|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/1/2006 2:22:59 PM | | There is a flaw in your argument, Irishgent. There IS evidence for dark matter, even though it can't be proven to exist or be directly detected (but people are working on ideas of what it could be and how to detect it - noone is able to do the same for God). It has a gravitational influence which can be measured. It's possible that there are other explanations for this, but none has yet survived the test of measurements. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God - no measurement or unexplainable situation can be directly tied to God. God is a matter of faith, not measurement, and faith is not science, so should not be taught as part of science. Perhaps as part of a comparative religion class, or a philosophy class, or even a literature class (influence of the bible on western culture, for instance). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/1/2006 2:56:18 PM | Zentral,
What about miracles? I'd say those are pretty hefty evidence in favor of an "unexplainable situation". When a person's prayer is answered, is that not evidence? The fact that so many different factors played a role in the universe existing as it does today in a form that could support life and one tweak of the smallest magnitude could have ruined it, is that not evidence? How about the way everything works in perfect harmony? How about all the Biblical accounts that can actually be proven?
Aside from that, forget about dark matter, there are other things that are given the title of theory long before they have any way of being proven. For instance, the Big Bang was a theory that could not be proven until they were able to detect the radiation from the initial light source that existed in the universe. Should we have just written it off as having no way of being proven and thus not something to be taught? No, we considered the idea, and many, many years later we found we had an instrument strong enough to detect it and thus prove it.
I'm not saying you should teach it as fact or teach it as something the scientific community as a whole has come up with, just that it's one theory held by some religious who are also scientists and some scientists who are also religous.
Take Care,
Irish | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/1/2006 4:58:52 PM |
I brought up a few instances of science that are taught in the classroom to justify why I thought Creation had a place in the classroom. Ex: You can prove no more to me that Dark Matter exists than I can prove to you that God exists. So if you're going to teach one, then you have to be willing to teach the other since they are both at least as sound as the other.
The law forbids religion to be taught in schools. There are no arguments for religion.
 | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3504 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 1:43:24 AM | The law forbids religion to be taught in schools.
Oh Lord, Bless the LAW and the reasonable people who put it there!
Just before we get into the Bizantine discussion... EVOLUTION does not, by any chance, tries to explain "the big bang" or "how the spark of life came to be" *if there's any such thing as a "spark of life", as IF life (as we know it) were any important in the running of this Universe. Three or four pages ago people were given some definitions.
We are a small and fragile bunch of organic matter trying to preserve our genes and survive in a small planet covered mostly in salty water, running around a smallish star in one corner of ONE galaxy within a UNIVERSE bigger than what we can ever imagine.
Breaking news, we are NOT important to this Universe.
Gods? they are as big as our minds can make them, as there are no FACTs about them.
Science is made out of evidence, testing, reasoning. It is the product of hard work. I stick to that.
What about miracles? I'd say those are pretty hefty evidence in favor of an "unexplainable situation".
Sorrry but there's no solid account of any. Miracles are born from stories normally very twisted and passed from mouth to mouth. Miracles in the Bible... a big bunch of them, from which to learn moral stories, not to form scientific opinions from. One example? the one with Moses crossing the Red Sea, if it really happened... mmm can you remember what happened during the tsunami in Indonesia??? In some places the sea went back quite a lot, before hitting back with a massiva sea wave... as happened to the Egyptians isn't it? Oh brilliant almighty God who kills the "evildoers".
"... God is not neutral"... GWBush
Sorry, just came back from the Gym, feeling energetic this morning. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3505 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 5:24:50 AM | Wondering whether I'd open a different thread for this one...
It is all about the "miracle" thing.
There was a good article about this in the current issue of New Scientist but you need subscription to get to it... and dont know whether I'd post it... rules...
anyhow have a go.
A red rain phenomenon occurred in Kerala, India starting from 25th July 2001, in which the rainwater appeared coloured in various localized places that are spread over a few hundred kilometers in Kerala. Maximum cases were reported during the first 10 days and isolated cases were found to occur for about 2 months. The striking red colouration of the rainwater was found to be due to the suspension of microscopic red particles having the appearance of biological cells. These particles have no similarity with usual desert dust. An estimated minimum quantity of 50,000 kg of red particles has fallen from the sky through red rain. An analysis of this strange phenomenon further shows that the conventional atmospheric transport processes like dust storms etc. cannot explain this phenomenon. The electron microscopic study of the red particles shows fine cell structure indicating their biological cell like nature. EDAX analysis shows that the major elements present in these cell like particles are carbon and oxygen. Strangely, a test for DNA using Ethidium Bromide dye fluorescence technique indicates absence of DNA in these cells. In the context of a suspected link between a meteor airburst event and the red rain, the possibility for the extraterrestrial origin of these particles from cometary fragments is discussed.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022
I can open the PDF, let me know if you guys can read the whole paper.
Apparently more tests are on the way. Let's see if it can rain blood. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 6:23:56 AM | PassportCharlie,
"The law forbids religion to be taught in schools. There are no arguments for religion."
I'm not asking it to be taught as religion. I'm asking it to be taught as a theory. A theory being a form of abstract reasoning or speculation.
If you cannot disprove it, then it remains a valid theory. It may never be proven, but it's a theory.
Take Care,
Irish | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 6:30:11 AM | Enryk,
Your points may be valid, but you still fail to provide a scientific theory that explains how life first came to exist. I don't care how important or unimportant you think it is, explain how life can come to exist out of nothing. While you're at it, explain what happened before the Big Bang if you will or how it was set up.
Science is made out of evidence that is forumulated on our terms. Science has been dead wrong before(ie. the Earth centered universe, the flat Earth, the Static State Model of the Universe, etc.), you'd think that science would keep an open mind about these things.
There are solid accounts of some. You can't discount all miracles simply because a few lied.
I'm not saying that all the miracles in the Bible did happen. I tend to believe the Old Testament to be more metaphorical than not.
Why are you quoting George W. Bush? He's an idiot and has no place in thie discussion, hehe.
Take Care,
Irish | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 10:12:51 AM | Irish, science admits that it does not know the answer to how it began. Evolution concerns itself with what happened after that first unknown. And is NOT the point of this thread.
Yes Science corrects it self often as we are always finding New things. It has never contended that it was absolute.
If anything it are the supporters of the ID and Creation Hypothesis (not even a theory) that are being asked to support their view with some facts. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 10:24:14 AM | Trewq36,
"I'm asking it to be taught as a theory. A theory being a form of abstract reasoning or speculation."
I guess it simply depends on your definition of a theory.
Regardless, much like you describe science, I look at Creation. I'm willing to correct it if I'm proven wrong, I'm not claiming it to be the absolute correct answer, and at this time I can't provide you with any facts that you would deem acceptable as they are not the nature of the God that I believe in.
But perhaps one day we'll have scientific instruments that will be able to detect the presence of God. Perhaps one day he'll reveal himself.
I think it's worth bringing up Creation in the classroom if for no other purpose than this debate. It wouldn't hurt to enlighten them on the discussions of the present.
Take Care,
Irish | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 10:39:44 AM |
worth bringing up Creation in the classroom
Yes, But not in the Science Department. Maybe a class on deductive reasoning......
Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Hypotheses:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Oh wait I guess Creation is not even Hypotheses as it hasn't been "tested by further investigation". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 11:53:51 AM | Trewq36,
Then it's definitions we're arguing and that's where I depart. If we don't have common definitions, our discussion can't progress.
Take Care,
Irish | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 6:18:19 PM | So long then.
We've had the definitions you speak of posted in this thread over and over and over and over again. Some people don't read them.
A theory is the result of observation, hypothesis, and rigorous testing. It is not the result of trying to prove an absolute already accepted as true. On that grounds intelligent design (at least as I have always heard it described) is not a theory.
Also, the fact that something can't be proven wrong does not make it a theory. If I stated that I had a theory that all molecules are held together by invisible, intangible Leprechauns, that would not make it a theory. There has to be a very strong and usually scientifically authoritative basis for a hypothesis to be considered a theory. ID is no such creature.
It may have a philosophical basis, but not a scientific one. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 6:48:17 PM | Majestic_Lizard_Returns,
I was using this, "A form of abstract reasoning or speculation." as my definition of a theory.
So yes, your Leprechauns would be a theory in my book.
And you can hardly expect someone to read over a 140 pages of posts.
Take Care,
Irish | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/2/2006 7:47:44 PM | I was using this, "A form of abstract reasoning or speculation." as my definition of a theory. Well, your definition isn't what the accepted academic definition of the word is in a scientific context. And frankly I am not going to type that definition out again after having done so in this thread at least 3 times.
So yes, your Leprechauns would be a theory in my book. I'm not going by your book. That would not be a valid scientific theory.
And you can hardly expect someone to read over a 140 pages of posts. 140 pages! That is even longer than most Hardy Boys novels. Gosh no, I wouldn't expect you to read that much. However, you would have come across such definitions merely by skimming through the first 10 to 20 or so pages.
You take care too. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:26:03 PM | What I posted was not off topic. I was discussing the definition of the word 'theory' in reference to the word 'evolution'. This thread does deal with 'evolution' which is a scientific 'theory'.
However, feel free to contact a moderator if you feel I have broken the rules and do try to be as persistant about it as possible. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:22:57 PM | | There is quite a variety of facts and principles that can be used to substantiate different points of view on this matter (Evolution vs Creationism). To that end terms are often defined and so your narrow definition of what is or is not on topic is not valid. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3517 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 1:55:32 AM | PC said...
This thread should be moved out of the religion folder and moved somewhere else.
Do not really agree, because Creationism is ALL about Religion.
It is about getting a quick fix out of the mainstream western Christianity and shoving it into children's brains. If Creationism would be coming from Hinduism, for example, would have a more Naturalistic approach.
And mea culpa, I'm normally off topic. 
Have I told you guys the joke about that pal who wanted his child to be properly educated in religion? | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3518 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 5:53:14 AM | As you can see from the listings... Science does not appear.
People are not really interested about discussing Science in these fora.
Science is not a mainstream hobby for most.
From this scenario it is easy to understand how alienated people feel when we put conditions before assertions, test & prove before ideology. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 12:24:28 PM |
The law forbids religion to be taught in schools. There are no arguments for religion.
How many times dose it need to be pointed out that you are wrong on this point, before it gets through to you! Stopping flogging that horse, its dead already!
I can't speak for the science side of things, but others are doing a perfectly good job of that, but as someone who spends their entire working life with their nose in the law, I can tell you FOR A FACT, that the law states the ENDOSMENT of religions will not be tolerated in US schools, but it dose not forbid the teaching of religion in anyway. It is not just the first amendment though, the fifth and fourteenth also support the right to religious freedom.
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
" nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "
" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ............
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Thus by US law, it is clear that no law can be made restricting or endorsing Religious freedoms and the right of any state to teach of religion so long as they do not actively endorse that religion.
Why dose it fall to a foreigner to point out that teaching creation as religion is not unconstitutional, but teaching it as science is? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 3:34:59 PM |
How many times dose it need to be pointed out that you are wrong on this point, before it gets through to you! Stopping flogging that horse, its dead already!
you write it but you just can't see the forest from the trees. " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
The following is cause and effect, the law in point.
Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Prayers and Bible Reading.--Upon recommendation of the state governing board, a local New York school required each class to begin each school day by reading aloud the following prayer in the presence of the teacher: ''Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.'' Students who wished to do so could remain silent or leave the room. Said the Court: ''We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York had adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. . . . [W]e think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.''112 ''Neither the fact that the prayer may be nondenominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause. . . . The Establishment Clause . . . does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.''113
Following the prayer decision came two cases in which parents and their school age children challenged the validity under the Establishment Clause of requirements that each school day begin with readings of selections from the Bible. Scripture reading, like prayers, the Court found, was a religious exercise. ''Given that finding the exercises and the law requiring them are in violation of the Establishment Clause.''114 Rejected were contentions by the State that the object of the programs was the promotion of secular purposes, such as the expounding of moral values, the contradiction of the materialistic trends of the times, the perpetuation of traditional institutions, and the teaching of literature115 and that to forbid the particular exercises was to choose a ''religion of secularism'' in their place.116 Though the ''place of religion in our society is an exalted one,'' the Establishment Clause, the Court continued, prescribed that in ''the relationship between man and religion,'' the State must be ''firmly committed to a position of neutrality.''117
Sweetheart, you need to go further into constitutional admendments to read the clarification of article 1 us constitution "the establishment clause".
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 4:55:32 PM | She clearly has a better grasp of it than most people participating in this discussion.
She has explained in her past posts that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that schools can't ENDORSE a religion, not that they can't teach that different religions exist.
Don't belittle people who have demonstrated a clear understanding of one of the most important aspects of the U.S. Constitution. And I'd like to remind you that she isn't even an American. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 5:57:30 PM | Mr. Lizard,
wow do you need remedial studies.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that schools can't ENDORSE a religion, not that they can't teach that different religions exist.
This is so funny yet so sad. You need help too.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 7:31:27 PM | Okay, so. From where I left off...
But looks like science will once more have to redefine a few things. Wow! a fourth type of life.
Yeah, I thought that was pretty cool. Even if it doesn't work out to fit in as a fourth type, it still gives some interesting insights into the possibilities. One of the funny things, I thought, was that, after the Miller-Urey experiment and the postulation of the RNA world, I had pretty much figured viruses a key step before discrete cells, and (at least according to the article I read) it's only now that science is granting that they are possibly as old as, if not older than, cellular life.
heres one for your cap. if you think that there is a man on this earth that is smarter than the wisdom of God. well you must. cause you are asking a question that only its creator can answer. i mean the creator of the evolution mystery. God said that he would send a strong dilussion to keep the people that wont turn, from ever turning. that sound like the answer. but only God can say for certain
Hmm...
its better to be thought a fool. rather than open your mouth and prove it. lol.
Agreed...
You can, however, argue what most likely happened, but you know what? Noone is going to be convinced of the other even with nearly undeniable proof.
Sad to say, you're right. At least in one instance. On the other hand, some folks do pay attention to evidence.
My personal belief, however ridiculous it may seem to you, is that both creation and evolution can exist together.
I don't disagree with this at all. The important thing to note, however, is that short of a direct message from whoever created it all (with attendant proof), only one is even potentially testable.
Can science explain how life, even in the most primitive sense of the word, came to be?
The interesting thing about this question is that it can be answered in the affirmative. Now, had you asked, "has science done so..."
It seems to me that until you can provide answers to all the questions plaguing evolution, it remains a theory. Just as intelligent design remains a theory for the same reasons.
Again, the distinction being that one theory gives rise to testable hypotheses that can strengthen the premise of the theory, whereas the other is not testable beyond philosophical logic-games.
"You know, we can't prove there is no God, we can't answer all the questions, so even though we don't believe in it, we allow that until we have that proof, a God may exist."
I honestly don't know anyone who says otherwise.
"I've got nothing against God. It's his fanclub I can't stand"
 Amen to that! 
To be fair, I think that there are scientists and religious who would say that science denies God and that religion denies science.
True, but that's a philosophical position based on a misinterpretation of what the two entail.
Religion has nothing to do with what it is bad or good, although some make think it does.
 I'm sorry, this one just makes me laugh. Actually, religion usually tends to set the standards as to what is "good" or "evil." However, you are correct, when looking at it from an objective standpoint. Still, the wording amuses me.
I just find it hard to say, "Creation should not be taught in schools." When I was taught about aliens, black holes(which exists obviously, but we don't know much about), dark matter, and time travel.
One small question: when you were taught about aliens, time travel, etc., were they presented as possibilities or objective scientific fact?
We are getting somewhere!
I agree.
Why are we gething all this science talk on this thread.
Because it's relevant?
Creation is one theory that explains how the world started. It's not your typical science, but if you found out it was the truth, wouldn't you then teach it in a science class? I'm not asking for much, just a few sentences saying it's a theory.
Okay, here's my deal on that. "It's not typical science," is an understatement. It's not science, at all. It's not even observable, much less verifiable/falsifiable. So, sure, it works for what some folks want to believe, but it's definitely not a theory. It could be mentioned as a viewpoint, even in science classes, but then the teachers would have to point out how it's not science and get away from the focus of the class. Sorry, it just doesn't work.
(though I don't believe God could sneeze, hehe)
So, there is something God can't do?
Just say that it's possible a higher power put the world in order as you see it today.
It's possible. It's even philosophically arguable. It's just not scientifically testable, which is the point. The possibility exists that there are invisible giants made of air wandering around the world. How would we prove it?
On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God - no measurement or unexplainable situation can be directly tied to God.
This goes back to whether or not ID could be mentioned in science classes, a case which, to me seems not to be an entirely bad idea. Now, here's the scoop. ID does not necessarily presuppose God per se. All the "theory" postulates is an unidentified, more-advanced-than-humanity creator of life. Fine, it's just not provable (at present). And, as I've been reading Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe (don't worry, I've got plenty of comments, but I won't share them all...), the trouble with this viewpoint is that there are two options for an intelligent designer. Either this being (or group of beings) exists within the material universe and is subject to physical laws itself, which simply (by Behe's own logic) begs the question of where it (or they) originated (in which case, the "theory" is no more satisfactory than the one he himself rails against). Or, alternately, the creator is a being outside the physical universe, effectively supernatural, and therefore, almost by definition unprovable by scientific means. Again, this shoots ID in the foot. The point, however, that the hypothesis that chemical chain reactions in apparently self-regulating molecular environments constitute irreducibly complex systems that hint at an intentional design could honestly be taught in public schools, is valid. As long as it is made entirely clear what constitutes a scientific theory/hypothesis, and that this philosophical viewpoint is neither.
Okay, this deserves a line-by-line:
What about miracles? I'd say those are pretty hefty evidence in favor of an "unexplainable situation".
How's this for a challenge? Explain your "evidence." That's the thing with miracles, they're miraculous. If they can be explained scientifically, they're just as good as coincidences.
When a person's prayer is answered, is that not evidence?
Case in point. Are we talking about a direct, audible message here? Is it heard by bystanders? Similar questions? Thing with the prayer gig is, if you get what you ask for, it's God helping you out and answering in the affirmative. You don't get what you want/need, it's still being answered, only in the negative, and the situation remains the same because it's "God's will." How does one empirically test a prayer or a miracle? In Lee Strobel's Case for Faith, he actually interviews one guy (sorry, I don't remember the name, but Strobel made a point of making it well and clear that the dude was an expert in Christian apologetics and theology) actually defined "miracle." His definition basically precluded the possibility of scientifically testing a miracle, so my question regarding whether or not miracles count as evidence for anything, is simply whether or not we have the means to prove miracles, much less accept them as proof for something else.
The fact that so many different factors played a role in the universe existing as it does today in a form that could support life and one tweak of the smallest magnitude could have ruined it, is that not evidence?
Not especially. At least not in my book. To my way of thinking, it's not necessarily ruined. One can look at it that way, but as I see it, it'd just develop differently. Such is existence, yes?
How about the way everything works in perfect harmony?
How do we know our appreciation for and realisation of the concept of harmony aren't ultimately just an effect of our being a product of the physical universe?
How about all the Biblical accounts that can actually be proven?
The historical ones? The book's a history. The legendary/miraculous ones? Which have been proven?
The law forbids religion to be taught in schools. There are no arguments for religion.
Charlie, you just won't let that go, will you? We've covered this.
Breaking news, we are NOT important to this Universe.
Don't know, mate. After reading some of the mimivirus stuff, I'd argue it's possible that sometimes, the little things make a big difference...
Gods? they are as big as our minds can make them, as there are no FACTs about them.
Science is made out of evidence, testing, reasoning. It is the product of hard work. I stick to that.
And, enjoyably enough, this does not invalidate either.
Okay, sorry for the length, but I'm going to have to jump. I'll get back in on the rest, you can count on it. | |
|
BitShy
|
Joined: 3/3/2006
Msg: 3524 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 9:00:00 PM | | I'm always amazed that I seem to be the only person I know who realizes that evolution is not simply a biological theory but rather a theory applied to biology. We've all seen wind tunnels right? Besides, it IS observable - check out those new strains of diseases. Anyway I came here to chat to females and my brain has learnt over time that there is a time and a place for everything. One might say my ideas are evolving. Oh, I say! Did you see what I did there? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/4/2006 9:34:55 PM | Dr. Carl Baugh is a scientist who has discovered human tracks 100 million years
of age along side dinosaur tracks.
The evolutionists have become so distressed over his findings that they have
created anti-Baugh web sites....that's right, he has become such a threat
to evolutionists that they found themselves cut down to size. Down to size? They
have resorted to name calling and belittling him because they do not have
an explanation as to how these tracks could exists whilst we are supposedly
swinging on branches up upon tree's screeming for another banana.
Let me introduce you to exhibit #2 that will resort to silly name calling....
He will post shortly and he will be a male........give it a few minutes.... | |
|
|
| Page 141 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 
