|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 2:24:03 PM | There are new species born everyday but is this evolution or adaptation or mutation? If a hawk breeds with an eagle what do you get? If a blue-jay breeds with a cardinal what do you get? Think of all the possible combinations of things that could mate. Now theres no way I could list the possible combinations but what do you think would happen? What do you think would happen? Now if you can think of the possible combinations of birds that could mate to form a new species, then think of this in any kind of species of animals. What do you think would happen? I'm no scientists but I think this is feasible.
God bless and take care, Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 2:30:28 PM | If a hawk breeds with an eagle what do you get? A really lucky hawk and a pissed off eagle. Most times it doesn't work, you just get hawk bones in eagle scat.
The point that has been made repeatedly is that most species CAN'T interbreed and in the few cases that they do (usually with human interference), their offspring are incapable of breeding. horse/ass = infertile mule lion/tiger = infertile tigon. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 2:39:40 PM | But how many of thousands of millions of other possible combinations are out there? And how do we now that because of life as it is this isn't how it started out. One breeding with another of the same species and forming what we have today. And if that was possible then, would that chain eventually be stopped? Would it eventually reach a point where they couldn't cross-breed anymore?
Ok beyond that. Lets say it started with atoms and chemicals and whatever. If this is so how do we know God didn't create these things just to come together to form life as we know it?
God bless and take care, Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 2:48:00 PM | In this months issue of Skeptic magazine, there is an excellent article deconstructing from a very scientific approach Dembski's Intelligent Design theory. A very good read indeed.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 3:03:55 PM |
Ok first about "circle " in the bible. The Hebrew word that KJV Bible translates as circle is actually translates sphere. Jewish scholar told me that. Unless you are Hebrew scholar you better take my word for it . If you are a Hebrew scholar then translate "Shema Israel Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Ehod". Ehod?
Oddly, the experts who translated the various Bibles don't agree with your anonymous 'Hebrew Scholar' as to what Isaiah 'really meant' -- they all chose 'circle' as the best translation of his words. So yeah, given the weight of Biblical scholarship behind 'circle' as opposed to 'sphere' I'll take my chances with the guys who thought it meant 'circle'. Give my regards to your soi disant 'expert'.
I'm a bit puzzled why you mention Deuteronomy (the fragment of Hebrew you mention is the start of the Shema - "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one") when the passage under discussion is Isaiah 40:22?
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 3:07:39 PM |
Another problem Evolutionists have is the missing antimatter. Antimatter.was first predicted by English physicist Paul Dirac who conceived of it in terms of a negative energy hole. When a subatomic particle meets its corresponding anti particle they annihilate each other with a huge release of energy, again per E=mc to the power of 2. whenever matter is generated from energy, there is always an equal quantity of antimatter produced. This follows from very well-attested physical law about conservation of elementary particles. But our universe is almost entirely matter. Where is the antimatter? Ordinary particles are assigned the value of +1, and anti particles the value of -1 and the sum has never been observed to change. So if there is no matter to start with, and energy is converted to matter, the number of plussed must always balance the number of minuses
The above... words... about particle physics have nothing to do with evolution, which is part of biology. Could we maybe stick to evolution instead of cosmology or particle physics?
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 3:13:19 PM |
The finite speed of light is a "horison" which can't be crossed, hence the term "horizon problem". Evolutionists have a horison problem with big bang. Even when the CMB (cosmic microwave background( radiation)) was emmited, supposedly 300000 years after big bang, it already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than this horizon.
You really shouldn't make statements about things you have no understanding of, you know. The 'horizon problem' in cosmology is has been addressed by current theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#The_horizon_problem
I look forward to your next claim that was disproved a quarter-century ago (since Guth proposed the inflationary model in 1981....)
Could you maybe take some time to actually check out the claims you make? I mean, Google on 'horizon problem' and you find endless explanations of it.
Next....
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 3:19:46 PM | I can understand Optimistic Alyssa perfectly. She blends bits of science with pseudoscience and religion in an attempt to show the rest of the world that they know nothing. How does that come across as being smart? It is just another tactic employing copious amounts of non sequiturs amounting to nothing more than gibberish. And that is why it is virtually impossible to understand anything, because it is complete nonsense. To denounce and attack evolutionists in such a way is not intelligent but foolish. To suggest that all information comes from god, well I guess because her Hebrew scholar told her so it must be true. WTF? Complete bs. As for dragging the bible into this discussion, I do believe there are other forums for that.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 3:28:20 PM |
I didn't finish my post yet. computer problem again. Anyway, evolutionists proposed the existence of a particle called Higgs boson (a boson is an elementary particle with integral spin quantum number. the opposite is fermion, with half integral spin), sometimes pretentiously called "The God particle". however these theories also predict that proton would be unstable and decay into pion+ positron. The best estimate for the mass of the Higgs boson leads to a proton life span of only 50000 years. But experiments confirmed the life span of proton is 5times10 to the power of 32 years. This is billion billion times greater than the assumed evolutionary age of the universe
Evolution is part of biology - it's got nothing to do with the age of the Universe.
In any event (sigh) your information is wrong. In the Standard Model, protons can't decay - they're baryons, and decaying into a positron and pion (which are not baryons) would violate conservation of the baryon number. Certain Grand Unified Theorems of physics do allow proton decay, but your '50000 years' claim is clearly wrong. The SU(5) model says proton decay lifetimes are on the order at least of 10^29 to 10^32 years.
I tries to Google to find out where you got the information for your claim, but I suspect maybe you mixed up carbon dating's lifetime of 50000 years. Physicists certainly aren't making that claim. I'd be happy to read whatever site you got your 50000 year claim from - Creationists normally use AIG or ICR or the like, and they end up repeating the same mistaken claims over and over again. I'm sure you don't want to make that error.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 3:34:33 PM |
how do we know God didn't create these things just to come together to form life as we know it Well, Jimmy, in a sense, that statement probably defines the crux of the disagreement between science and the religions we mostly seem to be discussing here. The funny thing is, we keep arguing about it when many of us essentially agree with it - probably just because we want to approach the issue from different directions - logic or faith. Can you definitively state which is right? Would you risk an eternity in damnation on your decision? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 3:38:25 PM | Damnation isn't feasible if we just poofed out of thin air so I will go with God and not be damned! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 3:39:22 PM |
There is much more. I can write quantum stuff, nebular formation, probability theory, radiometric stuff, biochemical stuff etc etc etc. i do have to go now but I will be back.
Perhaps if you restricted yourself to claims that weren't actually *false*, it might make your posting quicker?
I mean, you clearly don't actually *understand* what you're typing, because you make so many basic errors. Starting from your claim that Behe (a devout Catholic) doesn't believe in God, to your errors on Big Bang cosmology (the horizon problem was pointed out in the 1970s and solved in the 1980s), to particle physics (50,000 year proton decay? sorry, no.). I'm sure the list goes on and on, but I started skipping your posts since they're all basically garbage pseudo-science, which I'm sure you got from some Creationist site.
I mean, anyone can cut and paste stuff they don't understand, but it's hubris, and insulting to the people you're debating with - you're assuming they're as ignorant as you are of science. I have news for you - we're not.
I might suggest you look up what St. Augustine said about making claims you know nothing about.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 4:01:01 PM | Sorry Tsur (Lol - that sounds funny!) the reference to Deuteronomy was mine. The citation would be Deuteronomy 6:4. I didn't find any reference to those words in Isaiah. The same words, are repeated in Mark 12: 29 although presumably not yet found written in Hebrew. Jesus used them to describe the First Commandment. And, yes, of course, the Shema.
I hope you agree, differences, mistakes and misunderstandings can happen and be corrected without anyone needing to 'go ballistic'. I'm certainly willing to see the error of my ways if you can point them out in a way that I can understand. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 4:06:05 PM | Jimmy - I didn't suggest that God didn't exist, just that we may be looking for Him in different ways. Actually, my guess would be that He wouldn't mind either way, just so long as we keep moving in His direction. What do you think? Is the logic route so sinful?
But if logic is OK too, I think God may be offended if you represent that view as suggesting we "poofed out of thin air". That's ridicule you know full well is wrong. There was no air! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 7:11:01 PM | I think Allen (mentioned earlier) does something interesting…one of his diagrams is a circle with arrows going between the words around the circle. Counter clockwise (to left, here) means IS IN THE CONTEXT OF and clockwise (to right, here) means IS EXPLAINED BY.
Chemistry <--> Physics <--> Mathematics <--> Philosophy <--> Biology <--> (back to) Chemistry. [i.e., Chemistry is in the context of physics and physics is explained by chemistry] You might have to draw that to get the effect, but this is the best I can do with text. He points out that reductionist science doesn’t see a problem with reducing psychology to biology or biology to chemistry. In his conceptualization there is not reduction, but a cyclical understanding.
I think Alyssa (if I understand her) is trying to say ‘human beings didn’t evolve from cosmic soup,’ and trying to debate the age of the universe to back up this statement. I also believe that God created all, but I disagree that evolution negates or reduces that Beauty—if anything, to me, that evolution is an amazing way to create diversity of life… To me, the diversity of life inspires awe and wonder. I see no conflict there. I do not disguise what I think. I simply think science and God are not incompatible (though many think they are.) I believe evolution is the cause of the diversity—because God created evolution... that makes the subject even more interesting. Why the fight?
I do have a problem with the idea of teaching ‘intelligent design’ (aka, I think, creationism) in schools, because I believe that crosses a line of separation of church and state. Whomever advocates teaching that should think about what that would mean. I’m sure those who advocate teaching creationism in schools have their own idea of which one to teach. But, there are many, many creation stories. If we were to teach that, and that were up to me, I might choose a story that conflicts with those who advocate the teaching of this. One can believe in God and see no place for teaching creationism in schools. Whatever version of that advocated... that is something PARENTS could teach their kids. I most CERTAINLY do not believe teaching evolution has anything to do with ‘being damned.’ I like the God-given ability to reason, discover and be in awe. Not all, but most scientists who study this idea are very moved by the diversity of life :) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 7:30:34 PM | queitjohn,
I think we all look for God in different ways and find God in different ways. And no I don't think that route is sinfull at all. Denying God alltogether and finding answers to lifes mysterys is two different things. We are supposed to study to show ourselfs approved to God(sorry I can't find the exact scripture right now). It also says all through proverbs to seek knowledge and understanding.
But if you think about it. Does "logic" confound us to no new learning. Didn't Galileo get killed for going against logic. There has been many others that have been killed also for going against logic and they contributed to the world as we know it considerably.
But yeah that what the "poofed out of thin air" comment is supposed to be. Its about like saying we weren't created. Like you said there had to be air in the first place. So where did air come from?
God bless and take care, Jimmy | |
|
Dryad
| Joined: 7/19/2005 Msg: 467 | |
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 7:40:23 PM | Hmm… I completely missed the school question.
Since no creation story I’m aware of is testable and consequently, not a science, I wouldn’t want it to be taught in science classes in the public school system. However, I would support see offering a variety of religious perspectives in a World Religions/Comparative religions course at the senior high school level.
Schools are a publicly funded and part of a society that has agreed on the importance of separating church and state from muddling with each other. I would see it as a breach of trust if the public schools system promoted or diminished any particular religion, or favoured religion over a secular position.
I believe bringing religion into schools was discussed in another thread, where one women posted a story about the potential issues. Ah there it is… with very little stretch of the imagination (an no reference to science whatsoever :) ) you can see how it’d apply to teaching the various views of creation in school… kudos to Blady who originally posted this:
The Pastor's Pen - By: JUAN NINGUNO
As you know, we've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back in the schools. Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led prayer with the children participating at their own option. Children not wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during the prayer time. We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to the Supreme Court and get that old devil-inspired ruling reversed. Naturally, we were all excited by the school board's action. As you know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more, though) is now in the second grade. Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate.
After the first day of school, I asked him, "How did the prayer time go?" "Fine." "Did many kids go out into the hallway?" "Two." "Excellent. How did you like your teacher's prayer?" "It was different, Dad. Real different from the way you pray." "Oh? Like how?" "She said, 'Hail, Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners...'" The next day I talked with the principal. I politely explained I wasn't prejudice against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy being transferred to a non-Catholic teacher. The principal said it would be done right away.
At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings. He slipped out of his chair, sat cross-legged on the floor, closed his eyes, raised his hands palms up and began to hum. You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning. "Look," I said. "I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices and older, more established religion.'"
That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school. "I don't think your going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer, either, Dad." "Out with it." "She kept calling God 'O Great Buddha...'" The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot. "Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever or to Buddha. I want him to have a teacher that prays in Jesus' name!" "What about Bertha Smith?" "Excellent."
I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer. I was standing on the front steps of the school when the final bell rang. "Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car. "Okay." "Okay what?" "Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus name, amen - just like you." I breathed a sigh of relief. "Now we're getting some place." "She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy. I beamed. "Wonderful. What was the verse?" "Let's see..." he mused for a moment. " 'And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.'" We had reached the car. "Fantastic," I said, reaching for the door handle. Then I paused. I couldn't place the scripture. "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?" "Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18." "Third what?" "Nephi," he said, "It's in the Book of Mormon."
The school board doesn't meet for a month. I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway. I plan to be at that board meeting. If they don't do something about this situation, I'll sue. I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I don't need the schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We can take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much.
---------------- PS: let’s go easy on Alyssa until she gets her computer working and can spend a decent amount of time elaborating her thoughts. Aside from some obvious factual problems, they’re also obviously rushed. Alyssa, try typing out what you say in Word so you don’t violate the 2-post in a row rule  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 7:49:27 PM | | I don't think there was a creationism in school post... (but that came up in some people's minds) that is an issue being pushed right now and also on the minds of many who think evolution is bunk. I am trying to show that these two ideas are not so much in conflict, but the way people choose to view the world makes them seem to be so. (e.g., literal interpretation of texts... etc) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 7:58:16 PM | | Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have nothing to do with each other. You can't disprove evolution by arguing against the BBT. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 8:02:35 PM | What's your evidence for the weakening of the strong nuclear force?
There's a technique known as isochron dating which allows us to determine if materials have been added or leeched away. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 8:06:23 PM |
dogs always will have baby dogs and they will never become anything other than dogs which breeders have proven
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but speciation has already been observed. I guess that makes Creationism false. To continue to promote Creationism now that you know that it's false is a lie. Do you know what God does to liars? | |
|
Dryad
| Joined: 7/19/2005 Msg: 472 | |
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 8:08:18 PM | Dear Count Ibi,
I was thinking about that very thing today as I was biking home. I think the part of the problem here is that the various accounts of creation extend far beyond what the theory of evolution states. The various viewpoints in this argument are arguing with different definitions and boundaries.
Creation (Christian version, for simplification) is both the beginning of the universe and the beginning and establishment of life in all its various forms. Then add all the various interpretations, from young-earthers, to old-earthers and intelligent designers… well, it’s no wonder this is getting to be a messy debate.
Evolution is a more discrete theory, deals only with whether dissent with modification occurs due to natural selection. The origin of life and origin of the universe (if you assume it has an origin) aren’t covered. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 8:12:20 PM | | Just so that I am clear, when I talk about evolution as a scientific fact, I am not talking about the big bang theory, I am talking about evolution. Some are confusing those theories... which is why, I suspect, there is so much rejection of evolution without considering the facts. I'm not talking about the 'big bang.' I can talk about that theory as a different issue, but those ideas shouldn't be lumped into one. When *I* talk about evolution and speciation, those are the ideas I talk about. I don't know how someone can refute my description (though, I welcome discussion on that!). Like I mentioned before, if we could tease apart all of the connotations and ideas that go along with that word, we might be able to have a better discussion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 11:24:49 PM | The OP posed the question
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School? Another thread discussing if Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes was closed by moderators and redirected here.
The first amendment related to religion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof It's a little tough to see how that prohibits mention of religious ideas in public schools, but I guess interpretation is a big part of what this thread is about.
I suspect there would be an interminable follow-up to an agreement to teach creation in schools - from the proponents of multiple versions of creation across the religions/mythologies of the world. (Edit..... Lol I guess we all keyed in on that one!)
Didn't Galileo get killed for going against logic. There has been many others that have been killed also for going against logic No, Jimmy, Galileo didn't get killed - just put under house arrest for the last 9 years of his life . for going against the prevailing RELIGIOUS sentiment. Logic can lead to one conclusion (as it had let Aristotle to conclude a geocentric universe), but new information may modify the path of logic to lead to a new answer. Some folks just seem to try to hang onto the discredited logic and take a loooong time to accept the new information. How does that fit into your religious notions of right and wrong? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution Posted: 9/30/2005 11:27:02 PM | | I've really liked what quietjohn2 and dryad (and others) have to say here... great points. | |
|
|
| Page 19 of 156
|
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 |
|