|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:50:51 PM | So, gee, excuuuuuse me for some light hearted teasing, k?
No. You were being cruel and there is no excuse for it.
Taking what you say at face value, you have my sincerest empathy for your illness and I wish you the best. It does not give you the right to make fun of people who are dyslexic or anyone else with a disability or "condition". And obviously you didn't know it wasn't a disability before you said it or you wouldn't have had to look it up in the dictionary.
Like I said before: do you have anything to contribute to the discussion of Evolution Vs. Creationism? I will ask that you refrain from statements deliberately aimed to blatantly anatagonize other person's participating in this discussion. That is not such a big thing to ask.
To Wonka:
MLR- I would argue that theology is an offshoot branch of philosophy, specifically ontology. The existence of god is certainly a philisophical querry. Agreed that when delving into the particulars after accepting the premise it veers from formal philosophy, but it is certainly still related to both ontology, ethics and even teleology.
This is true. However, my point is that you need to keep anything related to religion away from publicly regulated institutions. That is why I worded it something like "if we call it philosophy". Lets not give Bush ammunition to first introduce intelligent design and World Religions and then 3 years later Creationism and Bible Study.
That is what most proponents of teaching intelligent design in high school are really after from what I am seeing. They are looking for an opening to corrupt the system. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:59:30 PM | I apologise in advance, since all of my posts seem to be long, rambling rejoinders to multiple earlier posts. I keep catching you prolific people after mountains of writing, and I always want to add my perspective. I'm sure some of you just skip over my posts, but I appreciate those who take the time to read my viewpoints.
Science should be used to open minds, not close them.
I agree, but I'd say the same thing about religion, in fact, any system of thought.
I think the facts you present should be reversed to suggest that there must have been AT LEAST 30 generations of humans. There could be tons more, but no less.
I think this is what I was referring to.
Feral - you're clearly not qualified to answer my questions
I agree. :)
"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".
...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.
Not to be confrontational, and I don't necessarily believe contrary to this assertion, but, with this in mind, how are we to explain the favoritism toward the Children of Israel, and that no other nation (at least in the Bible) was offered the Covenant?
God doesn not need Evolution and Evolution does not need God
(It's interesting to see which parts of posts Wonka and I respond to...)
My question regarding this, is why it's important. You've basically summed up the best answer to the "argument" between Creation and Evolution, at least in my view, by saying that they don't need to be compatible. Creation happened (past tense - unverifiable), because God said so, and evolution happens (present tense - observable), because science can show us where, when and how. Like Wonka and I keep saying, the point behind evolution is not a beginning (God covers that), but the process, which is ongoing, verifiable, and even, to some extent, controllable ("have dominion over all the earth...?").
Wonka, many, many Evolutionists say they do not need and do not want God.
Exactly. Many, not most, not all. And, isn't that their prerogative? As for the Sumerians and Egyptians and their view of evolution, that's more a modern interpretation of their world-view, juxtaposing a concept that may not have existed at the time. From my readings, the myths and beliefs of the early Egyptian and Sumerian cultures were based on naturalistic observations and they derived from those the view that the world must have "grown out of" the past, just as all things are engendered by previous ones. They had less of an idea of relic creation, more of a naturalistic bent, and therefore didn't even think to ask, "Who made the world?"
I would just like to point out that supposing a rate of population expansion is STUPID!
While I don't think I'd go in for the vehemence, Raziel's got a really good point. I'd also like to know how these hypotheses account for the death rate. Once you get past a significant point of technological development, man has only two "natural" predators, disease and other men. Both of those become more of a factor in the death toll the more humans you have. Any insights?
"The person who says they have "All" the answers, has not asked "All" the questions."
(I can't believe you copyrighted that) I love it! See the parentheses, but I love it!
Go ahead, take a large tub for example, fill it with large rocks, THEN fill it with sand... THEN add millions of tons of water, which would even further hard compress it all.
If you add the water at the end, and the water is what provides the pressure to push the rocks together, wouldn't it wash the sand up out of the rocks before the pressurisation of the rocks? I'm not sure what the geological record says about this, but I'm not sure I understand your argument.
And, millions of tons of water in a bathtub! 
...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.
This pretty much sums up my position as well, regardless the inane ramblings and confused drivel I may be spouting. Regarding the "underhanded campaign," I will provide this, in case someone hasn't seen it: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html
This is only to point out that, while Wonka is right, in that it is a religious agenda, it's also safe to say that a lot of the Creationist effort is also political in nature, as well.
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.
Not so much based on evolution, though. Like I was pointing out with the Sumerians and Egyptians, while evolution certainly does resonate with the accepted naturalistic beliefs of most of these religions, the scientific theory is certainly not the basis for them.
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.
In that case, I would say that he's either really simplifying everything to a Biblical-creation/evolution dichotomy, or just flagrantly misrepresenting many of the world's religions.
...They all were christians.
True. What was the point again?
There is no religion based on evolution. Some vague reference to life coming from the waters in an ancient religion is no example of such either.
Harkening back to the point about quantum theory and Hindu Maya, though, it does appear to be an interesting insight...
Then prove scientifically (experimentally and also from observation and 100%)
...that creation happened the way Creationists claim it happened.
Cuts both ways.
...I would like to sell you a Tiger repelent spray...
How much? 
If someone of a creationist perspective wishes to make a point - perhaps they should try using the same tool that evolutionists use to make their point.
Arguably, that's the idea behind the Creation Research Society...
Scientific methOdolgy? bas_ed on theories? Like all of the evoltionists used who ultimately became creationists? again ot is all perspective.
Kinda makes you want to see what a dose of sodium pentathol would do to clear up folks reasoning for "converting" from one argument to the other. Either direction.
did I mentionit is a matter of perspective, and how we each interpret what we believe to be facts, since ther is NO absolutes.
Who is talking absolutes? To get to the heart of the matter, rather than harp on whether or not we're taking "spurious logic" as a "perspective" issue, plain and simple: What was said was that there were religions based on evolution. Maybe not the theory, but at least some interpretation of one thing giving rise to another. In one sense this might be true. In another, it was a blatant criticism of the theory of evolution by invalidating the diversity and depth of a multitude of religions. Spurious or not, it was a bad argument.
Again, sorry for the long post. Just trying to catch up. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 10:29:54 PM | | I wasn't aware that World Religions was taught in high school, probably because I graduated from a military high school (AKA reform school), which had a slightly limited curriculum. I'm still not sure its a good idea (not in and of itself, but you give an inch...). I am dead set against intelligent design being taught in public schools. From what I have seen it is clearly being used as a point of opening to introduce more than that in the future. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 10:32:49 PM | The one difference between the people who believe creationism and evolutionism ,is that those who ultimately believe in creationism , don't need to keep proving their point , because of faith.
Okay, I won't go into what I think of that post, but this line needs to be addressed. On the most basic level, the argument centers around two mismatched pairs of apparently conflicting worldviews.
#1. Evolutionism vs. Creationism: First off, "Evolutionism," if it exists, is embraced by uninformed people who really don't know or understand the arguments of science and evolution. Its apparent diametric opposition to Creationism stems from the fact that they are looked at as antagonistic philosophical views. Let's define terms, shall we? Evolutionism (note the -ism) is, from what I can gather, a philosophical stance that, since evolution (note the lack of -ism) is believed to have happened, then all of life must have begun as a single cell and, prior to that, a series of proteins and various chemicals that somehow just "got together" to create everything that lives on Earth today. This, of course is taken to refute the God of the Bible and the Creation account. Here's your straw man. Science doesn't say this is how it happened. Few, if any scientists, draw this conclusion. What evolutionism is is a purported component of Secular Humanism, another fallacious philosophical standpoint that presupposes a concrete movement in scientific and philosophical circles to discredit the Bible and promote humanity as its own God (sound familiar?). Creationism on the other hand (again with the -ism), is the belief, based on faith, that the world was created, intact and full of life, in six days (subject to interpretation, there) by an intelligent God who had all His ducks in a row, so to speak, and therefore knew how it would all fall out. This is embodied in the Creationist movement that claims to seek to find proofs of intelligent design (presumably by the Biblical God) and to thereby support their faith with rational thought. Good stuff, in my opinion. If only it worked that way.
#2. Evolution vs. Creation: This is the "argument" between two apparently inconsistent accounts of the potential nature of life. It's not even an argument. There's little, if any disagreement between the core terms. Evolution says, lifeforms develop and change over time, due to allele-frequency changes in populations of species, while Creation says lifeforms were originally created and placed on Earth by a supernatural power. Where's the debate? I certainly don't see any conflict in the statements. But, maybe I just don't get it. I am, believe it or not, open to any possibility.
The end result, sadly enough, is that the four get all mixed together in this great big religio-political argument that doesn't do any of them any real justice. Believers in Creation (Creationists) use their science not to confirm or support their faith (which, honestly, shouldn't really even need it), but to attack the theory of evolution as a tool of Evolutionism being used to sway people away from faith. The fact that a Creation Research Institute exists is testament enough to the fact that science and faith can coexist. The unfortunate fact of the matter, however, is that, rather than a coexistence, it's turned by some into a collaboration to discredit an already established, functional scientific theory in the misguided belief that destroying something that is seen to discredit Creation (which it doesn't) will bolster the faith.
Again, I just don't get it. I can see both sides of the Creation/Evolution issue, but it's not really about that. It seems to be about power politics, as evidenced by the link I posted, as well as from a lot of the political infighting regarding the "should it be in schools" debate. I just don't know anymore. The more I see the "debates" for what they are (at least in my perception), the less people's intentions make sense, at least in the light of what they're trying to say. I'm leery of seeking justification or motives for the actions and words of others, particularly beyond what they're saying, but the little they let slip regarding their agendas is really discouraging in my book. Toward both faith and science in the end.
Wow, and I didn't even say what I intended when I first read the post. So, here it is: If one doesn't need evidence, why seek it? If evolution is so blatantly wrong, why go to the lengths to which some have gone to "disprove" it? And, why hasn't it worked? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 10:36:17 PM | "News Flash!"
"Missing Link Discovered!"
(Go to "Google", type in "Failure" in the search bar, and then click on "I'm feeling lucky") | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:13:49 PM | Sorry, guys, still behind. I'll catch up, but if you're sick of it, just tag a "stop it, Feral" into one of your posts. I meant to catch this one when it was originally posted, but it's been a while. Highlights:
"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.
...the second law does not apply to 'open systems' such as living creatures, because living things can aquire new energy.
This work of Prigogine's applies only to living systems as they are presently structured.
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.
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.
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.
Okay, these are the arguments I focused on, and they're relatively good ones, when you first look at them. Here are my questions:
Considering that the Earth and its biosphere are currently dependent on solar energy, and since that is an "open system," regarding the predictions of the theory of evolution that life presently and, hypothetically for the period of time that it has been photosynthetically based, actually has the capacity to evolve, how does the theory break down, according to the second law of thermodynamics?
If living things have the capability to acquire new, outside energy to fuel their existence and, by extension, presumably, evolution, is it requisite that that energy ultimately be solar in origin?
Accepting Prigogine's work having been with organisms as they are presently structured, and for the moment, assuming the possibility of evolution, could organisms have existed in the past that did not rely on photosynthesis and solar energy outside the "closed system" of Earth?
When referring to the "chemical origin of life," is it possible that chloroplasts were not necessary, that there might have been another mechanism by which energy, solar or otherwise might have been "directed" to the formation of "proto-life?"
Again, as far as chemicals are concerned, is it necessary to assume that a) solar energy could have had no effect whatsoever, b)that no other energy source could have influenced the chemical reactions, and c) that this actually counts as a truly "closed system?"
What is the probability that at ordinary temperatures, a microscopic number of molecules could assemble to form ordered structures? At extreme temperatures? In extreme environments?
Just curious. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 983 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:28:04 PM | Ah Feral, I could kiss you again. Better be careful, this could become habit.
Funny cause I was just about to post this:
What on earth is an Evolutionist?
Evolution is a theory, not a belief system.
For that matter, I didn’t think Creationism was a belief system in itself either.
Might as well start calling people by other theory names: Gravitationists, Newtonianists, Special Relativitists…
or perhaps ‘ists’ or ‘isms’ of other biblical accounts… bit silly really.
And I wonder at the driving reason behind it.
Pigeon-holing and labelling people is the first step to creating an ‘us’ and ‘them’ stand-off. It really serves no purpose other than to polarize discussion, and give us yet another reason not to listen to each other.
------------------------
I think the part of the difference of opinion stems from in part from these parts of Genesis (KJV), which have been sometimes interpreted as being incompatible with evolution:
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
----------------------
Ok, let’s at least put this part to rest since it's come up repeatedly:
Regarding the population growth part of the http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html site’s arguments. First of all, geometric population growth models are a pretty simplified population modeling tool. They assume unmitigated, geometric growth, which is not going to occur given any limiting conditions (food, disease, space, etc), because mortality will increase. And over long periods any minor uncertainty about the initial population, growth rate (which varies significantly), will also exponentially increase.
N = Ie^(rt)
I is the starting population
N is the population after a certain time, t, has elapsed
e = 2.71828... (the base of natural logarithms).
rate of natural increase (r) = Birth rate (b) - death rate (d)
If people with sketchy math skills want to play with various population models try here:
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/lmexer9.htm
I did a few calculations to help you use historical global population levels to get the growth rates to make it easier for people to muck about on the site:
World Population.....When Reached?.....How Long Did It Take?....Doubling Time……………r (global growth rate)
1 Billion.................about 1800..........all of human history
2 Billion................1930...................130 years…………………………130…………………………….0.0053
3 Billion................1960...................30 years……………………………51……………………………..0.0135
4 Billion................1974...................14 years……………………………34………………………………0.0205
5 Billion................1987...................13 years……………………………40……………………………..0.0172
6 Billion................1999...................12 years……………………………46……………………………..0.0152
* calculated by r= [ln(N/I)] / t
(Pretty obvious when penicillin, sanitation, and the agricultural revolution became widespread, eh?)
He assumes an average doubling time was t=168.3 which translates to r=0.004; over t=5177 years (to 1925) gives a population of 1.9billion, but he also assumes only 1 couple, Noah and his wife.
Just for fun, see what happens when you account for the 4 couples (I=8) on the arc.
Seems the population should’ve been 7.9 billion back in 1925 using the same growth rate assumptions. Amazing how sensitive this population model is to initial conditions… Could ‘prove’ almost anything I’d wager. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:33:56 PM | | The fact of the matter is this I am a tax payer with children and I am a christian and I choose to raise my children as christians with that being said the real issue is if you are going to teach against everthing I teach my kids then you are creating a quagmire. If you tell my kids they are wrong then you are going to create distrust either with them to me or them to you .But I am more inclined to think they will trust me and once you lose that trust then you will lose your abilty to teach them anything. And im here to tell you now im not going to change what im teaching. Now i have no problem with teaching both sides of the coin or even taking a neutral stance on the issue. Personally I was taught both and I beleive everything evolves within its own species I even beleive in the big bang. It says God spoke everything into existance except for man but it never said how it happened. Plus none of us was there to see it anyway. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:36:12 PM |
I'm sure some of you just skip over my posts,
Actually I rather enjoy them. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:41:08 PM |
I am dead set against intelligent design being taught in public schools. From what I have seen it is clearly being used as a point of opening to introduce more than that in the future.
You might have a point there MLR. Look who G dubbya is puttin on the supreme court. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:56:48 PM | | Actually, Littletwin, pretty much everyone here probably agrees with you. We are all taxpayers and have a stake in the education of our children in public schools. The issue is not one of "telling the kids they're wrong." It is not one of trust. It can be, and will be, if religious, faith-based assertions are injected into scientific classrooms. You're right that a lot of the scientific teaching of evolution presupposes the correctness of the theory. Perhaps the fact that it is a theory should be stressed. However, to take evolution, a strong, substantiated, scientific theory out of schools would be depriving children of a major portion of scientific knowledge. To include creation, in any guise, whether from the Biblical account to my own Pagan beliefs, would be to force children to accept, if not the belief, the very existence of that belief, which is not science, and prejudices children either toward or away from whatever belief is asserted; again, not the function of science. I'm not saying that the existence of belief in a possible creator must be left out of science classes (although there is no factual empirical evidence for an anonymous intelligent designer), but that there should be no mention of names, so to speak. The point being that religious beliefs being taught by parents, religious institutions, and private schools is not in conflict with the Constitution. The instant a teacher tells one of my kids that there is a theory that life evolves and then says something to the effect that alternately a given deity could have created the world, that is the point at which my (and my child's) first ammendment rights are being violated. End of story. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 12:10:50 AM | dryad
Where do you get all this information girl?
You are a fact finding stud.
Just for fun, see what happens when you account for the 4 couples (I=8) on the arc.
well - if you do the math - alot, but I'm having a time with the initial part. just adds up to alot of incest. Does the bible say anything about that?
and while I'm at it. What is with adam and eve and all this begotting stuff- there was cain and able, what about their kids and who was their wife? Well I'm a little confused here - who begot with them? That must be the part where the pope says that you can't take literally. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 12:18:13 AM |
...just adds up to alot of incest. Does the bible say anything about that?
Actually, it does, but I don't remember where... Sorry. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 2:23:45 AM | I don't know how anyone with a brain who has read Raziel's posts could ever acuse him of lacking in reading skills or higher brain functions. That's either gratuiously insulting or just plain stupid. I have to agree with wonka - it just ain't Christian.
Personally, I don't get my scientific information from the media. They are often wrong and even biased. What was it Dan Rather ended his illustrious career with? Seems like no journalist is immune. I at least like to check original sources before using them. It's a part of the scientific method and isn't that the direction creationists are moving in?
I guess mixter didn't want to help me understand the comments he made about the generations of mankind. Do you disagree with the doubts that I and others expressed, or do you see the point? An answer either way would be courteous.
If CR can find more than amusement in the following I'd be interested in comments. I'll even number them to help out.
1) A thermodynamically closed system contains energy.
2) Energy in a closed thermodynamic system can be transferred between subsystems within that closed system - meaning that energy transfers can occur until the system finally runs down due to Entropy.
3) The rundown could take a long, long time in a system as big as the earth, solar system, universe.
4) In the meantime a lot of chemical reactions could take place.
5) Many processes (such as chemical reactions) release energy - for example the oxidation of charcoal releases heat when you barbecue (about 94 kcal/mol). They are called exothermic reactions.
6) Just to reiterate one of Raziel's comments, energy is released in many chemical reactions. The heat given out by burning charcoal (the oxidation of carbon) is a product of the conversion of carbon and oxygen to carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. (Heat is energy if you didn't know). You can Google Heat of Reaction, or Enthalpy to learn about it.
7) So chemical reactions in this case take simple atoms and convert them to more complex molecules and also release energy.
8) Other chemical reactions absorb heat. They are called endothermic reactions.
9) All sorts of inorganic materials absorb energy from the sun.
10) Things get warm when left in the sun. Some things get really hot! Isn't that absorbing energy from the sun?
11) Atoms can absorb light energy from the sun. It is called the photoelectric effect.
12) Fluorescence is another example - shine a light on some materials and they glows with a different color than the light used to illuminate it because it absorbs the light energy and then reradiates it at a different wavelength.
13) Sun heats the atmosphere causing weather - clouds, wind, resulting in static electricity - energy in lightning.
14) It was shown in the 50s that energy from electrical discharges (simulating lightning - see 13 above) in a mix of inorganic chemicals could produce organic chemicals. This has been discussed elsewhere in the thread. This may not (yet) explain life, but refutes the quote that life was essential to capture energy from the sun.
Guess who? - I'm beginning to see a resemblance to Alyssa who I'd welcome back. Regardless, can you slow down a little? - You seem to have occasional good comments worthy of discussion, but you don't focus very much, go off into misrepresentations - of both history and statements made in this thread and really seem to be expressing yourself in a way that suggests you feel you have to prove yourself by an outpouring of words. You don't have anything to prove here. We'll do our best to listen. We can't discuss everything at once, so take it one thought at a time huh?
Most of all, I'd like to see any of the critics of evolution here begin to help us understand their view of things, or explain why it is we don't see that they already doing that. How about some education instead of criticism of evolution - Mixter? CR? Guess Who?
Wow, Feral - now you've embarrassed me - there I was trying to come up with something to bring creationists and evolutionists together and you thought it was a joke! Sili thought I was being mean! ....I'm crushed!
As for the first amendment ....... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - (meaning a church, synagogue etc.) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Doesn't seem to say anything about not mentioning religion in schools - or not allowing religious symbols in public land or buildings - isn't that prohibiting the free exercise?. Seems to me that most of the policies related to religion in the US reflects an amendment that should read Congress shall ONLY make laws DISrespecting EVERY establishment of religion. How did they turn that around?
And Littlewin - I grew up in a very Christian family - Church, Sunday School, parochial school, grandfather who read the Bible daily and could find pretty much any verse you quoted to him. I think my dad is still a young earth creationist (and we are still very close, although we stay away from religion). Even as a kid, things didn't make sense, so all this religion can sometimes backfire! Regardless of that, how can you equate all of the things said here by creationists with what kids should learn in science classes? Other classes maybe, but surely many of the things said here are anti-science. Totally confusing, with much of it just plain factually and intellectually wrong. Bad math, bad chemistry, bad philosophy. 'Course, they'd be a shoe-in for president! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 2:45:15 AM | Ah Feral, I could kiss you again. Better be careful, this could become habit.
Like I'd stop you. 
It's a part of the scientific method and isn't that the direction creationists are moving in?
Is that rhetorically, or demonstrably? Sorry, cheap shot, but I've read the CRI website (well, a good portion of it).
Wow, Feral... I'm crushed!
Actually, what I meant (apparently I'm not expressing myself particularly well, either) was that, while you had good points (elaborated later), at the time, I was unsure of the "paradigm" to be considered, and I took your post to be jovial rather than facetious. I misread, and I apologise.
Seems to me that most of the policies related to religion in the US reflects an amendment that should read Congress shall ONLY make laws DISrespecting EVERY establishment of religion. How did they turn that around?
Good point. That's not how I read it, either. However, I believe there is a lot of defensiveness involved from people who seek to distance the two. "Separation of church and state" seems to be the motto, and folks tend to fight tooth and nail to keep anything from even approaching a semblance of that. As for free expression, I had a very devout Christian teacher (physics - one of my favorite classes) when I was in high school, and he'd end every lesson on Fridays with, "Have a good weekend; make good choices." I'm not saying people with religious feelings and beliefs have no place in the public education system, and I certainly wouldn't want to gag them to keep them from potentially sharing their beliefs. What I'm saying is, it has no place in the classroom. A biology teacher brings up evolution as a matter of course (it's a scientific position related to biology), but to express the faith-based doctrine of supernatural creation (here's the important part) with reference to a specific deity or religion is simply inappropriate. You are right, however on the point of not restricting it in a legislative sense. I got carried away, and for that, I apologise for that, as well. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 3:06:58 AM | Sorry Canadian but this is a religion forum so people's faiths are going to come under fire... but mocking some one who happens to have a disability or some other physical characteristic such as being over weight is a low blow and certainly not showing your Christian faith in very good light... Seems you folks are supposed to set the spiritual example right?
Now back to the topic as I have said else where Christian Creationism is no more fact than any other theory including evolution… They are both only theories now scientists both Atheist and not get this. Why oh why is it so hard for Christians to get with the program?
Cat | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 3:09:27 AM | Ah, Dryad, you forgot people die - um don't they?
If everyone died on their 500th birthday there'd only be about 11 million people instead of ~2 billion. (A Catholic joke comes to mind here). Gets kinda depressing if they died on their 300th birthday - about 60 of us by now. We'd have to go wild and double every 120 years to make up for deaths.
Boy, that sounds like a celibate life - there's gotta be a better way!  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 3:45:39 AM | Ah, Feral, I don't think you've ever offended me - I so much enjoy your thoughtful posts. The fault is as much mine by trying to keep somewhat serious thoughts lighthearted at times. I'm not really crushed - just a little bent out of shape maybe (kidding again )
My comment on the scientific method was based on what is claimed rather than any demonstrated policy. I'd agree that they have a long way to go. I'm not really sure if they want to (or even can) move into the science world or just dress themselves up as scientists to better delude people with pseudoscience.
I think religion of all persuasions has a great deal to teach us about morality and humanitarianism so I wouldn't be at all opposed to seeing some form of religious awareness discussed in schools. I just don't see the remotest justification for putting it in science classes though. Given the current levels of self-centered attitudes and religious intolerance - which I suspect we are victims of here, I think a broad overview of world religions would be a good thing for kids to experience.
Now I need to sleep! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 4:08:34 AM | | I am a student of biochemistry and know a few things . No one even attempted to answer my question about "disproof" of the formations of lets say proteins by themselves. Living organisms do not assemble themselves all by themselves. There is also a law of biogenesis proved by Pasteur - life comes from preexisting life. Life does not spontaneously generates out of non-living chemichals. In all chemichal reactions no new matter/energy appears - it all simply rearranges itself. The theory of evolution requires new more complex stuff to appear which would violate the first law of thermodynamics (total amount of matter/energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed. amount of useful energy is decreasing). Lets say you kill moskito and leave its body on the wall - you have a "moskitto soup" like a primordial soup. Do you think in a billions of years moskito will assemble himself, turn into another creature and later become human being? This is not to answer the question of "where did the moskito come from?". The theory of Evolution was originated in ancient Sumeria and Egypt (Evolutions of Ra and everything evolved). and popularised by white supremasists (Darwin, Huxley and all evolutionists of 19-th century). It was mentioned already in my previous posts. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 4:39:49 AM | And you're a student of biochemistry? I'm sorry but the laws of thermodynamics, although can theoretically be applied to this area, really have no place in an evolution debate. They are for governing the flow of energy and motion. You also seem to forget, life by definition needs to absorb matter and energy in order to grow. This does not mean new energy and matter is being created, but simply absorbed from alternative sources.
Your right when you say chemichals cannot produce life, but they can produce the building blocks of life. Heck, we're all just a big bag of chemicals to begin with anyway.
The theory of evolution did not not originate in ancient Egypt, only the concept of evolution within regards to the deities. The ancient Egyptians believed there gods created them, just like everything else. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 4:53:20 AM | The theory of evolution requires new more complex stuff to appear which would violate the first law of thermodynamics (total amount of matter/energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed. amount of useful energy is decreasing). Lets say you kill moskito and leave its body on the wall - you have a "moskitto soup" like a primordial soup. Do you think in a billions of years moskito will assemble himself, turn into another creature and later become human being?
Well, when you're right, you're right, and I'll acknowledge it. Until then, this has got to be the most facile, simplistic misrepresentation of the interaction between the theory of evolution and the first law of thermodynamics I have ever seen. Please explain to me how, using this illustration, or another one, the theory of evolution (that organisms give rise over time to descendants varied enough to represent completely different forms) violates the law of conservation of matter/energy. Please. Preemptively, we're not talking complexity, we're talking about the sum total of energy and matter in a given system.
And the theory of evolution was not originated in Sumeria or Egypt, unless you count the concept of developmental growth as evolution, in which case, the theory of evolution has been around since humanity decided to start thinking.
It was mentioned already in MY previous posts. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 6:40:07 AM | Guess_who said:
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.
The Bible says the Sun goes around the Earth, and that the Earth is flat. That was what the Hebrews believed. This was covered in this thread already.
--T. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 6:59:53 AM | Canadian Romantic said:
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!"
ta da....
There is no problem for evolution posed by thermodynamics. The claim is frequently made by Creationists, who have been repeatedly corrected by people who actually understand thermodynamics.
I'd like to next congratulate you on misquoting Ilya Prigogine. Misquoting scientists to misrepresent their positions is in fact a very common Creationist habit. One of them sees a snippet of text, cuts it out of context, and then uses it on a Website or in some pamphlet or Chick tract because they think it shows a scientist criticizing some aspect of evolution.
The rotten Evilutionists over at talk.origins have been compiling a list of 'Standard Creationist Misquotes' for some time now - the discussion of the misuse of Prigogine's quote came up in January 2003 in fact. See http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan03.html#Prigogine for a discussion of how Creationists have lied about what Prigogine actually said and meant. (Hint: he wasn't criticizing evolution or abiogenesis.)
I'm sure you will be aghast at how you were duped into using that misquote. I have to really strongly suggest that any quote taken from a Creationist website by anyone criticizing evolution REALLY should be Googled for as a misquote, since they almost invariably are precisely that.
I know Christ commanded his followers to convert the unbelievers, but I missed the part where he said it was ok to lie and weasel to do so?
For articles discussing the Creationist claims about the Second Law, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
--T. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 7:26:02 AM | "T"
Accusing someone, of lying, in a public Forum, is libel...
And, I stated all along, SEVERAL times, this quote was taken from TIME Magazine, not from any 'Christian' publication.
And, what you tried to quote above as my alleged 'misquote'?
Those were my words, NOT Prigogine's.
It amazes ME how any person calling themselves an 'intellectual' can miss repeated statements like that.
"Oh! I know C.R.!"...
"Yes...you in the front row..why is that?"
"They gotta be a 'missing link', since they keep missing/ignoring many words some Creation supporters write here!"
"Yes, so true..and again, as my assesment before, they are of the mindset: 'My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts'. But, point well made." | |
|
|
| Page 40 of 156
|
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, 64, 65, 66 |
|
Home
login 
