|
|
|
|
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3276 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:50:01 PM | I realize that previously attempted answers may appear elsewhere in the thread but if they do - and if one of you is kind enough to "re-respond" here anyway - I'd be grateful. And I promise: when/if anyone asks me a Biblical question, I won't tell them to find it in the Bible. =)
At least check the first few pages, it will avoid having to explain a few things.
I suppose that some will take offense to my inclusion of verses of Scripture. However, as the forum is Creationism vs. Evolutionism, and as Creationism is founded upon Scripture, the inclusion of Scripture is necessary if we are to have a true open forum on the matter.
Not quite, the OP of this "thread" is concerned with the inclusion of Creationism in the context of the course of study of science/biology. Theological references will only serve to affirm the conclusion that it's only a ploy to get christianity into schools via deceit, ..Like what was found to be the reality of it in the recent court finding in the U.S.
However, that isn't to say that Creationism is without its physical arguments, as well. I cited some resources previously, which I'll recite here for anyone with an interest in exploring the almost-never referenced (in the bulk of the media) scientific research and evidence that refutes Evolutionism. While the debate is often cast as one of "science" (evolutionism) vs. "religion" or "faith" (creationism), nothing could be farther from truth. There are elements of faith and scientific inquiry to both.
Only if you co-opt the meanings of "science" "faith" and "truth" to fit your views, the Creationists tried this in the courts, it didn't fool the judge, won't fool the critical thinkers in here either.
The only question is the same one Pontius Pilate posed: "Where is Truth?"
The only question is: "What is pseudo-science?"
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)
These horses have been ridden hard, put away wet, and didn't even finish the race in this thread. Got anything new?
I've been written(sic) a book that explores the Biblical account of Creation (no big deal, self-published, don't expect big sales). Maybe one of you could hip me up: would it be alright to post info about it on this forum - or would that be considering spamming or the likes?
No/Yes | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3277 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 12:11:40 AM | Regarding entropy, if anyone can enlighten me as to the net increase in entropic state that occurred when the first living material was formed, I'd like to hear of it.
Entropy began at the big bang. The universe ATB was in a low entropy configuration. Low entropy systems evolve to high entropy systems. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3278 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:06:27 AM | no one has been able to explain how the first elements managed to form the first life.
Right, so then one could say that God may be responsible for everything that we do not have an answer for. Or maybe he's not. Who is to say? You? Me? The Bible? Unfortunately not a single one of the references of divine intervention mentioned in the Bible can be proven or observed or recreated or tested or measured in any way. Not a single one. Yet the church asks us for unwavering faith.
That's a bit much to ask of someone when you can't even provide them with a sliver of evidence. Not only that, but the church itself acknowledges that some of the events in the bible did not occur.
So the church tells us to believe it all. Then it comes back and says, "ok we undershot the age of the Universe by about 13.7 billion and the first human beings were not Adam and Eve, but everything else is all true? And I'm supposed to just accept that? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:25:02 AM | SIDE NOTE: There are as many as 100 million different species of plants and animals. If Adam (of genesis) were to name every single species on Earth at a rate of 1 per second, it would take him roughly 3 years of doing this non-stop, without eating or sleeping. Estimate that he can name a species every 5 seconds for a 12 hour shift without rest and the task takes him 30 years.
Is that including all the extinct species?
Is this us vs. them approach adopted by religious figures in an attempt to portray the battle as 'good' vs. 'evil'. Is the church using the 'cheer for the good guy' type method to gain support?
Sounds feasible. This is one of the reasons I read all the "anti-evolution" literature I do. To gain an idea of the mindset behind the "sides" to the debate. I don't necessarily see the issue as one of religion vs. secularism, though it seems many do. And I have seen advocates of the oppositional confrontation on both sides. I find it amazing that some scientifically-minded individuals would stoop to attempting to use their logic to refute something on which it has no bearing; likewise with the dogmatic tenets of religion. Just seems a little ridiculous to me. *smack!* And take that, Sally!
The answer to your question has to do with the fact that even though both science and religion strive for the truth....they go about it a different way...
I would disagree, but it really does depend on how you're defining "truth." Science seeks knowledge and information. Religion doesn't seek, so much as it claims to possess truth. Beyond that, though, if one were to define truth in the right way, sure, it works...
There is no way to test such speculations as the "existence of the infinite," which is not what Feral said anyway.
Hey, thanks, man. I wasn't sure if that's what it was about or not...
I'm not Creationists but one that merely holds FAITH.
So, yeah, I didn't see this the first time around, but I backtrack a lot to see to what folks are referring.
In the end, many of us creationists...
(emphasis added) These were taken from the same post, and I'm not trying to "catch" anyone or "trip up" somebody, but what does this signify?
"I'm going to ask you one more time, Mr. Morrow: Are you, or are you not, a Nazzi?"
Brain, many, if not most, church-going folk oppose evolution because it contradicts the Genesis account of the Bible.
I don't think it's necessarily even just the literal interpretation of Genesis that's relevant. I've been through the loop with several "true believers" that don't take Genesis as literal, but still oppose evolution. I think it's partially that, but also I believe there's a large factor of fear that, should evolution prove the descent of man from earlier primate ancestors (beyond a doubt, that is, as well as to include specific pre-human ancestors), it seems to draw the focus away from the theological dogma of God making man "special" and separate, "above" the other species of animals.
Clearly, the account of the flood is a metaphorical parable. Clearly the earth is not 6000 years old; to claim so is tantamount to asserting that the earth is flat or that the solar system is geocentric.
I would like to interject one minor argument contrary to this view. Assuming one accepts a supernatural divine being capable of creating and sustaining an entire universe, anything in this context is possible. These assertions are clear, certainly, from a naturalistic standpoint, but from one of belief and faithful acceptance that a God could, can, has and does perform such miracles, they are perfectly acceptable. The distinction is that they aren't verifiable scientifically, which I've noticed is one major point of contention between the two camps in the debate.
They need a mandatory class, early in either junior high or high school, specifically for critical thinking and logic. They make the mistake of teaching children "what to think," and not "how to think."
Ironically, I've seen this exact argument made in at least two separate books from the creationist camp, trying to argue that kids are fed Darwinist information without any critical capacity to question it. Interesting, no?
as man seeks to ruin, god seeks to perfect mans mistakes.
So, there's an assumption that man is trying to ruin something?
I believe that a library card is more valuable to educating oneself than a diploma.
Depends on how they're used, brother. Depends on how they're used...
Let me ask you a provocative question- does God have a sense of humour?
All of mine do, some of them pretty warped, too.
You cannot reason with someone who has taken such a position.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It's just a lot harder going, is all.
But I find it odd that Eienstien would wave a surrender flag and admit there's a God of some sort but he's not willing to make that one last step and embrace a personal God. What's with that? To me it seem's he was spooked.
I've never gotten the impression that there was any "surrender" involved, just the man's beliefs. As for the "personal God" issue, he just didn't seem to see it as a necessarily conscious, meddling, miracle-weaving, racially favoritist personification of the universe that showed up every now and again for a chat over wine and biscuits.
I doubt anybody else take's all of my quote's as seriously as you - sometimes
you can't help it but just walk into it, Feral.
Oh, don't get me wrong; I certainly didn't take it personally. Just thought it was a good illustration of the issue so many people have been having. Well done.
(which the mind of man will never be able to fully fathom until it is done)
See, this, I think is my biggest issue with the whole deal, right? I may be interpreting it wrong, but I've heard equivalents of this througout all my investigation of the debate, and it all seems to boil down to, "Evolution is wrong, because the Bible is right. And we can't really know the facts of how the Bible is right until God comes along to show us." I'm literally scratching my head over this one, since there's plenty of evidence quite literally just lying around, waiting for someone to logically interpret it, and this form of logic not only seems to preclude that, but also appears to actively discourage it.
Evolutionism is spiritual. It has never been proven and cannot be proven (because it is false). As an example, no one has been able to explain how the first elements managed to form the first life.
Good points on the religion aspect, but one thing. None of this refutes the theory of evolution. I'm not saying it's got the bigger "absolute truth" penis, but fluffing up a nice strawman religion doesn't refute a scientific theory. Particularly when the theory has nothing to say about the origin of life.
However, almost all Creationists will admit that there is an element of faith to their belief system, while Evolutionism is falsely portrayed as being faith-neutral and valid completely independent of faith.
Actually, Evolutionism is never portrayed as being faith-neutral, to my knowledge. Every time the strawman is dragged out of the Creationist closet to be burned in effigy of someone propounding the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, the Creationists doing so ascribe plenty of faith-based rhetoric to the straw man. How is this relevant to the argument that evolution is scientific and creation is not?
Evolutionism is a (pseudo) scientific wing of an ancient spiritual movement: rebellion against God
In point of fact, Evolutionism is a pseudo (meaning false) religious construct created to obfuscate valid issues and suspend disbelief in the portrayal of a truly fabricated dichotomous confrontation. It may actually be defined by those who thought up the term the way it's been presented here, however, the fact of what it is differs a bit.
(the beasts of the earth do not possess souls)
Okay, my bad, but I don't remember. Is there a scripture that directly addresses this?
Either man has a soul or we don't.
Here's a fun one: Define "soul."
God wrote about it: ...Romans 1:20-25
Correction: Paul wrote about it. I won't go into my view on Paul, but one of the many things he was not, was God.
I suppose that some will take offense to my inclusion of verses of Scripture. However, as the forum is Creationism vs. Evolutionism, and as Creationism is founded upon Scripture, the inclusion of Scripture is necessary if we are to have a true open forum on the matter.
I won't speak for anyone else, but I've got no problem with it, so long as folks are willing to rcognise that it does not constitute scientific evidence, and only through subjective interpretation does it even apply to the debate.
I cited some resources previously, which I'll recite here for anyone with an interest in exploring the almost-never referenced (in the bulk of the media) scientific research and evidence that refutes Evolutionism.
Two things here. Number one: I've been reading some of these, and I particularly enjoy them; how many and which ones of the scientific treatises on evolution have you read? And, number B: You're absolutely right. Unequivocally, undeniably right. All of those sites put forth an amazing amount of information and effort to refute Evolutionism, and do so to a greater or lesser degree. If only the issue was their strawman, secular-humanist, anti-Christian, deifying-the-creation religion. But it's not. Sorry, wrong tiger. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 2:23:16 AM |
I don't think it's necessarily even just the literal interpretation of Genesis that's relevant. I've been through the loop with several "true believers" that don't take Genesis as literal, but still oppose evolution. I think it's partially that, but also I believe there's a large factor of fear that, should evolution prove the descent of man from earlier primate ancestors (beyond a doubt, that is, as well as to include specific pre-human ancestors), it seems to draw the focus away from the theological dogma of God making man "special" and separate, "above" the other species of animals.
Feral, you are working way too hard here, because I basically said the same thing one sentence after what you quoted from my post: "Even more so, it contradicts how human beings came into existence, which is the real crux of the debate."
"They need a mandatory class, early in either junior high or high school, specifically for critical thinking and logic. They make the mistake of teaching children "what to think," and not "how to think."
Ironically, I've seen this exact argument made in at least two separate books from the creationist camp, trying to argue that kids are fed Darwinist information without any critical capacity to question it. Interesting, no?
Then everyone can agree that critical thinking is important! The Creationist side already has Sunday school to counter evolution teachings, though-- the real irony being that Sunday school is not even remotely a course in critical thinking... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 7:00:09 AM | soulsmansion
This is your quote:
"Regarding star formation, many Evolutionists lay claim to this phenomenon as evidence lending credence to their belief system, but the Opposite is true (Opposite of truth is a common theme in our day). In fact, the organizing force acting upon the elements that constititute stars is the same organizing force that is responsible for all of creation: The Creator, God, who remains active in this universe and who will continue to be until He destroys it and replaces it with an eternal, spiritual universe (which the mind of man will never be able to fully fathom until it is done)"
You have just demonstrated how much you lack in any substantive education on the theory of evolution. Evolution is not concerned with the 'beginning'. I refer you to any number of the previous posts on the last 5 - 10 pages of this thread for arguments addressing this.
And with resepct to your websites...they are the 'dead' horse that has been beaten. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 11:35:09 AM | "Ironically, I've seen this exact argument made in at least two separate books from the creationist camp, trying to argue that kids are fed Darwinist information without any critical capacity to question it. Interesting, no?"
Great, then we are in agreement as to the necessity for a critical thinking course. I don't know what you are refering to though, because everything I've read from the creationist camp says nothing of the sort. I'm surprised they would say that, because their arguments crumble when critically analysed. Are you sure they are calling for an emphasis on critical thinking, or an emphasis on their particular fallacies dressed up as critical arguments? Because when the underlying process of critical thinking is applied, their arguments are as thin as tissue paper. It sounds to me like bluster; if it really came down to a mandatory critical thinking class they would change their position and start complaining again that they are not getting a fair shake. Since soulmansion's arguments are so typically representative of the utter bankruptcy of logic, critical thinking and science in their arguments, I'll take this opportunity to shred his post as an example.
"Regarding entropy, if anyone can enlighten me as to the net increase in entropic state that occurred when the first living material was formed, I'd like to hear of it."
Here's a good example of someone parroting the creationist nonsense without any understanding of what he's saying. Clearly, you don't even know what entropy is. How much education in physics do you have, son? Because you are completely misusing and misunderstanding entropy. Rake already explained this, and you glossed over his response and just repeated yourself. I'll try, again, to educate you. First of all, I think you meant to say net "decrease" in entropy, not increase. The second law of thermodynamics is about heat transfer in a closed system. Heat won't spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one. Entropy and disorder are not necessarily equivalent. This is a common misconception. Statistically speaking, it's relation to disorder is merely the fact that there are infinitely more states of disorder than there are of order, so it's just a matter of probability. If you split a fish tank in two, color one half with yellow dye and the other with blue dye and remove the border, you will end up with a tank filled with green water. It is possible, but so improbable, for the opposite to happen that we are not likely to see the green water separate into yellow and blue dye for trillions and trillions of years. It's possible, just highly improbable. Now if we were to add energy to the system, we could theoretically sort the molecules back to their original state. The earth is constantly supplied with an influx of energy from the sun, and from it's own interior; IT IS AN OPEN SYSTEM. That being said, entropy can even decrease in a closed system if it is asymmetrical. If a pocket of higher entropy forms in one part of a closed system, entropy can decrease in another. In fact entropy can drive complexity. How does a tornado form in the atmosphere? A tornado is an example of an ordered system emerging from chaotic factors. Why? Because the sun pumps energy into the atmosphere and drives meteorological action. Atmospheric conditions are not evenly distributed, so pockets of higher and lower entropy form, and the atmosphere is constantly being supplied with new energy.
"Regarding star formation, many Evolutionists lay claim to this phenomenon as evidence lending credence to their belief system, but the Opposite is true"
Star formation has NOTHING to do with Evolution. This is really indicative of your alarming lack of knowledge on the subject.
"(Opposite of truth is a common theme in our day)."
Yes, for evidence of this one need only click on the websites you provided. They are filled with misinformation regarding science.
"In fact, the organizing force acting upon the elements that constititute stars is the same organizing force that is responsible for all of creation: The Creator, God..."
Okay. I've got no problem with that. If you want to believe that God set it all in motion and tends to his creation that's fine. It does not contradict Evolution or Cosmology to believe that.
"Regarding comments recently posted in this thread re: Biblical interpretation, Wonkavision is right (in fact he has mentioned something that almost all of the seminaries of our day have lost sight of): the Bible was written in parable. Many verses speak to this; I'll only include a couple here (more available upon request)."
Biblical quotes, thought-provoking as they may or may not be, are irrelevant to the discussion.
"However, this is Not to say that many verses of the Bible are not Also literally true. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In other words, a Bible verse can speak of a factual historical event while also imparting spiritual lessons about the Gospel."
Okay. What does that have to do with the veracity of a scientific theory?
"* Are we to assume that every beast on the Ark was fully grown? The Bible makes no such claim. In fact, given the Bible's specs for the Ark (450' long by 75' wide by 45' tall) we can be fairly certain that a great many of the beasts on the Ark were younglings."
This is funny. Tending to millions of babies would be a MORE daunting task. also, I don't think you appreciate how many species there are on the earth. I don't care if they are all fetuses- they aren't going to fit on a boat that is 450' long by 75' wide by 45' tall in a condition in which they can remain alive. How much space do you think five million marbles would take up? How about if each marble had it's own pen? You need to improve your knowledge in mathematics as well as science.
"* Would it have been possible for God to have pacified the carnivores so as to allow for safe passage of potential prey animals? Of course Almighty God could manage this."
Where in the flood story does it say that god did this? If you want to start infusing your own explanations outside of the bible then you might as well say that God shrank all the animals to the size of an atom. Unfortunately there is not so much as a hint that any such thing took place according to the myth as it is written. This is what is referred to as an ad hoc conjecture. An ad hoc conjecture is when you make up conditions after the fact to explain away logical or evidentiary flaws. If I said that I can flap my arms and fly, and you asked me to prove it, and I responded that being asked to prove it takes away my power to do so, that would be equivalent to what you are doing. Ad hoc conjectures don't wash.
"* Was each and every type of animal that we see today represented on the Ark? Probably not, although the Bible does not clearly state this. In other words, rather than dogs and wolves, there may only have been one kind of canine from which these have been derived, with similar scenarios being the case for various other animals belonging to the same kind."
This is really amusing. There may have been one kind of canine from which all canines were derived??? Derived how? You mean like from.... Evolution? Funny how you are using what you are arguing against to explain away your flaws. Sorry, if you admit that a jackal or a dingo, or a coyote can be derived from an earlier form of canine, then you are foraying into Evolution.
"* However, there definitely were more animals on that Ark than have ever been gathered together in one man-made place before or since, with many species there represented that have since become extinct."
So you admit to extinction too? Interesting.
"(Many have a terrible problem accepting this possibility - even knowing how enormous this Ark was. By way of illustration, the Earth is said to be "overpopulated" with humanity. 6 Billion of us and growing. Yet every human on Earth could fit in the state of Texas - each with more living space than the average American has today. If we wanted to cram, we could fit everyone in Rhode Island. Surely we could fit a few million animals - many, if not all of them younglings - into an Ark the size of a luxury liner.)"
Sorry, but if you crammed the entire earth's population into Texas, the results would be devastating. Each person would have roughly .027 acres a piece. That means you couldn't walk much more than about 100 feet in one direction before bumping into the next guy. Disease would proliferate and waste management would be next to impossible. You are thinking of it as a simple issue of geometry, but that is myopic. You are not taking into account all of the peripheral considerations. Also if you are going to explain away all of the logistical problems with "divine intervention" then why have an ark at all? Why didn't God just whisk them all into another dimension during the flood and then whisk them back after the fact? Why bother with being confined to reality at all? The whole building of an ark becomes painfully superfluous at that point.
"Evolutionism is spiritual. It has never been proven and cannot be proven (because it is false). As an example, no one has been able to explain how the first elements managed to form the first life."
Evolution is not remotely spiritual. It involves nothing but natural phenomenon and does not invoke the metaphysical to explain anything. You are confused. It really irritates me when people who have little to no familiarity with science try to spout off their opinion of it. You don't know what you are talking about, son. Go back to school. The first elements? What are you talking about? The first elements to form in the universe were hydrogen and helium. Nobody is claiming that life originated from hydrogen and helium. You're understanding of science, again, is primitive. YOU CAN'T SUBSTANTIVELY CRITIQUE WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.
"Then we must take it on faith that it did occur as they tell us, and that perhaps someday we will scientifically understand its origin. In other words, faith."
Science has nothing to do with faith. Science only rings in on what it can empirically verify. First of all, you are continually bringing up Abiogenesis, which is only tangentially related to Evolution. Evolution, for the billionth time, is about the natural mechanisms that foster the variety of life. Life's origins are the purview of Abiogenesis, and much progress is being made in that field. We do have knowledge of the conditions of the early earth. Geology provides us with much useful information in this area, and there is ample evidence that organic compounds can form, under the right conditions, from inorganic compounds. If you think that Abiogenesis claims that single celled organisms just spontaneously formed then you clearly understand nothing about this field of study.
"Surely, Evolutionists make many physical observations that they claim to support their belief system, but so do Creationists."
Oh really? I've yet to see it. All I've seen from the creationist camp are the type of misunderstandings of scientific methodology that you have displayed in your posts.
"However, almost all Creationists will admit that there is an element of faith to their belief system, while Evolutionism is falsely portrayed as being faith-neutral and valid completely independent of faith. Until they can explain its very origin, it is as faith-based as any other belief system of origins."
Wrong again. Science takes nothing on faith. Science empirically verifies it's claims. If it can't; it discards them or leaves them open for future inquiry. How arrogant of you to form a negative opinion of something you don't even understand. I have nothing but the most aggressive antipathy for this behaviour.
"Evolutionism is a (pseudo) scientific wing of an ancient spiritual movement: rebellion against God:"
Oh look, my favorite straw man fallacy again. Evolution is not a rebellion against religion. It is an independent scientific theory. Many biologists believe in some form of God. You can't square the two, because you don't understand science. Get an education and then come back. Until then, please don't pollute the forum with uninformed nonsense.
Either man has a soul or we don't. It is either part of our species or it isn't. Whether explicitly or implicitly, a belief system that purports to discern the Origins of the Species will also speak to the Nature of the Species, physically and spiritually - or devoid of spirit, as many now believe we are.
What is a soul? That's a pretty vague construct. Do dogs have souls? Do ants? Please define what you think a soul is. If you believe it to be a metaphysical construct that exists independently of our physical bodies, then how does Evolution contradict that? Couldn't God just imbue you with a soul at some point in your early development? What difference does it make where humans as a species originated? If your ancestors were formed from clay or evolved, you are still faced with the question of how your individual body ended up with a soul. Evolution has no bearing on this one way or the other.
"I've been written a book that explores the Biblical account of Creation (no big deal, self-published, don't expect big sales). Maybe one of you could hip me up: would it be alright to post info about it on this forum - or would that be considering spamming or the likes?"
This is really amusing. You wrote a book? Is it filled with similar abominations of grammar as this? -"I've been written a book that explores..." "I've been written a book?" Go ahead and post it if you are a glutton for punishment, because I will tear it to shreds. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 12:55:30 PM | Hey wonka...^^^^ Nice rebuttal, and reinforces a point that bears repeating.......
the mistake of teaching children "what to think," and not "how to think."
Back in those days scientists had to be extremely careful about what they said concerning religion.
Even today, you sometimes have to be careful. Like Won Long post, most Ambiguous, I guess he's fearful of retribution. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3284 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 1:22:33 PM | | Its interesting to note that those that discard science so quickly have no qualms with enjoying the fruits of its labor. After all, where exactly do they think their computer, cell phone, microwave, tv, ipod, etc. came from? The only reason that they are enjoying these comforts is because of brave individuals who had the courage to stand up to those that would do them harm and say "no, this isn't right". Had they adopted the same attitude as the naysayers, we would still be living in clay huts. You would think that the least they could do is acknowledge as much, eh? Everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe. Science makes no claim that there is no God. So anyone that wishes to stand up and denounce Science should at least have the decency to do so on a mound of dirt and outside instead of their computer and in the comfort of their living room. Only then can they truly call themselves men of conviction. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 8:56:27 PM |
Regarding entropy, if anyone can enlighten me as to the net increase in entropic state that occurred when the first living material was formed, I'd like to hear of it. Entropy began at the big bang. The universe ATB was in a low entropy configuration. Low entropy systems evolve to high entropy systems.
The other thing to point out is that entropy drives many chemical reactions. Life is simply a set of complex chemical reactions, after all.
The formation of complex molecules from simple precursors has been demonstrated in various experiments, to the point of assorted sugars and, IIRC, purines and pyrimidines.
Thermal gradients can drive chemical reactions too - and the sun is a really strong source of heat energy, as would be hydrothermal sources on the early Earth.
Theres a huge entropy gradient caused by the Sun beaming energy on to the earth that life uses quite readily. The Sun is something like 5000K and the earth absorbs that energy and reradiates at around 290K. That's a lot of heat and entropy, no? All those lovely high-energy photons at 5000K turning into crappy useless low-energy photons at 290K... it's how plants photosynthesize, no?
I'm not THAT great at thermo but the sun is a huge energy source. As long as the *overall* entropy of the Sun/Earth increases, there's no problem with *local* reductions in entropy. Otherwise we'd just dissolve- which, of course, we do once we die - the entropy pump of our metabolism stops and entropy rushes in and we rot.
(I'm being very sloppy in my wording here. Sorry.)
--D. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 9:08:18 PM |
Regarding star formation, many Evolutionists lay claim to this phenomenon as evidence lending credence to their belief system, but the Opposite is true (Opposite of truth is a common theme in our day). In fact, the organizing force acting upon the elements that constititute stars is the same organizing force that is responsible for all of creation: The Creator, God, who remains active in this universe and who will continue to be until He destroys it and replaces it with an eternal, spiritual universe (which the mind of man will never be able to fully fathom until it is done).
Star formation is *physics*. Evolution is part of *biology*.
Could you clear up your confusion about the two and try again, maybe? Or maybe show how 'descent with modification' or 'natural selection' would apply to stars?
And the 'organizing force' acting on the elements in the stars would be one or more of the strong, weak, electromagnetic or gravitational forces. Physicists have done a lot of work on the subject, you could maybe learn something. It's actually kinda cool stuff.
Then when you understood some physics, you wouldn't make wierd comments about star formation being related to evolution, or how star formation somehow disproves evolution (from your comment 'the Opposite is true'). It's like claiming the gas mileage my car gets somehow disproves meiosis, or something equally bizarro.
--R.
p.s. I mean, okay, if you were trying to point out that evolutionists accept modern theories of star formation, and that both biology and physics are part of 'science', then, yeah, maybe the first half of your first sentence would be true. But I'm pretty confident you didn't mean that. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 9:11:18 PM | @rake
Its interesting to note that those that discard science so quickly have no qualms with enjoying the fruits of its labor.
No christian is denouncing science - ABSOLUTELY NOT!! If a creationist ever did,
he'd simply being demeaning what God created. God is not going to create a universe
that made no sense. The mechanic's of the universe has to remain logical and
the closer science comes to solving the finite universe, the closer ALL of us
become to finally asking the ultimate question.
Maybe you've misconstrued the critic's of science. Maybe you should pay some
equal time to those who are atheist's and are truly ignorant of the nature of
the world but yet are not open to all possibilities including creationism. If they
realized the complexity of it all perhaps they won't be so hasty in embracing
the limitations of science. Maybe they'll start to really pay attention to
greater men who knew better;
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
The quote should be relevant to everybody in this thread.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3289 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/24/2006 9:21:34 PM | "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein / 1879-1955 / Letter, 24 March 1954
No christian is denouncing science - ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
The Creationists will, ...they even promise to.
"a lie which is being systematically repeated."
Indeed | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 1:46:27 AM |
Feral, you are working way too hard here, because I basically said the same thing one sentence after what you quoted from my post
Um, yeah, my apologies, Flyguy. I got a little carried away, there. And, I think I was looking at it more from the angle of the "superiority complex" being challenged, but you're right. It was pretty much the same thing.
Then everyone can agree that critical thinking is important! The Creationist side already has Sunday school to counter evolution teachings, though-- the real irony being that Sunday school is not even remotely a course in critical thinking...
Maybe some of the "Evolutionists" should picket churches to get equal time in Sunday school? 
I don't know what you are refering to though, because everything I've read from the creationist camp says nothing of the sort. I'm surprised they would say that, because their arguments crumble when critically analysed. Are you sure they are calling for an emphasis on critical thinking, or an emphasis on their particular fallacies dressed up as critical arguments?
Okay, sorry about that, too, Wonka (wow, I'm just dropping the ball all over the place, lately, eh?). The point that I meant to quote was just the "what to think/how to think" thing. I haven't seen anything specifically suggesting a critical thinking course. Rather, it's more along the lines of insistence on airing not just the questions raised about the fossil record and the empirical testability of history, but also the viewpoint that evolutionary theory, since there are points not empirically proven, must be based on faith or belief.
The mechanic's of the universe has to remain logical and the closer science comes to solving the finite universe, the closer ALL of us become to finally asking the ultimate question.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean here, Lazy. What is the "ultimate question?"
Okay, so, either getting away from all that (or coming right back into it, depending), I finally got to the last chapter of "Darwin on Trial," and I am angry. I'm not sure if I'm mad at Johnson for waiting to the last chapter for making it clear, or if I should be whacking myself in the head for not getting it 'til then, but he's not even arguing against Darwinian evolution. On the surface, sure, he is, but the entire freaking book is arguments as to the logical underpinnings of natural selection, political agendas for keeping a flawed theory in classrooms as fact, etc, then he finally gets around to explaining that it's all because of naturalistic philosophy. Naturalistic philosophy, for the gods' sakes! What does he mean by this, you ask? Well, he tosses out (repeatedly, I might add) that all of the evolutionary and Darwinian hypotheses are based on scientific naturalism, then proceeds to denounce this as a faith-based religious stance masquerading as science (in opposition, as he's only too keen to point out, to Popper's criteria for scientific methodology). So, I went back and looked again to see if I had my terms right, and, from what I remember and am looking at at the moment, scientific naturalism makes no claims on the supernatural, expressing only that the world of nature (the universe and every material thing in it) is testable using natural means without resorting to supernatural explanations (somebody shoot me if I'm wrong on this one). Meantime, what Johnson's actually arguing against, but either got the terminology wrong or just won't come out and say it, is metaphysical naturalism. I'm sorry, maybe I'm blind or something, but exactly where in the theory of evolution, or even in the writings of Charles Darwin himself (no, I haven't finished reading them entirely) does anyone, anyone, claim that humans needing to use natural tools to measure the natural world and accepting that only by that means can the natural world be tested in an intellectually satisfactory manner, implies in any fashion that the natural world is all that exists? And, before someone calls me on the "intellectually satisfactory manner" thing, that's just how I understand the philosophical position. As for myself, I have no problems with natural or supernatural, since they both figure rather strongly in my own world-view. I just think it's sort of underhanded to claim to have legitimate logical objections to evolutionary theory (though, some of them do seem to be fairly good challenges, just not crippling arguments against), when one's underlying agenda is tantamount to undermining scientific understanding on the basis of conflicting philosophical and religious worldviews, regardless of protestations to the contrary. So, I guess this is the "depends" part from before. It really does seem to tie back into the whole "creationists are gunning for science" crap. See, I don't really believe that, necessarily. Just like I don't accept some hazy, vaguely-defined scientific naturalist conspiracy manipulating the intellectual development of our world to try to overthrow religion, I don't think that everyone with an opinion counter to evolutionary theory is necessarily trying to cut the first amendment out of the Constitution (although there certainly seem to be specific groups apparently putting forth a great deal of effort on that score). A lot of it is misinformation or simple ignorance on both sides, with a lot of unreasoning passion getting mixed in, as well. Maybe we should all just lobby for those critical thinking classes and then teach it all. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 2:22:43 AM | I enjoyed reading the last paragraph you wrote, Feral. See, I know what I'm
thinking and I can feel what I want to say but it come's out all wrong. I think
if you read my past post's you'll see that everything you just said is what
i've been trying to argue (maybe you need to strain a bit).
But you have the grammar down pat and can run with it. Good on you.
I believe that your interpretation of the book is dead on - otherwise, maybe
you should consider writing a book on that premise yourself.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 2:53:07 AM |
I believe that your interpretation of the book is dead on - otherwise, maybe
you should consider writing a book on that premise yourself.
Thanks, but I don't think I'd want to do the interviews, research, etc. The thinking is fun, though. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 4:58:40 AM | As I have the assistance here at the moment, I am just going to make a slight detour, to explain what is ment in Science by the term Random.
I have with me here, my friend Benjamin Burton who has a Doctorate in Chaos Mechanics (yes he is a Dr of Chaos! he gets much ribbing over that and his aliterated name which just makes him sound like a 'Marvel' charecter! ).
As has been explained to me, Random is term that is used in Science to very difrent meaning than in comon use.
In Science, the term Random refers to events for which the factors influencing the outcomes are too numerous to acount for, or to minute to acurately mesure. For example, the way in which water flows is Random, as it depends on the motion of every individual molecule.
There are no events in the phisical world (outside of the mind, and outside of the realm of Quantum phisics) that are ever Random in the sense it is ussed in comon language. All events in the phisical world that have seemingly random paterns, can be explained to be truly organised in that they have causes but we simply do not know what they are and as such con not mesure them.
For example, the way in which mutaion through radiation ocours is considered Random, but the proces can be understood to be ordered as it rellys on a set of principles and circumstances ocouring in a specific order, to ocour.
1: a radioctive atom decays, releasing a radioctive particle.
2: the radioctive particle comes into contact with a DNA strand before it has lost a certain amount of energy.
3: one atom on the DNA strand is altered by the radiocive particle.
Thus you get mutation through radiation... It seems random but is not. Even the factors leading up to this series of events are not random, Imagine the way in which water flows, if all of the positions of those woter molecules could be know, then you would not belive that the way the water flowed would be random, because you could work out how each molecules movement would effect the others and so predict the paths of every molecule and the flow of the total body of water.
As I understand the way it has just been explained to me, Evolution can not be considered a Random proces in the way that it is ment in the comon language, it is a proces that is odered through events that we can not mesure and so is called Random for that reason. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 7:57:13 AM |
As I understand the way it has just been explained to me, Evolution can not be considered a Random proces in the way that it is ment in the comon language, it is a proces that is odered through events that we can not mesure and so is called Random for that reason.
That would mean the process is not testable and therefore not "scientific". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 8:07:11 AM | "That would mean the process is not testable and therefore not "scientific"."
Wrong. According to your flawed logic, meteorology would also not be scientific. We can't track every molecule involved in weather patterns, but we can observe and measure the global effects. Chaos theory is a branch of physics that does just this- studies the global patterns of non-linear dynamical systems. So why don't you tell Bright's friend Dr. Chaos (I love that) that he is not a scientist, or, you could take another avenue, and actually learn what the hell you are talking about instead of spewing out ignorant nonsense.
"Naturalistic philosophy, for the gods' sakes! What does he mean by this, you ask"
Feral- this is funny. I just responded on a thread about this very issue. Look for it; it mentions naturalism in the title. This is a common misconception- the confusion of ontological naturalism with methodological materialism. I went into some depth, so I don't want to repeat myself here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 11:12:59 AM | it is a proces that is odered through events that we can not mesure and so is called Random for that reason.
That would mean the process is not testable and therefore not "scientific".
Did you actualy read that post or did you just look at it?
It is ordered through events we canot mesure, because of one of two factors. Either we do not yet have the technology to mesure them acurately for a reliable result, for example we can not acuretly mesure the no: of breaths a person takes in his lifetime. Or it is controlled by factors that are too numerous to mesure, for example the flow of water molecules, we can track a single molecules path acuretly, but can not do so with the billions upon billions of molecules that make up a single drop of water.
So please explain to me how that is untestable? We can easily test minor effects, it is simply imposible with our technology to combine all of those minor tests to mesure everything at once.
Random only means that we can not mesure all of the factors acuratly.
Or at least that is how it has been explained to me.
"Acts of evolution are far more comon than acts of god!" :D | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 11:54:03 AM |
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein / 1879-1955 / Letter, 24 March 1954
Reference/Source for this Please?
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 12:03:53 PM | Here is one,
http://www.accd.edu/nvc/areas/huma/pages/divine_einstein.htm
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God......................................................
The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.
Einstein......... December 1939 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 1:05:51 PM |
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein / 1879-1955 / Letter, 24 March 1954
Reference/Source for this Please?
It would have been a good learning experience for you to have done the legwork yourself. You of all people here are the one who *most* needs to learn how to check quotes.
The quote is evidently taken from a book,Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979.
Link to Amazon.com: link
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/25/2006 2:41:19 PM | Uncertainty Principals. You're discussing the principal that Hawkings touched upon.
"God does not play dice" - Albert Eienstein.
I think Albert was arguing that
all things were predictable - when he was first quoted.
There's a good article on this at:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html | |
|
|
| Page 132 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 
