|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 12:48:31 AM | wonka, wonka, wonka,...tsk, tsk, tsk....
I see you are once again making your broad, generalised, but still erroneous and severely misleading statements AGAIN...(The THEORY of Evolution VS The Second LAW of Thermodynamics.)
And so, let me address that..and also, for all others who say 'poo-poo' that "I" have taken a couple of light hearted, tongue in cheek jabs at wonka; take note, as I know some already have, wonka has by a million miles, taken countless pot shots, attacks, dismissive attitudes in HIS postings against 'ones like me', in being sarcastic, dismissive, insulting, towards ones that, like me, believe in the Creation Account. (Read: "Personal Attacks")
For those who have time, take a look through his incessant Forum Hoggings, and take note of MANY of his postings which are in alot of ways very real "Personal Attacks"....Soooo, for my very small part, perhaps I'm "fighting fire with fire".
So wonka, you stop the sarcasm, insults, snotty dismissive and demeaning attitudes towards ones like me, and I'll agree to stop ridiculing your disgusting, flabby torso shot. Would that be fair?
Or, did you still want to be immaturely confrontational, and still want me to come out there to your city, as you have put it a few times? What for, so I can use my martial arts training to take you apart like fried chicken with my bare hands?
Trust me, the thought entered my mind...But, I have more exciting ways to expend my energy, like, oh, watching paint dry.
ANYWAY, move on wonka, here is some light for you on the Second LAW if Thermodynamics, regarding Open AND closed systems.
The usual approach to escape the conclusions of the second law as it applies to the early evolution of life is to claim that the second law is not applicable to the problem since the earth is an "open" system. Thermodynamics was developed using chemical and mechanical systems which were prevented from either gaining or losing energy or matter from the external world. The earth is receiving energy from the sun all the time and therfore it is claimed that the chemical evolution of life could occur.
Time magazine, criticizing the creationist position on the second law, states:
"In 1977 Ilya Prigogine, A Russian born professor at the Free University of Brussels, won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for proving that the second law does not apply to 'open systems' such as living creatures, because living things can aquire new energy. Plants grow healthy by soaking up sunlight, even though the sun, the source of the solar system's energy, is slowly burning out."
This work of Prigogine's applies only to living systems as they are presently structured.
Photosynthesis is the process by which a plant captures energy from the sun and stores this energy in the form of chemical bonds. When we eat the plant, our bodies utilize the energy to grow bigger and to maintain our present types of body structure. The chloroplast is like the motor which captures and directs the sun's energy towards useful work. Burning gasoline does not produce useful work unless there is a mechanism which directs the energy in the proper direction. That function is accomplished by the engine in a car.
When referring to the chemical origin of life, however, we are talking about a time 'before' the chloroplast was made; a time before there was a machine which captured, stored and directed the solar energy toward the manufacture of complex chemical compounds. It doesn't matter whether the earth is "open" or "closed" as a system since, without a machine to direct the energy, the chemical evolution of life cannot utilize the solar energy.
Thus as far as chemicals are concerned, they could just as well be in a closed system, surrounded by solar energy, but with no way to use it. It is much like being on a raft in the ocean with no fresh water. There is water everywhere but not a drop to drink.
As George Wald noted:
"What we ask here is to synthisize organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us--the weakest link in our argument. I do not think it by any means disastrous, but it calls for phenomena and forces some of which are as yet only partly understood and probably still to be discovered."
Even in an "open system" Prigogine had reservations about the origin of life.
He writes:
"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as the phenomena of phase transistions.
Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly imporbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occured."
The most he said was that he hoped his studies might someday lead to a solution of the problem of the origin of life from non-life. But he acknowledged that we are nowhere near such a solution. He showed that in certain liquid systems, a highly "dissipative" environment might some kind of "structure" in one corner of that environment (e.g., vortices in a rapidly heating coffee pot)
However, this has been known for a long time, and in no way proves that living systems might emerge from non-living systems simply by placing them in a rapidly dissipating energy milieu.
The very real conflict conflict between evolution and the second law (in open as well as closed systems) is nowhere to being solved. Even if it WERE solved in the future, the evolution model still wuld not be as good as the creation model. That is, at best, the evolution model might possibly someday be able to "explain" the second law in an evolutionary context, but the creation model PREDICTS it!
So, wonka, and other 'dismissive' types...talk about being fair play? Stop being insulting, dismissive, sarcastic, belittling and stereotyping those that would believe in the creation accounts, and that those 450 + SCIENTISTS, geologists, and the myriad of other EXPERTS that belong to "Creation Research Society" as mere uneducated 'fundamentalists'; which by the way, not all of them are...'fundamentalists' that is...There is also a wide diversity of 'religious' and denominational backgrounds throughout the membership as well...
So to 'tar them all' with one brush as it were, is also again, a "Personal Attack"...
As I have mentioned before, I have studied, been in, and exposed to, a far ranging and wide variety of religious, scientific and even political belief systems, So, Please, do not dismiss me and millions of others world wide, as uneducated 'fundamentalists'...Talk about "Personal Attacks"? That is the tactics you have been using all along...it really is starting to get boring when with every post your words employ such infantile ploys.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 12:51:18 AM | Thanks QuietJohn, I thought you’d know more about the details.
This one got me to thinkin'. I gotta say thanks to all you guys, the discussion in here is absolutely fantastic! I swear, with the differences and complementary meshing in interest/knowledge, it's like I'm rooming with the intellectual X-men! 
I tend to see it (and we're really straying from actual science here) with the analogy that nature, due to fundamental principles and the smoothing out of probability in the transition from quantum to macrocosmic, has ruts that it likely falls into, but there is wiggle room. As a larger metaphor, think of strange attractors in chaos theory. For me, that fuzziness seems to relate to time as we experience it, but I can't say very precisely why. It just resonates.
Holy something unusual, Batman! Did Wonka actually say something not backed up by science, logic or reason?!?! Love ya, man! 
(oooo! I wonder if the Ivory Billed Woodpecker rediscovered this year just decreased that by one! There are times you love to be wrong about something)
Right on, Dryad. "I am with you!" -Abbott and Costello go to Mars. Gotta say this does make me a little nervous, if only because potential exploiters of the wilderness may use the mistaken placement of this bird on the ESL as "proof" for an argument that they don't necessarily endanger wildlife. Not saying it'll happen, I just don't trust 'em.
Interesting numbers, Dryad. Are there similar figures for the other side of the equation - the appearance of new species?
I wonder about this as well. Not to mention (as though the numbers could even be calculated speculatively), what if a lot of the "new species" that are appearing really are new species, the speciation "events" for which we just weren't present?
you can blame Feral for my loss of free will!
Seriously, is it that easy to make you submit?  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 10:49:54 AM | Canadian Romantic:
Your participation in this thread is welcome - you seem to have some thought-provoking comments which I'm sure many of us appreciate. However, your personal attacks are irrelevant to the thread and contrary to forum rules. References to martial arts and taking someone apart with your bare hands is totally offensive and unacceptable. Your last post would have been much shorter and more readable if such comments were left out of it. If you can't edit such things out of your communications, I will suggest to admin that you should be 'edited' out of the forums for a while to give you time to cool your heels. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:00:20 AM | Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
because all points of view should be taught to not do so would be selective censorship and does not give the student the chance to make up their own mind | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:08:11 AM | | Interesting point, Littletwin. The issue with that is that, the OP's question was as to whether or not Creationism should be taught in science classrooms. Seeing as how, while there may be scientific research being done, the hypothesis of creation (which is non-falsifiable) is not scientific, therefore, even though in the interest of being inclusive of ideas, that particular venue is inappropriate. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:17:17 AM | | but also remember evoloution is a not a fact either it to is a educated guess i belive evolution and creation go hand and hand where i dont beleive man came from an ape i do beleive everything envolves within its own speices (forgive my spelling) we know everything came about overtime even the bible says so a thousand years as of a day and a day as of a thousand years meaning where was no way to record the time it took with that said i still beleive it should be taught in classrooms both sides not as a religon mind you dogma has its own place but as an alternitive belief of how we came about | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:43:57 AM | | littletwin- no theory is considered FACT in science. Neither is relativity, quantum physics or even newtonian dynamics. That's why science is not dogma. That still doesn't address the FACT that creation is not a science and evolution is. The issue is that it is inappropriate in a science curriculum. No one is arguing that it should not be taught in a comparitive religion course. That is appropriate, but teaching it in a science course is tantamount to teaching the stork theory in a sex education course. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:44:48 AM | quietjohn2....
Obviously, you have not read wonka's attacks directed at me, (and many others) and him wanting, begging me almost, to come to his place for a 'fight' apparently...
I would suggest YOU read all the background before making harsh ASSumptions.
Thank You.
And wonka, you have 'personally attacked' myself, and millions of others when you spread your statements, rudely dismissing those who would argue FOR the creationist point of view. You have been, as I mentioned before, dismissive, sarcastic, rude, judgemental, stereotyping, and 'labelling' those who support the Bible, and God and the Creationist viewpoints. Talk about being a coward? Pluuuuueeeeease....
Thank You.
And, by the way 'feral' and 'wonka' and other dismissive types..as stated previously, "creationism" IS a study of scientific facts...try to keep up, eh?
http://creationresearch.org
Your continued ignoring of factual information FOR the Creationists point of view, is akin to saying: "My mind is made up; please, don't confuse me with the facts." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:50:42 AM | | My attacks, if you want to call them that, are directed at a person's arguments, not at the person themself. It astounds me that you don't see the difference. And my response to you was exactly that- a response to your personal attacks. My point being if you want to make it personal, then don't be a coward and try to insult me from a thousand miles away. | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 860 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:54:45 AM |
http://creationresearch.org So other then their statement of beliefs, where do you find any factual information on this site ? | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 861 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:57:38 AM | Dear Littlewin, there are probably in excess of 500 different creation accounts among the world's religion and all of the stories are different. Not to mention the ones that have been lost. Who's gets taught and who's gets censored? (PS: though I just read the “The Truth about Stories” by Thomas King so I’m a bit fond of the Turtle Island story myself just now).
Are there similar figures for the other side of the equation - the appearance of new species?
On average throughout history the numbers on the other side of the equation would have to be greater by necessity. No?
Like extinction rates, speciation rates don’t appear to be constant.
Larger animals tend to have longer times between generations, and have fewer offspring; consequently genetic divergence (even with selective pressures) would take longer than smaller, more frequently reproducing organisms.
Hmm… found a few references about speciation rates (where did you find the 17 species/year?) Data from palaeontology and biodiversity suggest an average of 3 new species per year, however, the fossil record shows large variation around this mean (Seploski, 1998). Speciation rates tend to be higher in the tropics and positively associated with climate change (Seploski, 1998; Martin and McKay, 2004). Probably due to population isolation when habitat ranges are fragmented, glaciations did this with fish and birds (Weir and Schluer, 2004).
It’s likely a small proportion of the new species classified are really ‘new’. Geneticists could run some genetic analysis on related species to determine distance between them. One of the prof’s here is doing this with Canadian fish species that where separated by the glaciers into separate refuges. By looking at genetic distances you can estimate of how long they were separated. In some cases the difference is enough to be a different species, but sometimes as the waterways reconnect the two populations (which can look quite different) remerged.
-----------------------------------
• Sepkoski JJ Jr. 1998. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Feb;353(1366):315-26. Rates of speciation in the fossil record.
• Weir JT, Schluter D. 2004. Ice sheets promote speciation in boreal birds.
Proc Biol Sci. Sep 22;271(1551):1881-7.
• Martin PR, McKay JK. 2004. Latitudinal variation in genetic divergence of populations and the potential for future speciation. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. May;58(5):938-45.
----------------------
Dear Silv,
if we only look for what we expect to see -- that is exactly what we find
Wish me luck, I’m off to find those pesky pink unicorns that eat my tulips every spring and I expect to be successful. Just kidding… I do see what you mean. I think we differ in the interpretation of Schrödinger Cat paradox. But I do believe that the extrapolation of quantum effects to the macro scale is unwise. I don’t know about you, but I don’t cross the street thinking the uncertainty principle will cause the Mac Truck to leap 3 feet to the left. Don’t you start either… I’d miss your posts.
Sounds like an interesting idea for a paper Silv, I look forward to your supporting evidence. These are the thoughts that spring to mind when I read it (sorry about the wordiness).
Initially it sounds like Tollmann's bolide theory with a twist (ah, hope you appreciate the effort it took to drag that out of the memory, *grin*). You might want to specifically refer to the previous asteroid-based extinction (K-T layer, Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction), since there have been 5-6 major extinctions. Maybe even reference why it’s believed an asteroid hit (high levels of iridium in that layer, the known impact craters and all that jazz). It might benefit from an expanded mechanism for the precipitation. Why do you believe the planet had a thick cloud layer previously? How does the thinning of clouds contribute to heating or cooling? (There are conflicting feedbacks in this.) What was previously stopping condensation of rising air masses? Might want to look at the actual temp/pressure charts of the atmosphere (the earth’s very outer atmosphere is a bit on the hot side… specify which layer you’re talking about). Check out the heat capacity and density of air, especially air with low water content as would be found in the upper troposphere – does this make long term cooling likely from this source? Typically, climatic-energy balance discussions are from the perspective of sources of radiation and heat (not sources of cold). What timeline are we talking about here for each event? If floodwaters are equally distributed across the globe how would it create the necessary pressure differential to cause tectonic upheaval in specific locations? (By the way there is noticeable isostatic rebound from the last ice age… but it’s localized to where the glaciers were as delimitated by terminal moraines). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 12:10:29 PM | I shouldn't let you draw me in like this but-
"And wonka, you have 'personally attacked' myself, and millions of others when you spread your statements,"
So by arguing my position I am attacking you? And you are likening that to a personal attack? Sorry if my position offends you, but that is the nature of debate. Not everyone in this world agrees. In fact, even within legitimate science there is heated debate. That is part of the intellectual process. You don't seem to be familiar with the rules of debate and logical fallacies. Here's one for starters-
Argumentum ad hominem- attacking the person and not their argument. If you don't like my position then provide facts and a well reasoned argument for your position, but "look at his pictures- he's flabby." is hardly a sound argument. See the difference? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 12:29:00 PM | Here is yet another site to read, (with an OPEN mind) for the skeptics...This has been mentioned previously in this Forum by others, but obviously needs repeating.
http://answersingenesis.org
See wonka, I would be the first person to YOUR defence, believe it or not, for your RIGHT to believe what YOU so choose. That is why I mention some of my brief background on this and other topics...I have 'been there' in your mindset and 'belief system' in the past.
And wonka...when you say dismissive, rude, insulting, belittling, assumptive, sarcastic, stereotyping statements about 'fundamentalists', 'creationists', etc, etc...Saying also that they are illogical, etc...That also is a "Personal Attack"...
My sarcastic comments about your pictures, are a "Personal Observation".
"See the difference?"
And "j-roc's" arrogant and rude comments below are exactly the type of "Attacks" I am talking about...He, and others, have a hair trigger reaction this way to even the mere mention of proof and scientific study FOR the Creationists point of view...This is what I keep hammering away on by saying those opposed to the Bible, creation, etc, etc, automatically resort to insults, etc, etc...I'd debate "j-roc", but really, he is just a child who has yet to grow up.
| |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 864 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 12:30:34 PM |
Here is yet another site to read, (with an OPEN mind) for the skeptics...This has been mentioned previously in this Forum by others, but obviously needs repeating.
http://answersingenesis.org
If it wasn't a load of b.s. we would not need an open mind, the evidence would be enough. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 12:36:55 PM | Sorry, but sarcasm is a perfectly acceptable form of discourse. It's possible that my tone may be dismissive at times, but when you hear the same illogical points over and over, and you have already shown in formal terms why it is an illogical point then it's hard not to be a little dismissive. As for stereotyping statements- please show me when I have stereotyped someone, because I honestly don't remember, and, if I did, that I will apologize for.
p.s.- please respond to my personal mail if you feel compelled, because this really doesn't belong in the forum. We are hijacking the thread by arguing this. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 10:47:52 PM | Biography of EO Wilson
http://www-museum.unl.edu/research/entomology/workers/EWilson.htm
Yes, EO Wilson is an original thinker, a well-respected scientist, scholar and popular author. In addition to many other prizes and honors (if I remember, 27 honorary doctoral degrees too), he’s won the Crafoord Prize (biology's version of the Nobel prize) and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. TIME magazine named him as one of America’s 25 Most Influential People. I don’t always agree with everything he says. I do like his writing style and he makes great points.
I intend to read this book by him soon: Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998)
”He delves into the philosophy of knowledge and science, arguing for the unification of the humanities and sciences into a coherent body of knowledge. He suggests a closer examination of possible evolutionary origins and functions of morality, the arts, and religion.”
------------------
CURRENT EXTINCTION SPASM (starting with Pleistocene):
The diversity of life reached the greatest diversity approximately 30,000 years ago. Unlike the previous five extinction spasms [1. end of Ordivician, 2. Devonian, 3. Permian, 4. Triassic, 5. Cretaceous], this sixth extinction spasm is human-caused. Shortly after human arrival in Australia, North America and South American, 74-86% of megafauna became extinct (much to overhunting and some due to clearing habitat.) The contemporary extinction problem is acute. Twelve percent of birds and mammal species (the best known groups) are currently threatened with extinction. The greatest threat to species right now is habitat loss.
Many qualities species have make them more vulnerable. These included: species that are area, edge, isolation and process sensitive (need large range of unharmed habitat or a core habitat, that is distanced from edge and disturbance; also those who depend on certain environmental process, etc.) Other qualities like: already rare species, those who have a narrow range and specialized requirements, poor dispersal ability (especially in degraded habitat) long gestational time, large body size, economically valuable (or their habitat is), conflict with humans, and many other factors contribute to the threat… The loss of species of special ecological importance, like keystone species (that plays a critical role in ecosystem functioning), or loss of an entire genus is very troubling. Of course, to me, there is an ethical problem with all of the intrinsic value and beauty, gone forever, when a species becomes extinct.
BACKGROUND EXTINCTION RATE:
By estimating using the fossil record, the natural ‘background’ extinction rate (in absence of human intervention where a species lasts between 1 and 10 million years) is at a rate at 0.0001-0.00001% per year.
There are 1.8 million described species. About 100,000 new ones are described per year. So the actual number is expected to be at least 3 million, and as high as 30 million (based on some insect diversity estimates (e.g., work in tropical forest canopies, by Terry Erwin). Other work on soil samples (extracting bacterial DNA) showed each 2 gram sample contained over 4000 species of soil bacteria--with hardly any overlap between samples.
If we assume there were 10 million species on Earth, we would expect between 1 and 10 species to become extinct per year. Looking at the best-known groups—birds and mammals—we find that the current extinction rate is know to be .01% per year—100-1000 times greater (as Dryad mentioned) than what would be predicted by the background rate. Between 1850 and 1950, 100 species of birds went extinct (when, at most, 1 would be predicted with the background rate.) The other 99 can be attributed to human activities—including habitat loss and degradation, introduction of invasive species, overexploitation, and other ecosystem stress. Not only is there species loss, but we are also losing genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity. Ninety-seven percent of food crop varieties once grown in the US are now extinct. India used to cultivate 80,000 rice varieties, if I remember correctly, almost all rice grown there is now of 10 varieties.
Quietjohn asked: Are there similar figures for the other side of the equation - the appearance of new species?
As far as how long speciation takes, that depends on the type of organism, their generation time, and other factors. In Africa, 300 species of ciclid formed in 12,000 years. Most scientists believe that all of the species of honeycreepers in Hawaii arrived as a single pair tens of thousands of years ago. It normally takes hundreds, and often thousands, of generations to form new species. Formation of new genera takes much longer. It is generally excepted that the current rate of extinction is 100 (some say up to 1000) times greater than the rate of speciation. In addition, as habitat decreases and population numbers decline, the opportunity for speciation may also slow. So while the rate of extinction is likely going up, speciation rates may be also slowing down.
---------------------------
Assumptions of conservation biology include: diversity is good, untimely extinction is bad, ecological complexity is good, evolution is good (leads to greater diversity) and biodiversity has intrinsic value. Those all have well-reasoned arguments (too detailed to go into here). I accept these assumptions and believe work towards preventing extinction of species is very important. More info on conservation biology at : http://www.lib.pdx.edu/resources/pathfinders/conservbiol.html
---------------------------
I like the Turtle Island story, as well. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:23:46 PM | dryad
Assuming there’s a conscious-force, does it trump the strong-force?
Are you refering to the strong force relative to the Unified Field Theory ?
I'm assuming that you are, so I'll respond as such.
I didn't put the connection together at first, as I was focused on another part of your post.
The problem with this consciousness thing is that we/science aren't able to get a grasp on it. I mean that figuratively and literally.
As I understand the UF Theory, it proposes to unify the known forces that control the observed interactions in matter; gravitation, electromagnatism, the weak force and the strong force (the force that holds atomic nuclei together).
This theory applies to matter or that which makes up matter.
Hold on - we have a little chasm to cross :-)
Consciousness works outside of matter, controls matter, as it were. Now you might be saying "right, where's the proof? I want hard scientific facts."
Science is the study of matter.
Consciousness is not matter, therefore it is unable to be defined by a tool specifically used to define matter. Now we know there are things science can not explain, consciousness being one of them, but we can use the scientific method to help show that consciousness is indeed a real thing, albeit a non-tangible thing as defined by science. As you've seen in previous posts, I mentioned a bodymind and an anological mind. Body mind holographically projects all that is matter. (social consciousness, emotional body, physical reality) Analogical mind is all that is potential matter, potential reality. I posted a little test earlier to help define the difference between the two minds. This will also help understand how consciousness works. Know that doubt and judgment are manifestations of body mind (ie, this won't work, it's not science). If we sincerly use the scientific methodology objectively, non-judgmentally, (I think those of a spiritual nature call it faith) you'll see some interesting results.
Consequently this leads us to the crux of the quintisential argument.
I heard this somewhere.
"Are we physical beings that have spiritual experiences, or are we spiritual beings having a physical experience?" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:26:51 PM | where did you find the 17 species/year? Just wild speculation from your previous post on extinctions, dryad. Currently 17,000 - 100,000 per year at a rate that is 100 - 1000 times background. Lowest background extinction rate would be 17 and I assumed replacement would have to be around the same value.
extrapolation of quantum effects to the macro scale is unwise I'm not sure we (contributors to this forum) really understand what quantum effects are - and you don't have to worry about Mac trucks (I worry more about buses - especially in San Francisco). The uncertainty principal suggests that the uncertainty in its position multiplied by the uncertainty in its momentum will likely be in the range of 10^-34 so giving him 3 feet of wiggle room should be more than adequate (assuming he was traveling slow enough for you to see him coming). Now, I'm not sure if quantum effects predicted or explains the growing tendency of vehicles to take to the sidewalks, but observation suggests you're not safe on the streets of the classical world either.
A few hundred scientists in the Christian Research Society would barely be enough to educate a single sectarian college, so I'd be more inclined to use such numbers to demonstrate the LACK of support implied by such a small portion of the scientific community.
Along the lines of dryad's comments ..... The World Christian Encyclopedia (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm#wce) suggests "there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many thousands of smaller ones. Among these various faith groups, we estimate that there are hundreds of significantly different creation stories to draw from." How much time and how would you divide it up between them in the schools? Give all of the creation stories an hour each and you're probably going to eat up more than a day a week. Is this a good use of our kid's time at school?
because all points of view should be taught I really like that idea - but, as indicated above there isn't time. Society has to make decisions about what it wants to teach our kids (not that I necessarily think it does a good job). What practical use would our kids make of all this creation education. Then you have to consider how people may decide to add their own special interests to the "teach everything" point of view. Contraception/promiscuity versus abstinence? All of the different forms of government? Doesn't the same principle apply there too? Considering kids have bigger brains than adults (and they often seem sharper, too) I think we have the whole thing backwards. Kids should be running things and telling US what to do!
Another issue raised by devotees of creation is its relationship to science, generally arguing that it IS science. Do any of them actually understand what science is - what the scientific method entails? It seems to me that most are suggesting that they find their version of the creation narrative more plausible than the widely accepted scientific version of the most likely way that the world was created and populated. OK - accepted, but does belief in one version rather than another constitute a scientific method? I'd like a creationist rationale for including creation in a scientific curriculum.
The difference to me seems to be that science attempts to produce a plausible (although incomplete) version of how events may have transpired, then tests for consistency (rejecting that which doesn't make sense) and attempts to fill in the gaps in their incomplete version whereas creation simply repeats an age-old story which implies processes that seem impossible to mere mortals and suggests that we should believe it on the basis of faith alone. What would the practical purpose of such teaching be? How would that help our kids become better scientists?
The answersingenesis site or the creationresearch sites are home pages and it wasn't clear to me how to navigate to other pages of interest. You will find some discussions of topics raised in specific pages of these site in earlier posts here. Maybe you have specific issues to discuss that are outlines on specific pages you could direct us to.
I somehow managed to hit upon what appears to be an informative presentation of both sides of the issue at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof1.htm. A look at the site may have pre-empted some questions raised here.
I haven't seen the other cheek yet, not even from one who recommend the CRS site - and I thought those folks believed in Jesus!
I'm a little perplexed at why we regard extinction as bad - it is, after all, an essential part of the evolutionary process. And evolution isn't constant. I still think our real fear is of extinguishing ourselves. And I still say Gaia (or God) will be indifferent if we do. We probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for previous mass extinctions......... hmmmmmm | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 12:09:29 AM | I'm a little perplexed at why we regard extinction as bad - it is, after all, an essential part of the evolutionary process. And evolution isn't constant. I still think our real fear is of extinguishing ourselves. Anyone who didn't care about humanity extinction wouldn't care about extinction, in general. And I still say Gaia (or God) will be indifferent if we do. We probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for previous mass extinctions
I do believe that a concern about extinction comes down to concern that we will destroy ourselves. This is in addition to the sense of loss of something of Beauty, in general--I would not cry about a virus extinction, but for elephants, I sure would. I can't really speak for others, but my take on this is something like that of Muir? Maybe? Although I am not anthropocentric to the degree of most, I do have that human bias. I am neither fully anthropocentric or biocentric (as commonly understood for each) in my philosophy. I find humanity really beautiful. So someone (few do) who is very ‘hard core’ biocentric might think that a virus has the same value as the human species. I don’t. Most biocentric outlooks still have a hierarchy of life (rather than an all species are equal view), but more laid-back than the 'hard core' views. (Plus, my view doesn’t just include charismatic species, but also those tiny soil microorganisms and earthworms that are critical for future life growth in soil—and killed by pesticides. But I also do put humans, whales, dolphins, elephants, big cats, primates, orchids, and old growth trees, birds, bees, food crops (and their wild relatives) and many other life forms on a very high intrinsic value level (maybe some because they insure humanity's survival, and others for just Beauty of nature)—and above species like disease organisms. I’ve never really found a good way to articulate a justification for that in scientific terms. And I do not claim to know which species are critical for life (though, as I said, I do not like most disease organisms--extinction of the bird flu would not cause me grief... but other than diseases... I DO value other species.)
I go back to my belief that Gaia is aware of intelligent and compassionate (for lack of better words) life--maybe because OF intelligent life. I think Gaia is fond of those kinds of creatures—but finds destruction of Beauty and overall diversity, harmful. I don’t find it odd to attribute things like consciousness (or, soul, as some call) to Gaia. However, I’ve found myself in a position talking about that in a way that must be like that of Dr. Jane Goodall encountered when she named Chimpanzees in Gombe. I think science should retain scientific principles, but should be open to more than what the scientific establishment seems to deem acceptable, right now. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 1:55:24 AM | This may seem off-topic, but it's really rehashing of a good many things that have been discussed here on the thread. I'd like folks to realise this, particularly the mods, if they or anyone else takes umbrage to anything said here.
And, by the way 'feral' and 'wonka' and other dismissive types...
Someone, please tell me where I have been less than a gentleman (I believe I was even trying to answer Trewq's questions from a Creationist standpoint). Honestly, I have not been dismissive, nor have I attacked anyone that I know of. I fail even to see where Wonka has done so when not previously provoked.
Feral good is, Feral much with the neutrality has been, but now, O my brothers and sisters, viddy well, for it is on.
Background: Feral's first post here (No, not the whole thing, don't worry)
I don't know for certain about creation, I'll give you, but the occurrence of evolution has been sufficiently proven to me for me to accept. As far as the debate between "Evolutionism" and "Creationism" as philosophical stances, that's not even a scientific debate. From what I've seen, the religious proponents of Intelligen Design/Creationism have fabricated an entire philosophical movement counter to their own that "seeks to promote evolutionary thinking above religion." Which, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
Is this an attack or a statement of understanding/belief?
Okay, stop. I was going to go back through the thread and point out all the posts (and there are many) where, either I or Wonkavision supposedly "attacked" or "have been, as I [CR] mentioned before, dismissive, sarcastic, rude, judgemental, stereotyping, and 'labelling' those who support the Bible, and God and the Creationist viewpoints." I'm not going to do that, because the very few that showed a slight prejudice were to be expected. There are a great number of posts in here that fit these descriptions, only a couple of which could be ascribed to myself or Wonka. Also, in the process of seeking out those posts, I calmed down some. Let's just say, CanadianRomantic, Feral Rule #4, You're not me.
I would suggest YOU read all the background before making harsh ASSumptions.
Splinter in Wonka's eye? Perhaps, but whose contains the beam?
I, for one, have not ignored any factual information in support of the Creationist standpoint. Believe it or not, I have supported the scientific findings of Creationists in this thread. The fact remains, however, that, at the base of each of these two worldviews lie utterly different assumptions, as pointed out by a Creationist, John D. Morris, in "Young Earth." I do, however, support the fact that, even though arguing from an unscientific standpoint (as far as there really even is an argument), the proponents of Intelligent Design generally do attempt to use good science to support their "hypothesis."
And this is the point behind the entirety of this thread, in my view. We take the opportunity to point out what the two systems of understanding have in common, where they differ, and we discuss the relative merits. Sounds good to me, as long as we also answer the original question (which has been answered many times over so far - almost every time in the same manner), "Should ID be taught in science classrooms as a viable hypothesis?"
My answer is yes and no. It is possible that the world was created by a supernatural intelligence that created all forms of life, and science, if it is turned to discovering that, may find evidence to that effect. In addition, many scientific researches and discoveries made by supporters of Intelligent Design are truly valid scientific observations and might be used in science classrooms as examples of research. However, I do not believe that school science curricula are the arena for saying which Intelligent Designer, if any, created the world, and if it is to be discussed in science classes, the points of faith upon which many of the conclusions are based should be left out.
Hopefully, this clarifies my position, shows that I am not unwilling to "bury the hatchet (one which, I must point out, I never raised)," and, which is the most important point, advances the discussion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 3:14:14 AM | I’ve said I cannot speak for others, and I have read the back/forth with wonka and cr. I hope I can say something to stop the animosity and build a friendship. I do really like wonka and call him my ‘friend’ now and have no bad feelings for CR, either—he might be my friend, and I hope so. My take is right now is that CR is reading what wonka writes as debate points as a kind of personal attack—though I have not really seen that (at least in what I’ve read). CR, wonka is saying his thoughts, but isn’t against you. You can disagree and debate—with fire points if you like. Debate the points, but not the person saying. He isn’t against YOU. He has a different way to think, that’s all. I am not against either of you—you both had some points. I like diplomacy. But the stress I hear here, makes me feel additional stress, too. Could you keep debate to the points made and not attack someone’s personal appearance, etc? I’m certain that G-d isn’t impressed with someone attacking the person, rather than the argument. Peace, kids! Peace.
Feral, you are certainly a gentleman (in every thread I’ve seen you on) and I thank you for that. Noted. Appreciated.
I have been learning and thinking about things feral, dryad, quitejohn and many, many others here, have to say… that is part of why I like this thread... so many insightful and caring people.
Like I said, I love this thread. I like to teach, but I don’t know if I teach here as much as pose questions to think about, often. I learn more than any of that. That's like my general philosophy of teaching. I learn while I teach. (But grad students teach me more... even though they tend to think they know nothing... funny... anyway.)
About the last three paragraphs of your last post, Feral, I agree. I think you make a good point with… “saying which Intelligent Designer”? I have absolutely NO DOUBT that a great being started all (when? how? what story?… that is, right now, different from science, but I don’t think God is...but I also know that ‘being’ created evolution I think God IS a scientist… experimenting, observing, doing math, AND appreciating Beauty.) Who would burn a Monet for fuel? Art for art's sake IS. That is Good--no utilitarian reason need be given. Same nature. Art forms CAN serve a utilitarian purpose, but that isn't the PURPOSE of art. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 3:39:58 AM | Good post, Dharma. I've tried to keep the back and forth neutral as much as possible. And, I appreciate your efforts to maintain it that way.
I would like to thank Wonka for trying to get the flamewar out of this thread. Good man.
I like to teach, but I don’t know if I teach here as much as pose questions to think about, often.
Right on. That's the point, at any rate. And, any teacher that doesn't learn from her students is doing something wrong.
As far as the last part of my post, I have to reference/paraphrase something I said once before. As far as Creation/Evolution are concerned, one or both could be right (I don't know), and one or both could be wrong (again, I don't know), but I do know what the starting arguments for each of them are, and I understand they should be taken as two separate concepts. Evolution is a theory that is taken by some to be the "answer," and has therefore, become dogmatic, while Creation is a statement of faith which some folks have decided to believe could be verified/falsified and have sought to support with scientific inquiry. Tail, ears, trunk, legs... Oh, look! An elephant! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 4:58:37 AM | As far as Creation/Evolution are concerned, one or both could be right (I don't know), and one or both could be wrong (again, I don't know)
I don't know either. Even if I did know, I wouldn't want to know (all). I don't. But I do love ideas... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 10:20:57 AM | Canadian Romantic, I am having great fun with the sites you've offered. I loved the "experiment" on fossization.
I would however ask if:
The fact is, the Grand Canyon could have literally been formed in a matter of days under the astronomical hydraulic pressure that had to accompany the run-off of a global flood.
Ah, if the WHOLE planet was flooded where was the "Run Off" running off to? To have run off there must have been a dry spot to run off to, right?
At around 17 million years ago, while the river was flowing across this ancient landscape, the land mass know as todays Colorado Plateau began to uplift. The uplift was caused by pressures deep with the Earth and may have been caused by additional conflict between the North American Plates and the Pacific Plates. This process continued until around 5 million years ago which interestingly enough is the date of the sedimentary layers just west of the plateau. At its greatest hieght the Colorado Plateau was once about three miles above sea level. The rise of the plateau probably prevented the seas from submerging it again and instead the topmost layers were eroded away and carried into the sea. The most favorable currently accepted theory is that the Colorado River continued to cut through the Colorado Plateau while the land rose around it.
There is much FOSSIL evidence supporting the flood.
Ah, how can the creationist dismiss the fossil evidence for evloution but use it to support Creation? They discredit thrust-faults as to throw a bug into the time-sequence of the geological columns. Yet insist that "Faults" in the earth's crust can account for some of the flood story???
And again and again the time frame question....
'The earth cooled down a lot longer ago than we thought, say scientists. They examined a tiny zircon crystal the thickness of two human hairs and discovered it was 4.4 billion years old, the most ancient material ever found on earth. It means that instead of then being a swirling ball of molten metal, as scientists thought, the earth must have been cool enough for continents and water to form. If it had water there could have been early life forms, the international team, including Edinburgh university experts, says in the journal Nature'.
The Daily Mirror, 11 January 2001.
Oh and how do the creationist explain "Reef" formations? You know those living structures that take thousands and thousands of years to form.
Oh and then this in an effort to show how science and religion work hand in hand.......
Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543) was an astronomer and canon (staff clergyman) in Poland, though he never went on to become a priest (Hummel, p.41). His research he regarded as `a loving duty to seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted' (Peacock, p.147).
Yea then put him inside a wall for pointing out the truth. Great example.
Or this one?
Thomas Edison (1847-1931), while searching for a material from which to make electric light filaments said, "Somewhere in God Almighty's workshop is dense woody growth, with fibers almost geometrically parallel and with practically no pith, from which we can make the filament the world needs." (Clark, p.51) This proves What?
Sorry RC I find little use for your Creation Reseach site. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 875 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 1:58:08 PM | *laughing* oh my goodness! I never expected anyone to come back to me with the de Broglie wave-function of my Mac Truck… that’s just brilliant! My self-admittedly pretty questionable analogy was trying to point out how specific hypothesis might be improperly extrapolated, without regard to the scale of the effect. (And I also think after talking with a few people here, my odd humour is being mistaken for seriousness, so I’ll rein it in further.)
I'm not sure we (contributors to this forum) really understand what quantum effects are I think you’re right. But it’s fun to try to stretch our brains, no?!
(Oh! just as an aside… I was just thinking about the comment you made a long time ago about quantum effects impacting molecular biology. Did you know that the double slit experiment has been done with buckyballs (carbon-60 molecules) and they show the same wave-interference patterns? The wave-function is about the diameter of the molecule in that case (order of a manometer). Although it gets weird if they heat the buckyballs up…the inference pattern disappears… *scratches head in confusion*)
I’m also been impressed with the religious tolerance organisation’s website, which I found awhile back when looking for recommended readings in Buddhism, too bad they receive as many death threats as they do.
Gotta say this does make me a little nervous, if only because potential exploiters of the wilderness may use the mistaken placement of this bird on the ESL as "proof" for an argument that they don't necessarily endanger wildlife. Not saying it'll happen, I just don't trust 'em. I’ve never figured out who ‘they’ are, but I don’t trust us either ;)
But an extinct species or its habitat doesn’t need any protection. So the verified sighting of the woodpecker (that hasn’t been seen for decades) moved it into the endangered species list and consequently, subject to relevant protection legislation.
Feral good is, Feral much with the neutrality has been Feral, the only disturbing thing I’ve ever gotten from your posts is the recent, unexplained tendency to mimic Yoda while speaking in third person | |
|
|
| Page 35 of 156
|
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, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 |
|
Home
login 
