told me about the crocodile possibility).

[Wapsie B]

190. The one concept that creationists fail to grasp

is the fact that if something is a scientific theory it must be challenged and proven to be right or wrong. With religious dogma, especially konservative religious dogma if you don't automatically accept these teachings without question, you're eternally damned. There is no room for the scientific method of proving or disproving the Creation story or Noah's Ark or the Immaculate Conception. You either believe it or Lucifer have mercy on your eternal soul.

[F-5]

249. So, because I'm a Creationist...

I'm automatically a Republican? A Conservative? Give me a break!

Have you ever heard of liberal, Democratic Creationists? I'm one of them. One of a few I guess.

I wish you all would understand that I have my beliefs and you have your beliefs. Please do respect mine. I do respect your beliefs, even if I don't believe in them.

If you can prove to me your scientific theories are right, I'm all ears. Until then, you're just as wrong as I am for all I care.

[plaguepuppy]

260. Truth is where you find it

But if you have to be labeled something ending "ist" my favorite is Planetary Catastrophism, which provides a kind of grand-unified catastrophe theory based on previous orbital resonances between earth and mars:

http://www.eskimo.com/~dwpatten/

And especially: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwpatten/Contents.html

Anyone interested in Velikovsky's ideas owes it to themselves to read this - if it's not right it's so ingenious that it deserves to be.

[kcr]

266. It is not a matter of belief

Creationism is inferior as a science because it presents no testable hypothesis, and conducts no experiments to test any it may. In other words, it does not behave as a science.

Evolution, etc, are the result of over one hundred years of the scientific process: people have suggested theories, and those theories have been tested, and the experiments have been run and rerun. Theories that experiments and observations have validated have survived, others have not. The theories of the creation of the universe proposed by science are those that best match the observations of the real world and the experimental evidence collected over the lst century, century and a half.

Creationism has no such record of scientific inquiry. The problem is not that you aren't willing to accept a particular scientific theory, the problem is that you reject the entire scientific process, and then expect those of us who respect that process to take you seriously.

[snowFLAKE]

277. From scanning this thread, nobody seems to by denying your

Right to be a Creationist.

They are merely (futilely attempting) to dissuade you from masquerading your superstitious and fantasy-based views as "scientific"

If you do believe in God, I suppose when your God created the earth back at 11 AM (and I forget the exact day) in 4004 B.C., he/she purposefully created it with the appearance of being very old, and hid artifacts all over to make it appear that life evolved. Why did God do all this? To test our faith, of course. So, if you choose to pass this test (in you mind and in the privacy of your church or home), I doubt that anyone would raise much of a fuss. But when you bring views into the public arena, and begin edging towards insisting that they be taught in science classes in schools - then I can understand people becoming rightfully upset.

[LibertyorDeath]

202. It's beyond comprehension that in the year 2004 this is still being

debated.

For the love of God please kill this thread.

Faith is not Science repeat until you see the light.

FAITH IS NOT SCIENCE. Amen......

[plaguepuppy]

245. beyond comprehension

Well, beyond mortal comprehension perhaps. But how can we understand the transcendent rottenness and stupidity humans are capable of without recourse to some idea of the absolute?

[truthspeaker]

338. Easy - but it's not a science question

Contrary to what some televangelists may tell you, there is not a scientific movement trying to disprove the existence of god(s) or promote atheism in schools.

The fact that creationism is stil being debated in the USA is an embarrassment. If the rest of the industrialized world knew how influential the creationists are here we would be a laughingstock.

[CHIMO]

264. Science Does Not

Deny Creation. Therefore there is no conflict.

The first one that understands creation and infinity deserves to enlighten us mortals.

If creationism denies science, well then what can one say. Maybe go put your finger in a pot of boiling water that isn't really boiling?

[Merlin]

281. The problem is this guy is partly right. Mostly wrong. But partly right.

First, he's right that there are aspects of evolution which science has not yet correctly explained. The idea of irreducible complexity, advanced in the largely reasonable--but horribly misused--concept of Intelligent Design, has some merit. But it does not disprove evolution. It simply points out where our understanding of evolution is imperfect.

This writer also points out, correctly, that Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics makes it abundantly clear that randomness can never result in intelligent complexity. Yet we see intelligent complexity all around us. But this does not disprove the theory of evolution either.

More importantly and obviously, neither of these valid points comes even close to proving that the tribal history of the Jews which begins in Genesis is anything more than mythology writ large.

In other words, there is order and intelligence in the universe. These things prove--beyond any doubt--that there is a life form out there, a Creator, that is way, way more intelligent and powerful than humans. But that in no way proves the validity of the Bible or any other known religious concepts.

Indeed, the notion that "The Bible is the Word of God" is one of the world's most dangerous concepts. This notion alone is what keeps the Israeli-Palestinian conflict going, for instance. The idea that any just God would play favorites with humans, granting a particular tribe a certain piece of land forever, is insane.

By its own jumbled words, the Bible grants a license to those cretins who want to kill homosexuals, subjugate women, enslave the weak, and conquer and destroy others in the name of a supposedly just and loving God.

The Bible is interesting literature. But as religion, it is utter, complete and total garbage.

But that is not the same as saying God does not exist. Religion and God are not the same.

America was founded by men who were Deists. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, all believed in God, but rejected all religions on the strength of the axiom that they are all based upon human opinion, not reason. Reason says there is a God. But reason also says there is evolution. And reason surely says that any God capable of creating a system as complex and profound as evolution would write--if It ever chose to--in a manner way more lucid than the impossibly jumbled Bible.

[snowFLAKE]

284. This writer also points out, **correctly**, that Newtons 2nd Law . . .

I sure do hope that your use of the word "correctly" is a typo!!

Egad!!!

[Merlin]

289. No it's not a typo. Newton proves order cannot proceed from disorder.

Given that the universe is laden with order and intelligent systems, that means there must perforce be a Creator capable of establishing such order and designing and implementing such systems.

That may shock you. But reason says it is perhaps the truest thing in all existence. How can you possibly look at the world around you, the biology, the physics, the math, the chemistry that are components of all living things, and claim they are either unintelligent and unordered or the product of mere happenstance? Such a conclusion would be as preposterous as creationism.

[snowFLAKE]

290. I'm sure you are just trolling . . . but if not, EGAD AGAIN, plus

Myth #9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=4&catID=2

[Merlin]

294. Your understanding of SLOT is only partial. You miss order/disorder.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that every (albeit closed) system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder. The system's energy is continuously dissipated until reaching a state of complete randomness where there is no further potential for work.

Entropy is a mathematical measurement of such disorder. Newton states that disorder can never produce order through any kind of random process. By implication then, for order to exist, it must be generated by some form of code or program containing at least as much intelligence as is necessary to produce the order.

Just as matter and energy tend to disorder, so does information.

The example of a random set of (binary) bit conditions is incontrovertible proof of this. If one defines order as 1 and disorder as 0, the chance of order is 50% with one random bit. With two, it is 25%. With 8 it is 1/256. With 16 it is one in 65,000. With 32, it is one in 4 billion. And so forth.

The odds against order resulting from disorder are astronomical. The odds that, say, man evolved from a single cell by random, unintelligent mutations each producing a more ordered biological whole, exceed the bounds of credulity.

This is NOT to say that Genesis is true. Quite the contrary. Creationism is equally as preposterous as the assertion that order can flow from disorder. (Both are the result of biased thought. The fundies must prove the validity of the bible at all costs. The atheists are frightened at the mere thought that something in the universe is more intelligent than they are.)

But it IS to say that the system of evolution is a guided system, not unlike the software that enables this forum and the operating system that enables your computer. And that software MUST have originated from an intelligent force.

(By the way, you don't really think that snowflakes "form spontaneously from disordered parts" do you? There is plenty of order in the environment from which they spring, and in their own molecular structure that constrain the snowflake to form within a certain range of shapes. In fact, snowflakes--and the inability to produce two identical ones--are an excellent example of the tendency of order toward disorder, e.g. entropy.)

[snowFLAKE]

297. You appear to not grasp either the SLOT or Evolution

First, the earth is not a "closed system," which must be assumed for your thermodynamic arguments to be anywhere near comprehensible.

Second, of course "evolution is a guided system" - it is guided by the environment (ever heard of "natural selection?). But, there is absolutely no intelligence involved in this guidance (if there were, it would be an extremely obtuse type of intelligence, considering that the vast majority of mutations that occur do not increase the fitness of the host organism, and are therefore "wasted"). If your God has the level of intelligence at work in nature (i.e., provides a beneficial mutation one out of every million or so attempts) - I'm rather glad that he or she is not in control of my life.

[Merlin]

303. The universe IS a closed system. And you have a closed mind.

Your assertion that there is "absolutely no intelligence involved in this guidance" (e.g. evolution) is sufficient proof that you are in utter denial of reality. I have no time for intellectual dishonesty.

And in case you haven't noticed, yes there is a great deal of hit and miss in the intelligence of the universe. What percentage of time does copulation lead to impregnation? That proves nothing. The universe is a product of immense, superb, unfathomable beauty and intelligence. For those who are in denial of that simple, observable, obvious truth, I have no time for debate.

[Liberal Veteran]

305. Wow. Now there is one for the cosmologists.

You know for a fact that the universe is a closed system?

And how did you come by this knowledge? A revelation perhaps?

[Merlin]

323. And you know the opposite for a fact, do you? Get that from Genesis?

Or The Onion?

[Liberal Veteran]

336. Actually, I claim neither.

As an amateur astronomer who reads a great deal about cosmology, I don't think you or I or anyone knows enough about the nature of the universe to declare with any kind of certainty that the universe is a completely closed system and therefore subject to the second law of thermodynamics and when we start talking about the dynamics of scale, the argument becomes more and more obscure.

Even if it were a closed system, the notion that the second law would invalidate evolution is a fallacy because evolution requires the existance of an outside force, natural selection which is the result of enviromental stresses on the system therefore it is not a closed system as pertain to the second law of thermodynamics.

But thanks for playing.

[Rabrrrrrr]

299. Excuse for interjecting - but Newton didn't do thermo, did he?

It's a small point, but it's bothering me - if memory serves, thermo and the disorder - order thing was much later than Newton, wasn't it?

And on other matters, I think your understanding of entropy is being clouded by a very firm and strong desire to make the science fit the writings of old, and not experience.

And I have to say, your example of the binary thing is very arbitrary, and exceedingly non-relevant due to it's incredible false nature. What you say is true - it's your premise that is without merit.

[Merlin]

304. Yes, Newton "did thermo"

Your assertion that I am trying to make "science fit the writings of old" is in flat contradiction with my assertion that Creationism and Genesis are utter mythology. I will in fact go further and say that the Bible itself is entirely fictitious, and that the idea that it is "the Word of God" is one of the most damaging that Western civilization espouses. It is, for example, the sole cause of the insolubility of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Your further assertion that my binary example is "arbitrary" and "false" bears no response because you offer no evidence other than gratuitous insult.

[DrWeird]

307. LOL.

Although Newton may have toyed with thermodynamics, the earliest treatise on the second law of thermodynamics didn't come until 1834, over one hundred years after Newton's death, by Clapeyron with his work on steam engines.

Clearly you're confusing the laws of thermodynamics with Newton's laws of motion.

If you're going to argue against evolution from a scientific standpoint you should at least understand what you're talking about.

[treepig]

310. hmm, steam engines were the inspiration for the 2nd law of thermo . . . .

but wouldn't the existence such a complex machine be forbidden by this very same law?

it's enough to make your head spin.

btw, it's really nice to see this thread still alive and kicking, which i believe is proof in and of itself that complex entities can evolve in the total absence of intelligence

[DrWeird]

313. You see, steam engines are like snow flakes.

That is order can increase in every instance you point out, except for evolution, because that would invalidate the Galileo's 2nd Law of Dynamothermics.

[Rabrrrrrr]

315. I thought they were more like eggs

Which can only be made from whites and yellows and pieces of broken shell, that is order can increase in every instance you point out, except for evolution, because that would invalidate Copernicus' 2nd Thermal Current of Law Dynamics?

[Merlin]

322. Sounds like your more enamored of Freud's theories than Newton's laws.

Those would be the ones about Oedipus and sanity.

[Rabrrrrrr]

326. Since Newton doesn't have any thermodynamic laws,

then I am, by default, more enamored of Freud's, since Freud's exist.
:P

[Merlin]

321. You have certainly earned your name.

Look, wierd, instead of acting wierd, why not discuss the point? Cat got your tongue?

[Merlin]

320. Ok. Now answer the post.

Instead of ridicule, how about some reason. Or are you just incapable thereof?

[treepig]

325. your posts appear to be remarkably devoid of reason

so i was just responding in character

really, anyone who post's about "newton's" laws of thermodynamics and can't comprehend that the earth is not a closed system has got to expect just a wee bit of riducule.

[DrWeird]

301. Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics? LOL.

And don't forget, Aristotle's Theory of General Relativity and SIgmund Freud's Uncertainty Principle also prove that evolution couldn't have happened. So take that, you stupid scientists.

[snowFLAKE]

283. Having made it to the end of this thread (finally)

I have an overwhelming desire to paraphrase the principal in the movie "Billy Madison" who, after the character played by Adam Sandler presented a rambling discourse comparing the Industrial Revolution to a lost puppy, had the following commment:

That (this thread) is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard (read). At no point in your (its) incoherent, rambling response (postings), did you (it) come close to making what could be considered a rational thought. I award you (this thread) no points, and may God have mercy on your (its) soul.

(With apologies to everyone who did their best to debunk the foolishness going on!)

[opihimoimoi]

286. God is a bunch of ETs on a Mission. They hunt species who display

canceresque signs.

They are coming for the INSPECTION soon.

Look at what we did to the Earth and how we continue to treat Her, then tell me if we would pass the Inspection?

BTW The Big Bang explains our small Universe. There are trillions upon trillions of other universes out there. Clouds and clouds of them. Storms of them even. Big Bangs are constantly happening. Its a pulsating MegaVerse for God Sake.

God(ET) is waiting to see what comes from the (soup) Universe.

Because our species became stuck on Meism(whats in it for Me?), we have little chance of passing the Inspection and/or surviving an extended period of time. We appear we will not Mature in time.

Come, we go drink Kava......walk the beach, .....look for sea shells, mo bettah, mo fun.

[rman]

285. the neocon - creationism connection

Origin of the Specious
Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?
By Ronald Bailey
Reason magazine - juli 1997
http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

Darwinism is on the way out. At least, that's what Irving Kristol announced to a gathering at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington not long ago. Darwinian evolution, according to the godfather of neoconservatism, "is really no longer accepted so easily by biologists and scientists." Why? Because, Kristol explained, scientifically minded Darwin doubters are once again focusing on "the old-fashioned argument from design." That is to say, life in all its apparently ordered complexity cannot be understood in terms of chance mutation and the competition for survival. There must, after all, be a designer. So, exit Darwin; enter--or re-enter--God.

This may seem to some readers to be a personal quirk of Kristol's. Perhaps as he approaches Eternity (he's 77), he may want some grand company there. But Kristol's friend and colleague Robert Bork is claiming the same thing: Charles Darwin and his theories are finished. In his new work, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Bork pins his own anti-evolutionary attack on Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, a recent book by biochemist Michael Behe. Bork declares that Behe "has shown that Darwinism cannot explain life as we know it." He adds approvingly that the book "may be read as the modern, scientific version of the argument from design to the existence of a designer." Bork triumphantly concludes: "Religion will no longer have to fight scientific atheism with unsupported faith. The presumption has shifted, and naturalist atheism and secular humanism are on the defensive."

Are these merely two isolated intellectual voices preaching that old-time design? Hardly. Last summer, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank devoted to studying the role of religion in public policy, and now headed by neoconservative Elliott Abrams, called together a group of conservative intellectuals, including Kristol, his wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and Hoover Institution fellow Tom Bethell, to listen to anti-Darwin presentations by Behe and Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Himmelfarb has told at least one colleague that she, too, thinks the Behe book "excellent."

There's yet more. The neoconservative journal Commentary, of all periodicals, joined this attack last June with a cover essay, "The Deniable Darwin," written by mathematician David Berlinski.

more: http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

--

Should i add that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI - www.aei.org) is home to Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle, Bush advisor who makes himself controversial by saying things like:
"If we let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

[Merlin]

291. In an alliance between the evil and the ignorant, which is which? n/t

.

[creativelcro]

308. LOL, never heard so much crap.

Throughout history, dictatorships of any sort (be they religious or not) have not liked people who think logically and pay attention to facts. That's all there is to it. I think that scientific thought is too widespread in society at this point to be squashed, luckily. Some ignorant groups will always be prey to irrational ideologies. But what can you do? They'll have to come back to real scientists. You cannot fly planes or build a radio with the Bible. The bottom line is that anybody who has not done some scientific experiment seriously, worked on a theory etc, simply cannot appreciate what a scientific theory is...

[Nikia]

300. For another view: Gerald Schroeder

I found the book that I browsed the other day on the internet. The Science of God:The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom. He has his degrees through PhD in physics from MIT. He argues that God had a hand in the universe, we are not here by chance, and that Genisis and science are compatible. His website is geraldschroeder.com.

[enki23]

311. i have an authoritative answer!!!!!!11

no.

(it's authoritative because i'm god.)

[Rabrrrrrr]

314. Are you 23rd incarnation of Enki?

Or the 23rd face of the Eternal Enki, the face that embodies Rational Thought, and who predates Creation?

:-)

:hi:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

329. you know damned well that the answer is 42

so why mislead the masses???

TheProdigal

[lagniappe]

316. www.talkorigins.org

There is a great site that addresses many of the creationist arguments and claims. It is a must read for anyone who is interested in helping creationists see the light.

http://www.talkorigins.org

[cushla_machree]

330. talk origins is great

I use it in my arguments with all the dumb creationists.
i also like:

Evolution vs Creationism:
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/ORIGINS/origins.html

Things creationits hate:
http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm


creationism could never be science, as science is based on theories, all which can be disproved. Creationists start with absolute truths, and look for support, while ignoring all that is inconvient.

[formernaderite]

324. The word science in english is more narrowly defined than...

in other languages. Literature, art, philosophy, theology are all considered sciences in other cultures and languages. Thus the english definition has become very narrowly defined.
I know quite a few theosophists, anthroposophists etc. who are both scientists in the natural english sense and who have a vastly different belief in the worlds creation. These are people who would not define themselves as right of center or christian in the common context.
To narrowly define creationism as "NOT" science, disputes the context of theory, idea and imagination. Unfortunately the term creationism has been coupled with right wing christian fundamentalism in this country....really too bad, because it disengages everyone from creative discussion.

[RapidCreek]

328. No it doesn't....

Creationsim is not purported to be theory and it's dogma is not purported to have sprung from imagination or idea or hypothesis. Believers in Creationism hold it to be an irrefutable fundamentaly simplistic truth, delivered by God, investigation is not possible or necessary. You are suggesting that Creationism is a "theory" developed by man and that is blasphemy. Creationism is fundamentalism....one cannot be seperated from the other. Science is the antithesis of Fundamentalism....one cannot be blended with the other. Its an oil and water argument.

RC

[ironflange]

333. I think it's appropriate that. . .

the "mixed animal" thread over in the Lounge has about the same number of posts as this one.

[moof]

334. Zowie, that's a ton of Typing for a premise that is not

a topic for serious discussion. In the future to save time & effort a
reply along the lines of the following is all that is required.

Science needs no defense against things that
at best fall into the catagory of urban myth.

While anyone is free to think that dinosaurs & humans populated the
Earth at the same time it is not a topic worthy of serious debate.

In short, creationism does not exist. Why give it any authority
by involving it in a conversation about science ?

Question mark aside there is no answer being sought. If that is unclear
to some in this thread, get a dictionary & look up the term rhetorical.

As example to show how more than was said here is not needed.
Anyone may respond to this reply but there is no need as there is
nothing more to say.

[Rabrrrrrr]

335. Nothing more to say, no

except - a) lemur alert, and b) You are totally on the nose absolutely 100 percent correct. I like the way your framed the point - especially Science needs no defense against things that
at best fall into the catagory of urban myth.

Well done!!

[TXlib]

340. Only those whose faith is weak feel the need to equate faith to science

I've noticed many theists whose faith is only as strong as that of those around them; their faith arises externally, rather than internally.

It is for this reason they feel the need to spout nonsense about 'creation science'.

I have NEVER met a theist whose faith was strong, and rooted firmly within themselves (admittedly, a judement made by myself on empirical observations) who felt the need to call faith a science.

[earthman dave]

341. Only in America...

Could anyone support creationism with a straight face. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Is there a load of money going into anti-evolution PR over there? What gives? World's biggest nukular arsenal and loads of fundie nutters - excuse me while I go and hide under the bed for a century or so.

[Blue_Chill]

342. Yes creationism is a science, it's called the Big Bang Theory

I'm sure you've heard of it. Georges LeMaitre (a catholic priest) first thought it up as his cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation. Einstein stated "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

Now can we stop this dumb little church v science debate.

[Bridget Burke]

344. Creationism is the alternative to Evolution

No, it's not science.

Indeed, the Church has no difficulty with Evolution. Neither do they oppose other scientific theories.

It's mainly the little peanut-stand churches, with their tinker-toy universes & retarded deities, who can't deal with science.

[Blue_Chill]

346. Depends on who's creationism you hear

Most people, even Christians, don't buy into the whole Adam and Eve thing because the bible itself mentions people outside the garden.

Some people refuse to believe life is accidental and I really don't think science has enough hard evidence to prove otherwise. I don't buy into mathematical impossibilities that the right combination of cosmic chemicals just happen to rub each other the right way and oops life! I don't buy it.

I'm much more comfortable with the why the heck are we here and who stuck us on the same planet with republicans....theory. I look around and see the irony and humor of human beings, and sorry but that's got to be on purpose. :D

[hippyleftist]

343. creationism is snake oil