|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 5:48:41 PM | "This is really good stuff .Please post again lazy. Please."
Okay, I know that was harsh, but I am just getting so fed up with these nonsense posts attacking a very strong scientific theory from people who have almost no familiarity with scientific methodology. There is nothing wrong with criticizing a theory, but you have to do it from within the confines of science. You can't attack Chaos Theory on the grounds that it doesn't "resonate with your chakras." Seriously, Lazy, if you wish to understand how science operates or what the Theory of Evolution ACTUALLY says, I'd be more than happy to respectfully discuss it with you, but uninformed attacks will only recieve vitriol from me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 8:32:25 PM | Come on Wonka, You gettin soft on us . Let him have it.
Oh, I'm just messing around.
It does make for a nice read though. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/21/2006 10:53:02 PM |
Second there are several posts that contain the argument that I.D. is an untestable theory becuase it involves an intelligence and the involvement of an intelligence dosn't make sense without also involving a source of that intelligence and the source of that intelligence can not be tested for.
Okay, slight backtrack, because I wanted to readdress this, and because it has a bearing on what follows. Now, I prefer not to debate the argument made, since I'm not exactly sure my interpretation is entirely accurate, so I'll focus on the observations involved and attempt to see if I've got this all straight. First off, I don't particularly believe that it would be necessarily possible to establish that there is an intelligence (defined by me as an intelligent entity) at work. It's difficult enough for humans to attempt to define the concept of intelligence (the quality of a thinking being), much less measure it. As this applies to the observation of coherent observable patterns in the development of life, I do accept that people who intend to find evidence of intelligence may certainly interpret the patterns to be apparently intelligently designed. This is, however, a subjective interpretation based on a priori establishment that an intelligence had to be at work in the first place. It is my opinion that, should someone insist that there be evidence of intelligence in the formation and development of life on Earth, it would then be their responsibility to define the parameters involved in recognising that which indicates to them the influence of an intelligence, as well as what specific observations count as evidence for that intelligence.
These are what I am referring to when I make the argument that if evolutionist are going to insist that involving an intelligence requires involving the source of that intelligence then I.D. supporters should be able to argue that involving nature requires involving the source of nature.
The above is the "argument" I will make for "insisting that involving an intelligence requires involving the source" thereof. Simply put, in order to establish that "an intelligence" has influence, creative or otherwise, it is necessary to be able to recognise the effects of intelligent influence, which does require some idea of the attributes of that intelligence. In my understanding, nature is more a system than a measurable object, wherefore I would contend that the origin of nature is not particularly relevant. The argument can certainly be made that to insist that nature has an influence, creative or otherwise, it would be necessary to be able to recognise the effects of natural influence and to be able to describe some basis for measuring the attributes of nature. This is the point, however, behind scientific endeavour and, as such, is precisely the point being made by stating that a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence is more in line with the area of inquiry than to assume or attempt to prove the influence of an unidentified, potentially unquantifiable and unrecognisable, perhaps even unverifiable external intelligence.
The universe is not the SOURCE it's the present result of whatever the source was.
In light of what I've already posted, I don't see the necessity of insisting that there be a "source" of nature. However, I would like to know what scientifically and empirically viable alternative might be suggested, if the universe is not the source of nature.
It's already been concluded that humanity can never know or come to the most
vague understanding of where the source of the so-called 'big bang' originated from.
"It's already been concluded" by whom? And, what is it that prevents humanity from coming to a conclusion, when we evidently possess a distinct capacity to speculate, as well as no few tools with which to attempt to test our speculations? I would contend that, it is possible that, at this point in the growth of the human species, we lack some tools to explicitly define and measure all aspects of the presumed origins of the universe, but I do have an experientially-based belief that it is possible for humanity to plumb the depths of universal history.
what you'll realize is that those that study evolution can not study this discipline without understanding creationism.
I have yet to read Hawking's books, but can you explain how it is necessary to understand creationism in order to study evolution? I'm afraid I may not understand your point.
Well, someone should have told Newton or Steven that because they seem
to believe religion pay's a huge role.
Lazyboyz, would you mind posting a link or reference to cite the origin of the quote about Hawking's views? I'd also appreciate any support you could give for the assertion that both Hawking and Newton derived their scientific insights from religion. Thank you.
Evolution and the beginning of the universe are two entirely seperate topics.
Brain, this is accurate to a degree. Taken separately, as distinct, individual fields of study, neither evolution nor cosmology involves or relates to the other. However, taken inclusively as components of universal history and the origin, development, and potential fate of life on Earth, they do have some bearing. I think the issue here is that, while science focuses on the empirical, observable and testable facts and implications of natural observations, there is a focus on the theories to be inclusive and comprehensive of the history of life in general and man in particular. It appears that this may be a strawman argument of the two distinct areas of study (included with others, such as abiogenesis) combining to form a "scientific creation story" for the universe. It may be necessary (sorry Wonka) to rehash and redefine the concepts inherent in scientific speculation as opposed to scientific study, as well as the cosmological implications of scientific inquiry versus the assertions of faith. Just a thought.
With science Man can CREATE new life.
Indeed? I was under the impression that one of the arguments against evolution (oddly enough) was that only God could create life, and that, while science can only study the effects of this creation, it can never grant to man the power to change what has been ordained. Otherwise, the only method I know for humanity creating life is sex. Is there a new development of which I'm unaware?
So why is it so hard to believe that we were not CREATED.
Side note: while this does not directly address the point I made once before, it does somewhat recall the observation I did make regarding laboratory abiogenesis potentially being used to bolster creationist arguments. In light of my previous comment ^ however, one can certainly see the difficulties these stances would have in reconciling themselves.
The premise of this thread is Creation vs Evolution but you can't argue the validity of evolution without ID otherwise what are we talking about here?
While I entirely disagree that the merits of evolutionary theory are completely independent of the implications of a belief in creation, I do believe I recognise the point in this statement. Correct me if I misinterpret, but you are saying that, for this to be a thread regarding the two supposedly conflicting views, we should address both, are you not?
Without appreciating the very origin of space and time, you can not argue the validity of evolution properly by pushing fast-forward.
I disagree with this statement, however I believe I understand it to be based on a misconception. It is not the focus nor the intention to focus on evolution to the exclusion of any prior observation of the history of the cosmos. In fact, this does not even come into consideration from the viewpoint of the theory. It appears that one person's perspective may be locked into the discussion in an attempt to define origins, and I would speculate that it is possible Darwin did not realise or intend that folks should focus on that particular word when he originally published. Let me explain. In my view, some tend to focus on the "origin of species" to explain the alterations and developments inherent in organisms, as well as to help to understand the apparent relationships (potentially truly familial) between the various groups of life. On the other hand, however, some appear to focus on the idea of the "origin of species" and extrapolate to ask the question (not relevant to the hypotheses that Darwin proposed), "what is the origin of life?" Further extension of this line of thought leads one to wonder the origin of the universe, etc. Faced with such a daunting cosmic history, and lacking a great deal of information, it certainly follows that humans, as they are known to have done, would retreat into the contemplation of supernatural forces to explain those aspects of the world for which they have no otherwise satisfactory explanations. Modern humanity, however, places great store in its ability to reason out the implications of observation and to attempt to describe, by use of both inductive and deductive logic, the causal factors involved in the developments we observe. Thus, with an eye toward explaining the origins of the phenomena around us, we tend to attempt to define and describe, through use of scientific methodology for some and metaphysical reasoning for others, the proximate and ultimate causes of these. I would simply point out, then, that, while religious convictions and their attendant logic suffice for establishing personally satisfactory explanations of ultimate cause, scientific methods and inquiry may be more effective for establishing objective explanations of proximate causal factors that might otherwise go unattended.
This is far too long, and for that I apologise. I'll attempt to deal with others of the points and questions posed in another post. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:49:35 AM | "It may be necessary (sorry Wonka) to rehash and redefine the concepts inherent in scientific speculation as opposed to scientific study, as well as the cosmological implications of scientific inquiry versus the assertions of faith. Just a thought"
I'm not sure what the "sorry" is for, mostly because I'm unclear on what you are saying. It sounds like you are saying that we should draw a distinction between empirical observation and verification of a theory, and the philosophical extrapolations of said theory. If that's your point, then I completely agree, and I've said the same thing in earlier posts. For instance quantum physics is science; Everett's many worlds interpretation, the notion that every quantum event leads to a branching of new universes, is philosophy. That's why it's called an interpretation and not a theory. If, on the other hand, you are saying that we should redefine science and scientific methodology, I would have to ask on what grounds? If your intent is to eschew or expand upon the work of Popper and Kuhn and others since who have made great contributions to defining the epistemology of science, then I can't wait to see your improvements on their work. So what are you saying exactly? As for this blurring of the lines between Cosmology and Evolution, let's clear this up. Yes, we can consider these disciplines together and try to outline a comprehensive history of the universe, and this is certainly a fascinating and instructive endeavour, but that doesn't change the fact that Evolution also stands alone as an autonomous theory that explains the diversity of life. The theory stands whether or not scientific forays into abiogenesis pan out. It stands regardless of what direction cosmological study takes us. The theory remains sound whether God exists or not. The theory remains sound if inorganic compounds formed self-replicating molecules or if God threw down a lump of protoplasm and ordered it to grow. That being said, yes the history of the universe, from it's origin to us, is certainly a worthwhile consideration as an unbroken line of causality, if you will, and it is certainly all connected. The questions regarding how these complex relationships in nature relate to each other, how self-organizing complexity arises from natural laws, the nexus between levels of causality- these are all important questions that unite disparate disciplines, and the more we are able to causally unite these disciplines the more profound our understanding will become. So, in conclusion, yes cosmology, chaos theory, quantum physics, probability and statistical analysis, biology, chemistry, abiogenesis, perhaps even ontological philosophy- these all relate to one another, but, again, Evolution, being, in and of itself, the study of how the diversity of life arose, stands regardless of HOW it relates to these other disciplines. | |
|
Bond63
|
Joined: 9/25/2005
Msg: 3205 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 8:00:56 AM | Just a thought
What if....... Life on Earth was the inteligent design from a superior being ( which we would call God) but This being was created from the rare organization of matter which in turn evolved into a perfect being capable of controlling the direction and organiztion of a certain PART of the ongoing timely changes of matter itself. Sort of like a branch .
The evolution of matter creates by accident, an inteligent life form ,which then takes over and starts to control and create on its own.
Matter would be the transformation of its oposite.The space or time between matter and it's oposite is neutral ( the finishing line or starting point for everthing) on each side of that line all and anything can happen. For us as humans we are only participating in a small branch of all this movement.
The story of how this branch came to be, has somehow got lost in translation.
Some of the records of history may have never been recorded , only passed on by mouth, then a feeble attempt to record the history ( or even make it up) was done.
An example of this might be.. The story of Noas Ark. Maybe his gathering of two of all the species was really a gathering of samples of DNA.
Mankind could have been much more advanced, from a previous world, and then regressed.
This is just an idea of how Creation and evolution could be working hand in hand. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3206 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 8:46:17 AM | | the odds of n particles in a high entropy state organizing into an intelligent being are greater than you winning the lottery...every week...for a period much much much longer that the currently estimated age of our observable universe....all theories regarding evolution postulate a minimum set of assumptions that can explain, through a straighforward logical derivation the evolutionary process...I dont believe that your assumption can be considered straighforward or logical... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:28:00 AM | bond- I'm not quite clear what you are saying, and rake- I'm really not sure how your response relates to his post. What am I missing here? It seems to me that bond is saying that perhaps God is inseparable from the universe, that the organization of matter itself formed some sort of intelligence, which in turn directed further organization. Is that on the right track? If so, this creates a tangle of logical and theological snags, but it's an interesting notion anyway. Unfortunately your post contains some statements that demand further explication.
"Matter would be the transformation of its oposite."
What does this mean? What do you mean by the opposite of matter?
"The space or time between matter and it's oposite is neutral ( the finishing line or starting point for everthing) on each side of that line all and anything can happen."
This is really esoteric. I have no idea what you are getting at.
"Mankind could have been much more advanced, from a previous world, and then regressed."
This sort of makes sense, but as to how it relates to your previous statements, I am thoroughly confused. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3208 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:35:39 AM | | Hi Wonka, I took the comment "This being was created from the rare organization of matter" to mean that an ID arose as a statistically rare fluctuation from a rather ordinary, high entropy and totally disordered configuration of matter...although this is possible, it is highly unlikely... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:08:55 AM | | I see. Yes, you are right, if he intended to say that such an intelligence spontaneously arose. To be honest though, I'm not exactly sure what he intended to say. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:15:35 AM | Creationism or ID is less than a theory, it is a hypothesis. God is also a hypothesis, as there are no tests for existence that have withstood scrutiny. They fall under the category or faith, which is a belief that is held without the necessity of evidence to support it. As such, science and faith are two differenct realms, and should be dealt with accordingly. It's fine to have faith and belief, but when an unprovable belief encounters a provable (in terms of strong evidence) theory, common sense should prevail and the theory should carry greater weight. Anything else is addiction to ignorance.
From Merriam-Webster:
HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation .
THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth . | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3211 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:17:30 AM |
I'm not exactly sure what he intended to say.
but I bet that you knew exactly where he was...  | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3212 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:26:03 AM |
the delusion we actually Know something about anything.
well at least we know that | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3213 | |
| |
Bond63
|
Joined: 9/25/2005
Msg: 3214 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:17:15 AM | Wonka
"matter would be the transformation of its opposite"
What I was trying to say was according to science everything has an opposite. example: positive and negative. Positive can change to negative and negative to positive. Therefore in this thought. Matters' opposite could change to matter itself, or vice versa. I would call this " sub atomic micro evolution" ( sounds good) ( I know I am inventing here) Please remember this is just a thought.
" The space or time....... " = esoteric if my understanding of esoteric is correct..( intended for or understood by only a paticular group, cult like,, Mysterious.. Not publicly disclosed.
I am only just thinking here ( Just a thought) I am not trying to say I have some secret knowledge.
" mankind could have been muchmore............regressed"
I was just trying to shed light on how history could have got lost in translation. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3215 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:28:25 AM | What I was trying to say was according to science everything has an opposite. example: positive and negative. Positive can change to negative and negative to positive. Therefore in this thought. Matters' opposite could change to matter itself, or vice versa.
I think this argument is a just a variation of the "where there is design there must be an architect" or "In my mind I can immagine a perfect being therefore God must exist" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:41:09 AM | Okay, I'm back, and I've got some more material I want to try out. A duck walks into a bar..
Never mind. I do have more to say on the earlier stuff, and I did miss some on at least one of the posts to which I responded previously. So, here we go...
Evolution, by way of YOUR arguement, does not have to answer many unanswered questions - like, what spurs evolution...what power stops it or suspends it. What power can resume it. What's the nature of this power.
Actually, that's not the argument at all. Evolution does address what spurs evolution: the whole inherited variations/natural selection thing, remember? Beyond that, death (as in extinction) stops it, genetic drift in whole populations "suspends" it (if your argument is addressing macroevolution, rather than overall evolution). "Resumption" of evolution is an interesting idea, but I don't think the term would necessarily have any validity, since evolution is a pretty standard ongoing process. However, if this is in reference to macroevolution, it's possible that the apparent "resumption" thereof may occur when minor heritable variations accumulate to a measurable degree, or when an isolated population finds itself in a markedly hostile environment and natural selection forces accumulation of ever more divergent traits from the parent population. The "nature of this power," that being the combination of genetic variation and natural selection (possibly operating at variable speeds throughout the history of life), is pretty well summed up in "Origin of Species." Have you read it?
Both are one and the same. ID created what we see today (some would argue). It's the fallacy of man that has to interpret it.
I'm guessing "both" refers to evolution and creation. It is true that organisms "evolve" (meaning change over time) and that they were "created" (meaning came into existence), however, the precise mechanisms and circumstances of these having happened are unknown. The possibilities as to how, when, etc. are subjects for speculation and potential testing. I wouldn't say they're the same thing. A beginning (creation) and change through time (evolution) are pretty much entirely different concepts on any level. As for humanity interpreting, this also is truly necessary, although the only place in this for fallacy is the dustbin.
Some without evidence of the origin of space & time would argue that it MUST HAVE BEEN a scientific causation yet without even a rough idea what, they'd ask us to have FAITH that it was scientific.
Interesting. I wonder if this isn't simply a transposition of terms? Creation would seem to me to be the issue less concerned with evidence and more interested in religious issues. Other than projected implications, I've never seen any valid religious inferences made on the basis of evolutionary theory.
If we're gonna play it that way, how are we gonna ever argue when you've
rigged the table?
This is another interesting observation, again possibly a projection. It's been my experience that most absolute "truth" is generally religious in nature. Thus, for anything to even be considered it would have to comply with the accepted observations of a given religion ("rigging the table," you see). For instance, the claim that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible, as evidenced by the fact that the infallible Word of God says it is so.
Theories are intersubjective constructs (I'm sure that word is too many syllables for you, so I'll tell you that it essentially means collaborative)...
 Sorry, just count the syllables.
I have absolutely no use for those who have strong negative opinions about something they don't even understand and no interest in actually furthuring their knowledge.
And, before someone beats me to it (although they may already have), while the consideration of what Wonka's use for anyone is or whether it's even relevant/important, the point still stands. It's a sad sad person who refuses to learn and still wants to complain that they're ignorant (or about the cognitive dissonance that arises from that ignorance, rather).
Okay, I know that was harsh, but I am just getting so fed up with these nonsense posts attacking a very strong scientific theory from people who have almost no familiarity with scientific methodology.
I don't disagree with this at all, but I would like to comment on something. I will point out that few people (myself included, by dint of my unfortunate addiction to the printed word) will actually go back to the beginning of a 100+ page thread just to post their opinion on the topic. It's rather daunting, you see. I agree with Wonka that folks ought to be informed, but one of the increasingly unrealistic expectations that we occasionally make ("read the thread") is one very few people will engage. I would like to simply address whatever subjects arise, and if that means rehashing "old" discussions, it doesn't hurt to revisit the "basics" to help ground us in our positions. Again, like Wonka and many others have said, we'll gladly define terms and concepts for those who are unsure of their grasp on the subject matter, but it does speak rather lowly of those who aver support for a given position without having weighed the facts regarding the information involved.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that we should redefine science and scientific methodology, I would have to ask on what grounds?
On no grounds whatsoever, since you had it right the first time. I was pointing out the perpetual necessity of revisiting the terminology used. Far too many people use broader definitions of words, not considering that, in the case of jargon, which is effectively what concerns us here, there are specific precise definitions that apply. As for the apology, it was to the effect that I'm well aware that you dislike "going back over" stuff, but I just presented my argument on that.
In addition, the post from which that quote was taken was intended to point out the distinctly different reference positions taken by the two "sides" in this debate. Scientists and those who study science in order to understand the theories of science generally take the view that individual studies and disciplines are just that: individual. They may overlap in their observations and methods, but they are essentially specialised. However, I've noticed that the other view I mentioned tends to be the one taken by those who espouse creation: that the various sciences, when taken together, do appear to "tell a tale" about the history and nature of the universe (with an interesting variety of actual stories, depending on whom one might ask). It is this on which I believe the opposition to evolution (perhaps even science) is founded, since it (as a "creation story") seems to counter and even invalidate many religiously held beliefs. I was attempting to point out that the frames of reference through which various people behold not just the evidence, but the very debate itself, tend to cloud the issues and provide even more unwarranted friction. Does this make any more sense?
What if....... Life on Earth was the inteligent design from a superior being ( which we would call God) but This being was created from the rare organization of matter...
Interesting idea, but how could it be verified or falsified? This is no different in that respect than special creation or directed panspermia (yeah, I found some reference material), and is, again, outside the (present) bounds of scientific testability. One can believe it, sure, but there's no way to know. The rest of this post is also interesting speculation on possibility, but, at present at least, is untestable.
Creationism or ID is less than a theory, it is a hypothesis. God is also a hypothesis, as there are no tests for existence that have withstood scrutiny.
Okay, this is mostly just me coming at the debate from a psychological angle again, but is it possible that the phrase "less than a theory" is one of those things that rankles people? I've noticed in some instances that some who propound the merits of creation or ID have a tendency to view the existence of God as a fact (I'm not going to argue the religious truth of the existence of God here), when it is, scientifically speaking, an untestable hypothesis. I wonder if it's not at this point when the distinction between science and religion, paramount at this exact point (as Zentral points out), is entirely discarded due to emotional reaction rather than rational definition of terms. Just another thought.
Okay, getting too long again. I'll be back. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 2:47:03 PM | "according to science everything has an opposite"
Well, not exactly. Science does not claim that everything has an opposite, and, in fact, many "opposites" are more a matter of abstract classification than actual fundamental opposites. Actually, this brings up two very important points, (and this is simply a tangent and not a direct response to your conjecture; I'll come back around to that) which I shall call the fallacy of Essentialism and the fallacy of dichotomies. Essentialism is the Platonic notion that everything we experience represents some ideal form of that thing that exists "out there." This is the fallacy that many fall into when they don't understand how speciation can occur. Our brains like to form borders. By nature, we separate things into autonomous objects, and we even tend to do this when considering abstract distinctions. Taxonomic classification is one of these instances, and it is important to remember that this classification is largely arbitrary. Kingdoms, classes, phyla only exist because we decided to classify organisms that were morphologically dissimilar. Nature has no such classifications. To understand this consider the idea of the species ring. This is a phenomenon which has been observed in various biospecies (meaning species that are still extant as opposed to paleospecies.) Let's say a species of bird is quite similar to a bird in a neighboring habitat, but different enough that obviously some genetic isolation has occurred, but the two are genetically similar enough that they can still interbreed. In another habitat over, there is yet another somewhat isolated deme of birds and they are similar enough to their neighbors to interbreed. If we continue to track demes of birds, when we get significantly far enough away, and take a member of a distant deme, it is dissimilar enough that it can not interbreed with the first species, but can with it's neighbor. Where does speciation occur? This is an observed phenomenon in many different species from birds to salamanders. Now if we take that geographical gradual change and apply it historically, bearing in mind that over 99% of all species are extinct, it is easy to see how we are left with the illusion of very distinct organisms. But again, in reality, they are only distinct because of the missing intermediaries. If every intermediary species that ever lived were still extant, we would see a dense soup of life; the similarities would be obvious, and taxonomic classification would be impossible. Now on to the fallacy of dichotomy, which is similar. Our brains love to split things in two. It is likely the first cognitive function to ever evolve and is a fundamental feature of our brains. A very primitive form of life would greatly benefit from the ability to separate night from day, up from down, cold from hot etc. As brains became more specialized and complex, they began to process the richer complexity of life, but every brain is not constructed anew. If you dissect the human brain, it falls into three main structures (more classification) the R-complex, which is nearly identical to a reptilian brain, the limbic system, which is nearly identical to all mammalian brains, and the neocortex, which is only hyper-developed in primates and especially in humans. Our more complex reasoning is built on top of earlier forms, not distinct from them. Think of the technological evolution of the computer as an analogy. All the wonderfully diverse and complicated tasks your computer can do are built over the original DOS core. Some programmers have said we should throw DOS out all together and start over, because we are simply building around flaws. Unfortunately we don't have the same avenue open to us with our brains. Dichotomous reasoning is fundamental to our brains, so it is important to always be vigilant of our tendency to fall into it. That's not to say it's not useful. Essentially formal bivalent logic is a very useful tool, but it's not necessarily representative of the rich, multivariate complexity of reality, which takes higher brain functions to appreciate. So, back to your conjecture- science does not say that everything has an opposite. For example anti-matter and matter are both forms of matter, so I wouldn't call them fundamental opposites. Matter and energy are equivalent and matter must be in one form or the other, but neither would I call them opposites, except as an abstract classification. What it sounds like you are attempting to put words to is the question of the spontaneous generation of matter. Where did it come from? You are saying the opposite of matter, but, again, that doesn't really mean anything in a formal sense. I could say that before matter there was "bleeb," but that doesn't really tell me anything. It is merely semantic. I'm not saying your line of inquiry is meaningless, just that you have not yet really come to any meaningful conclusion, only a semantic one. I don't want to discourage you thinking in this direction; keep working on it.
"Sorry, just count the syllables."
I was wondering who was going to catch that. I thought about it after I posted.
"It is this on which I believe the opposition to evolution (perhaps even science) is founded, since it (as a "creation story") seems to counter and even invalidate many religiously held beliefs. I was attempting to point out that the frames of reference through which various people behold not just the evidence, but the very debate itself, tend to cloud the issues and provide even more unwarranted friction. Does this make any more sense?"
The important point here is the epistemic distinction. Nobody is saying that religious beliefs are false, only that they don't meet the standard of scientific methodology. You can't build a bridge with a knowledge of cooking; and you can't solve an equation with poetry. Religious beliefs are of a philosophical nature. Any theologian will agree that there is no way to empirically verify the existence of God. It is a matter of personal belief. Because science does not concern itself with the unknowable issues of personal belief, does not mean that it is hostile to them. As I've said before, many scientists hold various spiritual beliefs; they simply understand the demarcation. I know you understand this, so I'm not lecturing you, just putting it out there again.
"is pretty well summed up in "Origin of Species." Have you read it?"
Yikes! Don't tell him to read the "Origin of Species." He should read a modern account of the theory first. As I've said before, in the context of history, the "Origin of Species" was an unprecedented stroke of genius, and, although his basic point is sound, he does make many errors. It's a century and a half old, so it has been vastly re-worked and improved upon. If you tell him to start with that, he'll get the wrong impression of how strong the theory actually is in its modern incarnation. He should start with Dawkins and Gould probably. They disagree on certain issues, so it's good to see it from both perspectives. | |
|
Bond63
|
Joined: 9/25/2005
Msg: 3218 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 3:33:03 PM | Just another thought. .." before there was matter......It is merly sematic"
I agree, if we call the opposite of matter anti matter, but what if anti matter is not the opposite of matter, and the opposite of matter has no (matter) to it,( I know this sounds silly and may start to sound like semantics(differences in meanings) . Then The opposite of matter might well be NOTHING.
Now I have to re think this whole thought.
we should start another thread tittled
Think Tank Discovering the answer | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3219 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 3:54:35 PM | | anti-matter is not the opposite of matter, it is an exotic form of matter whose constituent particles have a reverse EM charge....by your own "opposite" logic one could even prove that matter needen't require an opposite at all....if you take Newtons law of intertia and sub your theory in there one could say that for every action there is no equal and opposite reaction...Wonka is right, opposites is more of a misnomer....one could say there are symmetric, invariant or complementary characteristics that are inherent to scientific laws but not opposite... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 4:40:34 PM | Flyguy writes
Debate #2
Person 1: Seriously, there is such a thing as pink cats.
Person 2: I don't think so. Show me some evidence.
Person 1: Ok, h Yere's a picture of one...
Person 2: This is a picture of a white cat colored with pink crayon! You're an idiot.
Person 1: Ad hominem logical fallacy! And it wasn't my crayon, anyways!
(Argument was addressed and even refuted in this case. The insult, while mean spirited, is not an ad hominem logical fallacy. Counter-rebuttal here is irrelevant, giving further validation of the insult)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll use this hypothetical argument to try to expain a point I've been trying to make.
"This is a picture of a white cat colored with pink crayon!" would be a logical thing to say. It could contribute to the argument of whether their are pink cats. "You're an idiot. would not contribute any useful information to the argument. If someone thinks it does please explain how it could to me. It is also illogical to propose that a quote or even many quotes is enough data from which to make an accurate assessment of a person and conclude that they are an idiot. This point about an individual is the point I've tried to make about insulting a group of people.( mostly creation and I.D. supporters I think are the ones who get insulted)
Feral writes
Okay, slight backtrack, because I wanted to readdress this, and because it has a bearing on what follows. Now, I prefer not to debate the argument made, since I'm not exactly sure my interpretation is entirely accurate, so I'll focus on the observations involved and attempt to see if I've got this all straight. First off, I don't particularly believe that it would be necessarily possible to establish that there is an intelligence (defined by me as an intelligent entity) at work. It's difficult enough for humans to attempt to define the concept of intelligence (the quality of a thinking being), much less measure it. As this applies to the observation of coherent observable patterns in the development of life, I do accept that people who intend to find evidence of intelligence may certainly interpret the patterns to be apparently intelligently designed. This is, however, a subjective interpretation based on a priori establishment that an intelligence had to be at work in the first place. It is my opinion that, should someone insist that there be evidence of intelligence in the formation and development of life on Earth, it would then be their responsibility to define the parameters involved in recognising that which indicates to them the influence of an intelligence, as well as what specific observations count as evidence for that intelligence
The above is the "argument" I will make for "insisting that involving an intelligence requires involving the source" thereof. Simply put, in order to establish that "an intelligence" has influence, creative or otherwise, it is necessary to be able to recognise the effects of intelligent influence, which does require some idea of the attributes of that intelligence. In my understanding, nature is more a system than a measurable object, wherefore I would contend that the origin of nature is not particularly relevant. The argument can certainly be made that to insist that nature has an influence, creative or otherwise, it would be necessary to be able to recognise the effects of natural influence and to be able to describe some basis for measuring the attributes of nature. This is the point, however, behind scientific endeavour and, as such, is precisely the point being made by stating that a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence is more in line with the area of inquiry than to assume or attempt to prove the influence of an unidentified, potentially unquantifiable and unrecognisable, perhaps even unverifiable external intelligence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for addressing my actual argumenty rather then taking a piece of it(the part where I say that then evolutionist should explain where nature came from) and ranting and raving about that piece as it seems to me Wonkavision has done. Looking up the word intelligence in my little dictionary I found
1 ability to learn and understand
2 mental acuteness
3 information
The definitons one and two would seem to me to not make sense without the inclustion of a source of the intelligence and the third definition dosn't seem to useful to me as I think anything measured by science could be called information. Your explanation seems to make sence to me and to be supported by the definition of intelligence I found.
Wonkavision writes
Arguments of irreducible complexity don't wash. The eye, the bombardier beetle and all the other spurious examples that creationists love to bring up, are all very well explained by the process of Evolution.
======================== =============================================
Perhaps you can explain how those process are very well explained by the process of Evolution or direct me to where you have explained it before on this post if you have. If it is too complicated to be explained on this thread then how can you justify bringing something up that you will not explain. How does that facilitate discussion?
Wonkavision writes
"I doubt there is anybody on this thread who has studied about evolution to the degree that you have."
This is untrue. There are many on this thread who are quite well studied in Biology and better educated in certain details than I.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I based my observation on the details I see in your posts compared to the details I see in others posts. It was meant as an opinion and not a fact.
Wonkavision writes
Sure, seeing something from a new perspective can be insightful. That is the point of Socratic debate, not spurious logic. I encourage substantive debate. I have no respect for spurious logic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please define what you mean by substantive debate and spurious logic. What exactly about my posts do you see as spurious logic and what would they require to meet your criteua for "substantive debate"?
Wonka vision writes
You have not given a SCIENTIFIC method of testing I.D. Isn't the whole point that they want to claim scientific legitimacy? If you think you have offered a falsifiable battery of tests for I.D., or empirical verifiability then, again, you don't have enough knowledge of scientific methodology. The problem is that there is a whole wealth of reasoning acuity that one needs to develop and knowledge that one needs to acquire in order to approach these matters on a substantive level. The universe is a complex place, and the study of the universe, whether biology, physics, chemistry or any number of scientific disciplines, is correspondingly complex. The type of arguments you make remind me of the kid in algebra class who complains "what do we need to ever know this for anyway?" Again, if you want to learn, fine, but when you posit arguments that don't relate to the theory, then you must understand the futility of having a discussion with you on the matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you give a logical explanation of why it is not a scientific method of testing I.D. rather then simply saying Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me learn?
Wonkavision writes
Do you know what a straw man argument is? If I were to say that Christianity is bunk, because it claims that God is a giant warthog, and then I go on to point out why that can't be so, I am arguing against a straw man- Christianity says nothing about God being a giant warthog. That's what many of your arguments are, especially your continual misapplication of "random" to the theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I know what a straw man argument is. I consider negative attacks on posters or groups of posters that do not provide useful information about the discussion of Evolution vs Creationism to be arguments against "strawmen".
Wonkavision writes
That you can't see that says more about your poverty of imagination and abstract reasoning skills than it does about the theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------Again can you back up that opinion with something besides the theory of Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me to explain to you on this thread?
Wonkavision writes
I'm sorry if you find this insulting, but your attempt at a formula is nonsensical, and has nothing really to do with Evolution. You are reducing multivariate and complicated causal factors to a ridiculously simple and misleading triviality. "A+randomness" IS NOT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere have I said that evolution can be reduced to a simple formula. It is to avoid this type of undrstanding that I wrote it is -MORE like -rather then writing that it -is like-the following formula. The reason I used the formula was to respond to an argument in one of your posts that contained what you apparently thought was a formula being used by I.d. and creation supporters in their arguments.
I will use a hypothetical argument to illustrate what I most disagree with in your posts.
Suppose I started a thread called the biblical account of Jesus vs the historical account of Jesus.
Then I state that the biblical account of Jesus is the right one. Somebody begins asking questions about what appear to them to be logical inconsistenties in my posts that are asserting the biblical account of Jesus to be correct. I then respond by stating that the study of Jesus is a very complex subject and I can not begin to explain how wrong they are in a short post or even on the thread. If they really want to learn about it they should go to the library. Further by responding negatively to my ascertions without knowing as much about the subject as I do, they are being unscientific and unlogical. In fact they remind me of a kid in school who is not interested in learning anything. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 4:45:31 PM | Oh, goody! Two Feral posts in one day! Someone here is lucky.
"You can't attack Chaos Theory on the grounds that it doesn't "resonate with your chakras."
...Why not?
Questioning the unknown based on the abysmally limited technology available...seems reasonable.
Big Bang * kerpowies * ....was an Awareness present prior to or post?
...getting down to my chakras....^^^ headache material with no conclusions as we chase our own tails with the delusion we actually Know something about anything.
See, here's the deal, right? No, you can't attack CT on the basis of chakra resonance. If it messes with those, you're probably not maintaining them too well in the first place. The issue is that we need to deal with legitimate, direct challenges to the theory - any theory. CT deals with probabilities and the apparently ordered patterns that seem to coalesce out of apparent disorder, or chaos. We question the unknown with what we've got. We've actually managed to measure a lot, and without knowing how much there is left to question beyond that, how do we have clue one how "abysmally limited" our technology really is? Point being, science continually improves the quantity of the known and upgrades the means for questioning what isn't. Big Bang? Not directly related to CT, but what has this to do with "Awareness?" There's an assumption here that an "Awareness" is a factor?
What I was trying to say was according to science everything has an opposite.
I would actually wager that's probably a philosophically derived conviction. I'm not exactly sure what an anti-platypus or negative value cloud would be. I was still under the impression that the anti-matter idea was still a speculative "theoretical" construct, but I'd love to read anything on whether or not it's been proven or found.
The important point here is the epistemic distinction. Nobody is saying that religious beliefs are false, only that they don't meet the standard of scientific methodology. ...I know you understand this, so I'm not lecturing you, just putting it out there again.
I do appreciate you doing so. My contention is not with the epistemic distinction itself by any means. One of the important things to remember, however, is that we're dealing with a lot of laypeople (myself included) who don't tend to follow the epistemology and get caught up in the emotional reactions produced by a misinterpretation of the positions involved.
Yikes! Don't tell him to read the "Origin of Species." He should read a modern account of the theory first.
If anything, it was a suggestion. Probably not even that. The important point was that one focus on the actual conceptual core hypotheses of the theory. And, while I do agree that many of the later fusions of hypotheses that cover the more modern understanding of the theory are remarkably profound, I also believe that a sound basis in the founding observations and logic are also imminently important.
They disagree on certain issues, so it's good to see it from both perspectives.
A very good point, and also a fairly decent support for my argument that, while one really should familiarise oneself with the modern understanding of the theory, they ought also to read the basis for much of the thought involved, yes?
Wow, done already? Huh. Well, I'll be back. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3222 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 5:03:03 PM | Further by responding negatively to my ascertions without knowing as much about the subject as I do, they are being unscientific and unlogical
I will contact the scientific community first thing in the morning to advise them of the new Scientific Methodology
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena
4. Performance of experimental tests.
5. Conclusions
6. Verification that conclusions are consistent with big eyed owl's assertions
Dont kill me, Im just teasing you...Im just getting you back for making me read a post that long... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 6:10:47 PM | Okay, first the trivial points of contention-
"Yes I know what a straw man argument is. I consider negative attacks on posters or groups of posters that do not provide useful information about the discussion of Evolution vs Creationism to be arguments against "strawmen"."
That consideration would be wrong. You are refering to an ad hominem fallacy, not a straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy, which I've already explained, is when you attack a fabricated argument that the opponent never made. There is a lot of intentional misinformation promulgated in our culture regarding this particular theory. That is why I get so wound up when people don't really understand the theory, but they pick up on these straw man arguments and devote copious amounts of energy arguing against issues that are actually irrelevant to the theory. The classic example is that Evolution is atheistic. There is nothing remotely atheistic about Evolution. The issue of theism is irrelevant, yet this thread is filled with people posting long-winded arguments against the "atheism" of Evolution. That's like arguing against psychology for being communist. It's a straw man, and there are many straw man arguments floating around our culture regarding Evolution. I am simply asking you to familiarize yourself with the actual theory, and not parrot these cultural fallacies. Now, back to the ad hominem fallacy. When someone attacks the debater and not his debate, that is an ad hominem fallacy, but not if the attack is both true and relevant to the argument. Let me explain the difference with two examples-
Ben- I think that we should privatize the educational system.
Bill- What do you know? You worked for the Nixon administration.
That is an ad hominem fallacy. It may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant to the point.
Ben- Evolution is bunk. How can you think we came from monkeys?
Bill- Actually your knowledge of the theory is very poor. We did not evolve from monkeys, but share a common ancestor. You need to familiarize yourself with the actual theory before you can make substantive commentary on it.
This is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is both true and relevant to the argument. See the difference? You can thank me later for taking the time to give you a little logic lesson.
"rather then simply saying Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me learn?"
I did not say that it was too complicated for you to learn. It may be, but I don't know you. In fact, if I thought that was the case I wouldn't bother responding to you at all. I get short with you, because I assume that you can process these concepts but don't bother to. Continually you have asked me to explain things that I already have, and rejoined with arguments that were already roundly debunked by me or others. What I said, which is very different, is that Evolution is a complex theory and one can't critique it with only a sound byte knowledge of it. Do you not understand the difference between those two? Again, you need to ask specific questions, because I can't possibly educate you in the vast disciplines from logic to geology that you need to be familiar with to understand the theory. I have gaps in my knowledge that need to be filled. I just don't think you appreciate how truly involved this all is. Biologists study their specialty for a lifetime and still turn to geologists for their specialised information when needed. If you had an appreciable familiarity of science, you would understand just how much you don't know. I have enough familiarity to appreciate how much I don't know, and it's plenty. Regardless, I shall try to address your questions as best I can.
"Perhaps you can explain how those process are very well explained by the process of Evolution or direct me to where you have explained it before on this post if you have. If it is too complicated to be explained on this thread then how can you justify bringing something up that you will not explain. How does that facilitate discussion?"
First, I can justify it the same way that I may bring up the equivalence of mass and energy in relation to a point. If you then rejoined by asking me to explain to you why mass and energy are equivalent, I would need to get into a rather involved explanation only tangentially related to the point. Also, this can lead to infinite regress, because in that explanation, concepts will be broached that you may in turn ask me to explain, so I hope you can appreciate the daunting task you are asking me to perform. You want me to condense volumes of study into a pat answer. As for irreducible complexity- briefly, it's a misconception, because these organs are not irreducibly complex. The bombardier beetle, for instance, mixes two chemicals together and shoots them at its opponent. These chemicals are explosive in combination, but only with the action of a third catalyst. Creationists like to use this as an example of irreducible complexity, saying how could it evolve this mechanism without blowing itself up? They also say that the chemicals, by themselves, serve no function, but that is incorrect. All three chemicals exist in other closely related species and individually serve other functions. It would be useful to understand the concept of preadaptations or spandrals, which I have explained before. If you don't understand how this relates, or don't remember what I said, then ask, and I'll explain it more. The eye is a very long discussion, but, again, it is not irreducibly complex. Different parts of the eye do exist in simpler forms and some serve other functions. Various chemicals and sometimes even whole organs are coopted for other purposes by the pressures of selection in combination with genetic variance. There is a wealth of evidence that this cooption happens, but you need to address texts for specifics. Also, to help you to understand how genetic variance occurs would truly be daunting. Genetics is complex, but I assure you that the study has provided overwhelming empirical evidence for Evolution. Again, if you have SPECIFIC questions regarding genetics then ask.
"Please define what you mean by substantive debate and spurious logic. What exactly about my posts do you see as spurious logic and what would they require to meet your criteua for "substantive debate"?"
Honestly, I've been very clear on this. Spurious logic- straw man fallacies, argumentum ad vericundiam, argumentum ad numerum, petitio principii etc etc. There are many fallacies of logic, but briefly, logic in terms of debate refers to internal consistency within an argument. From my earlier example "what would you know; you worked for the Nixon administration." is not internally consistent. It has nothing to do with the subject. Circular arguments are not internally consistent to the dialectic. They are internally consistent as a sentence, but offer nothing to debate. To say, "animals are ferocious because ferocity is a trait that animals possess" offers nothing to a debate on the ferocity of animals. Substantive debate- look up sophistry and avoid it. Restating an earlier argument in different words but identical content is not an argument; it is an irritant. If someone logically debunks a point, simply restating the point instead of addressing the rejoinder or relenting is not substantive argument; it is sophistry. Vehemently arguing against something that you don't even understand is sophistry. If someone had never been to Kenya and had never read anything about Kenya or even watched a documentary on the country, yet vociferously expressed their extreme dislike of Kenya, what would you say?
"Can you give a logical explanation of why it is not a scientific method of testing I.D. rather then simply saying Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me learn?"
I can't tell you what's wrong with what you have not provided. What "it" are you refering to? Tell me what you think is a scientific test to verify I.D. You have not yet done so. What test have you provided?
"Again can you back up that opinion with something besides the theory of Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me to explain to you on this thread?"
Yes, read my post on the fallacies of essentialism and dichotomies.
"Then I state that the biblical account of Jesus is the right one. Somebody begins asking questions about what appear to them to be logical inconsistenties in my posts that are asserting the biblical account of Jesus to be correct. I then respond by stating that the study of Jesus is a very complex subject and I can not begin to explain how wrong they are in a short post or even on the thread. If they really want to learn about it they should go to the library. Further by responding negatively to my ascertions without knowing as much about the subject as I do, they are being unscientific and unlogical.
If someone was saying he thought the biblical account was untenable and he had never read the bible or any other texts about the bible, then you would be absolutely right in telling him to read up on it first. Thank you for making that very important point for me again. So you understand me then? As to being unscientific; that's different. I am saying that you don't understand science because you don't. It's clear from your posts. Again, that's fine. I don't understand football myself. I just don't express strong opinions for this team over that team, because I haven't the slightest clue. On the other hand if you would like to learn instead of just arguing against something that you don't even know against what you're arguing, then that's great. I'd respect that. Again, please ask SPECIFIC questions. As for being illogical, again, it is not due to your lack of familiarity with science that you have been accused of being illogical. If you think that then you have not understood a word I've said. If I say you are being illogical, it's because you are being illogical. That would be in reference to a particular statement. I don't fault someone for not being educated in a subject; I do fault someone for attacking something that they are not educated about.
"In fact they remind me of a kid in school who is not interested in learning anything."
Son, I am interested in learning just about everything, and I guarantee you if we were tested in general academic knowledge I would absolutely trounce you, so that is hardly a critique you can levy against me. And not that it matters, but, for the record, I've read the bible too. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:34:30 PM | Hello Forum,
Not replying to any one post in particular, but to the over-arching question of which is true: creation or evolution.
I could easily go on for 1000 pages as to why evolution is a ludicrously wrong belief system - which it is. It is a false religion that is founded upon pseudo-science. When one views a pencil lying upon a table, one KNOWS that both the pencil and the table had to have been created, correct? If someone were to postulate that the pencil or table could possibly "self-form", you would doubt their sanity, would you not? And yet countless many are duped into "believing" that something as complex as life and as orderly and beautiful as the universe could have self-formed over time. What a joke. Hitler's minister of propaganda was right: if you want a lie to be believed, tell a WHOPPER (paraphrased him).
Moreover, there is a scientific principle known as "entropy" which correctly observes that any system that is not acted upon by an organizing force will decay from order to disorder. (A crude analogy would be your home: stop dusting and washing it and it will soon enough decay into a filthy mess, right?) Yet evolution tells us that the opposite of entropy has occurred, as the elements themselves have conspired to organize themselves from the randomness of the beginning to the beauty and order of today. Another WHOPPER.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter: evolution has been presented as "good science" while creationism has been presented as "religion". Actually, the OPPOSITES are truer. Evolution is a religion, while creationism will always be borne out by science (not referring to the pseudo-science that the media normally trumpet). Think of it: the evolutionist believes that the elements themselves and some mystical force known as "natural selection" have conspired to create and continually and ingeniously refine life. In essence, the Evolutionist Belief System is one that has Deified the elements, imbuing them with the power to create life. Another WHOPPER. They can spew forth pseudo-science and jargon until they are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that they have a religion of ELEMENT-WORSHIP.
Which brings us to another matter: the WHOPPER that attempts to characterize Creationism as blind faith that is without scientific support. In fact, there are many scientists who are scientifically convinced (based upon scientific observation) that Creationism is the true science, while Evolutionism is the false religion / false science. Natural selection / mutation could NEVER EVEN BEGIN TO EXPLAIN the "evolution" of, say, the eye, for example. The eye - any eye of any creature - is composed of many different components, any of which would be useless by themselves. Any one of those sub-components would have been "selected out" as an unsuccessful mutation in the Evolutionist Belief System. Thus, the entire eye - with all of its sub-systems and sub-components - would have to have simultaneously mutated into existence in order for it to have been successfully incorporated into that creature's "evolution history". And this is also true of any organ or system of any creature. These could not have mutated into existence over time, because any of their sub-components alone would have been useless to the organism - and thus selected out as part of so-called natural selection.
I am no expert on the matter, but I do know a few. I'd like to provide some resources here for anyone with an interest. These are all not-for-profit organizations doing sound scientific research that bears out creationism for what it is: good science (as well as being part of a belief system). Don't be fooled by the incessant pseudo-science hype: good science and faith are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. And after all, which takes more FAITH: the belief that an Almighty Creator of infinite intelligence and power has designed this entire creation, or the belief that the elements themselves are responsible for it all? Don't be fooled by the constant barrage of media-driven, volume-driven and profits-driven pseudo-science: Evolutionism is a false religion that is founded upon pseudo-science, while creationism is fact that is borne out by tome after tome filled with scientific proofs. Moreover, the Evolutionist Movement is primarily a spiritual movement: one whose aim is to replace worship of the one true God with worship of material: Materialism.
Here are some links:
www.icr.org (Institute for Creation Research)
www.creationmoments.com (Creation Moments)
http://www.answersingenesis.org (Answers in Genesis)
http://abr.christiananswers.net/home.html (Associates for Biblical Research)
Any one of these will contain a wealth of information and resources that can be a springboard for your own scientific inquiry.
Best regards in your inquiries and sojourns,
Daniel | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3225 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:08:46 PM | You could go on for 1000 pages?
You've posted nothing that hasn't already been addressed and dismissed as being bullshit, in this thread
www.icr.org (Institute for Creation Research)
www.creationmoments.com (Creation Moments)
http://www.answersingenesis.org (Answers in Genesis)
http://abr.christiananswers.net/home.html (Associates for Biblical Research)
Any one of these will contain a wealth of information and resources that can be a springboard for your own scientific inquiry.
Sorry, you just earned the same credibility of the cites you listed = none.
Scientific inquiry?
| |
|
|
| Page 129 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
