|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:14:48 AM | QJ-
"I'm not sure how to describe this, so that the smallest things in the world can also be the biggest. As far as I can tell, there's no distinction between the universe expanding or everything in it shrinking."
Yes this actually relates to an impication of string theory that I ran across somewhere. I can't remember the mathematical details. I'll have to go back and read up again on string theory.
"Helmholtz apparently crystallized a general theory of geometry and space of which Euclidean geometry was a special case. Einstein took the step of hypothesizing that the real world inhabited a non-Euclidean space and suggested methods by which his hypothesis could be tested."
Well there's a lot more than that that led Einstein on the path toward relativity. He coalesced a lot of ideas floating around at the time. Largely the special theory emerged from his interpretation of Maxwell's equations too, but you are refering to the general theory with Helmholtz's ideas. Anyway, I just said it sounds like a good read- I wasn't meaning to debate the content of a book I haven't read.
"The momentum dryad and I discussed (should have noted that p=momentum in that earlier post on photons) is only related to mass in the classical world."
Well, you could say it has relativistic mass (energy being relativisticly equivalent to mass) but that's kind of just fancy footwork. Also you can measure that light can add to the mass of a closed system of perfect mirrors so that the photons are continually reflected back and forth. In the box's frame of reference the total momentum is zero, but the energy isn't, so the photons add a small contribution of mass. This can actually be measured by an increase of inertia when the box is either accelerated or it's gravitational pull is increased, which is relativistically identical. Of course this doesn't mean that light has mass in general. Really, mass is not exactly equivalant to energy, but is more accurately the part of a mass which is not kinetic energy. Basically I agree that it gets tricky applying momentum to massless particles, which is yet another disconnect between quanta and macrocosmic physics.
"Whatever you may think of some of the old religions, they seemed to come up with some very deep insights into the ways that the world may work."
I'm not suggesting there isn't truth to this, only that it's inaccurate to suggest they developed evolution. One is a story with perhaps some insight to it, the other is a theory predicated upon a very precise methodology. Like I said before, any method that aids intuition is great, so long as it is then but through the battery of proof and peer review.
"The biggest difficulty I have with that right now is the signal-to-noise ratio. How much useful information are we getting? Can we even distinguish between signal and noise?"
Ahhh, no we get to the crux of the issue. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:18:03 AM | "Many scientists (Evolutionists) abandon and/or change their theory all the time. So what you learned in school concerning Evolution is (some of it at least) obsolete because new scientific researches showed different results."
Yup. And this is exactly the strength of the scientific method. It is not about providing dogmatic inflexable answers to philisophical questions. It is a METHOD for honing the truth. We have a lot more scientific knowledge today than we had twenty years ago, and we will have a lot more in twenty more years. It is not a matter of changing their knowledge so much as improving it. Science is an ongoing process. I just don't understand what people can't grasp about that. Seems pretty easy to understand to me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:28:20 AM | | Evolution - especially Darwinian and Lamarckian varieties has long been used as the supposedly scientific basis of racism. All of the 19-th century evolutionists, in fact Darwin and Huxley, and all the rest, well up into the 1-st quarter of the 20-th century were convinced proponents of white supremacy. Along with his social Darwinist followers Haeckel set about to demonstrate the "aristocratic" character of the law of nature. Hitler was so enamoured of evolutionary theory that he was willing to commit the lives of the german people to the struggle for racial supremasy. A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University has commented on it: "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of Evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made the holocaust possible". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:36:34 AM | | In contrast to the early evolutionary claim of "white supremacy" (evolutionists had abandoned it now) the Bible says that God created everyone, every nation etc and God loves all of His creatures . All people are equal in God's sight. God cares and loves people regardless of nationality, race and stuff like this. God created Adam and Eve and told them to be fruitful and multiply (have sex). The fall was not sex as many claim. The original sin in the garden of Eden was that people wanted to be Gods. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:41:12 AM | Okay where do I start with what's wrong with this. Just because some idiot misuses and frankly misinterprets the theory does not mean the theory is responsible. That's absolutely no different than blaming the crusades, or the inquisition, or the witch trials or any number of atrocities done in the name of religion, on the teaching of Christ. The theory of evolution is no more responsible for the holocaust than Christ is for the inquisition.
"but I cannot deny that the theory of Evolution, and the atheism it engendered"
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution in no way precludes the existence of a diety- seperate issue. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 12:07:55 PM | | Well, wonka, you are right about evolution not being responcible for the holocaust (I didn't say it was) and about inquisition stuff. Early christians (1-st and 2-nd century A.D.) were martyred especially during the reign of Nero (fed to the lions and stuff like that). Those christians did not harm anyone and did not steal anything. There were no religious frauds that we saw in 20-th century. Josephus (Jewish historian) recorded early Christian movement (I believe in 1-st century A.D.) and said Christ rose from the dead. Those record of Josephus were not rewritten later by Christians but were the original writings of his (josephus) as many highly qualified text analysists have confirmed. Returning to Evolution stuff - you see, Evolutionists do not need God. Evolution claimes that everything that exists created itself by itself. God doesn not need Evolution and Evolution does not need God | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 12:15:57 PM | "Evolution claimes that everything that exists created itself by itself."
Evolution claims nothing of the sort. In fact "created" doesn't even come into the equation. It's all about the distribution of genes and how they are selected by environmental pressures. That's why it's the theory of evolution and not the theory of creation. The only thing that evolution does not resonate with is a fundamentalist interpretion of the bible i.e.- the earth is 6000 years old etc. Evolution does not, though, preclude the existence of god. There are many biologists who believe in god and simply see evolution as a mechanism created by him/her to regulate life. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 12:16:19 PM | | I forgot to mention some other things about inquisition. People (priests) ruined good religion. Back then it was entierly Catholic (denomination). There was a time when priests fobid people to have Bibles. People were supposed to come to the priests for explanation (scripture explanations). Pugatory is not in the bible for example. Catholic priests came up with the stuff that was not written in the Bible and taught it to the people. Later Martin Luther, a Catholic monk, started a reformation: "Sola scriptura!" "Scripture alone (no priests)" and he was the founder of the protestant movement. Protestants also were burned during inquisition times. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 12:23:35 PM | | Wonka, many, many Evolutionists say they do not need and do not want God. There are few exceptions. Some christians (and other religious people) believe in Evolution, others don't. I mentioned in my previous posts Evolution is not a new theory. It was originated in ancient Sumeria and Egypt. People believed matter is eternal and God is not eternal and that god evolved. That shows Evolutionists thinks we (people) are God indeed. Christians, Jews and Muslims believe God is Eternal and matter is not. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 12:51:34 PM | Guess who:
I'm having trouble following you. What is the message we should be getting from your posts?
Find God, maybe? - I think I found him - and found that most people who think they found him haven't come close. I LOVE Him too - I think He's totally awesome - mind bogglingly so. And every time I figure out a bit more of the awesome stuff he's done, I get even more impressed. What am I doing wrong? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 12:58:51 PM | And a hammer can be used to build a house or to bash in someone's brains. That does not make the hammer good or evil, it is the people who weld the hammer who hold good and evil.
And MICXSTER on the link you suggested, what do the first two points have to do with anything?
1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."
2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original simple germs, was Lamarck a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded that God created matter--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.
(And I just love the way christains use Copernican hypothesis to prove how scienitfic they are. How hypocritical!)
And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is...................... If we suppose the race to have sprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to double the population...................If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe. This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.
Ok my math skills are a bit rusty, but none of this ^ makes any sense. The last thing first, He says by his "numbers" that from Adam to Noah the world's population would have been 16,384.
Days of Adam 7333 years ago
Days of Noah, 5177 years ago
So that in 2,156 years the population went from two to 16,384. (I get 347,657)
Yet, if he allows that evolution began 10,000 years ago, his calculations make the population two billions times what it is to day or 1.29 to the 19th power(?)
But when I use his numbers (10.000 years at a growth rate of 161.251) I get a modern day popualtion of 1,612,510 (less then the number of cars on the road this morning).
Like I said my math skills may be a bit rusty, But Really! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 1:42:34 PM | The trouble I'm having with all of this is that when something inexplicable happens in science, it makes the science invalid. Whereas when something inexplicable comes up in religion, it's explained by just another miracle.
Sometimes science then makes some progress which explains the previously inexplicable, even within the framework of the older, invalid science. So, does that mean that the religious miracle wasn't a miracle after all? What does that teach us about the relationship between religion and science?
I'd really like some answers here, because I can only see the picture from one side. I need help from the religious side, but I really don't seem to be getting any. I've even admitted that the two sides may not even think alike, so we need to find some common ground. Are there any attempts to find it?
The best way to counter the evolution theory is to convince people there is a more compelling alternative. What is the choice for those among us who live in a world of (at least perceived) logic? Even the RC church seems to find some merit in evolution - as it finally did in the Copernican view of the solar system. Do the anti-evolutionists have a point, or are they simply the modern day equivalent of those who hung onto the flat earth theory well into the 19th century? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 2:04:09 PM | I would just like to point out that supposing a rate of population expansion is STUPID!
The present (2004) birth rate in Britain is 1.64 births per two people.
This is lower than the amount required to sustain the population and so the population of Britain would actualy begin to decline if we stoped imagration.
This may not seem signifagant to you, but it is when you remember that....
in 1984 The birth rate was 2.4 births per two people.
So birth rates vary greatly over just one generation. Trying to extrapolate a global birth rate over centuries and even milenia, with no historical records to use, is simply imposible. You would be just as likely to be corect by throwing dice and seeing what no: you get. The only way to get acurate no: of past populations from before recorded history, is to use phisical remains, (1000 corpses from 2402bc would mean there had to be at least 1002 people, ect.) but they still will not give you a close figure, just a very good guess. You can also use Genetic information, but I do not know enougth about that to talk about it so will move on now.
Secondly, could we get a mathamatician to work out the birth rate required to turn 8 people (4 couples) (those on the ark, Noah, his wife, three sons and thier wives.) into 6 billion (3 billion couples) (the present population of the world) in just 32 generations?
Please when you do find someone capable of working out this, ask them to take into acount that the further back in history you go, the less likely a woman is, to survive the birth, and then as you go even further back than thhat, birth becomes safer again.
With my exteamly bad math, I get a birth rate of aproximately 7, and that is without factoring in the death rate as well. When death rate is included, you lose a signifcant part of your population and so it would take longer or require a higher birth rate to reach 6 billion people.
I would love to see some acurate no: on this, I wonder why they wernt included in the example? Is it posible that the no: would disprove the example! :shock: :-o | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 2:07:01 PM | As I once stated here before, even Einstein admitted that even with being the Genius that he was, he only knew perhaps about 10% of all total human knowledge.
So, to me, in spite of what I believe to be true TODAY, I am at least open enough to also know, that maybe tomorrow or next year, there may be PROOF to amend what I hold to currently. But that of course does not mean I totally abandon everything I have come to know as true NOW either.
Or, as I have copywrited a slogan, saying: "The person who says they have "All" the answers, has not asked "All" the questions."
CRS folk, and Answers In Genesis people, believe it or not, have the same attitude for the most part. While we START with the Bible as a reference point, we build upon it with scientific method, studies and factual evidences and discoveries.
A Fossil IS a Fossil; How it GOT that way is where we differ.
Dryad made some interesting, if not erroneous presentations a few postings back, one of which was her view that "if" a flood occured, the big rocks would settle first, then the light particles...PARTLY true..because, as the long term, three dimensional thinker would know, the continued settling endless amounts of particles would eventually seek lowest ground below the rocks...
Go ahead, take a large tub for example, fill it with large rocks, THEN fill it with sand...The sand will settle down to the bottom, moreso that even the rocks, and that continued weight would thereby compress so much more than even the rocks could at first. THEN add millions of tons of water, which would even further hard compress it all.
While I may respect the Pope, it does not mean I have to agree with him either.
And, at the risk of repetition, Creationists naturally will seek to prove what we believe, but with scientific methodology; Much the same as Evolutionists, are ALSO pre-biased in THEIR initial thinking and views as well.
See, I've been on the evolutionists side previously; The more I challenged it, the more I came to realise it's overwhelming fallacies and errors.
It LOOKS 'scientific', but as one fellow converted collegue of mine once said, "I now realise it took more faith to believe in evolution before, than it takes to believe in God now." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 2:10:15 PM | Oh oh, I know what else I wanted to ask...
If god gave us free will, then how did he create tha nations of man? Surely man created the nations of man by himself as is our free will, if we didn't, then we obviously do not have free will as god is directing our actions to create the nations of man?
So which is it? Either we have free will or god created the nations of man, it can only be one or the other. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 2:13:10 PM | | As a converted Evolotionist, I find it takes more faith to belive in god than to belive in natural law. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 2:29:48 PM | QuietJohn - I'm not the one to answer your question, since I'm pretty much on your side of the fence here, but I have to point out some things from my perspective. The common ground is precluded by only a literal fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. Since, though, the existence or non-existence of god is an unprovable proposition at least at this stage in history, there is plenty of area for common ground outside the literal interpretation. That is why I am so shocked by this underhanded campaign against what is a highly established scientific theory. Following is a statement by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the perpetrators of the Intelligent Design agenda-
The objective ... is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus'
So it is very clear from their own words that this is a religious and not a scientific agenda, first by setting up a straw man logical fallacy, being the suggestion that Darwinism is atheistic. Evolution has nothing to do with theism. At most it contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible, which the majority of Christians don't, and certainly no other faiths, ascribe to anyway. It is clear from the beginning that their intention was to introduce into society what is analagous to a computer virus to infect the public opinion with fallacies. They misrepresent what evolution is all about, so they are playing with a loaded deck from the start. This is a very small minority of fundamentalists who are trying to sway public opion with disingenuous tactics, because they know most people are not that aware of what evolution actually represents. If people would actually talk to professionals in the field like Drayad and yourself, they would see that there is actually plenty of common ground.
"Do the anti-evolutionists have a point, or are they simply the modern day equivalent of those who hung onto the flat earth theory well into the 19th century?"
I think this pretty much sums it up. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 3:19:41 PM | | Quiet John, I only want to repeat what someone already said on this website about Copernicus (I do not intend to take a credit for it; it was news to me as well but you did not pay attention to it apperantly). Apperantly both Galeleo and Copernicus were devoted Christians. They disagreed with the Catholoc Church about flat earth and earth centered system. But it turned out Catholic church adopted what is called ancient greek philosophy Arestotelean and Ptolemaic (sun goes around the earth, earth is the center and flat earth baloney). The Bible did not claim it at all but ancient greeks did. So please don't mix one thing with another. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 3:24:59 PM | So, CR, you're saying that our epistemology is the same and our database is the same? No need for faith and belief for belief's sake?
Does that mean you should be able to explain how miracles are done? I'm serious, here. We like miracles because they are good. Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we had a lot more miracles? If you can persuade me that a study of creation and God will help us do miracles, I'd be there in a heartbeat. I'm really not kidding. No-one would drown if we could walk on water. No-one need be sick if we can learn how to cure them with a miracle.
The sand will settle down to the bottom Are you suggesting that the rocks will float up on the sand? Try it in a smaller container with sand and pebbles - shake it about and I bet the pebbles stay near the bottom.
Darn - I deleted it then decide to talk about it again ..... answersingenesis explains the flood in terms of a smooth earth (no hills or valleys). The current volume of oceanic water could cover it to a depth of around 2 miles. At the end of the flood, the surface of the earth became uneven and the water ran into the deep bits. Then I was looking at all our logical scientific concerns about the way things happened and how it doesn't make sense - rocks in the wrong places, for example. And then it struck me - the explanation is always some wierd manipulation of reality in a single event that never happened before or since and can't be repeated by humans. Of couse God can make rocks float! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 3:34:00 PM | | It is significant, despite the common claim that creationism is a religion while evolutionism is science, that most of the world's religions are based on evolution rather than creation: Buddism, Confusionism, Taoism and many others. None of this religions believe in personal Creator God who created the universe and humans (everything that is). To those religions the universe is the ultimate reality and the only eternal entity. Humans and all life forms are mere products of the forces of the universe. Only monotheistic religions (those who accept Genesis account) Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in personal Creator God who is above and beyond the universe and who created everything. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 3:41:49 PM | | About answeres in genesis. Evolutionists make up many many different theories themselves. There is operational science (we can prove certain things in the lab through experiments) and there is a historical science (origin science or the science about the beginning of the universe and we cannot prove it in the lab so to say). How do evolutionists know about how the earth looked like billions of years ago? Guesses, guesses. Guess who, guess how and guess when etc, etc, etc. Then Evolutionists turn around and make fun of Creationist's ideas about the past. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 3:52:07 PM |
It is significant, despite the common claim that creationism is a religion while evolutionism is science, .
Can you say "Mudying the waters".
All feraris are cars, but not all cars feraris. This is what my teacher used to tell me.
Just because Buddhism and other non-thiestic religions have no problem with evolutionism , dose not mean that evolutionism is a religion, that is like saying that because Buddhism has no problem with Law of Phisics, the laws of Phisics are a religion.
most of the world's religions are based on evolution rather than creation.
This again is not true, most of the worlds religions have thier own Creation myths, in Shintosim, The Great Golden Emporer was walking over the rivers of chaos, and dipped his staff into it and created the universe by imposing his perfect order upon it.
Just because a Religion dose not have a creation myth, dose not also mean that it is based on Evolution. To begin with, Buddhism is a Religion with dose not answer the big questions of where we came from, it is not important to Buddhism, so you can not claim Buddhism is bassed on evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 3:56:09 PM | | It is not I who claim it; it is scholar H. Morris ( he has degrees in both science and theology) who studied the comparative religions claim it. I only said what he said. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 3:58:37 PM | Guess who - what am I mixing up? I never claimed that Galileo and Copernicus weren't devout Christians. Trewq noted that Copernicus was a Canon. A few of my messages back I even mention the cathedral where he held that position. Aristotle, Ptolemy and the Cathholic Church didn't believe in a flat earth. The argument between the Catholic Church and Copernicus and Galileo was the position of the earth in the solar system - at the center (Catholic Church) or orbiting around the sun (Copernicus and Galileo). I didn't say the bible defined the organization of the solar system, I pointed out that RELIGION can seriously disrupt scientific progress. You correctly point out that religion can sometimes be wrong, just as science can be wrong. I was merely pointing out that, because of that, we need to be wary of our positions. It seems to me that a vast majority of scientists and creationists are moving towards a common understanding. As Copernicus and Galileo may have demonstrated, the majority may nor always be right. But that doesn't automatically make those outside of the majority correct.
Perhaps another interesting thought related to Copernicus and Galileo was that, even as the devout christians you claim them to be, they saw through the prevailing Christian dogma to a purer world - a world in which God was doing things way beyond the imagination of mere mortals at the time. They dared to glorify God in a more truthful way than he had been glorified before. They did it despite severe criticism, censorship and even hardship. | |
|
|
| Page 37 of 156
|
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, 62, 63 |
|
Home
login 
